Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 May 3: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 23:09, 3 May 2007

< May 2	May 4 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was Keep/nom withdrawn. — Scientizzle 00:38, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dahu

~~This article seems like a hoax. WhisperToMe 17:18, 3 May 2007 (UTC)~~[reply]

I retract this (as I found http://listserv.buffalo.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0010&L=flteach&T=0&P=57041 ), but it seems like the author of the article has made it look so much like a hoax. I am going to have to cut out a lot of this stuff. Argh! WhisperToMe 17:34, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A noted, historic hoax for generations. Rhinoracer 08:16, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm English, and even I've heard about the Dahut. The spelling is debated ("Dahu", "Dahut"), but that can be discussed in the article. Sbp 10:51, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I grew up in Grenoble and this is definitely folklore Darobin 10:58, 2007-05-07 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete all. Steve _(Stephen)^talk 02:17, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Smallville Korea voice actors

WP:NOT; there are thousands of TV shows that have been translated into dozens of languages, it is of little encyclopedic value to have articles listing voice actors that have dubbed shows into foreign languages. Even IMDb has a policy against listing these type of credits. There's no reason why Wikipedia should list them either.

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reasons:

Saikokira 00:14, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment and Support until and unless a convincing argument is made Well, I'll review WP:NOT, but I'm not exactly sure as to which WP:NOT violation you're refering to. Secondly, in your comment There's no reason why Wikipedia should list them either., you're going to have to point out what violation you're refering to, or this is not a legitimate argument.Delete, per below users Cool Blue^{talk to me} 01:57, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually Saikokira did make a convincing argument. If his/her argument wasn't "legitimate", then by implication myself and the others here are wrong to be recommending deletion based on their nomination, but that isn't the case. Crazysuit 05:41, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Wiki is not a directory of film dubbers. Ohconfucius 01:29, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all Isn't CSI the most widely dubbed/distributed show in the world? This sets a bad precedent for having all of the sets of dubbers listed for every big show. You could probably have 100 different articles just for Simpsons dubbers. Crazysuit 01:39, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- We currently have one for the Simpsons, for the English one; and what makes them any more special than their Spanish, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, etc. counterparts? Carlossuarez46 22:19, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - For "the English one"? LOL - there is only one Simpsons - the original American (English language) Simpsons. There aren't any foreign counterparts - just dubbed-foreign-language versions of the original Simpsons. Crazysuit 05:41, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - English-language, but I hope you enjoyed your joke. Just like their English-speaking counterparts, the Spanish-language voice overs in the Simpsons do the same job. You should read WP:BIAS. Carlossuarez46 06:14, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. This kind of thing is also, as above, absolutely vast and of little encyclopaedic value. -- Mithent 01:43, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak suggestion of a merger to a single article - I can see some small measure of encyclopedic value in a single list article but I don't care enough about it to make much noise. Otto4711 04:29, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Interesting point. Although not universally the case, in some countries, voice actors are well-known local actors chosen to do dubbing, and so may merit an article, but doesn't appear to be the case here. Clicking through the links to the voice actors here, one disconcertingly finds a bunch of stubs, mostly with nothing more than a list of voice acting credits much like an imbd entry, and no biography to speak of. Ohconfucius 08:13, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all I find it absolutely hilarious for some reason that Horatio Caine is voiced by the same guy that does Zabuza Momochi. But really, this information is pointless. JuJube 05:02, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per Ohconfucius and Mithent. Sr13 (T|C) 05:03, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all not notibility, not independant external coverage. Violation of WP:NOT--Dacium 07:14, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all This is not useful information and doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. JodyB 14:29, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT. This sort of thing would be much better handled by some kind of category for voice actors, as that would catch any notable enough for an article. Arkyan  ^(talk) 16:05, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All, fails WP:NOT Elfin341 17:56, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, per WP:NOT and plain old common sense. Realkyhick 18:20, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all- per WP:NOT- agree with the category suggestion Thunderwing 19:21, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all if voice-over is not worthy of inclusion even in a list, why do we bother to keep List of cast members of The Simpsons and would we feel the same way to keeping a List of cast members in the Spanish-language version of The Simpsons? Carlossuarez46 22:17, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep pending a decision on the notability of individual members of the list. Do not create categories. I have no opinion on whether all the individuals named in these lists are notable (I've tried to get Japan voice actor articles deleted in the past on the grounds that they were only sourced to animenewsnetwork, but that failed); if in general the consensus is that they are notable, then the list would be useful for development purposes (as they would contain redlinks to voice actors who had been in notable shows, but lacked articles). Anyway, "collection of indiscriminate information" has a very clear definition, and it's not "information I don't like" --- these lists have obvious criteria for inclusion as well as a high level of verifiability (by checking the broadcaster's website). Also I'd be opposed to creating a category; that would be an example of categorization of actors by performance, which is generally considered a bad idea. cab 03:24, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. cab 03:24, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. cab 03:24, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom, voice actor cruft to the extreme times ten. RFerreira 07:19, 5 May 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. Steve _(Stephen)^talk 02:13, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New Oceania

This page has little context. In trying to fix the context problem, I found no other resources in which to reference this article, so it fails WP:Verifiability RockerballAustralia 00:29, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unverified unless sources are added before end of AfD. janejellyroll 01:12, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I also can find no verification of its existence, under either the old or new name. Tearlach 01:31, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not verifiable. Acalamari 01:41, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unverifiable unless sources added; the only Google matches for the old name are Wikipedia mirrors, and I can't find any for the new name either (though obviously a lot of false positives). I wouldn't have thought that a news agency would have such a low profile. -- Mithent 01:47, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I have no problem with small articles, like this, but this fails WP:V, and could possibly be grounds for a violation of WP:OR. Cool Blue^{talk to me} 01:59, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unverifiable unless reliable sources are found. I couldn't find any in Google News Archive. Capitalistroadster 03:12, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 03:12, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The agency would fail WP:CORP and WP:ORG etc.--Dacium 07:15, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:V and WP:CORP. --Kzrulzuall ^{Talk• Contribs} 08:39, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless firm sources are added. JodyB 14:34, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If it really were a legit news service, you'd think it would have a web site, no? Fails WP:CORP. Realkyhick 18:22, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- fails WP:CORP Thunderwing 19:22, 3 May 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. — Scientizzle 00:52, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of vehicles in Power Rangers

Indiscriminate information. I've seen similarly trivial Power Rangers related lists, but at least they had context and detail - this one is little more than a list of names. Saikokira 00:29, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep pending improvement. I think there's potential enough for an article here, given that there are articles of much higher quality on a very related subject. FrozenPurpleCube 01:32, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per M.M ~ G1ggy! _Reply 05:00, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Take this to a Power Rangers Wiki, if one exists. RobJ1981 05:38, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, one does exist. Sr13 (T|C) 09:18, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A list of x should only be made if x has an article. This is listcruft. the_undertow ^talk 06:51, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep If each entry gets a description etc like other ones near the bottom, i think it could stay.--Dacium 07:17, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I understand here that there is a Power Ranger Wiki site. That would be an ideal environment for such a specialized article. This is a general information site. Such specialization really doesn't fit. -- Jason Palpatine 07:49, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as listcruft. Sr13 (T|C) 09:18, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nom is correct, it is trivial. JodyB 14:37, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOT. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 18:29, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Listcruft. Cool Blue^{talk to me} 00:20, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- Pax:Vobiscum 17:11, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, categories will more than suffice here. RFerreira 07:20, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Arbustoo 21:32, 5 May 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. Krimpet (talk) 03:04, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Bloch

Article was tagged for notability back in January, no substantial information has been added to the article since then. Subject is "active in Science Fiction fandom," but there is no indication in the article that he is notable. Fails WP:N janejellyroll 01:10, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Del no proof of WP:N~ G1ggy! _Reply 05:01, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly fails WP:BIO and a g-search shows no notability. Eusebeus 06:33, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails to pass notability by virtue of lack of 2ndary sources. the_undertow ^talk 06:53, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BIO--Dacium 07:18, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BIO Sr13 (T|C) 09:19, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems to assert notability but obviously cannot demonstrate such after 4 months. JodyB 14:41, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm sorry, your time has expired to assert notability. Realkyhick 18:23, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - heh, I saw this article mentioned on Fark.com yesterday and wondered how long it would last... I don't see notability backed up with sources. Tony Fox (arf!) 19:12, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Utterly pointless Tonyf12 20:33, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is actually about me, and I agree. I don't know why someone created it in the first place. -Joe Bloch --24.115.182.245 19:20, 7 May 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. --Luigi30 (Taλk) 12:50, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of radio stations

There are thousands, possibly tens of thousands, of radio stations all over the world, this list has managed to name 18 of them. Duplicates what is already covered by Category:Lists of radio stations, and the list can never achieve what is states: "a list of radio stations that are located on Earth" (And why just "Earth"? It's a shame to leave out all the radio stations located on the Moon. ) Saikokira 01:09, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Indeed, why just Earth? perhaps the author meant terrestrial as opposed to satellite? This COULD BE a useful navigation page, but I'm not sure it actually fulfills this role, although it is linked to the Radio station page, as well as to a minority of other 'Country' lists of radio stations. As one drills down into the different continents, regions, countries, one finds many of these are riddled with spamlinks. I don't quite see what the successive authors had in mind when they started listing individual radio stations, so this page needs just to be stripped of the radio stations named to fulfill the principal role of navigation. Note: All lists of radio stations need to be pruned of their excessive external links. Ohconfucius 01:43, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Surely, - surely! - this is something that must already be already covered by country, as in: List of radio stations in France, List of radio stations in Germany. Delete as unnecessary list. Eusebeus 07:00, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
MASS DELETE Categorised and delete the lot, even the sub lists. This will remove spam links as well, if they aren't notable enough to have a page, there is no point in listing them.--Dacium 07:20, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment American radio stations are tightly controlled by the FCC and are limited enough in quantity that they are likely all notable. Checking the local stations for where I live reveals that about 90% of them DO have their own articles. Imban 07:25, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment American radio stations are among the least controlled on Earth. There are over 12,500 radio stations in the US, most of which are low-power and local in nature and are not notable simply because they haven't gained any third-party coverage. Most countries have a few dozen stations. If anything, I'd think that the average US station would be significantly less notable than the average station in another country if only because there are so many of them and most of them are incredibly obscure to all but local listeners. --Charlene 09:19, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: we have categories for this sort of thing, where all the various national and regional lists can be found. --RFBailey 10:08, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unnecessary and duplicative. JodyB 14:43, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, duplicates a category. I love the line about this being a list of all stations "on Earth." Where, pray tell, is the article for the list of stations on Mars or Jupiter? Inquiring minds want to know!!! Realkyhick 18:26, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Are we looking at the same article? I see a page with links to the lists of radio stations by continent, which are at different levels of completion. is it intended to delete only the parent page? True, a category would do, but I do not see the reason to delete the small page, since it leads logically to further levels. And at least one of the comments above seems to intend to remove them all, including the further lists into which they divide. Some AfDs for individual stations have come here, the results vary, with a division between those who wish for articles on all, and those who want to make a distinction. (There's no help in specific policy, for Notability (TV and radio stations) is inactive, having never reached consensus after a very anemic discussion.) If not all stations are to have separate articles, a list approach would seem more appropriate by categories. I think the various possibilities raised above need some considerable discussion. DGG 00:39, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have to agree with DGG, I think this article, and its sub-pages can all be of value. Indeed, there are countless radio stations out there, and a list including them all would be a logistical nightmare and nearly impossible to maintain accurately. However, all articles on Wikipedia must meet a standard of notability, so the radio stations mentioned on the list would have to be judged by that same standard. It is not improbable that someone may turn to Wikipedia to try to find such a list, and the breakdown by region makes it much more valuable. Granted, the list as it is is currently incomplete, there should be no external links, only wikilinks, and countries shouldn't be added to the list until there are some entries under their headings, but I think that this list could work. - HammerHeadHuman ^(talk)(work) 23:56, 7 May 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.

Result was Keep. — Caknuck 06:13, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Westgate City Center

Unsourced article about this mall, about which there appears to be nothing special, and seems to fail WP:N. stub since Sept 06. Wikipedia is not a directory of shopping malls Ohconfucius 01:26, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak keep~~Strong Keep. ~~Apparently the mall's still only partially built.~~ Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Actions • Words)))} 02:27, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Changing to strong keep per Arkyan. Personally, per the sources I've found, I can't make heads or tails of this development -- too many buzzwords in the descriptions. However, the wealth of articles I've found seems to suggest a high level of notability. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Actions • Words)))} 20:16, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. ~ G1ggy! _Reply 05:03, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There was a policy based on the size of the mall (see WP:MALL) but it has been rejected due to lack of consensus. Now a road was popular enough that if it meant something to at least 50,000 people it was notable. But still, I don't see the article establishing any notibility. Its just a mall, there are thousands and thousands of them, whats so special about this one?--Dacium 07:22, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Has no one done their homework? Westgate is a massive entertainment/retail/residential project that has rapidly become a hub of activity for the western Phoenix metro area. Even the most casual search of Google will turn up a plethora of news articles relating to the center. As for calling it a "mall" that is a terrible misconception, as when complete it will be a massive complex with over 6.5 million square feet of retail space alone. I'm amazed to find the article here in such poor shape, and I will do the work to bring it up to par when I have time (later today) but to satisfy the point of notability this link [1] is a Google search restricted ONLY to the Arizona Republic newspaper website and far and away proves that it is notable. Arkyan  ^(talk) 16:14, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is obvious to me that this is notable based on the media coverage. -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 20:28, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep , assuming Arkyan does as he plans. The presence of the athletic complexes should imply that there are articles about the center to be located. DGG 00:42, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very strong keep. I live in the Phoenix area. This center has so much notability to it (i.e. the sports arenas, the fact that this has probably become THE heart of Glendale (besides its downtown), and its importance to Arizona sports. The stadium nearby will host the Super Bowl. The Super Bowl! Do you understand why now this deserves to stay? TRKtv (daaaaah!) 01:20, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment : I had some important matters that took up my time today and I couldn't get to this article. I intend to work on it tomorrow, just wanted to let you all know so no one assumed I abandoned the plan :) Arkyan  ^(talk) 03:06, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I could not find any info on the gross leasable area, especially the 6.5 million square foot claim made above. That could aid in making a decision to keep or delete. Edison 04:39, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - first batch of work done to the article, plan to do more in the nearish future. I also plan to upload a photo or two as soon as the weather is cooperating enough to take some decent pictures. Arkyan  ^(talk) 22:32, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, so that's what this thing is. Thanks for your help Arkyan; I was horribly confused as to what the hell the City Center entailed. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Actions • Words)))} 19:18, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as rewritten, current article demonstrates notability through multiple non-trivial third party references. RFerreira 06:20, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Rewrite has article sourced by 3rd party reliable sources. --Oakshade 01:42, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete criteria G4, recreation of material deleted in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MySpace Secret Shows. Sam Blacketer 11:31, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of MySpace Events

A very similar article existed at MySpace Secret Shows and was deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MySpace Secret Shows. The article was essentially recreated at List of MySpace Events and this was speedy deleted as a recreation previously deleted per an AfD. This article suffers from all the same issues as the previously deleted articles, but in my opinion this isn't a speedy case. the main issue here is that just like with all the previous versions of the article there is no sourcing that establishes that the events listed here are in any way notable. Considering the fact that nothing has been provided here beyond what was discussed in the previous AfD, my Opinion is Delete Isotope23 01:26, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment MySpace Events has also been recreated in a form that is not significantly different from the version deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MySpace Events.--Isotope23 01:26, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete like all the other MySpace events articles that were deleted, there is no indication of notability. Nuke it. Acalamari 01:44, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, still fails notability and, moreover, is a useless unencyclopaedic list anyway (let listing the shows be left to MySpace). -- Mithent 01:53, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as re-creation of previously deleted material, and block whatever account(s) responsible for using brute force to force this article upon us. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:40, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete should remain a secret. JuJube 05:04, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is an arbitrary list, as many events listed are not limited to MySpace. the_undertow ^talk 06:55, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it should at least pass WP:WEB--Dacium 07:26, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as repost. MER-C 09:48, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as repost. I note someone's already tagged as such — iridescenti (talk to me!) 10:21, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus, although the article is crying out for a good reference for the phenomenon. Steve _(Stephen)^talk 22:37, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Prop replica

WP:NOR, the article has been tagged for a while and concerns about the original research were discussed last November but no reliable sources have been added. The article's main defender even admitted this is a field that is not yet well documented by verifiable sources. As that seems to be true, this may aso fail WP:N. I suspect the article may be used mainly to promote forums and message boards, they have been removed before but re-added repeatedly (the links are also in blod text, which is odd.) Crazysuit 01:20, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I do think that a real article is possible under this title, as prop replicas are becoming a popular form of movie merchandise. This article, however, isn't about that, it's about homemade cosplay-type props and seems more of an excuse for a bunch of external links than a real attempt at an encyclopedic article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:26, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Per above; notability evinced by community links; cosplay and other manifestations of fandom aren't prima facie non-notable simply if they are amateur-driven and not-for-profit. Agree with observation that article is currently poorly written, though that seems beside the point. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Orphic (talk • contribs) 07:45, 3 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete No sources = original research. the_undertow ^talk 06:56, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing shown to indicate prop replica is notable in any way, nor has any significant coverage in media etc.--Dacium 07:27, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; in my opinion the web links prove that there is enough fans and organisations around this cruft to be verified and included in Wikipedia. --Ioannes Pragensis 19:22, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DeletePer Starblind.Shindo9 Hikaru 22:49, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the examples given in the article indicate that sources should be findable, though of course they need to be found. the information there is sufficient to show the general notability of the subject. DGG 00:45, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KeepThe Prop/Cosplay replica cumminities frequently hold knowledge that can't be located via other means... They have helped to develop the use of electronics, resins, fabrics and adapting existing materials and whilst the article is poorly written it is not an excuse for a delete. If there can be a Wikipedia article for every single Pokemon then this in my mind is fair game for inclusion.-Kingpin1055 13:19, 4 May 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. WjBscribe 23:17, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PowerTracks

Product doesn't meet WP:ORG. Even on the product's press reviews page [2] only one of the magazines really exists (and there the only review that I can find is one paragraph that's part of a larger article). Scott.wheeler 19:54, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete reads like an ad. The price is not generally of encyclopedic concern, and the specs don't distinguish it. YechielMan 02:57, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fuhghettaboutit 12:09, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Digital audio workstation. --Crunch 11:13, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly that's probably a bad idea as it looks like the DAW page could use the same cleanup that I did to the sequencer page. It really becomes counterproductive at some point to list every DAW / sequencer that's ever been made. I went through on the sequencer page and removed those that wouldn't meet usual notariety requirements. Scott.wheeler 12:54, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 02:07, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Also thinks it looks like an ad. Cretor titled his/her edit as "Introducing PowerTracks", which kind of supports the theisis. Corpx 03:06, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There used to be guidlines under WP:Notibility (software) but this went under. For mine WP:WEB and WP:N apply in general so the article fails.--Dacium 07:29, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:A. These links are not 2nd party sources. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 18:50, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Reads like an ad.Shindo9 Hikaru 22:51, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge. Petros471 20:10, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maurice Burchell

local television reporter (in Winnipeg). not notable. (another example of the many articles on CBWT personalities. Calliopejen1 15:48, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 02:08, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could this be merged into CBWT? ~ G1ggy! _Reply 05:04, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect, and add the reporter's details there as necessary. Eusebeus 07:02, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect as above.--Dacium 07:30, 3 May 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. WjBscribe 23:20, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sri ramakrishna vidyashala

Not encyclopedic and promotional in nature; I would've like to see actual information about the school itself Fcsuper 18:27, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and cleanup. According to The Hindu, the school "is reckoned to be one of the leading educational institutions in the State".[3] The current content is indeed inappropriate, but the article can be transformed into an adequate stub easily enough. EALacey 19:37, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The article's creator has also placed versions of this article at Sri Ramakrishna Vidyashala and Srkvs. If this article is deleted, those should go too; if it's kept, it should be redirected to Sri Ramakrishna Vidyashala. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by EALacey (talk • contribs) 19:41, 27 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 02:08, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and cleanup, significant media coverage. Hornplease 08:33, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- Hornplease 09:09, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; as the nom has said, it needs expansion. Currently it's a well sourced advert for good school. John Vandenberg 09:24, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - It is one of the most reputed residential schools in Karnataka and consistently produces some of the top rankers in board examinations year after year. Sarvagnya 09:57, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Sarvagnya. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{walkie-talkie} 11:16, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but add more sources than just one newspaper and tag it cleanup.Shindo9 Hikaru 22:53, 3 May 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. WjBscribe 00:04, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Candice LeRae

Contested prod. Non notable independent wrestler, fails WP:BIO. No evidence of multipe independent non trivial sources except wrestling fan sites which don't meet WP:RS. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 20:14, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. SLAM! Wrestling, the reference provided, is affiliated with canoe.ca, one of Canada's largest media conglomerates. Similarly, LadySports.com is an online magazine associated with LadySports Magazine. MadMax 20:22, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment SLAM! is a trivial source, given the information that can be sourced from it is Candice, who competes as a Canadian and is currently training/working for Jesse Hernandez EWF in San Berdo and that she appeared on a minor league wrestling show. The SLAM! article also proves that LadySports is not an independent source, given it states Randy Powell runs PGWA and promotes credible, ROH-type all-girl wrestling shows across the U.S. as well as Lady Sports magazine and website, so he's a wrestling promoter who booked LeRae, thus not an independent source. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 20:30, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 02:09, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails WP:BIO as there is only one reference, and that reference is discussing an event in which she participated, not LeRae herself. Ichibani 22:47, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Nom. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Unopeneddoor (talk • contribs) 00:15, 5 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 14:47, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright in Historical Perspective

No indicaiton this book is notable; no independent sources, no critical review. A directory entry, basically. Guy (Help!) 22:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This book is a classic (the article does say that this scholarly book is still in print almost four decades into its existence). It's the key work by one of the most eminent American copyright scholars. You will find plenty of articles and books citing this work (plus some of our own articles), and Lawrence Lessig mentioned the book very favorably several times. There is at least one review for Copyright in Historical Perspective (Book Reviews : Lyman Ray Patterson, Copyright in historical perspective, de Meij, International Communication Gazette.1970; 16:241), but I don't have access to it. Rl 06:08, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Per above, would meet first criteria of Wikipedia:Notability_(books) and possibly the fourth. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Orphic (talk • contribs) 07:51, 3 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 02:09, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. We have guidelines for articles on published works, and this does not appear to satisfy the criteria laid out there. Eusebeus 07:04, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment What would those criteria be? I am honestly curious. (and I did read the guidelines) Rl 07:20, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't establish notibility as per Wikipedia:Notability_(books)--Dacium 07:32, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Can I ask you, too, to mention some of the criteria that you believe are not met even though they should be? Rl 08:31, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as long as nobody can specify how it violates the Notability guideline. Seems notable to me. Malc82 09:19, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems to pass notability. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 18:52, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Apparently an important work in its niche. JulesH 23:03, 3 May 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. Sr13 (T|C) 18:06, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Doctor Madblood

Spam article created by the subject's originator. Unsourced. Guy (Help!) 22:39, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - Article does have COI issues, but looking through the web and looking through the Google news archive, the show does appear to have some local notability. Better referencing is required, but it appears that references should be findable. -- Whpq 23:44, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 02:09, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Retool - Passes notability, but the article is a bad read. the_undertow ^talk 06:58, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Petros471 20:07, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Banquet Photography

Contains nothing not inherently obvious from the title. Contains a link to the creator's website. Guy (Help!) 22:43, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Based on Google searches on some of the photographers mentioned (Kelty and MacKay), it looks like this is a notable subject. Although certainly the article could be made more encyclopedic, I would vote to keep it. Josh Thompson 00:31, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But, as stated, there appears to be nothing to say which is not obvious from the title. The "notable banquet photographers" are ntoable photographers who happened to photograph banquets. Banquet photography: photographing banquets. And, er, that's it. Guy (Help!) 07:06, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a legitimate encyclopedic subject, and it's been edited recently. When in doubt, don't delete. YechielMan 01:38, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless there's some evidence it's a legitimate encyclopedic subject and not just the vaguely expressed hope that it is. --Calton | Talk 13:06, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 02:09, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This belongs in a dictionary. the_undertow ^talk 07:05, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and echoing Calton's point. Eusebeus 07:09, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is one specific book listed, and I think it's clear that additional specific sources can be found. This is a distinguishable genre, due to the very special cameras traditionally used, which separate it from other forms of commercial and artistic work. The website linked to gives some idea of the very wide range of potential material for an expansion of the article. I knew this existed, but i didn't realize the richness of the subject. DGG 01:17, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note As there is apparently no Wikiproject for photography, I have listed this discussion at the Photography portal DGG 01:17, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Photography unless more sources can be found, even though I have seen the large view cameras which were specially made for such photographs. Edison 04:42, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Looks like a valid terminology of photography, thus notable enough for an encyclopaedic item. The article obviously needs more sources and content, but not links to banquet photographer websites per WP:NOT#LINK. — Indon (reply) — 08:56, 6 May 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. Petros471 20:04, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ashton Ryan

Note: This debate has been included in the list of sexuality and gender-related deletions. -- — Madman bum and angel (talk – desk) 19:35, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of sources, very short filmography by two-a-day porn standards, very low Google count by porn standards (the high cruft multiple usually results in hundreds of thousands of hits, this gets only around 10k and none that look like reliable sources at a glance); edit war over unsourced criticism, not much to indicate this is anything other than a directory entry. WP:NOT a directory of pr0n "stars" or anyhing else. Guy (Help!) 23:58, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ashton fit is to that "some sort of fame" Category. He was been featered in movie, mags, and on websites all over the net. Look at ashton from the point of his Career. He's not in many videos be because his not just another porn actor; Ashton writes, shots, and directs. User Talk:Meojive ([[User:Meojive]) 8:52, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

What more info is need for this page? User Talk:meojive (User Talk:meojive) 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 02:10, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Guy. Doesn't pass WP:BIO and doesn't even seem to pass PORNBIO either. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:24, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete Does not pass PornBio. (And yes, I looked, because that's how diligent I am :) the_undertow ^talk 21:16, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Eusebeus 07:10, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Does indeed pass WP:PORNBIO, though only slightly. Nominated for the 2000 GayVN Awards, one of twelve awards listed in Category:Adult movie awards. I do, however, think it needs expansion and cleanup. If it's kept, maybe I'll look into that. — Madman bum and angel (talk * desk) 16:28, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Changing to Keep per Madman. Far be it for me to fail to adhere to a guideline. So The American Way 3: Love was co-written by our boy Ashton Ryan, and won the award for Specialty Release—18-23. So, that being said, Ashton has won one of the 12 awards and so he passes PornBio and I will eat crow on this one. the_undertow ^talk 21:26, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It passes PORNBIO as per Madman's comment. The same guideline also discourages Google statistics which were made in the nomination. Mentality 02:22, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr13 (T|C) 18:09, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce B

Non notable artists / record label boss. Despite the claims in the article, I can't find no reliable sources indicating that this person has made any impact and meets any of the resuirements of WP:MUSIC. None of the 25 Google hits for Bruce B plus R.A.W. records[4] give me the impression that this is indeed a well-known musician and the boss of a successful record label. Promo piece which has survived since 2005 but doesn't really have a place on Wikipedia. Fram 13:11, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable. IronDuke 13:38, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fuhghettaboutit 02:18, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Absolutely nothing to WP:ATTribute, meets none of the many possible WP:MUSIC criteria, no mention at Allmusic or Discogs indicate there's no reason for a WP article either. MURGH ^disc. 09:16, 4 May 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. — Scientizzle 20:39, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Matangi Quartet

Vanispamcruftisement. Contested prod. MER-C 12:47, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:MUSIC. IronDuke 13:40, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fuhghettaboutit 02:18, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unnotable string quartet. Comparison to the Kronos Quartet is wishful thinking. Eusebeus 07:11, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I might vote to keep with 2nd party sources for their tours and performances. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 19:00, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge/redirect. — Scientizzle 20:43, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bernie Abrahms

Came across this contested prod while stub sorting (insert blatant advertising here). Doesn't appear to be a notable fictional character, with only double digit ghits. Kind of a procedural nomination, but I have an opinion - delete. MER-C 12:25, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Richard Fancy, since this seems to be that actor's only permanent role. Dppowell 15:24, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fuhghettaboutit 02:19, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:FICTION and WP:N: has not received significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. However, I don't object to merging the two sentences in the article to Richard Fancy. Redirect to General Hospital maybe? --maclean 21:34, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above Bulldog123 12:24, 7 May 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 Unfortunately "merge" option is not workable here per attribution rules: not a single reference of any quality.The original contributor is long gone. As a courtesy, I am copying this text into the talk page of the suggested merge target, to serve as keys for possible searches. `'mikka 00:33, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

UK Visas for IT Workers

This scheme no longer exists, no one has shown any interest in updating it, and it is not notable enough to remain as historical information. Cordless Larry 16:46, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Immigration to the United Kingdom —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Thunderwing (talk • contribs) 18:02, 21 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fuhghettaboutit 12:11, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fuhghettaboutit 02:20, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as it provides valuable historical information. Let's keep in mind that "if a topic has multiple independent reliable published sources, this is not changed by the frequency of coverage decreasing. Thus, if a topic once satisfied the general notability guidelines, it continues to satisfy it over time". Stammer 05:01, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have you noticed that this topic doesn't actually have any sources at all listed? I feel like both of these "Keep"s are just on the basis that an article shouldn't be deleted simply because it's not about a current issue, but there's so much else wrong with this article. Propaniac 18:32, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Is of historical interest.Drjem3 21:27, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 14:46, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Thunderwing, I guess. This is a poorly-written and completely unreferenced article, written as if these schemes were still in use when apparently they're not. It makes sense that the schemes themselves should be recorded somewhere for historical interest, AS historical items, but the topic itself seems too narrow for its own article, and the content surely doesn't help to justify that. As a non-UK resident, I can't even tell if these schemes were important at all or just a small piece of bureaucracy. The article also includes an unattributed graph and some POV-junk--it's really not worth keeping, although it appears that the result of this AFD may be to keep the thing around just because nobody wants to put in an opinion on it. Propaniac 18:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Propaniac. This article is unsourced and unverified. If it can be sourced or verified, I would love to see it merged, but right now, I really have a hard time justifying its continued existence. --Vengeful Cynic 20:43, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: unlike Propaniac, I am a UK resident, and I'd never heard of this scheme. Merge anything salvagable (probably not much) into Immigration to the United Kingdom, then delete. --RFBailey 22:10, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: To be honest, I don't know anything about this subject, but where is the first place I would go if I needed to look? Wiki of course. It's of Historical interest. However, it may be relevent to Merge the article with another which tells of more current schemes. Paul Norfolk Dumpling 22:19, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Stop relisting this article. If the administrator can't decide what the consensus is, declare it a "no consensus" keep, and let it be renominated later. One relisting should be sufficient. --Metropolitan90 02:56, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete - it's not even a single scheme, and there's no reason for an article on UK immigration focussing solely on IT. JPD (talk) 10:26, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Thunderwing. Tim.bounceback^{(review me! | talk | contribs | ubxen)} 14:07, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Immigration to the United Kingdom. Potentially useful information and historical context. Deleting would be a mistake.—Gaff ^ταλκ 20:29, 15 May 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. WjBscribe 16:28, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

K1ck eSports Club

non-notable, self-written Laurens Hoek 15:08, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE - non notable gaming clan Corpx 03:01, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Quarl ^(talk) 11:52, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Written by a single-purpose account. Contains myriad references to its own site, but nothing external. YechielMan 02:53, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

eSports nowadays are an important part of people's lives. Such as Sports evolved and became a massive worldwide phenomena, the Electronic Sports are on that route and gathering support at a much faster pace. K1ck eSports Club is a pioneer in Portugal and one of the few in Europe to be a legal and registered Association in activity (with important achievements), which we think is the right way to enter into the eSports World. We would like to welcome contributions and suggestions to modify this page, as we already did by reading these comments, and someday we all hope that we can be looked at in the same way as people look at Football Clubs. DSpirit 15:37, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fuhghettaboutit 02:20, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete A7, non-notable group, in this case an online gaming clan. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:21, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE Notability, Sourcing, Conflict Of Interest. Dimitrii 16:47, 3 May 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. WjBscribe 16:31, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Soliloquy Learning

While this company was seemingly founded by persons who have their own Wikipedia entries, I can't see a reason why this private company is notable (no sources etc.) and worthy of its own article. PimpThatSnack 14:32, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Quarl ^(talk) 11:52, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Borderline spam, non-notable. Dppowell 15:38, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fuhghettaboutit 02:21, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Looks like self-promotion Corpx 03:06, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clearly NN as a company. It seems to produce a single product : Soliloquy Reading Assistant, a voice recognition program for educational use.It is just barely possible that the product might be notable. DGG 01:21, 4 May 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. WjBscribe 16:32, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fighter-X

non-notable fighter squad inside of a notable game Calliopejen1 07:12, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not a notable group of people. - Richard Cavell 11:03, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fuhghettaboutit 02:21, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete db-group. JuJube 05:05, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per JuJube. This is a random internet gaming clan. Imban 07:22, 3 May 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. WjBscribe 16:34, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FEW Beatdown

not notable, only 84 google hits Calliopejen1 07:10, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No indication that anyone watches this program. I would say redirect to FEW article, but there isn't one. Shouldn't that article be written first (if any are to be written at all)? Feeeshboy 15:53, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fuhghettaboutit 02:22, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A Google search only brings up 1 hit (this article). The homepage of Frontline Euro Wrestling (which is hosted on Tri-Pod, not a good sign for it since Tri-Pod is a free web hosting service) is not even up and running. The little info I have been able to find suggests that FEW is nothing more than a e-fed (people create wrestlers and then write promos/matches/storylines for them), which means that FEW doesn't need an article since it would just be deleted. TJ Spyke 07:21, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete written like an advertisement, fails WP:V and WP:EPISODE. --Kzrulzuall ^{Talk• Contribs} 08:44, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn e-fed. Englishrose 12:11, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:50, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Circle Launcher and Space Keeper

Although this article on a proposed space launch system lists several sources, I'm unable to verify that any of them are significant and separate from the inventor. Searching Google Scholar for some of the cited articles shows that they're all published by the inventor, and haven't been cited by anyone else. All in all, I'm not sure any of this adds up to a notable proposal. Zetawoof_(ζ) 02:35, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gas tube rocket hypersonic launcher, this may have been previously deleted as a copyvio. As I'm unable to see the previous version or the original source, though, I don't know whether this is the same thing or not. Zetawoof_(ζ) 04:23, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Copyvio from this page on Bolonkin's website. The previous version was deleted as a copyvio from here, ie. from Elsevier. But copyvio and "original research" arguments are red herrings: the simple fact is that most of Bolonkin's ideas are, as Zetawoof barks, simply non-notable. Very few people are interested in these ideas - apart from user:BKruglyak (who is claimed to be a "big fan" rather than a sock puppet - see last entry in the previous AfD). -- RHaworth 05:53, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as a copyvio. andy 14:22, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Honestly, even if this particular version is a copyvio, I'd like to see an AfD decision based on the subject, not the content. As RHaworth notes, I'm pretty sure this invention is non-notable, above and beyond any copyright or formatting issues. Zetawoof_(ζ) 20:27, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A copyvio trumps notability. If it's re-created without breaching copyright then the author gets a chance to show it's notable (not that I think it is). andy 21:23, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete based on previous related discussions at AfD, but copyvio is decisive only is the entire article is a copyvio,which I cannot see from here. DGG 01:22, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:51, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Raquela

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

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

The result was delete. Sr13 (T|C) 09:08, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

50 Cent vs. Cam'ron feud

Unencyclopedic and non-notable discussion of a disagreement between multiple musicians without attribution or sourcing. The only references given are a series of YouTube links to excerpts from various (probably copyvio) radio programs, and a link to lyrics for one of the discussed songs. Has been tagged for references, notability and context issues for over a month, without being addressed. Risker 02:42, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Looks like a ploy to generate hype/media attention and the article is helping that cause. Corpx 03:02, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "real" or not, Wikipedia is not the place to document/publicise celebrity feuds. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:18, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no significance asserted. The thing this article is lacking is a "Reaction" section: and there is a reason for that. Namely, the "feud" has not generated much external heat. It has not widely been noted. Gracenotes^T § 03:38, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete is there anyone 50 Cent hasn't pissed off? Who cares. JuJube 05:06, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Hip_hop_rivalry. the_undertow ^talk 07:09, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, even though this article is adorably precious. --C.Logan 11:42, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Corpx Will ^{(is it can be time for messages now plz?)} 18:47, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:BLP and no interest on beginning a East Coast/West Coast type of feud for publicity on a free encyclopedia. Real96 07:45, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge This particular feud is notable as explained in this New York Times article but the amount of material is not really worthy of its own article. Much of this can be integrated into the 50 Cent article, which it already is. Spellcast 16:35, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge If a hip-hop feud is mentioned in the NYT it's surely notable. Also, it's doubtful this is a ploy to generate attention... hip hop stars are always feuding and fans follow the story. Calliopejen1 22:24, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, more garbage utilizing YouTube as a primary source of information. Burntsauce 23:43, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-encyclopedic and apparently failed ploy to generate record sales. RFerreira 06:32, 5 May 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. — Scientizzle 20:47, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Junction11

Non-notable weekday daytime student radio station, with no notability asserted Ohconfucius 02:55, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete NN student activity in a single school. Hopeless. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:19, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per OR and does not assert importance. the_undertow ^talk 07:10, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to University of Wales, Bangor. The university article already mentions the radio station. The page history remains available, and any additional notable information from this article can be merged into the university article. MastCell ^Talk 20:51, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Storm FM

Unsourced article on non-notable student radio station set up in 2001 with no notability asserted. Apparently nominated for some student media awards, which don't add up to much in my book, even if they had won. In any case, they have won nothing. Reads like a vanity page Ohconfucius 03:15, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no notability asserted. Hornplease 08:37, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arkyan  ^(talk) 20:54, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into the University of Wales. Lemonflash|_{(say hi)} 21:13, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & redirect into the University of Wales. --Random ^{Say it here!} 23:21, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete - none of the other UK student radio station pages appear to be nominated for deletion, I can't see why this particularly one should be targetted as all the criticisms would apply to them also. --jmb 12:58, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- See WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Just because we haven't nominated other student radio stations for deletion doesn't mean we think they're notable. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 20:47, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep:Student radio stations provide a vital service to many students. The areas that are able to broadcast on LPFM are those with clear frequencies. These occur in areas where there is little local radio and as such the student demographic will not be covered by the existing commercial and BBC stations. This is a useful page for those wanting to find out more about the station, why should it be deleted?tdg1986 16:01, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Just because something is useful doesn't automatically mean it's encyclopedic. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 20:47, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the nominator. No reliable sources means it fails the main notability criterion, WP:N. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 20:47, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr13 (T|C) 09:12, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GOL (Internet slang)

Dictionary definition of a neologism. No sources, no evidence of notability, and no reason to believe that this article will ever be encyclopedic. *** Crotalus *** 03:22, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete appears to be "made up in school one day"; no reliable sources refer extensively to it in a matter such that an encyclopedia article can be construed. It is mostly included in long lists of internet slang: I don't even see that much use of it! Gracenotes^T § 03:31, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete never heard of it. JuJube 05:07, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEO. May even be a protologism. - Chardish 06:43, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Silly. — MichaelLinnear 06:54, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable per WP:NEO. --Kzrulzuall ^{Talk• Contribs} 08:38, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Definite NEO. OMGWTFROTFLOLBBQ. --Cyrus Andiron 13:21, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Shouldn't that be OMGWTFROTFGOLBBQ? Gracenotes^T § 13:41, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Neologism at best, not commonly used. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:41, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I've been to many forums, I see a lot of LOL, and not a single GOL. Therefore I get the impression that this one not only is a neologism, it is also not notable.--Kylohk 22:15, 3 May 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. -Doc^g 11:48, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kwai Nyu Rugby Club

Prep High School rugby team. Only source is primary. Google search comes up with wiki, wiki mirrors, and youtube. ccwaters 03:25, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete High-school sports team. Surely could have been speedied as a A7/nn-group. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:40, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
rugby team with rich history, part of saint louis priory school, no reason it should be deleted; various people keep adding themselves to the list of players, and make them sound like the best players in the world; i will ask them to stop if it is absolutley necessary —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.150.181.111 (talk) 23:14, 3 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Comment See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeromans of the same school. ccwaters 12:58, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of notability. -- lucasbfr ^talk 13:26, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DO NOT DELETE Please do not delete this article. It has been on Wikipedia for over a year now, and has been heavily used. Do look up the team on Google, Answers.com, etc. The team is especially significant as a landmark in the history of Missouri rugby, and its tournament has deep historical roots as well. The team itself has a fascinating history, and its web site is extremely helpful for teaching rugby. As the article in Wikipedia has been up for a year now, some users have grown rather dependent on it. I would deeply appreciate your reconsidering this recommendation.

Fr. Augustine Wetta, O.S.B. KwaiNyu 21:47, 7 May 2007 (UTC) Saint Louis Abbey[reply]

If I may add one further thought...the Wikipedia policy, as I understand it, is only to recommend articles for deletion that have been "RECENTLY ADDED." Since this particular article has been around for so long, modified and expanded so many times, and used by so many, I question whether it even qualifies for deletion.

Respectfully submitted,

Fr. Augustine Wetta, O.S.B.KwaiNyu 21:47, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nowhere in the page on the Articles for deletion process does it say that only recently created articles can be nominated. The fact that it has been on Wikipedia for over a year also has no bearing on this; arguments for keeping should establish notability using reliable sources and not focus on the article's age or how useful the team's website is. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 22:04, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken. But doesn't its long-standing status (and the fact that it has been modified/expanded over 500 times) suggest that it might be a helpful article to some? I might also add that this particular team was the first junior rugby team established in Missouri and is one of only three teams in the world that bears the coat of arms of Westminster Abbey. As such, it may be considered to have historical significance. Also, in case the term "club" is putting anyone off, all rugby "teams" are referred to as "clubs." KwaiNyu 12:39, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. Its long standing status just means no one noticed it until now. Nothing links to it except the school [5]. I happened to bump into it when someone created the another article for the school's frisbee team. ccwaters 13:08, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The so-called "Jeromans" is a team of no historical or cultural significance whatsoever. I don't know what their arguments may be for writing such an article, but it can (and has been) argued that the Kwai Nyu Rugby Team is a cultural, athletic, and historical landmark, especially for people interested in the history of rugby in North America. Note also that a search for "Priory Rugby" will yield more information and external sources conserning the team KwaiNyu

DO NOT DELETE I have used this article many times to research the history of Saint Louis Priory School's Rugby Team. It has helped my personal growth and education and increased my knowledge of competetive high school rugby teams. I have sent links to it out to colleagues referencing it, and I have quoted it in coversation. In brief, it has achieved exactly what Wikipedia articles are meant to, and should remain as an integral part of the Wikipedia system.

Respectfully submitted, Jon M. Tottleben Bronx-Lebanon Hospital

- Comment Please base reasons off of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; usefulness is not a good reason to keep an article. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 17:57, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment Very well. At least one published literary source mentions the Priory Rugby Club by name as the oldest and most accomplished junior rugby team in Missouri (see "In Good Soil": http://www.amazon.com/Good-Soil-Founding-Priory-1954-1973/dp/0966210417/ref=sr_1_1/002-8021912-0026420?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1178681222&sr=1-1

Since "notable" is defined as " "worthy of being noted" or "attracting notice". [It is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance". Please consider notable and demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education...] The fact that over a dozen junior league teams now exist in Missouri due to the efforts of the Priory Rugby Club, I hope this would qualify it as having had a demonstrable effect on athletics and education (granted, ony on a regiona level). Does this help? I don't mean to be pushy, but I'd like to see the article stick around (not a reason for keeping it around, obviously, but at leas it explains my motivation...)KwaiNyu

The definition of 'notable' Wikipedia uses has a more precise definition; see Wikipedia:Notability, specifically, the notability criteria for organizations. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 04:06, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. There's really nothing to merge, and there's no reliable sources. I live in the county in the question and I've not even seen it mentioned in the local rag. A "smerge" would keep the article here. Better to delete it and add one or two sentences to the main article if necessary and if no undue weight is given. kingboyk 14:26, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tone Radio

Unsourced article on an unremarkable and non-notable student radio station set up in 2006 with absolutely no notability asserted. Ohconfucius 03:26, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Most notable claim is having had some marginally notable guests.--Work permit 09:28, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DO NOT Delete This page is notable to the 10,000 students who attend the University of Gloucestershire. The station is new and as it grows so will this article! There are 26 other student radio stations with articles listed many of them with less information than this one. Tone Radio is listed on the Student Radio Association Wikipedia page as an SRA member, which also makes it notable to SRA Members.--Rich Wiltshire 15:35, 9 May 2007— Richwiltshire23 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 23:58, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The WP:N standard is notable to the world, not notable to the 10,000 students who attend the University of Gloucestershire. Mwelch 00:42, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no RS. the_undertow ^talk 00:44, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Slight merge. The article on University of Gloucestershire is 3700 bytes, with half of that being a generic template. This article is 2000 bytes. A sentence or two would work much better. --Wafulz 00:53, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable...10,000 out of the entire population who would ever read this, or even the entire world doesn't make it notable whatsoever. Jmlk17 07:18, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Slight merge per User:Wafulz. Student radio station, so it belongs at University of Gloucestershire. --Calton | Talk 07:31, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge University of Gloucestershire Think outside the box 12:13, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge University of Gloucestershire as per User:Calton Mmoneypenny 13:01, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge is the best option here. The lack of non-trivial third party, reliable sources is apparent. JodyB_talk 13:23, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:03, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

URF

Unsourced article on non-notable student radio station with limited notability asserted. Apparently nominated for some student media awards, which seem to be a dime a dozen, and don't add up to much in my book. In any case, they have not won anything resembling a "best station" award - only a bronze... Ohconfucius 03:31, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable station with a non-notable award. Tennis DyNamiTe 20:55, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The station lacks third party references. Being an extremely localized station with likely low listening base, it's not notable enough.--Kylohk 21:53, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:03, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Destinations to/from all Thailand airports

Seems like listcruft. It's unencyclopedic and 100% redundant with info already found in the airport articles DB (talk) 03:31, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Encyclopedias provide raw information rather than prose to a certain extent, but this is too much. I wouldn't say that it's indiscriminate, since the criterion for inclusion is clearly defined (in theory), but I could certainly say that this criterion makes accurate maintenance a Herculean task. Gracenotes^T § 04:01, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete! 500% redundant and out of date. No honestly! -chris^_^ 04:02, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Why? We don't need destination lists by country. Vegaswikian 05:03, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Maybe Wikimedia foundation could come out with a Wikibase project - like Google Base... but, a wiki. Then the content could be served up dynamically and flexibly and linked to Wikipedia as appropriately. Although this could be quite useful, it seems to me that you just would not ever find this in an paper and glue encyclopedia. How about it is moved to Wikitravel and then deleted? It seems such a shame just to delete someone's hard work on a document that would be so useful to the right person. --Remi 06:03, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This article is more like "data" than "content", and the latter is a bit closer to the WMF's goals. If you wish, you may copy down the current content and paste it elsewhere given that: 1. you indicate that it's from Wikipedia, giving the page's title, and 2. compile a list of every single person who has ever contributed to the article and display that. (See GFDL.) If the second is too cumbersome I'd be glad to help. A doable endeavor, but it doesn't even stay current for long. Gracenotes^T § 19:09, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - utterly pointless and unmaintainable list. Remi, is there any article here you do think should be deleted? I find it hard to think of an article less useful than this one — iridescenti (talk to me!) 16:58, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unencylopedic and impossible to keep up to date. --MCB 07:04, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pointless, unencyclopedic list. Eusebeus 07:11, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete With so many variables to consider, and so many potential changes, you might as well list the destinations in the articles of each airport.--Kylohk 21:56, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- Pax:Vobiscum 17:12, 4 May 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. The lack of sources indicates merging is probably inappropriate, though editors at the University article's talk page are free to decide themselves. Xoloz 03:05, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Xpression FM

Unsourced article on non-notable student radio station set up in 2001 with no notability asserted. Reads like a directory page Ohconfucius 03:37, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Article needs some work, particularly on sources, but seems to have plenty of useful information. Radio station dates back to 1976 according to article. Just because it is in Category:Student radio in the United Kingdom doesn't mean it should be deleted. Chriswiki 09:24, 3 May 2007.

Delete - for those who aren't familiar with the UK radio setup, a LPFM station isn't a 'real' station — it meant they've been authorised to set up a very low power transmitter (generally between 100-500m effective radius) to transmit within a small area. This is not a genuine radio station, it's a batch of students with a low-power transmitter broadcasting to the on-campus dormitories of a relative small university (10,000 undergraduates, and many of those live off-campus); I'll lay good money that aside from the "captive" audience in campus shops and bars, the audience has never reached four figures — iridescenti (talk to me!) 17:04, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: An LPFM radio station is a "real" station in that it must apply for a license to broadcast in exactly the same way as any other commercial radio station in the UK, despite what this user believes. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.32.195.139 (talk) 21:15, 10 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Keep: A bit harsh, Xpression FM has done several citywide broadcasts and unofficially reaches a large part of Exeter (population of over 100,000). Admittedly, a large part of the article should be slashed on notability grounds (alumni list and pics), but the station has a long history and has the potential to be expanded into a good article in the future. Watchdog341 23:28, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 23:59, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. About 3/4 of the article is not necessary. We don't need a list of the every single manager and controller. The 14 images are also not necessary- some are even untagged or labelled as public domain when they are clearly fair use. The history could be whittled, considering it's written as a graduation speech or something similar. --Wafulz 00:50, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability issues and there are no RS. the_undertow ^talk 00:52, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per User:Iridescenti or slight merge (very slight) per User:Wafulz to University of Exeter. --Calton | Talk 07:56, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is discussion on the University of Exeter talk page about splitting off the Students Guild or Students media. If so, perhaps that would be a better merge target. Still favour my keep and fix above though. Chriswiki 08:16, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into University of Exeter.JodyB_talk 13:26, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (or merge if anybody really feels like it). Student activity at a single school. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:33, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:This radio station first launched in February 1976 (not 2001 as stated) and has a TSA of around 3,000 people on FM and many more via the online streaming. As an LPFM station it is fully licensed by OFCOM and as a music playing station is also registered with PPL, PRS and MCPS. The broadcast system uses two transmitters to cover the entire University of Exeter campus. To suggest the deletion of a physical station that serves a demographic that has is targetted by NO OTHER LOCAL STATION is incredibly closed minded. It performs a very good service to the students that listen and also to provides crucial training for those students that are involved. If we are to start culling pages like this page then where do we stop? Do we delist every single student radio station in the country? Do the other student media in Exeter face the Wikipedia Grim Reaper?tdg1986 16:01, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, Wikipedia's next action will be to grease up the slippery slope with a bit of hyperbole. --Wafulz 18:48, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've now done some "restructuring" work on the article,hopefully removing the cruft. Yes, it still needs further work, but so do most articles! Chriswiki 08:09, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - College radio is only notable if it is famous outside of its college. This one isn't. A1octopus 17:50, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr13 (T|C) 06:44, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Xtreme Radio

Unsourced article on non-notable UK student campus radio station with no notability asserted. Apparently won some student union awards, which don't add up to anything. Reads like spam, but probably been touched by too many [IP] editors to be speediable. Ohconfucius 03:41, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Needs a bit of working sourcing the information, and removing some of the chaff, but it seems notable enough to me. Chriswiki 07:49, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Student activity at a single school, filled with trivia, right down to email addresses and such! Oh, and if it even needs to be said, zero reliable sources. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:11, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - for those who aren't familiar with the UK radio setup, a LPFM station isn't a 'real' station — it meant they've been authorised to set up a very low power transmitter (generally between 100-500m effective radius) to transmit within a small area. This is not a genuine radio station, it's a batch of students with a 1-watt (!) transmitter broadcasting to the on-campus dormitories of a relative small university (11,000 undergraduates, and many of those live off-campus); I'll lay good money that aside from the "captive" audience in campus shops and bars, the audience has never reached four figures — iridescenti (talk to me!) 17:04, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting info, but the article doesn't mention the station being a LPFM, infact it doesn't mention FM at all in the text. This is (from the information given) an AM (Medium Wave) station. Chriswiki 07:56, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 11:04, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lewis County Schools

I believe this page has to be deleted as the article is written like an advertisement and Wikipedia is not an advertising service. I'm not sure whether the page meets the criteria for speedy deletion, So I'm sorry if nominating it in here was a mistake. Vaishu2 03:54, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's a speedy deletion, but it certainly merits debate as a regular deletion. The more troubling part of this article is that most of the school pictures seem to be taken directly from the school district's website, except for the Bland Middle School photo (which has a winter photo in the article, but a spring photo on the web site). I'd urge someone to look into the copyvio pictures first, though I don't see any compelling notability for the district. Count this as a weak vote for deletion, I guess. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 04:46, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I tagged the clear copyright violations for speedy deletion. My guess is that the remaining one also came from the school website, and has been changed out since then. —Cel ithemis 05:42, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, little more than a collection of links. Hornplease 08:31, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a sea of red links. Nothing more. DarkAudit 14:01, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I would argue that school districts, like municipalities, are automatically notable. There will inevitably be news coverage about its taxing and spending decisions and any litigation that it may have been involved in. --Eastmain 16:19, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I unredlinked all the schools except for the high school, and added a reference about a human rights complaint against the district. --Eastmain 16:26, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment And I would argue that a blog is not a reliable source, and that when the largest paper in the region (Dominion-Post) takes virtually no notice, it's not notable enough. DarkAudit 16:33, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep School districts are notable by definition. I agree that the article as it existed at the point the AfD was initiated left much to be desired. With the schools unlinked (with the exception of the high school), we are in the ballpark format established by almost all school districts nationwide. For all those bothered by articles for individual schools, a district article provides a wonderful repository for any material that does not merit a standalone article. Alansohn 21:38, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notability is asserted. However, the copyrighted images, need to go. As well as more information provided about the school. Real96 22:39, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if we are to remove the thousands of articles on NN middle schools and elementary schools, the school district articles are the place to put the information. Thus I agree with the concept that they are almost always notable. (I'd make an exception for some that are composed of only 1 or 2 or 3 schools, where a larger unit of aggregation would make more sense.). DGG 01:26, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- Butseriouslyfolks 02:09, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the article doesn't really consist of any notable concrete information, plus school districts are NOT inherently notable, at all.--Wizardman 02:14, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. I see no notability issue, but I'm concerned about WP:V. I assume, however, that once somebody gets around to cleaning this up and making it a bit more encyclopedic, the district / school websites will be cited as sources. I don't see any controversial facts in any event, so it's ok for now. --Butseriouslyfolks 02:15, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, now that the notability has been asserted and the ad-like images have gone, I myself can't see any problem in keeping it, as long as somebody cleans it up and has it referenced.--Vaishu2 07:39, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per DGG. Noroton 16:39, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - as government bodies districts have inherent notability and I agree with DGG per their use for NN schools. TerriersFan 19:30, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the above commentary. As this is a non-commercial entity, this hardly amounts to advertising. The myriad of McDonald's articles on the other hand... Burntsauce 23:40, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as school districts are inherently notable, and preferred locations to merge these smaller school pages into. RFerreira 07:22, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Can someone explain to me now school districts are inherently notable, when schols aren't? I don't get it.--Wizardman 16:22, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - school districts are government bodies and the consensus is that government bodies are inherently notable. A school district is also much broader based than an individusl school. TerriersFan 19:22, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
thats like saying a state isnt notable because it has towns with a population of 4. Keep per the valid comments above. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 01:58, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the above. --Myles Long 00:27, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - School districts are fair alternatives to individual school stub articles. This article needs some improvement but is notable. Camaron1 | Chris 10:52, 6 May 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. Mrpinebox' argument is original research; as noted by others we would need independent sources that directly support this company's claim to notability. Sandstein 12:40, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

InfoExpress

Deleted as spam then contested as notable and non-spam, even though I did not delete it on spam grounds rather notability issues as it did not read as spamish when I deleted. I wish to find community consensus on this article. Darth griz⁹⁸ 04:20, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep provided the author adds some clear evidence of notability. It's claimed that InfoExpress invented Network Admission Control (NAC), which certainly would be notable if anyone agreed - but they don't. Cisco (who definitely are notable) say NAC is "a set of technologies and solutions built on an industry initiative led by Cisco", and other sources refer to InfoExpress as simply one of the players. andy 14:33, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

Thank you for letting me discuss this. I moved the Talk contents below, since it seems relevant. Let's start with definitions:

Network Access Control (NAC) is the generic term for at least 2 core attributes: checking endpoint posture and quarantining based on the results of the check. This term was coined around 2004, although products existed before that. Network Admission Control is Cisco's proprietary version of Network Access Control, announced late 2003. Network Access Protection is Microsoft's version of Network Access Control, announced much later. InfoExpress delivered the first general in-line network access control product in late 2001, with even earlier versions of NAC built into its other VPN products.

