Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 September 12

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< September 11 September 13 >

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 Delete. Keep !votes, even if they're not socks (which I highly doubt) do not address policy-based concerns presented by delete !votes: namely, WP:BIO and WP:RS. Article clearly fails both policies. -- Merope 13:30, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seth Asher

[edit]


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

Non-notable broker, despite all of the hyperbole. The links don't link to anything which prove his notability. "Seth Asher" only gets 133 Google hits, and that's for everybody with that name. myloanmarket.com is his website, this reads liks spam. Corvus cornix 23:53, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment I am not sure why Melgomac didn't rebut this here, and I am totally new at this so I don't know if there's a reason not to put it right underneath, but here's the rebuttal, which I agree with: If you search for Seth Asher in quotes, you get 500-something results, not 133 as Corvus cornix wrote. The industry in question is notorious for spam I am sure (I get enough junk in the mail about it to attest to that), and indeed the website in question does sell things, but, I don't see anything wrong with that or the relevancy of that to this specific encyclopaedic listing. If you try to Google search for those words cited below that are apparently important for the industry (beverly hills mortgage, los angeles mortgage broker, and so on), this site comes up literally first and not on the pay advertisement space. AnnenbergCommunicationsMaster 20:02, 13 September 2007 (UTC) — AnnenbergCommunicationsMaster (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete. Total vanity PR piece, fails WP:BIO. The only remotely proper reference is a Forbes article that only mentions Asher in passing in one sentence. Nothing else here is sourced, including spammy BS like "best known for the introduction of a groundbreaking internet technology reducing consumers' costs for mortgages" and "He's been linked indirectly in business to actors Jack Black and Matthew Perry". wikipediatrix 00:13, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment There was a Forbes reference, a CNBC reference, two seperate NPR (National Public Radio) references that are both a transcript of an interview an a playable audio file, an MSNBC print media reference, a Houston Chronicle reference, a Boston Globe reference, as well as a PRNewsire reference that collectively cited those citations in itself, but most were removed by Leuko. I don't know why one of the users here would delete those, but I would like to see them back, and, to wit, I think it would be a major improvement if this had some references to the television claims. AnnenbergCommunicationsMaster 20:08, 13 September 2007 (UTC) — AnnenbergCommunicationsMaster (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
      • They were removed because press releases are not appropriate references because they are written by the subject to promote themselves. The Forbes reference was removed because it was merely a reprint of a press release. While the CNBC reference is a WP:RS, it really has nothing to do with Seth Asher. He has a one line quote, which is not the type of non-trivial coverage that WP:BIO requires. Leuko 01:59, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Absolutley incorrect. There were two Forbes articles with mentions of Asher recently. One was a non-press release Forbes article about the mortgage industry, and the other Forbes was indeed a press release from Asher's company. Here is the non-press release Forbes article:

[1] And here is the press release: [2] Please also respond, Leuko, as to why it is proper for you to recommend deletion of an article yet proceed to edit its contents, and specifically its links to sources -- the very sources of which you and/or others claim it does not have enough! It appears to be improper, or at least an apparent inappropriate dicotomy. In other words, while you condone the elimination of this Wiki's very existence, you also are simultaneously proceeding to hone its existence to your liking. It is inconsistent, and appears to make you lack conviction in your belief that it should be deleted. I acknowledge that I may have missed something in this interpretation of your seemingly contradictory actions, but it does not appear so prima facie.AnnenbergCommunicationsMaster 00:18, 15 September 2007 (EDT)

  • Comment I'm afraid I can't agree that Seth Archer and the company for whom he works form the basis for the entire article, for the very same reason that I disagree that he and OlympiaWest Mortgage Group are mentioned throughout. In fact, the first mention of Archer occurs in the eleventh paragraph of what is a 24 paragraph article. Moreover, he is not referred to again until the two closing paragraphs. OlympiaWest is mentioned only once, as a reference to the firm at which Asher works - a firm not mentioned in the Seth Archer article. That said, I do recognize that Archer contributed more than a one line quote - in fact, he provided three sentences. In this way, he barely surpasses the other three individuals who are quoted in the piece. Victoriagirl 17:33, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wow, it doesn't get much more blatantly inaccurate than this. GlassCobra 00:39, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Strong/WP:SNOW delete per above and below. An apparent WP:AUTO WP:COI. Leuko 20:02, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The product of a single purpose account, which was also responsible for this and this. Victoriagirl 03:52, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 03:53, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I heard Seth Asher on NPR Marketplace while driving in Florida and consider myself a reference. All of the above deletion comments are questionable. This is a good piece and shouldn't be deleted. Theonething 14:35, 13 September 2007 (UTC) — Theonething (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep Not sure where to start because so much of what was commented is totally refutable. First off, in response to user Victoriagirl, who says in response to user Theonething's keep entry that "I see no questionable comments amongst those cited," the most obvious questionable delete entry is Leuko's "Wow, it doesn't get much more blatantly inaccurate than this." What is inaccurate? No one refuted the accuracy of anything in the Asher wiki entry, but rather questioned the sources. Secondly, several users have called my account a single purpose account, which is patently false -- Victoriagirl makes that claim, and in the same sentence cites multiple other entries from my acount: Beatlemania (musical), the off-broadway musical from the late 1970s, as well as well as the Haddon Gazette, a 20th century newspaper that existed for almost 90 years in Asher's hometown. This is a clear self-contradiction within Victoriagirl's own claim. Additionally, user Corvus cornix makes the incorrect claim that 133 google hits result from a search for Seth Asher. The actual number is 550 when searched in quotes as "seth asher," and you'll note that often Asher has been cited with merely his last name or first initial and last name. You'll also note that MyLoanMarket.com is the first organic entry showing up in google results for some of the most salient search terms pertaining to its industry: beverly hills mortgage, los angeles mortgage broker, etc. In response to user Wikipediatrix, seconded by user GlassCobra, that no sources are cited other than Forbes, that is false, as they appear to have have not read the entire entry -- two National Public Radio links to Kai Ryssdal's report is given within the entry, both a transcript and MP3 audio of his nationally-broadcast interview. Further, there is also a Associated Press - Dow Jones Newsires link to a story with a reference to him. I will attempt to give an abridged list here of more sources, and also update the source list on the entry: CNBC: [3] CNBC/MSNBC: [4] Additionally, PRnewsire is a company that has existed for more than 50 years, with a more than solid reputation...they will not put a release accross the wires that without doing fact-checking. In this news release [5] references are made to Seth Asher in the Boston Globe, Houston Chronicle, KTLA TV news, NPR's marketplace with Kai Ryssal, CNBC and so on. Melgomac 15:14, 13 September 2007 (UTC) — Melgomac (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep I just read over every word in this Wikipedia reference, and everything in this "up for deletion discussion." I am troubled and a little saddened that a lot of the comments seem to be vitriolic. I am new to the Wiki world, but this seems like a more-or-less valuable encyclopedic entry. I studied communications, and split my time between the East Coast and West Coast and center-states working in the communications field, so I know our culture; not everything in an encyclopedia is germane to every reader, but recognizing this fellow from the local news in Los Angeles myself, and having listened to the NPR snippet referenced in the entry(I love NPR, but I'm not a big Marketplace fan), I have to say I think I would want my students to be able to look up who this fellow is. It seems it would be a real pity if it were removed. Wikipedia is a beautiful concept, and I want it to contain references to all people, places, things, and concepts in the media and in our universe, especially those that appear numerous times in the media. Ideally, I would like to see some actual links to the TV news I've seen, but I wouldn't know where to find those. Finally, the original author rebuts 'comments' and 'delete' discussion reasonably well, but I wish those were directly under the comments; if it's all the same to everyone here, I'd like to copy and paste those directly underneath where they are relevant so they flow better.AnnenbergCommunicationsMaster 18:18, 14 September 2007 (UTC) — AnnenbergCommunicationsMaster (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Addendum: Added multiple links to videos from network broadcast television (KTLA television news, channel 5, in Los Angeles) and other articles on the web. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AnnenbergCommunicationsMaster (talk • contribs) 14:55, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I Seth Asher has been in the news recently, representing both his company and his views on the current subprime debacle (August & September 2007). My measure: Is Seth Asher is an individual with influence, presence, or achievements that are beyond the mean and of interest to the world at large? Seth's credentials are no different from any other successful ivy league grad (Harvard, Goldman Sachs), the standout is that his opinions are being sought by multiple reputable media sources - most recently Forbes and NPR. A run in the news is a reasonable indicator that the individual has opinions that are credible or at a minimum provide insights into contemporary topics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.237.89.167 (talk) 04:55, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If it could be condensed somewhat, which is I am sure possible, I am a proponent of keeping this article. I think the photograph should be changed, or eliminated, as it doesn't add any value. I was on the fence until I read through this exchange. If someone's in the various news channels several times as an "expert," that makes them "notable" in my mind and I want to be able look such a person up in Wikipedia to find out what the story is about him or her.Hbomb phd mom 04:05, 17 September 2007 (UTC) — Hbomb phd mom (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Comment: Please see WP:BIO notability inclusion criteria. Being on the local news for a minute as someone who was available does not satify these criteria, as this person is not the subject of the interview. Replace him with any other random mortgage broker and no one would notice the difference, hence not notable. Leuko 18:49, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Not buying what you are saying Leuko...did you mean to imply this figure has only been on the local news for a minute? He was on the local news multiple times, within weeks of the previous reports, so the news desks would not have reached out randomly the successive times but the desks would have been intentionally looking for this figure. And he was in the national news multiple times, in different media types all; just doesn't fit the bill for random. I am not in accord with the _totally random_ argument you make at all as much as I try to see your point of view, as your tenets are a gross exaggeration at the very best. Do you realize how many of these brokers there are out there? News teams, especially NPR, Forbes, Associated Press, Dow Jones, don't hit the same broker 4, 5, 6 times in a row totally randomly. They obviously go to reliable sources.64.52.12.82 00:00, 18 September 2007 (UTC) — 64.52.12.82 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Comment Assuming in good faith that you are a new user, 64.52.12.82, I respectfully recommend that you consult Wikipedia's notability guidelines. I have yet to see references indicating that Asher has "been the subject of published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject"; just one of the criteria through which the subject might be considered notable. Failing this, we might fall back on the sentence that follows: "If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may need to be cited to establish notability." However, even here sources fail us. Simply put, we have yet to find a single pubished source in which Asher features as the subject, rather we have three minor references: a two minute NPR phone interview regarding Countrywide, a two minute local television news report on mortages (in which Asher features for less than thirty seconds), and an Associated Press story (published on the Forbes website and elsewhere) in which he is one of four persons quoted. Again, as it stands, the subject fails WP:BIO. Victoriagirl 01:27, 18 September 2007 (UTC) Note: While writing the comment above, a corrected video link was provided by 64.52.12.82. Broadcast by the same local television station mentioned above, it would seem to feature Asher for all of fifteen or sixteen seconds. The subject is declining real estate values. Victoriagirl 01:36, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I lend money, I know the business, and I hadn't heard of this cat but I realized that doesn't mean anything cuz when I read about what he's been on, I was like, I need to know about him. It's like if you weigh both sides of this thing, keeps definitely win. Deletes started out OK based on an initial lack of references, but they were all cocky and rash and dismissive and then it just went downhill for them. It's like now they look like snappers to judgement, especially with the "obviously vanity" and "pure PR" stuff, and it was like they kept digging deeper and each their points would get proven wrong; still needs some more refs to make me all totally warm and fuzzy, but they are basically there now and the deletes gotta bow. The only thing obvious now is that if there's someone on the news a lot, people should have some way to look up who the heck that cat is in an online encyclopedia. That was the best point I read on here. I searched for jumbo mortgage broker on google, and guess which cat's company came up first? This one, out of 1,320,000 pages. Anyway, I'm sorry deletes, but I gotta call it...this one's a total no-brainer, keeps prevail.Wutuplendnowaneva 06:20, 17 September 2007 (UTC) — Wutuplendnowaneva (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Delete. Suspect a practical joke, considering the inclusion of sentences such as a "second-cousin" of a "former Chief Justice" and judging by the flurry of new users suddenly coming out of the woodwork in support. Should have been speedied, IMO. The subject lacks all traces of notability. Delete per WP:NOT#SOAPBOX Self-promotion: two chance mentions in media, one after a random call by a local radio station host who in his own words "went looking for a mortgage broker to talk to", and one mention in an article where he is "her broker", the "she" of the text being a non-notable, random individual chosen to demonstrate how the credit market has tightened, does not even begin to fulfill WP:NOTABILITY criteria. Pia 09:08, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nn vanity piece. --Finngall talk 20:47, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I added another reference which was at least an hour-long radio news/talk guest-appearance with Asher on Sunday, September 9, 2007. I don't remember the exact time, but it was early morning on that Sunday, and many people called in. This was not an infomercial or advertisement...it was part of Sunday Edition: the Nelson Salsa and Socorro Serrano show, which I think airs from 3 am - 7 am on Sundays. KLSX 97.1 is a high-powered and widely-recognized radio station here in Los Angeles. I listened to Asher, Salsa, and Serrano debate, agree, and take calls for about 15 minutes in the beginning of the hour, did some other things, then turned it back on and listed for a little while as the show ended and led in to the next show in the lineup. They repeatedly referred to him as an expert in both real estate, mortgages, and so on. I have searched on the web for the audio, but I have not been successful finding it. If anyone can locate the audio for KLSX for that Sunday, it would be valuable for this discussion.Hbomb phd mom 22:59, 18 September 2007 (UTC) — Hbomb phd mom (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
I have removed this, as it can not be verified, and no WP:RS was provided. And it doesn't sound as though it was actually about the subject, so it really wouldn't help with WP:BIO anyways. Leuko 23:27, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't agree that I have contributed to a few or no other topics outside this one. How can that tag be removed from this discussion from where my username appears? It's irritating, and inaccurate. I contributed to a very diverse number of Wikipedia sections. Also, I heard this radio broadcast above, and there is as of now no way to prove that it did not occur and get heard by hundreds of thousands of people, and I suspect shortly someone will come up with a verifiable reference to it...I am just not aware of a recording on the internet where we can point right now. Therefore, it seems since we are supposed to assume good faith, you should assume that I did hear it when I say I did. And since the Wikipedia citation guideline is only a guideline, and not a rule (and it specifically emphasizes that here verified), the reference deletion should be undone. I understand I can go back in to the entry and do that myself, but I am politely asking Leuko to do so for us in an exercise of good faith.Hbomb phd mom 01:47, 19 September 2007 (UTC) — Hbomb phd mom (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  • Comment: It's not inaccurate - a majority of edits are to this article/afd or related. As there is no way for an independent WP editor to verify the presence or content of the alleged radio broadcast, it really shouldn't be included. Leuko 02:39, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep At this point, I am strongly in favor keeping this article, as it seems there is too weighty influence of a few negative discussion contributors that are not valid, and I passionately support keeping it because of its inherent value. Also, in this discussion, I would like to fully address the "undo" of the citation removal for a radio broadcast on KLSX (Sunday Edition with Nelson Salsa and Socorro Serrano and Seth Asher), that Leuko had inappropriately removed according to Wiki guidelines and policies. The site for KLSX streams audio of all their broadcasts, including this one as it occurred, but only archives some of them. Nevertheless, that is still a source this broadcast, and since it is our guideline to assume good faith, I am placing it back on.Hbomb phd mom 02:43, 19 September 2007 (UTC) — Hbomb phd mom (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Phaedriel - 02:09, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gerry O'Hara

[edit]
Gerry O'Hara (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete: non-notable individual. Mazur-Grosskopf 23:42, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 — no prejudice to re-creation with appropriate sources in the future. --Haemo 00:26, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Future predator

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

Delete Most of This page should be deleted. Most of it is fan fiction, their is a better version on the Primeval creatures page (most of the data is just stolen from that page so this is realy just a duplicate page padded out with waffle), and this creature, from a little known series has no claim on notibility, not enought to warrent more than a sub-section on the Primeval creatures page. It also makes no logical sense to have two pages on the same creature, which just say exactly the same thing in a diffrent way, and the entry for this creature on the Primeval creatures page is better written, referanced and more accurate and being older does have president. Not to mention the conflict of interest. Nubula 23:29, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I revert it as your trying to spit a page that does not need splitting and given pages to creatures that don't deserve their own page. Your just trying to produce a false dilemma falacy. If you tried to clean up and referance it you'd be left with a stub no better than what it was before. Nubula 16:19, 13 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nubula (talk • contribs)
Given that the Primeval creatures page is "better written, referanced and more accurate" why not just put the Section fully on the page? This would solve the cleanup & referencing issues. And just what is a "false dilemma falacy"? --OZOO (What?) 21:03, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is about notability. It role so far does not make it important enough in my mind for its own page. If you could prove that this creature is sooo important to the mythos in second series that their will be too much data for a mere sub-section then I'd retract my delete vote but I'm uncovinced that this creature will achive anything more than a random monster of the week status. Also, as I see it, if it turns out your right and I'm wrong we can just re-create this page. Nubula 00:33, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If it appears in the second series then it will have appeared in one-sixth of the episodes. (Assuming series two is 6 episodes long). Given that it is confirmed, it would appear to me to be a notable monster. --OZOO (What?) 16:52, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Childish evasions. Re-appearing in the second series does not make it noteworthy. Importance to the story and presence in popular culture is what makes a character notable. So I say again prove that this creature is sooo important to the Primeval mythos that their will be too much data for a mere sub-section then I'd retract my delete vote. Because of this moment you have nothing. Nubula —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 08:54, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not realy. Nubula 02:13, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Not realy that noteworthy. But may be in the future. Gigantoraptor 17:00, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 — references do not support notability. --Haemo 00:23, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dodo parasite

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

Delete Most of it is fan fiction and in error, their is a better version on the Primeval creatures page and this relativly unknown fictional creature, for which their is harldy any true data, is not noteworthy hence it's surly better to delete this page and leave its sub-section on Primeval creatures page. Most of the data is just stolen from the Primeval creatures page and the episode guide page so its just a copy of already existing pages. Also no-one had any problem with where it was for months. The article waffles in order to make itself look longer and it also makes no logical sense to have two pages on the same creature, which just say exactly the same thing in a diffrent way, and the Primeval creatures page is better written, referanced and more accurate and being older does have president. Nubula 23:25, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I revert it as your trying to spit a page that does not need splitting and given pages to creatures that don't deserve their own page. Your just trying to produce a false dilemma falacy. If you tried to clean up and referance it you'd be left with a stub no better than what it was before. Nubula 16:16, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Given that the Primeval creatures page is "better written, referanced and more accurate" why not just put the Section fully on the page? This would solve the cleanup & referencing issues. And just what is a "false dilemma falacy"? --OZOO (What?) 21:03, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed it would. If the vote goes in favour of keeping this page then that's what we'll do. And a false dilemma falacy is assuming that I have no alternative but to choose from the options you give me. That seems to be where we're failing to communicate. You expect me to choose between keeping two articles, illogical as you admit, or moving the data to one complete page. I on the other hand don't think the original page should be split as this creature is not noteworthy enough to warrent its own page. Nubula 00:03, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not realy that noteworthy. Gigantoraptor 17:00, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 15:39, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of album covers containing nudity

[edit]
List of album covers containing nudity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Acollection of factoids for an arbitrary criterion. Poorly defined criterion (POV) Quite a few items in the list eg Take the Heat Off Me are hardly nudity. `'Míkka 23:26, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I note these are not articles that have been previous deleted, but rather strawmen. Though iI do not think all such articles are appropriate, they are individually not indiscriminate, especially if limited to albums considered notable in WP. The presence of nudity of an album cover is arguably more important and sometimes controversial. DGG (talk) 18:43, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that this is a reasonable argument. On the other hand, if it is a notable topic and if you have reliable sources which discuss the issue of nudity on lbum covers, then there must be an article in wikipedia, and this list will be a valid "sibling article", and I will change my vote. `'Míkka 18:53, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 deleted by Nihiltres at 23:26, September 12, 2007 (UTC) per author's request (WP:CSD#G7). Non-admin closure. --Darkwind (talk) 00:08, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ideal society

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

Personal opinion essay. Corvus cornix 23:11, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 sole contributor clearly stated themselves: "Concerned Citizens Australia is fictional organisation! All of the folling information is not be taken seriously as it is ficticious!" `'Míkka 23:31, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Concerned Citizens Australia

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

Admitted fictional organisation and the article clearly states that the information in it is not to be taken seriously. I would have tagged it for speedy deletion but it does not appear to meet any of the speedy deletion criteria. Perhaps under WP:IAR? Mattinbgn\ talk 22:27, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --Haemo 00:27, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Legacy encoding

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

While "legacy" and "encoding" are perfectly valid terms, the term "legacy encoding" does not appear to be a widely used nor accepted term. This article has no references to verify its content or to provide examples of the use of the term "legacy encoding" in the real world. —Remember the dot (talk) 22:00, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 notability confirmed. --Stefan talk 14:45, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Traci Lind

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

While IMDB supports the assertion that this actor appeared in several notable films, saying that she 'starred' in them appears to overstate the case. I didn't find good evidence of notability. If Google is to be trusted, she is considerably less well known than the Episcopal priest of the same name. FisherQueen (Talk) 21:39, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Delete Does not ascertain notability. Fails WP:NOTABILITY. Perfect Proposal Speak out loud! 21:46, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Keep She is third billed in Fright Night II, second billed in Class of 1999, second billed in My Boyfriend's Back (it was her boyfriend that was back) and had a lead role in Wim Wenders The End of Violence. She also seems to have appeared in supporting roles in several other films. She is definitely notable for these performances. Spanneraol 23:30, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Rename to 2018 FIFA World Cup bid for now. Please wait for 11 years to come and we will end up returning to its initial title. @pple complain 16:18, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2018 FIFA World Cup

[edit]
2018 FIFA World Cup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I am nominating this page per WP:CRYSTAL it doesn't tell you anything, the bidding for where it will take place doesn't start until 2010, and its just an essay on what stadiums "could" be used, if that country is chosen. The sunder king 21:37, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But how do you know if we will not have World War III? 1942 and 1946 World Cups did not happen because World War II. Sincerely, I hope that World War does not happen, but in 11 years a lot of thing may happen. Carlosguitar 20:53, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I said almost certain to happen, not will absolutely definitely occur, and "almost certain to happen" is all the crystal ball policy requires.... ChrisTheDude 20:59, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as is. Similar articles have been created in the past about definite future events, without being challenged as this one has been. It states clearly that it is a future event and that there will be certain speculation of a non-damaging nature. Why rename, when the renamed article ("bids") will certainly suffer after the competition venue is announced (bids will be over, what do you do, rename it back? Waste of energy). Ref (chew)(do) 12:03, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly not! After the competition venue is announced, the "bids" article would provide a detailed overview of the bidding process. - PeeJay 12:39, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly - All the information on the Bid process will not be allowed in the eventual enormous Cup article. Moving it now will create a redirect that will do its thing for 11 years, then be converted into the Cup article. SolidPlaid 11:11, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article does not talk about FIFA World Cup only about bids interests. There is no way to keep with this title. Carlosguitar 20:53, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bunch of pratts, all of you. The sunder king 15:11, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP Pretty clear that it should remain in place and this thread be closed. Londo06 17:03, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You already did vote. Carlosguitar 20:53, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

already voted in favour of KEEPING United States Senate elections, 2012 I would recommend looking at this as a point of reference. The 2018 World Cup will happen, it will be held in a country or countries, it will be held at stadiums, why would anyone wish to delete an article about a planned tournament. Londo06 10:24, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong keep, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, but you don't need a crystal ball to know that there'll be a football World Cup in 2018. This sourced article has all the relevant information that exists about the tournament, and more will be added, there is no reason whatsoever to delete this. World Cups are notable and the current state of the article is interesting to anyone interested in the process leading up to a World Cup. 96T 21:29, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I do strongly vote for keeping this article. I cannot see any reason why we are debating on this issue. It should be an obvious decision, just keep it. - Niaz(Talk • Contribs) 07:13, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are facists all of you. Its a rigged vote, its rigged all over. If that had been anyone else it would have been deleted. The sunder king 08:36, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Its a not a PA, because I am commenting on the actions not the peoples. Everything I nominate for deletion "vote to keep" anything I nominate for RFA "Oppose Oppose", and the opposite happens when admins do that. The sunder king 09:11, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
King, I don't know you and even didn't know that you nominated this article for deletion. I wrote what I felt and didn't have any intention to hurt you. -- Niaz(Talk • Contribs) 10:38, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And if you meant "fascists", how is that not a personal attack? It was intended that way, I think. Wikipedia is not about winning things, such as deletions or reversions - I have been on the wrong side of the vote many times, and my good faith reversions have sometimes been put back to the incorrect versions when I know full well that I was right all along. You just have to move on to the next item. Ref (chew)(do) 15:09, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Carioca 07:03, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Irvine Pharmaceutical Services

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

Non-notable company; article is mostly spam Addhoc 20:55, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. CitiCat ♫ 04:37, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Freedom of panorama

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

Uncited WP:OR, was unverified and factually inaccurate takeoff on the German word Panoramafreiheit in what might have been an attempt to apply this word worldwide. ... Kenosis 20:34, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. By policy "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." Although this article is over 9 months old and has been listed here for a week, not one single source has been provided to demonstrate notability. Please see WP:V. --JodyB Roll, Tide, Roll 01:32, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cross Epoch

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

The article hardly passes Wikipedia's notability guideline, having no reliable sources, nor any referances at all for that matter, citing what little content is featured on the page. The crossover gets very little coverage on the Internet from third-party sources in general, and though both a G-search and Yahoo search brings up many results on "Cross Epoch", there are perhaps only one or two sites I've come across that aren't: forums; providing scanslations; or another Wikipedia page. The article itself is nothing but a character list anyway, and adding even a blow-by-blow, panel-by-panel plot summary would do very little to the article. In short, if no third-party source cared enough to publish this information, why should we? // DecaimientoPoético 20:16, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Because something (a game, a book, a movie) has not been released in English doesn't necessarily mean it's hard for someone to find information on the topic. I understand that it may be harder to find info on the topic using the Internet, but we don't exactly have to cite everything with URL links. Books (and sometimes the source material itself, in this case Cross Epoch) can be used as reliable sources as well. // DecaimientoPoético 19:36, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cross Epoch hasn't been shown in Shonen Jump, just mentioned once. -- Jelly Soup 22:09, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. @pple complain 16:28, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exiting Worlds (Torchwood)

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

The article consists only of fan speculation and is completely unsourced. — Edokter • Talk • 20:20, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would personally say DON'T deleate. I mean, there is no longer an episode name, just infomation (which is confirmed by the way). Legs of boe 18:22, 13 September 2007 (UTC)legs_of_boe[reply]

Comment - If the information is confirmed, and you can provide a source for it, then you can put it on the List of Torchwood episodes under "Plot details". StuartDD ( t • c ) 19:41, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Can we delete this yet? This started on the 12th, and only one person says Keep. StuartDD ( t • c ) 12:45, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 nom withdrew by voting keep after sources were found. Non-admin closure. --Darkwind (talk) 22:02, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Smarte Carte

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

While some may enjoy this company's products, I have questions about whether this company article is notable. If it is not notable, it is a candidate for deletion. A deletion does not imply that the company has bad products or has a particular fault. Looking for citations, I find few on the company. Mrs.EasterBunny 20:01, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ina Paiva Cordle. "Luggage carts to cost MIA millions." The Miami Herald. 20 July 2007. p. C3.
  • Lisa Murray. "Smarte Carte's in the bag for Macquarie - Buys $370m luggage trolley company." The Sydney Morning Herald. 10 January 2006. p. 17.
  • "Smarte Carte emerges from bankruptcy." St. Paul Pioneer Press. 28 May 2005. p. C2.
  • Martin J. Moylan. "Smarte Carte lockers reopen; shut down since 9/11." St. Paul Pioneer Press. 5 March 2003. p. C1.
  • Paul McAfee. "Smarte Carte rolls over E-Z Roller, gains airport concessions." The Business Press/California. 6 November 1995. p. 10.
  • Jim Jones. "Smarte Carte does its part in roundup at the supermart." Star Tribune: Newspaper of the Twin Cities. 15 April 1988. p. 1D. Zagalejo^^^ 20:28, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep In the Tom Hanks film The Terminal, part of the plot is that he survives by collecting change from their machines, and the brand has enough name recognition to be dropped into reviews of that film as just "Smarte Carte machines" without any further explanation. Thomjakobsen 20:53, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - I am the original nominator. The article could certainly be improved. The citations listed above seem to satisfy the wikipedia guidelines which use secondary sources as a benchmark for notability. (So this AFD did serve a purpose. I may improve the article using these citations after the AFD).Mrs.EasterBunny 21:04, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Close per Thomjakobsen. Close because nom has voted keep. Smashville 21:48, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 15:49, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Myster Shadow-Sky

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

Decent sources, but questionable notability, POV violations, and excessive description. GlassCobra (talk • contribs) 19:55, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Phaedriel - 02:14, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

International Society for Cryobiology

[edit]
International Society for Cryobiology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
moved to Society for Cryobiology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Probably should be a CSD A7 speedy-delete but I thought I'd run it by here. Notability not asserted or established for this small group, and garners only 25 unique Google hits, several of which are primary sources (their own press releases) and a couple of which are Wikipedia mirrors. wikipediatrix 19:51, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I don't see much info for an International Society of Cryobiology, but the plain old Society for Cryobiology has been in the news, with articles dating back to 1964 [7]. Are they the same thing? Zagalejo^^^ 20:46, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On closer inspection, it would seem this article was improperly named and should just be renamed to Society for Cryobiology, if kept. Still, a Google search for "Society for Cryobiology" gets 611 unique hits and not all of these results appear to be about the same organization. wikipediatrix 21:19, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WPD, could it be you are seeing hits for affiliate groups of the Society for Cryobiology? I wonder if you even know what you are looking at.--Fahrenheit451 22:34, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 16:58, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional terrorists

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

This list does not seem at all encyclopedic and is perhaps inexorably linked to original research. When designating someone a terrorist is controversial in real life, how is it possible to make this determination for fictional characters without engaging in patent original research or point-of-view manipulation? I just don't see how this list can be made objective. Conceivably one could look for quotations by the creators of the characters that said character is a terrorist, but this seems to be a trivial matter unfit for Wikipedia. Nondistinguished 19:48, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 16:55, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ATLAS (StarCraft)

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

No notability outside of game universe, and limit ed notability in the game universe. Burzmali 19:30, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Doesn't seem to have any notability. Judgesurreal777 22:43, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was: Speedily deleted - blatant hoax/nonsense/vandalism. - Mike Rosoft 09:09, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fahad Ahmed

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

Looks like a hoax/fictional vanity article. About someone who "is regarded as the one of the (sic) greatest mathematicians in quantum electrodynamics" but neither Google nor Google Scholar offer evidence for this. Pseudo-mathematical terms like Fahad's Law and Heineman Maths Constant likewise draw a blank, as do many of the names of his associates. Coincidentally (maybe), a vanity bio for a non-notable maths student of the same name was speedied a couple of days ago. Iain99Balderdash and piffle 19:11, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

and looking also at the previous repeated attempts at creating an article under this name, I'd suggest salting against re-creationDGG (talk) 22:57, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Carioca 20:14, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agendist

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

This seems to be a neologism in the blogosphere. No notable coverage or usage of it. The similar "agendism" was axed in this afd.MrMurph101 19:04, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 but cleanup --Haemo 00:30, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alpha Kai Omega

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

This article is POV, an ad, and copied right off the website. —ScouterSig 18:56, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - I could not find any literal copying of information, and the edit history doesn't show any significantly different versions that would represent a copyright violation. So it can't be speedied as a copyvio. -- Whpq 13:58, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 all. Phaedriel - 02:19, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Mall Company

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

non-notable mall, Article fails WP:NOTABILITY and WP:CORP. Wikipedia is WP:NOT a vehicle for advertising. Hu12 18:53, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages:

The Mall (Edgware) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Mall (Edgware)
The Mall (Luton) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The Mall Ashley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The Mall Trinity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The Mall Wood Green (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The Mall Galleries (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Liberty Shopping Centre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Alhambra Centre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Neutral for the others as I don't know enough about them to judge, but Strong keep for The Mall Wood Green; this isn't a vanispam piece (did the nominator even read it?), but an integral part of the series of articles I wrote earlier this year on the neighbourhoods & infrastructure of Haringey; a lengthy, heavily-referenced article on one of North London's most important commercial centres (the largest shopping centre in London following its recent expansion - the reason the name may sound unfamiliar is likely because most people still know it by its former name of "Shopping City"), as well as the location of one of London's last remaining large-scale marketplaces and a large residential estate ("Sky City") - all of which are clearly mentioned (and referenced) in the article — iridescent (talk to me!) 19:25, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Luton and Liberty as well, at the very least, as the most cursory searching shows that these are (by UK standards) extremely large malls that constitute the de facto town centres for their respective towns. Also Keep the company itself as it's self-evidently a major corporation in its own right (operator of two of the four largest shopping centres in London) — iridescent (talk to me!) 22:49, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all. The main article needs citations and a fuller article, but any company that owns that many malls is notable. Some of these malls are 60,000+ square meters with 100+ stores, which means thousands of employees. Even a smaller mall with 30 stores is often important within the context of the city in which it is located. The point of Wikipedia is to enhance people's awareness of the world by encyclopedic coverage. Deleting articles about significant civic institutions hurts the mission. Wikidemo 22:25, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all - as clear cut notability, per what's above me. Yikes... Dihydrogen Monoxide (H2O) 23:17, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to parent. Maybe with exception to The Mall Wood Green. No need for multiple listings, and don't seem notble on their own to warrent seperate listings.--Hu12 23:19, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment As the current arch-mergist (with the possible exception of Guy), I disagree totally with merging in this case. The company is notable as an owner of retail premises; the malls are notable for their impact on the towns, not for their impact on their parent company — iridescent (talk to me!) 23:34, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all, the main company is clearly notable, owning such a large number of shopping centres in the UK. The individual Malls are linked from several articles, and as haes been said above many have 100+ shops etc so large centres. --GazMan7 07:44, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note Without commenting one way or the other on the article(s) editors should be aware that there has been a significant influx of links to other articles to both promote this page and also the external site for the company. See the contribution history here and here. Pedro |  Chat  10:34, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The Mall Company - clearly a significant player on UK high streets. Oppose merging the articles into The Mall Company - most of them are about the shopping centres which have existed for many years before The Mall came along and imposed the standard name branding & everything. Reject keep all/delete all format of this discussion as the individual shopping centres only have a very recent shared history and need to be assessed on their own merits rather than en mass with the company with now owns them. Timrollpickering 10:44, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with the exception of Wood Green and Ashley. The others are not notable. Notability of the parent company does not transfer to individual stores. If that were true, Wal Mart should be next. i said 22:59, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment i, you appear to be confused as to what the articles relate to, this is not a Chain store, with articles about individual stores, but rather the Mall Company owns a number of shopping centres/Malls in the UK. As far as i am aware all of these Malls were in existance before the Mall Company, and as stated above most are a major part of the indiviual towns they are situated within. To dismiss them as stores shows that maybe you should actually read the articles before commenting?GazMan7 07:58, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ah. Silly me, I only listed pages that were also nominated, not the company itself. Keep the main company and delete the rest, with the two exceptions I listed above. And yes, these are individual stores/shopping centers. Excuse my error in semantics by calling them stores, instead of shopping centers. That doesn't change anything however, They have to be individually notable, just like everything else. Size and importance do not equal notability. And yes, these are chain stores/shopping centers; they are a series of outlets that are owned by a central company. If I'm wrong, then these articles should go as well, because they do a poor job of describing the subject. i said 13:36, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment The key reason why the individual shopping centres do not fall under the "individual outlet of a chain" area of policy is that it is only very recently that they have come under the chain. Taking "The Mall Ashley", or as everyone in my home town calls it the Ashley Centre, this has only been under "The Mall" for a very short portion of its life. A shopping centre in the UK is commonly understood to be the building(s), rather than the firm or branch of the firm that runs it - that can change all the time (and attempts at corporate branding often founder because the existing name has a strong and unique local identity). Until relatively recently shopping centres were often locally run centres. Their primary notablity or non-notability rests on their importance in the local area and their history, not on their having been under a common company for a very tiny portion of their lives. Hence why I think a keep all/delete all discussion is highly inappropriate. You're right that some of the individual articles at present do not explain notability, but others do. This kind of discussion is not conducive to individual assessment of notability, which is essential here, as it encourages all votes. Timrollpickering 20:42, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • The fact that they are under a parent company, or not, does not matter. They have to be notable by themselves. Being important parts of the community do not make them notable. And I agree, they should not be lumped together, and I made this clear in my suggestion as to what should be done about these artiles. Keep the just notable ones, delete the rest. i said 00:20, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • "importance do not equal notability", this is starting to get rather silly. If something is important, then this is notable. If every article had to pass a test based on it being notable in every country then Wiki would have very few articles. I really cant see the problem in the articles. A quick search finds many articles on shopping centres/malls all over the world. The ownership of the centres is irelavent. So all shopping centres/malls should be listed in this discussion?--GazMan7 17:36, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • My dog is important. Therefore notable? No. Importance does not make something notable, significant coverage by sources independant of the subject do. These do not have them. And we know there are other malls that have articles, but they do not matter. And I'm not arguing that since they're owned by a larger company they aren't notable. I'm saying they aren't notable because they aren't. And the vast majority of mall articles should go, but to list them here would be a procedural faux pas. But they should be listed nonetheless. i said 22:04, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all. I'm satisfied that these are notable and pass WP:CORP. All are large interests, with many thousands of employees working at many hundreds of shops. Shopping centres play an important part in British culture, often forming the centrepiece of a town centre, and to delete them would have a significantly deleterious impact on articles about the towns in which they are located. DWaterson 12:16, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment It occurs to me that non-European editors might be under a misconception as to the role of shopping centres in the UK - unlike the out-of-town malls in the US which are cut off from the community they serve, in Britain & Germany the big postwar malls generally replaced the bombed-out town centres — iridescent (talk to me!) 12:34, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment If that is the case, a better solution would be an article on the topic, not ten infomercials for a brand of malls. Notice that the mall articles above mention nothing of the kind. They are concerned exclusively with following kind of "vital civic" stuff: a>The Mall (Edgware) "is a single storey shopping centre and holds over 30 shops including Sainsbury's", "as well as public toilets and baby changing facilities", b> The Mall (Luton) "has 128 shop units, and parking for 2,300 cars. Key stores located in the Mall shopping centre in Luton include...", c> The Mall Trinity "has its own Gold Award Car Park. There are 408 spaces and the main entrance is on Wapping Street. The car park is on two colour coded levels and bays are numbered to help locate your car. There are currently 27 stores including...," d> Mall Galleries "is a shopping mall situated in the Broadmead shopping centre. Functioning as the one of the city's retail malls, it is a three-story building,...and faces competition from the nearby Cribbs Causeway", e> Liberty Shopping Centre "has been used as a filming location and was featured in television advertisement," f> Alhambra Centre "Most popular community activity is the Mall Monster - the pink monster usually inhabited by 'Taz', the bubbly security officer/CCO, who frequents the children's ward of Barnsley General Hospital each year to hand out Easter Eggs. Stores in the centre are as follows:..". If the articles' attempts at establishing notability weren't so comical and cute, I think I would have cried "Lord have mercy! Rid Wikipedia of spam attacks and delete all" already. But note my merger vote. Lets at least keep this kind of trivia in one place. Pia 21:53, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Again, is anyone actually reading these articles? I very much doubt that "The areas surrounding the Mall have traditionally been affected by high rates of street drinking and the accompanying alcohol-related problems" would be included in any 'infomercial', and the only reason these articles even have "The Mall" in the title is because they all happen to have been recently been bought by The Mall Company & had their names formally changed, and - as per Wikipedia policy - are listed under their correct names, rather than the names they're known by (and certainly in the case of Wood Green at least, still signposted as). Googling "The Mall xxx" doesn't bring much up, because no-one refers to them by these names - run your search on "Shopping City", "Luton Arndale" etc to get a better idea. And again (since the point seems to need labouring) Shopping City ("The Mall Wood Green", if you prefer) is the largest shopping centre in the largest city in Europe, not a little suburban stripmall; merging it to the article for the property developer which happened to buy the lease a couple of years ago as is ridiculous as merging The Waldorf-Astoria Hotel to Hilton Hotels Corporation — iridescent (talk to me!) 22:17, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Yes Sir/Madam, I read them all (which took all of 20 sec. for many of them, with the exception of one). The notability claim quote collection above is the result of that reading session. The fact that some of them may have notability (stabbings reported in the press, etc, or notability based on such things as "being the largest mall in the largest city", etc) does not transfer notability to the others in the brand and does not change the fact that the main article is an article in list format. Sorry. Pia 22:33, 18 September 2007 (UTC) (PS. Two observations: The Mall Wood Green article says that it was built in the 1970s, replacing a railway station, so your statement that these malls are notable for being built in "bombed-out town centres" actually seems at odds with the actual article text at this time. In addition, the article states that is "the largest shopping centre within the A406 ring road", not that it is "the largest shopping centre in the largest city in Europe". If you consider the argument about its size relevant for this discussion, please source the claim.) Pia 00:05, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • The article states that it's the largest in the A406 and that a new extension was being built that would mean it overtook Brent Cross (the only larger centre, and outside the A406). When the extension's complete, the article will be updated accordingly. Nowhere do I say that Shopping City was "built on a bombed out town centre" - it was built on bombed out housing & light-commercial sites as well as the former Noel Park station, but not on the centre of anything - but merely that British town centres generally were replaced by shopping centres. (Incidentaly, if you think "built in the 70s" is incompatiable with "built on bombsites", you're under a severe misconception of just how long it took to repair WW2 damage in Europe.) — iridescent (talk to me!) 00:31, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • I assume you meant to say that "one day it will be the largest mall in London" then? And the relevance of all this info for keeping all the articles, or for keeping the bunch of Mall-branded shopping centres as individual articles, is? (PS. I am well aware of the trauma associated with life in a bombed-out city. But as an argument for keeping a bunch of trivia-filled shopping centre articles, I find the association a pretty lame overdramatization of facts: Obviously, the shopping centres built in the 70s did not replace "bombed out city centres", but rather replaced other urban structures, such as train stations, etc, erected 20-30 or more years prior to these malls' march into the cityscape. However, as already stated, properly sourced facts about how shopping centres are part of bomb-site revitalization efforts would make an interesting article---and if any of the Mall-branded shopping centres are part these efforts, that info would make a great addition to the article.) Pia 01:37, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Also whilst "A406 road" is indeed the article name for the road in question per convention, it makes the distinction of being the largest of something within it seem utterly trivial. It took clicking on the link to realise the road in question is the North Circular Road which is far from an insignificant line on the map of London in popular geography - it's a relatively common choice for the boundary of inner and outer London amongst the population at large. Timrollpickering 00:43, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all to parent. With the exception of The Mall Wood Green they all lack reliable sources to demonstrate notability and fail Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criterion and Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Chains and franchises. In addition, the main article has no content but is simply a list of commercial enterprises, masquerading as an article. Pia 08:20, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - as Timrollpickering has pointed out above, it is extremely important to note that these are not chain stores or franchises. A more relevant example of a comparable article from an American perspective would be Chicago's Water Tower Place or any branch of Westfield Shoppingtown. Indeed, the Westfield Group article is a good notability comparable for the parent company, and see Eagle Centre or Merry Hill Shopping Centre for examples of articles about similar British Westfield-owned shopping centres. We are not talking about individual branches of a large chain, say Wal-Mart, here; each of these shopping centres houses multiple separate retail units and consequently forms a major part of the commercial centre of the town in which it is located. DWaterson 15:01, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. Disagree with the comparison to Chicago's Water Tower Place, which is notable as one of the structures on the List of tallest buildings in the United States and which sports an article about architectural features, famous tenants, etc (i.e. has some content that goes beyond what retail units can be found in the mall, statements such as "TJMax and Ralph Lauren have outlets here"). Also disagree that it would be "utterly important" to list or have articles about malls that are not chain stores or franchises. There are thousands around the world; is Wikipedia slated to become a repository for trivial laundry list articles about shopping malls now, sorted by country? About lists such as List of Westfield Group shopping malls: Yes, WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. However, the list is somewhat different from the current article because it makes no pretensions about being something other than a list and it is about a multinational commercial phenomenon and not just about a locally famous "town-center"-developer — but it is, IMO, also utterly irrelevant to most people, and has little value from a scholarly point of view (except for those who are researching marketing and how commercial enterprises can get into Wikipedia for some similar, "encyclopedic" coverage). Pia 19:56, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - These are all very large shopping malls for the UK and certainly the company that owns all of them are notable too. --Oakshade 08:27, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete as original research. This doesn't mean it's bad, it just means Wikipedia is not the place for it. Friday (talk) 16:14, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cifrangon

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

Original research, pure and simple. Cifrangon returns 7 GHits, the alternative spelling of Cyfrangon returns 6. None of the returns are reliable sources and the only source provided is a book by the author of the article. The author has also been adding facts based on his book to other articles in what appears to be a bout of self promotion. Nuttah68 18:38, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since I am the author of the article, and the data provided are the result of my own efforts, and not taken from any book, I can assure you that I have nothing whatsoever to do with any book published on the subject. I simply quote it as an extra source of information. The remarks of Nuttah68 are therefore not only deliberate falsehoods - that is, he is a liar, - but also DEFAMATORY, and as such inadmissible under Wikipedia standards. As my own site shows, I am an MSc student at Glamorgan University, and can be contacted there. In my article I have provided evidence which is provable on the net. You don't have to go there, though the coordinates are provided for you. I do not make the asseveration that Twyn y Glog is Cyfrangon, but simply suggest that if such a place exists, then this hill is a very likely place to start looking. The geophysical results obtained and the geological analysis from the National Museum of Wales can not be described as 'crackpottery' They are fact, plain and simple.

Ouldbob 10:54, 13 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ouldbob (talk • contribs) 10:34, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. I'll be honest, the majority of your rant does not help your cause, the opening 'the data provided are the result of my own efforts' condemns you per WP:OR. As for Tim, I've no idea who your nemesis is, but I can assure you (as can other editors), I am not he. Nuttah68 18:26, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. One of the joys of Wikipedia is coming across and reading up on areas of study you've never encountered before. While I may not be particularly knowledgeable in your theories on Welsh history, that doesn't mean I (or anyone else) has been "put up" to commenting on this AfD. That said, I am fairly well versed in the Wikipedia guidelines, and I know Original Research (and please click here to read the policy) when I see it. FiggyBee 05:35, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very well then, while accepting that this is a narrow exploration of a narrow aspect of Welsh history, - one which would be noticed only by a few people who would be aware of the subject, unless you are a scolar of such areas as the Bruts, Harleian and Bodleian mss, Chad, Mabinogi and Landavensis, how did you come upon the site? You are attacking an established history of which you know nothing: why? You describe my statements as a 'rant'. again, why? I am being attacked for trying to further knowledge of Welsh history. Unless you are Welsh, you could not even begin to understand. Read the histories, read the stones, read the names of the geological features. Every field in Wales had a name: did you know that? This article is not for self glorification: it is not out of vanity that I created the site, but out of joy at unravelling another knot in the history of Wales. I would have remained anonymous, but you and your friends attacked me from a position of total ignorance of the subject. You accuse me of taking my information from a book which I could not have read, because neither could you. The authors tell me that it is in the process of being printed. You accuse me of being the author, and a self publicist: that is defamatory: I am not, and can prove it. I therefore challenge you: prove your case or apologise and never ever sit in judgement on someone else on Wikipedia, particularly not on someone who is not a smug git like you, but who has just started. Prove your allegations or back off.Ouldbob 20:15, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. To quote 'You accuse me of taking my information from a book which I could not have read' yet you have listed this as a reference for all of the material you have added to Wikipedia. Even more so I am led to believe what you have added is WP:OR and unsupported by reliable sources.