Citations:

Cisco's first announcement (Nov 2003)

This was just an announcement, without a product for another 7 months. Note the key features noted of NAC - posture checks and the ability to quarantine endpoints using the network.

http://www.cisco.com/web/UK/news/pdfs/17_nov_selfdefending.pdf

Gartner References to NAC (2004)

http://www.gartner.com/DisplayDocument?doc_cd=125210

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&rls=GGLD%2CGGLD%3A2003-36%2CGGLD%3Aen&q=%22network+access+control%22

InfoExpress In-line NAC (announced Dec 2001, reviewed early 2002)

CyberGatekeeper supported the 2 key attributes of NAC cited in the Cisco announcement that followed 2 years later (posture check and quarantine), and also featured automated remediation which was not present in products until much later.

Review of CyberGatekeeper in-line NAC in 2002

http://www.networkcomputing.com/1310/1310sp3.html

Announcement of CyberGatekeeper inline NAC in Dec 2001

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0EIN/is_2001_Dec_5/ai_80555002

InfoExpress also had a version of NAC built into their VPN product in 2000 that enforced use of a personal firewall. This was almost certainly the first version of NAC, but it's hard to dig up references for that. Since 2001 is already pretty far back, I'll let it stand with the Dec 2001 article.

Mrpinebox 22:10, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From Talk:InfoExpress

Network Access Control is one of the key network security technologies today. Although little known, InfoExpress invented Network Access Control back in 2000, when embedding the functionality into its VPN product. The company also invented the first in-line NAC in 2002, and the first NAC solution to use VLANs to quarantine in 2004.

These key innovations are core parts of most commercial NAC solutions today.

Citations:

First in-line NAC Solution

http://www.networkcomputing.com/1310/1310sp3.html

First VLAN based NAC Solution

http://www.networkcomputing.com/showitem.jhtml?docid=1503sp1

For these reasons, Network Computing recently wrote this tidbit. http://www.networkcomputing.com/gallery/2006/1221/1221f10c.jhtml

Even though the company is small, I feel it merits inclusion in Wikipedia for the following reasons:

1. Its historical importance within the NAC space 2. The company description is no more promotional than other public companies listed 3. NAC is a key security technology today, and the company that invented the key innovations in this market should be in Wikipedia.

Mrpinebox 22:10, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete unless some of the assertions above or in the article are sourced. If justified, there should be industry sources. 2001 s not too far back for such sources to exist. I don't regard the Cisco statement as definitive proof of non-notability, as Cisco may have its own reasons for downplaying companies such as this. DGG 01:29, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless sources can be proved that explicitly credit InfoExpress with pioneering "Network Access Control". If it is true that they are the pioneer in this area, then why don't even credit themselves with that in the blurb at the end of their press releases, instead of just saying they "...provided network access control solutions since 2000...". AlistairMcMillan 05:14, 6 May 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.

Result was Keep. — Caknuck 06:10, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nordic aliens

This isn't notable, and isn't verifiable. The source used only mentions the "aliens" in passing. Philosophus ^T 04:22, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I read the one "source" and agree with nom. Perhaps this could go in an article about the guy who came up with this, but certainly no proof it's notable enough for its own article. Someguy1221 04:25, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. Pretty notable alien "subtype" in ufology. Artw 05:25, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmmm... looks like the article has been pretty heavily trimmed in the recent past. Artw 05:28, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently, same people believe that some kind of little green men are in fact not green but look like Nordic people, e.g. [6]; whether such aliens exist is irrelevant, as the article is about the belief, not the aliens. The article has two references, so I'd say we should keep it. Tizio 11:10, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. But can you find a reliable and notable source explaining this? The site you linked to discusses these actually goes to the length of discussing details of their physiology and their homeworlds. Someguy1221 11:45, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, I provided the link as an example, not a reference (there are a lot of web pages like this around). These links [7][8] are the first I could find from a skeptic point of view. They somehow prove that someone who is not an ufologist reported the existence of this belief. Tizio 11:59, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this article has citation, is a paranormal article, and has the potential to grow (:O) -Nima Baghaei ^{talk · cont · email} 15:36, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this looks like a valid stub. As long as it continues to follow reasonable demands for paranormal subjects (admittedly, I don't know them), it can grow, with sources - it already has some. Nihiltres^(t.c.s) 16:44, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep an important alien sub-group from before the rise of the greys. It does need expanding though. (Emperor 21:26, 3 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Keep I've been a fan of ufology (which I consider akin to mythology, urban legends, etc...) since I was a kid. I've known of this particular alien species for a long time due to television documentaries, so I know the belief in them does exist and wasn't simply created by some Wikipedian user. As noted above, this is about the belief of the aliens existence and not the aliens themselves and the Washington Post reference along with the further reading book and links provided by Tizio seem sufficient enough. Poetic^X_contribs 22:59, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Also, I would like to note that the article was severely trimmed, as mentioned by Artw, just a day before being put up as AfD. This has caused the article to become a stub. I feel Wikipedians should have proper time to evaluate the trimming, look through the sources of the trimmed material (to ensure whether or not the trimming was needed), and have time to add new referenced material to make up for the trimming before any decision can be made in terms of deletion. Poetic^X_contribs 23:10, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Another notable idiocy, no less notable than the others. The best source of information seems to be the website http://aliens.monstrous.com/nordics.htm which I located in a earlier version. But otherwise the present state of the article seems reasonable. . DGG 02:04, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is a notable concept within the field of ufology. Although the similarities between this and Space Brothers may be a concern. They are very similar concepts, aren't they? hombre de haha 22:49, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: space brothers describes a class of alien rather than a species of alien. The way that they they are said to have made contact is what defines a space brother, rather than just what species they are said to be. - perfectblue 19:22, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Noted. Thank you. Btw, Thanks for the sources provided below. hombre de haha 20:03, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this was the main subject of several books, but interest fell away long before the internet was even dreamed of. All it needs is a proper writeup. It doesn't matter if there are Nordic Aliens or not, just that the subject is notable and properly referenced. Totnesmartin 17:14, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep: To say that this is not notable not only shows a complete ignorance of the history of ufology and contactees, but also an unbelievable American Bias. While 75 percent of US alien claims are based around Greys, In Europe Naudic clams outnumber them significantly, especially in places like the UK which have a strong Celtic history (Greys make up only 20% of European reports and 13% of UK reports).^[1] Nordic reports were around before before Betty and Barny Hill make abductions part of US popular culture. They were said to have brought alternate philosophies to the people whom they contacted and to have warned that humans were on the path to self destruction (often an anti-cold war message), rather than spending their time giving rectal probes to drunken rednecks. There were even cults dedicated to them in Europe throughout the 50-70s.

I will readily admit that I know nothing of the subjects, but the AfD wasn't due to any bias; rather, it was due to my style of AfDing, and the articles state at the time of the AfDing. In my experience, for articles like this, where it is difficult to find reliable sources on the internet due to a low signal-to-noise ratio, and most non-internet sources may be not easily apparent, putting up an AfD asserting non-notability is the best and easiest way to get the attention of the editors who can fix the article and provide reliable sources. Generally, putting up something on the talk page or even a notice atop the article itself does nothing. I am gaming the system somewhat, but it ends up working well for everyone: if the subject is notable, reliable sources are found, and if the subject isn't notable, the article is deleted. Thus I tend to be very liberal in the articles I will send to AfD. --Philosophus ^T 06:51, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Afding to get an article improved is a good plan. i helped save the Relate and Traditional Mongolian medicine because I was keeping an eye on the AfD list. Totnesmartin 20:41, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Seems like one of those UFOs phamanon stuff. It seems pretty interesting. Unlike the Grey aliens who are said to be hostile this type on E.T. seems freindly. Maybe not all E.T. aliens are bad. Shadow Kinght (Talk??) 05:32, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you want sources, here are but a few. Please check more thoroughly before you say that something is not notable of verifiable. One could get quite the wrong impression.

Hugh, Christopher Partridge (2003) "UFO Religions", Routledge, ISBN 0415263239
Dean, Jodi (1998)"Aliens in America: Conspiracy Cultures from Outerspace to Cyberspace",Cornell University Press, ISBN 0801484685
Turnage, C. L. (2001) "Sexual Encounters with Estraterrestrials: A Provocative Examination of Alien Contact" Timeless Voyager Press, ISBN 189226403X
Schnoebelen William J. (2003) "Space Invaders", Xlibris Corporation, ISBN 1413424015
Salla, Michael E. (2004) "Exopolitics: Political Implication of the Extraterrestrial Presence", Dandelion Books, LLC, ISBN 1893302563 (Nordics and Atlantis/Nazi mythology).
Knight-Jadczyk, Laura (2005) "The Secret History of the World and How to Get Out Alive", Red Pill Press, ISBN 1897244169
Michael Barkun(2003) "A Culture of Conspiracy: Apocalyptic Visions in Contemporary America", University of California, ISBN 0520238052

perfectblue 19:21, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand. Again, this is a notable subject within its field (Ufology). Deleting it will not prevent belief in the subject and keeping it will not promote belief. There is a movement afoot on wikipedia to delete paranormal topics and especially UFO topics by individuals professing on their talk pages to be Skeptics and "deletionists". It seems that they do not trust readers of wikipedia to be able to read articles on fringe subjects and decide for themselves if those subjects have merit. I am an editor who believes it is not necessary to protect wikipedia readers from such subjects. In fact, the move to delete them is only further testament to their importance. Ufology and the subsjects of Nordic Aliens, Reptillian Aliens etc etc is evolving into a new religious movement. Since these subjects are now in the magisterium of faith, they should be treated the same way we treat other fringe beliefs: Document them.LiPollis 20:27, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and continue to expand. This is a purported species of alien often mentioned in ufo circles and abductee cases. --Northmeister 21:03, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable paranormal article. Add more references though. J. D. Redding 16:13, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:05, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trigga Da Don

Non-notable rap artist. Doesn't meet any of the requirements of WP:N or WP:BAND Chunky Rice 04:32, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, article is unsourced, he is synonymous with his record label. Subject fails (at best) WP:CRYSTAL, and at worst WP:A. Ohconfucius 05:26, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on grounds of notability and citing/sourcing. --Tinctorius 12:06, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete on grounds of CSD G11 and A7. (spam, non-notable). Nihiltres^(t.c.s) 16:49, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sr13 (T|C) 06:55, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Religion of Peace

Clear POV fork. This article is poorly sourced, violates WP:NEO, and is very POV. It borders on propaganda, and could not be re-written in a neutral manner due to the title. Sefringle 04:37, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a guide to contemporary socio-political catch-phrases. All articles of this nature must be deleted regardless of POV.Proabivouac 05:47, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not sure what's POV about this article - it seems to be a fair treatment of the topic, describing the phrase's origins and subsequent abuses. Imban 07:21, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, POV-fork. Hornplease 08:41, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not sure if it's a POV-fork, but it doesn't appear notable. --RaiderAspect 08:45, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Looks notable, refs aren't perfect. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Abeg92 (talk • contribs) 13:09, 3 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete Original research and POV at that. Mangoe 13:18, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Incorrect non neutral original research. "Islam" translates as "surrender" (to the will of god), and certainly not to "religion of peace" — iridescenti (talk to me!) 17:08, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; the political meme is already too widespread to be ignored here, and the article describes both sides of it - the true religion of peace and the ironical use. I found more than 1,000,000 Google hits on "religion of peace" islam and there are books with this title (I have easily found three: Religion of Peace?: Islam's War Against the World by Gregory M. Davis, Islam: Religion of Peace and Justice by Muhammad Nawaz, and Religion of Peace?: Why Christianity Is and Islam Isn't by Robert Spencer; see [9], [10] and [11]). Of course the article is a good place for original research, edit wars and POV pushing, but it is not a deletion reason.--Ioannes Pragensis 19:51, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment what about Never forget, another common neologism. This is just way too subjective and bias. Also see Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Reasons for deletion, which says Article information that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources should be deleted--Sefringle 20:30, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have it just backed by three printed sources, two from the "ironical" side and one from the "normal" side. Therefore your point based on WP:DEL is not valid here. And "never forget" has no comparable sources by now. Therefore this comparison is not valid here in my opinion.--Ioannes Pragensis 21:33, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Ioannes Pragensis. The claim about Islam as religion of peace is very common (wrong or right - does not matter). If there is an overlap with over articles, this should be corrected rather than entire article deleted.Biophys 20:50, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The nom says the article "could not be re-written in a neutral manner due to the title." That would be true if the article were about Islam, but it's about a particular phrase, and it describes the different political aspects of the use of the phrase. It's like Poverty pimp, which survived AfD. JamesMLane t c 01:40, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEO. Not much more needs to be said, really. POV is a moot point. 128.226.230.60 04:13, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A bit more needs to be said, because WP:NEO states "New terms don't belong in Wikipedia unless there are reliable sources about the term." and we have at least four reliable sources here - three books and the US President GW Bush. And POV is not a deletion reason.--Ioannes Pragensis 06:33, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think the operating word is "about". AFAICS the sources aren't about the term, they just use the term. I'm not convinced that a relatively uncommon political term deserves coverage. I mean it's not exactly on the level of Evil Empire or Axis of Evil is it. --RaiderAspect 10:46, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment At least, all the three mentioned book titles clearly suppose that "religion of peace" means "Islam"; and it is equally clear that the term is used by both sides, Moslems and opponents of Islam. Therefore I do not believe that we push original research if we include the term here. It is already not a classical neologism, unclear and known only to a limited circle of net users.--Ioannes Pragensis 11:26, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Ioannes Pragensis & JamesMLane --Webkami 08:53, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Cleanup and remove POV. The term is fairly common.[12][13]. utcursch | talk 12:07, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Important article on a concept that is widely used in political discourse. --JJay 19:19, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per nom. Arbustoo 21:31, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy keep on withdrawal of nomination. Capitalistroadster 02:53, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hatten Yoder

Unsubstantiated, non-notable Accounting4Taste 04:40, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. The guy appears notable in his field. See ([14], [15]).Stammer 05:12, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. ditto above. Article has been updated with a few more tidbits. Ohconfucius 05:21, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now that this has been expanded with the good work of Ohconfucius and Stammer, I don't see any further reason to delete, so please consider my nomination withdrawn. (I'm new here, still learning my way around, and was practising nominations for deletions ... and besides the reasons cited, this person's unusual name made me suspect that it was vandalism.) If there's something more I should do, please let me know. Accounting4Taste 18:06, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close following withdrawl of nomination, in the absence of dissenting voices. Ohconfucius 01:15, 4 May 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 --Steve _(Stephen)^talk 23:36, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hamumu Software

Non notable company, doesn't cite its sources. Not as famous as Dramatica. --Clavern 01:50, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep (changed from Keep) for now. This article is a favorite target of vandal Heekz who is still vandalizing this article via sockpuppets. JuJube 07:07, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'm not sure why its frequent vandalism is a reason not to delete it? I don't know whether it should or not, but I'm not sure why vandalism would show notability. --- Mithent 13:08, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment I'm not saying it's notable, I just think the vandalism needs to be sorted through first. I don't know how much of this article is true. But I'm changing my vote to "Weak Keep" since even now I'm unsure of its notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JuJube (talk • contribs)
    - Comment I'm the Mike Hommel in question on the page. With the exception of the existence of a "Dark Lord Farley Amulet" in LL2, the article is factual (if pretty silly and unprofessional). I confess to a bit of bias in this matter, but here is why Hamumu is notable: "Microsoft Word satisfies this criterion because people who are wholly independent of Microsoft have written books about it." (from the guide to deletion) - okay, here are where independent people have written about me (no books, sadly, but come on!): Dr. Lunatic Supreme With Wiki - a site by a fan, Player's Guide To Supreme - another fan, The Loonyversity - some more fans, Pants Of Power (now defunct) another fan, Joystiq.com interviewed here, GameTunnel.com interviewed here, and of course my games have been reviewed all over the place for a decade. Lastly, I have two more references, that aren't quite so external, but do fit the definition: SPISPOPD and Hamumu Software - both written by people wholly unaffiliated with me (furthermore, the SpisFAQ referenced on the SPISPOPD page is another example of this). Google Hamumu Software for dozens more such references. As for WP:SALT, that's just pouring salt in the wound to permaban an article because someone likes to vandalize it. Awful lot of power to the vandal, isn't it? So come on, that's pretty dadgum notable. Hamumu Software articles have existed here before, and probably will again (well, in the absence of a salting of the earth) - the fans keep making them when they get deleted, and believe me, I have NO connection to that. They just want to talk about it. That sounds like notable to me. Why leave up a page about a JOKE I did while deleting the reference to the company that did it? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.173.102.172 (talk) 19:11, 6 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete as not notable and unsourced. Links and references are not reliable sources as they come from the company's own site. Being a vandal target is criteria for WP:SALT, but not keeping. DarkAudit 14:06, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete, simply because I don't see any real indication or evidence that this is notable --Miskwito 23:46, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If it needs cleanup, clean it. Don't delete it, that's not helping. And what the heck does it being attacked by vandals or not being as famous as Dramatica have to do with anything?! PK 03:08, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment The content is frequently altered to include stupid shit that vandals like to add, and nobody reverts it. I only caught one once, a long time ago. JuJube 15:04, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails the Primary Criterion of WP:CORP. The article does not have independent, reliable, non-trivial and non-autobiography secondary sources to pass the notability criteria. — Indon (reply) — 07:41, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, just salt it, it has been up for deletion over a week now and consensus seems to lean toward delete. Lulzdrama 16:23, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:08, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of The Amazing Race statistics and trivia

This is clearly a cluttered useless trivia/fact guide for the show. A clear violation of Wikipedia:Avoid trivia sections in articles. Not because it has trivia in the article name: it's due to this just being random trivia and statistics about the show that aren't very ecyclopedic. A merge into the correct seasons wouldn't help much: as those are cluttered with mass stats and trivia already! RobJ1981 05:35, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We're trying to fix this. It's too easy for people to find some trivial bit to add. However, the article above in question is a cumulation of details for the entire series and thus cannot be distilled into separate season pages; we've already split the main series page twice and moved season-wide trivia off of there, so while the elements on this page could be moved off, it would further just extend the pages. A similar article exists for Survivor, which seems to work fine. --Masem 05:43, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment By definition, trivia should not be in articles, much less have their own articles. ShadowHalo 07:44, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I looked closer at List of Survivor statistics and trivia which obviously this article is based on (there's a same records/firsts type section), and I see very little there, and very little here that, in an encyclopedic context it worthwhile to keep even though they describe the series at large and not specific seasons. Am I seeing this right? Is there anything in this specific page that (ignoring that is on a "trivia" page) is encyclopedic that we should consider saving and moving to an appropriate series/season page? I've already trimmed a lot of such 'firsts/records' trivia from TAR11's page, and working with other editors to move other bits around, so I'm trying to make sure I've got a good line between notability and trivia. --Masem 12:53, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unencyclopedic, indiscriminate and trivial information. Dr bab 14:28, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The Survivor trivia article should probably be in AFD as well, it looks almost exactly like this one. Moving trivia to articles isn't helping things. The problem should be condensed: then moved if needed. Like any reality show: there is alot that goes on, but there has to be a line drawn somewhere on what is encyclopedic and not encyclopedic. Wikipedia certainly shouldn't be a complete guide to every detail on the shows. RobJ1981 22:25, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a list of statistics. The title alone seems to violate this guideline. the_undertow ^talk 04:55, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- Pax:Vobiscum 17:12, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete-The title itself is a vio of WP:NOT. We need notable things, not trival ones like "Bob was the second person to complete a Roadblock first, while starting it last". --TeckWiz is now R ^ParlateContribs_@(Let's go Yankees!) 00:30, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per the above. Most articles with 'trivia' in the name end up being non-notable im afraid. —A • D ^Torque 22:07, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete won't find that in an encyclopedia Bulldog123 11:47, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:12, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tolkien-based Warcraft III games

Already deleted once via prod. Fails WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:N, WP:NOT a video game guide. Delete and salt. Chardish 06:43, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this crap, but not per nom. It is entirely verifiable (though only through primary sources), not original research, and not intended as a video game guide save for it being about a video game... but it's still non-notable crap that at most merits a single line in an article about video game adaptations of Tolkein's work. Imban 07:12, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for all of the above mentioned reasons.--C.Logan 11:33, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the issues with notability and all of the original research going on. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ Yell ○ 13:44, 7 May 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, sockpuppet votes ignored. Jersey Devil 19:54, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Egendorf

Prod removed by anon, probably author. Despite the multitude of references, this article is mostly incomprehensible and I can't tell how this guy is supposed to be important. JuJube 07:04, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - article turns out to be written by the subject's best friend: "where he met Russell Noftsker". Also, references are too vague and aren't verifiable at all. MER-C 09:10, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this version. There could conceivably be a valid article to be written about this guy if the pioneering-software-developer claims are actually true, but this is a ridiculously overreferenced (36 references!) resume. Better to wipe it and start over unless someone can rewrite it; I'm certainly not going to volunteer with this one — iridescenti (talk to me!) 17:12, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hundreds of people have asked and emailed me over the years to correct the errors in my biography and the Symbolics history which are posted on Wikipedia. As Egendorf and de Valpine were critical to any description of the founding of Symbolics, the first workstation company, and since neither had biographies on Wikipedia, it seemed sensible to create a background page for each of them. I put quite a bit of effort into getting the details of their histories correct but I'm not yet familiar with the Wikipedia style so it is likely to take me some time to whittle things down to the proper format. Criticism and help are welcome.Russell Noftsker 21:53, 3 May 2007 (UTC)— Russell Noftsker (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep ArticleThis article seems to contribute significant information to the early history of computers, AI, workstations and the Internet. Additionally, an interesting vignette concerning the origin of "Nader's Raiders". I have not attempted to check all the references, but I am familiar with several of them and they are accurate. Gerstij 19:42, 5 May 2007 (UTC)— Gerstij (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep! I must have read this article after the latest edits, because I find it quite comprehensible and useful. It has interesting information on the early days of commercial AI, the way it got started, and especially the background of an important early shaper of the area. I have been in AI for many years, and worked at a startup AI company located near Symbolics, although we had no connections with that firm or its people. Nothing I read here is inconsistent with what I know. Personal context is critical to understanding how cultures and fields develop, and this article gives me some insight not available elsewhere. As for references, I spot-checked some and found them correct. For example, the link to the movie "An Unreasonable Man" has Egendorf mentioned as well as Nader.Nrg123 18:53, 6 May 2007 (UTC)— NRG123 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep I can personally vouch for the accuracy of the information presented as well as the significance of Egendorf. After graduating from Harvard Business School, I joined American Research and Development where I helped lead the first venture capital investment in Symbolics. As part of that process we engaged in a significant amount of due diligence on the company and its founders. If anything, Egendorf’s impressive background and pioneering contributions are understated. Genep02 16:47, 7 May 2007 (UTC)— Genep02 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep I also find the article in its present form to be readable, interesting and in agreement with my personal experience. As a co-founder of Symbolics I've known Egendorf since 1980 yet learned new things about his past from the text. I agree that there are too many numerical references that should be hyperlinks, but that can be fixed with a quick editing pass. (Okay, it was easier to do it than to talk about.) Hicannon 14:23, 9 May 2007 (UTC)— Hicannon (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment - this sockpuppeteering is really not helping the "keep" cause — all it's likely to do is make the closing admin more likely to disregard any valid keep arguments — iridescenti (talk to me!) 16:37, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:12, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tasmanian UFO Investigation Centre

Non-notable small organization. There are no independent reliable sources on it and I have been unable to find any in searching. Philosophus ^T 07:19, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No notability hinted in the article. Not far from CSD A3. Delete. --Pjacobi 09:33, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for complete lack of assertion of notability, and probable lack of notability in and of itself. Someguy1221 10:12, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unsourced and no sources appear to be available through Google News Archive. [16] Capitalistroadster 03:11, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 03:11, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom and ors. Notability hasn't been established for the entity. Thewinchester ^(talk) 03:28, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They're getting too close to the truth. Quick, Delete! Lankiveil 05:24, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no sources and almost no content. I've merged the few useful facts to Australian ufology. John Vandenberg 09:53, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability hasn't been established for the entity. Seem like a random entry that needs a lot of work. Australian ufology covers this data very well. TimMU 03:53, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No proof of notability. Also I've lived in Tasmania all my life and never heard of it. -- Chuq (talk) 06:47, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the comments from John Vandenberg and TimMU at least acknowledge that there is a subject . further comment somewhere else later. Satu Suro 10:41, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When you change your comment hours later, it makes it hard for me to respond. We did do research - the important parts of the nomination are the independent and reliable requirements, not the sources part. This appears to be just one of the thousands of non-notable pseudoscience organizations. --Philosophus ^T 10:47, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No proper secondary sources, therefore not notable. Needs lots of work. Does it even qualify as a stub? Assize 10:34, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:13, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Akhter Computers

Advert written by GeoffatAkhter. No independent references. -- RHaworth 07:38, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Van-Spam-whatever. Hornplease 08:42, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this vanispamcruftisement. MER-C 10:28, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:NOT#SOAPBOX advertising. Ødipus ^sic 10:35, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Changes made to text to comply GeoffatAkhter references to be added--GeoffatAkhter 13:04, 3 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Delete. "Akhter Computers deliver systems and software integration services, manufacture computers, produce network management solutions and supply branded peripherals and servers." Another provider of "solutions" that doesn't appear to be in a chemical business. Nothing in this article suggests that this business is ahead of the pack of its many competitors, and there are no independent sources. - Smerdis of Tlön 15:04, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this vanispamcruftisement, as per same idea as Smerdis of Tlön. Nihiltres^(t.c.s) 16:51, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete any article with a section called "Quality" is most likely vanispamcruftisement. This is one of them. JuJube 18:38, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) is the criteria which must be satisfied, and some of the links seem to demonstrate that - just changed my opinion from "non-notable company, one of many that you would find in any computer magazine" - delete one, delete all, including, say Mesh Computers. Personally, I'm inclined to consider that no system assemblers are worthy of inclusion, as there are so many of them. Ace of Risk 21:55, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - --GeoffatAkhter 09:45, 4 May 2007 (UTC) I hope that the changes made have brought the page up to compliance with the Wikipedia standards --GeoffatAkhter 09:45, 4 May 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.

Result was Keep. — Caknuck 06:03, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sepia Mutiny

Delete - This page is nothing more than an advertisment for a blog, and does not belong in an Encylopedia. Padishah5000 16:34, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - WP:WEB states "content has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself." A quick google news search reveals three articles discussing posts or comments on the site itself; and not in random news outlets either, but the Los Angeles Times [17]; the Calcutta Telegraph [18] and Newsweek [19]. I could try a Lexis search, but what's the point? That alone seems to make the cutoff. Hornplease 20:41, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination incomplete, completed manually. Hornplease 07:40, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- Hornplease 09:09, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; meets WP:WEB. John Vandenberg 09:29, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; notable in Indian American culture.Baka man 23:15, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, should have more references incorporated, though. --Dhartung | Talk 08:30, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the above, like it or not this meets WP:WEB guidelines. Burntsauce 23:43, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep SM is quite notable in Indian and Diaspora bologosphere. Amey Aryan DaBrood^© 18:11, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep famous indian american mag --D-Boy 18:53, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Wrong. RFerreira 06:09, 6 May 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. kingboyk 13:06, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Lonely Goatherd

The article doesn't seem to assert much notability. Though The Sound of Music is famous and notable, this article doesn't say much other than that it has yodeling and was interpolated by Gwen Stefani. (see below) ShadowHalo 07:41, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This song is one of the better-known Sound of Music songs, instantly recognizable among anyone who is even a casual fan of musicals and musical films, and also a good example of yodeling. It is certainly more notable than a large number of other lesser-known musical/musical film related songs that are on Wikipedia without question. If this one were deleted for lack of notability, huge swaths of (for example) Mary Poppins would have to be called into question too. (For that matter, I would call into question a whole lot of the hip-hop songs I've examined in the past month.)

I've stubbed it to account for the fact that it has insufficient content. Insufficient content is also not grounds for deletion. To my mind, it's better to be conservative about prodding songs that aren't clearly violations of policy, especially in musical genres you don't know well, and most especially if they are stubs. Nerwen 08:17, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable enough song. Note also the fact that it is used as fodder for academic arguments: "Where Die Trapp Familie studiously describes the Austrian bank failure of 1928 and suggests some of the turmoil of the interwar period, The Sound of Music reconstitutes interwar Austria as a historic and tourist-attracting place. This shift in cultural atmosphere is best characterized by the substitution of the puppet play The Lonely Goatherd for Sleeping Beauty. Instead of staging an allegory of a slumbering Austrian people, the musical invokes and reinvents Austria’s folk culture in the form of a kitschy puppet play with wooden marionettes dressed up in traditional clothing." - R. Starkman, The Historical Journal of Film, Radio and Television, 2000; and also the paper "No Nonsense: The Logic and Power of Acoustic-Iconic Mnemonic Systems" in the British Journal of Ethnomusicology, that suggests that it incorporates 'pseudo-yodelling', which 'weakly follows' 'second-formant frequency'. I have no idea what all that means, but I love JSTOR. Hornplease 08:52, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Other indirect signs of notability can be found by looking at "What links here" for that page. It has been adapted for the soundtrack of Moulin Rouge!, and parodied by an episode of Family Guy and an album of Forbidden Broadway. It would also have a better mention in Yodeling than the brief note I put in yesterday, except that Yodeling seems to be having an edit war over its list of examples (check its history). Nerwen 17:21, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the helpful and interesting comments above. StAnselm 14:14, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This song is all over the place, though I am no a fan of the musical.Drjem3 21:31, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep well known and notable. Carlossuarez46 22:21, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Based on Nerwen's expansion, I don't think the article should be deleted. ShadowHalo 10:57, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yay! :D Nerwen 11:08, 5 May 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.

Result was Keep. — Caknuck 06:00, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Muffin top

Patently unencyclopedic, no reliable sources, Wikpedia is not a dictionary Stlemur 07:48, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proof? How is it unencyclopedic? If this article belongs in a dictionary rather than Wikipedia, explain why whale tail, tramp stamp and love handles deserve articles but muffin top does not. The problem described by the term is apparently important enough to spawn a different style of jeans and plenty of discussion on the internet, if not scholarly articles. When a university funds a study on muffin tops, I'll be glad to add it as a reference too. Forteblast 08:16, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. The word itself is notable (word of the year, 2006), as is the cultural phenomenon. StAnselm 14:08, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:NEO. To keep an article on a neologism there must be reliable sources about the term, not just that use the term. The notion of this being the "word of the year" sounds impressive, but it was actually the word of the year in an online poll. Not quite the same thing. The argument that this phrase "deserves" an article is flawed because no topic is entitled to a Wikipedia entry, and the flaw becomes fatal after considering that the existence of other articles has no bearing on whether this one should exist. Otto4711 01:42, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are reliable sources for this well-known term such as this William Saffire "New York Times" column for example. [20]. Concept sufficiently notable and common in usage for mine. Capitalistroadster 03:19, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a relatively new term that has become widely adopted and has become a social phenomenon. I would suggest more referenced sources on its history and on its adoption. Suggestion of deletion is silly, we could all be spending this time improving the article rather the debating its deletion.--Work permit 03:33, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, note that for an article on a neologism there must be sources about it and not just sources that use it. Otto4711 03:36, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean William Saifire's Muffin-top: Beyond the love handles and his similar article Muffin-Top' in his classic "on language" series in the NY Times is not about the origin or use of the word? Or is he not a reliable source about the origin of neologism's in general? --Work permit 04:17, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, notable phenomenon, notable word. plenty of sources [21][22][23][24] It may be a passing fad, but it's verifiable and notable. Otto4711, some people really like that "about it" to mean "talking about the word as a word" but clearly we can also include sources that talk about the named phenomenon, and we should if it is the primary topic. --Dhartung | Talk 08:28, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. This term appears to actually exist in the public consciousness to some nontrivial degree. --Soultaco 18:53, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Excitement in the mouth. Jerkcity 23:53, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep popularly used slang term, media use has occured, deleting this just shows bias against UK/NZ/Aussie use of the English langauge. Just because you havent heard of it in your little town in the USA, doesnt mean it isnt in popular use elsewhere in the world. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 00:07, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Mmm. Muffins. Xihr 04:44, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as this plainly meets all relevant content policies and guidelines, WP:BIAS issues need not come into play. RFerreira 06:29, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete under CSD G7 Author Request and consensus. Adambro 15:58, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sheffield United F.C. chants

Indiscriminate information: none of these are notable to anyone other than Sheffield United supporters. Some are also quite offensive, while others are very similar to those used by other teams' supporters, with lyrics suitably changed. RFBailey 09:32, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude 09:56, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't think any of these chants are notable. There are many notable football chants/songs, some of which even deserve their own articles, but not, it would seem, any of these. --Dweller 09:59, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Highly unencyclopedic, nigh-on unsourcable, and verging on indiscriminate info as a list of "every song that fans of a specific team might conceivably sing at any given game" - I mean, for heaven's sake, how can anyone claim that "United! (clap clap clap) United! (clap clap clap) (repeat)" is a Sheffield United chant given that it's also sung by pretty much every other club in the country with "United" replaced by whatever variant of the team's name can be squashed into that section of the "song"? ChrisTheDude 10:00, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete indiscriminate, mostly unverifiable, and as ChrisTheDude says, the vast majority are generic songs with the lyrics slightly altered to mention Sheffield United. Qwghlm 10:08, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above arguments. Punkmorten 10:42, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable and indiscriminate list. ♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 13:02, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I assumed that this would be the case, I was testing the water. Can anyone suggest if any of the article is worth merging? In fact, maybe Speedy it for me. L.J.Skinner^{wot|I did} 14:14, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe merge # 1.3, 1.6 and 1.16 (and possibly 1.4 and 1.7) in Sheffield United F.C., explaining the significance of, say Woodward, Currie, Colquhoun, Shoreham..? L.J.Skinner^{wot|I did} 14:18, 3 May 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 Notable is defined as "worthy of being noted" or "attracting notice". which this subject clearly does. Whether or it should be merged into any of the suggested articles may be worthy of further exploration. Gnan garra 03:44, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy Carter UFO Incident

Each of the referenced sources contains only a single sentence explaining that Jimmy Carter claimed to have seen a UFO. I fail to see how this constitutes a notable incident, should we have an article for every single utterance ever made by a US president? Someguy1221 04:37, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As usual, having a passing mention of something in a reference doesn't allow the reference to be usable as a significant source, since there simply isn't enough material to make an article. This is the case with this article. --Philosophus ^T 04:39, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This page has now been expanded, direct quotes from Carter have been added as well as some other details. perfectblue 10:14, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: the article still contains factual errors and omissions. Bubba73 (talk), 13:49, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, As the British would say, "it's time to put your money where your mouth is", please divulge their EXACT nature and your sources, or cease raising the subject. - perfectblue 17:19, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I put a reference book under "Further Reading" even before the AdD. The correct date is Jan 6, 1969 and the object was identified as Venus. Bubba73 (talk), 18:31, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not currently have a copy of the book, please quote the section to which you are refering. - perfectblue 18:56, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is practically all of chapter two of that book. In fact, all of chapter two is about his investagation of the sighting, except about the last two pages. It is also detailed in his earlier book, The UFO Verdict: Examining the Evidence. It is also in Sky & Telescope Nov 1981. Bubba73 (talk), 19:03, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - this is a relatively famous case in UFOlogy. At present, it seems to have only one sentence in Jimmy Carter. At one time there were one or two more sentences in that article, with references. I had a great deal of trouble keeping the references in, and now they are gone. I don't know who removed the references or reduced the coverage to a single line. I have at least four verifiable, reliable sources about the incident. And as far as notability, there are multiple sources for it. Bubba73 (talk), 04:45, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

additional comment This case was investigated and the UFO was identified. The process of investigation would make interesting reading. Bubba73 (talk), 14:44, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - With the understanding that the article is currently a stub.Orphic 07:31, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect (merge what you think is worth) to List of UFO sightings#UFO Sightings. Does not deserve a separate article. Tizio 11:27, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to UFO sightings in United States. People see UFOs all the time. The fact that a governor and future president saw it doesn't make it any more notable. This from the same man that was also a peanut farmer. --Cyrus Andiron 13:14, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or Keep - if you wont keep it, just merge it to Jimmy Carter's article, its a short amount of information and I do feel its well worth the addition given who and what the topic is about plus the inclusion of pictures (note i was the one who created this article) (:O) -Nima Baghaei ^{talk · cont · email} 16:28, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or Keep per Nima. DickClarkMises 16:40, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. As written, the article is of doubtful notability (hence the tag). I suspect that not much more can be added (and there was something nonsensical about Voyager 2, which I removed). I wouldn't put this into Carter's article, however. List of UFO sightings, maybe. Michaelbusch 17:04, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a brief mention in a list of UFO sightings (there are two links above in the suggested merges). There is also one sentence in the Jimmy Carter article. There used to be about three sentences there, plus references, but most of it was removed.The story of the investigation and identification of the object is interesting, and could perhaps make it suffieicent for an article. Bubba73 (talk), 17:24, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This seems to be mentioned in most books on the subject of UFO sightings. JulesH 22:56, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Nima. Rhythmnation2004 00:55, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect as all we have are a sentence of data and there isn't going to be any more, ever. This received jocular press coverage at the time and has persisted, but it was a teeny tiny little thing as far as UFO incidents go.--Dhartung | Talk 08:17, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, merge, redirect - anything but keep! this is one of the least notable articles I've seen. Adds nothing to knowledge of UFOs or Jimmy Carter. Totnesmartin 17:41, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please check out the citations. Carter was still being asked about this incident 30 years a it happened, and by publications that have nothing to do with the paranormal. This tells us that it has entered popular culture, and thus that it is notable. - perfectblue 17:29, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand: The incident is notable on the grounds of the man who made it, it should be kept and expanded to cover what he said he saw and what authorities did about it. Could easily be presented in case study format. Deleting it serves only to deny that it happened. - perfectblue 20:08, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment should we therefore include every paranormal anecdote about famous people? Idi Amin's UFO? Abraham Lincoln's seances? the disembodied voice that saved Hitler's life in WWI? They can't be notable on a "they're famous so put it in" basis - it would have to be relevant, I think, rather than incidental. Totnesmartin 20:20, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have to take it on a case by case basis. For example, it would be silly to have a page to George Bush claiming to have seen a flying saucer yesterday unless he had some kind of quantifiable mental episode or something that made him unfit for office etc, as he exists outside of the saucer flap period and isn't associated with saucers in any way, but Carter was president during the cold war and saw his saucer only a couple of years after the famous Boston Traveler story on the Hill abductions when the saucer flap was still happening. - perfectblue 08:08, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand - I have faith in perfectblue's ability to bring this article up to standards. She's done amazing work with similar articles and I feel she should be given time to deal with this one in a similar manner. Her strength is in finding numerous citations from notable books and newspapers. Give her time. Also, considering this is a US President acknowledging a UFO encounter, that alone makes it notable. If it must be moved, perhaps it could be moved to a new article about US Presidents opinions on UFOs. Ronald Reagan is pretty famous for stating his belief that aliens or an alien threat could lead to peace on earth or at least a unified response. it's a fascinating subject. So is there enough for an article on that?LiPollis 17:02, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete past experience gives me no faith in the paranormal lobby's ability to make this anything other than UFOcruft. Carter thought he saw something, said that he does not believe in aliens, end of story. This article appears to exist solely to inflate the pruported importance of UFO sightings; since Carter explicitly stated that he did not consider this to be any such thing, it has strictly limited relevance. Guy (Help!) 10:25, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note Carter stated that "he didn't believe that it was an alien". Aliens are only one possible answer for UFOs, the reason that he stated for not revealing everything when he was president was national security, and we are all away of incidents in which UFOs have turned out to be missile or secret planes such as the stealth. Even when you extract the possibility of aliens, it's still interesting. What exactly did he see? was it an experimental aircraft, a previously unknown weather phenomena. Aliens are only part of Ufology. - perfectblue 14:39, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Really Guy, is it necessary to refer to a wikiproject in such a demeaning manner? Do you refer to all Wikiprojects as Lobbies? For those that don't know, WikiProject:Paranormal creates, edits, maintains and watches over a variety of topics that loosely fall under the heading of paranormal. I always thought the Project name should ProjectWeird myself, but our current name represents a consensus. I would ask you to be more respectful other editors during discussions such as this. I am at times embarrassed by the behavior of fellow skeptics on wikipedia. There was simply no need for that statement. The last sentence of your comment would have sufficed and gotten your point acrossbetter had it not been accompanied by the snarky jabs at other editors. No need to invent a conspiracy of paranormalists where none exists. If you wish to expand you comment about its limited releavnce, please do so. If you can refrain from calling people names, I'd be interested to read such a comment. It might even make me change my vote. LiPollis 19:37, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not rise to article status. Paranormal POV-fork of Jimmy Carter. --ScienceApologist 13:48, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This page tackles the incident from a mainstream perspective, does not state anything controversial or disputed, and does not promote the paranormal (indeed, it specifically states that Carter did not believe that he was witnessing an alien craft). In short, it is all content that could legitimately be added to the Jimmy Carter page but is simply not there becuse editors here believed that it was notable enough to stand alone. POV Forking would only apply if this page promoted the idea that he actually witnessed an alien craft or if it suggested that he believed that he had seen one. Which it does not do. - perfectblue 17:23, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There used to be a couple of sentences more about it there, with references, but it kept getting deleted. The last time I checked, it was down to one sentence with no references. Sometimes people would take out the references only, even though they were cited in the text. I got the impression that most editors of that article didn't want but one unsourced sententence about it. For what that is worth. Bubba73 (talk), 18:43, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable enough as an event to need an article, it could be mentioned in one of the lists of sightings if it isn't already. We need to resist the temptation to create an article about every thing a notable person does or says. --Minderbinder 15:39, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete From WP:Notability Notable is defined as "worthy of being noted" or "attracting notice"; it is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance". Jimmy Carter is famous and important, but this incident itself is not worthy of being noted, nor does it attract notice, except in the context of Jimmy Carter's fame. Ante lan ^talk 18:45, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The incident is made notable by the fact that a powerful and prominent man whom did not believe in aliens admitted to seeing an object which has never been identified and then pledged to blow the lid off of ufology and the UFO debate by turning around decades of secrecy, but then back peddled on the everything on the grounds of national security. This either verifies that the government was hiding something (aliens, Russian spy planes, secret CIA jets, who knows?) or that it had a vested interest in keeping ufology about paranoia and conspiracies. - perfectblue 19:27, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Or that anyone can mistake Venus for a UFO. Bubba73 (talk), 19:34, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perfectblue, if your comment isn't a perfect example of OR and why we don't allow it, I don't know what is. --Minderbinder 19:45, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As you well know, WP:OR does not apply to Afd rationale, it only applies to . I am making a statement of opinion based on observation, which I am perfectly entitled to do here. You will notice that I did NOT write this on the page itself. In return I might venture that raising WP:OR when you know that it doe snot apply is not entirely in line with WP:Afg. - perfectblue 17:25, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above reasonsOo7565 19:37, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Also though poorly written, the article is notable and cited. T_{Talk to me} 23:10, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable. Everyking 08:39, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable. I saw this in a book UFO - consiprancy theories, by Hamlyn Publications of England. Mr Tan 14:32, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep and expand - I don't believe in UFOs, and I think believing in UFOs is completely beside the case in this AfD. This article seems to be referenced, that should be all that matters: it is reporting that Carter said something, and is providing references as to what he said, and I'm under the impression that is all Wikipedia requires. As for merging into a general "UFO sightings" article, I don't think that's a good idea, as Jimmy Carter's involvement should be sufficient to fork it out into its own article. (As an analogy, shouldn't Ronald Reagan's problem with Alzheimer's deserve its own article, precisely because it's Ronald Reagan? Or, should Clinton's sex scandal be merged into a larger general article on "Presidential Sex Scandals"?) BTW, I also personally think there's too much substance to merge this into a larger article. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 00:56, 12 May 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. Sr 13 02:00, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Electron economy

These are two articles in one, so let address them separately:

The concept: One person's theory. A more generic form of this argument can be reliable sourced and added to hydrogen economy as criticism, but Bossel's thesis isn't notable enough for an article if its own.
The company: Fails the general relevance criteria for companies. The claim The company was notable as a prototypical example of the plight of many of the "dot com" superstars founded in the late 1990's. Boom/Bust would require confirmation from secondary sources.

Pjacobi 20:36, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 10:50, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete neither seems notable enough for an article. JulesH 23:00, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - There is a rather high number of Ghits [25] for this term covering both uses. Moreover, there was already a redirect for the company Electron Economy leading to Intend Change. That should be fine and can either be expanded to a real article or nominated at WP:RfD if someone sees fit. Consequently, I've removed the corresponding part from Electron economy, which is now exclusively about the energy-economical concept.--Tikiwont 13:57, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Keep, if more reliable sources are added or smerge into Hydrogen economy, so that at least the search term remains valid and its source can be found. --Tikiwont 14:14, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Above can be rephrased as merge unless reliable sources for an independednt article are found. As this currently does not seem to be the case let's merge it into Hydrogen economy. --Tikiwont 15:18, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I don't want act like deletion-addicted fanatic here, but pls let me explain my reasoning:
- The idea that large scale hydrogen distribution, as envisioned by the hydrogen economy, is significantly inferior to the plain old power grid is an often heard criticism of hydrogen economy and should be mentioned there. As this is also called "electron economy" it is a major factor in Google hits.
- But the more radical, or visionary, ideas from Ulf Bossel (peer-to-peer power grid, elimination of all pipelines) is a rather excotic and insignificant POV -- perhaps less than 100 Google hist if you prefer this measure (proof me wrong and find secondary sources, and I'll glady admit having been wroing).
- All the neologism parallel to hydrogen economy are somewhat problematic, as they are just sparely used marketing hype for a more general concept, so most of these should be merged IMHO.

Pjacobi 21:44, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 14:45, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - A google search of "electron economy" finds mostly references to the company, this article, and Ulf Bossel. AS best I can tell, this fails WP:N and WP:SCIENCE, and may also fail WP:NOR as a neologism. --EMS | Talk 17:45, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on the basis of no real public attention. DGG 20:53, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete origional research--Sefringle 05:58, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete per ems Bulldog123 05:12, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:14, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jarvis Black

Even though one of the cited books is available on amazon.com, it only has a ranking below 3,000,000. No other biographic information except birth year. Northfox 13:17, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 10:50, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - attempted to find some sources for him, but all I can find are his own website and some print-on-demand publishers. Nothing to indicate any kind of notability — iridescenti (talk to me!) 17:15, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:N TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 19:01, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. W.marsh 14:27, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Katie Carlson

nonsense Mseliw 01:35, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 10:50, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Content was "Katie Carlson. Katie Carlson is a Language Arts/ Social Studies teacher at Inglewood Junior High school in Sammamish, Washington. She is so hot!". MER-C 13:12, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete and close afd. Surely this qualifies for speedy deletion without having to go through afd?Dr bab 13:41, 3 May 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 but remove all uncited entries to living people per WP:BLP -Doc^g 11:40, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of notable converts to Christianity (3rd nomination)

This page is not being used for it's intended purpose: a list of notable people who have come to the Christian religion by way of conversion, that is, instead of by way of being born Christian. I would describe, figuratively, what is going on is a form of Christian imperialism, in which known Jews are being put on the list. Actually, just one prominent case: Bob Dylan. This page could serve a legitimate purpose but it is not. Instead of listing noted Christians who have arrived by way of conversion, editors have taken it upon themselves to include Bob Dylan in this list. They have rejigged the definition of the list to include anyone who has ever converted to Christianity, to include Bob Dylan, for whom sources (flimsy) have been found for conversion in 1979. The big offense is that he is clearly a Jew. His "Christian phase" can be handled in a properly detailed context such as in the Bob Dylan article. But starkly listed here is an offense to Judaism. There is no justification for committing that offense. And the editor's "disclaimers" do not correct the problem. The very need for disclaimers is indication of the initial wrong.Bus stop 04:52, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't this be the 3rd nomination?

It seems that "it's intended purpose" is actually the purpose which you, Bus stop, have dictated it to be. You choose to ignore our reasoning in the criterion for inclusion, which has never had to be so clearly defined until this argument came about. Dylan and Duleep Singh and everyone else on the list are included because of their conversions, not because of their continued faith. A simple question: If Abdul Rahman converted back to Islam, would you suggest removing him from the list? Would you say that his return to his former faith erases the fact that he converted to Christianity in an oppressive country, and therefore received a death sentence for his actions? Is this conversion not notable enough to include on this list, regardless of the man's current faith? It would be silly to ignore the profound change which occurred in this man's life, simply because you believe that including him would be a form of 'advocacy'.

And so it is with Bob Dylan. Dylan, whose conversion caused much controversy in 1979, went through a profound change in style and behavior following his conversion. He released three 'Gospel'-themed albums, he proselytized from the stage, he caused much upset amongst fans and critics, and he professed exclusively Christian beliefs in interviews and conversations with others. And, concerning the "flimsy sources", here is the list of sources, taken directly from the List of notable converts to Christianity:

Bob Dylan: Behind the Shades: Revisited, Clinton Heylin, pgs. 491-520
Down the Highway: The Life of Bob Dylan, Howard Sounes, pgs. 324-326, 356
The Rough Guide to Bob Dylan (2nd edition), Nigel Williamson, pgs. 112-113
Jewsweek: Bob Dylan's Unshakeable Monotheism -- Part III: The 1980s
Encyclopedia Britannica: Bob Dylan
Bob Dylan Finds His Source, from Christianity Today, Noel Paul Stookey, January 4, 1980
[26]
[27]
[28]
[29]
[30]
[31]
[32]
[33]

I'm curious as to why you've never made an argument concerning Duleep Singh, who is also on the list. The fact that you seem deeply offended by the assertion that a Jew could convert to Christianity appears to be the driving factor in your persistence in the argument. It should be noted that you provide no sources which support your assertion that Bob Dylan did not convert to Christianity. Sincerity is a reasonable issue, but it is yet another instance of you using your selective interpretation of a text, which can be quite clear and explicit, to argue your point. Should I also mention your ridiculous assertion that someone "must be baptized to be considered a convert to Christianity"? This is not a list of converts to Catholicism or Orthodoxy, or traditional Protestantism. I have already explained the lack of importance baptism is assigned by many non-denominational churches. And considering that the sources clearly state that the Vineyard Fellowship (with which Dylan was involved) 'peddled a New Age Christianity', it's likely they didn't hold to the traditional beliefs. Still, several of the sources mention baptism, but you assert that it must be false if the time and the place is not specified. If I recall correctly (and forgive me if I don't), you even suggest at one point that we provide baptismal records to prove the baptism! How many times must you raise the bar so that you might still consider the sources "flimsy"? Will you next demand a birth certificate for each living person listed on Wikipedia? Never mind the fact that User John Carter challenged your point by noting that, even if we humored your demand, baptismal records can be lost or not even kept in the first case, and by the inability to produce the relevant documents, certain televangelists and missionaries would be considered 'non-Christians' by your standards.

Your persistence in assuming that we are making our edits for the sake of proselytizing reveals either your bias or your lack of interest in actually listening to what we have to say. How can you honestly argue that adding someone who has supposedly 'left' Christianity and returned to Judaism (once again, you provide no sources) would be an 'endorsement' to Christianity? Is it so difficult to assume good faith and listen to us when we tell you that our insistence of the present criterion has nothing to do with proselytizing? List of vegans lists both current and former vegans. Their election of a vegan dietary lifestyle is unique and notable, regardless of their current dietary preference. Similarly, the List of notable converts to Christianity includes people who converted to Christianity, regardless of their current faith. There are many notable people who have converted and many people who have become notable because of their conversions. We intend to list them. I would argue the same criterion argue that the same criterion be used (as it has been) in the other religious conversion lists. It should be noted that many other 'listings by religious affiliation' note redundantly that a current adherent is a convert.