Nuttah68 20:40, 13 September 2007 (UTC) I have also quoted the Bruts, Tyssilio, LLandavensis, Chad, Mabinogi, and Bodleian and Harleian ms. What is your problem? You do not answer the question of how you came to my article. Why not? If you are so damn clever about Welsh history, dewch y siarad. Ah, sorry, I forgot, you're not Welsh are you? Ond tippin bach? Nage? Dim Cymraeg? If you do not speak the language and know sod all about the country, crawl back into your hole. Where is the apology for your defamatory remarks? Or do you persist in accusing me of writing a book? Of course I know about the book: I was asked for permission to include work which we have done. This work was simply an evaluation of statements in old texts in Latin and Welsh, and the physical verification of that evaluation. Your hostility is obvious, and your reluctance to come clean is disgraceful. Yet again, I point out that you have stated that I am using this to publicise a book which you claim I have written. THIS IS DEFAMATION OF CHARACTER. Liar, and damned liar. I have never written a book in my life. Withdraw your false allegation immediately.[reply]

Well, well! The terriers are yapping today! Why this hostility? Why do I keep seeing the phrase peer reviewed cropping up as well? Let me ask you something: has the venerable Bede been peer reviewed? Has the Magna Carta? So why, when I am quoting established British historical texts does someone suggest that my sources need to be peer reviewed? Is this article stepping on someone's toes, I wonder? There's enough vitriol in this to put ICI out of business. Ouldbob 10:33, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The sources I quote are part of the corpus of Welsh/British history. There are many thousand such sources available - usually by arrangement - with libraries such as the Louvre, the Vatican library, the Harleian and the Bodleian. As I have indicated above, I would not expect centuries old texts and thousand year old stones to need to be subject to peer review. They have been logged and recorded and few remain even mildly controversial in translation. These sources can be consulted. Would it not have been wiser to consult them before attacking me? Furthermore I have given you a simple geophysical test which you can use yourself, and an example in England upon which you can test it, together with the coordinates which will enable you to apply the test to the subject area. Would it not have been wiser to try that test, - before lambasting me? I have indicated that the history of Wales is written in the landscape, - that every field, river, wood - pob clogwen, pob dyffryn, had a name. The tithe maps are available: you can look at them yourself. Of course, they are not peer reviewed either. Does that make them invalid? Also, they are not on Wikipedia: does that reduce their value? Furthermore, you can hardly call Welsh history 'original research'. Simply because it is a new field to you, does not make it OR. If I supply translations and copies of old Welsh documents, you would still reject them, because they are not 'peer reviewed' nor yet part of the corpus of wikipedia. Everything I have said is verifiable. All you need to do is look. The only aspect of this which is any way original is the thought that Twyn y Glog might be a good place to start looking for Cyfrangon. Cyfrangon itself is a part of Welsh legend, - not mythology. I didn't make it up. St. Ilid is part of Welsh history. I didn't make him up. The Welsh have lived in their own country for thousands of years and are even mentioned in Greek legends - Orion was the only one brave enough to hunt here - so it is natural that their history is all around them. The English are a mongrel race and are very recent in their lands, so the land tells stories in different languages, and has mostly been forgotten. Not so here. I cannot peer review the land. It is there and always has been, nor can I peer review the traditions that the Welsh came from the Israelites. Ouldbob 10:33, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments. I think some fairly detailed comments are needed, here, and I've not got long so I may come back and add some more, later:
    • Assuming it is true that "Cyfrangon is a fabled site thought to be in Southeast Wales alleged to hold the Ark of the Covenant", and that a number of the ancient texts including Mabinogion say so, then it is quite probable that this subject is notable enough for wikipedia, and it shouldn't be difficult to find reliable sources which say so. If those are identified and cited in full with page numbers etc. before this AfD closes, then the page itself may well be kept, focusing on that.
    • The idea that Cyfrangon is situated up a hill in Ynysybwl seems to be regarded by everybody, here (including me, frankly) as a truly bizarre idea that cannot form the basis of this article unless there are reliable sources which say so (or, alternatively, acknowledge a controversy) and the facts as set out in the article make it absolutely clear there are none.
    • It is, of course, ridiculous to demand that oral traditions, Mabinogion (etc.) are peer-reviewed. However that is not what we are asking for. Wikipedia is a "tertiary" publisher. That is, there are primary sources (the oral tradition, the ancient texts, real-world geological data, etc.) then there are secondary sources - people who research the primary sources and publish their conclusions in peer-reviewed journals, then there's us, the tertiaries, people who write encyclopedias: reporting human knowledge using the secondary, peer-reviewed sources. That is what our WP:OR policy is about. Ouldbob and his collegue seem to be in the process of doing the secondary research, which is why we don't think this material is acceptable here, yet.
    • I understand Ouldbob's frustration. He hasn't been treated with much patience or understanding since he got here. I'd remind everybody that we do try NOT to bite the newbies (see WP:BITE). On the other hand, Ouldbob you will need to try to take our concerns seriously, and refrain from attacking other users, or there is a real chance that you will be blocked from editing, altogether. AndyJones 13:02, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Andy. Unfortunately the time allowed does not permit me to access the sources, simpy because I have a habit of lending out good books to people with enquiring minds, and all mine are out at the moment. I had no idea that I would need them. I would however refer people to the much maligned published works of Wilson and Blackett, including Adrian Gilbert on one, and Grant Berkly on some others. The most extensive biblio is at the back of 'Artorius Rex discovered'. I wasn't looking for a fight, I was simply reporting genuine findings since I thought that they would be of interest to other people. Although I am aware that any mention of Welsh history tends to suffer attack, this was not exactly an historical article, and I felt that it would escape the usual fate. I was astounded at being accused of trying to publicise a book, and equally astounded at being told that I had written it. It is just simply not true, and a completely unjustified attack on my integrity. All I am guilty of is writing a few terribly poor scientific papers over the last fifty years. Nothing else. It is hardly surprising that I lost my temper at these allegations, - and the promulgator has still neither withdrawn nor apologised for these calumnies, - for such they are. I am still sore, and I am still angry, as I am sure you would be at a totally unjustified attack and at being villified in such a manner. I have shown how Google earth can be used to find artifical constructs where the terrain appears natural. I would have considered that that alone was worthy of being retained. Google earth were unaware of this until I told them some three years ago. The resting place of the Ark is a controversial subject I know, yet the Irish claim that it lies in Tara's Halls goes by without comment, - and I am not even claiming that it lies here; I am simply exhibiting the fact that this huge hill is an artificial construct, like Silbury Hill, only quite a bit bigger, and I am not hiding my evidence, I am practically begging people to have a look for themselves. When I first discovered this, I could not believe it myself, and called in various people around the world, including in my own University, to try it themselves. We all considered that this was a flaw in the Google earth operating system, and I wrote to them to tell them so. Then, trying the concept out on such objects as pyramids, I discovered that when the scale was small enough, I could read how the floor dipped inside the pyramid, but not how high the pyramid was. Perhaps I should simply have put up an article which drew attention to the comparisons between this hill and Silbury. After all, despite local legend, nobody knew or even suspected that the hill was artificial, the farmer who owns it still finds it hard to believe. A twyn is a burial mound, and this is what I suspected that this hill was initially. I still think that that is the most likely explanation and that the metal objects are grave goods. Again, thank you for your politeness in the midst of vitriol. This was my first attempt at creating a new article. I suspect that it will be my last. At least my editing of mycological and astronomical papers cannot be seen as controversial. Bob.Ouldbob 18:15, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I agree you have been treated rather roughly, there is no WP:AUTHORPILLOCK for a good reason, and it wasn't helpful for that the user to label you as such. However Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia, where we have quite strict standards to adhere to, and these policies are not optional. As a scientist, I'm sure you understand this. Wikipedia is not a scientific journal where new results are published, but a encyclopedia that reports on extensively peer reviewed subjects. Unfortunately the work you describe has so far not had this treatment and is not eligible for inclusion at the moment. Nor is it sufficient to ask readers to do their own research to prove these theories by using google earth or other methods. This is Original Reseach and is simply not allowed. Your opinions as to what the hill is and what it contains are points of view and again are not allowed. I'm sorry if this has been a rough experience, but please try to keep a calm head. Making accusations and personal attacks will only damage your case, and will only encourage people to continue upsetting you with hurtful comments. But please take it from long term wikipedia editors that your article is simply in violation of our policies (WP:OR, WP:POV) and is not an attack on Welsh history, culture or anything of that nature. Benea 19:34, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Another thought, following on from my previous points, is that Wicipedia doesn't have an article on this topic, and that might well be a worthwhile place to start a decent article, since it is likely to attract interest and debate, there, and I note that you (Ouldbob) are in the gallu siarad Cymraig camp. My feeling is that you're more likely to be able to build a featured article, there: and once that's done it will be more welcome, here. I mention this suggestion because I don't want to reject the idea of this material belonging on wikipedia, but I think there's a very good chance - if you can't add decent sources - that this article will be deleted, soon. AndyJones 19:53, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Andy: As you will see, I have removed the page. My thanks to those who tried to guide me through this mess, and my curses upon those who insulted me, particularly fenelon of York and nuttah68 whose attacks and insults were completely unwarranted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ouldbob (talk • contribs)

  • Close and Speedy Delete now, if possible. Ouldbob has blanked the page himself and he was the only substantial editor to work on it, and in view of his comment above, can we treat this as if it was a {db-author}? I wish Ouldbob luck following-up this research though. It sounds interesting. AndyJones 13:38, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - nomination withdrawn. Non-admin closure. Iain99Balderdash and piffle 21:21, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of extrasolar planet extremes

[edit]
List of extrasolar planet extremes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This list is potentially a very misleading article. Not only are some of the entries dubious, a good case can be made for many of them that whatever is put in the entry is potentially misleading. On the principle that no information is better than incorrect or misleading "information", I nominate this article for deletion. My case against the entries:

Oldest: while the planet of PSR B1620-26 may have formed with the globular cluster [8], making it the oldest extrasolar planet, an alternative formation scenario postulates it formed from a disc produced during the red giant stage of PSR B1620-26B [9], which would make it much younger (~480 million years, from the first reference). Furthermore, age estimates for other stars are not very reliable at present.

Youngest: as noted in previous point, age estimates for stars tend to be unreliable.

Most massive: this is misleading, as we only have lower limits on the masses. Some of these extrasolar planets may well turn out to be brown dwarfs (or even stars, witness the case of HD 33636b [10]). Thus giving the example which happens to have the lowest lower limit is misleading, and misleading or incorrect "information" is worse than no information.

Least massive: probably on safer ground here, but to be pedantic the true mass of PSR B1257+12A is unknown and based on an assumption that it is coplanar with the outer two planets. While this assumption is reasonable, consider also that we seem to be arbitrarily ignoring the outermost companion of the pulsar, which may well qualify as a planet under certain definitions (note that strictly, the IAU definition only applies to objects orbiting the Sun).

Largest: the planet listed here is unconfirmed - it has not even been published in a refereed journal yet.

Smallest: Gliese 436 b is the smallest measured planet. However, we know of planets much less massive in the PSR B1257+12 system, which are almost certainly going to be smaller unless something really exotic is going on with their compositions. However putting the PSR B1257+12 planets is problematic because their radii are unknown.

Most distant: Probably on ok grounds here.

Least distant: Probably on ok grounds here too.

Densest: Previously listed here was Gliese 581 c, for which neither the radius nor the true mass are known. I removed this on the grounds that no information is better than misleading/incorrect "information". Furthermore with the ignorance of most planetary radii/true masses, this could be misleading.

Least dense: Possibly on ok grounds, but given that radii for most extrasolar planets are unknown, could be misleading.

Longest period: Currently listed is 2M1207b, for which the orbit is unknown. Someone seems to have got confused: while the measured separation is a minimum value, it could be at the outermost point of a highly eccentric orbit. Putting an unknown value here is misleading.

Shortest period: Probably ok with this one.

Most eccentric orbit: Probably ok.

Least eccentric orbit: Dubious assertion on this one. Many of the close-in planets have orbital elements given assuming zero eccentricity, others have eccentricities that are not statistically significant, etc. Potentially misleading.

Most inclined orbit: Probably ok.

Least inclined orbit: Since the inclinations of non-transiting planets are unknown, putting a value for this one is potentially misleading.

Largest orbit: Again the case of 2M1207b for which orbital properties are unknown.

Smallest orbit: Maybe ok.

Lowest Metallicity: Metallicity determinations are fairly uncertain, and in any case are based on ratio of iron to hydrogen. Nonconsideration of other elements is potentially misleading.

Discovery firsts: not really "extremes" are they?

Most Earthlike planets: again not really extremes. In addition, temperatures for all but a couple of hot Jupiters are unknown. Putting temperature values here is at best misleading and at worst incorrect. Chaos syndrome 18:27, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. If there's unfactual info in the article, then simply remove it. The concept of the article is what is debated in an AfD, not the quality of its current state. wikipediatrix 18:42, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Agree with wikipediatrix. If you have issues with the facts, you can address your concerns on the talk page or put a tag on it. The premise of this article is useful IMHO. MrMurph101 19:12, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It's not that I have issues with the facts as presented, I have issues with the fact that for the majority of these categories, whatever is put is going to be incorrect at the current state of knowledge, since we don't have enough information to put the right answers. My point is that there is no way to write a "list of extrasolar planet extremes": practically every entry has to have some kind of caveat, which makes the list kind of pointless. Chaos syndrome 19:17, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I understand your concerns. The "biggest" known exoplanet could be surpassed by a future discovery or current measurements are found to be improper. How about changing the article to "List of (known or believed) extrasolar planet extremes"? MrMurph101 19:29, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's not so much future discoveries or incorrect measurements that are the problem. The problem is the measurements we have, even if they are all correct, are not enough to fill in the majority of entries on this table. Basic quantities like masses are unknown for the majority of extrasolar planets. Ok, you might think, just take the subset of extrasolar planets with well-defined properties. Unfortunately this subset is radically different to the total set of extrasolar planet candidates: it is mainly composed of hot Jupiters, plus one hot Neptune, a couple of Jupiter-like planets in distant orbits that fortuitous conditions have allowed the determination of more parameters, and a pair of super-Earths around a pulsar (see List of stars with confirmed extrasolar planets - an article which you will note has a rather misleading title, but I was overruled when I suggested changing it to something more accurate). Of course, we could have an article about the extremes of that subset, but it is unrepresentative of the known population as a whole, and defining it concisely enough to be put in an article title is going to be an interesting challenge. Personally, I'd rather not perpetuate the myth that the properties of the majority of planets are at all well known. Chaos syndrome 19:59, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The majority of entries on this table don't have to be here - if there's no sources for the data, then feel free to be WP:BOLD and remove 99 percent of the article's info if need be. Is it possible to make a list, however short, of known extrasolar statistics/extremes? Yes. Is such a list notable? Yes. Is this current version of the list it? No. So fix it. wikipediatrix 20:07, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Nomination Withdrawn. It has become apparent that individual nominations of each list of this type is pointless, and a consensus on what to do with the entire group of lists of this type is needed, which will result in a broader consensus with less work. I have created a discussion page at: Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups/Lists of Ethnic Americans to try and determine a policy on these type of lists. Please join the discussion there. Thank you. Leuko 16:58, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning all of the "List of XXX Americans" nominations

[edit]
  • Speedily keep all, close discussions. It is extremely non-productive to nominate this many similar articles all at once. Even a concerned editor cannot realistically review and comment on several dozen articles at once. Either the practice of making this kind of list should be allowed or it should be banned. The list of German Americans that was deleted should not stand for a precedent, and if we decide to keep it that article should be restored too. This kind of large policy matter is best decided at the policy level, not by piecemeal deletions. That guarantees inconsistent results and a very messy encyclopedia.Wikidemo 22:45, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • AGREED If it hasn't already, this should be brought up at WP:Administrators noticeboard/Incidents. Noroton 23:02, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The nominator was told in the AFD for Portuguese Americans to relist them individually. Someone legitimately posted a bunch of related AfDs is not a reason to go to ANI and it's not a reason to speedy keep. Smashville 23:13, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I would delete them all under the same reasoning, so I don't need to see each one. I agree, however, that it should be done in a single decision. Either they all have the same flaw or they don't. It certainly is a pain to have to post in each AfD. MarkBul 23:34, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think an administrator should look at the havoc that this one person has caused. I don't think we can really take time to consider other articles when we've had one person nominate at least 49 articles about ethnic groups, based on some bizarre idea that Wikipedia has created some change in its rules based on a "precedent". The guy might have a point on "Lists of American Jews" because it's not a list of American Jews, it's a list of LISTS. But 49 articles in one day?

I pity the closing administrator who has to handle this one. Mandsford 23:56, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've left a comment at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents see "Mass deletion nominations for List of [Ethnic Group X] Americans". Noroton 00:12, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong, speedy keep all and indefinite block of nominator for outrageous abuse of our system - Important aid for researchers. We only include notable individuals in these lists and they are well sourced. As with previous ethnic group nominations, this nomination, apparently done along with dozens if not hundreds of others all in a single day, is disruptive, WP:POINT, and does not enhance our encyclopedia. Improve, don't delete. It is humanly impossible to respond with all due care and deliberation to each of these in a single five-day period, probably what the nominator was hoping. Badagnani 01:04, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all Nothing is wrong with these lists.--SefringleTalk 01:12, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • At the moment there's a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents see "Mass deletion nominations for List of [Ethnic Group X] Americans". Please participate there, not here. Noroton 01:20, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I don't believe the entire discussion should go to ANI. What should be discussed there is if the mass afd nominator did anything improper. There should still be a discussion here because there are arguments for both sides of the issue and maybe something could be worked out to provide a less controversial way to handle this and what should ultimately become of this. MrMurph101 03:40, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, this location is the top of the AfD for List of Ukrainian Americans. I just don't think this location works well for this purpose. My understanding of AN/I is that issues brought there aren't necessarily disputes in which some kind of punishment or protection is sought but matters that have some urgency and that only admins can ultimately deal with. An active discussion has already started there and it's generally best to keep it in one spot. The discussion here is irregular and some admin is going to have to figure out whether to delete it or somehow save it, whereas AN/I will be archived.Noroton 05:36, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I made this comment at ANI, but I'll put it here as well for the benefit of editors that are not following the discussion at ANI. To the best of my knowledge, there isn't any policy against nominating so many similar articles for deletion individually, all at the same time. But surely it would have made for less of a mess if a few of them were nominated individually, then we wait for their closure, and we nominate a few more. The problem I really have with these nominations is that they seemed to be indiscriminant. The whole point to nominating them individually, as suggested in the mass deletion AfDs that the articles already went through, was that some of them should be kept while others should be deleted - they need to be evaluated at a case-by-case basis. But I can't see any apparent effort or attempt by the nominating editor to determine if some of these lists really ought to be kept instead. Granted maybe he feels they all should be deleted, but some of these lists have only recently survived AfDs, and at the very least, I think those lists should not have been nominated at all. It's borderline disruptive. How many times are editors who dislike these lists going to keep nominating them for deletion? Those lists that have survived recent AfDs should be speedily kept in my opinion. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 06:23, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.


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

The result was Nomination Withdrawn. It has become apparent that individual nominations of each list of this type is pointless, and a consensus on what to do with the entire group of lists of this type is needed, which will result in a broader consensus with less work. I have created a discussion page at: Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups/Lists of Ethnic Americans to try and determine a policy on these type of lists. Please join the discussion there. Thank you. Leuko 16:59, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Ukrainian Americans

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

Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Portuguese Americans, relisting as individual AfD's. Precedent for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of German Americans. Leuko 18:27, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Japanese writers, List of sociologists, List of mayors of Toronto, List of political parties, List of members of the Riksdag, 2006-2010, List of liberal theorists, List of male performers in gay porn films, List of male boxers, List of mayors of Ottawa, List of tall women, List of horror fiction writers, List of cellists, etc, etc. Martintg 20:29, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepGalassi 21:46, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Keep this, as well as all other list of citizens of USA by nationality. List is rich and informative. We aren't guilty that there're so many peoples on this world. At last, why do we have encyclopedias? Articles about so many things. Some things someone finds unimportant, but somebody other earns for living on those and makes millions of dollars out of that. In these lists, only the persons that are worth of mentioning should be there, not just "any man picked up from the street". At last, these info is useful. Do you know how many successful international business meetings and business cooperations (I mean all of them, from small shop and taxi cab events to statemen's meetings) began/became more appreciated, just because someone knew whome "belonged" certain "celebrity"? Kubura 22:10, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletions. —Noroton 22:23, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Nominator has pasted the same argument on all nominations, setting a "precedent" for the rest of us to mindlessly do so. It's sourced, and the only reason that it's being nominated is that some asshole thinks there's a "precedent" based on two articles. Hey, on the articles that have been kept, is that a precedent too? Mandsford 23:04, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This and All the Others for the exact reason that German Americans was deleted: WP:NOT#DIR. This is a potentially infinite list. Smashville 23:08, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:BIO#Lists of people: "Several articles contain lists of people - for instance, an article on a college usually includes a list of alumni. Such lists are never intended to contain everyone (e.g. not all people who ever graduated from the school). Instead, the list should be limited to notable people". cab 00:02, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong, speedy keep - Important aid for researchers. We only include notable individuals in these lists and they are well sourced. As with previous ethnic group nominations, this nomination, apparently done along with dozens if not hundreds of others all in a single day, is disruptive, WP:POINT, and does not enhance our encyclopedia. Improve, don't delete. Badagnani 00:47, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete Use categories instead of lists.----DarkTea© 02:06, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. While Wikipedia may not be a compendium of lists, these listings are extraordinarily helpful with research, as those searching for individuals of a particular ethnic background can easily find specific individuals and possibly contrast with others in the article. These listings for deletion are disruptive, in my opinion. They smack of nationalism and seem to presume that Americans have no (or shouldn't have) interest in the extreme diversity of the ethnic fabric of America. ExRat 02:37, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It has s already been pointed out that these lists are greatly superior in their content and usability (being on a single page, with individuals broken down by occupation, complete with footnotes and references), for ease of navigation and finding the information they are looking for, for our users. Thus, your argument holds no water, and your continued assertion that "categories are just as good as lists" in this context shows bad faith against the editors who have repeatedly pointed out that this is clearly not the case for our users who rely on having this information readily available, and not blanked by presumptuous characters such as yourself. Badagnani 04:44, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Nomination Withdrawn. It has become apparent that individual nominations of each list of this type is pointless, and a consensus on what to do with the entire group of lists of this type is needed, which will result in a broader consensus with less work. I have created a discussion page at: Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups/Lists of Ethnic Americans to try and determine a policy on these type of lists. Please join the discussion there. Thank you. Leuko 16:56, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Welsh Americans

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

Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Portuguese Americans, relisting as individual AfD's. Precedent for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of German Americans. Leuko 18:26, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Japanese writers, List of sociologists, List of mayors of Toronto, List of political parties, List of members of the Riksdag, 2006-2010, List of liberal theorists, List of male performers in gay porn films, List of male boxers, List of mayors of Ottawa, List of tall women, List of horror fiction writers, List of cellists, etc, etc. Martintg 20:30, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletions. —Noroton 22:23, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Nominator has pasted the same argument on all nominations, setting a "precedent" for the rest of us to mindlessly do so. It's sourced, and the only reason that it's being nominated is that some asshole thinks there's a "precedent" based on two articles. Hey, on the articles that have been kept, is that a precedent too? Mandsford 23:04, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong, speedy keep - Important aid for researchers. We only include notable individuals in these lists and they are well sourced. As with previous ethnic group nominations, this nomination, apparently done along with dozens if not hundreds of others all in a single day, is disruptive, WP:POINT, and does not enhance our encyclopedia. Improve, don't delete. Badagnani 00:47, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete Use categories instead of lists.----DarkTea© 02:06, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. While Wikipedia may not be a compendium of lists, these listings are extraordinarily helpful with research, as those searching for individuals of a particular ethnic background can easily find specific individuals and possibly contrast with others in the article. These listings for deletion are disruptive, in my opinion. They smack of nationalism and seem to presume that Americans have no (or shouldn't have) interest in the extreme diversity of the ethnic fabric of America. ExRat 02:44, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It has s already been pointed out that these lists are greatly superior in their content and usability (being on a single page, with individuals broken down by occupation, complete with footnotes and references), for ease of navigation and finding the information they are looking for, for our users. Thus, your argument holds no water, and your continued assertion that "categories are just as good as lists" in this context shows bad faith against the editors who have repeatedly pointed out that this is clearly not the case for our users who rely on having this information readily available, and not blanked by presumptuous characters such as yourself. Badagnani 04:43, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Nomination Withdrawn. It has become apparent that individual nominations of each list of this type is pointless, and a consensus on what to do with the entire group of lists of this type is needed, which will result in a broader consensus with less work. I have created a discussion page at: Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups/Lists of Ethnic Americans to try and determine a policy on these type of lists. Please join the discussion there. Thank you. Leuko 16:55, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Vietnamese Americans

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
List of Vietnamese Americans (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Portuguese Americans, relisting as individual AfD's. Precedent for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of German Americans. Leuko 18:26, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Keep How many times are we going to keep nominating this article for deletion? This is a notable ethnic group, and that a list of German Americans was deleted does not mean this list should be deleted. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:42, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: An article on the ethnicity would be encyclopedic and welcome, however, apparently the new consensus is that these list of people by nationality/ethnicity are not appropriate for WP. Leuko 18:45, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not sure I see such consensus anywhere. In fact, the List of German American AfD actually had more Keep votes than Delete votes, if I counted correctly. The closing admin's argument for deletion was loose association, and I highly disagree with the application of that argument on some of the lists (not all) that have been individually nominated for deletion. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:52, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, WP:AFD is not a vote (so counting is irrelevant), and the deletion decision was upheld at WP:DRV, so there must have been consensus. There were actually more arguments to delete other than WP:NOT#DIR, but since you bring that up, I don't see how any other list of persons of a certain nationality, ethnicity or religion are any more tightly associated, and less of a directory. Leuko 19:00, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • And the deletion of List of British Chinese people was overturned, relisted for AfD, and kept. Like I said, the fact that a list of German Americans was deleted does not mean all similar lists should be deleted. Furthermore, I did not say that AfDs are decided on vote count, I am saying I see no consensus established regarding these lists, and that I disagree with the application of the closing admin's argument of loose association on some of these lists. WP:NOT#DIR is not applicable here as you can see from the examples given in the policy that it pertains to articles or lists providing contact information and otherwise consumer-related information or how-to information. This is not such a list. And the whole point of listing these lists individually as opposed to en masse in the first place is because some of these lists should be kept and others deleted. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 19:23, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This should be a category, not an article. MrMurph101 19:16, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - lists like this are prone to vanity listings. DHN 19:44, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - If the Vietnamese American person is not notable and the article about them is there for vanity purposes alone, they should not have a WP article at all, and if they do it should be deleted. Thus this argument does not make sense, and the need for such a list (which I and many others use as an invaluable resouce--a single page listing notable Vietnamese Americans broken down by occupation) is not negated. Badagnani 02:01, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Once more, an opended list without an explicit definition, against Wikipedia requirements. Is one grandfather enought to make you Vietnamese-American? If you have both Vietnamese and Chinese ancestry, are you defined as Vietnamese-American for this list? What if you grow up speaking only English and eating Big Macs? With no explicit definition, the list turns into original research/POV. All such lists should be deleted for the same reason. MarkBul 20:23, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep, The rationale for deletion given in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of German Americans was WP:NOT#DIR. So these lists below should also be deleted if we want to be consistent:
List of Japanese writers, List of sociologists, List of mayors of Toronto, List of political parties, List of members of the Riksdag, 2006-2010, List of liberal theorists, List of male performers in gay porn films, List of male boxers, List of mayors of Ottawa, List of tall women, List of horror fiction writers, List of cellists, etc, etc. Martintg 20:31, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think those articles should be just categories also. MrMurph101 20:38, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The category simply gives one a very long list of names, often across several pages. The article gives a single article with names broken down by occupation (and footnoted/sourced), making for much easier searching and locating of the information our users are looking for. I know this because I am also one of those users. Improve, don't delete. Badagnani 02:16, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. While Wikipedia may not be a compendium of lists, these listings are extraordinarily helpful with research, as those searching for individuals of a particular ethnic background can easily find specific individuals and possibly contrast with others in the article. These listings for deletion are disruptive, in my opinion. They smack of nationalism and seem to presume that Americans have no (or shouldn't have) interest in the extreme diversity of the ethnic fabric of America. ExRat 02:43, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It's already been pointed out that these lists are greatly superior in their content and usability (being on a single page, with individuals broken down by occupation, complete with footnotes and references), for ease of navigation and finding the information they are looking for, for our users. Thus, your argument holds no water, and your continued assertion that "categories are just as good as lists" in this context shows bad faith against the editors who have repeatedly pointed out that this is clearly not the case for our users who rely on having this information readily available, and not blanked by presumptuous characters such as yourself. Badagnani 04:11, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Have you read WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF? If not, might be a good time to. Categories can accomplish the same things that the lists accomplish now. There can be sub-categories by profession, etc. And most of these lists do not have any footnotes and references, so I fail to see how lists are so much better? And unless there are more than 200 people in a category, they all fit on one page. (Not that this matters). Leuko 04:17, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Bad faith on the part of earlier delete nominators is also shown by the fact that several of the lists were heavily footnoted, yet the content was deleted entirely (content gone forever) rather than merged. This is a severe assault on our project, and your delete nominations, on a massive scale, are damaging. I can't phrase that in any "nicer" manner. Badagnani 04:26, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am sorry, I am unaware of, nor responsible for, the action of earlier nominators. I just saw a bunch of unreferenced lists. The deletion nominations are a direct result of DRV-endorsed consensus that these lists violate WP:NOT. I don't see how that is an "assault on our project," as I thought we worked by consensus. Leuko 04:31, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strange. A number of those discussions had consensus *against* deletion yet the closer chose to delete anyway, dismissing out of hand the preponderance of well-reasoned "keep" voters. It's all there in the record. One such closer actually has a statement on his user page that he would like to try to delete 800,000 WP articles. Any "consensus" you see for deleting all these articles is a figment of your imagination, or the imagination of the "delete page regulars" who have shown their corruption in recent weeks, deleting pages clearly against consensus. Badagnani 04:33, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Nomination Withdrawn. It has become apparent that individual nominations of each list of this type is pointless, and a consensus on what to do with the entire group of lists of this type is needed, which will result in a broader consensus with less work. I have created a discussion page at: Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups/Lists of Ethnic Americans to try and determine a policy on these type of lists. Please join the discussion there. Thank you. Leuko 16:53, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Taiwanese Americans

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
List of Taiwanese Americans (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Portuguese Americans, relisting as individual AfD's. Precedent for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of German Americans. Leuko 18:25, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Japanese writers, List of sociologists, List of mayors of Toronto, List of political parties, List of members of the Riksdag, 2006-2010, List of liberal theorists, List of male performers in gay porn films, List of male boxers, List of mayors of Ottawa, List of tall women, List of horror fiction writers, List of cellists, etc, etc. Martintg 20:33, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletions. —Noroton 22:25, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Nominator has pasted the same argument on all nominations, setting a "precedent" for the rest of us to mindlessly do so. It's sourced, and the only reason that it's being nominated is that some asshole thinks there's a "precedent" based on two articles. Hey, on the articles that have been kept, is that a precedent too? Mandsford 23:05, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong, speedy keep - Important aid for researchers. We only include notable individuals in these lists and they are well sourced. As with previous ethnic group nominations, this nomination, apparently done along with dozens if not hundreds of others all in a single day, is disruptive, WP:POINT, and does not enhance our encyclopedia. Improve, don't delete. Badagnani 00:47, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete Use categories instead of lists.----DarkTea© 02:06, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. While Wikipedia may not be a compendium of lists, these listings are extraordinarily helpful with research, as those searching for individuals of a particular ethnic background can easily find specific individuals and possibly contrast with others in the article. These listings for deletion are disruptive, in my opinion. They smack of nationalism and seem to presume that Americans have no (or shouldn't have) interest in the extreme diversity of the ethnic fabric of America. ExRat 02:52, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It has s already been pointed out that these lists are greatly superior in their content and usability (being on a single page, with individuals broken down by occupation, complete with footnotes and references), for ease of navigation and finding the information they are looking for, for our users. Thus, your argument holds no water, and your continued assertion that "categories are just as good as lists" in this context shows bad faith against the editors who have repeatedly pointed out that this is clearly not the case for our users who rely on having this information readily available, and not blanked by presumptuous characters such as yourself. Badagnani 04:40, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Nomination Withdrawn. It has become apparent that individual nominations of each list of this type is pointless, and a consensus on what to do with the entire group of lists of this type is needed, which will result in a broader consensus with less work. I have created a discussion page at: Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups/Lists of Ethnic Americans to try and determine a policy on these type of lists. Please join the discussion there. Thank you. Leuko 16:52, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Turkish-Americans

[edit]
List of Turkish-Americans (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Portuguese Americans, relisting as individual AfD's. Precedent for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of German Americans. Leuko 18:25, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Japanese writers, List of sociologists, List of mayors of Toronto, List of political parties, List of members of the Riksdag, 2006-2010, List of liberal theorists, List of male performers in gay porn films, List of male boxers, List of mayors of Ottawa, List of tall women, List of horror fiction writers, List of cellists, etc, etc. Martintg 20:33, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Keep this, as well as all other list of citizens of USA by nationality. List is rich and informative. We aren't guilty that there're so many peoples on this world. At last, why do we have encyclopedias? Articles about so many things. Some things someone finds unimportant, but somebody other earns for living on those and makes millions of dollars out of that. In these lists, only the persons that are worth of mentioning should be there, not just "any man picked up from the street". At last, these info is useful. Do you know how many successful international business meetings and business cooperations (I mean all of them, from small shop and taxi cab events to statemen's meetings) began/became more appreciated, just because someone knew whome "belonged" certain "celebrity"? Kubura 22:20, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletions. —Noroton 22:26, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep As Leuko has thoughtfully noted, this article, unlike the others, is not sourced, which is, I assume, the reason that it's been nominated. However, I'm not as broadmined as Leuko. Why judge an article on its quality? NUKE EM ALL! Mandsford 23:07, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong, speedy keep - Important aid for researchers. We only include notable individuals in these lists and they are well sourced. As with previous ethnic group nominations, this nomination, apparently done along with dozens if not hundreds of others all in a single day, is disruptive, WP:POINT, and does not enhance our encyclopedia. Improve, don't delete. Badagnani 00:47, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete Use categories instead of lists.----DarkTea© 02:06, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. While Wikipedia may not be a compendium of lists, these listings are extraordinarily helpful with research, as those searching for individuals of a particular ethnic background can easily find specific individuals and possibly contrast with others in the article. These listings for deletion are disruptive, in my opinion. They smack of nationalism and seem to presume that Americans have no (or shouldn't have) interest in the extreme diversity of the ethnic fabric of America. ExRat 02:35, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. I agree with ExRat and Badagnani. In addition, this mass nomination is too POINTY. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 03:41, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It has s already been pointed out that these lists are greatly superior in their content and usability (being on a single page, with individuals broken down by occupation, complete with footnotes and references), for ease of navigation and finding the information they are looking for, for our users. Thus, your argument holds no water, and your continued assertion that "categories are just as good as lists" in this context shows bad faith against the editors who have repeatedly pointed out that this is clearly not the case for our users who rely on having this information readily available, and not blanked by presumptuous characters such as yourself. Badagnani 04:45, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Badagnani. I started inserting the sources, assuming we need them. You can help, they are supposed to be on their individual wiki-articles (if necessary). The ones I added are links for now (no citation template). Google became my friend, as usually editors do not give sources for ethnicity, the place of birth etc (maybe b/c nobody fact tags them). DenizTC 03:57, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Nomination Withdrawn. It has become apparent that individual nominations of each list of this type is pointless, and a consensus on what to do with the entire group of lists of this type is needed, which will result in a broader consensus with less work. I have created a discussion page at: Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups/Lists of Ethnic Americans to try and determine a policy on these type of lists. Please join the discussion there. Thank you. Leuko 16:50, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Scottish Americans

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

Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Portuguese Americans, relisting as individual AfD's. Precedent for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of German Americans. Leuko 18:24, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Japanese writers, List of sociologists, List of mayors of Toronto, List of political parties, List of members of the Riksdag, 2006-2010, List of liberal theorists, List of male performers in gay porn films, List of male boxers, List of mayors of Ottawa, List of tall women, List of horror fiction writers, List of cellists, etc, etc. Martintg 20:34, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It has s already been pointed out that these lists are greatly superior in their content and usability (being on a single page, with individuals broken down by occupation, complete with footnotes and references), for ease of navigation and finding the information they are looking for, for our users. Thus, your argument holds no water, and your continued assertion that "categories are just as good as lists" in this context shows bad faith against the editors who have repeatedly pointed out that this is clearly not the case for our users who rely on having this information readily available, and not blanked by presumptuous characters such as yourself. Badagnani 04:45, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Nomination Withdrawn. It has become apparent that individual nominations of each list of this type is pointless, and a consensus on what to do with the entire group of lists of this type is needed, which will result in a broader consensus with less work. I have created a discussion page at: Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups/Lists of Ethnic Americans to try and determine a policy on these type of lists. Please join the discussion there. Thank you. Leuko 16:49, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Scots-Irish Americans

[edit]
List of Scots-Irish Americans (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Portuguese Americans, relisting as individual AfD's. Precedent for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of German Americans. Leuko 18:23, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Japanese writers, List of sociologists, List of mayors of Toronto, List of political parties, List of members of the Riksdag, 2006-2010, List of liberal theorists, List of male performers in gay porn films, List of male boxers, List of mayors of Ottawa, List of tall women, List of horror fiction writers, List of cellists, etc, etc. Martintg 20:34, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletions. —Noroton 22:27, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Every American is of Scots-Irish descent, right? And this only has a couple of footnotes"? Nominator refers to some precedent. One year's subscription to Wikipedia to the first moron who notes that there could be "millions and millions" of people on this list. Oops, make that the second moron. Mandsford 23:12, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong, speedy keep - Notable subject and important aid for researchers. We only include notable individuals in these lists and they are well sourced. As with previous ethnic group nominations, this nomination, apparently done along with dozens if not hundreds of others all in a single day, is disruptive, WP:POINT, and does not enhance our encyclopedia. Improve, don't delete. Badagnani 00:47, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete Use categories instead of lists.----DarkTea© 02:06, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. While Wikipedia may not be a compendium of lists, these listings are extraordinarily helpful with research, as those searching for individuals of a particular ethnic background can easily find specific individuals and possibly contrast with others in the article. These listings for deletion are disruptive, in my opinion. They smack of nationalism and seem to presume that Americans have no (or shouldn't have) interest in the extreme diversity of the ethnic fabric of America. ExRat 02:57, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It has s already been pointed out that these lists are greatly superior in their content and usability (being on a single page, with individuals broken down by occupation, complete with footnotes and references), for ease of navigation and finding the information they are looking for, for our users. Thus, your argument holds no water, and your continued assertion that "categories are just as good as lists" in this context shows bad faith against the editors who have repeatedly pointed out that this is clearly not the case for our users who rely on having this information readily available, and not blanked by presumptuous characters such as yourself. Badagnani 04:38, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Nomination Withdrawn. It has become apparent that individual nominations of each list of this type is pointless, and a consensus on what to do with the entire group of lists of this type is needed, which will result in a broader consensus with less work. I have created a discussion page at: Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups/Lists of Ethnic Americans to try and determine a policy on these type of lists. Please join the discussion there. Thank you. Leuko 16:47, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Rusyn Americans

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

Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Portuguese Americans, relisting as individual AfD's. Precedent for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of German Americans. Leuko 18:23, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Japanese writers, List of sociologists, List of mayors of Toronto, List of political parties, List of members of the Riksdag, 2006-2010, List of liberal theorists, List of male performers in gay porn films, List of male boxers, List of mayors of Ottawa, List of tall women, List of horror fiction writers, List of cellists, etc, etc. Martintg 20:34, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletions. —Noroton 22:28, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Keep this, as well as all other list of citizens of USA by nationality. List is rich and informative. We aren't guilty that there're so many peoples on this world. At last, why do we have encyclopedias? Articles about so many things. Some things someone finds unimportant, but somebody other earns for living on those and makes millions of dollars out of that. In these lists, only the persons that are worth of mentioning should be there, not just "any man picked up from the street". At last, these info is useful. Do you know how many successful international business meetings and business cooperations (I mean all of them, from small shop and taxi cab events to statemen's meetings) began/became more appreciated, just because someone knew whome "belonged" certain "celebrity"? Kubura 22:32, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Since I don't know what a Rusyn is, maybe if we do a Munich Pact of some sort, we can have peace in our time. Mandsford 23:14, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. While Wikipedia may not be a compendium of lists, these listings are extraordinarily helpful with research, as those searching for individuals of a particular ethnic background can easily find specific individuals and possibly contrast with others in the article. These listings for deletion are disruptive, in my opinion. They smack of nationalism and seem to presume that Americans have no (or shouldn't have) interest in the extreme diversity of the ethnic fabric of America. ExRat 02:53, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. While Wikipedia may not be a compendium of lists, these listings are extraordinarily helpful with research, as those searching for individuals of a particular ethnic background can easily find specific individuals and possibly contrast with others in the article. These listings for deletion are disruptive, in my opinion. They smack of nationalism and seem to presume that Americans have no (or shouldn't have) interest in the extreme diversity of the ethnic fabric of America. ExRat 02:53, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong, speedy keep - These lists of notable Americans are important aids for researchers. We only include notable individuals in these lists and they are well sourced. As with previous ethnic group nominations, this nomination, apparently done along with dozens if not hundreds of others all in a single day, is disruptive, WP:POINT, and does not enhance our encyclopedia. Improve, don't delete. Badagnani 00:47, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete Use categories instead of lists.----DarkTea© 02:06, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. While Wikipedia may not be a compendium of lists, these listings are extraordinarily helpful with research, as those searching for individuals of a particular ethnic background can easily find specific individuals and possibly contrast with others in the article. These listings for deletion are disruptive, in my opinion. They smack of nationalism and seem to presume that Americans have no (or shouldn't have) interest in the extreme diversity of the ethnic fabric of America. ExRat 02:53, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It has s already been pointed out that these lists are greatly superior in their content and usability (being on a single page, with individuals broken down by occupation, complete with footnotes and references), for ease of navigation and finding the information they are looking for, for our users. Thus, your argument holds no water, and your continued assertion that "categories are just as good as lists" in this context shows bad faith against the editors who have repeatedly pointed out that this is clearly not the case for our users who rely on having this information readily available, and not blanked by presumptuous characters such as yourself. Badagnani 04:39, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Nomination Withdrawn. It has become apparent that individual nominations of each list of this type is pointless, and a consensus on what to do with the entire group of lists of this type is needed, which will result in a broader consensus with less work. I have created a discussion page at: Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups/Lists of Ethnic Americans to try and determine a policy on these type of lists. Please join the discussion there. Thank you. Leuko 16:46, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Russian Americans

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
List of Russian Americans (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Portuguese Americans, relisting as individual AfD's. Precedent for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of German Americans. Leuko 18:23, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Japanese writers, List of sociologists, List of mayors of Toronto, List of political parties, List of members of the Riksdag, 2006-2010, List of liberal theorists, List of male performers in gay porn films, List of male boxers, List of mayors of Ottawa, List of tall women, List of horror fiction writers, List of cellists, etc, etc. Martintg 20:35, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletions. —Noroton 22:29, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Keep this, as well as all other list of citizens of USA by nationality. List is rich and informative. We aren't guilty that there're so many peoples on this world. At last, why do we have encyclopedias? Articles about so many things. Some things someone finds unimportant, but somebody other earns for living on those and makes millions of dollars out of that. In these lists, only the persons that are worth of mentioning should be there, not just "any man picked up from the street". At last, these info is useful. Do you know how many successful international business meetings and business cooperations (I mean all of them, from small shop and taxi cab events to statemen's meetings) began/became more appreciated, just because someone knew whome "belonged" certain "celebrity"? Kubura 22:33, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Okay, so it's well sourced and everything, but since there was precedent for deleting the German-Americans, then the Russian-Americans need to go next. Sure, some of those were refugees who fled from Hitler and Stalin, but isn't that just "running away from your problems"? Keep, but leave the people who fled to America off of the list. Mandsford 23:17, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As better organized and sourced.--JForget 00:07, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong, speedy keep - Important aid for researchers seeking to find notable Americans of Russian ancestry, broken down by occupation. We only include notable individuals in these lists and they are well sourced. As with previous ethnic group nominations, this nomination, apparently done along with dozens if not hundreds of others all in a single day, is disruptive, WP:POINT, and does not enhance our encyclopedia. Improve, don't delete. Badagnani 00:47, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete Use categories instead of lists.----DarkTea© 02:06, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. While Wikipedia may not be a compendium of lists, these listings are extraordinarily helpful with research, as those searching for individuals of a particular ethnic background can easily find specific individuals and possibly contrast with others in the article. These listings for deletion are disruptive, in my opinion. They smack of nationalism and seem to presume that Americans have no (or shouldn't have) interest in the extreme diversity of the ethnic fabric of America. ExRat 02:27, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It has s already been pointed out that these lists are greatly superior in their content and usability (being on a single page, with individuals broken down by occupation, complete with footnotes and references), for ease of navigation and finding the information they are looking for, for our users. Thus, your argument holds no water, and your continued assertion that "categories are just as good as lists" in this context shows bad faith against the editors who have repeatedly pointed out that this is clearly not the case for our users who rely on having this information readily available, and not blanked by presumptuous characters such as yourself. Badagnani 04:47, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Nomination Withdrawn. It has become apparent that individual nominations of each list of this type is pointless, and a consensus on what to do with the entire group of lists of this type is needed, which will result in a broader consensus with less work. I have created a discussion page at: Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups/Lists of Ethnic Americans to try and determine a policy on these type of lists. Please join the discussion there. Thank you. Leuko 16:45, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Romanian Americans

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

Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Portuguese Americans, relisting as individual AfD's. Precedent for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of German Americans. Leuko 18:22, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Japanese writers, List of sociologists, List of mayors of Toronto, List of political parties, List of members of the Riksdag, 2006-2010, List of liberal theorists, List of male performers in gay porn films, List of male boxers, List of mayors of Ottawa, List of tall women, List of horror fiction writers, List of cellists, etc, etc. Martintg 20:35, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Keep this, as well as all other list of citizens of USA by nationality. List is rich and informative. We aren't guilty that there're so many peoples on this world. At last, why do we have encyclopedias? Articles about so many things. Some things someone finds unimportant, but somebody other earns for living on those and makes millions of dollars out of that. In these lists, only the persons that are worth of mentioning should be there, not just "any man picked up from the street". At last, these info is useful. Do you know how many successful international business meetings and business cooperations (I mean all of them, from small shop and taxi cab events to statemen's meetings) began/became more appreciated, just because someone knew whome "belonged" certain "celebrity"? Kubura 22:20, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletions. —Noroton 22:30, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Well sourced. However, if you don't know any Romanian-Americans, however, you MUST vote for delete, based on a precedent that I just made up. Mandsford 23:20, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Looks more organized and more sourced then previous ones that I had voted delete before - and also the outcome looks obviously heading for WP:SNOW.--JForget 00:06, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong, speedy keep - Important aid for researchers. We only include notable individuals in these lists and they are well sourced. As with previous ethnic group nominations, this nomination, apparently done along with dozens if not hundreds of others all in a single day, is disruptive, WP:POINT, and does not enhance our encyclopedia. Improve, don't delete. Badagnani Badagnani 01:09, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete Use categories instead of lists.----DarkTea© 02:06, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stronge Keep. While Wikipedia may not be a compendium of lists, these listings are extraordinarily helpful with research, as those searching for individuals of a particular ethnic background can easily find specific individuals and possibly contrast with others in the article. These listings for deletion are disruptive, in my opinion. They smack of nationalism and seem to presume that Americans have no (or shouldn't have) interest in the extreme diversity of the ethnic fabric of America.ExRat 02:27, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It has s already been pointed out that these lists are greatly superior in their content and usability (being on a single page, with individuals broken down by occupation, complete with footnotes and references), for ease of navigation and finding the information they are looking for, for our users. Thus, your argument holds no water, and your continued assertion that "categories are just as good as lists" in this context shows bad faith against the editors who have repeatedly pointed out that this is clearly not the case for our users who rely on having this information readily available, and not blanked by presumptuous characters such as yourself. Badagnani 04:46, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Nomination Withdrawn. It has become apparent that individual nominations of each list of this type is pointless, and a consensus on what to do with the entire group of lists of this type is needed, which will result in a broader consensus with less work. I have created a discussion page at: Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups/Lists of Ethnic Americans to try and determine a policy on these type of lists. Please join the discussion there. Thank you. Leuko 16:44, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Polish Americans

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
List of Polish Americans (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Portuguese Americans, relisting as individual AfD's. Precedent for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of German Americans. Leuko 18:22, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Japanese writers, List of sociologists, List of mayors of Toronto, List of political parties, List of members of the Riksdag, 2006-2010, List of liberal theorists, List of male performers in gay porn films, List of male boxers, List of mayors of Ottawa, List of tall women, List of horror fiction writers, List of cellists, etc, etc. Martintg 20:35, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Keep this, as well as all other list of citizens of USA by nationality. List is rich and informative. We aren't guilty that there're so many peoples on this world. At last, why do we have encyclopedias? Articles about so many things. Some things someone finds unimportant, but somebody other earns for living on those and makes millions of dollars out of that. In these lists, only the persons that are worth of mentioning should be there, not just "any man picked up from the street". At last, these info is useful. Do you know how many successful international business meetings and business cooperations (I mean all of them, from small shop and taxi cab events to statemen's meetings) began/became more appreciated, just because someone knew whome "belonged" certain "celebrity"? Kubura 22:16, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletions. —Noroton 22:31, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to "List of Polacks" Mandsford 23:19, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as organized and well-source, although the list is starting to get a bit too long though.--JForget 00:08, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong, speedy keep - Important aid for researchers. This was nominated before and repeated nomination is not helpful to our project. We only include notable individuals in these lists and they are well sourced. As with previous ethnic group nominations, this nomination, apparently done along with dozens if not hundreds of others all in a single day, is disruptive, WP:POINT, and does not enhance our encyclopedia. Improve, don't delete. Badagnani 01:10, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete Use categories instead of lists.----DarkTea© 02:06, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. While Wikipedia may not be a compendium of lists, these listings are extraordinarily helpful with research, as those searching for individuals of a particular ethnic background can easily find specific individuals and possibly contrast with others in the article. These listings for deletion are disruptive, in my opinion. They smack of nationalism and seem to presume that Americans have no (or shouldn't have) interest in the extreme diversity of the ethnic fabric of America. ExRat 02:35, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It has s already been pointed out that these lists are greatly superior in their content and usability (being on a single page, with individuals broken down by occupation, complete with footnotes and references), for ease of navigation and finding the information they are looking for, for our users. Thus, your argument holds no water, and your continued assertion that "categories are just as good as lists" in this context shows bad faith against the editors who have repeatedly pointed out that this is clearly not the case for our users who rely on having this information readily available, and not blanked by presumptuous characters such as yourself. Badagnani 04:44, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Nomination Withdrawn. It has become apparent that individual nominations of each list of this type is pointless, and a consensus on what to do with the entire group of lists of this type is needed, which will result in a broader consensus with less work. I have created a discussion page at: Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups/Lists of Ethnic Americans to try and determine a policy on these type of lists. Please join the discussion there. Thank you. Leuko 16:43, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Native Hawaiians

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

Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Portuguese Americans, relisting as individual AfD's. Precedent for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of German Americans. Leuko 18:21, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Japanese writers, List of sociologists, List of mayors of Toronto, List of political parties, List of members of the Riksdag, 2006-2010, List of liberal theorists, List of male performers in gay porn films, List of male boxers, List of mayors of Ottawa, List of tall women, List of horror fiction writers, List of cellists, etc, etc. Martintg 20:36, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletions. —Noroton 22:32, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Wiki-wiki keepi Not sourced, so it HAS to be original research, probably consisting of an author listing all the people that he or she THINKS are Native Hawaiians, which violates WP:OR Mandsford 23:24, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong, speedy keep - Encyclopedic and essential for researchers studying Hawaiian history and culture. How much more Wikipedian could it be to keep this, and how much less to nominate it for deletion? This was nominated before and repeated nomination is not helpful to our project. We only include notable individuals in these lists and they are well sourced. As with previous ethnic group nominations, this nomination, apparently done along with dozens if not hundreds of others all in a single day, is disruptive, WP:POINT, and does not enhance our encyclopedia. Improve, don't delete. Badagnani 01:11, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete Use categories instead of lists.----DarkTea© 02:06, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. While Wikipedia may not be a compendium of lists, these listings are extraordinarily helpful with research, as those searching for individuals of a particular ethnic background can easily find specific individuals and possibly contrast with others in the article. These listings for deletion are disruptive, in my opinion. They smack of nationalism and seem to presume that Americans have no (or shouldn't have) interest in the extreme diversity of the ethnic fabric of America. ExRat 02:51, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It has s already been pointed out that these lists are greatly superior in their content and usability (being on a single page, with individuals broken down by occupation, complete with footnotes and references), for ease of navigation and finding the information they are looking for, for our users. Thus, your argument holds no water, and your continued assertion that "categories are just as good as lists" in this context shows bad faith against the editors who have repeatedly pointed out that this is clearly not the case for our users who rely on having this information readily available, and not blanked by presumptuous characters such as yourself. Badagnani 04:40, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Nomination Withdrawn. It has become apparent that individual nominations of each list of this type is pointless, and a consensus on what to do with the entire group of lists of this type is needed, which will result in a broader consensus with less work. I have created a discussion page at: Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups/Lists of Ethnic Americans to try and determine a policy on these type of lists. Please join the discussion there. Thank you. Leuko 16:41, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Native Americans