Actually, perhaps you should rather take note of (or rather focus your efforts on) the fact that articles like List of Baptists and List of notable American Presbyterians,which by the title would seem to indicate current believers, lists certain people who have converted from the List's religion in question. I just became aware of this, and I wonder if you would argue so fervently in these instances as well, or if your bias (apparent, in my opinion, in many of your comments) causes you to concentrate only on a Jewish-born entertainer. --C.Logan 07:53, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment: C.Logan -- It is only in the early hours of today, May 8, 2007, that it occurred to me to look at the history of this article. I see that this article was begun January 17, 2006. In that first iteration of this article Dylan was already present, prompting me to consider -- which came first -- the idea to indicate Dylan as a convert to Christianity, or the idea to create a list of converts to Christianity? There are only two other people on there with Dylan, in that first iteration. Bus stop 01:07, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neither- I believe it would be the idea that having a list of converts to Christianity should contain a list of people who have, at one point in their lives, converted to Christianity. Notice that even the earliest iteration of the list does not attempt to trick the reader into believing Dylan is a Christian, but clearly states that he later reconverted to Judaism (despite the lack of reliable sources to support that point). --C.Logan 01:19, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment: C.Logan -- Those are arguably bogus criteria, designed to capture Dylan on your list. Realistic criteria are "Those notable Christians who have arrived at their religion by way of conversion." But of course those normal criteria would not include Dylan. Bus stop 02:04, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's always good to know your opinion, Bus stop. However, I find the criterion realistic and much more helpful for reference. There is no agenda involved. If a person can operate a web browser, they can understand the introductory paragraph and the explanations given by each entrant's name. --C.Logan 02:35, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 10:51, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep This is is fine. It links to other conversion lists. --Knulclunk 11:07, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very Strong & Speedy Keep Considering the reasons given above, and considering equality with all the religious conversion lists.--C.Logan 11:15, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep: Nominator is emotionally motivated because they dont want Bob Dylan in the list. That dispute doesnt mean the list has to be deleted. We have these lists for other religions as well. The conversion of a person is a notable fact, e.g. List of former Muslims. I dont know why people have to AfD an article when all previous nominations have failed. You should have read them before thinking of nominating again. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 11:50, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment: It is my contention that there is such a thing as "naturally arising" parameters (criteria) and "contrived" parameters. Furthermore it is my argument that the parameters that editors have imposed on this list are "contrived." Natural parameters for this list do not involve the placing of Bob Dylan on it. The natural parameters are that it is a list, firstly, of Christians. The second quality that naturally defines this list is that of conversion. It is a list of those Christians who have arrived at Christianity by way of conversion. The aforementioned two criteria that naturally define this list apply to living people who can express their chosen belief systems. In the case of Bob Dylan there exists a person with the past 25 years of a history of life lived that has not been Christian. In the case of Bob Dylan there exists a person with the past 25 years of a history of life lived that has in fact been Jewish. From where does this article get the chutzpah to include a living Jew on a list of Christians? The answer to that question is that some editors have contrived to add criteria that are a contrivance and do not naturally apply to this list. They have decided that this list should include all those who have ever converted to Christianity. So they have found sources, decidedly flakey sources, that there are legitimate grounds to assume literal conversion to Christianity for Bob Dylan in 1979, and on the basis of such assumed "conversion," have argued that under their newly concocted criteria, Bob Dylan belongs on this list of converts to Christianity. Assuming good faith is important around here, so I am not sure whether to attribute negative motives to this or not, but others have pointed out, as I am now pointing out, that this whole charade is patently wrong and needs to be set right. Wikipedia is not an indescriminate collection of facts. Just because something is true does not automatically mean it gets to have a place on Wikipedia. In this case it is only by manipulation of the criteria that should naturally apply to this list that the freaky collection of facts that some editors argue for result in the inclusion of a living person who is clearly a Jew, on a list of converts to Christianity. Please see WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE. Also, if it is to be assumed that motives such as proselytization or even antisemitism are involved, then also applicable would be violation of WP:NOT#SOAPBOX. But I am assuming good faith, and I think WP:NOT#INDESCRIMINATE is all that is applicable here. WP:NOT#INDESCRIMINATE says, "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of items of information. That something is 100% true does not automatically mean it is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia." Bus stop 12:22, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tell me why its ok to have List of former Muslims but not this list. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 13:25, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Flaky sources... okay. If you say so. What would be an 'acceptable source', in your opinion? A signed statement from Dylan himself? It seems as if we are getting closer to the point where you may demand just that. I have compiled excerpts from the published sources here so that the users can see what these sources say as well. I am very puzzled as to why these sources are unacceptable to you. The internet sources are one thing, but considering that there are three books, an encyclopedia excerpt, an article from one of the biggest newspapers in the country, and a lengthy article which covers Dylan's faith in a Jewish newsletter, it is difficult to take your opinion over the clear statements found within these sources.

Again, please present the sources which claim that Dylan has returned to practicing Judaism. As far as I have read, Dylan has no clear religious affiliation nowadays, being very protective of his privacy. For all we know, he could be a Baha'i. As I've always said, your arguments will hold a lot more weight if you actually present sources.

As far as the "contrivance of parameters" goes, I don't see how you can see your interpretation as any less contrived. As you seem to see first 'Christians' and 'who arrived by conversion', I see the name of the list quite literally: 'notable converts to Christianity'. Abdul Rahman is a notable convert to Christianity. St. Augustine is a notable convert to Christianity. Anne Rice is a notable convert to Christianity. The fact that these people could later leave this faith does not rescind their conversions. It does not erase that fact that Abdul Rahman received a death sentence and made world news for his plight. It does not erase the fact that Augustine left the Manichaeans and became one of the greatest writers of Western Christian thought. It does not change the fact that Anne Rice went from writing about vampires exclusively to writing about the life of Jesus Christ. If these people leave (or would have left) their faith, their conversion and the events which were a result of it are undoubtedly notable. And again, Bob Dylan is a notable convert to Christianity. Whether or not you feel he was sincere in his conversion is another matter(and as the list includes converts like Carlos Menem who may or may not have converted for political reasons), it is unfair to make that a deciding factor as well.

If you are going to quote a Wikipedia policy for your advantage, please quote it in full. Here's what WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE actually says (if you really need elaboration on what the numbered items mean, feel free to check):

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of items of information. That something is 100% true does not automatically mean it is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. While there is a continuing debate about the encyclopedic merits of several classes of entries, current consensus is that Wikipedia articles are not simply:

Lists of Frequently Asked Questions.
Travel guides.
Memorials.
Instruction manuals.
Internet guides.
Textbooks and annotated texts.
Plot summaries.
Lyrics databases.
Statistics.

Bus stop, what exactly on this list do you feel we are violating? You should probably make sure that when you're quoting something important, like a policy, you include enough information so that the reader can fully understand the context.

Additionally, I've already noted that it's amusing to assume that including someone on a list who has converted to, and apparently left a religion is a kind of advocacy, or an endorsement. How exactly does one come up with this idea? It is only a few steps from saying that "Having a list of ex-Christians endorses Christianity". How could you possibly say that we're arguing for Dylan's inclusion because it 'makes Christianity look better'? If I were to try your product, and I found it dissatisfying, would you use me as a testimonial? That doesn't make much sense. Personally, I've tried to make it clear that Dylan is not likely still Christian to satisfy your viewpoint (a sourceless one, I might add), but whoever happened to change the note at Dylan's entry seems to have stayed very truthful to the sources at hand. Here is what the article currently says:

Bob Dylan - popular musician (While it is a generally accepted fact that Dylan converted to Christianity in the late 70's, he has never renounced his Jewish roots and appears comfortable in both Jewish and Christian contexts.)

I think that this is an extremely correct representation of what the sources say. If you would please bring sources which clarify your point, a change of this text would be in order. Until then, it seems that you should probably take note of WP:NOT#SOAPBOX, number 1, last sentence: "You might wish to go to Usenet or start a blog if you want to convince people of the merits of your favorite views." --C.Logan 13:42, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's good to see that Matt knows how to make compromises. I support his changes. --C.Logan 13:45, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong and speedy keep - the nominator's position that there are "natural" parameters and "contrived" parameters is I think the best example of "contrivance" I have seen yet. Certainly, if it were to be argued that Dylan should also be on the list of Christians who converted to Judaism, possibly with the same parameters, I would agree with that to. I also believe that having such lists of converts provides a "short list" of people who are demonstrably familiar with both faiths, and that having that information available does actively serve the interests of wikipedia. And, the fact is that of the 18 people who have expressed opinions regarding this matter, 11 have supported the inclusion. Presumably, all 11 on that basis are actively involved in promotion of Christianity. My personal interests are improving the coverage of religion in all its aspects. It is unfortuante that my own limited knowledge relates to Christianity, and that I am less than qualified to effectively contribute in many other areas, but I am not sure I should be criticized for "doing what I know". In the same way, including Dylan on this list, when his Christianity, at least for a while, was popularly known is reasonable. And I believe to nominate the entire article for deletion, seemingly on the basis of the inclusion of this one name, is about the most ridiculous thing I've seen on wikipedia yet. John Carter 13:59, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment: "Comfortable in both Jewish and Christian contexts" is gobbledygook. Please don't reduce the respective religions to the point of meaninglessness. Please don't blur lines that matter. This is not an article defined flabbily. It happens to be an article on Christianity. Christianity and Judaism are two different religions. Have you considered starting an article on List of converts to religion undefined? On an article of those parameters one could feel free to put any person of one's choosing. If these religions mean anything, and I assert they do, then it is not in the interests of anyone to run roughshod over what defines them. In common parlance we (people) are all the same. I reject that as unconstructive. I think we should see who we are. This article has the word Christianity in the title. This article is a subsection of the Wikipedia Christianity project. Discarding basics serves nobody's interests. Disregarding what Judaism is and disregarding what Christianity is, is not encyclopedic. Including a Jew on a list of Christians does damage to the aforementioned distinctions. Let me elaborate on some of the central ones, and which I think are very relevant to this dispute. Please do not zone out as you review these distinctions. A primary problem here is that basic facts defining religions are discarded. Christianity is powerfully founded on the Messiah-ship of Jesus Christ. Judaism totally rejects this. We are not talking about an area of unclarity. We are not talking about a grey zone. These are differences. These are real differences. You are not serving anyone's interests by conflating things that in point of fact are mutually exclusive. They conflict with one another. One notion is a direct contradiction of the other notion. Is it any wonder that passions run high surrounding these issues? Please feel free to focus your editing energies on writing about Bob Dylan's "Christian phase" on the Bob Dylan article. Or, here is another suggestion: Consider starting an article on specifically the dispute presently at hand. I don't know what title to suggest for it. I think it is a telling point that that would be difficult to do. It would be hard to define an article on the subject of this dispute. But you could try. But it is patently false and wrong to slip Bob Dylan into an article that is ostensibly a list of converts to Christianity. That is deceptive. I won't attribute motives to anyone for doing this. But clearly it is destructive to applicable distinctions. Wikipedia shouldn't be about creating confusion. Wikipedia should be about clearing up confusion. Wikipedia should be about making sense of the world. Bus stop 15:01, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - per the statement above that this article is a part of the Christianity project, I would simply note that that statement is a conclusion based on absolutely no hard data. In fact, the project has yet to be tagged with any banner, and neither User:C.Logan nor User:Scottperry are members of the project which he says this article is a "subsection" of. I believe that this kind of sloppy argumentation and dubious reasoning is both a regular aspect of Bus stop's conversation and in and of itself a serious impediment with reasoning with him. I believe it also completely fails to assume good faith or cite references, but we are unfortunately used to that by now. John Carter 16:02, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm unsure what you mean by 'discarding basics'- I can assure you that List of ex-Christians and the various other more specific 'ex' lists are all part of the Christianity project as well. The articles and lists must be Christianity-related, but the lists do not have to contain Christians. Obviously, lists like the above shouldn't.

There is no real reason that including Bob Dylan, an entertainer who, considering what the sources clearly state, converted to Christianity in 1979, is somehow 'discarding the basics'. The article deals with notable converts to Christianity. The listings do not have to include current Christians. The list of ex-Christians deals with people who have left the Christian faith. The listings most definitely do not include current Christians. You seem to be assuming that, because of a nominal relationship to 'Christian(ity)', and their inclusion within the Christianity Wikiproject, that these lists should only contain current Christians or else they are intentionally misleading readers or 'discarding the basics'... once again, this is what you seem to be saying, so I apologize if I'm misreading your point... If this is what you are asserting, then it is ridiculous.

A list of notable converts to Christianity is certainly relevant to the Christianity Wikiproject, and there is no foundation to the assertment that including a person who (may or may not have) lapsed in this faith is somehow 'discarding the basics'.

Again, and I find it humorous that you ignore me every time to explain this, but as I've said before, your claim that Judaism and Christianity are in direct contradiction to each other is an opinion, not a fact. You are ignoring the fact that, first and foremost, Jesus and the Apostles themselves were most certainly Jewish, and almost all of the earliest Christians before Paul's missions to the Gentiles were also most certainly Jews who believed in Jesus as the Messiah. These were Jews who believed quite clearly that Judaism and the belief of the Messiah-ship, death, and resurrection of Christ were fully compatible, and indeed essentially intertwined.

You are also ignoring the large body of current-day congregations which could be categorized as 'Jewish Christians'- although that term itself refers to a specific group. There are around 1,000,000 Messianic Jews (according to adherents.com) who believe that Judaism and the belief that Jesus is the Christ are not antithetical concepts. It is very unfortunate that you express your opinion as a fact, as there seem to be nearly a million people who would disagree with you about this point. It is very unwise that you would seek to apply such stark distinctions to this religious situation when a million people, and possibly Dylan himself, do not make these same distinctions.

Again, please consider Dylan's own quotes:

"Well, Jesus is mighty to save, if He's in your heart, He'll convert you."

"What we're talking about is the nature of God, and I think you have to, in order to go to God, you have to go through Jesus."

These are Dylan's words. You expect us to take your own words over his in matters of belief, and that's fine if you think that way, but once again, I suggest considering: "You might wish to go to Usenet or start a blog if you want to convince people of the merits of your favorite views."

Through clear conversion and clear expressions of faith, it is quite apparent to the unbiased reader that Dylan converted to Christianity in 1979, and seemed generally sincere about the matter.

We have already gone over the reasons why we feel his conversion is very notable, and why it could be seen by some as more notable then many of the other conversions featured on the list. Most people may not have thought much about Joy Gresham's conversion to Christianity, but many people certainly did some thinking when Bob Dylan did the same, and there were strong negative reactions from many old fans and critics. Many people were outraged to attend a Dylan concert where he refused to play his pre-conversion material. Atheists protested Dylan's new stage proselytizing. He managed to put out 3 albums, essentially gospel music, which stand as a much more in-depth record to the personal changes in Dylan which resulted from his conversion. We are listing Dylan because he is a notable convert to Christianity.

We are listing everyone here because they are notable converts to Christianity, not because of their current religious beliefs. --C.Logan 17:41, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted that a user has created a subsection titled "Controversial" which includes Dylan (and I believe would be a good home for the Twelve Apostles, if any more disputes come up over their placement). --C.Logan 17:48, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - the criteria for inclusion in the list is clear. About the only thing controversial is what they converted from but that can be fixed with cites. The Dylan example will always be a problem with musicians/artists/actors etc in trying to break out the person so we can brand that person as an 'x' from what the message of their art is saying. But with reliable cites rather than WP:OR interpretations of the persons art this can be fixed. Ttiotsw 16:08, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a valid list and whether or not Bob Dylan should be on it is irrelevant. Take it to the talk page, take it to RfC if you have to but don't delete an entire article because you disagree with whether one line should be included — iridescenti (talk to me!) 17:17, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - since no argument is given for the deletion of the article, and no reference is given to a policy of the Wikipedia for which this article is in violation of. Editing disputes regarding the inclusion criteria for List of notable converts to Christianity in general, or the specific case of Bob Dylan, belong on article's talk page not in AFD. patsw 17:37, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment: It should be deleted if it has become the locus of abuse. And do not underestimate the importance of Bob Dylan to this article, in the minds of some editors. I think that to some editors, Bob Dylan is this article's raison d’être. I feel that the article should be allowed to revert to being an article about Christians who have arrived at Christianity by means of conversion. Dylan is neither Christian nor a convert. He was born of the union of a Jewish father and a Jewish mother. The necessity for "disclaimers" should make it abundantly clear that the initial act of putting Dylan on this list is riddled with problems. This article is jealously guarded by a contingency of editors hailing from the Wikipedia Christianity project. It is those editors who have controlled this list. This list has become the locus of abuse; it is abuse to put a Jew, such as Bob Dylan, on this list of Christians. That is abuse. If this article is deleted I will only be the proximal cause. The real cause will be the abuse wrought by some of the very editors who are presently arguing that Dylan belongs on a list of converts to Christianity. I hope the administrator that adjudicates this can see the narrow and lopsided reasoning involved in inserting a non-Christian whose brief and not lasting involvement with Christianity was already over 25 years ago. Bus stop 21:04, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:It is clearly the case that Bob Dylan is the primary reason the article was nominated in the first place. However, that does not mean that on the basis of that one entry, which has been justified for inclusion according to wikipedia guidelines, whether or not those official guidelines agree with any specific individual's unsubstantiated point of view, is even remotely justified. Wikipedia articles cannot conform to the point of view of every individual editor, nor are they supposed to. John Carter 21:07, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The main reason we have invested so much time is not because we are so eager to include Dylan in the article, but because it would be ridiculous to remove him from the list because of the personal opinion of one particular editor (who has exhibited a clearly Jewish bias, with your apparent belief that the argument for Dylan's inclusion is "Christianity [is attempting to] win a victory over a Jew", to paraphrase you) who demands that the article be changed in his favor, offers no sources himself, and accepts no opposing sources as 'valid', whether they be internet sources, respectable publications, encyclopedias, or even books- not merely a single biography, but 3. Three biographies with corroborating information (which also corroborates with the information provided in some of the internet sources).

The fact that we have presented 14 sources to support our claims while you have produced none is troubling enough, but the fact that you then claim that he is 'not a convert' is really quite astounding to me. Additionally, the fact that you then attempt to attribute our stance to our 'advocacy of Christianity' shows quite clearly that you have not, at any point, attempted to understand the words we have been typing in response to you.

Additionally, instead of simply offering sources which lend support to your claims, you continue to make this into a religious issue. You compare the philosophy, theology and history of Christianity and Judaism, and it appears that you formulate your argument from what you perceive as the 'injustice' of suggesting that a man of Jewish birth such as Dylan, whom it appears you are very fond of, could actually and honestly convert to Christianity. You continuously claimed that there was no conversion. We found sources which stated so. You claimed it was only a persona, and you brought no sources to back up this claim. You demanded proof of baptism, claiming that it was the only 'valid' way to prove conversion, clearly showing that you know very little about the heterogeneous nature of Christian ceremony and practice. When several published (i.e. book) sources claimed baptism, you declared them as 'unreliable' At one point, it seems that you would not stop short of demanding actual baptismal records.

You continuously ignore any reasoning put forth by your opposing editors. You accuse of of endorsing Christianity with a person who is apparently no longer a Christian. How can this possibly be an endorsement? If I were to try your product and be dissatisfied with it, would you use my testimony to promote what you were selling? Please assume that we are acting in good faith.

And perhaps you should note I am not even a member of Wikiproject Christianity, and I have surely been the most vocal of your opponents.--C.Logan 22:14, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very Strong keep This 3rd AFD deletion nomination has been submitted by an editor who appears to be more interested in removing the Dylan entry in the article than following standard Wiki policy and etiquette. This editor, Bus stop, has had temporary bans placed on his account for edit-war behavior over this entry at least three times. He has refused to respond to any requests to provide any documentation as to why Dylan should be removed from the list. Several editors have spent, probably several hours upon hours trying to reason with Bus Stop about this. Now because he has failed at bullying us into submission by sheer persistence in his position, he is attempting to have the article deleted, wasting more editor's time in the pursuit of his vested interests that happen to conflict with Wiki editorial policy. I personally feel that if Bus Stop continues to be this disruptive, he should be banned again, and possibly permanently. -Scott P. 01:03, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment: Scott P. -- Dylan is Jewish, is he not? If he is Jewish, why do you want him on a List of converts to Christianity?

Comment - Ethnically/culturally, sure. But religiously? Sources... --C.Logan 02:49, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scott, a brief summary: Yes, Dylan is Jewish culturally by birth and heritage. He went through a Christian, "born-again" experience in 1979 when he made very public statements of his new Christian faith. After a few years, he became less public about his faith, but never denounced Christianity.

Several WP editors feel he "Converted from Jewish to Christian"

Several others feel this is and overstatement, incorrect, or an agenda driven distortion. That it was a "stage" or "fad".

In response, other editors feel this is an agenda driven denial.

--Knulclunk 02:42, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but set higher standards of evidence. One of the problems with secondary sources is that they are often merely citing each other, sometimes in endless circular loops. --Metzenberg 05:35, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment: I doubt if there will be reform here. Not judging by the intransigence of the very small clique here who control this page. Not judging from the history of this page. Not judging by the obsession with putting a Jew (Dylan) on a list of converts to Christianity. No involvement with Christianity since 1980 -- and they consider him a Christian. It is forced virtual conversion. It is forced conversion, Wikipedia style. Bus stop 05:52, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Please provide your sources which state that Dylan has returned to practicing the religion of Judaism. I know he's culturally Jewish, ethnically- what have you. But we're talking in terms of religion. You are selectively interpreting sources which we present and providing none for your own assertions. As long as you continue to claim Dylan's current religious beliefs without providing any reliable sources, it seems that the only one 'forcing' Dylan into any religion is you, dear Bus stop. Thank you for the late night show of gravitas, anyhow. --C.Logan 06:41, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, excuse the changes which have been brought about by Demong. I'm not sure why he's returning everything to it's original state. I'll ask him what his reasoning is concerning these changes. --C.Logan 06:44, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, and the nominator should take a cold shower. --Dhartung | Talk 08:14, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment: :: Objective people do not consider Dylan a convert to Christianity. Antisemites might consider Dylan a convert to Christianity at present time, and those who see themselves as proselytizers for Christianity might see Dylan as a convert to Christianity at this time, but objective observers would not. Any objective observer sees Dylan as a guy who performed in Christian mode 25 years ago. Thats the sum total of the Christian Dylan. But to get maximum mileage of of that, some people need to distort that in their own special way. That is all that this Wikipedia entry is about. It is not Wiki encyclopedia. It is Wiki distortion. It is a ludicrous travesty of encyclopedia purpose to stick Dylan on a list of converts to Christianity because he is a Jewish guy who had the temerity to explore Christianity 25 years ago. Even if we accept that there was substantial conversion 25 years ago, an utterly laughable concept, the lack of the Christian element in his life for the succeeding years should set someone's mind right about that. But the proponents of this travesty have latched upon an excuse for getting a Jew onto their list of converts to Christianity, and it is wrong. There ought to be a bit of shame experienced by anyone who perpetrates such bold faced lunacy.

It's too bad that I am one of the only people speaking out about this. But I don't engage in Wikilawyering. Wikilawyering is abiding by technicalities and ignoring spirit. Any objective observer knows that Dylan has had nothing to do with Christianity in 25 years. What does that say to you? Any objective observer has seen that Dylan has had involvement in Judaism in the past 25 years. What does that say to you? And of course there is the minor fact that he was born Jewish. What does that convey to you. What does it say to you that there wasn't an iota of evidence of a Christian life lived even during the at most 3 years during which Dylan was producing Gospel music? I'm not talking about "sermonettes" delivered between songs. I'm talking about actual evidence of a Christian life attributable to the man. Nothing. All we have here are those with a need to misrepresent reality. Is that what an encyclopedia should be used for?

Oh, and by the way, before you remind me about assuming good faith. One need not assume good faith when the preponderance of evidence indicates the opposite. Since this article is clearly about abuse, it indeed should be deleted. I don't assume good faith when I see abuse. Bus stop 12:30, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Once again I note the above editor is making blanket claims without pointing toward a single piece of objective evidence to support his contentions. Evidently, these rules do not apply to him personally. John Carter 13:56, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment: John Carter -- Does any evidence exist for Dylan being a Christian since approximately 1980? Can you mention anything of a Christian nature Dylan has said or done since approximately 1980? That is, of course, a period of 27 years. Why would you be calling him a "convert to Christianity" if no evidence for him doing or saying anything that can be identified as being of a Christian nature can be found for him for a period of time stretching back 27 years from the present point in time? Aren't you using overblown language to refer to him as a "convert to Christianity?" Isn't it patently false to refer to him as a "convert to Christianity," if you can find no evidence that he has done or said anything of a Christian nature for a period of 27 years? I look forward to your response. Bus stop 15:58, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Let's answer both parts of your question. First, you're going to have to stop assuming that, if no sources are presented to show Dylan's involvement with Christianity during these past '27 years', then it means that Dylan has returned to practicing religious Judaism. As Nick said, it appears that you believe Dylan's religious affiliation to be inseperably tied to his mitochondrial DNA- you believe that if Dylan is not showing any overt signs of belief in Christianity, then he is automatically Jewish. No, not culturally Jewish, or ethnically Jewish. You assume that he is religiously Jewish. With that being said, you seem to believe that this is the logic of the argument:

1. Bob Dylan was born into a Jewish family.

2. Bob Dylan converted to Christianity in 1979 (Actually, you refuse to believe this).

3. Bob Dylan has not overtly expressed his belief in Christianity since the early 80's.

4. Therefore, Bob Dylan is religiously Jewish.

You seem to believe that you don't even have to provide sources, because to you, Dylan magically reverts to religious Judaism if he is not overtly and explicitly Christian. Never mind the fact that the sources we've compiled view any participation in Jewish rituals in the period after his conversion as being for culturally purposes, or from a Jewish-Christian perspective. Indeed, many Messianic Jews see Dylan as one of their own- they see no conflict with Christian beliefs exhibited in Dylan's actions.

By your standard, we would probably have to remove some of the people on the list who are, in actuality, still Christians, by the fact that they haven't thrown their religion into the public eye since the time of their conversion. Once again, I welcome you to provide sources, as we have for every argument we've made. If you have a source which clearly states that Dylan has renounced his Christian beliefs, then that's splendid. However, if you continue in attempting your 'argument from ignorance', no reasonable person on Wikipedia is going to take your arguments or your suggestions seriously.

Secondly, we've already gone over the criterion for this list. We've included examples on why we wish to continue including this criterion, as the list has since long before you became involved. There is no argument regarding Dylan's current faith and his inclusion in the list, considering the parameters that are, and have been, in place. Dylan converted to Christianity. Dylan is notable. Dylan's conversion is notable. Dylan is a notable convert. Dylan is a notable convert to Christianity. This is a list of notable converts to Christianity. --C.Logan 17:41, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: To the best of my knowledge, no. However, that argument has already been gone over repeatedly. The fact that there was abundant evidence in contemporary publications during the late 70s-early 80's can be enough for inclusion on that list, as per the guidelines involved. Now, I have a question for you, Bus stop? Can you provide any real evidence for your repeated insults and other attacks on the integrity of the various people you so regularly impugn, at least possibly to the point of personal attacks? I look forward to your clear response. John Carter 16:50, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment: John Carter -- I've "impugned" no one. I am an arguer for truth. If you feel impugned it is probably your dawning awareness that the characterization of Dylan the convert to Christianity is more about point of view pushing than reality. That is a hopeful sign. We can both agree there was a period of time that Dylan indulged in Christianity. The question remains: does that constitute Christian identity? I say clearly not. Not given a variety of factors, which I'm not going into right here, right now. You would be perfectly justified in the use of prose language to lay out a complete and thorough description of that period in Dylan's life. You would in that setting have ample opportunity to enunciate the appeal that Christianity held for him. You could explain the beauty he found in Christianity, if sources supported that. But that all applies to a prose situation. That all applies in an article written in a multitude of words. Many paragraphs could be used to fully flesh out all aspects of that. Other editors could join in in such a setting. Balance could be created. Different points of view could be presented. But bear in mind this: A list is none of that. A list is stark listing, nothing more. A list does not justify the placing of an individual on it unless they incontrovertibly belong on that list. Can you say incontrovertibly that Dylan belongs on a list of converts to Christianity? I think it is a complete misuse of the list to put Dylan on it. It is just using the list for a purpose for which it was never intended. It was never intended to promote a point of view. You could even start a separate, freestanding article called, for instance, Bob Dylan, the Christian years. The reason why that would be acceptable is because it would be visited by people interested in Bob Dylan, in addition to people interested in Christianity. The present article is, in a sense, a stealth assertion that Dylan is a convert to Christianity. It is a stealth assertion because no one is going to be perusing the List of converts to Christianity article out of an interest in Dylan. It is Christianity and religion in general that brings someone to this article. And it is stealth because this bombshell of an assertion is slipped in that Dylan is a "convert to Christianity. It is a list. Disclaimers are feeble attempts to turn a list into an article. Please don't tell me that a list is considered an article in Wikipedia parlance. List and prose article are very different things. Bus stop 17:20, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin: The people who have been contacted regarding the possibility legalities of this subject have declined to respond directly, which was the reason offered to potentially keep it open. There is no reason to keep this discussion open for the possibility of their input, as they have declined to offer any. John Carter 00:44, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary Section Break 1

Hmm... let's see.

Did Bob Dylan convert to Christianity? Yes.
Is Bob Dylan a notable person? Yes.
Is Bob Dylan's conversion notable? Yes.
Is Bob Dylan a notable convert to Christianity? Yes.
"Can you say incontrovertibly that Dylan belongs on a list of converts to Christianity?" Yes.

We are not attempting to proselytize. These are logical parameters. And for the umpteenth time, it's called List of notable converts to Christianity. --C.Logan 17:56, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment: C.Logan -- Dylan converted to Christianity only according to minimal Wikipedia standards. That means citations support that contention on Wikipedia. The list is a misleading place for that assertion, because there are serious reasons to question that assertion. No reasonable person considers a person who shows no interest in being a Christian, to be a Christian, especially if that person also happens to be a Jew. You support inclusion of Dylan on that list because you have an ulterior motive. I don't know what that might be. But just like the existence of dark matter in the universe, we have to assume it exists. Reasonable people don't minimize the importance of an absence of Christianity from a person's life for 27 years unless they've got some serious issues to either promote or suppress. If you feel that Dylan incontrovertibly belongs on this list, you apparently are not taking into consideration all the relevant information. Bus stop 18:55, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that in all of the above the above editor has not yet, despite a specific request for same, supplied any evidence of his oft-repeated allegations of the article in question being used for prosletyzation purposes. And such a person, who refuses to ever substantiate their own allegations regarding others, can call themselves an "arguer for truth"? I see no reason to engage in any further conversation with the above individual regarding this subject on this page, and it is my clear and express opinion that the remaining comments on this page actually address the matter at hand, the proposed deletion of the article. If the above editor wishes to continue indulging in his expressly stated "obsession", I suggest he sign on to the mediation that has been offered. Otherwise, I see no point in any further direct conversation with someone who does not even have the character to point toward a single source of his own allegations. John Carter 17:25, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment: John Carter -- Of course I don't specifically know what anyone else's motivations are. But if there is clearly not reason to support an action, one wonders what motivated given action. It is like the presumption of dark matter in the universe. No one can see it. But it is presumed to be there, because the universe in it's known constitution could not exist without it. I can't help but wonder why Dylan, a Jew, would be on a List of converts to Christianity. I don't know why you want him there. Only you can tell why you apparently feel so strongly about this. I don't think it is my obsession. I think keeping Bob Dylan on that list is your obsession. You seem to have latched onto an occurrence of 27 years ago, which is clearly no longer applicable today, but you want to assert it as if it were encyclopedic quality truth. It not encyclopedic truth. That is what this issue is about. I am objecting to an assertion that is highly suspect. The importance of Dylan on that list can't be overestimated. That is also why this is such a big issue. I am here to tell you that there is little to no indication Dylan rightfully carries the title "convert to Christianity." Not in the sense that this list is constructed. This is not a list of "all those who have ever dabbled in Christianity." The editors are contriving in the first place to redefine the parameters of the list to include "who have ever." That is not a legitimate parameter for a list such as this. The obvious parameters are those who have converted, period. Many other people have pointed this out on the Bob Dylan Talk page. It is actually a very small group who have argued both on this article's Talk page and on the Bob Dylan article Talk page for the unusual definition that includes "who have ever" converted. Those are bogus guidelines. I think you know that there is not a Christian in the person Dylan. Not at this time, anyway. It is a misuse of the natural parameters of this list to put on it someone you know not to be a Christian. Bus stop 18:09, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bus stop, from the above you make it clear that:

You erroneously believe that cultural and religious Judaism are one and the same.
You believe that, considering the above, you do not have to offer any proof of Dylan's return to Jewish faith.
You have continued to ignore the clear parameters used in this list, and present your own parameters as the guideline in your argument.
You believe that the only legitimate parameters which can be used are your own, and you are oblivious to the reasons why many users disagree with you.

I agree with you on one thing- "This is not a list of 'all those who have ever dabbled in Christianity.'" You're right, it isn't. It is a list of notable converts to Christianity.

Now, lets repeat the step-by-step I've shown above:

Did Bob Dylan convert to Christianity? Yes.
Is Bob Dylan a notable person? Yes.
Is Bob Dylan's conversion notable? Yes.
Is Bob Dylan a notable convert to Christianity? Yes.
"Can you say incontrovertibly that Dylan belongs on a list of converts to Christianity?" Yes.

As you have said yourself, "There is no evidence that Bob Dylan practices any religion." Why, then, do you insist that we are placing a religious Jew on a list of Christians? Is it, as Demong assumed, because you are more concerned with placing someone who is ethnically and culturally Jewish on a list of Christians? If the that is the case, then it is correct of Demong to accuse the suggestion of being illogical and mildly offensive. If it is not, then please bring the sources which provide evidence to support the assertion that Dylan is currently a religious Jew.

We are considering conversion, not current beliefs. It is undoubtable that many people on the list no longer practice their faith (or never even practiced it at all). It is not our goal to consider their current religious state of an entrant in respect to their historical conversion. --C.Logan 19:07, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment: C.Logan -- They are hardly my parameters. They are logical. That is all that recommends them. You don't assert that a Jew is a Christian. That is a patent contradiction. And again, the "conversion" that you've found sources for, are decidedly flakey. Yes, they may meet minimal Wikipedia standards to support the use of the term "conversion" in an article (a prose article). But they do not support the factuality of conversion. All you found was someone's incoherent mumblings about something that happened over a several day period of time. They didn't even know where it took place. But, based on that, you have "proven" that "conversion" has taken place. There is not even one witness to the Baptism being referred to. I repeat: There is not even one witness to the Baptism being referred to. That sort of gibberish doesn't support inclusion of Dylan in a List of converts to Christianity, most importantly because he isn't even a Christian. The conversion/Baptism event or nonevent is not the important factor here. The important thing is that Dylan simply hasn't been a Christian. If you were not motivated by some bias (I won't hazard a guess as to what that is) you wouldn't be making the strange assertion that someone with no involvement in Christianity for 27 years, is a convert to Christianity. It is an absurd assertion. As far as Dylan not practicing any religion, there actually is evidence of Dylan participating in Jewish holidays, associating with observant Jews, visiting Israel. There is a picture of him wearing "phylacteries," and wearing a skullcap. And all of this is in the intervening years between approximately 1980 and the present. That matters. Please don't tell me that we are not concerned with current religious beliefs. We most certainly are concerned with current religious beliefs. You can't be a "convert to Christianity" if you are a Jew. That is an absurd contradiction. The two religions hold opposite beliefs about certain aspects of supernatural explanations for existence. Most of your arguments depend upon blurring distinctions. And you apparently have a higher tolerance for contradiction than I do. And, again, we are talking about a list. There is no room for complexity of presentation in a list. That is why you and others have found it necessary to resort to placing "disclaimers" throughout the list. The disclaimers are an absolute indication that the thing shouldn't be on the list in the first place. If it incontrovertibly belonged on the list, there would be no need for disclaimers. Bus stop 20:04, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"You don't assert that a Jew is a Christian. That is a patent contradiction."

First, you must clarify what you mean by 'Jew'. A religious Jew? You're going to have to provide sources for that one, and even then, the parameters which we are logically using and the introductory sentence makes it clear that a person's listing in the article does not dictate that a person remains a practicing Christian. If by 'Jew', you mean someone who is ethnically or culturally Jewish, then your reasoning is completely senseless. It is not a contradiction to include someone who is ethnically or culturally Jewish on a list which pertains only to religious conversion.

"And again, the "conversion" that you've found sources for, are decidedly flakey."

I have presented the sources here so that everyone can judge for themselves whether the 14 sources, which offer corroborating evidence, are flaky. Your opinion in the matter is, sadly, of no real value to the verifiability of the sources we've presented.

"Yes, they may meet minimal Wikipedia standards to support the use of the term "conversion" in an article (a prose article). But they do not support the factuality of conversion."

From Wikipedia:Verifiability:

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed.

Our consideration of the sources at hand is perfectly in line with policy, and also to any reasonable person who actually reads what the sources say.

"All you found was someone's incoherent mumblings about something that happened over a several day period of time. They didn't even know where it took place. But, based on that, you have "proven" that "conversion" has taken place. There is not even one witness to the Baptism being referred to. I repeat: There is not even one witness to the Baptism being referred to."

As I've already said before, you're committing an error in logic. You assume that because the people who wrote Dylan's biographies arrived at the information concerning his baptism from someone who was not present, then it is unlikely (or to you, impossible) that such a baptism occurred. Need I remind you of the constant fact that one can know truthfully that an event occurred without knowing the place and time of it's occurrence? If I were to tell you that my friend got married, would you assume that my statement was false if I didn't know the place and time at which the marriage occurred? This is fallacious reasoning.

"That sort of gibberish doesn't support inclusion of Dylan in a List of converts to Christianity, most importantly because he isn't even a Christian. The conversion/Baptism event or nonevent is not the important factor here. The important thing is that Dylan simply hasn't been a Christian."

The fact that the sources which we have presented provide verifiable evidence that Dylan did indeed to Christianity does support his inclusion on the list. Additionally, you are assuming that the importance you place on certain factors is the importance everyone should place on them. This would be reasonable of Dylan were on List of Christians, as his status as a Christian today is debatable. This is not reasonable in an argument regarding Dylan's listing on List of notable converts to Christianity, considering that, in light of the sources at hand, it is not debatable whether or not he converted to Christianity. He is a notable convert to Christianity. He is rightfully listed on the list of notable converts to Christianity.

"The important thing is that Dylan simply hasn't been a Christian. If you were not motivated by some bias (I won't hazard a guess as to what that is) you wouldn't be making the strange assertion that someone with no involvement in Christianity for 27 years, is a convert to Christianity. It is an absurd assertion."

First and foremost, you are using fallacious logic to assume that because there is a dearth of evidence for Dylan's continuing involvement with Christianity, then it must be assumed that he is not a Christian. Additionally, I wouldn't suggest you bring bias into the picture, considering the fact that many of the arguments you have made are tied to claims that Christianity is trying to "win a victory over a Jew". Dylan converted to Christianity in 1979. Dylan is a notable convert to Christianity. Read the previous sentence, and think about it before making any more arguments like the one above.

"As far as Dylan not practicing any religion, there actually is evidence of Dylan participating in Jewish holidays, associating with observant Jews, visiting Israel. There is a picture of him wearing "phylacteries," and wearing a skullcap. And all of this is in the intervening years between approximately 1980 and the present."

Did you miss the part of the discussion where I reminded you that your evidence should not concern participation in rituals, because a.) the sources we have submitted consider these actions and re-affirm his Christianity (in light of the following point), and b.) Jewish believers in the Messiah-ship of Jesus (whatever name you prefer to call them) participate in these same rituals. Non-Messianic Jews do not have a monopoly on these practices. Additionally, you're going to want to quote some secondary sources which explicitly state that Dylan has returned to Judaism, as your personal interpretations don't quite work.

"Please don't tell me that we are not concerned with current religious beliefs. We most certainly are concerned with current religious beliefs. You can't be a "convert to Christianity" if you are a Jew. That is an absurd contradiction. The two religions hold opposite beliefs about certain aspects of supernatural explanations for existence. Most of your arguments depend upon blurring distinctions. And you apparently have a higher tolerance for contradiction than I do. "

Please don't tell you? I'm sorry, but we're not. You are. And your concern has no relevance as to whether or not Dylan should be included, considering that the parameters at hand make it quite clear that he belongs on the list. Additionally, you again forget to differentiate between cultural and ethnic Judaism and religious Judaism. You can most certainly be a convert to Christianity if you are a Jew (ethnic/cultural), and Messianic Jews most certainly believe that you can believe in the Messiah-ship and salvation of Jesus Christ and be a religious Jew. The contradiction is only an opinion shared by some, yourself included. Please don't present it as a fact.

"And, again, we are talking about a list. There is no room for complexity of presentation in a list. That is why you and others have found it necessary to resort to placing "disclaimers" throughout the list. The disclaimers are an absolute indication that the thing shouldn't be on the list in the first place. If it incontrovertibly belonged on the list, there would be no need for disclaimers."

No, that doesn't quite work. I'm sorry. List of vegans produces a similar disclaimer. Where is your fervent argument that those who once practiced veganism, but do so no longer, do not belong on that list? You are misinterpreting the purpose of the list, and in doing so, turning the need for a disclaimer into a negative attribute. The fact that the List of vegans article has a disclaimer which states that those who are listed are or were once vegans does not mean that current non-vegans should be removed from the list. Again, Dylan is a notable convert to Christianity. This is a list of notable converts to Christianity.--C.Logan 21:41, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm objective, I'm an athiest, I have no former connection to this debate, and it's very clear that this nomination is motivated by a strong emotional attachment to a particular position, that stands in stark opposition to fact. It doesn't make me, or anyone else, an anti-semite to recognize the fact that Bob Dylan did convert to Christianity, and that's all this list purports: those people listed have at some point in time converted to Christianity. The other, very, very clear point is that the argument over whether Bob Dylan should be included does not in any way indicate a reason to delete the article. zadignose 13:51, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment: zadignose -- First of all, conversion is 99% meaningless. That has been established. Those who argue for the fact of conversion cite anything and everything as constituting conversion. And Wikipedia's minimum standards in substantiality of citations to support assertions are not to be relied upon for the fact of Dylan's conversion. Wikipedia requires citations to support assertions. But we very well know that assertions are not facts. Not necessarily, anyway. Conversion has been clearly shown to be a word vacant of meaning. It can have meaning. It certainly can be used meaningfully. But when people say that Dylan is a "convert to Christianity," they are speaking several untruths. Wikipedia guidelines may support the making of those incorrect statements. But how can someone be a convert to Christianity if they are not even Christian? That is a distorting of facts. That is a misrepresentation. Is that using Wikipedia in an honest way?

There is nothing whatsoever Christian about Dylan. Since he stepped down from the stage in 1980, not a Christian utterance has emerged from him. Or, can anyone cite instances or evidence of Christianity being a presence in Dylan's life in the past approximately 25 years? Conversion was established on the grounds of anything. The editors would have arrived at the conclusion that conversion had been established no matter what evidence had been unearthed for it. The fact of conversion was a forgone conclusion from the "get-go". Aren't we being a little disingenuous here? The conclusion that conversion transpired had to be arrived at. It is unthinkable that the mindset in operation here could have concluded otherwise. Bus stop 14:17, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - "Wikipedia requires citations to support assertions." It's good to know you've finally realized this. It's a shame you still haven't put it into practice.

Additionally, you continue to misrepresent the title of the article. It is called the List of notable converts to Christianity. Consider this, yet again:

Did Bob Dylan convert to Christianity? Yes.
Is Bob Dylan a notable person? Yes.
Is Bob Dylan's conversion notable? Yes.
Is Bob Dylan a notable convert to Christianity? Yes.
"Can you say incontrovertibly that Dylan belongs on a list of converts to Christianity?" Yes.

Now, do we know if Dylan is a religious Jew? No. Do we know if Dylan is still a Christian? No. The only thing of which we are certain is that Dylan converted to Christianity in 1979. The parameters of the list are intended to be static. As I have said, it would be ridiculous to remove someone like Abdul Rahman if he were to return to Islam (or more ridiculous if he were removed because of a lack of evidence for his current religious state). The man made world news for his conversion and subsequent death sentence because of it. There is no expiration date on the historicity of religious conversion. This applies to every 'notable converts' page, not just Christianity's.

Additionally, the incredible irony of the latter half of your comment is disturbing. Despite the fact that we have present 14 sources which support Dylan's conversion (including newsletters, newspaper excerpts, encyclopedia entries, internet articles, and three widely-available biographies), you still vehemently doubt the historicity of it. It seems that you are the one who has assumed that the actuality of his conversion was a falsehood 'from the get-go'. It is even more unthinkable that you continue to assert these beliefs without providing a single source to back up your own arguments. --C.Logan 19:29, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment: C.Logan -- You don't have sources for conversion. You only can be said to have sources for conversion if conversion means nothing. And you (or others) have made precisely that argument. Your "sources" go back to someone who knows not time nor place of said occurrence, nor was he present. It reads like a bunch of nonsense. It doesn't mean anything to me. It does not seem factual. It seems more like someone's offhand comment. Or, it very well is total fabrication. But that is not important. The 27 year gap is important. He is not a Christian. Your arguments rely upon reducing everything to meaninglessness. He happens to have been born a Jew. That is applicable in this case. Any reasonable person would say that the life lived for 27 years having nothing to do with Christianity has bearing on this. It shows that Christianity is not meaningful to him. How can he be a convert to Christianity if it is not even in his life for that long a period of time? Just write an article on Dylan, the Christian years. Stop foisting the untrue notion that Dylan is a "convert to Christianity" on the world by writing that notion on the list of converts to Christianity. Bus stop 20:30, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is not up to us to judge what information the sources say. You can't cite a body of text and add "but he's probably making this up", because you feel the article lacks factuality. Remember, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source." You can personally doubt the information relayed in the sources if you'd like, but your personal opinion/interpretation of what the sources say has no bearing on the article. And, even beyond what the sources say about Gulliksen's account, please tell me: what reason do you have to doubt this man's testimony? It seems you are satisfied in rejecting information relayed by anyone remotely involved with Christianity. Is this correct?

I believe that the conversion itself is very important, as it is the criterion for inclusion in the article. Why is it that you find it unimportant?

Additionally, I'd like to know where you get your information. Dylan has had nothing to do with Christianity for the past 27 years? Wow! You must hang out with him 24-7-365 to know something like that. As you know, Dylan is a very private person. An argument from ignorance is a logical fallacy, and especially so in the case of a man who prefers to keep his privacy. Once again, the argument that because the man has not publicly expressed involvement with Christianity in 27 years he is not currently a Christian is a fallacy- it is foolish to present this assertion as a logical statement. --C.Logan 07:05, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'm not sure what the point of having the page is, but this nomination seems to be in bad faith. Kolindigo 18:04, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment: My input to this article doesn't matter. This article is guarded by an extremely small clique. This article isn't an article entitled Bob Dylan's Christian period. Such an article would receive traffic from those interested in Dylan, as well as those interested in Christianity, or, religion in general. That is an important point. I have no input to this article. It is an impossibility. Whether the editors arguing this case claim they are part of the Wikipedia Christianity project or not is besides the point. They have a clear agenda. They all agree. There are no exceptions. Dylan has to be listed on their list of converts to Christianity. It is just a forced conversion brought to you by an updated version of the same old mentality that performed that function several hundred years ago. This time it is the virtual forced conversion, brought to you by Wikipedia. Don't get me wrong. I like Wikipedia. I like Wikipedia a lot. In fact one of my reasons for resisting this is that it is a corruption of Wikipedia. It is in this narrow precinct of Wikipedia that they do this. If they tried to write an article such as I suggested, Bob Dylan's Christian period, they would have input from a much wider element of the community. Under such an open setting they would never succeed in foisting such assertions. Bus stop 21:37, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's amazing how you transform a normal discussion into a battle between good & evil. Please be realistic. Have you ever considered that the reason we happen to agree in unison against your argument is that your argument is baseless? You have provided no citations to support your assertions (remember that you yourself suggested this should be done), and it seems that you have ignored every point we have made, merely being satisfied to reheat the same assertions with a pinch of illogical arguments and a sprinkling of drama to taste. --C.Logan 06:28, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because people who are non-notable should not be on WP to begin with, keep iff renamed to List of people who are notable because they converted to Christianity (or something rationally similar thereto), which I could support with sufficiently stringent criteria for inclusion. Tom e r ^talk 23:02, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment: Excellent point. What does Bob Dylan's notability have to do with his (supposed) conversion to Christianity? Bus stop 23:30, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment: Having reviewed the list, I find that they are almost all blue links, indicating that the individuals in question are notable enough to have their own content, at least in the cases where there are blue links. Of the total 313 entries, only 9 are red links, and of those only three, Perry March, Heinrich Marx, and possibly Hossein Soodmand, are individuals who are not already clearly qualified to have their own article, even if they don't yet. On that basis, I think the implicit argument above that non-notable names are included is not supported by the extant content of the article. John Carter 15:25, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John, you apparently fail to understand what I was attempting to convey. My statement is a criticism of the article because it contains what would normally be at List of converts to Christianity (which is presently just a redirect to this list), but with the added requirement that editors exercise POV-based decision-making in the determination of sufficient "notability" for inclusion in the list, which is unacceptable. A List of converts to Christianity, however, would potentially include the names of millions of people, the vast majority of which could never be verified. The list should also be nuked, because it does an incredibly shoddy job of duplicating the contents of Category:Converts to Christianity, a category which addresses both of the two objections I just raised. The other issue I raised in my !votenotes is that there is room for a collection of names of people who are notable because of their conversion to Christianity. (Augustine of Hippo comes to mind.) This list, however, is not designed to be a collection of such people, nor does the lamely-worded disclaimer atop the list even attempt to try to make it credible in that way. Cheers, Tom e r ^talk 02:29, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep The list is notable and worthy of inclusion on Wikipedia. ---Gloriamarie 02:30, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In what way is this list notable, other than for the fact that its name itself explicitly violates WP:NPOV and its contents violate WP:NOR? Tom e r ^talk 02:29, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
strong keep per above--Sefringle 03:59, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment: Why don't you name the article, List of converts to Christianity, such as Bob Dylan. That would be more honest. And if someone was searching for stuff on Bob Dylan, they might find their way to this article. Right now, in it's present name, no one searching for "Bob Dylan" even finds this article. The editors here have a clear agenda, and input from an individual such as myself would be overridden every time. Besides, the importance of "Bob Dylan," to the editors at this article, outweighs the importance of all the other individuals on the list combined. That is another reason to rename it, for instance, Bob Dylan and other converts to Christianity. And besides, the parameters have been deliberately skewed to contain Bob Dylan. A logical parameter concerns itself with the distinction between whether a person was born of a given religion or if their arrival at that given religion was a life choice. That is a naturally arising parameter. It is meaningful. It is relevant to people. Being born is easy. It is not a conscious choice. It is not reflective of our own will. But choosing to convert to another religion as an adult or as a young person has inherent interest. The convoluted argument made, that we are interested in anyone who ever converted to a religion is a contrivance. Most lives contain trying various things. If those experimentations don't stick, we don't attach much importance to them. It is particularly sophomoric to put Dylan on this list because Christianity was just a passing interest of his. He rolled over that stage more than 25 years ago. That does not make him a Christian, in most people's eyes. This article's concern is (or should be) Christian identity and how it is arrived at. In the person Bob Dylan you do not even have Christian identity. The primary subject for this article should concern itself with the distinction between those who are born Christian and those who find Christianity later in life. Therefore it follows that only Christians should be included on the list. Bob Dylan's religion was Jewish before his so-called Christian phase. And his religion remains Jewish after his so-called Christian phase. The reason why this article is deserving of deletion is because it is an agenda article. It is maintained by an actually very small clique with a narrow agenda. That is not in the spirit of Wikipedia. Someone such as myself has no hope of having any input into this article. There is a small circle of editors who carefully guard this article. That is demonstrably the case. The same small group of people have responded to my attempts to make changes. There is not wide input. I would submit that the question of Bob Dylan's religious identity is an important question. Since it is an important question, it should not be answered by a small clique of like minded editors. Bus stop 13:36, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"But choosing to convert to another religion as an adult or as a young person has inherent interest."

Hey! Looks like you're finally starting to get the point! It's a shame that the following sentence returns to your standard argument. --C.Logan 22:51, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep for the article, Speedy Keep for the WP:Point nomination. It always saddens me when edit warriors, POV crusaders or historical revisionists seek salvation on AfD, because it violates the purpose of AfD, which is to assess the suitability of a given article for inclusion on Wikipedia. The nominator here may be acting in good faith (although his edits to the article do not argue in his favor [34], [35], etc.), but he still has an obligation to present a coherent, policy-based case for deletion – particularly as this is the third go round for this article. Clearly no serious policy argument is being made against inclusion: (i) the subject is obviously important; (ii) the list adheres to policy and guidelines; (iii) comparable lists exist for other faiths (i.e. List of converts to Judaism, List of converts to Islam, etc.); (iv) the subject/format has been included in other encyclopedias.

Instead of making a case for deletion, the nominator has filled this page with a series of emotional accusations and frankly bizarre and offensive statements regarding the article: (i) a form of Christian imperialism, in which known Jews are being put on the list; (ii) an offense to Judaism; (iii) motives such as proselytization or even antisemitism are involved, (iv) This article is jealously guarded by a contingency of editors hailing from the Wikipedia Christianity project; (v) It is just a forced conversion brought to you by an updated version of the same old mentality that performed that function several hundred years ago.

Since absolutely no diffs have been provided to support any of these inflammatory remarks, I have to assume we are dealing with a “partisan, biased, skewed” POV in the WP:TE sense (an essay this nominator should read closely along with WP:DE). I also find it sickening that the nominator has chosen to use this AfD as a platform to portray this article as some kind of Christian- Jew battleground. For my part, I hardly think that the Jewish Encyclopedia was engaging in “proselytization” or “anti-semitism” when they printed a comparable list entitled “Converts to Christianity” in 1911 [36]. Regarding the specific case of Bob Dylan, I tend to doubt that the Washington Jewish Week was striving for a “forced conversion” or an “offense to Judaism” when it stated in 1991 that Dylan’s “widely-publicized conversion to Christianity made him perhaps the most famous Jewish apostate in American history” [37]. I can't believe that the Washington Post was "jealously guarded by a contingency of editors" with a taste for "Christian imperialism" when it wrote in 1980 that: "Bob Dylan has finally confirmed in an interview what he has been saying in his music for 18 months: He is a born-again Christian". [38]

Wikipedia is not a battleground and the attempts by this nom to stoke religious discord or import personal conflict in the context of a content dispute have to cease. Content inclusion is based on standards (i.e. WP:V, WP:NOR) and principles ("verifiability not truth"), not on subjective opinion or negationist rancors. I note that a mediation has been opened regarding this article at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/List of notable converts to Christianity. The nominator has so far chosen not to participate. I would strongly suggest that it would be in the nominator’s best interest to participate in that mediation if he intends to maintain the same editing approach at Wikipedia. --JJay 17:24, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No, Wikipedia is not a battleground. Unfortunately, a hostile clique of editors dedicated to the Pro-Christian POV have made it one. I question the sincerity of their request for mediation. This group of editors initially, unsuccessfully, attempted to get a community ban agianst User:Bus stop, because they "didn't have time" to address his opposing point of view. Talk page discussions revealed a proposed conspiracy to set User:Bus stop up for blocking. Only after their attempts to get Bus stop banned from the page failed, have they requested mediation. Many other editors on the Bob Dylan article have sided with User:Bus stop's views, yet the proposed mediation includes only User:Bus stop. The mediation appears to be yet another attempt to stack the deck against User:Bus stop by outnumbering him (and his view) in the debate. There is an inappropriate gang mentality on the two pages in question. Although I have made a very minimal number of contributions to the discussion; my own experience has been one of harrassment and intimidation on the part of Pro-Christian editors. Cleo123 23:51, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Nothing you said in any way obviates the misuse of AfD evidenced by this nomination. Nor have you provided any evidence, diffs or anything else to support your opinion. Considering that the article is not going to be deleted, I would suggest you participate in the mediation to make your case regarding "pro-Christian" POV, the "hostile clique", the "proposed conspiracy", the "innapropriate gang mentality", "harrasment", "intimidation" and anything else you think needs to be addressed. But this is the entirely wrong forum for those types of comments. --JJay 00:17, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"No, Wikipedia is not a battleground. Unfortunately, a hostile clique of editors dedicated to the Pro-Christian POV have made it one."

What leads you to believe that we are dedicated to a Pro-Christian POV?

"This group of editors initially, unsuccessfully, attempted to get a community ban agianst User:Bus stop, because they "didn't have time" to address his opposing point of view."

This is misleading. We did address his point of view many, many times, with absolutely no progress in the discussion- and this lack of progress was partly due to Bus stop's unwillingness to assume that our viewpoints were coming from a neutral point-of-view (he continues to assume this). Because his reasoning seems motivated by a personal bias and because he has refused to present any sources in the discussion, we "didn't have time" to continuously address the same unsupported points over and over again. If the language seems disrespectful, then I apologize, but putting the statement into context is necessary unless you are attempting to portray us as conspirators.

"Talk page discussions revealed a proposed conspiracy to set User:Bus stop up for blocking."

You are describing the suggestions of one particular user, which were neither endorsed nor entertained by myself or anyone else. You can damn that user if you'd like, but it should be clear that no one else was involved in the suggestion.

"Only after their attempts to get Bus stop banned from the page failed, have they requested mediation."

This is, of course, the same Bus stop who finds it acceptable to propose an article for deletion in what seems to be a simple attempt to prove his point, fueled by his personal bias and frustration.

Why didn't he request mediation before proposing to delete the article? You may disagree with our opinions, and you are certainly entitled to do so, but we believe that Bus stop is motivated by his own bias and his unwarranted assumption that we are using Wikipedia to proselytize. If Bus stop is willing to act in the best interest of this article, then I suggest that he participate in the mediation, which he hasn't yet agreed to do, it seems.

Additionally, I'm unsure who set up the request for mediation, but perhaps you can take issue with that person in the listing of the parties involved. It appears to be a listing of the most vocal contributors, but I could be wrong about this (since I don't know of a way to measure such a thing). In any case, it's ridiculous to propose the deletion of an entire article because one entry is in question. --C.Logan 00:59, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment: Nothing emotional at all. How does one determine the emotionalism of another editor on Wikipedia? The article should be deleted because it is little more than a mouthpiece for a biased Christian agenda. That is not said emotionally. That is a powerful statement. That is a damning condemnation. But I can assure you the only emotion present is one of indignation. I am indignant about seeing Wikipedia turned to the service of a special interest group. There are contrivances at work here. First and foremost is the contrivance that it is a list of anyone who has ever converted to Christianity. That is not the logical parameter for this list. The logical criteria for this list is those notable Christians that have become Christians by means of converting to Christianity, as opposed to the only other means to becoming a Christian, which is by being born a Christian. That is distinguishing between being a Christian as a result of being born a Christian, and being a Christian as a result of conscious choices in life. That is a powerful parameter. It is my contention that this is not a list of trivia items. We are not concerned with including all people on this list that have ever converted to Christianity. That would be a much longer list, and it would point out unimportant things. That list would be a list that delved into trivia. Just because a person once expressed an interest in Christianity is not significant enough to warrant being listed -- on any list on Wikipedia. We here at Wikipedia do not compile lists of trivia. Bob Dylan moved on by 1980 from his Christian phase. He is not a Christian, by anyone's assessment, at this time. No reasonable person considers Bob Dylan a Christian person at this time. That is precisely why the editors of this article had to change the parameters to read, "anyone who has ever converted to Christianity." I think the article should be deleted because it is being controlled by a clique of editors with a Christian agenda decidedly at odds with Wikipedia principles, first and foremost the neutrality principle. This is a special interest article that has demonstrated repeatedly it's disregard for the truth and for neutrality, and it has little input from the larger Wikipedia community. It's narrow base of support means that someone such as myself has a hopeless chance of injecting any note of reality into it, concerning the said Bob Dylan conversion. Wikipedia is not a list of trivia items. If the editors of this list feel compelled to include "all those who have ever converted to Christianity," then they are turning this list into a compilation of trivia items. WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE says that "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information." On careful perusal of the wording in that Wikipedia policy I can't find specific applicability of it to my point. But the spirit of that policy is applicable to the point I am trying to make. The editors have expanded the criteria for inclusion on this page to "anyone who has ever converted to Christianity," and that is moving into the realm of "indiscriminate information." In most instances we would not be interested in "anyone who has ever converted to Christianity." It is only because Bob Dylan represents such an oversized prize that editors are stretching the parameters for inclusion. Even that, in and of itself, is not overly problematic. What is problematic is that the editors are putting a Jew on a list of Christians. That is utterly unacceptable. Bob Dylan is unarguably not Christian after 27 years of non participation in anything Christian. Therefore there is real abuse in plunking him down anywhere in this article. I think the editors should seriously consider creating a separate article just to address the Bob Dylan -- Christianity issue. It should have "Bob Dylan" in the title. That way it would attract traffic not just from those interested in Christianity, but also from those looking for information on Bob Dylan. Bus stop 18:26, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See the last paragraph of my comment. Instead of further weakening your case through unsubstantiated repetition on this page, you should consider signing your name at Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/List_of_notable_converts_to_Christianity#Parties.27_agreement_to_mediate. I would also strongly encourage you to start supporting any assertions with WP:DIFFS and hyperlinks. --JJay 18:53, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment: JJay -- The difference between offensive and defensive needs to be noted here. The opening shots in what you are referring to as a "battleground" were not fired by me. It is an offensive act to put a known Jew on a list of Gentiles. Respect differences, and there is no battle. Bus stop 20:35, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The main thing that needs to be noted here is that you are doing an excellent job of convincing no one while continuing to make highly offensive remarks ("mouthpiece for a biased Christian agenda", etc.). There are processes for resolving disputes of this type. You have so far refused to participate in those processes. That is your choice, but it is also, in my view, a patent demonstration of bad faith on your part. --JJay 20:50, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bus stop, you were the initiator of this dispute, with your edit on April 21st. Additionally, I would hope that anyone checking the above diff would cycle forward for a little while to see the progression of edits. How can you turn us, a group of individuals who were not involved with placing Dylan on the list in the first place, into the aggressors? Oh wait, I see. Your reason is that "it is an offensive act to put a known Jew on a list of Gentiles". Lets pretend for a second that that statement is not drenched in bias. It is amusing that you, for at least the 5th time, have presented religious and cultural/ethnic Judaism as a single entity, when it should be clear that it is not. One can be Jewish and not practice Judaism. If the above statement uses 'Jew' in a cultural/ethnic sense, then the statement itself is offensive and creates the appearance of religious boundaries in respect to a certain group of people. If the above statement is intended in the religious sense, then a.) I would like to know which sources can be cited to support the assertion that Dylan is religiously Jewish, and b.) I would like to know how this makes any sense, considering the criterion of the list. It's like saying that ex-vegans should be removed from the List of vegans, which explains that it includes both current and former vegans, because "it is an offensive act to put a known omnivore on a list of vegans". Anyone who would make such a statement clearly misunderstands the purpose of the list, and should probably take a break and have some orange juice. --C.Logan 22:45, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary Section Break 2

Very Strong Delete per Bus stop and Tomer. You have a total of 48 sources for several hundred names spanning the 2,000 year history of Christianity. As Bus stop explained, there are many meanings of "converts" and it is not defined and used in a broad range of sense depending on the situation. If these were notable conversions the list should be kept, but to just have a directory of names related to their religion is unencyclopedic. Arbustoo 21:29, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - My only real objection to the above comment is that the specific criteria which will clearly indicate a person is a convert in one denomination will almost certainly not apply in a variety of other denominations, including non-denominational groups. Also, at least initially, there were fewer denominations in Christianity, so, for instance to prevent someone saying Constantine I converted to Catholicism, possibly before there was the differentiation of Christianity we perceive today, would be even more prejudicial. Also, frankly, some of the conversions included are among the most notable and noted in human history, Augustine of Hippo among them. I have said on the talk page of the article that I believe the article could and should receive more attention and scrutiny than it may have to date. However, I am, as indicated by my own reasons expressed above, far from convinced that the article per se even remotely qualifies for deletion, particularly for the reasons given. Rather the opposite. John Carter 21:41, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A convert in what way? You are only using it in the very general sense. Does a convert mean one can't be a Buddhist anymore? Is Constantine I's conversion the same as Heinrich Marx's? This is by far undescriptive, unsourced, ill-defined, and even POV.

If you want to keep this, I recommend starting from with a clean slate. Specifically define what a convert is, explain in what sense Christian is being used, explain the significance of the conversion, and put a source next to each name. Arbustoo 21:53, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - 48 sources? Please take a look at the reference list, and do your counting again (my count is 114). Additionally, it's puzzling that you assume that an article's lack of sources is a factor which warrants deletion. How about suggesting that sources be provided for those who are currently uncited? Using this reason for deletion is extremely unproductive and illogical- essentially, it's like saying: "If an article needs improvement, delete it".

1) 48 reference to the number of footnotes, ie 1-48. 2) Thanks for putting yours in my mouth, but I did not say that. See Reductio ad absurdum. Arbustoo 23:02, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When a single footnote contains 37 references, as is the case in this article, I think you'd want to count all the citations among the footnotes when you want to determine the "total" number of sources. Additionally, I never claimed that you said such a thing, but I produced the statement because your listing of a lack of sources in the article amongst the factors for deletion was like saying the above, i.e. if you believe that the article is unsourced, why not simply suggest that sources be provided, rather than counting it amongst other damning features? --C.Logan 23:30, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would also suggest that you take a look at the various other religious conversion pages, all of which have a similar purpose of existence: to make a reference list of people who have undergone a religious conversion during their lives. You are applying your judgment to what the sources say; if a source tells us that "he converted to Christianity" or "he converted to Islam", then this is what will be reflected in the article. It is not our place to dispute the factuality of the claims of a verifiable source, nor is it our place to apply our own meanings to the words used.

How does this invalidate anything above I wrote? How this is matter to wanting to remove a poorly writen/sourced listed with vague criteria? Arbustoo 23:02, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because on Wikipedia "The threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth". We are not welcome to determine the senses of the words presented, and to complicate the statement of a source, which speaks in plain terms, unnecessarily. We simply present what the sources say, quite literally, without imposing our own judgment on the content of the source. --C.Logan 23:30, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, in regards to your statement about Buddhism, you should check the talk page. This is being discussed, and it's likely we'll explain the differences between philosophical belief systems and standard religions, and the fact that one need not abandon one to believe in the other.

It is one of the several problems I listed. You have a list without specific criteria. That's good that it is being discussed. Though a look at the talk does show that there are serious problems with having a list of ill-defined criteria. Arbustoo 23:02, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm unsure how the criterion used for the list is ill-defined. We've presented it many, many times. If you're referring specifically to what criteria constitute conversion, please recall the above policy on verifiability. If the source claims it as a conversion, then what place does your judgment have in de-constructing the statements found within the source? --C.Logan 23:30, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And, just so you know, here is the dictionary definition of conversion:

"A change in which one adopts a new religion, faith, or belief."

I don't know what the confusion is about this. --C.Logan 22:36, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, that definition, which is not in the article does it apply to all the conversions listed? Does this list include people who switched to Christianity at one point, but changed again? It is so vague, I see no value in it. Arbustoo 23:02, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is the readership so dense that they do not understand what it means to 'convert' to another religion? The above definition is elementary, and it seems (to me, at least) wholly unnecessary to provide such a definition in the article. Again, perhaps you would like to re-read the introduction of the article itself (in its current state):

"The following is a list of notable people who converted to Christianity from a different religion or no religion. Inclusion on this list is not an assertion that an individual continued to practice Christianity throughout life after conversion. This article addresses only past voluntary professions of faith by the individuals listed, and is not intended to address ethnic, cultural, or other considerations."

I can't understand how the above introduction is vague. It appears to explain everything quite clearly, while at the same time addressing the many other issues we've been discussing on the talk page. --C.Logan 23:30, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well I explained it, and you don't "understand." I don't know how to respond. If something is unclear, be specific and I'll explain it better. As of now the term "convert," "Christianity," and "conversion" are not defined with clear criteria. Does "conversion" mean Christianity alone or does it include Eastern Philossophy? Does Christianity in 200 CE mean the same in 2007? Is Karl Marx's father important enough to be included on the list? To top it off, the vast majority is unsourced. Arbustoo 07:35, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Does this list include people who switched to Christianity at one point, but changed again?"

"Inclusion on this list is not an assertion that an individual continued to practice Christianity throughout life after conversion."

As the article is contantly being edited while this discussion is taking place, the introduction keeps changing to address other issues not related to this discussion- for instance, the Buddhism/Eastern philosophies issue, and another issue regarding forced conversions that I haven't taken the time to read through. However, when I asked you how the introduction was vague, I was asking because, to me, the question you posed in your above comment seemed to be answered right there in the introduction. It may seem generalized, but this is because of several possible occurences which could take place in a persons life; for instance, one could convert to another religion or return to their previous religion, they could lose faith in their religious choice and become only nominally Christian or become outright atheist/agnostic, they could have used the conversion for a political or societal gain (as is suggested in Carlos Menem's conversion and many of those who converted to Islam to escape dhimmitude), etc. The current, general phrasing of the above sentence is to cover all these scenarios in as few words as possible.

Concerning terms like 'convert' and 'conversion', what do you think would make them clearer?

As far as defining the term Christianity... it's easy to see that Christianity is a religion full of diversity. I'm not sure if one could accurately count the denominations which has sprung forth since the reformation began, and it seems that many of these churches consider themselves each to be the only true adherents of Christianity. The List of Christians article addresses this fact. If a verifiable source claims that a person "converted to Christianity", then we must take the source's word for it (WP:VERIFY). Obviously, some traditional Catholics may not believe that Baptists could be called Christians, and vice versa. However, as far as we are concerned, if a source defines a denomination as Christian, then it is Christian as far as Wikipedia is concerned. Do you have any suggestions about this?

In regards to Karl Marx's father, I don't know. I began to add sources one-by-one the other day, but I lost steam. The article definitely needs a go-over so that sources can be provided and so that any non-converts can be removed (I haven't found much in terms of Brother Andrew, but I'll have to check his book before removing him). As anyone who has ever edited the List of notable converts to Islam should know, non-notable individuals tend to get slipped in over time.

I most definitely agree that the article needs sources. It's unfortunate that so much has been focused into this discussion. I mean, C.S.Lewis sits there, unsourced, when hundreds of sources are available to attest to his conversion. I'm eager to get this discussion mediated so that I can spend more time on the article itself, and bring it up to good shape. --C.Logan 08:38, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your answers just prove my point. Comparing this to another list isn't going to help your case. You can always move this to your userspace and work on it there. Your response has been, at least in the posts I read: "no its not, oh and other lists are like this." That doesn't cut it. This has been nominated TWO other times, and has not gotten cleaned up, and the criteria is defined in such a way that a clean up is impossible as it stands now. As for your question if I have any suggestions, yes: DELETE IT and maybe start from over with clearly defined criteria. Arbustoo 18:55, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What point do they prove? The mentions of other lists are side notes, and I don't see how I'm comparing this article to another in any serious way. As far as your interpretation of my posts go, the above looks a lot more to me like "This needs improvement, and this is why it's a problem. What do you suggest?" Additionally, I myself can't speak for the way the article's been maintained, as I've only begun to focus on it relatively recently. Remember that I'm trying to improve the article, and that's why I ask for your input. What do you feel is the difficulty with the criteria? --C.Logan 23:17, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As it sits, its nothing worth keeping. Please shorten your responses to be direct. The long/wordy passages on the page (pro or con deletion) are really making it hard to the follow the discussion. Arbustoo 07:35, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I respectfully disagree. It's not in the best shape, but I wouldn't suggest deletion at all. I apologize for the lengthy responses, but I usually try to be thorough in discussions. Thanks for your suggestions. --C.Logan 08:38, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clear point: The suggestion that the article can be improved does not argue for its deletion, but rather for its improvement. Clear point: One need not define every possible interpretation of "Christianity" in order to discuss Christianity or build a list upon the concept. In fact, to demand such a precise, non-controversial, all inclusive definition sets an impossibly high bar to clear for any article on any subject. Point that should be clear: This article has an abundance of references, which is constantly growing, and Wikipedia only requires "Verifiability," not that every entry or statement be fully sourced. Dispute an entry to the list if you think it doesn't belong there, and it will be cited or removed. Don't demand the deletion of the article. zadignose 16:07, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very Strong Delete per User:Arbustoo. Also, the lack of clear cut criteria for inclusion creates potential libel issues for Wikipedia. The list is not encyclopedic. Cleo123 23:21, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Potential libel issues?? Please explain that with specific reference to people now included in the article. --JJay 00:28, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

* In the first place, my remark specifically refers to "potential" libel issues, which encompasses future issues as well, which may be created by the vague parameters of the list. I'm not going to waste my time researching people on this list for you, so I'll point out the obvious - Bob Dylan. There is no question that he explored Christianity in the late 70's. There are even some sources that claim he converted. I'm not entirely convinced that he formally "converted", giving up Judaism. Dylan's actual statements are vague. He discusses being touched by Jesus, but doesn't seem to claim him as the Messiah. I accept discussions of his alleged "conversion" being included in the Bob Dylan article where the information can be put into its proper context and attributed to sources. However, placing him on a list, such as this, could be considered libellous, particularly when Dylan himself appears to contradict you. Where living people are concerned, policy dictates that we heir on the side of caution. WP:LIVING Are your second hand sources more reliable than Dylan himself? That is tabloid journalism to my mind, and Wikipedia should maintain higher standards. Here's what Bob Dylan had to say in an interview with Spin Magazine in December of 1985:

"It's the same way with Jesus being a Jew. Who did he appeal to? He appeals to people who want to get into heaven in a big way. But some day the true story will reveal itself, and by that time, people will be ready for it, because it's just going in that direction. You can come out and say it all now, but what does it matter? It's going to happen anyway. Vanities of vanities, that's all it is."

"I went to Bible school at an extension of this church out in the Valley in Reseda, California. It was affiliated with the church, but I'm not a believer in that born-again type thing. Jesus told Nicodemus, "A man must be born again." And Nicodemus said, "How can I go through my mother's womb?" and Jesus said, "You must be born of the spirit." And that's where that comes from, that born-again thing. People have put a heavy trip on it. People can call you what they want. The media make up a lot of these words for the definition of people. I mean, who's a person anymore? Everything's done for the media. If the media don't know about it, it's not happening. They'll take the littlest thing and make it spectacular. They're in the business of doing that. Everything's a business. Love, truth, beauty. Conversation is a business. Spirituality is not a business, so it's going to go against the grain of people who are trying to exploit other people. God doesn't look at people and say, "That's a banker, that's a dentist,that's an oil-well driller." [39]

Does that sound like someone who wants to be on your list? Several editors involved with this dispute have questioned Dylan's "return" to Judaism, repeatedly demanding sources. This pretense of "not knowing he's Jewish" strikes me as very disingenuous. All one need do is google "Bob Dylan" AND "Jew" to get 236,000 hits. Perhaps, you'd like to watch Bob perform Hava Negilah at the 1989 Chabad Telethon on youtube? [40] BTW, Chabad is a Jewish outreach organization dedicated in large part to combatting missionaries and cults that target Jews for conversion to Christianity. Dylan has been a public supporter of the organization for years. Here are a few more sources for Dylan's "return" to Judaism. [41] [42][43]

Although this debate may have been prompted by a dispute over Bob Dylan, he is merely one example of why the list in and of itself is inappropriate as currently defined. It as a haphazard list subject to POV determinations. It is little more than an arbitrary collection of trivia designed to label people. It is not encyclopedic and should be deleted. Cleo123 08:28, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Are your second hand sources more reliable than Dylan himself?"

"Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, verifiable, published secondary sources. This means that we present verifiable accounts of views and arguments of reliable scholars, and not interpretations of primary source material by Wikipedians."- WP:NOR.

That is to say, your interpretation of the above statements by Dylan could be completely different from mine- like you said, he is rather vague. That's why we're encouraged to rely on secondary sources whenever possible. We're limited in our function- we aren't supposed to be interpreters. Therefore, we should rely on these secondary sources, rather than on Dylan's words. It isn't that Dylan doesn't know himself (obviously), but it's easy for us to make assumptions about what he means- we should let the secondary sources perform that job.

"All one need do is google "Bob Dylan" AND "Jew" to get 236,000 hits."

Bob Dylan was born a Jew (by Jew, I mean it in a cultural/ethnic sense, as we're not born with a religion in mind). Therefore, it's pretty easy to see why your search returns so many hits. I'm sure you aren't asserting that the above is any sort of proof, because phrases like "Bob Dylan was raised as a Jew" are not relevant to his post-conversion status, but still come up in the search engine. For instance, searching for "Bob Dylan" and "Christianity" returns 306,000 hits. Searching "Bob Dylan" and "Christian" returns 1,440,000 hits. It doesn't prove much, although it's interesting to compare the results.(By the way, your search terms now return 237,000.)

"Here are a few more sources for Dylan's "return" to Judaism."

As I've said, Bus stop's unwillingness to accept sources which were comparable to these (yet coming from a Christian perspective) was an unfortunate attitude, and one which would make the presentation of such sources as evidence rather hypocritical (I'm not saying it is as you present it, Cleo). Bus stop refused to consider any sources found on the internet, and still doubts the claims of biographies, newspapers, encyclopedias, Jewish newsletters, etc. For him to present sources akin to the ones he wouldn't bother looking at when we'd presented them would be a very troubling action.

"Although this debate may have been prompted by a dispute over Bob Dylan, he is merely one example of why the list in and of itself is inappropriate as currently defined."

What other listings are problematic, besides Duleep Singh (another convert who later reconverted to Sikhism)? I'm curious, because those are the only two I've seen.

"It as a haphazard list subject to POV determinations."

Haphazard- yes. The list needs much improvement. Personally, I preferred the older method used on List.conv.Islam, where individuals were sorted by their respective professions. I would like to see if sections could be made for each profession, and subsections for each former religion. However, it's a hard idea to develop... but I think it would be much more useful than merely labeling by former religion. Do you agree? As far as for POV determinations, I'm not sure exactly what you mean. Can I ask you to elaborate a little more on that statement?

"It is little more than an arbitrary collection of trivia designed to label people. It is not encyclopedic and should be deleted."

I'm unsure how the above statement applies to this article any more than the Jewish encyclopedia's list of converts to Christianity. A criterion is established for the list, and it is compiled. I'm unsure why you feel the criterion is arbitrary. Additionally, we're not attempting to label people; the sources cited do these things for us. I believe that labels are bad to some extent, but only in that I prefer not to define myself in labels. It's silly when people are eager to label themselves (most of the time). However, I understand that to most people who know me or do not know me, I fall under many labels. I'm not exactly white, but I appear to be so, so I simply check "caucasian". The reality is much more complex. This applies to religion as well. The article lists C.S. Lewis simply as a convert to Christianity from atheism, but the reality is much more complex. For the purposes of research and the transmission of information, however, we can't be afraid of labels being used for the sake of brevity and clarity. The previous paragraph may seem like a rant, but there's a point made somewhere in there if you keep digging.

What suggestions do you have to improve the article? To be clear, and although it seems that you don't like me very much, so I'm unsure of the weight my words carry, but I don't mean to misrepresent Dylan as a Christian currently (his current status is a mystery, it seems). The article contained a "controversial" subsection which listed Dylan, but this was ultimately a half-baked attempt, and it was later removed by a zealous editor who seems to undo all the changes made by us through the course of the discussion (some of which was for better, and some of which was for the worse). I would rather propose a section for those who converted, but left the faith. I believe that separating these listings from the main body would help to avoid confusion and the need for general disclaimers, and would still convey the necessary information. The other conversion lists could follow suit, with people like David Gartenstein-Ross for the Islam page, for example. I feel that it's notable that David converted to Islam before converting to Christianity (as his book deals partly with this fact), and feel it's appropriate for him to be on that list as well. Do you have any suggestions or comments about this idea? --C.Logan 09:55, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are plenty of equivalent lists for other religions i.e. List of notable converts to Hinduism, List of notable converts to Islam, List of notable converts to Judaism, List of notable converts to Sikhism. Re:Arbustoo's comment that to "just have a directory of names related to their religion is unencyclopedic" perhaps they would like to explain how this list ended up in the Jewish Encyclopedia [44]. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 00:00, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comparisons to the Jewish Encyclopedia are not appropriate. The Jewish Encyclopedia makes no appologies for the fact that it presents information from a Jewish POV. Wikipedia, on the other hand, is supposed to be nuetral and unbiased. Cleo123 21:11, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but you are being illogical. I thought you were claiming that this list should be deleted because it is made from a Christian POV? Yet the list made from a supposedly Jewish POV looks very much like the one made from what you suppose is a Christian POV. Do you think perhaps these people are just presenting facts? Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 23:34, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You misunderstand my point. I believe all such lists should be deleted, as they are not encyclopedic. No POV is acceptable. Cleo123 08:33, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then why haven't you nominated them for deletion already if you can't stand their existence so much? Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 16:18, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cleo123, it seems that point was actually addressed, by the suggestion that a list of facts that looks almost the same regardless of any supposed "POV," could fairly be considered "NPOV." If Christians, Jews, Athiests, and others can agree that certain people converted to Christianity, and agree that such knowledge is in fact "encyclopedic," then this neutralizes any claim of a supposed Christian POV. Personally, I have almost no interest in the subject of Christianity or conversion, but I find many of the arguments for the deletion of this article hard to stomach. zadignose 16:38, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Not an argument. --Tinctorius 21:45, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And why exactly is it crap? Just because facts annoy people surely isn't a good reason to delete an entire article otherwise a lot of articles would end up getting deleted on Wikipedia! Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 23:34, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Have you actually read what WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS (equivalent to WP:WAX) is about? It tells you not to use the existance of other articles as an argument in an AfD discussion. --Tinctorius 09:53, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know that's what you meant- I am saying none of these lists are "crap" as religious conversion and the identities, circumstances and numbers of those who convert from what state of belief to another are of encyclopedic interest. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 16:18, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep, per above statements that several other religions have pages as well and the nominator seems to have a bone to pick with one particular entry. Yahnatan 00:39, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All such pages should be deleted from Wikipedia. It is one thing to list "notable christians who were converts to the faith", it is quite another to arbitrarily list people whose religious affliations have nothing to do with their notability. Religion is a private matter, and lists of this nature are a gross invasion of privacy. This is tabloid material, at best. Cleo123 09:08, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment: Yahnatan -- Not "seems to have." Has. I have this thing about truth. I don't know why, but I prefer it over lies. If the editors are so hell bent on labeling Dylan a Christian, then the list should be deleted. They can always recreate it after they've realized that the encyclopedia is not in the business of slandering people. They may think that they are paying Dylan a compliment by calling him a Christian. But it is still always better policy to stick to the truth. Bus stop 01:00, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - From the above statement, it appears that Bus stop believes:

That the sources are 'lying' when they claim that Bob Dylan converted to Christianity.
That it is 'slanderous' to reflect what verifiable sources say.
That his proposed deletion of the article because of the conflicted nature of one entry is justified.
That we are editing with Pro-Christian intentions, because we are following WP:VERIFY.
That his own judgment of the claims made in the sources takes precedence over WP:VERIFY.
That he can maintain his argument without presenting any sources, despite the fact that he himself stated that "Wikipedia requires citations to support assertions". --C.Logan 01:15, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment: This article should be deleted because of endemic point of view pushing that is Christian in it's orientation but has bearing on people and things not related to Christianity or Christians. This article does not have "Bob Dylan" in it's title. Yet arguably Bob Dylan's presence on this article is the most important thing about this article, in the minds of the editors who have been so fiercely guarding it. An average user of Wikipedia who happens to be interested in Bob Dylan is not as likely to find this article as they would be to find the Bob Dylan article. Yet the information (misinformation) here in this article is immeasurably powerful. I seriously have a hunch that the editors who guard this article so jealously would rather see the whole article disappear rather than lose their Dylan entry as a "convert to Christianity." I do not for a moment think the editors controlling this article are representative of all Christians. But this article is a part of the Wikipedia Christianity project so I can't help but pin the blame on at least some Christians. I am not the cause for this article for deletion process. The deletion process began in all the steps prior to this, in which the editors in charge unbudgingly refused to relate to the fact that Dylan is not a Christian. They strew disclaimers about the article to remedy the situation. But to me the need for disclaimers is only a more pointed reminder that Dylan does not belong on the list. It was 27 years ago when the last reported Dylan involvement with Christianity took place. He is clearly a Jew if for no other reason than that he was born a Jew. It constitutes slander or some related offense to deliberately mislabel a Jew a Christian. Why would Wikipedia want to do that? As I've suggested before, I think the editors passionate about this should start an article with the words "Bob Dylan" in the title, such as "Bob Dylan -- the Christian years." They could fully develop this picture. Of course such an article would be visited by people searching for "Bob Dylan," resulting on the editors likely having much less control over it. But apparently they are determined to simply have Dylan on this list as a "convert to Christianity." That's why this article should be deleted. Bus stop 01:46, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment: [45] --JJay 01:56, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment: Yes, he is Jewish, JJay. That article is from 27 years ago. You are showing me the source of your misunderstanding. He is no longer Christian, if he ever was Christian. He has returned to his Jewish faith, by means of ceasing to have anything further to do with Christianity. It's pretty interesting that conversion to Christianity is argued by the editors here to be accomplished by virtually anything. Yet the same editors pretend that escape from Christianity is impossible. Why the difference in the different directions of travel? Why does virtually anything constitute "conversion" but apparently nothing constitutes reversion? It seems to me that "easy come, easy go," might be applicable here, don't you think? If conversion was accomplished by "sermonettes" between songs, might not reversion be accomplished by having nothing to do with Christianity for the next 27 years? Bus stop 02:14, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:Thanks for restating your opinion. Of course, since you provide no evidence, links or diffs, I will continue to assume that you are just making this up as you go along in order to attack other users and due to a strange "obsession" with Bob Dylan. In the meantime, forgive me if I continue to rely - as per policy - on WP:V verifiable WP:RS regarding Dylan's conversion such as the Washington Post, NY Times, Washington Jewish Week, all the major Dylan bios, etc. --JJay 02:26, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment: Your sources are adequate for using the word converted in an article (a prose article) concerning that period in time. Your sources certainly do not support referring to him in the present as a "convert," because a "convert" is Christian. You have to understand the variety of meanings of the word convert. A convert, in this sense, is a Christian. Which Dylan is not. In the Bob Dylan article you can refer to his "conversion" in 1979. You have a source for that. But a list (not a prose article) compiled in 2007 cannot possibly refer to a Jew as a "convert to Christianity." "Convert," in that use is part of a phrase stating he is a Christian. It is a completely different use of the word convert. Also, I keep pointing out that there is a difference between a prose article and a list. An article allows for the specific situation to be spelled out. A list does not. The editors have tried to compensate for that shortcoming by piling on what they referred to as their "disclaimers." Their disclaimers were proof positive that Dylan did not fit on the list. Not least because Jews are not Christians. Those are two different religions. Bus stop 02:44, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Prediction: This AfD will be closed by a spineless admin as either [overwhelming ?] consensus to keep (despite the clear violations of WP policies I've outlined above) or no consensus (completely dismissing consideration of the aforementioned inappropriatness of this listcruft). I readily admit I think the rationale Bus stop had for nominating this listcrap for deletion is horribly flawed (indeed, it seems to revolve almost entirely around hir objection to Bob Dylan's inclusion in the list), the reasons given to "keep" have been far more flawed and far more woefully ill-considered than the nomination was to begin with. Nevertheless, to avoid conflict and controversy with willful ignorance or flagrant violation of policy, the decision will be made to "offend only Bus_stop" by calling the whole affair a "draw" or a "win for keep"...and a loss for encyclopædicity be damned. I'm not generally given to betting, but I put US$10 on it. Any takers? Lemme know, and I'll tell you where to send my winnings. Cheers, Tom e r ^talk 10:41, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Is that an attempt at intimidation (i.e; "spineless admin"?)? Or some kind of vague threat? Argue whatever points you have to make, without resorting to absurd predictions or proclamations. Refrain from insulting well-meaning contributors with the use of derogatory terms such as "listcrap". If you are not happy with the outcome of this debate take it to DRV, but there is a process underway here that requires no editorializing from you. Oh, and I haven't seen any serious policy argument from you regarding list, besides a weak defense of the corresponding category (which is arguably far more flawed than this list). JJay 15:02, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully, an administrator will be wise enough to see the argument for it's merits. The fact that the list has been nominated for deletion three times, indicates that many editors have taken issue with its existence. It has been said that the page and its content have been tenaciously guarded by a group of editors from the Christianity Project. That would appear to be the case here. I believe that the validity of policy concerns should over ride numbers in this scenario, as the deck seems to be stacked against the community at large. Cleo123 20:35, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment: It is not irrelevant here to note that Judaism is a religion that does not proselytize, and Christianity happens to be a religion that places big emphasis on "spreading the Good News." Big difference. The terms are almost not comparable. Conversion is something Judaism does reluctantly. The winning of converts to Christianity, on the other hand, is something that is actively pursued.

This list should be deleted because it is not only a locus of abuse but it is unlikely to ever be used responsibly. The sort of Christians who gravitate to this page and glom onto it as if they were clinging to a raft for their life are probably going to be relentless in twisting the meaning of every "convert" they can get their editorial hands on, not because they are bad people, but because it is a religious imperative. I may think it is irrational but it is not for me to judge. These may be very spiritually elevated people living admirable lives, but my job as an editor at Wikipedia is to squash untruth where I see it. That is untruth of any sort.

We know full well that we rely on sources. And that we aim for verifiability, not for truth. But truth is generally a byproduct of verifiability. We do not have verifiability for the fact of Dylan being a Christian in 2007. Therefore it should be a simple fact that we don't have Dylan as a "convert to Christianity" in 2007. That is an impossibility because of the aforementioned absence of verifiability for Dylan being a Christian in 2007. This is not complicated mental gymnastics.

The only way the editors have found to get Dylan on their list is to make some adjustments to the parameters of their list. Instead of it being a list of converts to Christianity, they've said it is a list of anyone who has ever converted to Christianity. Voilà. They've gotten the superstar onto their list. The trouble is that is a contrivance. That contrivance is in violation of WP:TRIVIA and WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE. It is not a valid parameter to list all those who have ever converted to Christianity. Notable people who have arrived at Christian identity by way of conversion may be valid criteria for a list. But it clearly wanders into the area of the collecting of trivia to compile a list of all those notable people who have ever converted to Christianity. As we have seen, conversion to Christianity can be accomplished by just about anything. It is a virtually meaningless term as used in this context. It is not in any way realistic to think that any editor is scouring the information banks looking for any other notable people who have ever converted to Christianity. It should be carefully noted that the adjustment in the parameters is solely to capture Dylan onto the list. There is no way any realistic attempt is being made to add any others to the list who have ever converted to Christianity. That is a ruse. It is guile. The admin who closes this article for deletion should keep one thing in mind: it's all about Dylan. Dylan is not an inconsequential add-on to this list. This list is more properly titled Dylan, and other converts to Christianity. Bus stop 11:20, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The mixing of the past with the present, the mixing of professions of faith with cultural identity. Some seem to be concerned here that somehow Bob Dylan's Jewish cultural identity might somehow be compromised by listing him on a list of former and current Christian converts. The fact is that he qualifies for listing on this list, and is documented, by these people's own admission, to be at least a "former convert". These people seem to be so concerned that such a listing might somehow "tarnish" Dylan's cultural identity as a Jew, that they have devised numerous ingenious arguments and maneuvers to get Dylan removed from this list, despite their own implicit admission that he qualifies for entry on it. Now we are all here spending our time trying to figure out why otherwise seemingly rational people would act so seemingly irrationally. Apparently the preservation of what is perceived to be "Dylan's Jewishness" somehow seems to be of such value to them that they are willing to expend titanic amounts of energy and even risk appearing to be... well..., a bit odd, all in the interests of their "cause celebre". I must commend them for their passion and their persistence, but I must admit, I still don't understand them. -Scott P. 12:23, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion- If it is believed that he converted back to Judaism, then place him on the list of converts to Judaism while properly documenting this, and place cross references next to his entries on both lists, cross-referencing between both lists. -Scott P. 12:41, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suggested the same above, as certain entries like David/Daveed Gartenstein-Ross have undergone multiple conversions. Gartenstein-Ross should be placed on the Islam page as well. I suggest that a separate section be made on each article (if there are a sufficient number of entries in this situation), for those who later reconverted to another faith. This would dispel any confusion that might arise in including these names in the main list body, but would still effectively present the information. --C.Logan 14:18, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A Jew can't convert to Judaism. Calling Dylan a convert to Judaism would, in fact, be a far greater insult than calling him a convert to Christianity, no matter how erstwhile. Tom e r ^talk 16:24, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Unfortunately, many editors involved in this debate really do not seem to understand basic tenants of the Jewish faith. User:Bus stop, User:Metzenberg and others have presented many logical arguments, from a Jewish perspective, that have unilaterally been rejected due to an apparent lack of understanding of Jewish beliefs.

Regardless, this debate is not about Bob Dylan, at least it shouldn't be. He happens to be an interesting example of how the flawed structure of the list creates potential libel issues. Here we have a person, who has gone on record saying : " I'm not a believer in that born-again type thing...The media make up a lot of these words for the definition of people." Yes, there are secondary sources that claim he was a born again Christian. Editors on the other side of the fence have misinterpretted policy to mean that secondary sources are somehow always preferable to primary sources, and that they should not be scrutinized for "truth". That is not the case. WP:BLP specifically demands that the "truth" of a secondary sources should be scrutinized. In this case, one cannot simply ignore conflicting information from the primary source. When there is doubt, one must heir on the side of caution taking the most conservative approach. Certainly, "conversion" material can be presented in an article, where there is room for clarification. A list is something all together different. This particular list is so poorly structured that it has become a platform for abuse.

The list, as defined, is not encyclopedic. A list of "Notable Christains who converted to the faith" would be more appropriate. If an individual's faith has no bearing on their notability, then it should not be documented on a list. It an arbitrary collection of information, which creates invasion of privacy issues for biographical subjects. Lists such as this one create a dangerous precedent, which must be quashed. What's next? A list of notable people who are HIV positive? Cleo123 20:13, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, definitely. And a redirect to List of notable people who are HIV positive from List of people who are HIV positive. Make sure to give it some inane opening text too, so that it can and should include people who are rumored to have HIV, or people you think might have HIV, or people you at one point thought might have HIV—even if it now turns out they only had a cold. Make sure to attach it to a wikiproject and then if it ever gets nominated for deletion, a bunch of editors from that wikiproject can go !vote to "Keep. Because everyone knows Paris Hilton had HIV at one time! Bad faith nomination, and give the nominator a cold shower." Sheesh...then I'll come along and place bets on how the closing admin is going to handle it. Muwahahaha (Note: The above was a tongue-in-cheek recommendation, it was not serious. There is no evidence in the possession of this editor nor of Wikipedia in general, to indicate that Paris Hilton has, or has ever had, HIV, nor that anyone seriously thought so.) Tom e r ^talk 22:13, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would be most interested if the user above could indicate specifically where in the page cited the specific claim that is stated as being "demanded" of WP:BLP is located. This is the specific quote I found on that page, "The article should document, in a non-partisan manner, what reliable third party sources have published about the subject and, in some circumstances, what the subject may have published about them". I believe that the Encyclopedia Britannica and New York Times are generally counted as among the most reliable sources of the type indicated in the above quote. The quote I used above can be found in the second paragraph of Wikipedia:Biographies of livng persons#Writing style. Given that the above user seems to indicate that there is some specific statement elsewhere in that page which seems to state something different, I would be most obliged if the 'specific statement to which that user is referring is specifically indicated, in the way I have done above. And I would equally be interested in where that user seems to find in policy or guidelines what is and is not "appropriate", to use their specific word. I did not find anything remotely similar to that in the page cited above, or anywhere else in wikipedia policies or guidelines of which I am aware. And, of course, we have already had indicated on this page that individuals who claim that something supports their arguments should specify exactly what statement they are referring to, as I have done above. John Carter 00:47, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I consider your tone to be hostile and inappropriate. WP:BLP states:

"Not all widely read newspapers and magazines are equally reliable. There are some magazines and newspapers that print gossip much of which is false. While such information may be titillating, that does not mean it has a place here. Before repeating such gossip, ask yourself if the information is presented as being true, if the source is reliable, and if the information, even if true, is relevant to an encyclopedic article on that subject. When these magazines print information they suspect is untrue, they often include weasel phrases. Look out for these. If the magazine doesn't think the story is true, then why should we?"

Seems to me that would aply to the much quoted pastor, who is the source of Dylan's alleged formal baptism and conversion. WP:BLP Also states:

"Biographies of living people must be written conservatively and with due regard to the subject's privacy."

It seems Mr. Dylan considers his religious persuasion a private matter. It's a pity, you do not.

Additionally, WP:BLP states:

"Editors should be on the lookout for biased or malicious content about living persons in biographies and elsewhere. If someone appears to be pushing an agenda or a biased point of view, insist on reliable third-party published sources and a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability."

I have yet to understand how Dylan's alleged conversion to Christianity and his inclusion on this list are relevant to his notability as a musician. Could you, please, demonstrate that for me? Thanks, Cleo123 01:18, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that Jew who is born a Jew retains a special bond with his ancestral religion. However, no one is trying to offend when they make the effort to report the fact that a Jewish person converted to another religion and reverted to Judaism. Despite the terms used in suggestions during this discussion, pains are taken to ensure (or at least an attempt is made) that no one is offended by the terminology. As the idea above intends to explain, there should be a separate category for those who later left the faith. Whether these people reverted to their old faith or reconverted to a new faith, their conversion to the list's religion is a relevant piece of information.

Additionally Cleo, I'm not entirely sure that one should be presenting arguments from a Jewish perspective rather than from a neutral perspective. I'm not saying that either side has been presenting arguments neutrally, but we should at least attempt to do so.

Our rationale behind stating that secondary sources are largely preferable comes from WP:NOR. As it says there, "Primary sources that have been published by a reliable source may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it's easy to misuse them...Any interpretation of primary source material requires a secondary source." This applies to instances like the above quotation you have presented from Dylan himself. As you are interpreting it mean one thing, the sources we have do not make this same interpretation.

In regards to your references to WP:BLP, that isn't exactly what the page says.

Any assertion in a biography of a living person that might be defamatory if untrue must be sourced. Without reliable, third-party sources, a biography will violate our content policies of No original research and Verifiability, and could lead to libel claims.Material available solely on partisan websites or in obscure newspapers should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all. Material found in self-published books, zines, websites or blogs should never be used, unless written or published by the subject (see below). These sources should also not be included as external links in BLPs, subject to the same exception.

Since the biographies presented as the main sources do not fall into any of the categories mentioned in the latter half of the above quote, we should scrutinize the reliability of the sources. Let's see what the WP:RS page says:

"Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy, or are authoritative in relation to the subject at hand."

Considering the publishers of the sources (Harper, Grove Press, Rough Guides), the main issue would be the latter part of the above. Let's see what information we have about the authors and their reliability and expertise.

Clinton Heylin:

Clinton Heylin is recognized by fans all over the world as a leading authority on Bob Dylan. Co-founder of Wanted Man, the British magazine dedicated to studying Dylan's life and work, he edited the news section of its quarterly magazine, the Telegraph, for a number of years. He is also the author of Dylan: Behind Closed Doors and From the Velvets to the Voidoids: A Pre-Punk History for a Post-Punk World, both of which are published in Penguin. His other books are on musical subjects as diverse as Public Image Limited, Joy Division, Richard Thompson and Sandy Denny.

Nigel Williamson:

Nigel Williamson is a leading music journalist with name recognition for serious fans. He writes widely in the national press as well as specialist magazines. He produced the Uncut special on Bob Dylan (which Dylan himself approved of) and wrote a well-received book on Neil Young for Backbeat Books.

The above two authors have entries at Penguin's author listing, and this is where the above info comes from. However, Howard Sounes isn't listed there, so I'll provide information for him from two other sources.

From Harper-Collins:

Howard Sounes was born in 1965. He is the author of five works of nonfiction, published in thirteen languages, addressing diverse subjects. Each book is based on a huge amount of research and exclusive interviews conducted over a number of years, revealing a great deal of new information. Sounes's recent books include a celebrated biography of the American poet Charles Bukowski and Down the Highway: The Life of Bob Dylan. Sounes lives in London.

And a relevant section from his personal website:

Ever since he was a teenager, Howard Sounes has been a devotee of the music of Bob Dylan, as well as being fascinated with Dylan's singular personality. In the late 1990s, Sounes began to research a major new biography of the musician, for publication in 2001 when Dylan turned sixty. Travelling extensively in the USA, Sounes interviewed more than 250 people close to the artist, including Dylan's fellow musicians, girlfriends and family members. The result of this original research is Down the Highway: The Life of Bob Dylan, first published in the USA by Grove Press, and in the UK by Doubleday, in 2001. The book has since been translated into many languages. The book made news upon publication partly because it contained the revelation that, unknown to his fans and the media, Dylan had married for a second time, in 1986, to backing singer Carolyn Dennis, with whom he had a daughter. The secret marriage story was, in fact, only a small part of a wealth of new information revealed in Down the Highway, which is both a truly revelatory biography as well as being an affectionate celebration of one of the leading cultural figures of our time. Down the Highway was a finalist for the Ralph J. Gleason Music Book Award (USA) and was chosen by Uncut magazine as its 2001 Music Book of the Year.

Additionally, WP:RS says in "Exceptional claims require exceptional sources":

Exceptional claims should be supported by multiple reliable sources, especially regarding scientific or medical topics, historical events, politically charged issues, and biographies of living people. Considering that the above sources seem to be fairly reliable, considering the authorship and the publishing houses, it would seem that the above is satisfied by the inclusion of these three corroborating biopraphies.

From reading Wiki's policies and guidelines, and considering the above, I'm unsure how the information taken into account is not compliant with the standards of WP:BLP. --C.Logan 00:30, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, please attempt to keep your comments brief. These long winded essays are not appropriate. I see all this as a smoke screen. I have mentioned potential libel issues. Bob Dylan has said that he does not believe in Born again Christianity. You have chosen to ignore his statement and present "as fact" in the article that he was a born again Christian. You have, also, failed to present his contradictory statement, so there is no balanced point of view. If you think he can not sue Wikipedia, you are living in a fantasy world. Cleo123 01:38, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note: to convert to Christianity from Judaism does not mean that one is a born-again Christian. That is a very specific subset of converts; some converts can, and do, express disdain for those born-again. Hornplease 14:56, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To keep the comments brief, I cannot see how citing preexisting material published in reliable sources including the Encyclopedia Britannica and New York Times, citing sources, is something that could get us sued. Also, the key word in what was said above, I think, is that Dylan does not believe in Born again Christianity. At no point does the content of the article, as I read it, say otherwise. It indicates that there are substantial references from external published sources which indicate that there was an earlier conversion. I fail to see how inclusion in this list, particularly including the relevant disclaimers which are in place, could result in a lawsuit against us. I personally would welcome seeing a comment from the WP:OFFICE one way or another. However, as I believe the proponents of not including Dylan are the ones who are, as it were, challenging the "status quo", they would be the relevant parties to raise their complaint there, as they are the ones who most clearly know their complaints. Otherwise, I really can't see how the repeated speculation, without specifically cited sources, about what "might" happen, particularly when we are following existing wikipedia policy and guidelines, is anything other than original research or point of view, or at all productive. However, as I have personally not seen (I may have missed it, however) any interest on the other side in doing anything other than talking, I have myself contacted User:Bastique, the first named person on the page WP:OFFICE to review the subject in question. I also indicatedon that user's talk page that they might request that this discussion not be terminated until such time as they have had the opportunity to review the matter themselves. I only say that in the event the user mentioned above, or some other party, does request such a delay in the closing of this discussion, that there was in fact an express request for their input in this matter. John Carter 01:47, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The user contacted above has informed me that the appropriate place to request follow up on this matter is WP:BLPN. I have on that basis added a link to this discussion there. I have no previous experience with how that group works, but think we might conceivably expect some sort of response, positive or negative, sometime soon. Sorry, like I said, I have no previous experience with them or any of the other groups which may or may not be relevant to this discussion, and am basically flying by ear here. John Carter 14:38, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please, stop misrepresenting facts. You have repeatedly thrust the Encyclopedia Britannica and the New York Times forward as the sources for your bold and controversial statements. In a review of what "you and yours" have labelled the "Born Again Period" in the Bob Dylan article as it currently stands,[46] I do not see the Encyclopedia Britannica cited as a reference for any of the material. I do see a quote from the New York Times, which says the following :

"Mr. Dylan's record has been preceded by months of rumor as to whether he has or had not converted to fundamentalist Christianity. The new record may give no guarantees for the future, but it does attest to the fact that, for the moment, Mr. Dylan is very definitely and overtly dealing in just that imagery."

Hardly an endorsement of your position. Such misrepresentations do not demonstrate good faith on your part. Cleo123 07:33, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cleo, no one is forcing you to read the comment. However, if you feel the need to accuse editors of things based on your ideas about Wikipedia policy, you should expect a thorough response. I don't see how any of the above information is any longer than it ought to be. You accuse editors of committing an offense, and so you shouldn't be surprised when you receive a sizable response. Honestly, I'll try to keep my regular comments much shorter, but don't cite WP:BLP or other guidelines and policies without expecting me to take a good look at them and share what they say. I haven't chosen to ignore Dylan's statement, but I have chosen to refrain drawing conclusions from it and presenting this as an argument. What you are attempting to do echoes the text I'd quoted from WP:NOR above: "Primary sources that have been published by a reliable source may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it's easy to misuse them...Any interpretation of primary source material requires a secondary source."

Despite what you might think, you do not have a monopoly on understanding the context and meaning of Bob Dylan's sayings. I read the above quote, and I agree with him... and I'm a Christian. Of course, this is simply a personal note, but as it is, I remind you that your own interpretation of a primary source may differ completely from another person's. You are turning a quote which is gray and polarizing it to black or white. This is why "any interpretation of primary source material requires a secondary source." It is likely that your own bias plays into the interpretation as much as mine does.

Additionally, I'm not sure if the penultimate sentence is an indication that I'm obliged to 'present his contradictory statement', but I suppose I could gladly take a quote and push my own interpretation onto it to make myself seem right:

"Bob Dylan: Being born again is a hard thing... We don't like to lose those old attitudes and hang-ups. Conversion takes time because you have to learn to crawl before you can walk. You have to learn to drink milk before you can eat meat. You're reborn, but like a baby. A baby doesn't know anything about this world, and that's what it's like when you're reborn. You're a stranger. You have to learn all over again."-Clinton Heylin's Bob Dylan: Behind the Shades: Revisited

On second thought, I think I'll take WP's advice and let the secondary sources do the interpreting. Don't want to insert my bias into the equation, after all.