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
List of Native Americans (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Portuguese Americans, relisting as individual AfD's. Precedent for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of German Americans. Leuko 18:21, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Keep How many times are we going to keep nominating this article for deletion? this is a notable ethnic group, and that a list of German Americans was deleted does not mean this list should be deleted. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:40, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: An article on the ethnicity would be encyclopedic and welcome, however, apparently the new consensus is that these list of people by nationality/ethnicity are not appropriate for WP. Leuko 18:48, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not sure I see such consensus anywhere. In fact, the List of German American AfD actually had more Keep votes than Delete votes, if I counted correctly. The closing admin's argument for deletion was loose association, and I highly disagree with the application of that argument on some of the lists (not all) that have been individually nominated for deletion. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:52, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, WP:AFD is not a vote (so counting is irrelevant), and the deletion decision was upheld at WP:DRV, so there must have been consensus. There were actually more arguments to delete other than WP:NOT#DIR, but since you bring that up, I don't see how any other list of persons of a certain nationality, ethnicity or religion are any more tightly associated, and less of a directory. Leuko 19:04, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • And the deletion of List of British Chinese people was overturned, relisted for AfD, and kept. Like I said, the fact that a list of German Americans was deleted does not mean all similar lists should be deleted. Furthermore, I did not say that AfDs are decided on vote count, I am saying I see no consensus established regarding these lists, and that I disagree with the application of the closing admin's argument of loose association on some of these lists. WP:NOT#DIR is not applicable here as you can see from the examples given in the policy that it pertains to articles or lists providing contact information and otherwise consumer-related information or how-to information. This is not such a list. And the whole point of listing these lists individually as opposed to en masse in the first place is because some of these lists should be kept and others deleted. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 19:24, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Maybe it's just me, but I don't understand how some lists should be kept and others deleted. If we apply the same objective criteria to these lists, since they are all essentially the same, shouldn't they all be deleted? Leuko 19:29, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Does this article make the encyclopedia better? I think it does. Smmurphy(Talk) 19:12, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep, The rationale for deletion given in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of German Americans was WP:NOT#DIR. So these lists below should also be deleted if we want to be consistent:
List of Japanese writers, List of sociologists, List of mayors of Toronto, List of political parties, List of members of the Riksdag, 2006-2010, List of liberal theorists, List of male performers in gay porn films, List of male boxers, List of mayors of Ottawa, List of tall women, List of horror fiction writers, List of cellists, etc, etc. Martintg 20:36, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Add to that sublists of this list, List of Native American leaders and List of Native American musicians.Smmurphy(Talk) 20:40, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Keep this, as well as all other list of citizens of USA by nationality. List is rich and informative. We aren't guilty that there're so many peoples on this world. At last, why do we have encyclopedias (where on this Earth you can find such info? Wikipedia provides us that, and now someone wants to delete this??)? Articles about so many things. Some things someone finds unimportant, but somebody other earns for living on those and makes millions of dollars out of that. In these lists, only the persons that are worth of mentioning should be there, not just "any man picked up from the street". At last, these info is useful. Do you know how many successful international business meetings and business cooperations (I mean all of them, from small shop and taxi cab events to statemen's meetings) began/became more appreciated, just because someone knew whome "belonged" certain "celebrity"? Native Americans were "deleted" once. We don't have to repeat that stupidity. Kubura 22:26, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletions. —Noroton 22:32, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete Gosh, this list will include hundreds of millions of entries. Not only that, it's UNMAINTAINABLE because every time someone is born in the United States there's another native American. Nobody has the time to edit this article every time someone is born. My God, there are thousands of babies born every day in America. It's unmaintainable! It's unmaintainable!! Mandsford 23:28, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that is why we have a notability policy, if every fact there ever was went into this encyclopedia, some might find wikipedia itself unmaintainable, you know. ; ) Smmurphy(Talk) 23:42, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong, speedy keep - Important aid for researchers looking at the indigenous peoples of the United States. We only include notable individuals in these lists and they are well sourced. As with previous ethnic group nominations, this nomination, apparently done along with dozens if not hundreds of others all in a single day, is disruptive, WP:POINT, and does not enhance our encyclopedia. Improve, don't delete. Badagnani 01:12, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. While Wikipedia may not be a compendium of lists, these listings are extraordinarily helpful with research, as those searching for individuals of a particular ethnic background can easily find specific individuals and possibly contrast with others in the article. These listings for deletion are disruptive, in my opinion. They smack of nationalism and seem to presume that Americans have no (or shouldn't have) interest in the extreme diversity of the ethnic fabric of America. ExRat 02:08, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It has s already been pointed out that these lists are greatly superior in their content and usability (being on a single page, with individuals broken down by occupation, complete with footnotes and references), for ease of navigation and finding the information they are looking for, for our users. Thus, your argument holds no water, and your continued assertion that "categories are just as good as lists" in this context shows bad faith against the editors who have repeatedly pointed out that this is clearly not the case for our users who rely on having this information readily available, and not blanked by presumptuous characters such as yourself. Badagnani 04:48, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. 
Leuko 16:41, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Nomination Withdrawn. It has become apparent that individual nominations of each list of this type is pointless, and a consensus on what to do with the entire group of lists of this type is needed, which will result in a broader consensus with less work. I have created a discussion page at: Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups/Lists of Ethnic Americans to try and determine a policy on these type of lists. Please join the discussion there. Thank you. Leuko 16:40, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Louisiana Creoles

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

Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Portuguese Americans, relisting as individual AfD's. Precedent for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of German Americans. Leuko 18:20, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Japanese writers, List of sociologists, List of mayors of Toronto, List of political parties, List of members of the Riksdag, 2006-2010, List of liberal theorists, List of male performers in gay porn films, List of male boxers, List of mayors of Ottawa, List of tall women, List of horror fiction writers, List of cellists, etc, etc. Martintg 20:37, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong, speedy keep - Important aid for researchers. We only include notable individuals in these lists and they are well sourced. As with previous ethnic group nominations, this nomination, apparently done along with dozens if not hundreds of others all in a single day, is disruptive, WP:POINT, and does not enhance our encyclopedia. Improve, don't delete. Badagnani 01:13, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete Use categories instead of lists.----DarkTea© 02:06, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. While Wikipedia may not be a compendium of lists, these listings are extraordinarily helpful with research, as those searching for individuals of a particular ethnic background can easily find specific individuals and possibly contrast with others in the article. These listings for deletion are disruptive, in my opinion. They smack of nationalism and seem to presume that Americans have no (or shouldn't have) interest in the extreme diversity of the ethnic fabric of America. ExRat 02:59, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It has s already been pointed out that these lists are greatly superior in their content and usability (being on a single page, with individuals broken down by occupation, complete with footnotes and references), for ease of navigation and finding the information they are looking for, for our users. Thus, your argument holds no water, and your continued assertion that "categories are just as good as lists" in this context shows bad faith against the editors who have repeatedly pointed out that this is clearly not the case for our users who rely on having this information readily available, and not blanked by presumptuous characters such as yourself. Badagnani 04:43, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Nomination Withdrawn. It has become apparent that individual nominations of each list of this type is pointless, and a consensus on what to do with the entire group of lists of this type is needed, which will result in a broader consensus with less work. I have created a discussion page at: Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups/Lists of Ethnic Americans to try and determine a policy on these type of lists. Please join the discussion there. Thank you. Leuko 16:39, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Mexican Americans

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

Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Portuguese Americans, relisting as individual AfD's. Precedent for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of German Americans. Leuko 18:19, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Japanese writers, List of sociologists, List of mayors of Toronto, List of political parties, List of members of the Riksdag, 2006-2010, List of liberal theorists, List of male performers in gay porn films, List of male boxers, List of mayors of Ottawa, List of tall women, List of horror fiction writers, List of cellists, etc, etc. Martintg 20:37, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletions. —Noroton 22:34, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete Gosh, this list will include hundreds of millions of entries. Not only that, it's UNMAINTAINABLE because every time someone sneaks across the border into the United States there's another Mexican-American. Nobody has the time to edit this article every time someone crosses the Rio Grande or climbs a fence. My God, there are thousands of Mexicans crossing every day into America. It's unmaintainable! It's unmaintainable!! Mandsford 23:28, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Do those people "sneaking across the border" daily have Wiki articles? Why on earth would non-notable illegal aliens have Wiki articles written about them making this list unmaintainable? Why would anyone need to "have the time to edit this article every time someone crosses the Rio Grande."????? Why would these people even have individual articles wriiten about them???? ExRat 02:23, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong, speedy keep - Important aid for researchers. We only include notable individuals in these lists and they are well sourced. As with previous ethnic group nominations, this nomination, apparently done along with dozens if not hundreds of others all in a single day, is disruptive, WP:POINT, and does not enhance our encyclopedia. Improve, don't delete. Badagnani 01:13, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete Use categories instead of lists.----DarkTea© 02:06, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep.While Wikipedia may not be a compendium of lists, these listings are extraordinarily helpful with research, as those searching for individuals of a particular ethnic background can easily find specific individuals and possibly contrast with others in the article. These listings for deletion are disruptive, in my opinion. They smack of nationalism and seem to presume that Americans have no (or shouldn't have) interest in the extreme diversity of the ethnic fabric of America. ExRat 02:23, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It has s already been pointed out that these lists are greatly superior in their content and usability (being on a single page, with individuals broken down by occupation, complete with footnotes and references), for ease of navigation and finding the information they are looking for, for our users. Thus, your argument holds no water, and your continued assertion that "categories are just as good as lists" in this context shows bad faith against the editors who have repeatedly pointed out that this is clearly not the case for our users who rely on having this information readily available, and not blanked by presumptuous characters such as yourself. Badagnani 04:47, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Nomination Withdrawn. It has become apparent that individual nominations of each list of this type is pointless, and a consensus on what to do with the entire group of lists of this type is needed, which will result in a broader consensus with less work. I have created a discussion page at: Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups/Lists of Ethnic Americans to try and determine a policy on these type of lists. Please join the discussion there. Thank you. Leuko 16:37, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Laotian Americans

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
List of Laotian Americans (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Portuguese Americans, relisting as individual AfD's. Precedent for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of German Americans. Leuko 18:19, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Keep How many times are we going to keep nominating this article for deletion? This is a notable ethnic group, and that a list of German Americans was deleted does not mean this list should be deleted. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:40, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: An article on the ethnicity would be encyclopedic and welcome, however, apparently the new consensus is that these list of people by nationality/ethnicity are not appropriate for WP. Leuko 18:45, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not sure I see such consensus anywhere. In fact, the List of German American AfD actually had more Keep votes than Delete votes, if I counted correctly. The closing admin's argument for deletion was loose association, and I highly disagree with the application of that argument on some of the lists (not all) that have been individually nominated for deletion. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:52, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, WP:AFD is not a vote (so counting is irrelevant), and the deletion decision was upheld at WP:DRV, so there must have been consensus. There were actually more arguments to delete other than WP:NOT#DIR, but since you bring that up, I don't see how any other list of persons of a certain nationality, ethnicity or religion are any more tightly associated, and less of a directory. Leuko 19:01, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • And the deletion of List of British Chinese people was overturned, relisted for AfD, and kept. Like I said, the fact that a list of German Americans was deleted does not mean all similar lists should be deleted. Furthermore, I did not say that AfDs are decided on vote count, I am saying I see no consensus established regarding these lists, and that I disagree with the application of the closing admin's argument of loose association on some of these lists. WP:NOT#DIR is not applicable here as you can see from the examples given in the policy that it pertains to articles or lists providing contact information and otherwise consumer-related information or how-to information. This is not such a list. And the whole point of listing these lists individually as opposed to en masse in the first place is because some of these lists should be kept and others deleted. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 19:26, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Actually, that was closed as no-consensus, which is not the same as keep. And the closing admin cited precedent of other lists of the same type being kept. By that logic, all these lists, including List of British Chinese people should be deleted per the new consensus and precedent. And I am not sure why we had to list each individually, as it seems we are making the same comments on each individual AfD, so evidently, there really isn't a significant difference between them. Leuko 19:41, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep, The rationale for deletion given in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of German Americans was WP:NOT#DIR. So these lists below should also be deleted if we want to be consistent:
List of Japanese writers, List of sociologists, List of mayors of Toronto, List of political parties, List of members of the Riksdag, 2006-2010, List of liberal theorists, List of male performers in gay porn films, List of male boxers, List of mayors of Ottawa, List of tall women, List of horror fiction writers, List of cellists, etc, etc. Martintg 20:37, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm neutral, but (unlike many other ethnic-group lists) this list is short enough that it could be easily merged with Laotian Americans, which is also very short. May or may not be the best option. Something to think about. We certainly often have lists of various types within articles in order to help illustrate examples.Noroton 21:11, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Editors considering this should know that the closing admin for this discussion could do exactly what the closing admin did in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of German Americans — look at arguments that tied in with Wikipedia policy and discount the keep arguments that did not. (See Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators#Rough consensus for how that's done.) The last item in WP:NOT#DIR was the crucial element in the closing admin's reasoning. IMHO, if editors who want to keep this list can provide good counter-arguments that (1) tie in with some Wikipedia policy and guidelines, or maybe at least (2) tie in with overriding, important Wikipedia encyclopedic goals, then it could save this article. Or perhaps an argument can be made that WP:NOT#DIR just doesn't apply. If none of that is done, this article is probably a goner. As I said, I'm neutral. Noroton 21:15, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletions. —Noroton 22:35, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep It could be better sourced. But even if it is, there's "a new consensus" if not a "new world order". We're getting rid of the Vietnamese, and Laos was right next door to them. Mandsford 23:34, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong, speedy keep - Important aid for researchers seeking to find information about notable Americans of Laotian origin. We only include notable individuals in these lists and they are well sourced. As with previous ethnic group nominations, this nomination, apparently done along with dozens if not hundreds of others all in a single day, is disruptive, WP:POINT, and does not enhance our encyclopedia. Editor apparently presumes that all Americans should simply be "American," and their national origin should be ignored. This attempt to inject political POV into the Wiki should be eschewed in the strongest terms. Improve, don't delete. Badagnani 01:14, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete Use categories instead of lists.----DarkTea© 02:06, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. While Wikipedia may not be a compendium of lists, these listings are extraordinarily helpful with research, as those searching for individuals of a particular ethnic background can easily find specific individuals and possibly contrast with others in the article. These listings for deletion are disruptive, in my opinion. They smack of nationalism and seem to presume that Americans have no (or shouldn't have) interest in the extreme diversity of the ethnic fabric of America. ExRat 02:47, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It has s already been pointed out that these lists are greatly superior in their content and usability (being on a single page, with individuals broken down by occupation, complete with footnotes and references), for ease of navigation and finding the information they are looking for, for our users. Thus, your argument holds no water, and your continued assertion that "categories are just as good as lists" in this context shows bad faith against the editors who have repeatedly pointed out that this is clearly not the case for our users who rely on having this information readily available, and not blanked by presumptuous characters such as yourself. Badagnani 04:42, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Nomination Withdrawn. It has become apparent that individual nominations of each list of this type is pointless, and a consensus on what to do with the entire group of lists of this type is needed, which will result in a broader consensus with less work. I have created a discussion page at: Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups/Lists of Ethnic Americans to try and determine a policy on these type of lists. Please join the discussion there. Thank you. Leuko 16:36, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of American Jews

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

Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Portuguese Americans, relisting as individual AfD's. Precedent for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of German Americans. Leuko 18:18, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Notable ethnic group, and that a list of German Americans was deleted does not mean this list should be deleted. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:39, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: An article on the ethnicity would be encyclopedic and welcome, however, apparently the new consensus is that these list of people by nationality/ethnicity are not appropriate for WP. Leuko 18:44, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not sure I see such consensus anywhere. In fact, the List of German American AfD actually had more Keep votes than Delete votes, if I counted correctly. The closing admin's argument for deletion was loose association, and I highly disagree with the application of that argument on some of the lists (not all) that have been individually nominated for deletion. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:52, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, WP:AFD is not a vote (so counting is irrelevant), and the deletion decision was upheld at WP:DRV, so there must have been consensus. There were actually more arguments to delete other than WP:NOT#DIR, but since you bring that up, I don't see how any other list of persons of a certain nationality, ethnicity or religion are any more tightly associated, and less of a directory. Leuko 19:01, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • And the deletion of List of British Chinese people was overturned, relisted for AfD, and kept. Like I said, the fact that a list of German Americans was deleted does not mean all similar lists should be deleted. Furthermore, I did not say that AfDs are decided on vote count, I am saying I see no consensus established regarding these lists, and that I disagree with the application of the closing admin's argument of loose association on some of these lists. WP:NOT#DIR is not applicable here as you can see from the examples given in the policy that it pertains to articles or lists providing contact information and otherwise consumer-related information or how-to information. This is not such a list. And the whole point of listing these lists individually as opposed to en masse in the first place is because some of these lists should be kept and others deleted. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 19:26, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Actually, that was closed as no-consensus, which is not the same as keep. And the closing admin cited precedent of other lists of the same type being kept. By that logic, all these lists, including List of British Chinese people should be deleted per the new consensus and precedent. And I am not sure why we had to list each individually, as it seems we are making the same comments on each individual AfD, so evidently, there really isn't a significant difference between them. Leuko 19:41, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • My two cents: Consensus from other deletion discussions is a weak argument here either for or against. No one is obligated to look at past discussions in order to decide to support or oppose keeping this article. On the other hand, the closing admin for this discussion may use the reasoning of the closing admin in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of German Americans. That closing admin did cite WP:NOT#DIR as grounds for deletion, but the admin was able to do so because that argument wasn't countered in that discussion. The last item in WP:NOT#DIR was the crucial element in the closing admin's reasoning, and that section specifically cited List of Jewish American musicians as an example of something to which the rule did not apply. It seems to me the clear implication of that example was that something like this article falls under that rule. Yet that does not mean this list is a goner. IMHO, if editors who want to keep this list can provide good counter-arguments to both WP:NOT#DIR and the reasoning of the closing admin in the "List of German Americans" deletion discussion, then it would be extremely difficult for the closing admin of this discussion to close as a delete (assuming there is no clear consensus to delete). Those arguments should (1) tie in with Wikipedia policy and guidelines, and (2) tie in with overall Wikipedia encyclopedic goals. If that isn't done, this list could go the same way as the now-deleted "List of German Americans". (See Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators#Rough consensus.) I'm so foolish for not looking at the article first. This is a list of lists. The only argument should be over whether this is useful as a list of lists or whether a category should be used instead. Note that WP:NOT#DIR, last item, specifically endorses one of the lists itemized on this list. As for me, I'm neutral. Noroton 20:36, 12 September 2007 (UTC) ((fixed link Noroton 20:38, 12 September 2007 (UTC))) ((fixed foolishness. Noroton 20:44, 12 September 2007 (UTC)))[reply]
  • Speedy Keep, The rationale for deletion given in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of German Americans was WP:NOT#DIR. So these lists below should also be deleted if we want to be consistent:
List of Japanese writers, List of sociologists, List of mayors of Toronto, List of political parties, List of members of the Riksdag, 2006-2010, List of liberal theorists, List of male performers in gay porn films, List of male boxers, List of mayors of Ottawa, List of tall women, List of horror fiction writers, List of cellists, etc, etc. Martintg 20:38, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletions. —Noroton 22:35, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete Seriously, I think Jerko might have a point on this one, although it's been lumped in with all the other ethnic lists. In this case, however, it's a "list of lists" where someone has made separate lists of Philosophers, Social and political scientists, Linguists, Psychologists, Economists, Historians, Physicists, Chemists, Biologists and physicians, Mathematicians, Computer scientists, Engineers (that's just the first 14) that happen to be Jewish. Thus, you can navigate over to "List of Jewish American linguists" if you care to do so, and that's a bit excessive. I state this based on the fact that I've actually LOOKED at the article in question. This one defies the use of the rubber stamped, cut and paste comment that comes about when someone nominates a zillion articles on the same day. While most of the others are keepers, this should be deleted. Mandsford 23:40, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong, speedy keep - Important aid for researchers. We only include notable individuals in these lists and they are well sourced. As with previous ethnic group nominations, this nomination, apparently done along with dozens if not hundreds of others all in a single day, is disruptive, WP:POINT, and does not enhance our encyclopedia. Editor apparently presumes that all Americans should simply be "American," and their ethnic/religious origin should be ignored. This attempt to inject political POV into the Wiki should be eschewed in the strongest terms. Improve, don't delete. Badagnani 01:15, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete Use categories instead of lists.----DarkTea© 02:06, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. I agree with ExRat and Badagnani. In addition, this mass nomination is too POINTY. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 03:47, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • STRONG KEEP ALL Elmao 06:03, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Nomination Withdrawn. It has become apparent that individual nominations of each list of this type is pointless, and a consensus on what to do with the entire group of lists of this type is needed, which will result in a broader consensus with less work. I have created a discussion page at: Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups/Lists of Ethnic Americans to try and determine a policy on these type of lists. Please join the discussion there. Thank you. Leuko 16:35, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Japanese Americans

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

Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Portuguese Americans, relisting as individual AfD's. Precedent for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of German Americans. Leuko 18:18, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Notable ethnic group, and that a list of German Americans was deleted does not mean this list should be deleted. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:39, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: An article on the ethnicity would be encyclopedic and welcome, however, apparently the new consensus is that these list of people by nationality/ethnicity are not appropriate for WP. Leuko 18:44, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not sure I see such consensus anywhere. In fact, the List of German American AfD actually had more Keep votes than Delete votes, if I counted correctly. The closing admin's argument for deletion was loose association, and I highly disagree with the application of that argument on some of the lists (not all) that have been individually nominated for deletion. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:53, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, WP:AFD is not a vote (so counting is irrelevant), and the deletion decision was upheld at WP:DRV, so there must have been consensus. There were actually more arguments to delete other than WP:NOT#DIR, but since you bring that up, I don't see how any other list of persons of a certain nationality, ethnicity or religion are any more tightly associated, and less of a directory. Leuko 19:01, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • And the deletion of List of British Chinese people was overturned, relisted for AfD, and kept. Like I said, the fact that a list of German Americans was deleted does not mean all similar lists should be deleted. Furthermore, I did not say that AfDs are decided on vote count, I am saying I see no consensus established regarding these lists, and that I disagree with the application of the closing admin's argument of loose association on some of these lists. WP:NOT#DIR is not applicable here as you can see from the examples given in the policy that it pertains to articles or lists providing contact information and otherwise consumer-related information or how-to information. This is not such a list. And the whole point of listing these lists individually as opposed to en masse in the first place is because some of these lists should be kept and others deleted. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 19:26, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Actually, that was closed as no-consensus, which is not the same as keep. And the closing admin cited precedent of other lists of the same type being kept. By that logic, all these lists, including List of British Chinese people should be deleted per the new consensus and precedent. And I am not sure why we had to list each individually, as it seems we are making the same comments on each individual AfD, so evidently, there really isn't a significant difference between them. Leuko 19:41, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep, The rationale for deletion given in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of German Americans was WP:NOT#DIR. So these lists below should also be deleted if we want to be consistent:
List of Japanese writers, List of sociologists, List of mayors of Toronto, List of political parties, List of members of the Riksdag, 2006-2010, List of liberal theorists, List of male performers in gay porn films, List of male boxers, List of mayors of Ottawa, List of tall women, List of horror fiction writers, List of cellists, etc, etc. Martintg 20:39, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletions. —Noroton 22:37, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Internment camp Hey, there's a precedent for this.... FDR compiled a List of Japanese Americans during World War II. Mandsford 23:43, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong, speedy keep - Important aid for researchers. We only include notable individuals in these lists and they are well sourced. As with previous ethnic group nominations, this nomination, apparently done along with dozens if not hundreds of others all in a single day, is disruptive, WP:POINT, and does not enhance our encyclopedia. Editor apparently presumes that all Americans should simply be "American," and their national origin should be ignored. This attempt to inject political POV into the Wiki should be eschewed in the strongest terms. Improve, don't delete. Badagnani 01:15, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep -- Fuzheado | Talk 02:05, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete Use categories instead of lists.----DarkTea© 02:06, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. While Wikipedia may not be a compendium of lists, these listings are extraordinarily helpful with research, as those searching for individuals of a particular ethnic background can easily find specific individuals and possibly contrast with others in the article. These listings for deletion are disruptive, in my opinion. They smack of nationalism and seem to presume that Americans have no (or shouldn't have) interest in the extreme diversity of the ethnic fabric of America. ExRat 02:30, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It has s already been pointed out that these lists are greatly superior in their content and usability (being on a single page, with individuals broken down by occupation, complete with footnotes and references), for ease of navigation and finding the information they are looking for, for our users. Thus, your argument holds no water, and your continued assertion that "categories are just as good as lists" in this context shows bad faith against the editors who have repeatedly pointed out that this is clearly not the case for our users who rely on having this information readily available, and not blanked by presumptuous characters such as yourself. Badagnani 04:46, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Nomination Withdrawn. It has become apparent that individual nominations of each list of this type is pointless, and a consensus on what to do with the entire group of lists of this type is needed, which will result in a broader consensus with less work. I have created a discussion page at: Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups/Lists of Ethnic Americans to try and determine a policy on these type of lists. Please join the discussion there. Thank you. Leuko 16:32, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Jamaican Americans

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

Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Portuguese Americans, relisting as individual AfD's. Precedent for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of German Americans. Leuko 18:18, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Japanese writers, List of sociologists, List of mayors of Toronto, List of political parties, List of members of the Riksdag, 2006-2010, List of liberal theorists, List of male performers in gay porn films, List of male boxers, List of mayors of Ottawa, List of tall women, List of horror fiction writers, List of cellists, etc, etc. Martintg 20:39, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletions. —Noroton 22:37, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think an administrator should look at the havoc that this one person has caused. I don't think we can really take time to consider other articles when we've had one person nominate at least 49 articles about ethnic groups, based on some bizarre idea that Wikipedia has created some change in its rules based on a "precedent". The guy might have a point on "Lists of American Jews" because it's not a list of American Jews, it's a list of LISTS. But 49 articles in one day?

1Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Ukrainian Americans 2Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Welsh Americans 3Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Vietnamese Americans (2nd nomination) 4Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Taiwanese Americans (2nd nomination) 5Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Turkish-Americans 6Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Scottish Americans 7Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Scots-Irish Americans 8Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Rusyn Americans 9Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Russian Americans (2nd nomination) 10Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Romanian Americans 11Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Polish Americans (2nd nomination) 12Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Native Hawaiians 13Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Native Americans (2nd nomination) 14Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Louisiana Creoles 15Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Mexican Americans 16Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Laotian Americans (2nd nomination) 17Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lists of American Jews 18Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Japanese Americans 19Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jamaican Americans 20Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Israeli Americans 21Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lists of Irish-Americans (2nd nomination) 22Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Indian Americans (2nd nomination) 23Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Hmong Americans 24Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Greek-Americans 25Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Filipino Americans (2nd nomination) 26Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Estonian Americans 27Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Dutch Americans 28Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Cuban Americans 29Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Croatian Americans 30Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Cambodian Americans 31Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Cajuns 32Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Bulgarian Americans 33Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Brazilian Americans 34Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Bangladeshi Americans 35Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Bahamian Americans (2nd nomination) 36Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Austrian Americans 37Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Armenian Americans 38Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Argentine Americans 39Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Arab Americans 40Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Albanian Americans 41Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lists of African Americans 42Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Brazilian Jews 43Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Chilean Jews HALFTIMEWikipedia:Articles for deletion/Right-wing Authoritarianism 44Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Argentine Jews 45Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Latin American Jews 46Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Asian Americans 47Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of French Americans (3rd nomination) 48Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Italian Americans (2nd nomination) 49Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Korean Americans

I pity the closing administrator who has to handle this one. Mandsford 23:55, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An admin requested that each list be listed individually. Personally, I think a mass-nom would make more sense. Please remember to remain WP:CIVIL. Leuko 00:54, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong, speedy keep and indefinite block for the nominator for abuse of our system - Important aid for researchers. We only include notable individuals in these lists and they are well sourced. As with previous ethnic group nominations, this nomination, apparently done along with dozens if not hundreds of others all in a single day, is disruptive, WP:POINT, and does not enhance our encyclopedia. Editor apparently presumes that all Americans should simply be "American," and their national origin should be ignored. This attempt to inject political POV into the Wiki should be eschewed in the strongest terms. Improve, don't delete. Badagnani 01:16, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete Use categories instead of lists.----DarkTea© 02:06, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. While Wikipedia may not be a compendium of lists, these listings are extraordinarily helpful with research, as those searching for individuals of a particular ethnic background can easily find specific individuals and possibly contrast with others in the article. These listings for deletion are disruptive, in my opinion. They smack of nationalism and seem to presume that Americans have no (or shouldn't have) interest in the extreme diversity of the ethnic fabric of America. ExRat 02:46, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It has s already been pointed out that these lists are greatly superior in their content and usability (being on a single page, with individuals broken down by occupation, complete with footnotes and references), for ease of navigation and finding the information they are looking for, for our users. Thus, your argument holds no water, and your continued assertion that "categories are just as good as lists" in this context shows bad faith against the editors who have repeatedly pointed out that this is clearly not the case for our users who rely on having this information readily available, and not blanked by presumptuous characters such as yourself. Badagnani 04:42, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Nomination Withdrawn. It has become apparent that individual nominations of each list of this type is pointless, and a consensus on what to do with the entire group of lists of this type is needed, which will result in a broader consensus with less work. I have created a discussion page at: Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups/Lists of Ethnic Americans to try and determine a policy on these type of lists. Please join the discussion there. Thank you. Leuko 16:31, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Israeli Americans

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

Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Portuguese Americans, relisting as individual AfD's. Precedent for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of German Americans. Leuko 18:17, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Japanese writers, List of sociologists, List of mayors of Toronto, List of political parties, List of members of the Riksdag, 2006-2010, List of liberal theorists, List of male performers in gay porn films, List of male boxers, List of mayors of Ottawa, List of tall women, List of horror fiction writers, List of cellists, etc, etc. Martintg 20:40, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletions. —Noroton 22:40, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as it has more value and is in part sourced as well.--JForget 00:19, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong, speedy keep - Important aid for researchers. We only include notable individuals in these lists and they are well sourced. As with previous ethnic group nominations, this nomination, apparently done along with dozens if not hundreds of others all in a single day, is disruptive, WP:POINT, and does not enhance our encyclopedia. Editor apparently presumes that all Americans should simply be "American," and their national origin should be ignored. This attempt to inject political POV into the Wiki should be eschewed in the strongest terms. Improve, don't delete. Badagnani 01:16, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete Use categories instead of lists.----DarkTea© 02:06, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. While Wikipedia may not be a compendium of lists, these listings are extraordinarily helpful with research, as those searching for individuals of a particular ethnic background can easily find specific individuals and possibly contrast with others in the article. These listings for deletion are disruptive, in my opinion. They smack of nationalism and seem to presume that Americans have no (or shouldn't have) interest in the extreme diversity of the ethnic fabric of America. ExRat 02:54, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It has s already been pointed out that these lists are greatly superior in their content and usability (being on a single page, with individuals broken down by occupation, complete with footnotes and references), for ease of navigation and finding the information they are looking for, for our users. Thus, your argument holds no water, and your continued assertion that "categories are just as good as lists" in this context shows bad faith against the editors who have repeatedly pointed out that this is clearly not the case for our users who rely on having this information readily available, and not blanked by presumptuous characters such as yourself. Badagnani 04:39, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Nomination Withdrawn. It has become apparent that individual nominations of each list of this type is pointless, and a consensus on what to do with the entire group of lists of this type is needed, which will result in a broader consensus with less work. I have created a discussion page at: Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups/Lists of Ethnic Americans to try and determine a policy on these type of lists. Please join the discussion there. Thank you. Leuko 16:28, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of Irish-Americans

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Lists of Irish-Americans (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Portuguese Americans, relisting as individual AfD's. Precedent for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of German Americans. Leuko 18:17, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Keep How many times are we going to keep nominating this list for deletion? This is a notable ethnic group, and that a list of German Americans was deleted does not mean this list should be deleted. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:36, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: An article on the ethnicity would be encyclopedic and welcome, however, apparently the new consensus is that these list of people by nationality/ethnicity are not appropriate for WP. Leuko 18:44, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not sure I see such consensus anywhere. In fact, the List of German American AfD actually had more Keep votes than Delete votes, if I counted correctly. The closing admin's argument for deletion was loose association, and I highly disagree with the application of that argument on some of the lists (not all) that have been individually nominated for deletion. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:53, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, WP:AFD is not a vote (so counting is irrelevant), and the deletion decision was upheld at WP:DRV, so there must have been consensus. There were actually more arguments to delete other than WP:NOT#DIR, but since you bring that up, I don't see how any other list of persons of a certain nationality, ethnicity or religion are any more tightly associated, and less of a directory. Leuko 19:02, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • And the deletion of List of British Chinese people was overturned, relisted for AfD, and kept. Like I said, the fact that a list of German Americans was deleted does not mean all similar lists should be deleted. Furthermore, I did not say that AfDs are decided on vote count, I am saying I see no consensus established regarding these lists, and that I disagree with the application of the closing admin's argument of loose association on some of these lists. WP:NOT#DIR is not applicable here as you can see from the examples given in the policy that it pertains to articles or lists providing contact information and otherwise consumer-related information or how-to information. This is not such a list. And the whole point of listing these lists individually as opposed to en masse in the first place is because some of these lists should be kept and others deleted. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 19:26, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Actually, that was closed as no-consensus, which is not the same as keep. And the closing admin cited precedent of other lists of the same type being kept. By that logic, all these lists, including List of British Chinese people should be deleted per the new consensus and precedent. And I am not sure why we had to list each individually, as it seems we are making the same comments on each individual AfD, so evidently, there really isn't a significant difference between them. Leuko 19:40, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep, The rationale for deletion given in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of German Americans was WP:NOT#DIR. So these lists below should also be deleted if we want to be consistent:
List of Japanese writers, List of sociologists, List of mayors of Toronto, List of political parties, List of members of the Riksdag, 2006-2010, List of liberal theorists, List of male performers in gay porn films, List of male boxers, List of mayors of Ottawa, List of tall women, List of horror fiction writers, List of cellists, etc, etc. Martintg 20:40, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletions. —Noroton 22:42, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong, speedy keep - Notable ethnic group and the article is an important aid for researchers looking for information about notable Americans of Irish ancestry, broken down by occupation. We only include notable individuals in these lists and they are well sourced. As with previous ethnic group nominations, this nomination, apparently done along with dozens if not hundreds of others all in a single day, is disruptive, WP:POINT, and does not enhance our encyclopedia. Editor apparently presumes that all Americans should simply be "American," and their national origin should be ignored. This attempt to inject political POV into the Wiki should be eschewed in the strongest terms. Improve, don't delete. Badagnani 01:17, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete Use categories instead of lists.----DarkTea© 02:06, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. While Wikipedia may not be a compendium of lists, these listings are extraordinarily helpful with research, as those searching for individuals of a particular ethnic background can easily find specific individuals and possibly contrast with others in the article. These listings for deletion are disruptive, in my opinion. They smack of nationalism and seem to presume that Americans have no (or shouldn't have) interest in the extreme diversity of the ethnic fabric of America. ExRat 02:29, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It has s already been pointed out that these lists are greatly superior in their content and usability (being on a single page, with individuals broken down by occupation, complete with footnotes and references), for ease of navigation and finding the information they are looking for, for our users. Thus, your argument holds no water, and your continued assertion that "categories are just as good as lists" in this context shows bad faith against the editors who have repeatedly pointed out that this is clearly not the case for our users who rely on having this information readily available, and not blanked by presumptuous characters such as yourself. Badagnani 04:46, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Nomination Withdrawn. It has become apparent that individual nominations of each list of this type is pointless, and a consensus on what to do with the entire group of lists of this type is needed, which will result in a broader consensus with less work. I have created a discussion page at: Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups/Lists of Ethnic Americans to try and determine a policy on these type of lists. Please join the discussion there. Thank you. Leuko 15:40, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Indian Americans

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
List of Indian Americans (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Portuguese Americans, relisting as individual AfD's. Precedent for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of German Americans. Leuko 18:16, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Keep How many times are we going to keep nominated this list for deletion? This is a notable ethnic group, and that a list of German Americans was deleted does not mean this list should be deleted. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:35, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: An article on the ethnicity would be encyclopedic and welcome, however, apparently the new consensus is that these list of people by nationality/ethnicity are not appropriate for WP. Leuko 18:43, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not sure I see such consensus anywhere. In fact, the List of German American AfD actually had more Keep votes than Delete votes, if I counted correctly. The closing admin's argument for deletion was loose association, and I highly disagree with the application of that argument on some of the lists (not all) that have been individually nominated for deletion. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:53, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, WP:AFD is not a vote (so counting is irrelevant), and the deletion decision was upheld at WP:DRV, so there must have been consensus. There were actually more arguments to delete other than WP:NOT#DIR, but since you bring that up, I don't see how any other list of persons of a certain nationality, ethnicity or religion are any more tightly associated, and less of a directory. Leuko 19:02, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • And the deletion of List of British Chinese people was overturned, relisted for AfD, and kept. Like I said, the fact that a list of German Americans was deleted does not mean all similar lists should be deleted. Furthermore, I did not say that AfDs are decided on vote count, I am saying I see no consensus established regarding these lists, and that I disagree with the application of the closing admin's argument of loose association on some of these lists. WP:NOT#DIR is not applicable here as you can see from the examples given in the policy that it pertains to articles or lists providing contact information and otherwise consumer-related information or how-to information. This is not such a list. And the whole point of listing these lists individually as opposed to en masse in the first place is because some of these lists should be kept and others deleted. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 19:26, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Actually, that was closed as no-consensus, which is not the same as keep. And the closing admin cited precedent of other lists of the same type being kept. By that logic, all these lists, including List of British Chinese people should be deleted per the new consensus and precedent. And I am not sure why we had to list each individually, as it seems we are making the same comments on each individual AfD, so evidently, there really isn't a significant difference between them. Leuko 19:40, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep, The rationale for deletion given in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of German Americans was WP:NOT#DIR. So these lists below should also be deleted if we want to be consistent:
List of Japanese writers, List of sociologists, List of mayors of Toronto, List of political parties, List of members of the Riksdag, 2006-2010, List of liberal theorists, List of male performers in gay porn films, List of male boxers, List of mayors of Ottawa, List of tall women, List of horror fiction writers, List of cellists, etc, etc. Martintg 20:41, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletions. —Noroton 22:43, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong, speedy keep - Important aid for researchers. We only include notable individuals in these lists and they are well sourced. As with previous ethnic group nominations, this nomination, apparently done along with dozens if not hundreds of others all in a single day, is disruptive, WP:POINT, and does not enhance our encyclopedia. Editor apparently presumes that all Americans should simply be "American," and their national origin should be ignored. These repeated attempts to inject political POV into the Wiki should be eschewed in the strongest terms. Improve, don't delete. Badagnani 01:18, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete Use categories instead of lists.----DarkTea© 02:06, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. While Wikipedia may not be a compendium of lists, these listings are extraordinarily helpful with research, as those searching for individuals of a particular ethnic background can easily find specific individuals and possibly contrast with others in the article. These listings for deletion are disruptive, in my opinion. They smack of nationalism and seem to presume that Americans have no (or shouldn't have) interest in the extreme diversity of the ethnic fabric of America. ExRat 02:51, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • And a category can't do this? To me, voting "Strong Keep" on some List of _x_ Americans, while deleting others smacks of nationalism. Leuko 03:55, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: These lists often (or should) be referenced with birth and death dates, occupations, etc. Categories don't do that.
Comment - It has s already been pointed out that these lists are greatly superior in their content and usability (being on a single page, with individuals broken down by occupation, complete with footnotes and references), for ease of navigation and finding the information they are looking for, for our users. Thus, your argument holds no water, and your continued assertion that "categories are just as good as lists" in this context shows bad faith against the editors who have repeatedly pointed out that this is clearly not the case for our users who rely on having this information readily available, and not blanked by presumptuous characters such as yourself. Badagnani 04:40, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Nomination Withdrawn. It has become apparent that individual nominations of each list of this type is pointless, and a consensus on what to do with the entire group of lists of this type is needed, which will result in a broader consensus with less work. I have created a discussion page at: Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups/Lists of Ethnic Americans to try and determine a policy on these type of lists. Please join the discussion there. Thank you. Leuko 15:39, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Hmong Americans

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

Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Portuguese Americans, relisting as individual AfD's. Precedent for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of German Americans. Leuko 18:15, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Notable ethnic group, and that a list of German Americans was deleted does not mean this list should be deleted. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:34, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: An article on the ethnicity would be encyclopedic and welcome, however, apparently the new consensus is that these list of people by nationality/ethnicity are not appropriate for WP. Leuko 18:43, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not sure I see such consensus anywhere. In fact, the List of German American AfD actually had more Keep votes than Delete votes, if I counted correctly. The closing admin's argument for deletion was loose association, and I highly disagree with the application of that argument on some of the lists (not all) that have been individually nominated for deletion. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:53, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, WP:AFD is not a vote (so counting is irrelevant), and the deletion decision was upheld at WP:DRV, so there must have been consensus. There were actually more arguments to delete other than WP:NOT#DIR, but since you bring that up, I don't see how any other list of persons of a certain nationality, ethnicity or religion are any more tightly associated, and less of a directory. Leuko 19:02, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • And the deletion of List of British Chinese people was overturned, relisted for AfD, and kept. Like I said, the fact that a list of German Americans was deleted does not mean all similar lists should be deleted. Furthermore, I did not say that AfDs are decided on vote count, I am saying I see no consensus established regarding these lists, and that I disagree with the application of the closing admin's argument of loose association on some of these lists. WP:NOT#DIR is not applicable here as you can see from the examples given in the policy that it pertains to articles or lists providing contact information and otherwise consumer-related information or how-to information. This is not such a list. And the whole point of listing these lists individually as opposed to en masse in the first place is because some of these lists should be kept and others deleted. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 19:25, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Actually, that was closed as no-consensus, which is not the same as keep. And the closing admin cited precedent of other lists of the same type being kept. By that logic, all these lists, including List of British Chinese people should be deleted per the new consensus and precedent. And I am not sure why we had to list each individually, as it seems we are making the same comments on each individual AfD, so evidently, there really isn't a significant difference between them. Leuko 19:40, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep, The rationale for deletion given in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of German Americans was WP:NOT#DIR. So these lists below should also be deleted if we want to be consistent:
List of Japanese writers, List of sociologists, List of mayors of Toronto, List of political parties, List of members of the Riksdag, 2006-2010, List of liberal theorists, List of male performers in gay porn films, List of male boxers, List of mayors of Ottawa, List of tall women, List of horror fiction writers, List of cellists, etc, etc. Martintg 20:41, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep This article already has survived a recent AFD: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Taiwanese_Americans. I think this new nomination is hasty and ill-founded. There is no strong precedent, despite the deletion of the German-American article. I find it unconvincing to say that it should be deleted to be consistent when clearly there is no consistent pattern existing. Nposs 21:39, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletions. —Noroton 22:44, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep per User:Nposs; this was just discussed last week. And per WP:CATGRS: "General categorization by race or sexuality is permitted ... Subcategories by country are permitted". Nominating again and again until you get the result you want is not what AfD is here for. cab 23:52, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong, speedy keep - Notable ethnic group and this article is an important aid for researchers looking for information about notable Americans of Hmong ancestry. This is a strength of Wikipedia and removing this verifiable, well sourced data is not helpful to our users. We only include notable individuals in these lists and they are well sourced. As with previous ethnic group nominations, this nomination, apparently done along with dozens if not hundreds of others all in a single day, is disruptive, WP:POINT, and does not enhance our encyclopedia. Editor apparently presumes that all Americans should simply be "American," and their national origin should be ignored. This attempt to inject political POV into the Wiki should be eschewed in the strongest terms. Improve, don't delete. Badagnani 01:19, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete Lists should be turned into categories.----DarkTea© 01:46, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. While Wikipedia may not be a compendium of lists, these listings are extraordinarily helpful with research, as those searching for individuals of a particular ethnic background can easily find specific individuals and possibly contrast with others in the article. These listings for deletion are disruptive, in my opinion. They smack of nationalism and seem to presume that Americans have no (or shouldn't have) interest in the extreme diversity of the ethnic fabric of America. ExRat 02:52, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • And a category can't do this? To me, voting "Strong Keep" on some List of _x_ Americans, while deleting others smacks of nationalism. Leuko 03:56, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: These lists often (or should) be referenced with birth and death dates, occupations, etc. Categories don't do that. ExRat 04:26, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • It doesn't smack of nationalism. It smacks of a lack of clear consensus on proper justifications for lists. In this instance, the list serves a different purpose than the category: it both contains more details about the persons than is contained in the category. It also permits the entry of items in the list which may not have their own article yet (or ever, depending on your interpretation of the notability guidelines.) In this case, the definition of the list is well-defined: people who identify as both Hmong and American. Nposs 04:08, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • So you are saying that these lists should include non-notable red-links as well? They will become unmanageable WP:VANITY targets. Leuko 04:22, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Nowhere do I state that "lists should include non-notable red-links." The issue of red-links in lists has come up elsewhere with varying results. My point is that lists can accommodate red-links in a way that categories cannot. (That is to say, red-links for notable people who do not yet have their own article.) I would suggest that there are several entries in this list under consideration that probably do not meet the notability guidelines (i.e. they should be removed). At the same time, for a relatively recent immigrant group such as Hmong people, the election of a city councilman (especially a first-generation Hmong person) is perhaps notable. These are discussions for the article talk page, however, and do not have any bearing on whether the article should be deleted or not. Nposs 04:39, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. I agree with ExRat and Badagnani. In addition, this mass nomination is too POINTY. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 03:49, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep All theese lists. Elmao 06:10, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Nomination Withdrawn. It has become apparent that individual nominations of each list of this type is pointless, and a consensus on what to do with the entire group of lists of this type is needed, which will result in a broader consensus with less work. I have created a discussion page at: Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups/Lists of Ethnic Americans to try and determine a policy on these type of lists. Please join the discussion there. Thank you. Leuko 15:37, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Greek-Americans

[edit]
List of Greek-Americans (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Portuguese Americans, relisting as individual AfD's. Precedent for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of German Americans. Leuko 18:15, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Japanese writers, List of sociologists, List of mayors of Toronto, List of political parties, List of members of the Riksdag, 2006-2010, List of liberal theorists, List of male performers in gay porn films, List of male boxers, List of mayors of Ottawa, List of tall women, List of horror fiction writers, List of cellists, etc, etc. Martintg 20:41, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Keep this, as well as all other list of citizens of USA by nationality. List is rich and informative. We aren't guilty that there're so many peoples on this world. At last, why do we have encyclopedias? Articles about so many things. Some things someone finds unimportant, but somebody other earns for living on those and makes millions of dollars out of that. In these lists, only the persons that are worth of mentioning should be there, not just "any man picked up from the street". At last, these info is useful. Do you know how many successful international business meetings and business cooperations (I mean all of them, from small shop and taxi cab events to statemen's meetings) began/became more appreciated, just because someone knew whome "belonged" certain "celebrity"? This way, peoples get to know each other better. Wikipedia makes this way whole world closer. Kubura 22:27, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletions. —Noroton 22:45, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong, speedy keep - Important aid for researchers. We only include notable individuals in these lists and they are well sourced. As with previous ethnic group nominations, this nomination, apparently done along with dozens if not hundreds of others all in a single day, is disruptive, WP:POINT, and does not enhance our encyclopedia. Editor apparently presumes that all Americans should simply be "American," and their national origin should be ignored. This attempt to inject political POV into the Wiki should be eschewed in the strongest terms. Improve, don't delete. Badagnani 01:19, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete Use categories instead of lists.----DarkTea© 02:06, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. While Wikipedia may not be a compendium of lists, these listings are extraordinarily helpful with research, as those searching for individuals of a particular ethnic background can easily find specific individuals and possibly contrast with others in the article. These listings for deletion are disruptive, in my opinion. They smack of nationalism and seem to presume that Americans have no (or shouldn't have) interest in the extreme diversity of the ethnic fabric of America. ExRat 02:33, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It has s already been pointed out that these lists are greatly superior in their content and usability (being on a single page, with individuals broken down by occupation, complete with footnotes and references), for ease of navigation and finding the information they are looking for, for our users. Thus, your argument holds no water, and your continued assertion that "categories are just as good as lists" in this context shows bad faith against the editors who have repeatedly pointed out that this is clearly not the case for our users who rely on having this information readily available, and not blanked by presumptuous characters such as yourself. Badagnani 04:45, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Nomination Withdrawn. It has become apparent that individual nominations of each list of this type is pointless, and a consensus on what to do with the entire group of lists of this type is needed, which will result in a broader consensus with less work. I have created a discussion page at: Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups/Lists of Ethnic Americans to try and determine a policy on these type of lists. Please join the discussion there. Thank you. Leuko 15:36, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Filipino Americans

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
List of Filipino Americans (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Portuguese Americans, relisting as individual AfD's. Precedent for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of German Americans. Leuko 18:15, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Keep How many times are we going to keep nominated this list for deletion? This is a notable ethnic group, and that a list of German Americans was deleted does not mean this list should be deleted. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:34, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: An article on the ethnicity would be encyclopedic and welcome, however, apparently the new consensus is that these list of people by nationality/ethnicity are not appropriate for WP. Leuko 18:43, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not sure I see such consensus anywhere. In fact, the List of German American AfD actually had more Keep votes than Delete votes, if I counted correctly. The closing admin's argument for deletion was loose association, and I highly disagree with the application of that argument on some of the lists (not all) that have been individually nominated for deletion. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:54, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, WP:AFD is not a vote (so counting is irrelevant), and the deletion decision was upheld at WP:DRV, so there must have been consensus. There were actually more arguments to delete other than WP:NOT#DIR, but since you bring that up, I don't see how any other list of persons of a certain nationality, ethnicity or religion are any more tightly associated, and less of a directory. Leuko 19:02, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • And the deletion of List of British Chinese people was overturned, relisted for AfD, and kept. Like I said, the fact that a list of German Americans was deleted does not mean all similar lists should be deleted. Furthermore, I did not say that AfDs are decided on vote count, I am saying I see no consensus established regarding these lists, and that I disagree with the application of the closing admin's argument of loose association on some of these lists. WP:NOT#DIR is not applicable here as you can see from the examples given in the policy that it pertains to articles or lists providing contact information and otherwise consumer-related information or how-to information. This is not such a list. And the whole point of listing these lists individually as opposed to en masse in the first place is because some of these lists should be kept and others deleted. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 19:25, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Actually, that was closed as no-consensus, which is not the same as keep. And the closing admin cited precedent of other lists of the same type being kept. By that logic, all these lists, including List of British Chinese people should be deleted per the new consensus and precedent. And I am not sure why we had to list each individually, as it seems we are making the same comments on each individual AfD, so evidently, there really isn't a significant difference between them. Leuko 19:40, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep, The rationale for deletion given in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of German Americans was WP:NOT#DIR. So these lists below should also be deleted if we want to be consistent:
List of Japanese writers, List of sociologists, List of mayors of Toronto, List of political parties, List of members of the Riksdag, 2006-2010, List of liberal theorists, List of male performers in gay porn films, List of male boxers, List of mayors of Ottawa, List of tall women, List of horror fiction writers, List of cellists, etc, etc. Martintg 20:42, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep - As comments per above. ----Ðysepsion † Speak your mind 22:40, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletions. —Noroton 22:46, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong, speedy keep - Important aid for researchers. We only include notable individuals in these lists and they are well sourced. As with previous ethnic group nominations, this nomination, apparently done along with dozens if not hundreds of others all in a single day, is disruptive, WP:POINT, and does not enhance our encyclopedia. Editor apparently presumes that all Americans should simply be "American," and their national origin should be ignored. This attempt to inject political POV into the Wiki should be eschewed in the strongest terms. Improve, don't delete. Badagnani 01:19, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete Use categories instead of lists.----DarkTea© 02:06, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. While Wikipedia may not be a compendium of lists, these listings are extraordinarily helpful with research, as those searching for individuals of a particular ethnic background can easily find specific individuals and possibly contrast with others in the article. These listings for deletion are disruptive, in my opinion. They smack of nationalism and seem to presume that Americans have no (or shouldn't have) interest in the extreme diversity of the ethnic fabric of America. ExRat 02:45, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It has s already been pointed out that these lists are greatly superior in their content and usability (being on a single page, with individuals broken down by occupation, complete with footnotes and references), for ease of navigation and finding the information they are looking for, for our users. Thus, your argument holds no water, and your continued assertion that "categories are just as good as lists" in this context shows bad faith against the editors who have repeatedly pointed out that this is clearly not the case for our users who rely on having this information readily available, and not blanked by presumptuous characters such as yourself. Badagnani 04:42, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Nomination Withdrawn. It has become apparent that individual nominations of each list of this type is pointless, and a consensus on what to do with the entire group of lists of this type is needed, which will result in a broader consensus with less work. I have created a discussion page at: Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups/Lists of Ethnic Americans to try and determine a policy on these type of lists. Please join the discussion there. Thank you. Leuko 15:34, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Estonian Americans