Additionally, in terms of legal action, I've never made any assumptions about it, because I'm not so familiar with the specifics. However, Wikipedia has several disclaimers for this purpose, and if this court case is any indication, it's unlikely Wikipedia can be held responsible for the actions and claims of third party sources. Of course, I'm no legal expert, so I could be wrong. --C.Logan 02:22, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, your argument is ridiculous and long winded to boot. I have not "drawn any conclusions" from Dylan's statement. Again, I ask you to stop "spinning" the statements of others. I've allowed Dylan's words to stand on their own and be interpretted by the reader. You and your cohorts, by contrast, have failed to present the opposing point of view entirely. You and your "we" have accused User:Bus stop of edit warring. It may not occur to you and your team, that the ongoing stream of long winded, fanatical diatribes on this page seem to tell a very different story as to who the "edit warriors" are on this subject. Cleo123 07:04, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

O-kay. Talking to you is really quite a trip. Reading over your comment several times, I find it laughable that you could suggest that I somehow 'spun' what you said. If you would step back and realize how you framed the quote, it would be quite clear to you that it is being presented as evidence against the secondary sources, i.e. you assume that the quote presents a view contradictory to that expressed in the secondary sources. I'm not saying that I'm innocent of doing the same, but I'm not the one making accusations of WP policy and guideline violations. Before you make any more accusations of the sort, you may want to make sure that you're not taking the same action that you accuse others of taking. As far as the rest of your comment goes, I'm amused that every accusation you've made about us could be reasonably made by us about your camp. I've tried to end this whole thing before, and I was hoping it'd be in a friendly manner, but it seems that all you fellows want nothing to do with that sort of resolution. --C.Logan 08:40, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, your edit history reveals a history of bizarre behavior including repeated requests that editors engage in "private discussions" with you. Yours is a history of what I see as trolling, stalking, harrassment and misrepresentaion of facts. No, we are not here to "be your friends" nor do I think other editors are impressed by your long rambling essays. Frankly, I think you need to take a break from all articles related to Bob Dylan. Cleo123 08:55, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You view things with such an interesting pair of lenses! Please do continue to accuse people of violating policies and guidelines that you apparently haven't read, and feel free to continue "interpreting" my edit history however you'd like. I look forward to many more unwarranted accusations and such. --C.Logan 09:26, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree. I also am unsure why the "Jewish perspective", while relevant, should somehow "trump" all other perspectives, which seems to be at least an implicit argument in the statement Cleo made above. Personally, I would think that the perspective of the person involved, rather than that of any outside group, would probably be most relevant. So if, for instance, a person who converted to religion B from religion A pointedly stated that their "covnersaion" was a complete rejection of the earlier religion, then that would qualify as apostasy. If they stated that they thought it was an "evolution" or similar term which did not seem to renounce the earlier beliefs, then it would constitute a conversion. If not such specific statement is forthcoming from the individual in question, but there are a number of other statements from similar converts regarding their own opinion of their change in belief, and those statements are not counterindicated in the statements of the specific subject individual, then it would be fair to characterize their apparent "conversion" or whatever the way the others who had made specific statements would, citing that third party as the source for the statement regarding the way they perceived the relationship between the religions. I say this particularly taking into account that all the religions which have evolved in the Levant share a common history as Abrahamic religions, and are all inherently related. I also thought taking one perspective, particularly if it is not uniformly agreed to and from a particular "side", as it were, was a clear violation of WP:POV. In the case in question, Dylan, I personally believe that such statements requied specific sources for the so-called "Jewish perspective". I think a reference to any sort of official document or statement of a widely recognized and respected Jewish group would qualify under these terms as being, if not definitive, at least generally reputable. Please indicate to me where such a specific document or statement has been made, as I personally have to admit that I do not remember ever seeing it. John Carter 01:35, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted that discussion of the "Jewish perspective" specifically referred to an offensive proposal made on this page that Dylan be included on a list of Converts to Judaism, as some sort of compromise. Within the context of discussions related to the Dylan article, attempts to explain Jewish beliefs (such as matriarchial lineage) have been treated with hostility and rejected. There is a profound lack of sensitivity towards the Jewish Community eminating from editors on the other side of this argument. Cleo123 06:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did not however find any specific sources on that discussion, however, As I remember, we are supposed to supply such. Please indicate to me which specific sources were earlier cited, as requested in such instances, so that I can review them. John Carter 13:58, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure where your statement is coming from. All anyone has asked you to do is provide sources for article content. Your repeated demands that I provide sources for every talk page comment I post is most unusual. You do not seem to be making similar demands of other editors. Can't you read the discussion above on this page? Why would I have to provide a citation for the proposal that Dylan be included on a list of Converts to Judaism? Are you incapable of scrolling up the page? Or is this just some form of harassment, designed at make editing as unpleasant as possible per WP:HARRASS?

Anyone who does not believe that there is an overtly hostile tone eminating from your camp, need only read the Dylan article talk page for confirmation. As for attempts to explain Jewish beliefs being met with hostility, here's an example, specific to the maternal lineage discussion. [47] As for your apparent lack of sensitivity towards the Jewish community, I can think of no finer example than your repeated off point references to the Nazi occupation during WWII. [48] Was this an attempt to intimidate or merely just upset the many self-identified Jewish editors you were addressing? It is hard to believe that anyone would be so callous as to point to the Nazi occupation (as a defense) within the context of a discussion that relates to listing and documenting religious affiliations, particularly in a debate with Jews. I, for one, found the repeated introduction of the Nazi occupation into the discussion to be disrespectful and offensive. Cleo123 05:44, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You seem easily offended and ready to accuse, and your histrionic presentation is also a little bit stressful. I can certainly sound like a jerk when I feel as if I'm repeating an argument over and over again to someone who isn't listening (not that that's any excuse), but considering the above comment directed towards John Carter, it seems like you might need to WP:CHILLOUT. I may deserve criticism for my occasional attitude and sarcasm, but John Carter has been extremely reasonable and civil. I'm certain that John didn't mean to offend anyone with his statements, and I don't know if anyone besides you actually took his statements offensively. --C.Logan 10:09, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary Section Break 3

Although I was the first to vote strong keep, I think it is a great idea to tag all unsourced, unfoot-noted entries with {{fact}} tags. If they don't accuire sources in 1 month? delete them. --Knulclunk 00:52, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I could in general agree with the statement above, except perhaps in cases where there is substantial content in the subject's own page with references for the information here. I really only say that because of the large number of names involved (over 300) and because no project has yet "tagged" the article. Personally, I think the best project to deal with all the converts articles would be Wikipedia:WikiProject Religion, as the members of that project would (I hope) have the broadest base of knowledge of all the religions. Thoughts? John Carter 00:57, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be willing to work on this task. I've made a small start on the List by adding a few sources to the Agn/Ath category, but I've lost steam (laziness). I'd be willing to make an official attempt to go over the article and provide sources/ remove names. --C.Logan 01:05, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I could as well, at least regarding my area of specialty, the Saints. I assume sources like Alban Butler's "Lives" would be sufficient for those articles, even if it is the only source initially cited in those instances? John Carter 01:10, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why not, as an initial. I suppose it's more important that everything is sourced at all before focusing on individual entries. Once this is accomplished, we could take more time on boosting each individual entry with more verifiable, reliable sources. --C.Logan 01:20, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per all the delete arguments. Bulldog123 12:36, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment: It's bunk. Unfortunately it's complete Christian bunk. Dylan, the superstar, is a prize they can't resist, even if it is not rightfully theirs. Judaism is completely ambivalent about acquiring converts. The same cannot be said about Christianity. This page should be deleted because it's clique of editors have demonstrated the capacity to use it irresponsibly. Sources have areas of applicability and areas of inapplicability. The sources cited support the use of terms referring to conversion in 1979 or 1980. One does not extrapolate forward in time to 2007 using those same sources. If we were compiling this list in 1980 it would be justified to put Bob Dylan on a list of converts to Christianity. That is not the case now. But, in point of fact, perhaps paradoxically, we do extrapolate forward from time of birth. Religion at birth does have lasting influence. This is not so strange. We all know that early experiences can have lasting effect. One's early experiences are understood to have bearing throughout life. Dylan's Christian phase cannot be said to have comparable bearing on his religious identity at this time. Dylan has not been seen to have anything to do with Christianity since 1980. Do Wikipedia rules say that we must make absurd assertions? The whole article should be deleted. Christianity's need to acquire converts (at least in the hands of the small clique of editors who have been maintaining and guarding it) renders this article unmaintainable. Bus stop 12:46, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I can't even follow that comment. It just reads like a rant. Is there a rebuttal you want from me or something? Bulldog123 07:59, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment: Bulldog123 -- The above was not addressed to you. Though it appears beneath your comment, it is not a response to you; it is a response to earlier material. Sorry for the confusion. Sorry if it is a bit "rant-like." Bus stop 08:20, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bus Stop: Just a comment, but I believe this list is not simply for people that are currently christians, but ones who converted in the past. So your insistence that he is now Jewish should be on the bob dylan page. And PS, why did you not respond to my response on your talk page? I actually am curious. SECProto 17:38, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete religion and religious conversion are private matters and should remain so, Modernist 14:19, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: By that logic, we would have to remove all references to religion and/or conversion from all bios at wikipedia. All lists and categories related to religion would have to go as well. Next we would have to remove all references to sexuality, family life, political views etc - all of which are arguably "private matters". Wikipedia would be applying standards that do not apply anywhere else in scholarship or the media and, at the end of the day, a large portion of the material here would be worthless. JJay 14:49, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Also, in many of these cases, the subject's personal life is closely and directly related to their rather public conversion. Actually, considering that most of those referenced have an explicit source referring to their conversion in their own article, if not yet this one (we're working on that) I would think most to all of them qualify as public conversions. On that basis, I think it is inappropriate to refer to these conversions which are all, at least to some degree publicized in the media, as "private". John Carter 14:58, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment: This is all bunk. The sources supporting the use of terms relating to conversion have an area of applicability, restricted by time. Those sources do not necessarily confer "conversion" on a person at a future point in time. As we have seen, "conversion" to Christianity is accomplished by just about anything, including nothing at all. That is not according to me. That is according to the editors supporting inclusion of Dylan in this list of converts to Christianity. They have argued that some denominations of Christianity do not require anything at all to mark the transition to identity as Christian. Conversion can safely be thought of as a pretty meaningless term, as concerns conversion to Christianity. This is not mean-spiritedness on my part. This is simple description, based on the fact that Christianity requires little in the way of formal evidence of passage into membership in the religion. I make no value judgement. I just report what I see. But even if we do attribute to "conversion" a substantiality beyond indications, that still would not mean it is applicable 27 years later. There is no indication Dylan has had anything to do with Christianity since approximately 1980. We know perfectly well that early experiences in life are important to us. Dylan's identity as Jew is applicable throughout his life, unless he actively negates it. If we were writing this article in 1980 we would have sources that support including Dylan in a list of converts to Christianity. But at this time we do not. His early experiences as a Jew inform his life. It can safely be assumed that the formative years of one's life have lasting importance. The years 1979 and 1980 cannot be used to label Dylan a Christian. One reason is that conversion to Christianity has very little in the way of apparent meaning. But also, the absence of Christianity for 27 years of Dylan's life indicates it's unimportance to the him, not it's importance to him. Bus stop 15:10, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that the last statement above by Bus stop is at best a gross distortion, and possibly at worst an intentional one, of the position of the other parties. Bus stop explicitly says "they have argued that some denominations of Christianity do not requiore anything at all to mark the transition into the identity as Christian". The at all is I believe at best a clear misrepresentation of the statements of these others. I would acknowledge that not all cases require the type of formal ceremony which Bus stop and others seem to believe is the only evidence they will find acceptable. This is true, and the Vineyard movement is one such case which seemingly does not require, or even necessarily create, any sort of documentation of conversion. As stated before, to follow Bus stop's argument to its logical conclusion, all of the content relating to these groups within Christianity would have to be deleted on the basis that they cannot indicate that they are notable in the specific way Bus stop, in I believe direct contradiction of Wikipedia:Notability, finds to be the only kind of evidence acceptable. I humbly ask the above editor to review that page and its related pages (hitting the link provided works) and reviewing that information. If Bus stop or others can point to specific clauses and/or details in that page or the related pages which support their contentions, I and I believe all the other parties involved in this discussion would be more than happy to review it. Again, I note that the above user is to date the only party named in the request for mediation who has not already demonstrated a willingness to achieve a final, supportable conclusion to this discussion. I, and anyone else even remotely interested in this discussion, can only speculate as to why that would be the case. John Carter 15:20, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's a huge problem with that argument in that your sources contradict one another. New Zealand's Dominion Newspaper (I won't even begin to comment on the reliability of the source.) which has repeatedly been held out as one of your team's most explict sources for Dylan]'s formal conversion affiliates Dylan with the Assembly of God, not the Vineyard Movement.[49] According to Wikipedia, the Assembly of God holds baptism among its tenants. Baptism in Christ is specifically tied to conversion. This organization seems to keep records. So, if he formally converted, where are they? No one has demanded a baptism record or anything like that. A date might be nice. The location of where the "baptism" your side has claimed took place. Perhaps, a witness such as a godparent/sponsor? In response to requests for sources on the "baptism" what has repeatedly been presented is a murky self-published statement from a pastor with the Vineyard Movement who doesn't say where and when this baptism might have taken place - but it happened! Oh, yes, it happened! [50]

At issue here is not whether Dylan went through a Christian phase, but whether or not that phase rose to the level of a formal conversion that can be presented as a sourced fact that can stand alone outside the confines of an article. Cleo123 03:56, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: 1) There are no "teams" here. There are no "sides" here. Your language is misplaced and innapropriate; 2) What exactly are you implying regarding the "reliability" of The Dominion? Is that meant as some kind of slur against New Zealand? I'm fed up with the innuendo that has been splattered all over his page. If you know something about the source spell it out; 3) Considering that you have argued Bob Dylan returned to Judaism based on his singing Hava Nagalia at a Chabad telethon (please inform Kareem Abdul Jabbar that he is now a Jew [51]) or a vague report in the Daily News that included the tidbit that Dylan was about to marry a hasidic woman, I find your comment regarding the sources disingenuous at best. --JJay 10:44, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please, do not misrepresent facts. In addition to the youtube video, [52] I also supplied four other sources, [53] [54] [55][56] including a statement from Dylan himself that contradicts claims made by certain Wikipedians : “I'm not a believer in that born-again type thing.”

As for Dylan's 1989 “Hava Negilah” performance, he’s doing a bit more than performing there. He’s publicly supporting Chabad, a Jewish outreach organization that holds among its missions combating Christian groups that target Jews for conversion. To an astute observer, his attire (a dark suit, no tie, kippah and what appear to be sidelocks, or payot) makes a very explicit statement about his religious identity.

Anyone can see for themselves that the New York Daily News article that I provided as a source, titled “1960s Superstar Dylan is Worshipping with Hasidic Jewish Group in Brooklyn” [57] is not “vague” nor is the article’s focus a pending engagement. An interesting attempt to spin the content of the reliable source that has been supplied to refute false statements. Among other things the article says:“Bob Dylan, the reclusive pop superstar of the 1960s, has spent parts of the last four years living and worshipping with the ultra-orthodox Hasidic Jews of Brooklyn's Lubavitch community. Members of the community say that Dylan, 45, has been taking instruction from Talmudic scholars and listening to talks by Lubavitcher Rebbe Menachem Schneerson.” Unlike the sources for “baptism” – the article is quite specific.

More importantly, it characterizes Dylan’s “Christian Phase” not as a formal conversion as some Wikipedians might like us to believe but as a “flirtation”:“Dylan has made a long spiritual journey that began with the protest and drug culture and included a flirtation with fundamentalist Christianity in the late 1970s. Now he attends farbrengens, gatherings where Schneerson speaks to followers for hours.” The article also references Dylan’s trip to Isreal for his son’s Bar Mitzvar. If Dylan were a practicing Christian, wouldn’t he be having his son baptized or confirmed as opposed to Bar Mitzvahed???

Many an editor involved with this discussion has touted the NY Times as the reliable source for Dylan’s conversion to Christianity. One of the Times references’ that has been thrust forward as evidence of verifiability, says the following:"Mr. Dylan's record has been preceded by months of rumor as to whether he has or had not converted to fundamentalist Christianity. The new record may give no guarantees for the future, but it does attest to the fact that, for the moment, Mr. Dylan is very definitely and overtly dealing in just that imagery." Rumor? Did I miss something? When did it become acceptable for Wikipedians to present rumors as fact?

I sincerely hope that I have satisfied User:JJAY and any other editors who continue to refute the fact that Dylan is not a Christian. The ongoing stream of requests for citations is little more than a smokescreen designed to divert attention from the real issue at hand, which is the deletion of this list, which is unencyclopedic and violates WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE. The page has become a magnate for edit warring and abuse. In its current closely guarded format, it violates WP:SOAPBOX and is rife for violations of WP:BLP that create potential libel and invasion of privacy issues for Wikipedia. It is not useful. Cleo123 05:26, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment: JJay -- There are no "teams" here? Why don't you offer constructive criticism? Perhaps you could point out that this is a contentious issue. That passions are aroused. If you find the choice of word "team" not to your liking then there is a nice way of pointing that out. Your way of communication creates a hostile atmosphere, in my opinion. Speak politely to people. Don't reach for the most confrontational language you can find. Try to understand others' points of view. Try not to characterize other peoples' input as "disingenuous at best."

Comment: From someone who has accused the editors of this article of "antisemitism", who speaks of a "biased Christian agenda", who engages in conspiracy mongering by accusing editors of perpetuating the "forced conversion" of Jews, you are extremely poorly placed to respond to my remarks. If this is a "contentious" issue, if "passions are aroused", I know squarely where I would place the blame. By my count, you have edited this page 75 times. That is not only excessive, by all measures, but your posts here have also been filled with outrageous accusations, slander and attacks on the integrity of other editors. You have done your best to turn this debate into a Christian-Jew confrontation. You have done your best to stir up religious hatred and hysteria on this page. You have done your best to create a poisonous atmosphere on this page - to the point where you feel compelled to defend the use of "confrontational language" such as "sides" or "teams". I have objected to that from the beginning and will continue to object. If you sincerely feel that my comment is innapropriate, I would invite you to pursue the matter in another forum - where I will be more than pleased to respond with an itemization of diffs from you that have no place anywhere at wikipedia. --JJay 18:55, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To whom is this remark addressed? Cleo123 05:26, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment: John Carter -- Yes -- delete the whole thing. I see the list of converts to Christianity not as a compilation of information. I see it as a display of trophies. Christianity places a premium on acquiring converts, does it not? Christianity asserts that Jesus is the Messiah, does it not? Judaism does not accept that Jesus is a Messiah, is that not so? We know perfectly well by way of a grisly history, not to mention plain logic, that it sticks in the craw of some Christians that the "Jew" does not concur with their assessment of the Messiah-ship of Jesus Christ. I say just delete the whole page. It is demonstrably the locus of abuse. It is not being used to accumulate information. It has various agendas. Why not write separate articles on notable converts to Christianity, if that hasn't been done already, and leave it at that? List form is not the appropriate form for handling complex subjects. Regardless of our differing points of view, I find it outrageous that anyone can think they can reduce information such as Bob Dylan's religious identity to "convert to Christianity." It's ridiculous. It is laughable. It's absurd. It is ludicrous. Since the list has to be used for the promotion of Christianity it has to be deleted. Even this AfD page is indication that the article must be deleted. This discussion has been characterized by unbudging commitment to a simplification that I personally find remarkable. I can not imagine insisting on the simplified characterization of a living, complex, being, that I hear you and others arguing for here. It is remarkable. Please, just delete the list so you will abuse it no more. Bus stop 15:54, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can only thank the above user for explicitly demonstrating by his above comment his failure to assume good faith and explicitly indicating that his own point of view is the driving force behind his nomination of the article for deletion, and presumably the majority of his other activities in this regard. John Carter 16:00, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I note that Bus Stop and Modernist both appear next to each other on this page Wikipedia:WikiProject_Visual_arts and strangely the only communication between the two EVER seems to be "a barnstar" from Modernist to Bus Stop congratulating Bus Stop for sticking to his/her guns User_talk:Bus_stop#Sticking_to_your_guns in relation to this issue. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 16:42, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment: What does that indicate to you, Gustav von Humpelschmumpel? Bus stop 16:52, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gustav - that is beside the point. I've worked with them on visual projects as well. Many of the supporters of this list have also worked together on "Christian" projects. Although I diagree with BusStop on this topic, he is certianly allowed to gather for support for his cause.--Knulclunk 16:50, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment: I guess he's just saying that my modernist views are not in keeping with the religiosity of the subject matter under discussion. Bus stop 17:05, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where have you ever communicated with this Modernist person on Wikipedia other than him/her awarding you a "barnstar" congratulating you on your sterling efforts in stirring up this Bob Dylan issue? Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 17:15, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bus Stop still hasn't explained why when he/she has never communicated with User:Modernist on Wikipedia, despite their similar interests, Modernist ends up placing a "barnstar" on Bus Stop's page congratulating Bus Stop in their persistence in trying to delete this article? Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 11:31, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment:Or perhaps he's reacting to your canvassing and forum shopping [58] [59], which is distinctly frowned upon and can lead to blocking. JJay 17:12, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While you're busy trying to get User:Bus stop blocked for letting two editors know about this debate, you may want to file a complaint against your pal User:C.Logan, who has blatantly asked for a vote. [60] Cleo123 03:19, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? Read Wikipedia:Canvassing before you accuse, thanks. --C.Logan 07:16, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is it strange that there are two people who both have "123" on their name who both voted to delete this article- User:Cleo123 and User:Bulldog123? Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 17:18, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you are implying that there is sockpuppetry at work here, I suggest you make a request to Check User. There is absolutely no connection what-so-ever between myself and User:Bulldog123. Such allegations fly in the face of WP:CIVIL. 123 is hardly an "uncommon" sequence of numbers. How sad that anyone would stoop to innuendo of this nature to try and discount valid votes for deletion. Cleo123 01:53, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gustav- I'm against Bus stop and Cleo in this issue, but I wouldn't suggest you make accusations. If you have suspicions, then you're free to check them out for yourself, but if you're incorrect, it makes you and your position look bad. I noted the similarities as well, but as far as I know, they're just similarities. --C.Logan 17:30, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment By the way my input here is my perogative as an editor, as to my awarding the Barnstar, that also was my right as an editor. And yes User:Knulclunk and I and other editors have worked together on other projects, Thank you, Modernist 17:07, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment: Shouldn't assuming good faith extend to depending on the integrity, strength, and articulation of one's own argument? Bus stop 17:43, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Responses: (1)Whose arguments are we talking about here? If your own, then your to date total failure to show any sources for your own position, despite repeated requests from others to do so, clearly detracts from its "integrity, strength and articulation". (2) If referring to others, I honestly think that the best place to discuss changing guidelines is the talk page of the guideline in question, not a forum such as this one. John Carter 17:54, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment: John Carter -- I'm talking about anybody's arguments. In fact, a person's argument begins in the choosing stage. Obviously one should only choose an argument that one feels one is right about. To me it makes no sense to put Bob Dylan on a list of converts to Christianity. Yes, there exists grounds for the argument you make. But they are not the substantial grounds for not putting him on that list. Is this not the argument that has been going on from day one, of this discussion? Sources that he was born a Jew? Sources that 27 years have elapsed since the last known contact between Dylan and anything of a Christian nature? What would you like me to bring sources for? Bus stop 18:21, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A preferable start would be a source which supports your age-old claim that Dylan did not convert to Christianity. Considering the fact that you choose not to accept the validity of these sources, I'm curious as to what alternate source leads you to your current view, which is at odds with the reliable, verifiable, and WP:BLP-compliant biographies that we have presented as sources. I mean, you have the right to deny the validity of sources on your own time, but on Wikipedia, if you want to make suggestions that Dylan did not actually convert to Christianity in spite of what the sources state, then it's reasonable that you would at least present a reliable, verifiable and WP:BLP-compliant source to support your viewpoint, so that we know it's not just something you thought up on your own after lunch one day. Additionally, why would we need sources saying that he was born a Jew? You know that a.) this is not in dispute, and b.) birth religion plays no part in the parameters of the list; it only effects where on the list they are placed. It should be apparent that we don't want sources of that kind. As far as the 27-year sources go... once again, an argument from ignorance. A source which claims that he has had no public, known involvement with Christianity for 27 years does not prove anything except that he has had no public, known involvement with Christianity for 27 years. Like I've said, it is suggestive of that fact, but it is not logical proof. As you've demanded sources which were quite literal and explicit in their claims of conversion (and we have supplied them), then it would make sense that you should submit a source which makes explicit and detailed claims regarding Dylan's return to practicing Judaism. You should also consider the fact that the sources we have presented also take his time with the Lubavitchers and Chabad into consideration, but brush them aside as cultural, rather than religious, involvement in his Jewish heritage. So, thats essentially all we're asking for, in terms of Dylan's personal history and such. As far as the argument for inclusion, it would be nice if you could again summarize which policies and/or guidelines you believe we are violating by standing by the criterion of this list. That's all I can think of at the moment. Any sources you could present would be welcome, especially if they detail new information that we haven't been over several times already.--C.Logan 20:17, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment: C.Logan -- Dylan need not "return to practicing Judaism." Dylan need only return to being a Jew. That is accomplished by his having been born a Jew. We understand a person's early influences as being important, so much so, that we assume that they persist through life, unless we see active negation of them. On the other hand we don't assume brief stages in a person's life, that are abandoned, to have lasting significance. We understand the abandonment to be indicative of a change of heart, and a parting of ways with that concept, or whatever that thing might be. As far as your unearthing of sources indicating conversion I will have to say again they are decidedly flakey. Someone said something happened at some time but they are not sure where. Is that a reasonable recapitulation of your source? But yes, you've found a source that is good enough for Wikipedia's purposes. But it, like all sources, has an area of applicability and an area of inapplicability. Were we writing this article in 1980 your source would support calling Dylan a convert to Christianity. And from the present point in time, your source supports reference to Dylan's conversion. But your source does not support the categorizing of Dylan as a convert to Christianity in the year 2007. A Jew does not get categorized as a Christian. The phrase convert to Christianity is an assertion that the person is a Christian. Christianity does not even have standards of conversion to Christianity. It is debatable if anyone is a convert to Christianity. It would seem that conversion to Christianity is an ongoing process, requiring continued input from the convert. How else to find meaning in "conversion to Christianity?" You and others have argued that conversion is accomplished by just about anything. The "sermonettes" delivered from the stage, between songs, were said to constitute conversion. Has Dylan given "sermonettes" in 27 years? Have you ever heard the phrase easy come, easy go? It is applicable here. Dylan's apparent lack of involvement in Christianity is not indicative of his ongoing attraction to it. Dylan need do nothing to be a Jew. If he is not actively negating his Jewish identity then it applies to him because it is his religion of birth and his abiding religion. It is his early childhood. Why would it go away? It would seem these principles would be applicable to other converts to Christianity as well. If Christianity has little or no standards for conversion then doesn't that place increased emphasis on ongoing involvement in order to perpetuate identity? Would you argue that a brief encounter with Christianity marks a person for life as a convert to Christianity? Bus stop 21:29, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dylan was, is and will always be ethnically and culturally Jewish. He does not need to return to "being a Jew", as he is a Jew in these senses regardless of his religious beliefs, just as Jean-Marie Cardinal Lustiger is always a Jew, by his birth and by his culture (and he also happens to be a Jew who believes that his Catholicism is an extension of his Judaism). However, Dylan does need to return to belief in the tenets of Judaism to be considered a religious Jew. How does this not make sense to you? Dylan could have become an atheist after his Christian beliefs faded; what makes you think he returned to believing in the tenets of Jewish faith? What leads you to believe that his involvement with Jewish organizations is any more than 'just' a cultural thing (as Nigel Williamson's biography claims)? I'm not claiming if it is one way or the other, but I am saying that it is foolish for you to assume that no sources are needed to support your argument.

As far as the 'flakey' sources are concerned, I believe a more accurate summary of the sources would be: "Widely respected Dylan experts write extensive biographies on Dylan, cover his religious conversion, and offer personal quotes from Dylan's pastor, but Bus stop assumes that he knows more about Dylan than these biographers, and he assumes that the pastor's quotes are the only source the biographers have for Dylan's conversion- therefore, by Bus stops logic, because a pastor cannot recall from memory the time and place of an incident, his testimony is false and 'mired in the agenda of proselytizing', and the entire section of the biography devoted to Dylan's religious conversion has no validity".

A (religious) Jew does not get categorized as a Christian, but a (religious Jew) does get categorized has someone who converted to Christianity, if they did happen to do so in 1979. Nevermind the fact that this particular (religious) Jew who converted to Christianity in 1979 has no sources as of yet that make the claim that this particular Jew has actually, truthfully returned to the tenets of Judaism and rejected his Christian beliefs.

As far as your misinformed opinion of conversion to Christianity goes, maybe you should read for yourself a bit. Though the Conversion to Christianity article needs improvement, it provides at least some information which may rid you of misconceptions. Professions of faith and baptisms are considered to the two main entrances into the Christian faith. According the the biographies, Dylan underwent both. --C.Logan 22:17, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment: C.Logan -- Catholicism is an extension of Judaism? Someone may have said that is so. I don't accept it. I don't think anyone reading these posts accepts it. Just because someone said something does not make it so. Christianity is centrally based around Jesus the Messiah. Judaism doesn't accept that. Judaism rejects that. You are saying black is white. Fine. No one accepts that. If you've found a source for that, fine. It may represent a minority opinion. But it is a very minority opinion. It is for all purposes irrelevant.

As far as your suggestion that Dylan may have become an atheist, in point of fact many Jews are atheists. That doesn't invalidate their Judaism. We are here talking about basics. We are not talking about someone's out on a limb view.

I still think your source for conversion is flakey. You have one individual who says that over a several day period "Baptism" took place, he knows not where but probably in the ocean. He was not there. We have no witness to such "Baptism." That, in my opinion, is "flakey." But I believe other, fairly reasonable people (in the Wikipedia discussions), have accepted it as a source, so I go along with that. Bus stop 23:22, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bus stop: You should refrain from overanalyzing an aside. I regret that you've wasted your words doing so, when it was entirely irrelevant to the point of my comment. That's not supposed to sound rude, just a note.

And yes, I'm aware that many Jews are atheists. I've known quite a few. Being a Jewish atheist doesn't revoke your cultural and ethnic Judaism, but it definitely removes you from your religious Judaism. You are still a Jew, but you are not a believer in the Jewish faith (although one could participate in the rituals and services and be atheist or agnostic, I'm referring to those who do not believe and do not go through the motions of it). What I am saying is, simply, if one leaves a thing, they are alien to it, lest they make effort to return to this thing. Culture and ethnic elements may never leave a Jewish person, but the religion can. And one can return to their faith, but it is not a seamless process- lines of division from one belief to the other must be drawn. This is why I'm saying that if Dylan left his Jewish religious beliefs (the ones which are antithetical to Christianity) for Christian beliefs, then he must 'return' to these beliefs, and must renounce his Christian beliefs. As far as I've read, Bob's pretty vague about the whole issue. He seems to have a syncretic view of the two faiths (just my interpretation).

I appreciate your somewhat-acceptance of the sources. You're certainly entitled to your opinion, and I understand your skepticism about the account given. I disagree with you in the final assessment, though. --C.Logan 02:37, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bus stop, you are still seemingly refusing to pay attention to the fact that virtually everyone acknowledges, and even the content of the list acknowledges, that changes may have been made in the beliefs of all subjects involved since the time of their conversion, and are still arguing that, apparently according to your own definition of the terms for inclusion on this list, which are of course not in agreement with those stated in the article itself, inclusion must be based on current status. On that basis, I would have to say that the "integrity, strength, and articulation" of your comments is nil, because at least part of your position is in fact irrelevant to the extant content. You do make a decent argument (although, of course, you still seem to think that the guideline for providing sources doesn't apply to you) for your position, but the position you are arguing is not in fact at all relevant to the discussion. John Carter 20:44, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment: John Carter -- That is a contrivance. It is not a natural interest of people to want to have a list of all those notable people who have ever converted to Christianity. That is a contrivance. If the person abandoned Christianity then it is something of fleeting importance. An area of naturally occurring interest is the category of all those notable Christians who arrived at Christianity by way of conversion. That distinguishes between those who made a conscious choice, perhaps in mid life, to choose to embrace Christianity, and those who were born into Christianity, through no choice of their own. Wikipedia has a policy, called WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE. I think it is applicable here. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of items of information. The variety of criteria that one can devise for a list are limitless. By the way, I just checked the first version of this list, from January 17, 2006, and Bob Dylan is already on it. He is one of only three people. Is Bob Dylan important to this list? Reach your own conclusion. Bus stop 00:50, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I note once again you are relying on terms which have no specific meaning in wikipedia or relevance to whether the subject qualifies under inclusion. Please indicate to me exactly where the word or concept "contrivance" is mentioned in any wikipedia policy or guideline, and I will be able to respond to you on that point. Until then, however, it looks to me like all you are doing is using big words to hide the fact that you don't have that much of a solid argument to stand upon. However, I believe even you would acknowledge (1) that referring to an original version is probably not something that is necessarily relevant (without knowing who or why the article was created, or who have added to it since then), (2) what sources the individual who created the article had when creating it (maybe this was a subject included in the scanty sources they used? Who knows?) and (3) it would help if you cited exactly how this article violates the policy you indicated above, rather than simply making others try to draw the same conclusions that you do. Personally, I am not myself convinced that the article as it stands is necessarily constructed in the best way possible. However, the specific terms of that policy you cited permitted inclusion of individuals who are famous (or notable) because of their status as falling in the given group. I think that in many cases, (some of the sainted martyrs could arguably not qualify here, I dunno, as well as some of the academics) these individuals have achieved recognition through ways dissociated from their religious beliefs. I don't necessarily know all the details of all these individuals, however, so hesitate to make such blanket statements. However, in the case under primary consideration, Bob Dylan, he received a good deal of contemporary press coverage regarding his religious conversion (or however you want to determine it), and on that basis it could certainly be argued that his continuing fame and certainly his fame at that time are closely and creditably linked to his "conversion". On that basis, I believe that that specific subject's inclusion in the list probably meets the standards for inclusion according to the policy you specified above. Also, some of the other most notable subjects included, including Augustine of Hippo, achieved at least part of their notability on the basis of their conversion. In his case, much of his work deals with the subject of how the mainstream Christianity of his time differed from the religious group from which he had converted. Were that not the case, it could certainly be rationally argued that he would be significantly less notable (because his own works would be less unique), and that as a result at least part of his notability, as it exists, is due to his conversion. Like I said, though, some of the martyrs who converted and others might not be notable enough specifically because of their conversion to necessarily qualify, although even there it could be argued that they wouldn't be martyrs if they hadn't converted, so it was a significant contributor to their acquiring the status which made them notable in the first place. Again, opinions, such as your own, are not the basis of this list, but some degree of verifiability. The content has been verified. In this case, I once again stress to you that asking people to "come to conclusions" or "read between the lines" is almost inherently POV, and something we should in no way be encouraging. John Carter 01:12, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article was clearly not nominated in good faith when all the other articles NOT related to Christianity i.e. List of notable converts to Hinduism, List of notable converts to Islam, List of notable converts to Judaism, List of notable converts to Sikhism have not received one IOTA of complaint on their talkpages and have never been nominated for deletion by any of the users complaining so bitterly about the List of notable converts to Christianity. You would have thought if their reason was as they have stated that they oppose the List of notable converts to Christianity because it invades privacy and is insulting to other religions etc. that these other lists would have equally attracted their attentions. But no, they haven't uttered a word about them. Therefore it seems to me what we have here is partisan behaviour in extremis. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 11:38, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment: Gustav von Humpelschmumpel -- This article, it seems has some particularly egregious problems with it. I think it is a locus of abuse. And I think it may have been a locus of abuse from the start. It only occurred to me a few hours ago to look at the history of this article. There in the first iteration of this article, which was January 17, 2006, was Bob Dylan. There are only two other people there with him. To me that indicates Dylan is integral to this article. And that is not fair. I think that is further indication of an abusive purpose to this article. Dylan dabbled in Christianity in 1979 and 1980. That is no reason to label him a convert to Christianity. That is abuse of Wikipedia, in addition to it being the spreading of untrue information about Bob Dylan. Were this article, or a similar article, being written in 1980, you would have a source for asserting that Bob Dylan is a convert to Christianity. Clearly in 2007 you do not. You are going out on a limb to justify that assertion, but it doesn't hold up. Under scrutiny we see that for a brief period there was a theatrical coincidence of Christianity and Dylan's performances. If the Wikipedia Christianity project is abusive of the subject of converts to Christianity then it should have this article deleted. Dylan is a Jew. Judaism has at it's core a direct refutation of what has to be one of the central core significances of Christianity -- the Messiah-ship of Jesus Christ. It is offensive to misconstrue a Jew as a Christian. If they want to have a knowledge-oriented list, fine. At present we have abuse. Bus stop 13:15, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bus Stop isn't there evidence Dylan converted to Christianity i.e. he believed Jesus was the Messiah, but not evidence he no longer believes that he was or that he practices Judaism? Therefore the only thing we know for certain is that he converted to Christianity and we do not know if he still is a Christian or whether he now practices Judaism. Whichever is the case it in no way justifies the nomination of this whole article for deletion. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 14:16, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. For what its worth, I hate religion-based lists; but at least this one requires citation. Most other lists assume religion. I would like in each case to know both that the conversion was cited, and that it can be demonstrated as notable as well. In the Dylan case, it caused some comment, and was relevant to his musical output for some years. Meets both criteria. Hornplease 15:14, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment: Gustav von Humpelschmumpel -- There is a source which I would call flakey which may be good enough for Wikipedia's purposes to support the use of the term conversion in relation to Dylan's activities in 1979, but good faith editing does not extrapolate the applicability of a source to areas where it doesn't have applicability. Dylan has not been negating his Jewishness since 1980. He was born a Jew; he received "bar mitzvah" at age 13. That is basic Jewish upbringing. That is basically the only source necessary for us to understand him being a Jew in later years, that is, in the absence of the active negation of his Jewishness. I don't know Wikipedia guidelines in relation to this but bad faith editing to a fairly great extent could quite possibly warrant deletion. Nonsense articles get deleted all the time. This article has a superficial seriousness of purpose. But the strained, farfetched reasoning employed in the insistence in the labeling of Dylan as a "convert to Christianity" may be indicative of an inability of passionate people act unbiased. Dylan need not "practice" Judaism at this time. It has no bearing on the fact of his presently being a Jew. As I see it, his not presently negating his Jewishness is all that is necessary to bring about the return of his Jewish identity. Many Jews are nonobservant. It doesn't detract from their Jewish identity in any way. No renunciation is called for (for past non-Jewish religious participation). In fact I don't think any provision for any such thing exists. Bus stop 15:25, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bus Stop why do you mention the fact he had a Bar Mitzvah as evidence he didn't convert or isn't still a Christian? He went through his Christian "phase" long after his Bar Mitzvah and presumably he was a little more mature then and could think for himself. Presumably most people on the "from Judaism" part of the list had a Bar Mitzvah so are you saying none of them should be there because of that? Is your opposition to this list based on the belief that you believe that noone born into Judaism can REALLY convert????? Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 16:25, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Dylan has not been negating his Jewishness since 1980."

This is a very misleading and murky statement. Basically, it means "Dylan has done nothing to prove that he is not Jewish". Let's assume that somehow, you're referring to the religion, Judaism. Is this, in all actuality, your reasoning behind belief in Dylan's return to Judaism?

Because an entertainer has done nothing to negate suspicions of homosexuality, does this mean that he is gay? No, it doesn't. The absence of 'negation' is not the presence of proof.

I'm not suggesting that Dylan doesn't practice Judaism, but your arguments offer no reasonable evidence that he does.

And once again, don't confound cultural and ethnic terms with religious ones.

Spanish-ness does not require that the person practices Catholicism.

Arab-ness does not require that the person practices Islam.

Jewish-ness does not require that the person practices Judaism.

Participation in these cultures does not require religious belief.

Let's look at your comment from another perspective.

"This article has a superficial seriousness of purpose. But the strained, farfetched reasoning employed in the insistence in the labeling of Rodrigo as a "convert to Islam" may be indicative of an inability of passionate people act unbiased. Rodrigo need not "practice" Catholicism at this time. It has no bearing on the fact of his presently being a Catholic. As I see it, his not presently negating his Catholic-ness is all that is necessary to bring about the return of his Catholic identity. Many Catholics are nonobservant. It doesn't detract from their Catholic identity in any way. No renunciation is called for (for past non-Catholic religious participation). In fact I don't think any provision for any such thing exists."

The above paragraph sounds rather silly. This is partly because I've confounded certain things which are cultural (Spanish) with things which are religious (Catholic). I've done this to illustrate the misrepresentation and logical lapse which occurs with the confounding of two aspects of 'Jewish-ness': culture/ethnicity and religion. You may want to clarify which one you're referring to in your comments, as they are not one and the same.--C.Logan 19:18, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment: Gustav von Humpelschmumpel -- "Presumably" he could think for himself? "Presumably" he could have also found Christianity a good prop for his music. I mentioned that he received "bar mitzvah" to emphasize his Jewish upbringing, going even beyond his Jewish birth. Do we not understand early, formative, experiences in life as tending to have long lasting effect? I didn't say no person who is Jewish can convert. I made the point that in the absence of active negation of their original religion, the newly adopted religion may be suspect. Dylan's non-involvement in Christianity since he stepped down from the stage in 1980 at which he gives his last Gospel music concert is indicative of his non-interest in Christianity. One does not give "evidence" that an individual didn't convert. That is proving a negative, a difficult thing to do. An editor making an assertion bears the responsibility of providing a citation that supports it. Bus stop 17:04, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"One does not give 'evidence' that an individual didn't convert. That is proving a negative, a difficult thing to do."

From the above, it would seem the burden of proof is still upon you to show that Dylan renounced his Christian beliefs and returned to believing in and practicing Judaism. Once again, don't confound religious things and cultural/ethnic things.

"An editor making an assertion bears the responsibility of providing a citation that supports it."

I knew you had it in you all along. --C.Logan 19:18, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep simply due to nomination in bad faith - this list does not revolve around bob dylan, and he simply should not even be mentioned on this page as anything to do with rationale for deleting or keeping. As it stands, this "list" is truly a mess and could use quite a bit more sources - as religion can be a touchy subject with some. That said, my vote is still keep, since it the possibility of being a good article. SECProto 17:36, 8 May 2007 (UTC) Changing vote to Delete. While I still object wholeheartedly to the reasons for nomination, I believe that even when comparing to other lists on here, this one is truly pointless. And just as a mention, those other lists for converts to islam, judaism, etc should be deleted if this one is. and just as an opinion, almost all lists on here should be deleted. SECProto 17:42, 8 May 2007 (UTC) Changing vote back to keep. I'm hopping around like a rabbit. I maintain my position that a lot of lists are of very little use, but this one is not one of those. It requires a lot of citations that it doesn't have, though. SECProto 21:35, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Could you elaborate on what you mean by 'lists'? Do you mean all lists, or just religion-affiliated lists? Why do you feel that this one is pointless? Just a few questions. --C.Logan 18:40, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment: C.Logan -- Religious contentiousness is a problem. I know -- there is no Wikipedia policy against this. But why create a situation in which 1) religious passions are aroused, and 2) there is not adequate space to resolve them into a "presentable" picture? A list does not allow for adequate handling of each situation. It is unwise to have a list of converts to any religion. It arouses passions. And no two convert's situation is the same. We are talking in most cases about adults making choices in the middle of complex lives. Adequate handling of such a situation calls for prose text. List form makes the unlikely assumption that all on the list share something in common. Maybe, but just as likely not. The Bob Dylan article can devote several sentences or paragraphs to adequately fleshing out a picture of what transpired. An article is also less likely to be abused because the population visiting the page is proportional to the importance of the person in the eyes of the readership. In the present "List" article you have a powerful and controversial and largely unchallenged statement being made about Bob Dylan in a section that is unlikely to even be visited by people interested in Bob Dylan. Bus stop 19:02, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why does the above comment sound to me like someone who has started a fight and is then trying to blame the person he fought for the fight after the fact? John Carter 19:15, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment: John Carter -- I am just responding to a subject being discussed. They were discussing whether there should be lists of converts to religion. I have a feeling about it. So I expressed it. Bus stop 19:32, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. I have been thinking about the ways I use wikipedia, what pages I do and do not look at. And I realized, the way I get between articles has never had anything to do with lists. As a completely random example, see the page List of counties in Indiana by population. While this is good because it has links to all the counties, and their populations, it is useless. One person might come to it and say "oh perfect, its organized by population so i can see what is the tenth largest county by population!". But the next person might come along and think "oh no, it isn't organized alphabetically, so now I have to go through it and figure out which one is the first alphabetical county" or "but which county is furthest north?". On the topic more at hand, this list of notable converts to christianity (or judaism or sikhism, the other articles are all the same boat) is pointless. To get to the page, someone would probably first have to find a link, from someone who is on the list. I just fail to see what purpose it serves. I think basic lists are pretty much pointless. But since these aren't really reasons for deletion, maybe i should change my vote of "delete" to "abstain" or "comment"? SECProto 20:26, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that you may never find yourself using lists, but many readers/editors do. Wikipedia has a lot of features that may or may not be useful to each reader/editor. For instance, I've never found categories very useful. I've always preferred lists because more detail can be given for each entrant than in a category, and more information can be supplied throughout a list article.

When I go to categories, I see only names. I don't learn very much beyond the names of people I recognize, unless I choose to click arbitrarily on a person listed and read about them. I've always found lists to be more useful, because summaries can be given, and they act as an inviting doormat to the person's article. For instance, "Abdul Rahman (convert)" may not really catch anyone's interest and inquiry, but "Abdul Rahman (convert) (born 1965), Christian who faced the death penalty in 2006 for converting from Islam", gives me a better idea of the subject and provides me with an incentive to read the article behind the name.

According to the Wikipedia list guideline, a list...:

"may be a valuable information source. This is particularly the case for a structured list. Examples would include lists organized chronologically, grouped by theme, or annotated lists. Lists can be used as a table of contents, or if the user is browsing without a specific research goal in mind, they would likely use the See also lists. If the user has a specific research goal in mind, and there is only one or two words that are used to describe the research topic, and they know exactly how to spell the word, they would probably use the search engine box. If the user has some general idea of what they are looking for but does not know the specific terminology, they would tend to use the lists of related topics (also called list of links to related articles)."

The fact that many editors may bicker over how the list should be organized and the fact that lists can be difficult to find in the first place are, as you said, not really reasons for deletion.

As far as the accessibility of lists goes, there are often difficulties, but this can be remedied by providing more internal links on related articles. One might find the list by clicking on the category link of a person who's included on the list. They might also find the list by researching Christianity, and moving around through related articles. They could also find the list by using a directory of lists (a preferable approach for a research starting point).

Some lists may seem pointless, but many people find them to be very useful. I would suggest that you 'abstain', but you already know that my opinion lies with keeping the article. As you've pointed out, the issues you've listed are worth noting, but they are not cause for deletion. --C.Logan 21:15, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:And what if you were doing research on Muslim converts to Christianity, or Jewish converts to Christianity? How would you go about finding information on the subject without this list? --JJay 20:53, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SEC do I guess correctly that you saying the category is all that is needed? That would seem wrong headed to me be as surely it is much easier to make sure a list is properly sourced and to watch it for any additions. The categories in my opinion should just be seen as ways of linking lists to articles and providing an instant information snapshot to a reader. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 21:08, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alrgiht gustav, I agree, lists are much easier to ensure they are sourced - but in this case, the list needs a lot of sources. For almost everyone. Maybe they can be found in the articles on the people, but right now, it is no more reliable than a category. SECProto 21:35, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken. SECProto 21:35, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article is filled with inaccuracies and original research, and is an Original Research magnet, as these kinds of articles inevitably are. For example, the "from Judaism" section is filled with people who never practiced Judaism to begin with, or whose religion is unknown, but who simply happen to have some sort of Jewish ancestry. How can someone whose article says they were "raised atheist" or who "went to church as a child" be considered to have "converted from Judaism to Christianity"? Yet Tamsin Greig and Kathy Lee Gifford were both on the list. I'm sure there are dozens more like that, and always will be. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:01, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree that these two could be removed from the list, the list included information questioning the status of both of these individuals. Kathy Lee Gifford is included in Category:Jewish American singers and Category:Jewish American actors. Is the Gifford article thus an OR magnet? And should those cats be deleted as well? Note that some here have argued for deletion by claiming that a category is a better way of managing the subject. Tamsin Greig is included in Category:Converts to Christianity. Her conversion is sourced in her article. The list is, in fact, just a reflection of the underlying bios. If you want to equate innacuracies to OR, the problem cuts across most articles here. The solution is to require strict sourcing. --JJay 02:57, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~If Tamsin Greig was raised as an atheist, shouldn't she have been moved to the "Atheist and Agnostic" category rather than be removed entirely?~~ I'll just take care of that, unless someone beats me to it. --C.Logan 03:02, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I refuse to get sucked into this blackhole, but: She grew up in Bowie, Maryland, in the United States. Her father was part Jewish and her mother was a Methodist; Gifford grew up in a culturally Jewish environment, but she became a born-again Christian at the age of 12 (after seeing a Christian education film directed by Billy Graham), and told interviewer Larry King, "I was raised with many Jewish traditions and raised to be very grateful for my Jewish heritage."--Knulclunk 05:13, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:17, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Massali Effect

Neologism that does not appear to be notable Jay †Litman 02:54, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 10:51, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unverifiable [61]. It's also dubious that this "effect" has been first noticed in recent times. Tizio 11:01, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a neologism (and not a very good one at that). The author comments on the talk page: "This article should not be removed just because of the fact that there are no Google hits regarding it's content. It's a rather new term and hasn't been widely spread yet". That's a very good reason why it should be deleted. andy 14:13, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable neologism. Hut 8.5 16:47, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy close; merge and/or redirect do not require afd. Tizio 11:00, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sandpoint Police Department

This short article had a rather derogatory POV. This should be deleted and any information about the police could be included in the main Sandpoint, Idaho article. --Robbie Giles 12:59, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 10:51, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Sr13 (T|C) 04:59, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shahela

This is not notable Delete — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zazaban (talk • contribs) 03:58, 1 May 2007

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 10:52, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete this as it does not even attempt to show notability. Notability that it obviously just doesn't have, at even the most cursory look. 129.21.126.125 17:16, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I said the above. Grr. Imban 17:17, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete db-empty JuJube 18:36, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as lacking context. Tony Fox (arf!) 19:21, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete empty article with only one line, not informative. Wooyi^{Talk, Editor review} 03:09, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per all. Maxa megalon 2000 05:22, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete this already and get it over with. RFerreira 07:23, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:17, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Virgilio Herrera Estrada

No hits on Yahoo or Google for this guy--should be deleted per WP:BLP and maybe WP:HOAX Blueboy96 23:01, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 10:52, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can't find any indication that he exists, let alone proper sourcing. Tony Fox (arf!) 19:23, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax.--Ioannes Pragensis 19:57, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete looks like a hoax to me. Kla'quot 16:12, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Petros471 08:37, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wild In the Country (festival)

I have no idea why this failed db:Spam but it did. So, I am bringing it here. I don't see anything that indicates that it is anything OTHER than advertising. Postcard Cathy 22:44, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 10:52, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no notability and seems like an advert. andy 14:11, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this is in no way advertising. It states an event happened, it states an event will happen, it lists the artists who performed/will perform at those events. No opinion is given as to whether it was good and, crucially, no mention that you can go there. Malla nox 22:29, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable concert. Are we planning to list all concerts? My choir is singing at a local one next week. We expect a few thousand to turn up. This doesn't make it a notable event. Gillyweed 23:24, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If your choir includes: Scissor Sisters, Sasha & John Digweed, Dave Seaman, James Zabiela, Derrick Carter, Yousef, Infusion, Neneh Cherry, Jon Carter and Audio Bullies; then yeah we should list it. Malla nox 00:11, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mallanox, you are making a valid point but what is it about those performers that make THIS festival in particular different from any other concert/festival? Is it for charity, such as Live 8? Will it have any cultural significance the way Woodstock did? If it doesn't, then it is - whether you want to hear it or not - JUST ANOTHER FESTIVAL. And that, dear Mallanox, is the point Gillyweed was making. Postcard Cathy 21:27, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The point I was making, dear Cathy, is that no less than eleven acts have appeared, or are appearing and are listed in the entry. All of these eleven already have pages on Wikipedia, they're not redlink unknowns. Hundreds of festivals occur with one headliner and a load of unknowns. Renaissance, the people behind it have the clout to get all of these people to play at their festival. This isn't a one off, it's not some small affair, it's at Knebworth. All of these facts together, in my opinion, equal notability and truly set it apart from just another festival. Malla nox 23:07, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Malla, thank you for making my point. There are hundreds if not thousands of festivals every year and all of them have famous acts playing them - whether it is one or many. The festival in and of itself is not notable. Based on what you have said, then the booker should be wiki worthy since they were able to get all these acts. As far as being at Knebworth, if it is like arenas in the US, then anyone with enough money can rent it and put on a show. If I were to rent it and perform, would that make it wiki worthy simply cause it was at Knebworth? STRONG DELETE 172.162.105.233 10:05, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS The acts you have listed are not even in the article for this year's performance and even if they were, as written the article comes across as an advertisement. If this article is to stay, it needs a major rewrite. Cathy 172.162.105.233 10:07, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 14:44, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article lists notable entertainers, which does not make a concert or festival notable. Unless it is of unique significance (per Postcard Cathy) or an annual event that we believe has become significant we should delete.

Comment' [62] refers to the 07 as the 15th annual. I didn't check for further refs. but this does show it is an annual event. DGG 20:57, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then we do have a contradiction in the article because according to the article's author, this should be the fourth since the first one was in 2004.