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

Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Portuguese Americans, relisting as individual AfD's. Precedent for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of German Americans. Leuko 18:14, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Japanese writers, List of sociologists, List of mayors of Toronto, List of political parties, List of members of the Riksdag, 2006-2010, List of liberal theorists, List of male performers in gay porn films, List of male boxers, List of mayors of Ottawa, List of tall women, List of horror fiction writers, List of cellists, etc, etc. Martintg 20:46, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Keep this, as well as all other list of citizens of USA by nationality. List is rich and informative. We aren't guilty that there're so many peoples on this world. At last, why do we have encyclopedias? Articles about so many things. Some things someone finds unimportant, but somebody other earns for living on those and makes millions of dollars out of that. In these lists, only the persons that are worth of mentioning should be there, not just "any man picked up from the street". At last, these info is useful. Do you know how many successful international business meetings and business cooperations (I mean all of them, from small shop and taxi cab events to statemen's meetings) began/became more appreciated, just because someone knew whome "belonged" certain "celebrity"? Kubura 22:28, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletions. —Noroton 22:47, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep The list is sourced and informative and includes notable inivduals with Wikipedia entries. ExRat 01:40, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Also, While Wikipedia may not be a compendium of lists, these listings are extraordinarily helpful with research, as those searching for individuals of a particular ethnic background can easily find specific individuals and possibly contrast with others in the article. These listings for deletion are disruptive, in my opinion. They smack of nationalism and seem to presume that Americans have no (or shouldn't have) interest in the extreme diversity of the ethnic fabric of America. ExRat 02:10, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong, speedy keep - Important aid for researchers. We only include notable individuals in these lists and they are well sourced. As with previous ethnic group nominations, this nomination, apparently done along with dozens if not hundreds of others all in a single day, is disruptive, WP:POINT, and does not enhance our encyclopedia. Editor apparently presumes that all Americans should simply be "American," and their national origin should be ignored. This attempt to inject political POV into the Wiki should be eschewed in the strongest terms. Improve, don't delete. Badagnani 01:19, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It has s already been pointed out that these lists are greatly superior in their content and usability (being on a single page, with individuals broken down by occupation, complete with footnotes and references), for ease of navigation and finding the information they are looking for, for our users. Thus, your argument holds no water, and your continued assertion that "categories are just as good as lists" in this context shows bad faith against the editors who have repeatedly pointed out that this is clearly not the case for our users who rely on having this information readily available, and not blanked by presumptuous characters such as yourself. Badagnani 04:48, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Nomination Withdrawn. It has become apparent that individual nominations of each list of this type is pointless, and a consensus on what to do with the entire group of lists of this type is needed, which will result in a broader consensus with less work. I have created a discussion page at: Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups/Lists of Ethnic Americans to try and determine a policy on these type of lists. Please join the discussion there. Thank you. Leuko 15:31, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Dutch Americans

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

Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Portuguese Americans, relisting as individual AfD's. Precedent for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of German Americans. Leuko 18:14, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Japanese writers, List of sociologists, List of mayors of Toronto, List of political parties, List of members of the Riksdag, 2006-2010, List of liberal theorists, List of male performers in gay porn films, List of male boxers, List of mayors of Ottawa, List of tall women, List of horror fiction writers, List of cellists, etc, etc. Martintg 20:47, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Keep this, as well as all other list of citizens of USA by nationality. List is rich and informative. We aren't guilty that there're so many peoples on this world. At last, why do we have encyclopedias? Articles about so many things. Some things someone finds unimportant, but somebody other earns for living on those and makes millions of dollars out of that. In these lists, only the persons that are worth of mentioning should be there, not just "any man picked up from the street". At last, these info is useful. Do you know how many successful international business meetings and business cooperations (I mean all of them, from small shop and taxi cab events to statemen's meetings) began/became more appreciated, just because someone knew whome "belonged" certain "celebrity"? Kubura 22:29, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletions. —Noroton 22:48, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong, speedy keep - Important aid for researchers. We only include notable individuals in these lists and they are well sourced. As with previous ethnic group nominations, this nomination, apparently done along with dozens if not hundreds of others all in a single day, is disruptive, WP:POINT, and does not enhance our encyclopedia. Editor apparently presumes that all Americans should simply be "American," and their national origin should be ignored. This attempt to inject political POV into the Wiki should be eschewed in the strongest terms. Improve, don't delete. Badagnani 01:19, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep.While Wikipedia may not be a compendium of lists, these listings are extraordinarily helpful with research, as those searching for individuals of a particular ethnic background can easily find specific individuals and possibly contrast with others in the article. These listings for deletion are disruptive, in my opinion. They smack of nationalism and seem to presume that Americans have no (or shouldn't have) interest in the extreme diversity of the ethnic fabric of America.ExRat 02:11, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It has s already been pointed out that these lists are greatly superior in their content and usability (being on a single page, with individuals broken down by occupation, complete with footnotes and references), for ease of navigation and finding the information they are looking for, for our users. Thus, your argument holds no water, and your continued assertion that "categories are just as good as lists" in this context shows bad faith against the editors who have repeatedly pointed out that this is clearly not the case for our users who rely on having this information readily available, and not blanked by presumptuous characters such as yourself. Badagnani 04:48, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Nomination Withdrawn. It has become apparent that individual nominations of each list of this type is pointless, and a consensus on what to do with the entire group of lists of this type is needed, which will result in a broader consensus with less work. I have created a discussion page at: Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups/Lists of Ethnic Americans to try and determine a policy on these type of lists. Please join the discussion there. Thank you. Leuko 15:29, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Cuban Americans

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

Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Portuguese Americans, relisting as individual AfD's. Precedent for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of German Americans. Leuko 18:10, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Japanese writers, List of sociologists, List of mayors of Toronto, List of political parties, List of members of the Riksdag, 2006-2010, List of liberal theorists, List of male performers in gay porn films, List of male boxers, List of mayors of Ottawa, List of tall women, List of horror fiction writers, List of cellists, etc, etc. Martintg 20:47, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletions. —Noroton 22:48, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong, speedy keep - Important aid for researchers. We only include notable individuals in these lists and they are well sourced. As with previous ethnic group nominations, this nomination, apparently done along with dozens if not hundreds of others all in a single day, is disruptive, WP:POINT, and does not enhance our encyclopedia. Editor apparently presumes that all Americans should simply be "American," and their national origin should be ignored. This attempt to inject political POV into the Wiki should be eschewed in the strongest terms. Improve, don't delete. Badagnani 01:19, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete Use categories instead of lists.----DarkTea© 02:06, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. While Wikipedia may not be a compendium of lists, these listings are extraordinarily helpful with research, as those searching for individuals of a particular ethnic background can easily find specific individuals and possibly contrast with others in the article. These listings for deletion are disruptive, in my opinion. They smack of nationalism and seem to presume that Americans have no (or shouldn't have) interest in the extreme diversity of the ethnic fabric of America. ExRat 02:44, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It has s already been pointed out that these lists are greatly superior in their content and usability (being on a single page, with individuals broken down by occupation, complete with footnotes and references), for ease of navigation and finding the information they are looking for, for our users. Thus, your argument holds no water, and your continued assertion that "categories are just as good as lists" in this context shows bad faith against the editors who have repeatedly pointed out that this is clearly not the case for our users who rely on having this information readily available, and not blanked by presumptuous characters such as yourself. Badagnani 04:43, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Nomination Withdrawn. It has become apparent that individual nominations of each list of this type is pointless, and a consensus on what to do with the entire group of lists of this type is needed, which will result in a broader consensus with less work. I have created a discussion page at: Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups/Lists of Ethnic Americans to try and determine a policy on these type of lists. Please join the discussion there. Thank you. Leuko 15:27, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Croatian Americans

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

Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Portuguese Americans, relisting as individual AfD's. Precedent for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of German Americans. Leuko 18:10, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Japanese writers, List of sociologists, List of mayors of Toronto, List of political parties, List of members of the Riksdag, 2006-2010, List of liberal theorists, List of male performers in gay porn films, List of male boxers, List of mayors of Ottawa, List of tall women, List of horror fiction writers, List of cellists, etc, etc. Martintg 20:47, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Keep this, as well as all other list of citizens of USA by nationality. List is rich and informative. We aren't guilty that there're so many peoples on this world. At last, why do we have encyclopedias? Articles about so many things. Some things someone finds unimportant, but somebody other earns for living on those and makes millions of dollars out of that. In these lists, only the persons that are worth of mentioning should be there, not just "any man picked up from the street". At last, these info is useful. Do you know how many successful international business meetings and business cooperations (I mean all of them, from small shop and taxi cab events to statemen's meetings) began/became more appreciated, just because someone knew whome "belonged" certain "celebrity"? Kubura 22:09, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletions. —Noroton 22:49, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong, speedy keep - Important aid for researchers. We only include notable individuals in these lists and they are well sourced. As with previous ethnic group nominations, this nomination, apparently done along with dozens if not hundreds of others all in a single day, is disruptive, WP:POINT, and does not enhance our encyclopedia. Editor apparently presumes that all Americans should simply be "American," and their national origin should be ignored. This attempt to inject political POV into the Wiki should be eschewed in the strongest terms. Improve, don't delete. Badagnani 01:20, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete Use categories instead of lists.----DarkTea© 02:06, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. While Wikipedia may not be a compendium of lists, these listings are extraordinarily helpful with research, as those searching for individuals of a particular ethnic background can easily find specific individuals and possibly contrast with others in the article. These listings for deletion are disruptive, in my opinion. They smack of nationalism and seem to presume that Americans have no (or shouldn't have) interest in the extreme diversity of the ethnic fabric of America. ExRat 02:40, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It has s already been pointed out that these lists are greatly superior in their content and usability (being on a single page, with individuals broken down by occupation, complete with footnotes and references), for ease of navigation and finding the information they are looking for, for our users. Thus, your argument holds no water, and your continued assertion that "categories are just as good as lists" in this context shows bad faith against the editors who have repeatedly pointed out that this is clearly not the case for our users who rely on having this information readily available, and not blanked by presumptuous characters such as yourself. Badagnani 04:44, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Nomination Withdrawn. It has become apparent that individual nominations of each list of this type is pointless, and a consensus on what to do with the entire group of lists of this type is needed, which will result in a broader consensus with less work. I have created a discussion page at: Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups/Lists of Ethnic Americans to try and determine a policy on these type of lists. Please join the discussion there. Thank you. Leuko 15:26, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Cambodian Americans

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

Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Portuguese Americans, relisting as individual AfD's. Precedent for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of German Americans. Leuko 18:10, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Notable ethnic group, and that a list of German Americans was deleted does not mean this list should be deleted. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:32, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: An article on the ethnicity would be encyclopedic and welcome, however, apparently the new consensus is that these list of people by nationality/ethnicity are not appropriate for WP. Leuko 18:43, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not sure I see such consensus anywhere. In fact, the List of German American AfD actually had more Keep votes than Delete votes, if I counted correctly. The closing admin's argument for deletion was loose association, and I highly disagree with the application of that argument on some of the lists (not all) that have been individually nominated for deletion. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:54, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, WP:AFD is not a vote (so counting is irrelevant), and the deletion decision was upheld at WP:DRV, so there must have been consensus. There were actually more arguments to delete other than WP:NOT#DIR, but since you bring that up, I don't see how any other list of persons of a certain nationality, ethnicity or religion are any more tightly associated, and less of a directory. Leuko 19:14, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • And the deletion of List of British Chinese people was overturned, relisted for AfD, and kept. Like I said, the fact that a list of German Americans was deleted does not mean all similar lists should be deleted. Furthermore, I did not say that AfDs are decided on vote count, I am saying I see no consensus established regarding these lists, and that I disagree with the application of the closing admin's argument of loose association on some of these lists. WP:NOT#DIR is not applicable here as you can see from the examples given in the policy that it pertains to articles or lists providing contact information and otherwise consumer-related information or how-to information. This is not such a list. And the whole point of listing these lists individually as opposed to en masse in the first place is because some of these lists should be kept and others deleted. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 19:23, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Actually, that was closed as no-consensus, which is not the same as keep. And the closing admin cited precedent of other lists of the same type being kept. By that logic, all these lists, including List of British Chinese people should be deleted per the new consensus and precedent. And I am not sure why we had to list each individually, as it seems we are making the same comments on each individual AfD, so evidently, there really isn't a significant difference between them. Leuko 19:38, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep, The rationale for deletion given in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of German Americans was WP:NOT#DIR. So these lists below should also be deleted if we want to be consistent:
List of Japanese writers, List of sociologists, List of mayors of Toronto, List of political parties, List of members of the Riksdag, 2006-2010, List of liberal theorists, List of male performers in gay porn films, List of male boxers, List of mayors of Ottawa, List of tall women, List of horror fiction writers, List of cellists, etc, etc. Martintg 20:48, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletions. —Noroton 22:50, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong, speedy keep - Important aid for researchers. We only include notable individuals in these lists and they are well sourced. As with previous ethnic group nominations, this nomination, apparently done along with dozens if not hundreds of others all in a single day, is disruptive, WP:POINT, and does not enhance our encyclopedia. Editor apparently presumes that all Americans should simply be "American," and their national origin should be ignored. This attempt to inject political POV into the Wiki should be eschewed in the strongest terms. Improve, don't delete. Badagnani 01:20, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete Lists should be turned into categories.----DarkTea© 01:46, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. While Wikipedia may not be a compendium of lists, these listings are extraordinarily helpful with research, as those searching for individuals of a particular ethnic background can easily find specific individuals and possibly contrast with others in the article. These listings for deletion are disruptive, in my opinion. They smack of nationalism and seem to presume that Americans have no (or shouldn't have) interest in the extreme diversity of the ethnic fabric of America. ExRat 02:49, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It has s already been pointed out that these lists are greatly superior in their content and usability (being on a single page, with individuals broken down by occupation, complete with footnotes and references), for ease of navigation and finding the information they are looking for, for our users. Thus, your argument holds no water, and your continued assertion that "categories are just as good as lists" in this context shows bad faith against the editors who have repeatedly pointed out that this is clearly not the case for our users who rely on having this information readily available, and not blanked by presumptuous characters such as yourself. Badagnani 04:41, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Nomination Withdrawn. It has become apparent that individual nominations of each list of this type is pointless, and a consensus on what to do with the entire group of lists of this type is needed, which will result in a broader consensus with less work. I have created a discussion page at: Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups/Lists of Ethnic Americans to try and determine a policy on these type of lists. Please join the discussion there. Thank you. Leuko 15:24, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Cajuns

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

Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Portuguese Americans, relisting as individual AfD's. Precedent for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of German Americans. Leuko 18:09, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletions. —Noroton 22:52, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong, speedy keep - Important aid for researchers. We only include notable individuals in these lists and they are well sourced. As with previous ethnic group nominations, this nomination, apparently done along with dozens if not hundreds of others all in a single day, is disruptive, WP:POINT, and does not enhance our encyclopedia. Editor apparently presumes that all Americans should simply be "American," and their national origin should be ignored. This attempt to inject political POV into the Wiki should be eschewed in the strongest terms. Improve, don't delete. Badagnani 01:20, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete Use categories instead of lists.----DarkTea© 02:06, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. While Wikipedia may not be a compendium of lists, these listings are extraordinarily helpful with research, as those searching for individuals of a particular ethnic background can easily find specific individuals and possibly contrast with others in the article. These listings for deletion are disruptive, in my opinion. They smack of nationalism and seem to presume that Americans have no (or shouldn't have) interest in the extreme diversity of the ethnic fabric of America. ExRat 02:58, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It has s already been pointed out that these lists are greatly superior in their content and usability (being on a single page, with individuals broken down by occupation, complete with footnotes and references), for ease of navigation and finding the information they are looking for, for our users. Thus, your argument holds no water, and your continued assertion that "categories are just as good as lists" in this context shows bad faith against the editors who have repeatedly pointed out that this is clearly not the case for our users who rely on having this information readily available, and not blanked by presumptuous characters such as yourself. Badagnani 04:38, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. I agree with ExRat and Badagnani. In addition, this mass nomination is too POINTY. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 03:53, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep
    • Note: Nominators only justification for this delete is the conclusion of the closing admin on the list of German Americns
    • Note: Closing admin on German Americans chose delete
      • even though wikipedians expressing keep outnumbered those expressing delete
      • even though those who expressed keep offered many long arguments, while those expressing delete were mainly "per nom" -- arguments that closing admins are authorized to discount.
    • IMO the appearance of a lack of objectivity bye the closing admin on the list of German American easily justifies submitting it for deletion review.
    • Cheers! Geo Swan 14:17, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • The deletion of that list was already taken to DRV, and had its deletion endorsed by another admin, but that's neither here nor there. Leuko 14:33, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I re-read the closing admin's note on the German-American {{afd}}. I thought your initial nomination, based solely on precedent, was weak -- and disrespectful. After reading the closing admin's note more closely I see that part of their closing argument directly contradicts your claim of precedent.They explicitly wrote:

Previous AFDs are not helpful, as articles of this nature have been both kept and deleted, so precedent does not help us.

Candidly Geo Swan 14:52, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Nomination Withdrawn. It has become apparent that individual nominations of each list of this type is pointless, and a consensus on what to do with the entire group of lists of this type is needed, which will result in a broader consensus with less work. I have created a discussion page at: Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups/Lists of Ethnic Americans to try and determine a policy on these type of lists. Please join the discussion there. Thank you. Leuko 15:22, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Bulgarian Americans

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

Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Portuguese Americans, relisting as individual AfD's. Precedent for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of German Americans. Leuko 18:09, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep. Keep this, as well as all other list of citizens of USA by nationality. List is rich and informative. We aren't guilty that there're so many peoples on this world. At last, why do we have encyclopedias? Articles about so many things. Some things someone finds unimportant, but somebody other earns for living on those and makes millions of dollars out of that. In these lists, only the persons that are worth of mentioning should be there, not just "any man picked up from the street". At last, these info is useful. Do you know how many successful international business meetings and business cooperations (I mean all of them, from small shop and taxi cab events to statemen's meetings) began/became more appreciated, just because someone knew whome "belonged" certain "celebrity"? Kubura 22:16, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletions. —Noroton 22:54, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong, speedy keep - Important aid for researchers. We only include notable individuals in these lists and they are well sourced. As with previous ethnic group nominations, this nomination, apparently done along with dozens if not hundreds of others all in a single day, is disruptive, WP:POINT, and does not enhance our encyclopedia. Editor apparently presumes that all Americans should simply be "American," and their national origin should be ignored. This attempt to inject political POV into the Wiki should be eschewed in the strongest terms. Improve, don't delete. Badagnani 01:20, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete Use categories instead of lists.----DarkTea© 02:06, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. While Wikipedia may not be a compendium of lists, these listings are extraordinarily helpful with research, as those searching for individuals of a particular ethnic background can easily find specific individuals and possibly contrast with others in the article. These listings for deletion are disruptive, in my opinion. They smack of nationalism and seem to presume that Americans have no (or shouldn't have) interest in the extreme diversity of the ethnic fabric of America. ExRat 02:41, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It has s already been pointed out that these lists are greatly superior in their content and usability (being on a single page, with individuals broken down by occupation, complete with footnotes and references), for ease of navigation and finding the information they are looking for, for our users. Thus, your argument holds no water, and your continued assertion that "categories are just as good as lists" in this context shows bad faith against the editors who have repeatedly pointed out that this is clearly not the case for our users who rely on having this information readily available, and not blanked by presumptuous characters such as yourself. Badagnani 04:44, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Nomination Withdrawn. It has become apparent that individual nominations of each list of this type is pointless, and a consensus on what to do with the entire group of lists of this type is needed, which will result in a broader consensus with less work. I have created a discussion page at: Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups/Lists of Ethnic Americans to try and determine a policy on these type of lists. Please join the discussion there. Thank you. Leuko 15:20, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Brazilian Americans

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

Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Portuguese Americans, relisting as individual AfD's. Precedent for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of German Americans. Leuko 18:09, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong, speedy keep - Important aid for researchers. We only include notable individuals in these lists and they are well sourced. As with previous ethnic group nominations, this nomination, apparently done along with dozens if not hundreds of others all in a single day, is disruptive, WP:POINT, and does not enhance our encyclopedia. Editor apparently presumes that all Americans should simply be "American," and their national origin should be ignored. This attempt to inject political POV into the Wiki should be eschewed in the strongest terms. Improve, don't delete. Badagnani 01:20, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete Use categories instead of lists.----DarkTea© 02:06, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. While Wikipedia may not be a compendium of lists, these listings are extraordinarily helpful with research, as those searching for individuals of a particular ethnic background can easily find specific individuals and possibly contrast with others in the article. These listings for deletion are disruptive, in my opinion. They smack of nationalism and seem to presume that Americans have no (or shouldn't have) interest in the extreme diversity of the ethnic fabric of America. ExRat 02:47, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It has s already been pointed out that these lists are greatly superior in their content and usability (being on a single page, with individuals broken down by occupation, complete with footnotes and references), for ease of navigation and finding the information they are looking for, for our users. Thus, your argument holds no water, and your continued assertion that "categories are just as good as lists" in this context shows bad faith against the editors who have repeatedly pointed out that this is clearly not the case for our users who rely on having this information readily available, and not blanked by presumptuous characters such as yourself. Badagnani 04:42, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Nomination Withdrawn. It has become apparent that individual nominations of each list of this type is pointless, and a consensus on what to do with the entire group of lists of this type is needed, which will result in a broader consensus with less work. I have created a discussion page at: Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups/Lists of Ethnic Americans to try and determine a policy on these type of lists. Please join the discussion there. Thank you. Leuko 15:11, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Bangladeshi Americans

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

Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Portuguese Americans, relisting as individual AfD's. Precedent for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of German Americans. Leuko 18:08, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep. Keep this, as well as all other list of citizens of USA by nationality. List is rich and informative. We aren't guilty that there're so many peoples on this world. At last, why do we have encyclopedias? Articles about so many things. Some things someone finds unimportant, but somebody other earns for living on those and makes millions of dollars out of that. In these lists, only the persons that are worth of mentioning should be there, not just "any man picked up from the street". At last, these info is useful. Do you know how many successful international business meetings and business cooperations (I mean all of them, from small shop and taxi cab events to statemen's meetings) began/became more appreciated, just because someone knew whome "belonged" certain "celebrity"? Kubura 22:30, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletions. —Noroton 22:54, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong, speedy keep - Important aid for researchers. We only include notable individuals in these lists and they are well sourced. As with previous ethnic group nominations, this nomination, apparently done along with dozens if not hundreds of others all in a single day, is disruptive, WP:POINT, and does not enhance our encyclopedia. Editor apparently presumes that all Americans should simply be "American," and their national origin should be ignored. This attempt to inject political POV into the Wiki should be eschewed in the strongest terms. Improve, don't delete. Badagnani 01:21, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete Use categories instead of lists.----DarkTea© 02:06, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. While Wikipedia may not be a compendium of lists, these listings are extraordinarily helpful with research, as those searching for individuals of a particular ethnic background can easily find specific individuals and possibly contrast with others in the article. These listings for deletion are disruptive, in my opinion. They smack of nationalism and seem to presume that Americans have no (or shouldn't have) interest in the extreme diversity of the ethnic fabric of America. ExRat 02:49, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It has s already been pointed out that these lists are greatly superior in their content and usability (being on a single page, with individuals broken down by occupation, complete with footnotes and references), for ease of navigation and finding the information they are looking for, for our users. Thus, your argument holds no water, and your continued assertion that "categories are just as good as lists" in this context shows bad faith against the editors who have repeatedly pointed out that this is clearly not the case for our users who rely on having this information readily available, and not blanked by presumptuous characters such as yourself. Badagnani 04:41, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Nomination Withdrawn. It has become apparent that individual nominations of each list of this type is pointless, and a consensus on what to do with the entire group of lists of this type is needed, which will result in a broader consensus with less work. I have created a discussion page at: Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups/Lists of Ethnic Americans to try and determine a policy on these type of lists. Please join the discussion there. Thank you. Leuko 15:09, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Bahamian Americans