Strong Keep. Looks like the article needs help, but this is apparently an annual event drawing notable acts, similar to Sasquatch! Music Festival or any number of other similar festivals with articles. Does not read like an advert or spam to me either.—Gaff ^ταλκ 20:36, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now. I've expanded the article, tidied up a little and added references and links to the relevant official pages. Incidentally, looking at the timing, I believe the original nominator was quite right in saying this page was only added for advertising purposes - However, I also believe that the event may be notable itself. Category:British music festivals currently lists 99 music festivals, many with smaller articles and fewer notable acts than this one. I think notability for music festivals is currently a grey area of Wikipedia policy. Unfortunately, WP:MUSIC does not currently cover notability of musical events. I think this is also the reason we have such a bipolar lack of consensus here. If the record company/organiser is notable, the venue is notable and many of the acts are notable – is the event notable too? I think there needs to be some consensus on this, before any verifiable and potentially notable festivals are deleted. I’ll leave a message on the WP:MUSIC talk page and see if we can generate some discussion there and perhaps come up with some much-needed guidelines. Paxse 05:28, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to the article about the appropriate plant, once we find out which one that is. Sandstein 12:42, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zereshk

I found it from this edit on persian wikipedia. Zereshk is exactly Berberis. As Wikipedia is not a Dictionary we shouldn't have an article for Barberry in every languages. So this articles is not needed. First I thought it should be merged into Berberis article, but I found nothing to be merged [63]. Even I removed wrong interwikis. This article can't have any interwiki. Hessam 18:09, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep i see nothing wrong with this article, given it has the potential to grow, it is a subcategory of another plant, and already includes references (:O) -Nima Baghaei ^{talk · cont · email} 18:38, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 10:52, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. I agree with Hessam; this article only contains region-specific information on Berberis. Maybe parts of this article can be added to Berberis, but this article can't be kept according to WP:NOT. --Tinctorius 12:19, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. There are information and references in the Zereshk that can be merged into Berberis. Jay †Litman 12:28, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect, not sure where. This is a potential search term, having 25k GHits and appearing even in English-language cookbooks; might as well make sure the user ends up somewhere useful when they type it in. My Persian vocabulary and botany knowledge are both kinda shaky, but I had a vague impression zereshk only referred specifically to berberis vulgaris rather than to the whole genus. Anyone know better? cab 16:14, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep it is a specific variety it seems. if not merge into appropriate article, unless that article is allready too long or vague^{T ALK}•^QR_C2006•¢ʘñ†®¡ß§ 17:53, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If it's specific what is the difference? Citation is needed! Hessam 20:31, 9 May 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 for all three nominated articles, per consensus. The three articles do not meet the primary criterion of Wikipedia:Notability, namely being the subject of multiple independent secondary sources. Nor does an award from Lausanne Underground Film and Music Festival meet the criterion as laid out by Wikipedia:Notability (films) - Banyan Tree 09:33, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Geoffrey Engelbrecht

Appears to be an autobiography. Neither a notable entertainer with widespread recognition nor a notable academic. Additional articles nominated, created by the same user, are vanispamcruftisement with questionable notability. MER-C 11:17, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per MER-C. tomasz. 11:29, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Notability has not been established for any of the four articles listed. Jay †Litman 12:40, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Making your own movie is great, but not notable. No sources provided so nothing can be verified. --Cyrus Andiron 13:18, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I hadn't realised Wikepedia was exclusively for Hollywood productions. Clean won first prize at a notable underground film festival in Switzerland. I accept that it is of specialist interest. The article is factual and neutral. If that does not fit with Wikepedia then by all means delete it. --Geoff13 13:20, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It's called conflict of interest. Additionally, there are no reliable, independent sources for the majority of this information, and there is no assertion of notability. Being "factual and neutral" is not enough. Phony Saint 14:12, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - If it is "factual and neutral" then by Wikipedia's own definition of conflict of interest there is no conflict of interest. Regarding references there are references to the films own website, film festivals it was presented at and IMDB. As for notability I defer to the notability of the film festival which I see is also questioned on english Wikepedia however a quick Google search will confirm many non-trivial references to it including those on French Wikipedia. As I said this seems to be more an attack on this article not being mainstream. --Geoff13 14:30, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Nothing in WP:COI suggests that you should add information about yourself, even if it is true. "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." A quick Google search confirms many trivial references. Phony Saint 14:58, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The only references listed in the article, link to IMDB (not a good reference) and your own websites. Those are not reliable secondary sources indepenedent of the subject. --Cyrus Andiron

15:24, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are references to every film festival the film has appeared in including the Lausanne Underground Film Festival where in the archive section of their website you can find the list of winners from 2005. I realise from your comments you have not actually spent much time looking at the article. Please read the first paragraph of WP:COI. If the article is "neutral" then it is not in violation of WP:COI. It is clear this is an attack because the article is not mainstream (i.e. the artist is not a "notable entertainer with widespread recognition") If this is what Wikipedia is about then by all means delete the article. --Geoff13 15:40, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. But it's not "neutral". You wrote it yourself, about yourself. It's not that Wikipedia is biased against anything that isn't Hollywood (and i think you actually know yourself that's it's highly disingenuous to keep claiming this), it's just that it's biased toward stuff that's actually notable. If you fall under the radar, that's tough stuff, but you'll just have to go and work on becoming notable enough for someone else to add an article about you. Otherwise each of us'd be merrily out in article space writing reams and reams of trivia about our myriad achievements. And that'd be a "blogosphere" or some other horrible neologism, but not an encyclopedia. tomasz. 16:13, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There is no guideline in Wikipedia against writing about oneself. It is discouraged because of possible problems of neutrality but not forbidden. Neither does doing it imply that neutrality is violated. The original comment was that the entertainer was not well known. This is why the article is being attacked. Otherwise you will need a stronger arguement as to why the article is not factual or neutral to convince me that this is anything but an attack on the fact the director is not well known. I cede the fact that the biography relies on the website of Geoffrey Engelbrecht. But the movie has numerous refernces which are not related to the film company or the director. --Geoff13 16:30, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. "...to convince me that this is anything but an attack on the fact the director is not well known." Are you suggesting that not being notable enough is an insufficient reason for this article to be deleted? We could leave aside any conflict of interest issues and it would be still be inadmissible on the grounds of not being notable. "The original comment was that the entertainer was not well known. This is why the article is being attacked." <--- you're not exposing some kind of conspiracy theory here, you're just summarising the reasons against the article. tomasz. 16:35, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Read the Wikepedia entry on notable. It clearly states that a subject must not be famous to be notable. The original article I wrote was about the film. I wrote it because of the article about the festival. The festival is a world reknown underground film festival. Films from all over the world appear there. The festival is notable but not mainstream. Clean won first prize there. I infer notability from that fact and the fact that it also appeared at a number of underground festivals throughout Switzerland and Italy. Most festival websites have an archive section describing the films which appeared which can verify this information and that is why they are referenced. The biography and company pages were to fill in background information for the film. I understand this is specialist information and not mainstream. I was extremely careful to list facts only and not colour my comments with adjectives so as to maintain neutrality. I am not uncovering a conspiracy only a hypocracy. Nevertheless if it is the policy to only accept world reknown entertainers into Wikepedia then by all means delete these articles and the thousands of other articles about people who are not well known round the world.--Geoff13 18:30, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because the world will end if lesser-known Swedish directors get their own Wikipedia articles *rubs hands together* (no seriously, per nom and serious WP:COI issues. You can't write an article about yourself and seriously expect people to buy that you're being neutral). JuJube 18:36, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Ok my last comment as I think I've made my arguement. But I can't resist: honestly how can you comment when you didn't bother to look at the pages. I'm Canadian and live in Switzerland. Where does Sweden come from?? ;-) --Geoff13 19:05, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Brain fart on my part. I thought "Switzerland = Swedish" for some reason. I blame tight pants. JuJube 19:13, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Vanispamcruftisement Having read this article I felt compelled to make one last statement before Clean and no doubt the Lausanne Underground Film and Music Festival are burnt from Wikipedia. The comments from the article on vanispamcruftisement that "the owner of a small company, about that company, name-checking the owner of the firm with a brief resume of his skills, and in respect of a company whose products appeared on the face of it to be of strictly limited appeal outside the world of geekdom" smacks of my point that anything not of interest to the masses should be eliminated. This reminds me of a fellow German Adolf Hitler and the arguements he raised for the elimination of the Jews and the destruction of books which conflicted with the views of the majority of Germans who brought him to power. An encyclopedia which is full of well known facts accepted by the majority isn't of much value to someone who wants to know something they don't already know. --Geoff13 07:37, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment You're still attempting to dodge the notability and verifiability problems by claiming discrimination, when really nobody even knows enough about you to bother discriminating. And as everyone knows, whoever mentions Nazis first loses. Phony Saint 18:34, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Not in the slightest. I have stated my case for the notability of the film and there are a large number of references for its verifiability. The only arguement that keeps coming back is conflict of interest and yet no one has pointed out what about the article is not neutral. In all honesty the pages have no value to me whatsoever apart from the time it took me to assemble them. I am insulted about the attack being extended to the Lausanne Underground Film and Music Festival and having read the article on vanispamcruftisement all becomes clear. There is a policy here by certain people to attack pages that are not mainstream. Otherwise give arguements why a film which won first prize at a world reknown underground film festival and has appeared at numerous other film festivals throughout Switzerland and Italy (Two of those festivals asked for it to be included without our applying) is not notable. Geoff13 06:50, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment The main issue is not necessarily that it's not notable, but that you're writing an article about a work you created yourself. Comparing people who think the article should be deleted to Nazis will NOT HELP YOUR CASE IN THE SLIGHTEST, by the way. JuJube 18:10, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment "The main issue ... that you're writing an article about a work you created yourself." Why do I feel I am going in circles. There is no guideline in Wikepedia forbidding writing about work you created yourself. The reference to Hitler is a reference to someone who suppressed minorities and relates to the arguement that Clean is not notable because it is not well known. It has no relevance to your arguement which may be the main issue for you but is not the main issue for others. Geoff13 10:34, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Commment. You feel like you're going in circles? Suppressing minorities by violent death is hardly the same as removing an online encyclopedia article that doesn't meet standards set for notability for films by the said encyclopedia. Maybe you should try asserting the film's notability instead of making crass and wildly irrelevant comparisions. Like which of these does Clean/you meet, for instance? and before you say it, i know those are guidelines and not concrete rules. tomasz. 10:40, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Commment. "The film has received a major award for excellence in some aspect of filmmaking." I think that's the third or fourth time I've said it. Look I said from the beginning if underground films are not mainstream enough for Wikepdia then delete it. Geoff13 11:27, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Comment. I think a number of people might disagree with you about that word "major" in "major award". But whatever, i'm done with this discussion. tomasz. 11:32, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Comment. I'm sorry you think so little of underground films. But then that was my point from the beginning. It isn't my loss only yours. Geoff13 11:35, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Comment. Believe me, it's none of mine. tomasz. 11:43, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Comment. Just having a look at some of the pages you've created tomasz. and I think it is funny someone who feels so pationately about obscure bands is so quick to kill something equally obscure. But I guess everything is relative. Geoff13 14:25, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Comment. The difference is that the articles i've created have been about things notable by WP standards and independently verifiable. There's a lot of bands i like that aren't really notable enough and therefore i haven't created articles for. That's why i haven't made one for my old group or the album we made in 2002: not notable enough. A passion for obscure cultural items isn't mutually exclusive with a standard those items should reach to be included in an encyclopedia. i don't think Saigon High Chair Pirates are encyclopedic, you think Clean is. so it goes. tomasz. 14:37, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Comment. Why is Threat any more encyclopedic or for that matter the majority of the films listed in the Short Films Stubs Category? I selected three and not one of them indicated they had won an award at any festival? I must admit I don't know any of the bands you have written about. Looking at three of them picked at random I was not impressed your references were any better than mine. Again I saw no awards or any other indication that would merit those bands to stand out from the crowd. Again I guess everything is relative. Geoff13 16:20, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Other stuff exists. Phony Saint 16:26, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        
        It does indeed. Geoff13 16:47, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep, per newfound sources. Xoloz 03:10, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lausanne Underground Film and Music Festival

Unreferenced article on a non-notable film festival. Could not find any evidence of non-trivial coverage on Google or Google News archive. MER-C 11:21, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - I see a lot of blue links to filmmakers who seem to be able to rate their own articles who have participated, but as the nom notes, there's no coverage out there. I got 565 G-hits when searching 'Lausanne Underground Film Festival' - not a lot, really. Tony Fox (arf!) 19:31, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment try a search for 'Lausanne Underground Film and Music Festival' as it is properly titled and you will find another 1000 references. Not sure the value of this number though. The festival features films from all over the world. Last years feature winner was an American film. It is listed officially on the | Swiss Film Agencies list of Swiss film festivals. It is featured in the Swiss French newspapers when it runs. Again I think this is an attack because something isn't mainstream and well known. Wikepedia is in danger of becoming a reference of only well known things. That isn't much of a reference. User:Geoff13 User_talk:Geoff13 14:00, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 23:59, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think what Geofff found is sufficient, though the references need to be added. DGG 02:49, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with Geofff (and DGG...). Moumine70 10:01, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep agree with above Think outside the box 12:14, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Provisional Keep. It's the editors responsibility to source the article and even though Geoff's comments were made almost a week ago I see no change in the article. Geoff, its not an attack on non-mainstream things, its an attack on non-sourced articles. Would you fix it up? JodyB_talk 13:35, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I believe Geoff's only interest in keeping this is because he was using it as a source to keep his own articles. All supposed references are mainly directory entries, Wikipedia references, and other trivial sources. Actual Ghits are ~80. [64] Phony Saint 14:52, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment JodyB I'm off to Hong Kong for a week today and to be honest my own article had multiple independent sources (references to about four film festival websites with articles about it, IMDB and its own website) and was still deleted partly because of it not having multiple independent sources and secondly because winning an award at LUFF was not notable. To be honest I don't think that was the main reason for its deletion. I am not encouraged to contribute any further to Wikepedia. If Wikepedian's like Phony Saint do not want to learn anything about underground film it is their loss. User:Geoff13 05:30, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per Geoff. cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 13:55, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Sr13 (T|C) 07:29, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chibueze Okparanta

Does not appear notable. Can't find a non-trivial source on this subject. Tizio 11:23, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete being a production manager on four reality TV episodes doesn't make you notable. The article is a direct cut and paste of his IMDB entry so a copyright violation. Gwernol 11:50, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete copyright violation with no assertion of permission. Jay †Litman 12:44, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete, copyvio, not notable anyway. Sr13 (T|C) 09:02, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as copyright violation, no comment regarding "notability" of the subject. Burntsauce 23:45, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr13 (T|C) 07:32, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vannesa Cruz

The article does not comply to the notability guidelines for musicians and ensembles, does not meet Wikipedia's quality standards, is not verifiable and does not cite any references or sources. Tinctorius 11:37, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Ms. Cruz has a MySpace page and didn't win a singing competition. Clearly fails WP:MUSIC. Gwernol 11:47, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the same reason that Gwernol provided.Jay †Litman 12:47, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete who once had was supposed to have been with Former group Anjel, managed by Jermaine Dupri and Jagged Edge but she never join.And currently has recordings as a solo artist on MySpace. Really, well despite all of that, this artist (if you can call her that) is not notable. Somewhere, there needs to be an AFD template that says "Myspace is not a source." --Cyrus Andiron 13:04, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as massively non-notable. Also note that, according to the talk page, the article was apparently created by someone who claims to be a friend of Ms Cruz, yet has managed to spell her name wrong in the article's title!!! ChrisTheDude 13:34, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Claim my a-- Im on her top friend list for ya information,,Keep —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.114.197.41 (talk) 17:14, 5 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- Comment: Notability is not subjective. --Tinctorius 22:13, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per ChrisTheDude. JuJube 18:34, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 02:32, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Támar

Probably not notable, partially unverifiable, not citing any sources, not NPOV. Tinctorius 12:02, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would say even if most of the article's information is true it passes notability, but there are no references and certainly not NPOV. It's not an unsalvageable article, but if nobody does it then yes, it needs deleting. Mentality 13:05, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: passes notability? What notability criterium does she pass then? Is she the subject of multiple non-trivial published works? The article doesn't mention any chartered hits, gold certifications, major music awards or competitions, notable works (I guess) or international tours, she has published only one album (which appears to be canceled)(this part is very unclear to me)... in what respect is she actually notable? --Tinctorius 15:17, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? From the article lead section, "She sang the co-lead vocals on the Grammy-nominated song "Beautiful, Loved and Blessed" from Prince's 2006 album, 3121 and on backup vocals throughout the album." That sounds like a notable work to me. JulesH 23:18, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Minor celebtrity; might as well have an article on her, as long as somebody is willing to clean it up and ensure it is sourced to reliable sources (hint for the page's authors: the current source, being a forum, is not reliable, but does have links to some sources that are). JulesH 23:18, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, barely passes WP:MUSIC. There seem to be some things written about her out there. The article needs those sources and other improvement. --Dhartung | Talk 08:07, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Clean Up I have sources!!!!. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nycboi1 (talk • contribs) 20:59, 6 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- Comment: what sources? The only source that might pass WP:RS is the MTV bio site. --Tinctorius 21:27, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 23:23, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep, she just crosses into notability. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:26, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as notable. Article could still be expanded, and more sources added. CattleGirl ^{talk | sign!} 01:33, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- passes WP:MUSIC Thunderwing 11:04, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Jusssst notable --St.daniel ^Talk 11:48, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep some notability. Needs to add sources -Lemonflash ^(t)/_(c) 23:35, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:09, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Rhythm and blues discography

Ill-defined, indiscrimate and superfluous list. Tikiwont 12:14, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I fully agree. --Tinctorius 12:22, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this would be huge and unworkable if it were ever completed. Better as a category. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:33, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or we'll end up with list of all albums ever released by anyone ever before much longer. Listcruft. A1octopus 18:46, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- Pax:Vobiscum 17:13, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:19, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Crash Davis (DJ)

Seems not notable to me.-- Luigi30 (Taλk) 12:26, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete: not notable, no formal tone, no sources or citing, etc. etc. etc. --Tinctorius 12:31, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete No notability, no references, no article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:38, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete as vanispamcruftisement. Crash Davis, though, should redirect to Bull Durham. --Dhartung | Talk 08:01, 4 May 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. Arkyan  ^(talk) 20:45, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

R. Mark Isaac

Disputed PROD, so bringing it to AfD. Subject is a non-notable college professor who does not satisfy WP:PROF.

I am also nominating the following related pages on professors who appear non-notable:

John Scholz (note: has separate AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Scholz)
Naresh Dalal (note: has separate AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Naresh Dalal)
J.B. Ruhl (note: bundled AfD)
Max Gunzburger (note: bundled AfD)
William D. Berry (political scientist) (note: bundled AfD)
Kenneth Roux (note: bundled AfD)
Doron Nof (note: bundled AfD)
Friedrich Stephan (note: bundled AfD)

These AfD's are now separated. Dsreyn 17:38, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd 15:06, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment I anticipate many users will want to comment separately on many of these. I think splitting them into individual cases will be worth the effort. Pete.Hurd 15:34, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Object to bundling these all together. All they appear to have in common is their institution, which is respectable enough that their affiliation with it is no black mark against them, and their initial creator, who appears to be an alum of that institution (not close enough an affiliation, I think, to violate WP:COI — what other kind of person do you expect to create articles on these people, but someone who already has some knowledge of them?). I think these should be discussed individually. If we have to !vote on the bundle as a collective, I !vote strong keep as the list largely consists of award-winning named chairs who on the face of it appear to pass WP:PROF. —David Eppstein 17:38, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Now that it has been unbundled, I still !vote strong keep for Isaac. Named chair and officially designated by his institution as "eminent scholar", important editorial and scholarly society connections, undeniably notable collaborations. —David Eppstein 17:40, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per David Eppstein. Pete.Hurd 22:24, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Truly an obvious case. Chairman of department,names faculty position many publications as shown in the references. I think a Speedy keep would be justified DGG 02:42, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Once again, named chairs are not automatic notability - the assumption that these people are always notable is a hand-waving argument at best. As it stands, the article doesn't not establish sufficient notability. fbb_fan 16:19, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep -- again the article mentions a) the contributions of his work, and b) provides specific references. Plenty of legs to stand on other than a named professorship, which presumably FSU would not give out without damn good reason. I typed him into scholar.google.com. His work is published in the top econ journals and is cited frequently by top people. This is a very easyt case for a strong keep, in my opinion, and that fact that he has coauthored with Charles Plott of Cal Tech, who we let by with a one sentence stubb, bodes in favor of keeping him. What in the heck does the nominator have against FSU faculty?????? Why are we holding them to a different standard than Caltech and other faculty???? With the exception of Leo Sandon, who should be deleted as insignificant, these are some real strong faculty, in comparison to most professors I see on wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.180.216.26 (talk • contribs)
- Comment. The existence of one article (Charles Plott in this case) does not justify existence of another (you could always nominate the Plott article if you think it is unfit, though you might want to log in with a username if you do that). Also, someone is allowed to nominate an article without making a thorough sweep of Wikipedia for all similar articles. Unless I'm mistaken, these FSU articles were all written by one or maybe two editors, and were very poorly written at that - little to no assertion of notability in any of the articles. That's the common theme here, I believe. fbb_fan 01:29, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- A Strong Keep -- No bdoubt about it that Isaac is a big deal in experimental economics. I looked up many syllabi from graduate courses at Yale, Princeton and Cal Tech and they assign his work as classics in the field. Many of the comments here note that these nominations were to make a point about weak or incomplete nominations of FSU faculty, but other than sayong one criteria alone, such as a chair, fails to establish notewithiness, these comments fail to show how the faculty are not noteworthy. Isaac's entry, for example, a) mentions coauthors, including a Novbel Prize winner with which he repeatedly writes, b) describes the significance of his work in a factually accurate manner with no puffery, and c) gives citations to his work. In addition, he is an eminent chair at a major research research university. To claim that this does not meet the Prof criteria is to rewrite them to make a point. It is the job of the editors in deleting entries to address entries on the merits, not to try to make a point or express some objection to the person who nominated them.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Arkyan  ^(talk) 20:47, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John Scholz

Non-notable college professor, does not satisfy WP:PROF. Dsreyn 13:38, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems notable enough due to his publications with other notable individuals. Sources need to be rounded up, but that doesn't mean the article should be dumped. Scholz has numerous articles in peer-reviewed journals, citations by others, and seems to be easy enough to find more on. DickClarkMises 16:52, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. None of your claims are backed up anywhere in the article. It's up to the editors of the article to demonstrate notability and provide sources. Dsreyn 17:43, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sure, and they should have done that. It isn't clear to me, though, that just because an article is low-quality its deletion is warranted. My understanding of the AfD process is that articles which ought not exist should be deleted, not those articles which ought to exist but are currently in a stub stage with a need for more sources. An article of low-quality is not necessarily an article that ought be deleted. I wholeheartedly agree that the article should be improved. The AfD question is whether it can be improved within the boundaries specified by Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. It can, and therefore it belongs here. DickClarkMises 18:25, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*This AfD has been bundled with the AfD for R. Mark Isaac - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/R. Mark Isaac. Dsreyn 13:58, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd 15:06, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Full professor, holder of a named chair at an important university.Such people are almost always notable, as they get there having passed many reviews from the peers for notability. all we need do it record it. The publications cn of course be listed, but the N is apparent in the present state. The article need only be sourceable.DGG 02:45, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Holding a named chair is not automatically notable by WP:PROF, and there is no other assertion of notability in the article. fbb_fan 16:16, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep -- true a chair in and of itself does not suffice, but a) heavily cited pubs are referenced, and b) his contributions are clearly explained and support by the article and his resume, which is linked. Again, this is selective purging of a distinguished FSU faculty member, and it denies FSU faculty the right to have stubs, as faculty as most other institutions do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.180.216.26 (talk • contribs)
Keep - Why would you delete this kind of entry? It describes the significance of his work, describes his work generally, contains references, and I also note that he regularly publishes in the top political science journal. If you don't know the field, I suspect you might consider a game theorist writing on enforcement not noteworthy, but anyone writing in legal enforcement or political science of enforcement, including federalism, knows the significance of Scholoz's contributions.

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

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

Result was Keep. — Caknuck 05:56, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Naresh Dalal

Non-notable college professor, does not satisfy WP:PROF. Dsreyn 13:50, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Award-winning chemist who lectures internationally, and who is noted for significant contributions to medical imaging. C'mon guys, this nom represents a lack of effort to find sources. There are plenty of reliable ones easily found with a simple google search for "Naresh Dalal." DickClarkMises 17:01, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. It's up to the article's editors to produce sources and demonstrate notability; it's not my responsibility as the AfD nominator to produce that. Dsreyn 17:40, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, we have a policy that directs us to Assume good faith, and that means that you should assume that the contributor of this article was acting in good faith in adding it. This article is not obviously a bad faith (i.e. vanity, autobio, defamatory, etc.) one and therefore it is incumbent on the person nomming it for deletion to explain why it ought to be deleted. That an article needs improvement is not a valid reason to delete it. DickClarkMises 18:31, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment. It would be nice to assume that everybody who creates articles does so in good faith, but we all know that articles that fall way below the notability standards are created regularly. You simply can not assume that every article that is added belongs in Wikipedia. fbb_fan 22:17, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

* This AfD has been bundled with the AfD for R. Mark Isaac - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/R. Mark Isaac. Dsreyn 13:56, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd 15:11, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DickClarkMises. If you, as nominator, see something that is too stubby, I think it's incumbent upon you to do some research to determine whether the correct decision is to expand it or to delete it. If you don't want to do that research, don't take it upon yourself to make the nomination. It doesn't appear that you have done that research here. —David Eppstein 17:44, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep' *Keep Full professor, holder of a named chair at an important university.Such people are almost always notable, as they get there having passed many reviews from the peers for notability. all we need do it record it. The publications cn of course be listed, but the N is apparent in the present state. The article need only be sourceable. I notice furthermore that all of these people are from Florida State University~~. I am not sure whether the nom thinks no professors notable, or simply no professors from that particular institution.~~ DGG 03:48, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I need to modify my statement about the nom. Considering all the other carelessly written FSU faculty articles just inserted, it is nderstandable for someone to get a feeling of impatience, and nominate the lot of them. DGG 05:00, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Full professorship certainly doesn't satisfy WP:PROF, and I don't see how named chairs automatically qualify either. Simply assuming that such people are automatically notable seems like a poor reason to keep the article. I don't see any real assertion of notability otherwise. I have no problem with profiles on notable college professors, but this isn't Who's Who in American Universities either. fbb_fan 22:17, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep -- tyrue that a chair in and of itself does not estabblish noteworthiness, but a) his awards, and b) his publications, which are covered in the press, do. Thi9s guy is at the cutting edge of the chemistry side of medical imaging and deserves a stub. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.180.216.26 (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.

The result was delete. All of the users who have added their below Vasquito other than Tom harrison are clearly sockpuppets. Sr13 (T|C) 05:06, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Victor Quinteros

Created by a single-purpose account Vasquito, probably the subject. My {{db-nn}} was removed by another single-purpose account, Nacperu. I still don't see an assertion of notability, or any verified information. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 14:06, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Obvious vanity page. Subject is not notable. The Parsnip! 14:23, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - 65 g-hits, non on them reliable sources. Ryan Postlethwaite 14:56, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Vanity, n.n., reads like a D- level promotional blurb. DickClarkMises 16:56, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete vain vanity in vain. JuJube 18:30, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless sources can be added--which is always possible. Suggest blanking the comment a few lines up, as a use of this discussion for purposes of libel. DGG 02:51, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - An aerobic champion page. Subject is notable in its field . vasquito 08:45, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
— vasquito (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 02:48, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per DickClarkMises above. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:50, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Sources added, why someone is deleting the new sources?. I also think the subject is notable in its field . User eddyvirto 08:52, 5 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 201.230.90.204 (talk) 02:13, 5 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
— eddyvirto (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Keep - I think we get real info on pages like www.sportarobics-nac.com or www.idea.com not to mention peruvian newspapers,argentinean magazines and associations there in the US 196000 g-hits, some of them reliable sources.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nacperu (talk • contribs) 05:53, 5 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

— Nacperu (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Keep - this article is good I value international content and contributions from other cultures like fashion is south america. ajhightower 12:30, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
— ajhightower (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Keep - I compete in gymnastics I wish aerobics where still as notable as in the 80's and 90's . I consider this page inspiring and I think the subject is notable in its field. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Humbertor (talk • contribs) 00:15, May 6, 2007 (UTC)
— Humbertor (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Keep - more data related to his fashion carrer is needed. I consider this page needs more content related but still think the subject is notable in fitness. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cherie2 (talk • contribs) 101:49, May 6, 2007 (UTC)
— Cherie2 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Keep - I agree that the subject is notable in fitness. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Storey d (talk • contribs) 02:36, May 7, 2007 (UTC)
— Storey d (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Strongly Keep - I know this photographer, he shot Super Model Naomi Cambell at New York Fashion Week and we had a blast at Vogue Lounge. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Miabella25 (talk • contribs) 20:50, May 7, 2007 (UTC)
— Mirabella25 (talk • contribs) 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.

Result was Keep. — Caknuck 05:53, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Boss Nigger

Fails WP:Notability. WP is not a catalog of every film ever made. The Parsnip! 14:20, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Silly and offensive, but still a notable film. As verifiability goes, I recall this was definitely part of one of the Medved Brothers books, The Golden Turkey Awards, I think. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:37, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Update: I looked it up. It is indeed in Medveds' The Golden Turkey Awards, page 102, one of five films covered in the chapter "The Worst Blaxploitation Movie Ever Made". Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:51, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. The film meets at least one criteria for notability of film, as outlined here. That is, the film features significant involvement by at least one notable person. Jay†Litman 15:42, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I don't see where it says notability of a film is established by the involvement of one notable person. The Parsnip! 18:03, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Note: I went to the movie's IMDB entry and clicked on the first few people in the cast list. While nobody there is a Hollywood megastar, seven out of the first eight actors had significant movie & TV careers before and after appearing in this movie. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:02, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Ever watch I'm gonna git you sucka? Same principle. Blaxploitation movies often have weird titles, and I know this to be one of the classics. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 19:03, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:OR The Parsnip! 14:07, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep The movie is reviewed (two stars) in Leonard Maltin's Movie Guide. Fred Williamson was a relatively significant figure in the genre. According to both AMG and Maltin, Fred Williamson wrote the script (although IMDB credits a Jack Williamson, he has no other screen-writing credits, so I trust AMG and Maltin over IMDB in this instance). It was Williamson's first script and also the first film he produced. — Malik Shabazz | Talk 22:13, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You're right, Fred Williamson is credited as writer on the poster. Crazysuit 05:25, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Just because Fred Williamson is notable doesn't mean the film is. WP is not a list of every film ever made. The Parsnip! 14:07, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep This is a blaxploitation classic. Can people try using Google before nominating an article for deletion. It would save pointless afds like this. Crazysuit 05:25, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:OR The Parsnip! 14:07, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - As of now, the article contains exactly ZERO references. Can someone please introduce acceptable references to assert verifiability and notability? The Parsnip! 14:10, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I added some "meat" to the article, including a sourced article from a film magazine. — Malik Shabazz | Talk 15:41, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per everyone except the misguided nominator. RFerreira 07:24, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because the nominator is so very wrong. Jerkcity 19:08, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — I've added much more to the article, including Vincent Canby's 1975 review from The New York Times. There are four references beside AMG and IMDB, and at least two of them cite different reasons why Boss Nigger is notable. — Malik Shabazz | Talk 22:57, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — Malik Shabazz and others have demonstrated the subject's notability through references. This article has come a long way from when it was nominated to now.[65] --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 00:20, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per references. That's enough for me. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ Yell ○ 13:46, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:20, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John Lovell

Well this is an interesting case in that this guy was my accounting teacher a couple years back. However I don't think he's notable enough to be on Wikipedia as he played only two seasons of NCAA hockey and he also coached three OHL teams. I wouldn't bet against it being written by one of his students during his class. Croat Canuck Go Leafs Go 14:24, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete keeping this would open the floodgates for every college athlete ever having an article. No verifiability either. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:35, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:V and even the loose standards of WP:BIO, never mind the criteria in place at the hockey WikiProject. No notability as a player, and while he's held some major junior coaching positions, a directed Google search for "John Lovell" + "Platers" (his most recent team) turns up only 29 hits, only a handful of which are relevant [66]. This guy just isn't on the radar, however much I'm happy to see fellow former Huskies up on Wikipedia. RGTraynor 14:45, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, oh I'll add one more thing that's not in the article but is important. He was/is an assistant coach of the Toronto Rock of the National Lacrosse League, I still think that doesn't make him notable enough though. Croat Canuck Go Leafs Go 14:57, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Djsasso 15:58, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. GoodDay 17:59, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if no sources are provided' -- I did a google-search on "John Lovell" + ECHL and came up with a few items on ECHL sites, and 2 sportsillustrated.cnn.com articles that simply list him as traded from one team to another. I googled "John Lovell" +"Toronto Rock" and only got results from a few lacrosse team sites and message boards. Unless someone can add some independent sources (media articles, etc), he doesn't appear to meet notability criteria. ColtsScore 20:46, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:20, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Ravins

Found nothing notable about the subject other than he committed a crime. Found no information on the subject prior to the crime or any information that shows what significant impact the crime had. Barkeep 14:24, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unless there are some reliable sources that can confirm the events in the article, it should be deleted. People kill people all the time, why is this occurence notable? --Cyrus Andiron 15:29, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not just non-notable, unverifiable, possibly hoax. Even with a "minus Wikipedia" filter, the handful of Google hits are all Wikipedia clones. -- RHaworth 16:15, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above unless sourced before AFD ends. RJFJR 23:29, 5 May 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.

Result was Keep. — Caknuck 05:47, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blogcritics

Article has not really been improved in any fashion since the last AfD, it is still mostly vanity. I don't see a self-proclamed "sinister cabal of superior bloggers" as notable enough to merit its own article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justinm1978 (talk • contribs)

Neutral. Badly formed nomination - tidying it. Since the previous AfD decision was keep, why was there any need to improve the article? But let us see what the "far more sinister cabal of Wikipedia editors" think. -- RHaworth 15:22, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think Blogcritics meets at least one criteria for notability as per WP:WEB. It has received an independent award from Forbes.com, and this seems to be verifiable. Granted, there is still quite a bit of content in the article that needs to be verified or removed, but the rememdy for this is bold editing, not deletion. Jay †Litman 17:30, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Award winning popular web site. Clearly notable. JulesH 23:25, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as notable and popular blog. Capitalistroadster 03:33, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, passes WP:WEB due to award and syndication. Article relies a bit too much on primary sources, and has tone issues, but that can be fixed. --Dhartung | Talk 07:56, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as it passes WP:WEB. The rationale for deletion is as clear as mud, too. Burntsauce 23:45, 4 May 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. WjBscribe 02:47, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rainbow Editor

Contested blatant advertising speedy. Article needs to show it meets WP:SOFTWARE/WP:N, i.e. that reliable sources exist. W.marsh 14:39, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as advert/spam, even though it does contain one of the most amusing pairs of typos I've seen in awhile: "Free for sutdents: Studnets can apply the register code freely..." Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:09, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nearly incomprehensible. JuJube 18:28, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete poor article, obviously spam for a freeware text editor program created by User:AndrewChenTw. It's apparent he used his own editor to write the article because (as he states) the editor has no spell-check capabilities. —Loadmaster 22:42, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Should be cleaned up to remove original research. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:04, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rhinelandic

Contested speedy. Unreferenced article about some term, suspected of being original research. I suppose it should be deleted if no sources can be found. W.marsh 14:42, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It should be deleted because the term Rhinelandic is not used in Germanic linguistics - there is simply no need for an article with this title. No one has been able to cite any published peer-reviewed work in which the term is used. Add to this the fact that the content itself is clueless nonsense. I originally questioned the value of this article 10 months ago. The fact that no one has attempted to answer the criticisms in all that time suggests that there is no need to delay deletion any further. --Pfold 16:20, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there is a corresponding article in the German Wikipedia and the Germans live happily with it. They gave three (similar) meanings of "Rheinische Sprache" and our article is about the third one. (Both English and German articles seem to be of low quality, but it is possible to make them better.)--Ioannes Pragensis 20:12, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- And even if it's not the proper translation, it should be kept as a redirect to the more proper one. Dhaluza 01:45, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I wouldn't read to much into the link - if you look through the history, it's apparent that the link to the German article is the work of the same user who wrote most of the nonsense on this page. In any case, the German page doesn't inspire confidence - it's just an unsourced listing of usages, with no implication that the term has any status in linguistics. --Pfold 10:37, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep we should be check to make sure that Rhinelandic is the appropriate and most widely used English translation of "Rheinische Sprache". If Rhinelandic is not used, its German counterpart seems to be used albeit infrequently by German writers, as Google Scholar brings up 1,880 hits for Rheinische + Sprache, the vast majority of the Rheinische's are not of the Sprache, but of the University or location of the research, which are not relevant however, Google Scholar also brings up a couple of hits for "Rheinische Mundart" but that gets us in to the eternal langauge (Sprache) vs. dialect (Mundart) debate. Carlossuarez46 22:35, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 23:23, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe keep Googling suggests that the word is used to discuss dialects. Whether it is a colloquial or technical term is unclear, however. Mangoe 03:55, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; babble, badly translated. "The Benrather line both clearly divides the tonal area into two language areas and clearly fails to conceal they are yet very similar." The English is Benrath line, which divides Low from High German. Original reasearch; whether or not this is a genuinely useful concept, we would do better starting over. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:27, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral, seems like OR, but, like Ioannes Pragensis said, there is an article on the German Wikpipedia, and a Google search turns up a few results. Tim.bounceback^{(review me! | talk | contribs | ubxen)} 23:49, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note, however, that the German article is de:Rheinische Sprache, which would be "Rhenish language" or "dialect" in English. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:15, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; on the whole I agree with the concerns that have been expressed above. On the question of the translation of "Rheinische Sprache", I suspect that the word "Rhenish" would be the closest term in English. I don't know if this would be the same thing as the Rhenish dialect of German, on which subject Google Books finds over 600 separate works. -- ChrisO 00:22, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That becomes 83 hits when one introduces quotation marks. Still significant, but since the German wikipedia treats the term as ambiguous (I read it as saying there is a High German accent, a Standard German dialect, and a bunch of Low German local variants) I am still concerned that the present article is OR. Rhinelandic gets 5, of which at least 4 have nothing to do with language. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:24, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as stub. Clearly this is not completely made up, e.g. see sidebar in: [67]. Dialects are a serious topic in German, probably more so than in English, so this may be a case of WP:BIAS. But the unreferenced content is a problem. Move most of it to the talk page pending reference inclusion, leaving a valid stub. P.S. I also tagged the German page for lack of references, in case that will bring any forward. Dhaluza 01:42, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:35, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

VIAS

Non-notable subsidiary company. At best merge into Valeo. -- RHaworth 15:05, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Failed Primary Criterion of WP:CORP. The article does not have independent, reliable, non-trivial coverage and non-autobiography secondary sources to pass the notability criteria. — Indon (reply) — 09:25, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 00:00, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Non notable coperation. Edited by only one user which does not comply with WP:COI. Article is written like an advertisement. DBZROCKS 00:54, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, likely to be WP:COI and fails WP:CORP criteria. No reliable sources and its claim to be one of the biggest is false. Terence 05:10, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Well said above. JodyB_talk 13:38, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete a7, no assertion of notability, self-promotion by self-published author. NawlinWiki 15:45, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Peacock (poet)

Does not satisfy the notability guidelines for creative professionals. Dce7 15:34, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Peacock (poet): is a biography of one of todays modern day poets. If every poet biography had been removed from history books and book shelves, then how would we know about ANY of the great historical works of ANY of our historical poets? Please reconsider and help to edit this biography. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rpeacock (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.

The result was Keep Steve _(Stephen)^talk 23:45, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Roy Pearson

Washington DC lawyer who filed stupid-ass lawsuit for $65 million against a dry cleaner for losing his pants. Despite the Washington Post column on the incident, this doesn't strike me as encyclopedically notable. People file stupid lawsuits all the time. NawlinWiki 15:43, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep at least for now. This is a current news story which has gone international. Suggest re-visiting the issue in a year or so to see whether anything comes of it. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:23, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This person (who is the subject of the article) is not notable in and of himself, it is the lawsuit that generates any (arguable) notability. The lawsuit itself is probably not notable either, and if anything is suitable for WikiNews and not here, but regardless this article is not about the lawsuit, but about the person. Ryanjunk 16:34, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Week Keep per Starblind -- MisterHand 16:35, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - Pearson and his lawsuit are the subject of numerous reliable, independent sources. His story has been featured on Drudge Report and has spawned a lot of public debate. As a judge who may be disbarred for a frivolous lawsuit, this is more than just a run-of-the-mill ridiculous lawsuit. He is a member of the Supreme Court Bar, too. DickClarkMises 17:08, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
place elsewhere for now. For example there is a Wiki page on "frivolous litigation"; a sentence or two on this particular man and this particular case might well be warranted for the time being. Indeed, there are plenty of stupid lawsuits being filed and time will tell what the encyclopaedic fate of this one is. Will it just be thrown out, will it serve as jurisprudence and possible future reform in litigation claims procedures? Time will tell. An actual page on Roy Pearson himself is not really justifiable; his only current wiki-encyclopaedic claim to fame is his pantsy lawsuit, and he should therefore turn up under that category only. Ed Lamot 17:41, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not just any random lawyer, its a judge who might be losing his position. 71.255.108.164 18:16, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As an administrative judge, its his job to keep other judges in check, this is bound to get pretty big pretty fast with the press it has recieved. It should at least stay for now for referance until the publicity dies down. --Midnight08 19:19, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This keeps coming up, but administrative law judges are pretty non-notable; they are basically hearing officers for regulatory disputes that do not rise to the level of civil or criminal law.--Dhartung | Talk 07:42, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The story is currently on the front page of CNN.com, and Google News shows coverage from the UK, Germany, and New Zealand, among many other places. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:32, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All the more reason for WikiNews to cover it, but not a valid commentary on encyclopedic notability. From WP:NOT -

News reports. Wikipedia should not offer first-hand news reports on breaking stories. Wikipedia is not a primary source. However, our sister project Wikinews does exactly that, and is intended to be a primary source. Wikipedia does have many encyclopedia articles on topics of historical significance that are currently in the news, and can be updated with recent verified information.

So, is this lawsuit a topic of historical significance? That remains to be seen. WP is also not a crystal ball. And for all that, at minimum this person is not notable, this case may be, in which case we need to shift the focus and move the article. Ryanjunk 20:43, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you kidding with that quote? On what grounds are you claiming that anyone is trying to make Wikipedia a primary source for "first-hand news reports"? Please provide one example from the article of a "first-hand report." This article should be composed of assertions that are derived from notable, reliable sources. There are tons of such sources about this judge, thus he is notable. DickClarkMises 20:51, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"A representative at the District of Columbia call center confirmed that as of May 2, 2007, Roy Pearson, Jr. is no longer under the employ of the District of Columbia."

This information does not appear in any of the sources for the article, and thus represents original research, of the sort that would be carried out by a news report and not an encyclopedia article. Aside from that, while it's not first-hand reporting (other than the information from this quote), it is information about an ongoing, unresolved court case, which is by definition a "news report". Ryanjunk 23:13, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The solution for an unsourced sentence is to remove the sentence, not delete the whole article. In fact, I've done just that. -- MisterHand 23:33, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and the second and third paragraphs are basically copied directly from the dc.gov reference, hence a copyvio. After removing all the copyvio and original research we are left with the first paragraph, which essentially only documents an ongoing news event, hence a valid candidate for deletion. Ryanjunk 01:07, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch on the OR. That should have been removed. Still, though, on the copyvio, if the source exists just cull the copy vio text and summarize, citing the source and allowing others who may be more interested to expand from what is already out there. It shouldn't matter what we think about this guy's job, or his importance. What matters is that he is notable via appearance in major credible media outlets and is probably notable by virtue of his judiciary position. Regardless of whether or not the article is terrible, we should have an article on this guy. DickClarkMises 02:01, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This man is relevant to current events and the subject of a news story that's currently receiving very wide press from CNN, Reuters, AP, and others. The scandal is only likely to grow. His being a Federal judge would have made him a notable public figure anyway. Collabi 19:35, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- He's not a "federal judge" as usually understood. Administrative law judges used to be known as hearing examiners, and they report to civil departments. They are not part of the federal judiciary. --Dhartung | Talk 07:48, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Administrative Law Judge Roy Pearson has become notable as a living example of what is wrong with American Jusrisprudence. His plainly frivolous suit against a local dry cleaning business and the attendant press coverage is worthy of inclusion as a article on the judge himself. -- 24.210.207.51 20:05, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment not a valid reason to keep. WLU 20:12, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - reliable sources (though it definitely needs more) and notable (judge, major coverage). C'mon, if we've got a page on Peanut Butter Jelly Time, I think $65 million pants are worth keeping. Perhaps, as the judge is less interesting than the incident itself, it could be moved to a different page. $65 000 000 pants perhaps?WLU 20:12, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you feel that Peanut Butter Jelly Time is not an encyclopedic topic, feel free to nominate it for deletion. Ryanjunk 20:45, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely keep this article. If Judge Pearson ever applies for a new job, wouldn't we want everyone to know that he is a self-righteous jackass and all-around horrible person? I think we would! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.3.15.253 (talk) 19:07, 3 May 2007
Strong Keep The story and the man are of such interest that it has become relevent to history. When somebody searches for him in a couple or twenty years, it would be proper to docuement it here. This is the proper venue. --Marcwiki9 02:56, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteTrivial water-cooler story does not constitute encyclopedic material for an article, Fails WP:N by having 2 stories appearing around the same time and apparently written from the same materials. Wikipedia is not a news magazine. This belongs at Wikinews. (Pearson doubtless pilloried in the court of public opinion for overzealously pressing his suit). Edison 04:52, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, we're not Wikinews, please. There was a day when this would be Chuck Shepherd's bailiwick, but incredibly, I saw it on many internet news sites. People's taste for the jejune is apparently bottomless. --Dhartung | Talk 07:42, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Opinions on this issue are almost assured to fall into line on whether or not you agree with the essay WP:NOTNEWS; perhaps we should be debating this on a wider level instead of banging our heads against each other here and probably ending with a no-consensus close? Anyway, a Google News archive search doesn't seem to show any coverage about him prior to this incident, meaning there's nothing else we can write about the guy that isn't copied from his own bio ... cab 07:44, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Look at WP:NOTNEWS. This case is most certainly of lasting and historical interest and impact. Many people still refer to the infamous McDonalds coffee burn case, and therefore it gets a Wikipedia entry. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald%27s_Restaurants. People are going to be referring to this pants case for many years. They need a Wikipedia entry for the encyclopedic overview. This is not a trivial and forgettable case. It is not a run of the mill frivolous lawsuit, in which someone sues someone else for frivolous reasons. This is a Judge, a member of the Bar, abuses the system in a mammoth and unprecedented manner. It will not be easily forgotten. --68.193.161.227 13:46, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Two comments: That article relates to the case and not the individual; it is Liebeck v. McDonald and not Stella Liebeck. If we are to suppose that this case is encyclopedic, we should have an article on the case and not on this individual. Second, WP is not a crystal ball... we don't yet know that this case is going to be of lasting and historical interest until it is. Ryanjunk 15:50, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KeepThis guy is a public figure having been a judge in the nation's capitol, and involving himself in the legal system in such an extraordinary way.Isaac Crumm 19:23, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The Government of the District of Columbia took down his official biography today. Come to the Roy Pearson webpage and help decide if the information that was contained in it should also be deleted, or restored and cited with yesterdays access date. Google has not cached the biography. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 19:52, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Roy Pearson is really only notable for a lawsuit he's filling which is very notable and I think this the only article about and has no biographical information on it. So why not have this page redirected to a different article about the lawsuit like Roy Pearson vs Custom Cleaners or something and maybe some other redirects should be created too.--71.123.210.13 01:38, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Who says Original Research? This is absurd. How does pointing to a news story on cnn.com become an encyclopedic reference, but pointing to a government office become original research? It seems he was fired, all the evidence points to him being dismissed, and his web page biography was removed. I think if it is the position of the DC Government that he was dismissed, then that is of encyclopedic significance. Noting his dismissal here does not qualify as original research, it merely qualifies as documenting the source of the information. That source is not clickable as a link on the web, but not all sources are. Is Wikipedia now of the opinion that all nonweb sources are so unreliable that they need deletion? I think it is up to the folks that favor deletion to prove that he was not dismissed, and not the other way around. It was Not original research. I think that the statement that he was dismissed needs to be restored, along with the source of the information. --67.81.119.3 04:52, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The OR was a line in the article which stated that a phone call was made (by the author of the line in the article) to the DC courts, who confirmed his dismissal. That is original research. If it can be verified by a reliable source that he has been dismissed, provide that source and add that detail. The editor who phoned the court system himself and then wrote details into the article was doing original research, which I reverted. Ryanjunk 19:15, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete: Since this is a current news story, I want to keep this article for the reason of interest. Otherwise, per NawlinWiki. ~ Magnus animum ∵ ∫ φ γ 15:50, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep story featured on CNN (TV), seems quite notable--Daveswagon 21:48, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Suing for $65 million for a pair of pants by a sitting judge will be referenced in the future. Many countries are using this example to show how the US legal system allows abuse of power. --Hunfe 01:26, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The man is probably the most notorious asshole to come along in a decade or more. The article serves to make people aware of just what kind of a selfish jackass he is. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.170.224.208 (talk) 15:43, 6 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Strong Keep I'm not a lawyer and I can't see the future, but tort reform has been gathering steam in the US for a while now. This is a prime example of what tort reform would try to change and has the potential to be a catalyst for such a change. This isn't just about the arrogant already powerful jerkwad suing the poor imigrant family just trying to make it (though that is the current spin) this is quickly being grasped upon as THE tug at your heart strings argument for tort reform.Lizz612 21:36, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In which case it would be an excellent candidate to merge information about this person's lawsuit into an article on Tort Reform. Tort Reform is a notable, encyclopedic topic. Pearson's lawsuit itself may or may not be a notable topic. Roy Pearson himself is non-notable apart from his lawsuit; if there were no lawsuit, Wikipedia would have no entry on this person. Ryanjunk 00:17, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Remove The creation of the page is feeding the man's ego. It is not relevant news, it will fizzle in a few days after the trial. Isn't wikipedia an encyclopedia, not a news service for reporting on the lastest gossip? Whether or not the public will be aware of how much of an ass this man is, it still gives him fame and notoriety, neither of which he deserves.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.161.73.245 (talk • contribs)

Is there any evidence that this feeds his ego? Personally, I doubt it has any effect on his ego. I think his ego has been crushed by the negative press. Conversly, this event will not fizzle. This is a watershed event that will remain relevant for a long time. There are people who have come to Wikipedia searching for a NPOV article about the guy. It is unfair of you, or anyone, to declare this particular element of American History not worthy of keeping on Wikipedia. --67.81.119.3 19:14, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG KEEPI guess I am one of those people that feel any elected official or any person that goes through a confirmation process should be included. This encyclopedia should be very inclusive and should give info on about anyone who might be "someone". we should not be an exclusive academic encyclopedia, but an inclusive one.. one easly used with so much info that a small child can use to find anything. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Callelinea (talk • contribs) 15:38, 8 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. This has begun showing up in the newspapers up in Canada as well. Wikipedia is the obvious place for people to come look up the facts. The article needs cleaning up, but it is of current interest. --Stéphane Charette 20:44, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Plenty of substantial coverage; I just came here from reading about him (and his lawsuit) in the Süddeutsche Zeitung. Sandstein 16:35, 11 May 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 restore to previous version - article about the Chief Justice of the Vermont Supreme Court. WjBscribe 00:24, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Paul_Reiber

Page is kind of a disambiguation page for people who don't seem to be listed on Wikipedia. Cank 15:52, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete can't have a disambig page without articles to disambiguate. Note that the third-listed person is notable enough for an article, but present article should not be kept. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:21, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we need some articles to disambiguate. The chief justice is probably notable, but that's not a reason to keep the article. Hut 8.5 16:35, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Petros471 18:47, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mythical number

Indiscriminate collection of information. Not every adjective and noun can be put together to make a name, or we would have an article on Red tomatoes. Please note that the present "source" (to a Slate essay) is an improvement on the previous one, according to the talk page. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:09, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:09, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I actually PROD'ded this myself, but I found a source that not only talks about the issues, but gives it a fair bit of coverage in an acceptably scholarly fashion. And there are additional sources as to this subject dating back to the 70s. The article right now needs some work, but I'm comfortable letting that proceed. Oh, and there are articles on various types of tomatoes, including the recently kept List of tomato cultivars. FrozenPurpleCube 16:20, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sure an article can be written starting with this; I will agree to any reasonable merge. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:04, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a ridiculous piece of OR (who exactly believes that the five second rule "derives from science"?). When the best source you can find for an article is slate.com (lead story today: "Mitt Romney's Favourite Book is 'Battlefield Earth'") you know an article's in trouble — iridescenti (talk to me!) 17:26, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not that I'm aware Slate is considered disreputable (It's certainly not a National Inquirer), but even if it is, what about The Public Interest, which was described in the Washington Post as "For 40 years the Public Interest has been perhaps the finest scholarly magazine in America and, in relation to its small and exclusive circulation, surely the most influential." ? Two articles in it are cited in the Slate one, and I think they could be used to establish a better article on this subject. FrozenPurpleCube 20:57, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Imaginary number. (No, not really. Delete unless properly sourced. MM suggests they're there, but I'd like to see them.) -- BPMullins | Talk 18:12, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per FrozenPurpleCube. This does not seem like a subject that no one would ever write about. JuJube 18:27, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, a Google search showed that the term is really used in this sense.--Ioannes Pragensis 20:18, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rename. The topic is of some interest, but the term "mythical number" should not be made to appear standard (unless some evidence for the claim is adduced). This is one of those cases in which a longer article title may be a good thing. For example, "how Archimedes used infinitesimals" does not give the impression that that whole phrase is in standard use in some field. But if the article had been called "Archimedean infinitesimals" (an oxymoron!) then it might have left that impression. Michael Hardy 03:15, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, given that the term is used in at least three articles, and that you haven't provided another name, I'm not sure what to do. Still, if you want to propose a move, you can always do so after the AFD is closed if the article is kept. FrozenPurpleCube 04:55, 9 May 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. Steve _(Stephen)^talk 06:06, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Leo Sandon

Notability not asserted. The article is one of a long series posted by Special:Contributions/Florio_Stacy_Unitas about FSU people, many of which have been speedied. This one is a professor emeritus, and both speedy and prod were apparently contested on that basis alone. Clicketyclack 16:13, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BIO and WP:PROF. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:28, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment we seem to have some problems with FSU. I did not really plan to spend this evening rewriting a large number of inadequately documented articles about the faculty of this university. If someone takes the responsibility of entering a large number of articles on the various people mentioned in a university handbook (they do not seem to be copyvios), it is reasonable to expect that ed. to do a careful job of it, and be aware of the sort of sourcing necessary to demonstrate notability. But if the subjects of the articles are notable, I at any rate feel a responsibility to try to document them to the necessary level, though I can not take the time to do as full a rewrite for each of them as would otherwise be desirable. I have left a note at Florio's talk page explaining the problem. 04:44, 4 May 2007 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs)
Weak Keep I have rewritten this article, although hastily. Prof Sandon is clearly not notable as a researcher. His distinguished chair is a teaching chair, not as usual a research chair, and I have been unable to locate any truly scholarly work. However, he has cowritten what is clearly a notable textbook, and he appears to be a notable commentator. I'll try to provide more documentation. If considered under the ordinary N standards, he probably does qualify. DGG 04:47, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd 17:19, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete. I suppose the ABC "expert" endorsement may count for something, but on the other hand, a news outlet is naturally going to claim that anyone they use to provide background is an expert. fbb_fan 15:50, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. He's probably in the bottom 25% of all professors on Wikipedia and is not a notable reseacher in any documented manner. I don't see many citations to his work. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.180.216.26 (talk) 02:35, 7 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Weak Delete: DGG's contributions make it a hard choice. Sandon's chair is notable and the textbook is, but I'm not sure that both of them together make the page notable. If it were sparklingly written then I would consider it a Keep as an article that enhances Wikipedia, but as it is, it is more likely to become a less up-to-date version of a personal webpage. (btw -- I don't think the bottom 25% of profs on Wikipedia is a reason to delete; if we're contributing as we'd like then all the profs, even the bottom 25%, would be notable) --Myke Cuthbert 16:00, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete as a copyvio. DES ^(talk) 17:24, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Crooked Fiddle Band

Non-notable band, no sources cited, not notabilty established, spam links only - Tiswas^(t) 16:39, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As the article stands right now it is a marketing piece. The band appears to have written the article based on the last sentence. It needs a complete rewrite. Royalbroil 21:26, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 14:44, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see WP:RS that they pass WP:BAND

Delete - some minimal mentions and some gigs, but looks like they need to get an album or two out and some more non-trivial refs to meet WP:BAND. Tony Fox (arf!) 19:55, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. (I just nominated it.) Copyvio from http://www.crookedfiddleband.com/about.html. Calliopejen1 22:02, 10 May 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. Looking at WP:PROF, Samir and Iridescenti note that department chair of a major university is a claim under criterion 1. David Epstein's !vote and contribution makes a claim under 2, and perhaps 3 and 4 as well. Ling.Nut, visiting from our friends at the Linguistics WikiProject, seems to make a claim under 4, and perhaps 2. While any one of these claims might be marginal, in combination this is a firm keep. - Banyan Tree 06:28, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sharon Inkelas

I removed the speedy deletion notice on this professor and chair of linguistics at Berkeley. Being chair of a department at a major university meets WP:PROF in my eyes, but I'm bringing it to AfD as a contested speedy -- Samir 16:42, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Could be covered by A7 but because its contested it is more appropriate to bring it here, I cannot see any references so it fails Wikipedia:Verifiability.The Sunshine Man 16:59, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as chair of a major department at a major university. The laundry lists could probably safely go (and seem to have been cut-and-pasted from her entry on the Berkeley website), but going by Google, she seems to have enough important specialist publications (no mainstream media mentions - unsurprising for something this specialised - but cited by MIT, Cambridge, Stanford etc); IMO passes WP:PROF under criteria 1 — iridescenti (talk to me!) 17:31, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep It's an interesting question how many works to list. For scientists, I check a citation index--either Web of Science or Scopus, and include the most highly cited. This doesn't work well in other fields. But 7 publications seems a reasonable number, and the faculty web site is a reasonable place to get them. "Dissertations approved" is a borderline category-- one puts it on CVs, and it does establish ones stature to have actually supervised other scholars, but they are not usually listed here. I have replaced them with a general statement. "Courses taught" is almost always superfluous. This is of interest within the university only , except in really special cases, such as Feynman's introductory physics course at Caltech. I've removed these as well. DGG 04:55, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd 17:19, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Being a department chair doesn't seem sufficient to satisfy WP:PROF. Supervising PhD dissertations seems like it's just part of the job. I don't see anything else here that establishes any significant level of notability. fbb_fan 15:47, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I was going to say weak keep on the basis of being full professor and chair at Berkeley, which isn't really a strong argument for notability but is at least a clear pass for the "average professor test". But I'm upping my !vote after finding a review of her book with Zoll that called it "extremely important" (added to the article). I also added a sentence about her musical skills; while that doesn't really strengthen the case for her academic notability, at least it adds some color to her article which makes it seem more worth saving to me. —David Eppstein 07:27, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Few linguists are going to be more notable than a full professor at Berkeley. I think it would be great to solicit the opinion of some linguists on this nomination. --Myke Cuthbert 16:04, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just placed a note on Wikipedia_Talk:WikiProject Linguistics asking for expert opinions on this researcher's work. --Myke Cuthbert 05:14, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Just finished writing a term paper with Inkelas' name on every other page... Inkelas & Zoll, Morphological Doubling Theory. Try google scholar. :-) Ling.Nut 04:41, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete under WP:CSD G12 - copyright violation. Qwghlm 00:01, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Barton Stacey FC

Delete this is an (apparently) amateur club that has not played, and will not likely ever play in a fully professional league. Ytny (talk) 17:10, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. Ytny (talk) 17:13, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as copyvio - so tagged — iridescenti (talk to me!) 17:37, 3 May 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. Sufficient secondary sources have been provided to indicate that this term has a formal meaning. - Banyan Tree 06:06, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Driving pleasure

Contested speedy deletion. This article's a winner. No context, completely subjective, and barely helpful. The author insists it's "necessary", but I see no reason why an article about something like 'driving pleasure' is needed. JuJube 17:18, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete, maybe speedy delete per A1. --Tinctorius 17:30, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - probably speediable under A1/G1 — iridescenti (talk to me!) 17:40, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Fahrvergnügen, else delete. Basically some guy's opinion of what he likes in a car. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:11, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per Tinctorius. I tagged this for speedy deletion, but was overruled. This is not an article, and I fail to see how it could be salvaged. ---Charles 21:06, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG keep for at least a month The article's creator, User:Vinay412, is rather new to Wikipedia. I think he's from Bangalore, India. His contributions are rough, but I don't think they're ill-intentioned. Nobody ever sent him a welcome message (with Wiki info) on his user page, much less emphasized that he should be sure to provide sources for any contributions he makes to Wikipedia. Take a look at his contributions, especially Quarter glass and Helmet fight. He knows how Wikipedia is structured, and this structure takes time to learn. He could help improve the India articles if guided there. Don't bite his contributions, GUIDE his contributions. --SueHay 02:53, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment That doesn't mean this article should be kept. JuJube 03:05, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Agree Only asking for a delay to give him time to work on it, and us time to guide him. --SueHay 03:29, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep This article is essential, i was surprised not to see an article "driving pleasure" in wikipedia. i had already internal linked driving pleasure. page "throttle response" also has to be created. these words are most used while reviewing any car. Please try to improve article, i see no contributions other than mine. thanks Vinay412 05:01, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- and now i improved it a bit, i had thought some other will clean up article but they are deleting it. take a look now. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Vinay412 (talk • contribs) 05:04, 4 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- Lots of specialized terms are used in reviews of various items of technology, that doesn't mean they need Wikipedia articles. JuJube 05:16, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- though driving pleasure is little subjective, "throttle response" is purely scientific. and subjective does not mean it should be deleted. i will create throttle response after i win this case, lets see jujubeVinay412 05:32, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Wikipedia is not a battleground, so it's not about 'winning'. This article has been nominated for deletion because many editors think the subject of this article is not relevant. Do not take this criticism personally; we just want to improve Wikipedia obeying Wikipedia's standards, which include notability, sourcing, context, etc. If this article is 'significant', as you say, then tell us why. --Tinctorius 09:08, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i will tell you why, not today, but tomorrow.Vinay412 11:05, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's now the day after tomorrow... — iridescenti (talk to me!) 19:23, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Vinay412 and I added references to the article. "Driving pleasure" is a term used in evaluating vehicle design, and the parameters Vinay412 listed as important to "Driving pleasure" seem to roughly correspond with with how its used in technical literature. Also, the term is widely used in automobile advertising with the same meaning as in the technical literature. --SueHay 20:19, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article has a razor thin mean section that barely explains how the term is used or the possibility of an objective definition. If that can be done, I'll withdraw my nom. JuJube 18:06, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I expanded the introduction to include ergonomics and put the article in the auto engineering category. If the auto engineers, car reviewers and auto advertisers can't define this term that they use, I think the article should go away. If you'd consider letting it stay for now, I think Wikipedia's auto fans might expand it. Thank you for considering my request. --SueHay 21:29, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ergonomics is related to comfort, not pleasure. i felt moving it. Its sad to ask everything to be done in start of article itself.— vinay 03:57, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The lead is still small but suitably objective and can be expanded upon; therefore, I'll withdraw my nom. JuJube 03:59, 8 May 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. WjBscribe 23:34, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

J.B. Ruhl

Non-notable professor, does not satisfy WP:PROF. Dsreyn 17:30, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd 19:16, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep from TFA, "one of the most cited U.S. academics in environmental law.[68]" Pete.Hurd 22:43, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Pete. DickClarkMises 13:48, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- another easy case. The article speaks for itself. The objection seems to be that this is a Stub, but he is noteworthy and with time a stub can be expanded. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.180.216.26 (talk • contribs)
Keep -- just saw a copy of hos book on ecosystem services. He is one of the top scholars, if not the number one person in the U.S., in environmental law. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.149.57.192 (talk) 14:47, 8 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Keep -- I'd like to know what parts of WP:PROF the nominator does not think the article satisfies. Notability is clearly established. Two major books. Top chair at major department. --Myke Cuthbert 15:54, 9 May 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.

Result was Keep. — Caknuck 05:44, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Max Gunzburger

Non-notable professor, does not satisfy WP:PROF. Dsreyn 17:31, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd 19:17, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete An extensive search finds no significant publications, citations or awards — iridescenti (talk to me!) 23:07, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Once more a holder of a distinguished named chair at Florida State. Scopus shows 129 publications the 5 with the highest citations are 144, 96, 72, 43, and 36. This is high for applied mathematics. The top articles are in SIAM Review a very prestigious journal published by the major professional society. I have added them to the article. The name he publishes under is Max D. Gunzburger -- Iridescenti, might this have affected your results? Google Scholar shows 967 hits !! DGG 03:09, 4 May 2007 (UTC)DGG 03:47, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Based on his CV he's clearly notable. To start with, he's editor-in-chief of the SIAM journal on numerical analysis, arguably the top journal in his field (numerical analysis); that should suffice to establish notability. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 03:12, 4 May 2007 (UTC) (via edit conflict)[reply]
Keep per DGG and Jitse. DickClarkMises 13:49, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in light of research by DGG - I'll concede I never thought to search using his middle initial — iridescenti (talk to me!) 19:08, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the comments above, passes the WP:PROF test. RFerreira 07:25, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional Keep, only if notability is asserted in the article (for example, his status as editor in chief of the SIAM journal). I think it's peculiar that people feel so strongly about keeping all of these FSU professor articles, but nobody cares enough to add the appropriate biographical details to the articles. fbb_fan 16:09, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Your comments are particularly ironic...given your first sentence and your own reluctance to edit the article. --C S (Talk) 05:10, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well said, User:C S. I actually took the time to edit the article and add info to it before registering my vote below (I had no idea how I will vote until I did that), and then went back and added the bit about the editorship after reading about it here (and confirming it with Gunzburger's vita). I don't say this can always be done, but when it doesn't require too much effort, why not just do it, instead of berating others for not doing it? Turgidson 03:02, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He has 151 publications listed on MathSciNet, 702 citations by 429 authors (that's a lot!), and Erdős number 2 (Gunzburger—Faber—Erdős). No question about it. Turgidson 02:54, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I see no reason to delete a Distinguished Professor. Part of a series of badly-thought-out AFD nominations on FSU researchers by Dsreyn. --C S (Talk) 05:10, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- he is a leading scholar in applied mathematics and his record shows it. His contribbutions are both explained and references in the article. This is an easy case and the overzealous effort to purge distinguished FSU faculty should be sanctioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.180.216.26 (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.

Result was Keep. — Caknuck 05:42, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

William D. Berry (political scientist)

Non-notable professor, does not satisfy WP:PROF. Dsreyn 17:32, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete possibly just scrapes through WP:PROF criteria 3 as the author of Understanding Multivariate Analysis, but it isn't that widely used a textbook — iridescenti (talk to me!) 17:51, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd 19:17, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep another distinguished professor at FSU. Enough said. DGG 03:50, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Merits are at least as strong as the physical scientists mentioned from FSU. --Buridan 13:34, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Another professor for whom independent, reliable sources exist. DickClarkMises 13:50, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment While I do think there's something weird going on here - five simultaneous AfD nominations on members of the faculty of a single institution - aside from the book I can't see grounds for deletion; the three above all say sources exist, but I have looked and can't really see anything. While I would love a reason to keep this, if only because there's a slight whiff of bad faith about what's going on here, I can't make a good case here (unless someone can find some legitimate sources instead of saying "they must exist") - he doesn't appear to have any significant publications, awards or have held any particularly significant position — iridescenti (talk to me!) 19:12, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, here are some independent, reliable sources (mostly citations of his work, of which there are tons more) I found in a google search ("William D. Berry" "political science"): [69], [70], [71], [72], [73]. Google Scholar lists 548 items for "William D. Berry," including a 1990 article with 232 citations in the literature, a 1985 book that has been cited 233 times, and a 1998 article that has been cited 137 times. Anyone could have found these sources in five minutes. DickClarkMises 19:35, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in light of sources found by DickClarkMises — I think that completes the 'keep' set for these five noms — iridescenti (talk to me!) 19:56, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. By far not even the least notable William Berry on WP. (That would be William Berry (political consultant), I think.) By coincidence I just added another article on a different William Berry a few days ago (William Berry (artist)), but this one again seems highly notable, especially in view of the additional references found by DIckClarkMises. I see no justification for this attempted purge of many of the best faculty from a single institution. —David Eppstein 21:50, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the commentary above, meets relevant policies and guidelines. Burntsauce 23:46, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Part of a series of badly-thought-out AFD nominations on FSU researchers by Dsreyn. --C S (Talk) 05:11, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the above, possible WP:POINT nomination or a facsimile thereof. RFerreira 05:43, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Seems like the point was to nominate poorly written articles with no assertion of the subject's notability. I don't see how WP:POINT applies. Have you actually read any of the notability guidelines? fbb_fan 01:40, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - he clearly meets one, and arguably meets three, or the PROF criteria. Again, someone is way overstepping in their effort to purge distinguished FSU faculty. Wikipedia should not tolerate such selective attacks on a single institution. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.180.216.26 (talk) 02:40, 7 May 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.

Result was Keep. — Caknuck 05:40, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kenneth Roux

Non-notable professor, does not satisfy WP:PROF. Dsreyn 17:33, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - satisfies criteria 1 of WP:PROF with room to spare; this is the man who first described the surface of the HIV virus, which is the most likely route to the AIDS vaccine — iridescenti (talk to me!) 17:44, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd 19:17, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep as another FSU holder of a distinguished chair ~~in what by now is obviously a string of bad faith noms.~~ DGG 03:51, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

considering the string of carelessly prepared FSU articles recently written, I can understand a feeling of impatience on the noms. part. They're still clearly N, but it can't be called bad faith. DGG 05:03, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment. I don't see how being holder of a chair satisfies WP:PROF. Some chairs are more prestigious than others, and would certainly qualify, but I don't see this as an automatic claim to notability. fbb_fan 16:04, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. His research is not only notable within the academic world, but has received significant popular press coverage. Nominator has not done his homework. —David Eppstein 18:01, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. The writer of the article didn't do his homework either. The research does appear to be notable, but the article really needs to assert this notability. It shouldn't be left for the reader (or AfD nominators) to go digging for more info. fbb_fan 16:04, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It shouldn't be. There's a short paragraph on his research results. If someone doesn't understand if that's significant or not, they shouldn't be nominating for deletion. --C S (Talk) 05:14, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Part of a series of badly-thought-out AFD nominations on FSU reseearchers by Dsreyn. --C S (Talk) 05:14, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. This is an easy case. It is factually accurate and clearly meets at least two of the PROF criteria for noteworthiness, as a) his research is significant, in terms of its high profiole publication in peer edited journals, and b) it has received tons of coverage in international media. Someone has it out for FSU professors, as about 75% of the professors on Wikipedia have weaker prolfiles than those that have been flagged for deletion (with the exception of Leo Sandon). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.180.216.26 (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.

Result was Keep. — Caknuck 05:37, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Doron Nof

Non-notable professor, does not satisfy WP:PROF. Dsreyn 17:34, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - easily satisfies cat 6 of WP:PROF - the Fridtjof Nansen Medal is the European Geophysical Society's highest award for oceanography & this guy's won it — iridescenti (talk to me!) 17:46, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd 19:17, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep ~~as a obvious bad faith nom. I try to AGF, but I cannot see it here~~. DGG 03:52, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Once more, I modify the comment, as it is probably just carelessness. DGG 23:14, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The award does seem notable. Looks like this one accidentally got lumped in with a series of poorly written FSU articles. fbb_fan 15:57, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I see no reason to delete a Distinguished Professor. Part of a series of badly-thought-out AFD nominations on FSU Distinguished researchers by Dsreyn. --C S (Talk) 05:14, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep -- Easily meets 3 or 4 of the PROF criteria. The selective purge of FSU faculty, whoc now comprise 1/3 of the academic articles up for deletion, should be sanctioned. No other institution is being held to the same standard and having its faculty attacked by being flagged for deletion by a single individual. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.180.216.26 (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.

The result was keep. Arkyan  ^(talk) 20:50, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Friedrich Stephan

Non-notable professor, does not satisfy WP:PROF. Dsreyn 17:35, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - Stephan is the discoverer of the suprachiasmatic nucleus (the "body clock") and undoubtedly passes WP:PROF — iridescenti (talk to me!) 18:04, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep notable... even without an assertion of notability... imagine that.--Buridan 00:49, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd 19:17, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
speedy keep ~~One indication of probable bad faith is the the nom choose to nominate only the FSU professors who were holders of Named professorships and distinguished chairs.~~ Not all FSU faculty are distinguished. Many are at earlier stages of their career where they are not yet distinguished. Many would not be N by WP standards. For many I would not keep a WP article if there were one written. But all those nominated here have been from the top level. DGG 03:56, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

see my comment just above. DGG 05:04, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The "reference" for the alleged discovery is just a link to some other academic's resume, and the only other reference is unavailable without a site membership. Notability isn't established yet, in my opinion. fbb_fan 15:55, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. It would have been more constructive to fix the first reference, as I just did, than to bitch about it here. And why must the second reference be freely available on the net to count as a reference? It's publically available to anyone capable of walking into a public university library. —David Eppstein 21:38, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. Please see WP:AFD#AfD_etiquette and WP:CIVIL. fbb_fan 22:02, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - (Response copied from my talk page): It was not intended as incivility, merely constructive criticism. I attempted to suggest a course of action that would, I think, lead to a greater amount of improvement to WP than the (inherently destructive although necessary) AfD process: edit, when an edit is obvious and easy, instead of using someone else's failure to make that edit as an argument against an article. It was not intended as an insult against you, merely a disagreement with your course of action, and if the way I worded it led you to interpret it in any other way I apologize. —David Eppstein 22:29, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. His 1972 PNAS paper has 300 citations in Google scholar, and his research made the mainstream media in 1992 (I added a reference to a newspaper article from the time quoting him). —David Eppstein 21:38, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is a factually accurate assertion of notability in the article, including references, and this is far more notable that at least 75% of the professor stubs that are added to wikipedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.180.216.26 (talk) 02:33, 7 May 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 - use WP:DRV to recreate - UtherSRG (talk) 18:05, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Matrixism (3rd nomination)

Recreated, but much different then before, perhaps. Needs community approval. UtherSRG (talk) 17:40, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion history:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matrixism - merge, redirect
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matrixism#Take 2 - speedy delete
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matrixism (2nd nomination) - delete
Wikipedia:Deletion review/Recently concluded (2006 May) - deletion endorsed
Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 March 19 - deletion endorsed

Keep - reliably sourced article. No reasons for delete given in nom. Addhoc 17:49, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep no reasons given for nom and the article's undoubtedly valid — iridescenti (talk to me!) 18:07, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This was a recreated article. That's my reason for bringing it here for discussion. It was deleted twice before. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:57, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am still not entirely convinced that this is not religioncruft. JuJube 18:26, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Ok, but I still don't see anything resembling a valid reason for deletion. Addhoc 18:28, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Agreed, this is not grounds for deletion. Walker9010 18:37, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Well, how about I change my vote to Speedy Delete as db-repost since a deletion review was never completed for this? JuJube 18:40, 3 May 2007 (UTC)~~[reply]

Comment - the copy isn't substantially identical, in fact the copy is completely different. Addhoc 19:05, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That does not make it okay to recreate an article. You can't create a crap article, have it deleted, then create an article with the same name but different crap and say it can't be deleted. WP:DRV is the place to go, til then, this needs to be speedy deleted. JuJube 19:09, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the delete rationale of "crap" is covered by WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Addhoc 19:12, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'Comment I was being figurative. I wasn't saying the article is "crap" (on the other hand, I'm not saying it's not crap). I'm saying if an article gets deleted in an AfD and you want to recreate it, you need to go through WP:DRV first. JuJube 19:14, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the speedy criterion is "a page that was deleted via Articles for deletion or another XfD process, provided that the copy is substantially identical to the deleted version and that any revisions made clearly do not address the reasons for which the page was deleted."Addhoc 19:19, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Also not convinced this isn't religioncruft. Are there any sources that say this belief system actually has followers? The article twists the facts: the source does not say there are 300 followers, it says the religion "claims 300 adherents" (italics mine). And two of the major sources, accounting for 4 citations, are unreliable (a blog and a geocities link). --Fang Aili ^talk 18:41, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the Matrixism web site is a legitimate source for this article per WP:V#Self-published and questionable sources in articles about themselves. If you're saying the editors haven't fact checked their story, then perhaps you've misunderstood the concept of verifiability. Addhoc 18:53, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: That bit of WP:V doesn't apply. How can a religion self-publish about itself? And there is no evidence that the website ([74]) was created by a founder of this religion or another authoritative source. Again, I ask for evidence that this is more than some "hip" club (see [75]). --Fang Aili ^talk 19:18, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The website ([76]]) is sited as authoritative by several of the widely published sources sited by this article. 206.188.56.88 19:40, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Circular verifiablilty? My delete vote stands. --Fang Aili ^talk 19:49, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete reposted deleted material. Take it to DRV, folks. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:05, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the copy isn't substantially identical, in fact the copy is completely different. Addhoc 19:08, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Correct - CSD doesn't apply. Neil (►) 13:35, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm changing my vote back to regular Delete. Of course, this will probably get closed since the nominator didn't provide anything resembling a reason and we'll have to wait awhile, but this article should definitely go. JuJube 20:01, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the sourced material (that is, sourced from the external news sites) into The Matrix (series) as a small mention. Crystallina 20:34, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What reason are you giving to do so? I wouldn't suggest we merge Fundamentalist Christianity into the entry for the Bible, for example, so there must be more than the relationship between source and belief system. Jfarber 17:56, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep.This is sourced and interesting. There are clear analogies with some other religious beliefs. How many followers and if they are "true followers" does not matter.Biophys 20:38, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, well-enough referenced and appears to be noteworthy enough. Shouldn't have been deleted in the first place, truly. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:54, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong, speedy, immediate Delete and salt. This should never have been reposted, the deletion as G4 should stand, it was reposted almost immediately after the WP:SALT was removed, deleteion was endorsed in March Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 March 19, Wikipedia is not "pitch till you win". This is crap-off-teh-Internets, the purported "religion" has a Geocities site FFS! Plus, the admin who undeleted it after I G4'd it was the same editor who created this page - self-evident WP:COI [77].

As to the article, let's check the sources shall we? The sum total of the mention of Matrixism in the Advertiser article was "...and even Matrixismn", i.e. a single namecheck as a passing example of something self-evidently absurd. "They're all God movies" covers it, in full, as: "Dr Possamai said the Matrix trilogy had spawned "Matrixism", a so-called movie-based religion that claims 300 adherents and has as one of its tenets a belief in the prophecy of "the One"." - in other words, a trivial mention, which reinforces the fact that there are virtually no adherents (unlike the Jedi one which registered in the UK census last time round, so is at leats a notable joke religion). Both the above are reports of a paper by Possamai, incidentally, so are not in any case truly separate sources and defintiely not primarily about Matrixism. This paper is itself cited as a reference. So that's three references which boil down to one, whihc is not primarily about Matrixism. The UWS coverage is, in full, ""Then you've got more recent films like 'The Matrix' spawning a new generation of hyper-believers. Matrixism combines chapters from an Aldous Huxley book with the Baha'i faith, and incorporates the use of drugs to 'reach another realm of reality'." So once again, trivial, nothign more than another example in a list of self-evidently ridiculous non-religions. I don't have access to the other purported sources, but based on this analysis of those sources I can access, they are probably all just passing mentions, failing the notability guideline; there is not, as far as I can tell, a single example of a non-trivial reliable source primarily or even largely devoted to this 300-member Geocities-hosted "religion". Get it gone, the sooner the better. Guy (Help!) 11:59, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Your description of the re-posting and authorship of this article is wrong. It seems like an obvious attempt to discredit a Wikipedia administrator simple because you don't like the subject of an article. As for the references this article obviously clears the usual standards for article creation and notability. 71.112.17.109 12:39, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment agree with 71.112.17.109, Neil was clearly assuming good faith and to suggest this constitutes a breach of the conflict of interest policy is absurd. The speedy criterion only applies if the versions are "substantially identical", which they clearly aren't. Addhoc 12:50, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neil was clearly assuming good faith A strange new meaning of "clearly" I was previously unaware of. The Wikilawyering, on the other hand, seems run of the mill. --Calton | Talk 13:40, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What i'm seeing here is a somewhat niche religion being mentioned in a variety of publications, lending itself to notability - it's obviously important enough to be mentioned in those places, after all. Do the sources establish notability? Yes. Do we have enough information to make a neutral, useful article? Yes. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:36, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And what I'm seeing someone's joke being given pseudo-respectability by a Wikipedia article. --Calton | Talk 13:40, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Someone's joke that's been noted in international press, so that kind of confers "pseudo-respectability." --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:47, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually someone's joke being mentioned in passing by an academic writing a paper about the decline of religious faith, which in turn was mentioned in the press, a small number of whom appear to have used this one as an example of an obviously fake non-religion. Not quite the same thing. Guy (Help!) 17:59, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. For an alleged internet hype, it gets a serious lack of google hits, hence it's not notable. WP:NFT. >Radiant< 12:01, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know where you get your information but last Google search I did listed over 16,000 websites. Google aside the subject of Matrixism has been addressed in several other verifiable sources. 71.112.17.109 12:39, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely my point. 16000 googles is nothing for an internet hype. Compare "All your base" which gets half a million hits, plus more at alternate spellings. >Radiant< 13:46, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not comfortable with that conclusion from those facts, Radiant -- using the popularity of "all your base" as a standard for notability would kill thousands upon thousands of perfectly legitimate articles. If Matrixism were ONLY a meme, then maybe 16,000 hits is a bit low for article worthiness, I concur. But even Guy's overly harsh critique of the sources does not portray those sources as considering Matrixism of a meme, but a very, very small belief system with a small community of adherents. There are certainly churches with small congregations, and less google hits than 20k, which pass wikipedia muster. The article portrays Matrixism as a belief system with adherents; it is by that standard, not whether it is a popular meme, which I'd hope folks would consider the article's legitimacy. Jfarber 18:06, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Alleged internet hype? Jesus! (or should I say "Nebuchadnezzar!") Niko Silver 12:22, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- even leaving aside the special problem of Category:Joke religions, you simply cannot write an article about a religion without scholarly sources, especially and starting with a reliable, third party, estimation if believership. --Pjacobi 13:03, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Sourced to reputable secondary citations. Smee 13:18, 4 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. This article is well sourced with scholarly and popular mass published sources. Turning a blind eye to this indicates that perhaps "I don't like it" is more or less the real reason some are voting for deletion. There really shouldn't be a debate. It is obviously a well written and well sourced article. D166ER 13:21, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Looking at the sources, I don't see any evidence that this is notable. There appear to be two books referenced that make passing comments mentioning this, just as an illustration to the basic concept that films can spawn "religious" groups. There's a University article that paraphrases one of these books. Then there's a blog posting and a Geocities website that aren't reliable sources at all. Finally, there is a news article that interviews someone who appears to be connected with the aforementioned University article, which states the religion "claims 300 adherents". Nowhere is there any justification for that claim in any of the references, not that having 300 adherents would in itself make it notable enough for a Wikipedia article anyway. Will (aka Wimt) 13:30, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Guy's analysis of the sources is persuasive. Thatcher131 13:32, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, with the disclaimer that I was the admin who moved the new article into articlespace. The article is referenced and valid. I don't care how much sand Guy has in his cooch about it, the article wasn't a recreation of deleted content, so speedy deletion doesn't apply. The article is substantially different to that which came before (and was rightly deleted). It's referenced satisfactorily, it's NPOV, it asserts notability. I realise that Guy thinks it's stupid, but this isn't JzGipedia, yet. Neil (►) 13:34, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Terrible... The NPR source is just basically rehashing the Possamai source. There is a blog that isn't a Reliable Source. One is a user-made geocities page (the "official Matrixism" page). The sources just are not that good. Is there some fake, crappy religion that "people really adhere to"? One of the better sources says that it's not serious. Besides not being notable, this is just a recreation of an already deleted article. Until it can be proven from a reliable source that followers actually believe in Matrixism (and are not just members because Itz sooper-D-duper coolz!!1!), delete (again), salt (again), and banish sneaky recreators to outside the walls of Zion. --Ali'i 13:39, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nor is it NFT-pedia. In any case, if it's so obvious, what was the with the steps you took to dodge WP:DRV? Should have been a slam-dunk, right? --Calton | Talk 13:40, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per Guy. Joke religion, with grasping-at-straws refs, utterly (and deliberately, it looks like) bypassing WP:DRV for recreation. --Calton | Talk 13:40, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't a recreation. So it doesn't need to go through DRV. Neil (►) 13:41, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is most definitely a recreation, after the earlier deletion debates. >Radiant< 13:46, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
CSD G4 states (an admin may delete a) copy, by any title, of a page that was deleted via Articles for deletion or another XfD process, provided that the copy is substantially identical to the deleted version and that any revisions made clearly do not address the reasons for which the page was deleted. The content was not substantially identical. And the reasons for deletion were its poor referencing; this was resolved in the new page. I don't understand how this could be construed as a recreation. Neil (►) 14:06, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I've found and added another reference, from The Scotsman. Hopefully a daily newspaper with a circulation of almost 60,000 counts as a non-trivial source. Unless certain editors don't like the article, in which case we could have it written in fifteen-mile high letters on the moon and it wouldn't be a reliable source. Neil (►) 14:00, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I see nothing (including the Scotsman reference) that isn't a paragraph-or-two reference or name drop. That's trivial sourcing. Will consider changing my position if non-trivial independent sourcing can be found or listed. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 14:03, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Two paragraphs in a national newspaper is trivial? Really? I give up. Neil (►) 14:06, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Welcome to the twisted world of Wikipedia "notability," Neil. Cold cuts are in the back, and make sure to grab your door prize. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:08, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've read the Scotsman article and I still don't think that it justifies this article. I agree, the Scotsman has a large circulation (as does the Sydney Morning Herald which was already cited in the article), but that doesn't justify notability. This particular article was written by a guest writer in the "living" section (which is more of a light reading magazine). It is designed as light-hearted reading, nothing more. Need I mention that everything that is mentioned in a national newspaper isn't by definition suitable for an article on Wikipedia. It also says that the group "now claims to have 500 genuine followers" but once again this claim is not backed up. Will (aka Wimt) 14:15, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and where did that writer get his information? From a geocities website. Everyone here knows that anyone can create a geocities site, right? Nothing on the website even claims authoritative knowledge or insight. It doesn't even give a name. This is not a reliable source, and any "sources" based on that geocities page is likewise not reliable. --Fang Aili ^talk 14:25, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I would consider a couple paragraphs in a newspaper trivial. It's just not enough for a comprehensive article. It may be that at some point in the future this will gain some more detailed attention. If so, we can write an article then, it'll still be done by the deadline. If not, it'll just be one more obscure religious movement faded into time. But for now, I just don't see that this has gained any more mention than as a quick bit of humor, curiosity, or slow-news-day filler. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 14:34, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Based on all the sources we could write the article this way. Matrixism is a spoof religion based on the Matrix movie trilogy that was founded on the internet in 2003 and claims 500 adherents.' End of line. Nothing else can be verified independently; not its beliefs, scriptures, holy days, or anything else about it. All the sources listed add up to "Spoof religion that claims..." Is that enough? Thatcher131 14:48, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Looks like the same blather from two years ago. Should be speedied as a matter of course. —Xezbeth 14:38, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Still delete - The remarkable energy and enthusiasm behind the spirited defense, re-creation, and vigorous use of deletion review and community patience aside, the sources still don't establish that this is anything real. I know there are folks out there who would love to put Matrixism and Jedi-ist in their various files, but for there to be an article here, there need to be multiple non-trivial references elsewhere or else this is original research that is inherently un-verifiable. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a place for something some guy came up with one day after school. Well, unless that guy is Albert Einstein I guess, and the thing he came up with is the theory of relativity as a result of trying to put carbonation into beer... but there's no evidence that this happened here. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 14:42, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is a textbook example of something which does not belong in an encyclopedia. There is no evidence presented that anyone actually believes in it. There are no interviews with purported adherents, no independent sources to back up the claim that there's 500 members and generally nothing to suggest that anything the Geocities site claims is true. The whole thing is a joke, and not a very funny one at that. By treating this thing as if it's some sort of actual religion, we make a mockery of ourselves. FCYTravis 16:12, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non notable and poorly sourced (seemingly unsourcable at this point). Most sources are unreliable (geocities), the ones that are reliable only make trivial mention. --Minderbinder 16:26, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Given that this entire thing is based off a religion on a Geocities site, what happens if tomorrow, someone throws up another anonymous Geocities site claiming to be home of the Real Fundamentalist Matrixism (tm), with 10,000 adherents. Do we publish that there's a massive fundamentalist split in the Matrix? If not, why not? If we're going to source Geocities free pages for a religion, how can one possibly say that one Geocities site is any more reliable than another? It's an invitation to nonsense. FCYTravis 16:41, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- given that the majority of the article would be viable if we deleted the geocities citation and left only the half dozen legitimate, academic sources currently cited...perhaps the invitation to nonsense has been based on a mistaken read of the article, or of the older, not currently up-for-AfD geocities-referenced version of this article (which predates the academic texts)? 17:54, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Delete - "Matrixism or The Path of the One is a spoof religion inspired by the motion picture trilogy The Matrix, conceived by an anonymous group in the summer of 2004." Need I say more?! The undeleting admin is doubtlessly connected to this group and is putting his desire to advance this silly group above his obligations as an administrator to the encyclopedia. It's utterly shameless. Besides, there's only one thing I hate more than fake religions. Can you guess what it is? --Cyde Weys 16:58, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An interesting and exceedingly inappropriate and cruel ad hominem attack. I, too, have adopted this article; I am Jewish, my family is Unitarian. Topic viability should be considered based ont he article and topic, with citations having significant weight in viability; other than the geocities red herring, there are now several academic citations int he article. Do you dismiss the legitimate sources mentioned in the article? Also, not sure where the word spoof came from; if it's in the article now, I suspect it was a sad attempt to dismiss the topic inapropriately? Jfarber 17:54, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heh! I vote we invent matrix signism, the path of the M1 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JzG (talk • contribs) 17:55, 4 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Speedy delete, abuse of process and COI violation to have the same person who created the article undelete it an close the AfD. No reliable sources. Come on, this "religion" lives on a geocities page. Corvus cornix 18:37, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the abuse of process was using a speedy delete which only applies if the versions are "substantially identical". Also, Neil didn't create the article, it was developed by several editors in his user space, and the press coverage is clearly reliable. Last year, when I dared to suggest that Matrixism deserved a mention, I was accused of being its founder, the accusations that Neil is "undoubtedly" connected are equally absurd. Addhoc 18:47, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Pop culture internet meme, hosted on Geocities, with less than impressive source quality? We see enough of these on CAT:CSD already. Sandstein 19:13, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Please note the several NON-geocities, published, notable academic works cited in the article. Jfarber 17:54, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per JuJube and Fang Will ^{(is it can be time for messages now plz?)} 19:16, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable, attention-hungry group. -Will Beback · † · 20:36, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is both unnecessarily cruel and dismisses that there are now several legitimate sources cited in the article which pass wikipedia's standard for notability. Did you LOOK at the article? Also, as a self-POV check: do you not believe IN Matrixism, or do you just not personally believe Matrixism to be a legitimate, albeit small, community of self-proclaimed believers? Jfarber 17:54, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete independent coverage is too trivial to justify an encyclopedia article. — Scientizzle 20:59, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment 6 legitimate, academic resources cited is "trivial"? This is a standard I have not encountered before, but I'd be happy to be corrected if there is some wikipedia page which explores, say, topic viability... :-) Jfarber 17:54, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete & salt per Guy. Pete.Hurd 22:39, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Ironically, I came to this debate after someone at Wikipedia talk:Notability complained the guideline has to be changed because it would call for deletion of this article. Looks like it's working perfectly. nadav 05:57, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and comment: Since the "old" article was published, no less than 6 academic, legitimate sources have been published, all of which are referenced in the current article, which legitimately consider Matrixism a religion. The pursuit of the geocities source as cruft being described above by many is a red herring, as is the implication that, because the article was deleted twice for good reasons, that the current article has not demonstrated that the two primary resons have become moot. To wit: 1. the subject of this article has become legitimized by the publication of multiple legitimately citable sources since the original AfD on this article, and 2. the article is now written and cited much more properly than the original disaster. Jfarber 17:54, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:22, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled 4th Studio Album

The words are just copied from the artist page, there is not enough information to warrant an album page at this point and it should not occupy such an ambiguous title at any rate. U-Mos 17:53, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a content-free violation of WP:CRYSTAL - there is no information about this album. In the unlikely event that it's kept, move to Fourth Lostprophets album or something similar, as the current title's just silly — iridescenti (talk to me!) 18:11, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete borderline speedy since the title provides no context. JuJube 18:25, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note — article was originally nominated for speedy deletion but was deemed unworthy for some reason. U-Mos 15:44, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete until such a time as production information including title and specific intended release date are provided. -- saberwyn 21:35, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:35, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Airsoft Fields in the United States

WP:NOT a directory, and none of the listed locations are notable. PROD was removed. Delete. Fang Aili ^talk 18:07, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Articles should not consist primarily of external links. --Dhartung | Talk 07:35, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 00:00, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is not an online directory. --Wafulz 01:08, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the airsoft article perhaps. DGG 03:41, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:NOT a directory. Terence 05:16, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Stoic atarian 07:48, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- per WP:NOT —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Thunderwing (talk • contribs) 12:08, 10 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete, not a directory and no context. JodyB_talk 13:40, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete just a (small) directory/list of external links. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:49, 10 May 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, though a rename seems advisable. WjBscribe 00:07, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of people called Rabbi

This list should be renamed List of rabbinic roles and titles (see: Category:Orthodox rabbinic roles and titles as a similar example.) There are also a number of errors in the list that need to be corrected, including the sentence at the start "some rabbis have achieved such fame that they are widely called rabbi even by people not their followers" (since when is being a "rabbi" dependant on "fame" or not?) and that about the person Rava which was a name, not a title. IZAK 18:17, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. IZAK 18:17, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename for above reasons. IZAK 18:17, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Weak keep / Merge to List of rabbis. This article is not about Rabbinic roles and titles, although that might be a useful article in itself. The article is clearly a compilation of people who are known solely by the name "Rabbi" or a derivative. --Eliyak T·C 19:09, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This article looks like one of those aids to Talmud study, which may be useful (I have several) but not suitable for an encyclopedia entry. How is this really Notable? In what context is it Notable? HG 20:19, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion: Why not just put this data in paragraph form within WP:Rabbi? You/we could expand it into a nice subsection; e.g., those who were denoted by there bare term [maran, rav, etc] and those who have other monikers (the mehaber, etc].HG 20:19, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eliyak: The list if so poorly set up it amounts to very little. In fact it should be deleted and reedirected to List of rabbis. IZAK 20:05, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looking back, my gut response was to Keep because it was being nominated under mistaken pretenses. The concept of people known solely by the name Rabbi (and derivatives) seems like an interesting factoid and may be notable on that grounds. As far as I'm concerned, if people find that valuable, then the page should continue to exist, but I don't really have strong feelings against its deletion. I've changed my vote to weak keep accordingly. --Eliyak T·C 05:49, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aliyak: At no point do I request that this article be "deleted" -- this is a request to RENAME it so that it will be more accurate as to what it's truly about. As you know, a true list of "people called Rabbi" would need to have a few million Rabbis on it, which ain't gonna happen in any case, so why keep a title that is bound to cause confusion and unfounded expectations? IZAK 06:46, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep per above--Sefringle 20:35, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if you want to rename it, be WP:BOLD rather than bring it here for deletion in order to re-create it in a different form; if someone else wants to have 2 different articles, 1 people called "Rabbi" and 2 about roles and titles, go for it and create them. Both would be great additions to the WP. Carlossuarez46 22:40, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I was being nice, the list does not deserve to exist. It is (at bets) a mirror of List of rabbis and should be redirected there. IZAK 20:05, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia is not a directory of loosely-associated topics. Every person who was a rabbi, or every person who was ever called rabbi, is not related to every other person called rabbi. The list is indiscriminate and given the tens of thousands of people called "rabbi" in the history of the world, unmaintainable. Otto4711 01:49, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#DIRECTORY. This list would effectively be a directory. I agree a list of tens of thousands of rabbis would be impossible to maintain, impossible to verify, and prone to vandalism. If individual rabbis are notable, they should get their own articles. As the article stands it has only a handful of people. Best, --Shirahadasha 03:47, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment An article about rabbinic titles would be perfectly appropriate. Best, --Shirahadasha 03:48, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. This is the wrong format for such information. One of the problems is that the meaning of "rabbi" has shifted so much both historically and semantically over time, and across different branches and movements within Judaism, that this list is going to end up generating more heat than light. An article on "rabbinic titles" with a few examples for each would be much better. --Metzenberg 05:30, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Otto4711, Shirahadasha, and Metzenberg seem to be missing the point that this list will never have hundreds of people on it (let alone tens of thousands). The list is not of rabbis (which list also exists, by the way) or of people called "Rabbi Smith" or of people called "the Rabbi" by their followers (as many rabbis were and are), but only of people called "the Rabbi" by the (Jewish) masses.—msh210℠ 07:56, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Eliyak. Kolindigo 18:10, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- Pax:Vobiscum 17:14, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The nominator cites no policy, and the others who do seem to have misunderstood the intention of the list. The article needs a better introductory paragraph and perhaps a rename, but I don't see anything that calls for deletion. Pax:Vobiscum 19:31, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- What "policy" is needed, I was being kind to it, but really it's a duplicate of List of rabbis or it should be part of the Rabbi article. But it has no merits as it stands. IZAK 20:05, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you, but just to make this clear: we delete articles "based on policy and guidelines, not personal likes and dislikes" (Wikipedia:Deletion policy in a nutshell). As some others have already explained, the article is quite different in concept from List of rabbis, and your opinion that this content is more appropriate in the Rabbi article is just that, an opinion. I have nothing against such a merger per se, but our main discussion here is the deletion of the article. Pax:Vobiscum 20:41, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Pax, sometimes things are so simple that policies don't come into the picture. Anyone who knows anything about this subject can tell it's full of errors, and that it could easily be merged into the very extensive and thorough List of rabbis which it mirrors. I was being kind by asking that it be renamed and reorganized as List of rabbinic roles and titles citing Category:Orthodox rabbinic roles and titles as a similar example. If it makes you happy, one can easily state that this article violates WP:FACT in many ways. IZAK 06:41, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Perhaps you intended to link to something else, WP:FACT links to a wiki-project. Like I said, I have nothing against the article being renamed or merged (and I certainly have no objections to someone deleting factual errors in the article, if they exist). But what we do here in wp:afd is to debate "whether an article should be deleted" or not. Renames and mergers are editorial decisions that should be made on talk pages through consensus. Pax:Vobiscum 13:02, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per izak.רח"ק | Talk | Contribs 21:46, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename, for the use of this abbreviated nomenclature is notable--- and also confusing to those not familiar with it. DGG 23:21, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Pax:Vobiscum 19:31, 4 May 2007 (UTC). —msh210℠ 20:01, 9 May 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 without prejudice to any merge proposals. WjBscribe 22:27, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tagalog Batangas

A dialect of the Tagalog language. This article mostly consists of dictionary definitions of common phrases. The relevant material can be merged into the original Tagalog article, which has a section on dialects, and the phrasebook should be deleted. Hence my vote is Merge and Redirect. Prod removed by User:Paxse who left a somewhat unconvincing rationale on the talk page. JuJube 18:22, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is a lot of good information in here although the article still needs work. The original author seems to make many productive edits related to Batangas and this new article seems to be a topic that she/he knows well. Merging with Tagalog language might not be welcome, as that page has already been split once to Tagalog grammar and is still at 41k. The information is certainly not duplicated between the two articles. I'd rather see separate articles on each of the four main Tagalog dialect types - than lose the first one. Jujube, thanks for letting me know about the AFD listing. Paxse 18:55, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- What about the glossary? That definitely cannot stay. JuJube 19:20, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Perhaps it could be edited down - but I'd discuss that on the talk page. I think some of it needs to be there, as in Tagalog language and Tagalog grammar. In an article about a dialect, concrete examples and discussion/explanation show the difference between the source language and the dialect. Paxse 14:45, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - It is irrelevant to note that changes may not be welcome - The original author does not own the article - Tiswas^(t) 08:42, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - The article is full of listcruft dicdefs. The only real content is the opening paragraph, which does not (yet) warrant an article in its own right. An article should not just be that there is is a dialect, but that we should care that there is a dialect - The article should answer the question of what makes it worth an article? - Tiswas^(t) 08:42, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletions. -- ⇒ bsnowball 09:13, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - But has to be cleaned, the article is too extensive to be merged with the Tagalog language. --Scorpion prinz ^{(Talk | contribs)} 11:23, 7 May 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. WjBscribe 00:27, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Shapiro

Plagarized from Shapiro's website (http://benjaminshapiro.com/bio.html); Advertisement Walker9010 18:34, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Not a copyvio. Article has a long history, starting in 2004. No advertising tone either. --Fang Aili ^talk 20:01, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment An assertion of plagiarism is a serious charge, and one should be quite sure before making it. DGG 05:06, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, little consonance of text thus no copyvio, tone seems OK. The article needs references, though. --Dhartung | Talk 07:34, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I skimmed the article and thought I saw copyvio, my apologies, you're quite right. The history does reveal some interesting things though--there are some anons (interestingly, with harvard u. IPs) that delete anything negative about Shapiro. There are several example going back through the history, but they appear to be sourced statements that were simply removed. --Walker9010 23:06, 6 May 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. WjBscribe 23:40, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Finescale

Other than the name of an American model magazine, I have not been able to source the term Finescale as being commonly used within the modeling community. The article covers areas such as superdetailing, kitbashing, and scratchbuilding that should be folded into the respective modeling articles as appropriate. Seaphoto 18:32, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As the article creator, I endorse this request. In my stupidity, I saw a cohesive entity where there were none, and as such, the article came into being. --Agamemnon2 20:06, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fascinating -- I've known of (OR) the term for over forty years among railway modellers, but I agree that it is more of a Wiktionary entry as a school of thought and poractice, rather than W~pedia, as a concrete entity. -- Simon Cursitor 08:31, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's more nebulous than I originally thought it was. It is a definite school of thought, though, the mindset of those who build Proto:87 layouts or decorate their model tanks with photoetch detail. --Agamemnon2 20:23, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:23, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gianna Distenca

NOTE: Procedural listing - AFD was malformed; opinion below is from nominator Tony Fox (arf!) 19:04, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete and Salt - when I once edited Wikipedia as an anon. IP, I read that this article was deleted several times before and now it has been recreated again. Clearly, the article is not notable; nothing more can be added to it than original research and can be further filled with fluff. In my opinion, it should not be scrapped to Stacy's Mom or something — therefore, it should be deleted and fully protected by an admin. to prevent a possible fourth recreation. ~I'm anonymous

Speedy delete and salt, as per nominator. Has been previously AFDd as a speedy. Tony Fox (arf!) 19:09, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete and salt per nom. JuJube 19:36, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Has been in one music video as the girl who was ignored. <Yawn> ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 22:02, 3 May 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. WjBscribe 23:40, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Finescale

Other than the name of an American model magazine, I have not been able to source the term Finescale as being commonly used within the modeling community. The article covers areas such as superdetailing, kitbashing, and scratchbuilding that should be folded into the respective modeling articles as appropriate. Seaphoto 18:32, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As the article creator, I endorse this request. In my stupidity, I saw a cohesive entity where there were none, and as such, the article came into being. --Agamemnon2 20:06, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fascinating -- I've known of (OR) the term for over forty years among railway modellers, but I agree that it is more of a Wiktionary entry as a school of thought and poractice, rather than W~pedia, as a concrete entity. -- Simon Cursitor 08:31, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's more nebulous than I originally thought it was. It is a definite school of thought, though, the mindset of those who build Proto:87 layouts or decorate their model tanks with photoetch detail. --Agamemnon2 20:23, 6 May 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. WjBscribe 03:24, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DACO/Skyline

Doesn't meet the guidelines for a notable company Russavia 19:30, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't even remeber creating this ;-). I guess I'm opposed to deletion if a source can be found for the claim of unusual manufactering processes, but otherwise go ahead. Fine by me. (By the way, hi Russavia! It's the guy from the shootdown article! Small world, eh? Of about 10 million users plus...) Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 20:12, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 14:44, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does not seem notable to me either. Dar-Ape 02:32, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn by WP guidelines.—Gaff ^ταλκ 21:05, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:43, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gritley Mews

There is basically no content or context here. The author states it's part of a larger set of articles about The Meadows, but I think he should have brought this up with other editors of The Meadows and Nottingham first. Prod removed by author. JuJube 19:35, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear JuJube,

Please note that The Meadows article you have linked to here is not The Meadows I am refering to. There is an area called The Meadows in nottingham, currently it's article has no content but it is linked to from the main Nottingham article as The Meadows . In case this is what is causing the confusion this article is in no way releated to The Meadows . --Timmywimmy 19:56, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete origional research--Sefringle 03:16, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Non-notable, not worth a redirect. "The house numbers go up to 11" - 'nuff said! -- RHaworth 18:12, 4 May 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. Sr 13 21:32, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nostalgair

Doesn't meet guidelines for a notable company Russavia 19:35, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Failed Primary Criterion of WP:CORP. There is no independent and reliable secondary source to pass notability criteria. — Indon (reply) — 09:11, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 14:43, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Indon has put it quite concisely. Dar-Ape 02:34, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable. Tim.bounceback^{(review me! | talk | contribs | ubxen)} 14:27, 13 May 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. Mango juice^talk 20:36, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Average Homeboy (second nomination)

Positively asserts lack of notability, "crap off teh internets", already deleted once by Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Average Homeboy but not quite a repost, does not appear to be the primary subject of multiple non-trivial coverage reliable sources. Guy (Help!) 20:03, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this may sound ridiculous, but the last time I came to check this page (when it was deleted), I was outraged. As far as internet memes go, this one's rather popular, and Denny actually has a rather large catalogue of songs/videos. I think I actually, honestly enjoy the song "I'm the Blaze". I think that he skims notability, just making it. If Numa Numa has a listing, then the Average Homeboy should as well. If nothing else, this should be merged onto a page of memes.--C.Logan 20:40, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I wrote this article because I came across a news article on the subject, and it seemed interesting to cover especially since sources were available. Notability is established by multiple non-trivial sources from the mainstream media, in articles that are exclusively on the subject (not passing mentions). I don't see what harm it could possibly do by staying, so long as it is kept to the neutral, referenced facts (as I have endeavored to do). --Delirium 01:29, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So please source it. You know we have trouble with crap off teh internets. Guy (Help!) 06:31, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I did! Did you miss the section labeled "references"? --Delirium 15:10, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 23:59, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Unfortunately, seems like it is notable.Articles listed in refs appear on google archives:[78][79]Moreover, I remember something on VH1 about this subject.daveh4h 00:39, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's got the RS that can be verified. the_undertow ^talk 00:50, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not as much of an internet phenomenon as a 15 minutes of fame local interest story. From what I can tell, the Cleveland article is a collection of Youtube-related stories. There tends to be a train of thought that if it's on the internet and it made a newspaper, it deserves a Wikipedia article immediately- compare this to any other random topic that gets mentioned in two newspapers. If there was another story published (one not within a month of these articles), I'd probably change my mind. --Wafulz 01:06, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. For what it's worth, I do think that any random topic that gets mentioned in two newspapers deserves an article, and I frequently create articles on them. Interestingly, they almost never get suggested for deletion unless they hit someone's "I don't like internet-related articles" filter... nobody seems to object that I've written articles on marginally-notable symphony conductors who've been mentioned in only two newspapers. --Delirium 16:48, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree with Wafulz and nom. Does not meet wikipedia criteria for notability on biographic or musician. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gaff (talk • contribs) 02:29, 10 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete per User:Wafulz. His 15 minutes of fame is up. --Calton | Talk 07:53, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The sources offered are not properly linked and cannot be verified without searching through the entire archives. It would behoove (<--cool word) the editors to make the references easy to follow using one of the suggested formats. JodyB_talk 13:31, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of major notability. After taking a look at the second ref mentioned (which was a pain in the ass to find), the article seems to be focused on YouTube and not this person in particular. Cheers, Lanky ○ Yell ○ 13:35, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MUSIC. Not even close. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:48, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets the basic standards for inclusion. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:49, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, even by basic standards he doesn't make it. Since he hasn't won any awards or placed on any charts or really done anything, we have to go by the depth and coverage of the sources. We have one good in-depth source and one that mentions him in a much broader context less than a month from the other source- I would no sooner see this as notable coverage than I would for the local kitten parade which gets local media attention. --Wafulz 04:25, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, by basic standards he definitely does. There's more than enough information from third party sources to sustain an article here. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:52, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, on account of WP:V. The second reference in the article hints that he might get a side mention. The first is a maybe, but one, I won't be able to verify, and two, it's only one reliable source - and we need a bit more than one. As such, WP:LOCAL may apply here, if only on the fringe of it. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:22, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If WP:V is your issue, there's no concern because there's plenty of verifiable sources. As for WP:LOCAL, the two papers I found were from PEnnsylvania and Cleveland, so... --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:33, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - While I don't necessarily agree with the premise of Dennis' argument, one and a half sources is not "plenty". --Wafulz 04:25, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment. To be fair there have been other sources: The Fresno Bee (11 March 2007), The Philadelphia Inquirer (22 July 2006), Pittsburgh Post-Gazette (15 October 2006) and three other articles on him by the Cleveland Plain Dealer (earlier there was a comment that the Plain Dealer article was more about general internet stuff they had an article on 9 June 2006 entitled: "Before Vanilla Ice, there was Denny Blaze"). Also there was a mention on Keith Olbermann's show. There may be many reasons to delete this artilce but lack of sources doesn't seem to be one of them. Makgraf 01:27, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Could you link some of those? I want to check them out (I'm always skeptical about "internet phenomena" articles). --Wafulz 14:51, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The main objective of wikipedia is higher education, the "average homeboy" does not advance the education of wikipedia users. If you have ever seen the video the average homeboy, its nothing but horrible rapping, and stupid effects. It has no real educational value at all. --Acorn98 04:53, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Your premise is completely untrue; the "main objective" of Wikipedia is compiling knowledge, not specifically "higher education". --Delirium 16:46, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Considering this guy solely as a music artist he would be an A7 speedy candidate without a second thought. That he has become something of an internet phenomenon is (I'm sure) very nice for him, but my reading of WP:BIO would mean that he'd have to be an internationally world famous internet phenomenon (like that damnable Crazy Frog) in order to be considered for inclusion on this basis alone. But he patently isn't having got media attention only from a couple of local papers. 86.140.3.176 18:16, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The above was written by User:A1octopus who had forgotten to sign in.

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

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

The result was Delete as hoaxes all including Oklawaha County, Florida and template. This doesnt preclude recreation on approriately named articles. I'll be willing to restore and move as appropriate. New article naming should be include (fiction) or some other indicator that they arent real and no inclusion of/in florida templates. Gnan garra 04:52, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bean Creek, Florida

Patent hoax - if you follow the links, you'll find the location "does not exist on conventional maps but exists outside ordinary time and space". The only bluelinks in the sea of redlinks on {{Oklawaha County, Florida}} are a walled garden of hoaxes.

Also nominating:

I haven't nominated {{Oklawaha County, Florida}} as it depends on the outcome of the AfDs on the articles; these are a bit of a funny one as despite being hoaxes, they could (conceivably) be kept and tagged {{in-universe}} as our old friend, "notable hoax" — iridescenti (talk to me!) 20:04, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment a few preliminaries: Did the author exist and was he notable? he has a wiki page, but the sourcing is basically his "memorial" webpage. A quick Google search shows a middle school and a Florida state beach, and a folk festival are named for him, so it seems that he's "real" and at least moderately notable. Was/were the work(s) of fiction notable? I cannot tell. We do have Lake Wobegon etc., although a suggestion to merge all the Wobegon places into a single article is pending. If so, having an article on the work(s) of fiction that would incoporate all these places in a single article (per WP:FICT). How can we determine whether the fictional "universe" of Rogers' is/was notable, "Gamble Rogers" + "Bean Creek" gets 80 ghits, for example. So I conclude that Bean Creek is not notable, but will the aggregate of all the "places" amount to notability? Without more complete knowledge of the corpus of the works, it may be quite difficult to get an answer. Carlossuarez46 22:56, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm not suggesting deleting James Gamble Rogers IV, but IMO the comparison to Lake Wobegon (or Narnia, Hogwarts etc) isn't really fair - at most, these are fictional elements within songs and an unperformed play - the correct comparitor, even if we grant Rogers more notability than he appears to warrant, would be Julie Finkel (the fictional subject of all the Kinks songs about "Julie"). If kept, the articles could happily reside in the (very short) article on the artist — iridescenti (talk to me!) 23:20, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete these apparently are not notable -- the keepers bear this burden -- if they are in an unperformed play by a barely notable folk artist. Thanks for the clarification, but I was unfamiliar with Rogers or whether his corpus is a big deal to the folk art afficianados. Carlossuarez46 06:10, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - As keeper of these articles, my vote would be to combine the Terminal Tavern article and the two towns into the Oklawaha County, Florida article. All of the red links have existing content from other sources, but compiling the information is a daunting task. Until the red linked articles are created, separate articles for each town should not exist but rather redirects to the primary Oklawaha County, Florida page. Machawk1 14:15, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- See my reply on your talk page re this - I think as it stands the whole thing would be better as a single article on "the singer and his work" — iridescenti (talk to me!) 14:27, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I can't withdraw now there's a delete !vote, but Machawk1 has convinced me that the most sensible course would be to keep James Gamble Rogers IV and Oklawaha County, Florida as separate articles, with the remaining pages merged to one or the other; therefore, changing to Keep for Oklawaha County, Florida — iridescenti (talk to me!) 14:58, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:23, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DNSKong

disputed PROD for free-ware that makes no assertion of notability delete Cornell Rockey 20:05, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - barring the appearance of non-trivial reliable sources establishing notability. —dgies^t_c 20:55, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as spam. Like many "free" products it's a stalking horse for a paid-for version - check out the site. And apart from that there's the utter non-notability. andy 21:33, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:CSD#A7 applies to companies, not products, and WP:CSD#G11 doesn't seem to apply either. —dgies^t_c 21:50, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete G11, blatant advertisement. It does so apply. Free does not preclude being advertised. —David Eppstein 05:10, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not Delete - it is not blatant advertising since it is listed on quite a few of the more well-known ad-blocking sites. I have known about the software for quite some time due to to these sources. It is not a "a stalking horse for a paid-for version" since it functions perfectly by itself - I think the paid-for version is intended at a completely different audience (they do not advertise it blatantly - I was not even aware of the second version). --MatthewKarlsen 09:59, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:46, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Loren DiGiorgi

Seems to fail WP:MUSIC; his CDs are on his own label, there's no external coverage, and the claims to notability don't quite pass. Crystallina 20:32, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree, fails WP:Music. Only valid claim to notability in article is inclusion on excercise videos but if these videos were notable by our standards then they would have pages here, which they don't, so - for the sake of this AfD - those are not notable either. Delete without predjudice against recreation if subject becomes properly notable in future. A1octopus 18:39, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 14:42, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - hasn't become established enough to meet WP:MUSIC as yet. It amazes me, though, how musicians are able to get so many Google hits without non-trivial references. Tony Fox (arf!) 19:58, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete per CSD G10. Xoloz 21:16, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Melissa Kelly

This is unnotable, and there is only one editor. If you look at the history you'd see I already marked it for speedy deletion. But Rhysesnewlife keeps removing it. So I'm bringing it up for deletion. TheBlazikenMaster 20:35, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Nonsense.Chris 20:41, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:46, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John kirker

Borderline notability - just being a successful programmer does not notability make - but also completely autobiographical and quite egomaniacal! Chris 20:37, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless some source can be found for the claims. this is the sort of autobio that absolutely needs full documentation. DGG 05:09, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 14:42, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per autobiography, does not meet WP:BIO criteria and article fails manual of style. Carlosguitar 04:20, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:25, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Joey Nelson

Contested prod. Non notable independent wrestler, no evidence of multiple independent non trivial reliable sources, fails WP:BIO. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 20:41, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per Nom--Unopeneddoor 00:18, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. A Google search also brings up no relevent hits. TJ Spyke 04:50, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. fbb_fan 15:35, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus. --Luigi30 (Taλk) 12:33, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nema

The only sources for this woman's biography are a web-published book review and her own website. She has published books, but I can't determine whether the publisher is or is not a vanity press. Many of the links leading into this page have run afoul of CSD A7. I suspect this is an occultist "walled garden". Delete, pending other opinions. Xoloz 20:44, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless some sources can be provided to establish notability. fbb_fan 15:36, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 14:42, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I don't really know what the criteria for notability are in a case like this, but a nema+magick-wikipedia Gsearch gets a surprising 19800 hits in various languages. She appears to be the acknowledged creator of "Maat Magick" (don't laugh). Probably quite notable within her community. Stammer 15:38, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep. Per Stammer. Her books are for sale through Amazon. Sounds kooky and granted cannot find a ton of info about the writer, but she is likely well known in her circle of influence, otherworldly it may be.—Gaff ^ταλκ 21:13, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks third-party independent sources commenting on the work. The linked review of her book is a dead link. I have not done an extensive study to see if there could be evaluations of her work somewhere out on the web that ought to be added to the article. (When the article is about a lesser-known subject area, and seems rather promotional, I think it's fair to rely on the article creator to bring in the third-party comments). EdJohnston 03:58, 17 May 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. WjBscribe 03:27, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Manthrakodi (soap opera)

No need for such nonsense here. This isn't notable enough for inclusion, as per WP:NOT. Not famous enough. rohith 20:47, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 23:59, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:V. Trying to go through Google: "Manthrakodi TV -wikipedia" gets very little. The most reliable source is a IMDB link and I don't even think that is refering to the same Manthrakodi. In addition, the article's last section is filled with WP:NOT#CBALL. This series is just not big enough to warrant an article. Mitaphane _?|! 01:41, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does it even actually exist? It almost seems made up... Bjrobinson 12:40, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It actually did exist, but then it is not at all famous to be included here. As you can see, I believe the article had been wholly written by a fan and is totally unsourced. Its quality is also below-par. Especially the language. In any case, this is in no way suitable for inclusion here. rohith 19:32, 10 May 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. Sandstein 12:58, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Favorite betrayal criterion

Delete. Original research. Vanity. See here. All links refer directly or indirectly to Mike Ossipoff. This criterion isn't discussed in serious, academic circles. This criterion is not notable. Not a single paper about this criterion has ever been accepted for publication. Furthermore, this article is a repost of a previously-deleted article. Yellowbeard 20:44, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yellowbeard, your statements are not cited. FYI, Ossipoff devised the FBC criteria so it follows there would be some mention. There is no vanity there, I don't know where you get that. OR? Hardly.--Fahrenheit451 01:45, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Something literally made up in school one day. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 21:53, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment ObiterDicta's statement is undocumented and false.--Fahrenheit451 20:49, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - User appears to have established beginning basis for verifiability in external links, instead of using cite formatting in a potential References section. Smee 22:28, 4 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
weak keep The first of those at least using the term in the title. DGG 23:24, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This criteria is notable and appears cited frequently on the rangevoting.org website and is NOT original research.--Fahrenheit451 01:42, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This criterion IS original research because nobody other than Mike Ossipoff and Warren Smith use this criterion. There is no published paper that uses this criterion. Five of the seven links of this article refer to the rangevoting.org website; but this is not the website of a scientific institute or a private organization; this is the private website of a single person: Warren Smith. The other two links refer to Mike Ossipoff's website [80] resp. to a link [81] that refers to Mike Ossipoff's website. This criterion doesn't exist outside Mike Ossipoff's and Warren Smith's fantasy. It is true that they are very active in the Internet; but this is not an argument for saying that this criterion isn't original research. Yellowbeard 19:41, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Warning to Yellowbeard I just changed your "Strong Delete" into a comment. You can only vote once. Please stop attempting to game this AfD.--Fahrenheit451 20:46, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- In so far as I have signed my comments appropriately, it is nonsense to claim that I was "attempting to game this AfD". Yellowbeard 09:32, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Signing your posts is not the issue, you attempted to game this AfD by VOTING TWICE.--Fahrenheit451 05:31, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Fahrenheit451, you underestimate the intelligence of ordinary Wikipedians when you say that they don't know that the same signature refers to the same user. Yellowbeard 08:49, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but on the understanding that it is expanded and referenced. Darrenhusted 22:03, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep hello, I happen to know that (1) at least one paper submitted to the Boston Voting Conference contains a theorem about FBC and assuming it is accepted it will then be in the literature in at least one place, (2) rangevoting.org is not "Warren Smith's private website" although it is true that Smith is the largest contributor to it. As far as I know Ossipoff was indeed the inventor of this FBC criterion, but I believe it is an important one, in fact more important than many criteria one can find in the published voting literature, and I doubt many people in that area would disagree with that. FBC has been extensively discussed on voting e-forums for 10 years. 5 May.(talk) 22:25, 5 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Comment Also, the Yellowbeard claim that "nobody other than Mike Ossipoff and Warren Smith use this criterion" is contradicted by the fact that Forest Simmons used it in one of the links already given in the article, and Kevin Venzke used it in other links (not given in the article, but probably should be added) such as these: http://www.rangevoting.org/VenzkeFBC3.html http://www.rangevoting.org/VenzkePf.html

which are both at the rangevoting.org site too. Were one to delve into e-forums on voting over the last 10 years, one could also find others who have proven various FBC-related theorems. Probably on the order of 20 others, though I offer no guarantee on the count. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.186.79.43 (talk) 22:25, 5 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

- The election methods mailing list is hardly a reputable source. That mailing list is not restricted and not moderated. Every idiot can post his thoughts to that mailing list. Yellowbeard 09:32, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Further Comment Some more thoughts and facts occurred to me.

(1) The yellowbeard claims that "This criterion isn't discussed in serious, academic circles" and "Not a single paper about this criterion has ever been accepted for publication" appear to be contradicted by this paper: Voting Systems That Combine Approval and Preference, by professors S.J.Brams and M.R.Sanver, published in book Steven J. Brams, William V. Gehrlein, and Fred S. Roberts (eds.), The Mathematics of Preference, Choice, and Order: Essays in Honor of Peter C. Fishburn. Heidelberg, Germany: Springer 2006, which I found in a google search. [Incidentally, this paper cites the rangevoting.org site's essay on the FBC criterion.] It is very difficult to make a claim of vast generality that something "is not discussed" and is not in published literature. In order to do so, one has to have been privy to every discussion and seen every published paper. Evidently, yellowbeard has not. (2) The wikipedia article in question consists of stating a definition. As such, I do not see how it can be claimed to be "original research." This contradicts yellowbeard's claim that it is original research. (end comment). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.186.79.43 (talk) 23:25, 5 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Keep In the election methods world, just the initials FBC will be immediately recognized and understood. Ossipoff and Smith are two well-known writers in that world, but they are hardly the only people discussing the Favorite Betrayal Criterion, the matter has passed out of their hands into general usage. This is not a comment on the specific article, which I have not reviewed at this time. If the specific article is inappropriate in content, the proper remedy is to edit it, not to delete it. Abd 04:47, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Ossipoff and Smith are not "well-known writers in the election methods world". Can you name any paper by them that has been published? Yellowbeard 09:32, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Obviously, this AfD has been hijacked by Warren Smith devotees [82]. Interestingly, even they are unable to name a paper by Ossipoff or Smith that has been published. This demonstrates that the real aim of this article is to promote the views of some political sect. Yellowbeard 10:22, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yellowbeard, that is what you want to believe. That fact is, that there are admin's and user's signatures I see here who are definitely NOT range voting "devotees". You are obviously upset that the consensus for this AfD went against you.--Fahrenheit451 05:41, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Fahrenheit451, so you say that the task of this mail was to "upset" me? Yellowbeard 08:49, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yellowbeard, I don't know who Warren Smith is, and I'm not a devotee, but this article is on its third go round at AfD and I would like it to be expanded so a fourth AfD nomination doesn't happen. If you think puppetry is happening (of the meat or sock variety) then go report it. Darrenhusted 12:49, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. FBC is a widely known and important criterion, try googling it yourself. It shows up, for instance, in this presentation on the site of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers. I presume they were discussing what methods to use to make internal decisions. Auros 18:32, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this presentation is already mentioned in the article. Obviously, it has been written by a Mike Ossipoff devotee. This presentation doesn't contain own ideas, but only links to Mike Ossipoff's website. Yellowbeard 20:38, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So maybe you're a deletionist Yellowbeard, this article has survived two AfDs so maybe it has merit, but it needs more sources and expanding as a fourth AfD is not needed. Darrenhusted 20:48, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, this article hasn't survived two AfDs. The result of the first AfD was delete. But then Fahrenheit451 reposted this article. Yellowbeard 21:28, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this is the third AfD, so by definition is has survived two AfDs, the first may have been a group AfD but this article is still here, if you don't want it recreated then I don't know why on the second AfD you didn't ask to salt the earth. Darrenhusted 10:57, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Darrenhusted, the result of the first AfD was delete. But then Fahrenheit451 reposted this article. You wrote: "This is the third AfD, so by definition is has survived two AfDs." This is nonsense. What you are actually saying is that reposting a deleted article is the same as surviving an AfD.

You wrote: "This article is still here." No, this article isn't still there. This article is there again, because Fahrenheit451 reposted this article after it had been killed by an AfD. Yellowbeard 11:13, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article has verifiable sources. Plus, I disagree with Yellowbeard's canvassing for "delete" votes on user talk pages. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 16:11, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- And I disagree with Fahrenheit451's attempt to gather private information about other users. Yellowbeard 11:43, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. By the way, neither Mike Ossipoff nor myself (Kevin Venzke) are connected with rangevoting.org. I just find myself quoted there. For what it's worth, I don't even particularly share the goals of that website. (I have my own page at http://nodesiege.tripod.com/elections/ where I discuss this criterion.) KVenzke 02:38, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I am still waiting that someone mentions a published paper that uses this criterion. Yellowbeard 11:34, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:13, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cute Babulja

Non notable band, fails WP:MUSIC. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 20:51, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Scientizzle 21:18, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, W.marsh 00:15, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete... couldn't someone just IAR here and not relist this twice? -Amarkov moo! 00:33, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete google search runs about 850 results, half of which are wikipedia mirrors. --ROASTYTOAST 02:12, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Satisfies WP:BAND specifically, 2. Has had a charted hit on any national music chart. CIreland 02:28, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Kosovo is not a nation. -- Y not? 02:38, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not a single reliable source to prove they had a charted hit either. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 04:06, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wholly unverified, fails WP:BAND even if all true. -- Y not? 02:38, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no sources, no verification of notability. --Dhartung | Talk 04:13, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Billy227, Review my account!! ^{talk contribs sndbx usbx} 14:47, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Frankly, I am for tightening the restrictions on notability of bands. ---Cathal 15:07, 15 May 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. Petros471 18:39, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Danny DeManto

Contested prod. Non notable independent wrestler, no evidence of multiple independent non trivial reliable sources, fails WP:BIO. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 20:55, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He is listed on the Jersey All Prowrestling Page. I added his article to help familiarize people with their roster. Many times you come here on a page and there is no article for someone listed in other articles. I think we can improve it. I listed both his official website and his official myspace page, that should help with reliabilty a little bit. I vote it stays.68.161.74.189 17:13, 4 May 2007 (UTC)Kramer84— Kramer84 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep I know for a fact this is one possible future card, he has been heavily scouted by TNA and WWE. As I know the wrestlers that are being scouted. I would like to say Keep because this kid has a very good future if he works hard. Just a note, you need more citation on the page. Govvy 23:13, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please stop using original research, and also Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. The threshold for notability is multiple independent non trivial reliable sources, at the moment the only sources are his website and Myspace page. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 23:15, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per kramer--Unopeneddoor 00:13, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Regarding Govvy's comment about him having a good future - if he becomes notable, a page can always be made at the appropriate time. He doesn't appear to be notable yet though. fbb_fan 15:38, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tornado DD_eleT_e Non-notable wrestler from an independent circuit. Not much in the way of encyclopedic content, no reliable sources cited. Caknuck 05:35, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable wrestler. No reliable sources found, I can not find anything on him aside from JAP. Potential to re-add in future if attains notable status. Hellswasteland 18:23, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete doesn't meet criteria for biographies due to a lack of reliable sources--Pharoahski 20:54, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This place, wikipedia, is run by the users. Anybody with seniortiy or an extensive amount of posts can just delete and add whatever they want but a newbie like myself has to come under scrutiny. Some people need to understand that newer people still need to work on their editing skills but do not get the chance if everything they edit gets deleted.

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:25, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ortho Bionomy

Where to start? I'm pretty sure that this isn't one of the standard deletion reason, but so what. IAR.

The article is an unwikified mess since 10 months, doesn't clearly state notability (number of practioners etc) but entertains the reader with gems like The client can either be very passive or very involved [...].

There was stub since 2005 [83]] which was at least shorter and if there is no consensus for deletion, let's at least restart there.

But in my not so humble opinion, this article is a disgrace for an encyclopedia and instead of adding more pastel-shaded boxes, deletion (without prejudice against re-creation as a better article) is called for.

Pjacobi 21:02, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete as spam, plain and simple, and citing 2 books that are also advertising doesnt help it. DGG 05:11, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per DGG. This is essentially like all those martial arts masters who create their own trademarked discipline. --Dhartung | Talk 07:15, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, advert/spam. Jacek Kendysz 09:32, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:26, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Massacres in Peloponnese

This article is a POV fork of Greek War of Independence. It is poorly written, blatantly POV and unencyclopedic. It is also in many parts a very thinly paraphrased version of an article that was previously speedy-deleted as a piece of plagiarism / copyvio (see User talk:Laertes d#Massacres in Peloponnese and Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 May 2 for discussion. The new version is superficially modified in its wording, but its substance is apparently still just a agglommeration of snippets taken more or less directly from the literature. I wouldn't mind a properly written article on massacres during the Greek War of Independence, written in decent encyclopedic style and integrated into the main article through proper use of the main/summary refactoring technique, but this article isn't it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:02, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this is a procedural completion of an unlisted AfD proposal by User:Politis, but the above rationale is my own. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:02, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete POV, copyvio, WP:UNDUE, and per 2 precedent attempts of making an article for the known extreme theory by greekmurderers.net. Niko Silver 21:16, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

References for the article are quite clearly stated and even scanned for the same people who are now asking for the deletion of it. Speedy delete itself was a mistake and now i rewrote the article directly from first hand sources without any intermediaries and by citing them. i guess i also have to mention that article was undeleted by some other people who apparently didnt see much problem with it..

Article mainly based on these sources,

George Finlay, History of the Greek Revolution and the Reign of King Otho, edited by H. F. Tozer, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1877 Reprint london 1971 SBN 900834 12 9

Image:Finlaydd.jpg

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletions. -- ⇒ bsnowball 09:16, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

W. Alison Phillips, The War of Greek independence 1821 to 1833, London 1897 and

Image:Phillipsaa.jpg

William St. Clair, That Greece Might Still Be Free The Philhellenes in the War of Independence, Oxford University Press London 1972 p.2 ISBN 0192151940.

Image:St.clair12.jpg

For most of the citations that i used in the article, i scanned pages. Actually, i didnt include the horrfying descriptions of the atrocities that were performed, as can be seen from the scanned pages, but merely talked about their occurings. These are not some "extreme theories" of some nationalist sites as has been claimed, but the events that virtually every single historian mentions about. I can understand criticizations of it then i will welcome them to improve the article but i cant see why an article about well known series of massacres that every single historian talks about should be deleted..--laertes d 22:43, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the topic seems referenced and encyclopedic. The article needs wikification and cleanup to an encyclopedic appearance, and will likely never be free of POV wars, but does not seem incapable of management. Sourcing could be broader; attention to the context of massacres vs. displacement could be greater; but there are many worse articles on Wikipedia. --Dhartung | Talk 07:28, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 09:34, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. On second thought, I do see a chance of reworking this into a decent article; I'm currently preparing a draft. If kept, the page must be renamed, because it doesn't actually deal specifically with the Peloponnese but also with other areas in Greece. I invite suggestions for better titles. Actually, I could imagine an article Massacres during the Greek War of Independence merging information about both the anti-Muslim and the anti-Christian atrocities (e.g. Massacre of Chios etc.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:12, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strike that out. We already have the section Greek War of Independence#Massacres during the revolution, which provides everything we need. That section can be improved in terms of NPOV and encyclopedicity (we don't need all those glaring sensational literal quotes, for instance). This article is just a POV fork of that section. Point about renaming if kept still stands. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:31, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article as it is, is a POV fork of the massacres section of Greek War of Independence. After a lot of edit warring, Laertes couldn't get his own way there so he created the fork. Plagiarism is also an issue with this. However, I have always supported {{main}}ing out that section from the independence war article and including both sides of the story (i.e. massacres by Turks on Greeks and Greeks on Turks, not merely one or the other). If we are going to keep this article, then an article Massacres of Greeks by Turks during the Greek War of Independence should be created to balance things out. Alternatively, I support Fut.Perf.'s proposal of creating an article Massacres during the Greek War of Independence and moving all the material there.--Ploutarchos 10:42, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the article shouldnt be deleted or merged with something else, just because some users dont want well known massacres to be seen. The massacre section in the main article of Greek war of independence is nothing but a mess now, and subject to continuous vandalism. And thats why in the first place, i decided to open a new thread. Instead of incorporating it with something else an internal link can be provided in the main article for the massacres that took place in Peloponnese with the beginning of the revolt. Future's proposal is a futile one, it is a proven fact that merging them into one proves to be useless. And there already is a separate article about Chios massacre. And "those glaring sensational quotes" are coming from the works of historians and in fact, i refrained from putting detailed descriptions of atrocities performed. For instance George Finlay talks about the massacres in Navarino, in the scanned page, in more than one page. In the article, i mentioned about it only by one short sentence. there are many more things that i didnt mention about the massacres. And there is nothing wrong with incorporating quotations from other works...As i said, i would be happy if someone comes and develop the article if it it is thought to be POV.--laertes d 11:04, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And merging into one creates another problem, as can be seen in the main page, that ends up being a contest of who massacred worst, who killed most and turns out to be nothing but a mess..im sure Greeks had their sound reasons of rebelling to the Ottoman Empire but Greek rebels massacred minority populations of Greece(Turks, albanians, jews) to the point of extermination almost before Ottoman Empire realized there was a serious uprising in their hands..BTW, many things mentioned in the main page is factually incorrect and taken from unreliable or unverifiable sources as i talked in the discussion page of that article and nobody gave an answer yet. --laertes d 11:14, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At least you admit your article is a POV fork. Niko Silver 11:43, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All sources are cited and are quite reliable, feel free to make proposals of changes or include materials in the article but asking for its wiping out is clearly itself a national POV..--laertes d 11:47, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The proposal has already been made. Delete this one, and write whatever salvageable (too few IMO) in a place where both POVs (NPOV) can be elaborated on, such as the existing section Greek War of Independence#Massacres during the revolution. Niko Silver 11:58, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And i already said that article is a mess, massacre section probably soon would be larger than the rest of the article if i enter in this edit warring of who massacred worst..Instead, an internal link can be provided from the main article by just shortly mentioning of the massacres in there. There has been already a separate article of massacre of chios, somehow i couldnt see a request of merging things into one another in there..--laertes d 12:13, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you admit it is a POV fork... You also admit WP:POINT (i.e. if another "fork" exists, then instead of discussing its deletion we should create this one). Nevertheless, I can't even remotely understand the notability connection between the Chios massacre and greekmurderers.net... Niko Silver 12:33, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand meanwhile why you didnt understand it because there is no such a connection, article has no relation with the site you keep showing for the last couple of days, citations are taken directly form above mentioned sources..Mostly from the scanned pages..--laertes d 12:42, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the last time: 1) you cannot compare something as notable as the Chios massacre (sources: scholar, books) to something without devoted literature (and art), apart from pages here and there 2) even if you could, that would not be a reason for creating another article, and 3) when there are two sides in a coin, then you cannot split the one you like to a separate article. Niko Silver 13:03, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Massacres in Peloponnese are quite notable, as you can see that every historian mentions about that..these are not pages from here and there, if you want i can scan a large quatities of pages more..--laertes d 13:07, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you only address #1 (for which you can address neither scholar nor books). I see that you repeatedly avoid to discuss #2 (WP:POINT) and #3 (WP:UNDUE/WP:POVFORK). Conclusions drawn, thank you. Niko Silver 13:14, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record, I do agree that the massacres are real and notable, and the literature on the topic is genuine and serious for all I can see. Okay, McCarthy is certainly controversial, but I see nothing suspicious about St. Clair, who seems to be a well-respected expert in Greek 19th-century history ([84]), and about Barbara Jelavich, author of a much-quoted History of the Balkans. The article should make a clearer distinction between these modern works of scholarship and the older, 19th-century sources (Finlay and Alison Phillips). Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:16, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What now youre saying Fut.Perf, is kind of things that can easily be discussed in the discussion page of the article, not in its deletion request page..Although i dont necessarily agree with your opinions. they were respected historians of their time and what they wrote were the earliest accounts about the greek war of independence--laertes d 14:33, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree with NikoSilver; this is a POV fork. Whatever we can salvage from this article belongs in a section such as Greek War of Independence#Massacres during the revolution and needs to be written in an NPOV way. And yeah, Fut. Perf. is right--we need to distinguish between contemporary scholarship and 19th century sources, and rely on the recent stuff. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:01, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. A fork and not a significant event. The Myotis 16:35, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, a WP:POVFORK--Aldux 16:37, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Above comments are just ridiculous, "not a significant even", sure, by that criteria lets delete more than half of wikipedia..the entire minority population of Peloponnese is wiped out. The massacre section of Greek war of independence is anything but not a NPOV. It is not up to the Greek nationalists to decide whether it should be deleted or not, i still cant see one single reasanable response from the people who are asking for its deletion..--laertes d 17:17, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. POV fork. Consensus for including any of this material can be sought at the place it belongs. Sandstein 19:09, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletions. -- Carom 19:29, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This article should be part of the Greek War of Independence. When I was in high school these events were mentioned in the class on the War of independence. Also, these events were the result of individual or group acts of violence, and not deliberetly planned by a central Greek authority/entity, as there was no such thing as a Greek government yet. Unfortunately, they were a consequence of over 400 years of brutal occupation. --Rizos01 19:41, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think i previously replied to these criticizations about its being a POVfork, the reason of opening a separate article is that the massacre section in the main article turned out to be a place of contest about who massacred worst and most..Most of the events mentioned there is poorly sourced, delibaretly added to downplay the massacres of Peloponnese and apologeletic to say the least, like because of the hanging of the patriarch that Greeks massacred turks which is incorrect since there were hardly any Turk left until the hanging or Jews were massacred "accidentally" as a side effect whereas St. Clair says that priests and bishops gave direct orders for their exterminations..

And even more funnier of all, i still cant see these same people opposing to a separete article of Chios massacre which took place after the minority population of Peloponnese wiped out..

Sorry i made a mistake, what is most funny is a user above asked for "consensus" of opinion even the inclusion of well sourced material into the main article, then if not every single of the users approve materials shouldnt be added..I guess that would be the end of Wikipedia..And please no need to naturalize brutal massacres of civilian population who inhabited the region over centuries as a natural outcome of something else..Still cant see any reasonable comment about why it should be deleted other than "lets cover up" fellows..--laertes d 21:02, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you think the section is a poorly sourced who massacred more contest than fix it. Having a separate article won't solve any of the edit warring or POV of the people involved. Downplaying is a good thing. The article is not the place to blame either side. Your comments suggest you have serious problems with Greek people. Your using words like: apologetic, "accidentally" and "let's cover up" show me you're far from neutral. Try getting some input on how to handle the section in the existing article from people who have no opinion on the matter. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:48, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but these are really quite cheap accusations, i dont have any problem with any people as a group identity and as i said im sure Greeks at the time had their sound reasons to rebel but it is no justification for brutally eliminating entire minority population of Peloponnese. I would rather say you and others who oppose a separate article have serious problems about acknowldeging the massacres committed by Greeks or may be by Christians..Point here, population of Peloponnese was virtually wiped out before any other massacre that can be named to be committed by Ottoman Empire. Thats not a point of debate, every historian mentions about that and therefore it deserves a separete article of its own. For any criticizations of the article itself, i encourage you to come and fix it or anyone else..--laertes d 11:31, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above - Sthenel 13:42, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nominator.--Yannismarou 17:32, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the obvious reasons. Miskin 22:17, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i think this is a discussion page,right? Not a kind of nationalist greeks' solidarity platform, or some christian's solidarity platform, assumingly people are supposed to say why they think the article should be deleted, i quite clearly stated my reasons for a separate article, i expect the same therefore..i cant see much a discussion other than "delete per above", "POvfork". Massacres are real and beginning by the earliest accounts of the greek war of independence virtually every historian mentioned about that, and these are from where i get the citations--laertes d 18:11, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In fairness, if I were to judge this AfD I'd discount the vote by Rizos01, who came back out of a weeks-long inactivity just for this one vote and who is otherwise a single-purpose POV pushing account on Pontic Greek genocide. That one does smack of vote-stacking. The rest are all legitimate - it's only natural that this topic will draw most interest from Greek readers. But things will be judged by strength of arguments, not by force of numbers. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:53, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete My main problem is that the title is way too vague. If any article with this title exists, it should be a redirect to numerous sub-articles as there have been many massacres in the Peleponnese from antiquity to the Greek Civil War. AlexiusComnenus 22:17, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alexius, i dont think these little games would be of any value, then heading can renamed as "Turkish Massacres in Peloponnese" or something in the kind..--laertes d 00:25, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

" then heading can renamed as "Turkish Massacres in Peloponnese" or something in the kind" This is what I am arguing for! I am glad that you agree, but I think that the name you mentioned it not a good one. We should have articles for specific events, such as "Tripoli Massacre" etc. when there is a lot of information about a specific massacre. In other cases, where we no little else other than people were killed, the events should just be mentioned in passing in the article on the Greek War of Independence. AlexiusComnenus 01:23, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:54, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The vandon arms

This is a band of questionable notability, whose major claim to fame is having appeared on one of the thousands of XM radio channels. Article is short and unsourced. I admit ignorance of this sort of music, but Delete, pending sources, other opinions. Xoloz 21:03, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa... they have also appeared on Paddy Rock Radio: Vol. 2 compilation. Paddy Rock Radio is a major internet radio show for the genre. They have opened for The Tossers, The Quakes, The Envy Corps, Deal's Gone Bad, The Toasters, and The Unseen just to name a few!!!

And for the record Fungus 53 is the ONLY punk rock station on XM...

They are also one of the featured bands on punkrock.org, the featured band of the month on 105.1 Channel Q in Ames, IA (Iowa State University), they won this years VEISHEA Battle of the Bands which is a huge deal in the midwest[85], article in the Des Moines register about the show [86], Shite n Onions Paddy Rock Radio review sites them [87] (scroll down to "V/A: Paddy Rock Vol. 2"), and just check out their myspace [88]!! They are for real...

Delete. Doesn't seem to come close to satisfying WP:MUSIC. fbb_fan 15:40, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I already speedied this once, the fact that it exists is not grounds for inclusion. Guy (Help!) 22:54, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm surprised that Guy overlooked the fact that this is vanispamcruftisement. MER-C 04:27, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not able to meet WP:MUSIC at this point. Tony Fox (arf!) 04:37, 10 May 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. Chaser - T 11:21, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alexyss tylor

Notability. Seems to have some exposure in the blogosphere, but not enough to warrant an article, methinks Chris 21:03, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per unsourced = problems with verification. the_undertow ^talk 11:44, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While she may be somewhat less known than other people on the net, there are articles dedicated to lesser known people for less. True, her fame may be double edged, as she is known equally as a joke as much as a guru, but she is becoming better & better known. There are also bits of information on this site that is not known elsewhere, so I'd vote to keep it. Tokyogirl79Tokyogirl79

Keep Alexyss Tylor is gaining widespread popularity from her local television show. I think this page needs to be cleaned up and expanded with a detailed biography and pictures, not deleted.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 00:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No secondary reliable sources for verification or to substantiate notability. --Wafulz 00:44, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In my opinion this page is in need of a clean-up and references, not deletion. She is notable enough that I expected WP to have an article on her, and it did. --Imtzo 02:06, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Stoic atarian 07:49, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems to have gotten some point-and-laugh attention on forums and such, but nothing close to the sort of reliable sources we'd need for an article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. KrakatoaKatie 08:44, 16 May 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. --Luigi30 (Taλk) 12:35, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Lewis (convicted of fraud, Ponzi scheme 2006)

This article is very unencycylopedic in tone, but there may be a germ of value in it. Subject is convicted criminal; sources provided. Article would require overhaul to meet with BLP concerns; also, I'm not sure whether the scope of the crime is or is not large enough to merit encyclopedic coverage. Delete, unless someone sees a way to rewrite this. Xoloz 21:12, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You write: "I'm not sure whether the scope of the crime is or is not large enough to merit encyclopedic coverage." -- Are you kidding! Defrauding people of untold millions isn't enough to warrant an entry in this encyclopedia? We have countless articles on tons of obscure academics and historical figures...and this guy is as notable than them. --Wassermann 14:48, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just overhauled it a bit to be more encyclopediac in tone. However, I still have to go with delete, as his primary claims to WP:NOTABILITY appear to be "largest and longest" Ponzi scheme, things that are not supported by any of the sources (they just say it was "one of"). At best, still need some cleanups, secondary sources, and move to a less verbose pagename. DMacks 03:54, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep 20 years seems notably long, and $3000 million is also enough to say "one of" DGG 05:12, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 14:41, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Rename Rename Jim Lewis (convict). TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 18:57, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete if not overhauled to remove the massive BLP problems. The title, at least, needs to be changed. A search reveals it was once at James Paul Lewis, Jr., which seems better, or it could be Jim Lewis (fraud). Everyone deserves to be treated according to WP:BLP, and it appears a couple of editors have serious appetites for publicizing this man's crimes. KrakatoaKatie 00:20, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'll tidy up the article. --Wassermann 14:38, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename -- this article does need to be renamed, though. --Wassermann 14:45, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep why does James Paul Lewis, Jr. redirect here, rather than hold the article. WP should avoid bio articles with "convict" or "fraud" in their titles. Carlossuarez46 16:15, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but rename. Notable biographical topic, but article and title need work. —Gaff ^ταλκ 21:24, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The LA TIMES article referenced speaks a great deal as to the notability/notoriety of this figure. He worked his scheme remarkably well...—Gaff ^ταλκ 21:26, 15 May 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. MastCell ^Talk 04:00, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dragon Music Group

Unsourced article on minor label. Very minor. Guy (Help!) 21:24, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Scientizzle 21:13, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not even the listed songs and albums by Sisqó mention it but rather refer to Def Jam--Tikiwont 12:03, 10 May 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. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 16:00, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Ettlinger

Contested prod. The sole claim of notability in the article is his having written a book, Life in the underground - the struggles of a caucasian male. However, all attempts to locate this "Brian Ettlinger" or "Brian Etlinger" or his book on google failed. Attempts to find his book at Penguin Books, the alleged publisher, also failed. I'm nominating for delete as a hoax, and I doubt it would be notable even if it weren't. Someguy1221 21:24, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I'm having the same difficulty finding the book, which means exactly what's said above. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 04:46, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not even in the Library of Congress catalog . DGG 23:27, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:41, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ankur Luthra

Subject claims to have founded a charity after becoming a Rhodes Scholar, cites as his source a mention in a Berkeley newspaper. Clearly, the article is not encyclopedic as written (with only those sources), but there may be more to find, so I was uncomfortable with a CSD A7. Delete, pending other opinions. Xoloz 21:31, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. What I see in searching his name on Google and newslibrary.com indicates there is indeed enough for notability. Per Xoloz though, the article, as it currently stands, certainly needs enhancement. I don't have time to go through the references and work on the article just this moment. But I'll try to get to it when time permits, unless someone beats me to the punch. Mwelch 01:20, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I finally came back to work on the article, and in looking closer at the results, it looks the only articles that are substantive in their coverage of him specifically are all local to the Bay Area. So seems to be locally notable only at this point. Mwelch 01:00, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I have added references. He is of quite some notability for his achievements which are quite extraordinary for a 26 year-old. dishant 09:00, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with Xoloz Appears to be a bright student but he does not appear to meet Wikipedia guidelines for prominence. Article originally created and above Keep suggested by Dishant Luthra - a relative , so not a NPOV ?

Note: User has been part of an ongoing spat with me on a revert war at Khatri, Malhotra and Luthra. He also assumes that my surname is Luthra without any information whatsoever. I suggest both mine and his vote does not get counted because I am the creator of the article and he has a malicious bias. dishant 02:05, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Many (perhaps most) Rhodes scholars become notable, but they do so on t he basis of their further career. His is just beginning. DGG 23:27, 4 May 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. WjBscribe 22:23, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hospitality Club

Not notable website, Does not pass WP:Corp DXRAW 21:36, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I agree. 1 source is from WHOIS, and 2 of them are from the club's website itself. It's not notable enough since there aren't many third party coverage.--Kylohk 21:50, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Has been the subject of wide news coverage in numerous countries. This also confirms that "the scope of activities are national or international in scale" (WP:Corp). --Valmi ✒ 07:26, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sorry, this is plain stupid discussion. It is an international project of 200 000 with at least one member in every smaller city in Europe and many others elsewhere in the world. Were it not for the stupid leader who enforces censorship (which unfortunatelly and un-understandably the article doesn't mention), it's an organization whose member base is growing exponentially (and has been for the past years). --hhanke 12:20, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment but not WP:RS DXRAW 10:06, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and please add more reliable sources. From the current state where there are 4 references, only 1 source from the CSM newspaper that can be considered as reliable per WP:RS. One goes to its own website, one link to a forum (not-reliable) and one source is trivial (whois). — Indon (reply) — 07:48, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

End this discussion: It is obvious for anybody who knows HC a bit better, that it easily passes the criteria. It is just a matter of adding the sources. If you are in doubt, please do a search in the archives of New York Times, German "Die Zeit", FAZ, Italian television,....

--Kjell.kuehne 18:08, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I have just done it myself. Added a link to The New York Times, Miami Herald and Frommer's which will surely do as secondary sources and removed the deletion notice.

--Kjell.kuehne 18:20, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. WjBscribe 22:20, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adolescent sexuality in the United States

Hello, I have put the article 'Adolescent sexuality in the United States' up for deletion for the following reasons.

A. It has almost ALL POV material that is anti-sex. I counted only 3 or 4 lines that weren't some quote and that actually said what Adolescent sexuality in the United States was.

B. It's uneeded. The main article on Adolescent sexuality contains all relevant information to Sexuality of adolescents and easily covers this articles information that is not heavily disputed, is 99% NPOV. Except for 3 lines of disputed information cut & pasted into the current article from an earlier version of the article which was replaced by the current article.

C. Only ONE user User:Illuminato consistently defends the articles content while all others have consistently stated problems with the content of the article over and over and over.

D. This article has been involved in at least a dozen edit wars all involving User:Illuminato, who has rigorously resisted edits, even though many were agreed upon by a vast majority and he has gotten numerous 3RR Warnings, ignored many users complaints about his contributions, and while going under the pretext of trying to make progress. Reverts any edits of which he doesn't approve and viciously disputes it.

D.1. The proposal for replacing the old version of Adolescent sexuality ran for 12 days. While almost all the others editors of the article at the time agreed that replacing the article was a good idea. User:Illuminato 'dissapeared' for that time period, a notification was placed on his talk page, and he gave no indication he was away. All of his activity effectively ceased while the proposal ran and then he returned right after the proposal went through and tried to revert back from the new version multiple times until he stopped after multiple other editors stopped his attempts at reversion after a proposal had been passed. User:Illuminato has recieved warnings of violating WP:OWN from a few users and accusations of doing such from me and many other users. He has also been told numerous times (Too many to count without spending at least 3 hours going through archives) that his actions go against the majority and violate WP:NPOV

E. The article's creation is dubious. (A bit of history here). It was created back in late January along with 2 other articles. Adolescent sexuality in Britain, and Adolescent sexuality in India in response to mine and another persons complaints that the views represented in the old version of Adolescent sexuality didn't present a worldwide view. Illuminato has paid no attention to AS in India since January 30th and has apparently been involved in primarily edit disputes in AS in Britain.

F. The article has cut & copied information straight from sections originally in Adolescent psychology that were then pasted into the Adolescent Sexuality section of the main article on Adolescence. The article on Culture of the United States, the article on Pornography addiction, and Adolescent sexual behaviour. While the disputed information was ultimately removed from the first 3 articles due to overwhelming opinion that it didn't belong. The last article, Adolescent sexual behaviour, still has much of the cut & copied quotes, the quotes being simply reassembled and sometimes even edited or paraphrased a little bit. Going against WP:ATT

F.1. [Adolescent Sexuality in the United States]] has the same information, and just reassembled, some pieces taken out, some put in, and some of it paraphrased. While having what me and the vast majority term "A major negative POV slant in the article".

G. Basically all in all, many problems with this article and its creation stem from one user User:Illuminato and he has been involved in numerous disputes elsewhere. While I admit that when I'd first joined Wikipedia on January 6th I had some tough times learning to follow the civility rules etc., I learned fairly quickly. And have been a major participator and spectator in this series of debates for quite a while. However, due to Illuminato's sometimes shady and spontaneous archiving (The more nonsensical of which I reverted), the large amount of typed debate surrounding this in various talk and user pages etc, and the simple vastness of this debate, gathering the wikilinks to prove this would take an unreasonable amount of time.

I simply ask that this article be deleted for practical reasons, as it serves no useful purpose except as a hotbed of debate, and branching off of better articles that cover the same thing in order to push POV. (Something many users have complained about).

I've been dealing with this user since a few days after New Years, at first as an IP Address, and since then many other users have been sucked into this debate, and I think that it is for the best of Wikipedia that this article be deleted.... Nateland 21:46, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KeepThis article does not qualify under any of the Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Reasons_for_deletion. Illuminato
Keep. I understand your frustration Nateland, but this isn't the solution to a problem. I would suggest mediation via WP:M or WP:MEDCAB instead, or WP:ARBCOM if all else fails. hateless 22:48, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm the mediator for this case. Illuminato refuses to re write the article in a NPOV tone. He/she has also been slightly rude throughout the case. I'm afraid it might have to go to ArbCom. mcr616 _Speak! 23:44, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nateland, let me recommend that you re-write it in a neutral tone; if a particular user reverts sourced NPOV material, you should request an explanation; failing an appropriate explanation you can go up the escalation path outlined by Hateless, and/or revert the revert and discuss why on the talk page; the 3 revert rule will often prevent relentless edit warring. Carlossuarez46 23:04, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. The article seems to be a very long list of statistics and conclusions from research. I may be wrong, but I think this article is close to violating WP:NOT#IINFO. --Tinctorius 00:13, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Actually many of the 'conclusions' presented are not from research, but from generic media opinion pieces, and often - at least for the source that I could read online - the conclusions presented are a distortion, exaggeration or a sweeping generalization of the opinion presented in the underlying reference. Shmget 03:06, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article looks like it could potentially be good but it just needs a rewrite. The information doesn't overlap much with the other article. Dan Guan 03:09, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as POV fork which it clearly is. if it does stay, it can be rewritten, but then it will simply become an unnecessary duplication. (Another possibility is to add some detailed material that wouldn't fit in the main article. There is inherently no reason not to have specialized articles for different countries--there are different patterns. DGG 05:20, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD submitters Comment. My main point for deleting this is that its information, while being almost all United States opinions. Doesn't say much about Adolescent Sexuality in the united states except whether it's harmful or not. And sadly, most of the info I can find on that topic for the US is about the moral aspects and the sex ed debate. Hardly any notable specialized scientific material or studies, and those that exist have some sort of lean towards the articles two main things.

The overwhelmingly represented POV which says adolescent sex is harmful or bad.
And the barely mentioned POV that adolescent sex ISN'T harmful.

All this article is, is a simple totally non neutral article on POV's about Adolescent Sexual ACTIVITY in the United States. Now think.... even if we DID rename this.

Would an article so specialized as to be about 'POV on adolescent activity in the united states' really be notable enough to be included?. I mean guess it could, due to the debate's significance in the USA. But then the article would have to be renamed, POV balanced out, a good summary given at the beggining, and it'd clearly have to state it's an article on POV and then the POV's would have to be made so they're NOT stated as FACT. So that's my thing basically.... Nateland 19:56, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Nateland, you already nominated this article. I don't think you should also get to vote on it. That would essentially be giving you two votes, once for the nomination and one in the poll. --Illuminato 20:55, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: AfD's are not polls, and will probably be resolved by weighing arguments instead of counting votes. --Tinctorius 09:03, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD submitters Comment There we go, I rephrased my comment, (Couldn't figure out what to put... sorry :-).

Anyways, Illuminato, what I'm trying to say is the article's content doesn't even fit in with its title. In reality it's highly specialized and reads more like a totally unbalanced 'Opinions on Adolescent Sexual ACTIVITY in the United States'. And thus I think it should be deleted, although if this proposal goes the shoots then I'll propose to have it renamed to something more fitting. Because as the article stands it's more a collection of highly disputed opinions etc. that aren't nearly widely regarded enough as viable to be considered Fact.

Let me quickly reinsert what I said about the state of this article in my comment above. My main point for deleting this is that its information, while being almost all United States opinions. Doesn't say much about Adolescent Sexuality in the united states except whether it's harmful or not.

And then I go on to explain that any scientific studies about Adolescent Sexuality that are done in the United States seem to invariably be tilted towards either proving that Adolescent Sexual Activity is either Harmful or Not Harmful.

Does that clear things up Illuminato?. I don't know how to explain it in simpler terms. Nateland 13:32, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral We're trying to work this out, but I don't really see a quick end to it. Most of it is POV and would need a substantial rewrite. Anyone interested in the MedCab case can check it out here. mcr616 _Speak! 18:12, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral: I'm torn over this, because on one hand, the topic itself is encyclopedic, but the content and origins of the article are highly dodgy. Basically, it was started as a POV fork from Adolescent sexuality rather than on the need to break out an excess degree of US-centric content into its own article. I'd really prefer to see no article at all than the article in the shape that its in, and having that state of the article guarded by a rouge user. On the other hand, AfDing it might create difficulty in creating a legitimate Adolescent sexuality in the United States article at some point in the future. Iamcuriousblue 16:18, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete, per consensus. - Banyan Tree 03:06, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Replacement Girl

created by sock of banned user User:Josh Gotti, which makes it a candidate for speedy deletion but the reviewing admin declined to speedy based on potential notability concerns. Only source cited is myspace. Nardman1 22:04, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I wish we could just ban Josh. But his IP keeps changing. Sigh. Anyway, this song is off a self-released album. The singer is notable, but the album (which doesn't even have its own page) and song are not. Rockstar (^T/_C) 23:56, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The performer may be notable, but I don't see why this single requires it's own entry...there's certainly not nearly enough information here to warrant it. fbb_fan 15:43, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Performer is nothing like notable enough as a music artist to warrant an article for every last single. Nothing in this article couldn't be on the performer's page. A1octopus 18:49, 8 May 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. Sr 13 02:03, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jaiku.com

Not notable, for it doesn't go with WP:WEB; only one source from a blog. —esanchez, Camp Lazlo fan! 22:37, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because it lacks WP:A to satisfy WP:WEB ... a single blog entry does not satisfy WP:RS when all it says is, "I'm switching my service from Twitter to Jaiku," regardless of the notability of the blogger ... note that the article is a recreation of identical text 45 minutes after a CSD under another name (now a redirect), and this AfD is a result of the author repeatedly removing CSD tags without any comment or improvement, so it may require salting if it is deleted. —72.75.73.158 (talk · contribs) 04:16, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It. http://gapingvoid.com/ thought it was worth using, even if they're not blogging directly about it . . . it's not unworthy, it's just a stub. Find a way to stretch it, by all means, but it's just as notable as Twitter. Veled 03:21, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The criteria for notability (web) is very simple ...
  1. The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself.
  No one has provided any non-trivial published works that satisfy this criteria, and blogs are not acceptable as reliable sources. —72.75.73.158 03:50, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It. It is as petinant as Twitter, but has not yet risen to Twitter's popularity75.83.101.80 01:54, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It. I created the Twitter article, and there was some talk about it being not kept. Obviously, it's an important site now. See http://news.google.com/news?q=jaiku&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&sa=N&tab=wn for some people talking about Jaiku. If it's gone by the wayside in 5 years, then, yeah, it deserves to be deleted. However, right now, it should be kept and expanded. Jmatthew3 04:18, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BBC News article - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/6637865.stm Jmatthew3 15:38, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 14:40, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't meet WP:WEB. Should have remained speedily deleted. Salt this and other previously-deleted article title. --Charlene 16:09, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment Note that 75.83.101.80 (talk · contribs) recently blanked the User Talk page for Laaabaseball (talk · contribs), most likely in order to hide the fact that 72.75.73.158 (talk · contribs) had initiated two CSDs on this article (under different names) on the same day. —68.239.79.82 (talk · contribs) 17:44, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment and Laaabaseball is still trying to remove prior warning messages from User Talk:Laaabaseball, even as I update this discussion. —68.239.79.82 17:48, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It. If you delete the entry now, it will just have to be added yesterday. It makes more sense to just go ahead and make the proper fixes now. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Michaelkpate (talk • contribs) 22:34, 10 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Keep If deleted we might as well delete twitter too Hansonc 22:55, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. It's gaining in popularity, as far as I can tell. WP:WEB is only a guideline; I think it's clear that the site is notable for its unique features, and the fact that it is a competitor to Twitter. MartinBrook t 20:28, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - from what I'm seeing, it's definitely getting more popular (lik Twitter) - it's worthy IMO. Tim.bounceback^{(review me! | talk | contribs | ubxen)} 14:05, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article pulled many web searches, with alot of tech articles and such, I think its worth keeping.--Acorn98 01:34, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:27, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

King of Kings (song)

Non-notable songs per Wikipedia:Notability (music), None of them have been released as singles, being used for 1 minute at WrestleMania 22 or released on a CD only doesn't cut it. The articles are also poorly sourced and contain a lot of Original Research. -- bulletproof ^3:16 22:38, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reasons:

Delete. Maybe make one entry on WWE entrance music (though I'm not sure there's even a need for that), or perhaps more appropriately, just discuss entrance music on each wrestler's page. We certainly don't need separate entries for each piece of entrance music. fbb_fan 15:45, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per reasoning above. Biggspowd 05:38, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have never seen any independent sources critiquing any wrestling entrance music. At the same time, that song is a secondary entrance music, as it is described, and that makes it even less notable.--Kylohk 22:30, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not really needed, but bulletproof, you're slightly wrong because it was released on the WWE Wreckless Intent CD. Anyway, I was thinking maybe one or two of the points could be added to the Wreckless Intent page. Govvy 11:14, 8 May 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.

{subst:afd3 | pg=Iknewasp}}

^ Bryan, C.D.B (1995). Close Encounters of the Fourth Kind. Alfred A. Knopf, Inc. ISBN B000I1AFBA

[bryan1-1] Bryan, C.D.B (1995). Close Encounters of the Fourth Kind. Alfred A. Knopf, Inc. ISBN B000I1AFBA

[1]

@@ Line 145: / Line 145: @@
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jaiku.com}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/King of Kings (song)}}
+{subst:afd3 | pg=Iknewasp}}