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
List of Bahamian Americans (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Portuguese Americans, relisting as individual AfD's. Precedent for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of German Americans. Leuko 18:08, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletions. —Noroton 22:55, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong, speedy keep - Important aid for researchers. We only include notable individuals in these lists and they are well sourced. As with previous ethnic group nominations, this nomination, apparently done along with dozens if not hundreds of others all in a single day, is disruptive, WP:POINT, and does not enhance our encyclopedia. Editor apparently presumes that all Americans should simply be "American," and their national origin should be ignored. This attempt to inject political POV into the Wiki should be eschewed in the strongest terms. Improve, don't delete. Badagnani 01:21, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete Use categories instead of lists.----DarkTea© 02:06, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. While Wikipedia may not be a compendium of lists, these listings are extraordinarily helpful with research, as those searching for individuals of a particular ethnic background can easily find specific individuals and possibly contrast with others in the article. These listings for deletion are disruptive, in my opinion. They smack of nationalism and seem to presume that Americans have no (or shouldn't have) interest in the extreme diversity of the ethnic fabric of America. ExRat 02:45, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It has s already been pointed out that these lists are greatly superior in their content and usability (being on a single page, with individuals broken down by occupation, complete with footnotes and references), for ease of navigation and finding the information they are looking for, for our users. Thus, your argument holds no water, and your continued assertion that "categories are just as good as lists" in this context shows bad faith against the editors who have repeatedly pointed out that this is clearly not the case for our users who rely on having this information readily available, and not blanked by presumptuous characters such as yourself. Badagnani 04:43, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Nomination Withdrawn. It has become apparent that individual nominations of each list of this type is pointless, and a consensus on what to do with the entire group of lists of this type is needed, which will result in a broader consensus with less work. I have created a discussion page at: Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups/Lists of Ethnic Americans to try and determine a policy on these type of lists. Please join the discussion there. Thank you. Leuko 15:06, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


List of Austrian Americans

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

Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Portuguese Americans, relisting as individual AfD's. Precedent for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of German Americans. Leuko 18:08, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletions. —Noroton 22:56, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong, speedy keep - Important aid for researchers. We only include notable individuals in these lists and they are well sourced. As with previous ethnic group nominations, this nomination, apparently done along with dozens if not hundreds of others all in a single day, is disruptive, WP:POINT, and does not enhance our encyclopedia. Editor apparently presumes that all Americans should simply be "American," and their national origin should be ignored. This attempt to inject political POV into the Wiki should be eschewed in the strongest terms. Improve, don't delete. Badagnani 01:21, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. While Wikipedia may not be a compendium of lists, these listings are extraordinarily helpful with research, as those searching for individuals of a particular ethnic background can easily find specific individuals and possibly contrast with others in the article. These listings for deletion are disruptive, in my opinion. They smack of nationalism and seem to presume that Americans have no (or shouldn't have) interest in the extreme diversity of the ethnic fabric of America. ExRat 02:12, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It has s already been pointed out that these lists are greatly superior in their content and usability (being on a single page, with individuals broken down by occupation, complete with footnotes and references), for ease of navigation and finding the information they are looking for, for our users. Thus, your argument holds no water, and your continued assertion that "categories are just as good as lists" in this context shows bad faith against the editors who have repeatedly pointed out that this is clearly not the case for our users who rely on having this information readily available, and not blanked by presumptuous characters such as yourself. Badagnani 04:47, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Nomination Withdrawn. It has become apparent that individual nominations of each list of this type is pointless, and a consensus on what to do with the entire group of lists of this type is needed, which will result in a broader consensus with less work. I have created a discussion page at: Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups/Lists of Ethnic Americans to try and determine a policy on these type of lists. Please join the discussion there. Thank you. Leuko 15:05, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Armenian Americans

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

Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Portuguese Americans, relisting as individual AfD's. Precedent for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of German Americans. Leuko 18:08, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Opposed to deletion. This list serves a vaild educational purpose by making all Americans aware of the accomplishments of their Armenian-American neighbors, as well as making young Armenian-Americans aware of their cultural heritage and its contribution to American life. The contributors to this list have worked hard to exclude entries for persons for whom there is no Wikipedia article. What is the purpose in deleting this or any similar list? clariosophic 19:04, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Keep this, as well as all other list of citizens of USA by nationality. List is rich and informative. We aren't guilty that there're so many peoples on this world. At last, why do we have encyclopedias? Articles about so many things. Some things someone finds unimportant, but somebody other earns for living on those and makes millions of dollars out of that. In these lists, only the persons that are worth of mentioning should be there, not just "any man picked up from the street". At last, these info is useful. Do you know how many successful international business meetings and business cooperations (I mean all of them, from small shop and taxi cab events to statemen's meetings) began/became more appreciated, just because someone knew whome "belonged" certain "celebrity"? Kubura 22:19, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletions. —Noroton 22:58, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong, speedy keep - Important aid for researchers. We only include notable individuals in these lists and they are well sourced. As with previous ethnic group nominations, this nomination, apparently done along with dozens if not hundreds of others all in a single day, is disruptive, WP:POINT, and does not enhance our encyclopedia. Editor apparently presumes that all Americans should simply be "American," and their national origin should be ignored. This attempt to inject political POV into the Wiki should be eschewed in the strongest terms. Improve, don't delete. Badagnani 01:21, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete Use categories instead of lists.----DarkTea© 02:06, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. I agree with ExRat and Badagnani. In addition, this mass nomination is too POINTY. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 03:56, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Nomination Withdrawn. It has become apparent that individual nominations of each list of this type is pointless, and a consensus on what to do with the entire group of lists of this type is needed, which will result in a broader consensus with less work. I have created a discussion page at: Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups/Lists of Ethnic Americans to try and determine a policy on these type of lists. Please join the discussion there. Thank you. Leuko 15:03, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Argentine Americans

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

Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Portuguese Americans, relisting as individual AfD's. Precedent for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of German Americans. Leuko 18:07, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletions. —Noroton 22:57, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong, speedy keep - Important aid for researchers. We only include notable individuals in these lists and they are well sourced. As with previous ethnic group nominations, this nomination, apparently done along with dozens if not hundreds of others all in a single day, is disruptive, WP:POINT, and does not enhance our encyclopedia. Editor apparently presumes that all Americans should simply be "American," and their national origin should be ignored. This attempt to inject political POV into the Wiki should be eschewed in the strongest terms. Improve, don't delete. Badagnani 01:21, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete Use categories instead of lists.----DarkTea© 02:06, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. While Wikipedia may not be a compendium of lists, these listings are extraordinarily helpful with research, as those searching for individuals of a particular ethnic background can easily find specific individuals and possibly contrast with others in the article. These listings for deletion are disruptive, in my opinion. They smack of nationalism and seem to presume that Americans have no (or shouldn't have) interest in the extreme diversity of the ethnic fabric of America. ExRat 02:48, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It has s already been pointed out that these lists are greatly superior in their content and usability (being on a single page, with individuals broken down by occupation, complete with footnotes and references), for ease of navigation and finding the information they are looking for, for our users. Thus, your argument holds no water, and your continued assertion that "categories are just as good as lists" in this context shows bad faith against the editors who have repeatedly pointed out that this is clearly not the case for our users who rely on having this information readily available, and not blanked by presumptuous characters such as yourself. Badagnani 04:41, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Nomination Withdrawn. It has become apparent that individual nominations of each list of this type is pointless, and a consensus on what to do with the entire group of lists of this type is needed, and will result in a broader consensus with less work. I have created a discussion page at: Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups/Lists of Ethnic Americans to try and determine a policy on these type of lists. Please join the discussion there. Thank you. Leuko 15:00, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Arab Americans

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

Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Portuguese Americans, relisting as individual AfD's. Precedent for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of German Americans. Leuko 18:06, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep. Keep this, as well as all other list of citizens of USA by nationality. List is rich and informative. We aren't guilty that there're so many peoples on this world. At last, why do we have encyclopedias? Articles about so many things. Some things someone finds unimportant, but somebody other earns for living on those and makes millions of dollars out of that. In these lists, only the persons that are worth of mentioning should be there, not just "any man picked up from the street". At last, these info is useful. Do you know how many successful international business meetings and business cooperations (I mean all of them, from small shop and taxi cab events to statemen's meetings) began/became more appreciated, just because someone knew whome "belonged" certain "celebrity"? Kubura 22:18, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletions. —Noroton 22:59, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong, speedy keep - Important aid for researchers. We only include notable individuals in these lists and they are well sourced. As with previous ethnic group nominations, this nomination, apparently done along with dozens if not hundreds of others all in a single day, is disruptive, WP:POINT, and does not enhance our encyclopedia. Editor apparently presumes that all Americans should simply be "American," and their national origin should be ignored. This attempt to inject political POV into the Wiki should be eschewed in the strongest terms. Improve, don't delete. Badagnani 01:21, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete Use categories instead of lists.----DarkTea© 02:06, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. While Wikipedia may not be a compendium of lists, these listings are extraordinarily helpful with research, as those searching for individuals of a particular ethnic background can easily find specific individuals and possibly contrast with others in the article. These listings for deletion are disruptive, in my opinion. They smack of nationalism and seem to presume that Americans have no (or shouldn't have) interest in the extreme diversity of the ethnic fabric of America. ExRat 02:48, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It has s already been pointed out that these lists are greatly superior in their content and usability (being on a single page, with individuals broken down by occupation, complete with footnotes and references), for ease of navigation and finding the information they are looking for, for our users. Thus, your argument holds no water, and your continued assertion that "categories are just as good as lists" in this context shows bad faith against the editors who have repeatedly pointed out that this is clearly not the case for our users who rely on having this information readily available, and not blanked by presumptuous characters such as yourself. Badagnani 04:41, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Nomination Withdrawn. It has become apparent that individual nominations of each list of this type is pointless, and a consensus on what to do with the entire group of lists of this type is needed, and will result in a broader consensus with less work. I have created a discussion page at: Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups/Lists of Ethnic Americans to try and determine a policy on these type of lists. Please join the discussion there. Thank you. Leuko 14:58, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Albanian Americans

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

Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Portuguese Americans, relisting as individual AfD's. Precedent for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of German Americans. Leuko 18:05, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep. Keep this, as well as all other list of citizens of USA by nationality. List is rich and informative. We aren't guilty that there're so many peoples on this world. At last, why do we have encyclopedias? Articles about so many things. Some things someone finds unimportant, but somebody other earns for living on those and makes millions of dollars out of that. In these lists, only the persons that are worth of mentioning should be there, not just "any man picked up from the street". At last, these info is useful. Do you know how many successful international business meetings and business cooperations (I mean all of them, from small shop and taxi cab events to statemen's meetings) began/became more appreciated, just because someone knew whome "belonged" certain "celebrity"? Kubura 22:06, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletions. —Noroton 22:58, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong, speedy keep - Important aid for researchers. We only include notable individuals in these lists and they are well sourced. As with previous ethnic group nominations, this nomination, apparently done along with dozens if not hundreds of others all in a single day, is disruptive, WP:POINT, and does not enhance our encyclopedia. Editor apparently presumes that all Americans should simply be "American," and their national origin should be ignored. This attempt to inject political POV into the Wiki should be eschewed in the strongest terms. Improve, don't delete. Badagnani 01:21, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. While Wikipedia may not be a compendium of lists, these listings are extraordinarily helpful with research, as those searching for individuals of a particular ethnic background can easily find specific individuals and possibly contrast with others in the article. These listings for deletion are disruptive, in my opinion. They smack of nationalism and seem to presume that Americans have no (or shouldn't have) interest in the extreme diversity of the ethnic fabric of America. ExRat 02:07, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete Use categories instead of lists.----DarkTea© 02:06, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It has s already been pointed out that these lists are greatly superior in their content and usability (being on a single page, with individuals broken down by occupation, complete with footnotes and references), for ease of navigation and finding the information they are looking for, for our users. Thus, your argument holds no water, and your continued assertion that "categories are just as good as lists" in this context shows bad faith against the editors who have repeatedly pointed out that this is clearly not the case for our users who rely on having this information readily available, and not blanked by presumptuous characters such as yourself. Badagnani 04:48, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Nomination Withdrawn. It has become apparent that individual nominations of each list of this type is pointless, and a consensus on what to do with the entire group of lists of this type is needed, and will result in a broader consensus with less work. I have created a discussion page at: Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups/Lists of Ethnic Americans to try and determine a policy on these type of lists. Please join the discussion there. Thank you. Leuko 14:56, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of African Americans

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

Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Portuguese Americans, relisting as individual AfD's. Precedent for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of German Americans. Leuko 18:04, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am adding the following sub-lists to this nomination for the same reasons as previously stated. Leuko 19:50, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Notable ethnic group, and that a list of German Americans was deleted does not mean this list should be deleted. And in case editors are not aware, a whole bunch of other List of XXX American articles have been individually nominated for deletion. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:32, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: An article on the ethnicity would be encyclopedic and welcome, however, apparently the new consensus is that these list of people by nationality/ethnicity are not appropriate for WP. Leuko 18:43, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not sure I see such consensus anywhere. In fact, the List of German American AfD actually had more Keep votes than Delete votes, if I counted correctly. The closing admin's argument for deletion was loose association, and I highly disagree with the application of that argument on some of the lists (not all) that have been individually nominated for deletion. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:54, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral for now about the list of lists (see my comment just below) Keep This is not a list of African Americans. This is a list of lists. As such, I don't see a single thing in the closing administrator's comments from the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of German Americans discussion that applies here. In fact, much of the reasoning in that decision to delete would support this list. I created this list after "List of African Americans" was deleted. (Thank you, Leuko, for informing me of this discussion — I wish all nominating editors were that courteous.) Noroton 18:40, 12 September 2007 (UTC) ((edited for clarity to reflect addition of other lists Noroton 21:28, 12 September 2007 (UTC)))[reply]
    • I'm trying to remember why I created this list instead of relying on Category:Lists of African Americans. Would it be better simply to have a category? I'm leaning that way now, but I'd like to know what others think. The usual justification for having a list instead of a category is that a list can give additional important information, but that's clearly not the case here. Perhaps simply being able to add African Americans to the Americans-by-ethnicity box, which is on the page, is the reason. If we are going to have lists of American ethnic groups, then African Americans should be represented simply to help readers navigate. Keep in mind that the List of Portugese Americans referred to by the nominator was not deleted, so it seems to me that we're going to have at least some ethnic-group lists around for some time to come. But my mind is open and I'd like to see what other people think. Noroton 19:19, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Actually, I meant to nominate all the sub-lists as well, just haven't gotten around to it yet. Leuko 18:43, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletions. —Noroton 19:33, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the sub-lists As per WP:NOT#DIR (last item in that section), the sub lists are not at all too broad, and that's why WP:NOT specifically and pointedly makes them an exception by noting that it does NOT apply to List of Jewish American musicians. It is obvious that List of African-American writers would be useful to anyone interested in African American literature, and the same applies for anyone looking for more information or specific examples on the subjects of any of the other lists. These lists are better than categories because it is of obvious encyclopedic value to be able to know WHEN individual African American Republicans lived so that someone can explore those who were active during Reconstruction, or at the present time or in the times in between. The same could be said, essentially for each of the sub lists. Any sub-list here that does not provide more information than a category SHOULD provide that information, but that's an argument to improve the list, not to delete. Noroton 21:35, 12 September 2007 (UTC) ((add phrase for clarity Noroton 21:38, 12 September 2007 (UTC)))[reply]
  • Keep These are very encyclopediac lists--SefringleTalk 22:09, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong, speedy keep - Important aid for researchers. We only include notable individuals in these lists and they are well sourced. As with previous ethnic group nominations, this nomination, apparently done along with dozens if not hundreds of others all in a single day, is disruptive, WP:POINT, and does not enhance our encyclopedia. Editor apparently presumes that all Americans should simply be "American," and their national origin should be ignored. This attempt to inject political POV into the Wiki should be eschewed in the strongest terms. Improve, don't delete. Badagnani 01:22, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Why are there no notices on the individual articles being proposed for deletion? This is poor form and against WP policy! Badagnani 02:31, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. While Wikipedia may not be a compendium of lists, these listings are extraordinarily helpful with research, as those searching for individuals of a particular ethnic background can easily find specific individuals and possibly contrast with others in the article. These listings for deletion are disruptive, in my opinion. They smack of nationalism and seem to presume that Americans have no (or shouldn't have) interest in the extreme diversity of the ethnic fabric of America. ExRat 02:32, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It has s already been pointed out that these lists are greatly superior in their content and usability (being on a single page, with individuals broken down by occupation, complete with footnotes and references), for ease of navigation and finding the information they are looking for, for our users. Thus, your argument holds no water, and your continued assertion that "categories are just as good as lists" in this context shows bad faith against the editors who have repeatedly pointed out that this is clearly not the case for our users who rely on having this information readily available, and not blanked by presumptuous characters such as yourself. Badagnani 04:45, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Nomination Withdrawn. It has become apparent that individual nominations of each list of this type is pointless, and a consensus on what to do with the entire group of lists of this type is needed, and will result in a broader consensus with less work. I have created a discussion page at: Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups/Lists of Ethnic Americans to try and determine a policy on these type of lists. Please join the discussion there. Thank you. Leuko 14:54, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Brazilian Jews

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

Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Portuguese Americans, relisting as individual AfD's. Precedent for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of German Americans. Leuko 18:02, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Nomination Withdrawn. It has become apparent that individual nominations of each list of this type is pointless, and a consensus on what to do with the entire group of lists of this type is needed, and will result in a broader consensus with less work. I have created a discussion page at: Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups/Lists of Ethnic Americans to try and determine a policy on these type of lists. Please join the discussion there. Thank you. Leuko 14:52, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Chilean Jews

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

Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Portuguese Americans, relisting as individual AfD's. Precedent for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of German Americans. Leuko 18:02, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Nomination withdrawn. CitiCat ♫ 04:47, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right-wing Authoritarianism

[edit]
Right-wing Authoritarianism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Obvious violation of NPOV as is left-wing authoritarianism (which is enjoying its own AfD). This is a soapbox essay full of unsourced inflammatory remarks apparently cribbed from the writing of a single academic who already has a page devoted to him. Wikipedia is not a place for such a book report. Bigdaddy1981 17:19, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

POV is suggested by use of weasel words like "Altemeyer discovered a wide range of correlations over the years" - this sounds impressive unless the reader has even a glancing familiarity with statistics. It means nothing without actually stating the alleged correlation coefficients. At best this article is a book report. At worst a soapbox - it has no place in an encyclopedia. I am amused that a similar book report of a Ann Coulter book received almost unanimous calls for deletion (including me btw) but this is somehow better. Bigdaddy1981 23:44, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't put the correlations themselves in an encyclopedia article, and I'm not seeing where this article contains weasel words (See WP:WEASEL). In any case, these again are improvement issues, not deletion issues (See WP:DP). Valerius 02:11, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If the correlations are significantly different from zero (or if they are not) that should be noted - their actual values are not important. Its weasly to just talk about correlations - and in my view invite laymen to interpret this word informally. It may be that no POV-pushing was intended but this article certainly seems it to me. Bigdaddy1981 07:00, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is a general-use encyclopedia for lay people. Lay people would not be able to interpret correlation coefficients nor would they understand what is meant by significantly different from zero. Therefore, it is not appropriate to add such information in the article. I have not checked every correlation mentioned in the article, but every one that I have checked is significantly different from zero in the direction claimed. If you want to know the statistical details, then you have to read the source material listed at the bottom of the article. Wikipedia is not and never will be a substitute for reading the source material.
I do understand your previous point about not seeing the difference between this article and the one on Left-wing Authoritarianism (LWA). After all, the latter article is simply a copy and paste from this article with a few words changed. The difference is that the article on LWA is vandalism, whereas this article discusses an important line of research in political science and social psychology. Furthermore, I highly doubt that the LWA article has much to do with Ann Coulter’s book, as the book appears to be about Coulter’s claim that liberals are hostile to religion. This article is an accurate description of some of the findings in this line of research, albeit a description with much room for improvement.--FreeKresge 14:30, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. This article cites five independently published sources. Right-wing authoritarianism (RWA) is a well-known social psychological concept that has been the subject of numerous empirical studies. Several psychometric tests have been developed to measure it. The article could make use of more varied sources, but that is hardly a reason to delete it: articles that can be improved should not be deleted. As nearly as I can determine, the article isn't POV but is an accurate reflection of the prevailing conception of RWA. Valerius 02:57, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 04:39, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep There is a large body of research on Right-wing Authoritarianism (RWA) in both social psychology and political science. Nearly every claim in the article comes from empirical research and has been replicated many times. This is the difference between RWA and Left-wing Authoritarianism, which had garnered little more than speculation in the academic community. The importance of RWA would be clearer if the article had in-line citations and greater coverage of work on RWA by people other than Altemeyer.--FreeKresge 17:49, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Or inline refs at all - at the moment, it is not clear if the claims are based on others' work or are OR. Bigdaddy1981 18:25, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
References below an article rather than inline are a far cry from "cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources" (WP:DP). This article can be improved, but I see nothing here that warrants deletion. Valerius 01:35, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps then it can be pared back and kept - and then interested authors can add back in sourced detail. As it stands, its in such bad shape as to appear (to me anyway) delete-worthy. Bigdaddy1981 07:02, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with authoritarianism I voted to delete the article on Left-wing Authoritarianism because it was actually a summary of an Ann Coulter book. However, I don't see respect for or defiance of authority as being a "right wing" or "left wing" thing. The premise of the article appears to be that conservatives are more likely than liberals to be subservient to, and less questioning of, authority, which experience doesn't bear out. People tend to question authority that they don't like, and to respect authority that they think is "on their side". Mandsford 23:14, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I respect your viewpoint concerning respect for and defiance of authority, but no personal viewpoint, however compelling, is a basis for deleting, merging, or keeping an article. The characterization of conservatives as authoritarian would have to be included in any complete article on RWA, because it is part of the RWA concept and the research that supports that concept. Valerius 23:51, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per the above several comments re this being a real topic not limited to the work of one individuals, I withdraw the nomination. I am satisfied that the fact tags I added to the article are sufficient to meet my concerns re content. Bigdaddy1981 18:49, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Nomination Withdrawn. It has become apparent that individual nominations of each list of this type is pointless, and a consensus on what to do with the entire group of lists of this type is needed, and will result in a broader consensus with less work. I have created a discussion page at: Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups/Lists of Ethnic Americans to try and determine a policy on these type of lists. Please join the discussion there. Thank you. Leuko 14:50, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Argentine Jews

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

Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Portuguese Americans, relisting as individual AfD's. Precedent for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of German Americans. Leuko 17:58, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The same as at the listed AfD - apparently the new consensus is that these lists should be deleted per the arguments on that AfD, as well as DRV. Leuko 18:30, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Nomination Withdrawn. It has become apparent that individual nominations of each list of this type is pointless, and a consensus on what to do with the entire group of lists of this type is needed, and will result in a broader consensus with less work. I have created a discussion page at: Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups/Lists of Ethnic Americans to try and determine a policy on these type of lists. Please join the discussion there. Thank you. Leuko 14:48, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Latin American Jews

[edit]
List of Latin American Jews (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Portuguese Americans, relisting as individual AfD's. Precedent for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of German Americans. Leuko 17:53, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 in accordance with WP:CSD#G4. Acalamari 22:44, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Star Trek versus Star Wars

[edit]
Star Trek versus Star Wars (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Pure, unadulterated OR. GlassCobra (talk • contribs) 17:51, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This is actually the 5th nomination. Previous AfDs:

  1. Talk:Star Trek versus Star Wars#VfD
  2. Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Star Trek versus Star Wars
  3. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Star Trek versus Star Wars (recount)
  4. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Star Trek versus Star Wars (4th nomination)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Nomination Withdrawn. It has become apparent that individual nominations of each list of this type is pointless, and a consensus on what to do with the entire group of lists of this type is needed, and will result in a broader consensus with less work. I have created a discussion page at: Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups/Lists of Ethnic Americans to try and determine a policy on these type of lists. Please join the discussion there. Thank you. Leuko 14:47, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Asian Americans

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

Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Portuguese Americans, relisting as individual AfD's. Precedent for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of German Americans. Leuko 17:51, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - That a list of German Americans was deleted does not mean that a list of Asian Americans should be deleted. The "Asian American" ethnic demographic is notable for being an official US government designation, and there is even an Asian American Heritage Month. Furthermore, the list does a lot more than what a category can do - it organises the individuals by occupation, and provide information for each individual. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:56, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Umm, there is a German Heritage Month too. How Asian do you have to be to be an Asian American? I feel all the arguments for deleting the previous list apply to this list as well. Leuko 18:33, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • The List of German American AfD actually had more Keep votes than Delete votes, if I counted correctly. The closing admin's argument for deletion was loose association, and I highly disagree with the application of that argument on some of the lists (not all) that have been individually nominated for deletion. Inclusion on any one of these lists should be judged on the basis of the individual. Are there sources to back up that Such-and-Such or So-and-So are specifically considered "Asian American"? Note that I'm not talking about whether or not a person's father or mother is Asian. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:57, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, WP:AFD is not a vote (so counting is irrelevant), and the deletion decision was upheld at WP:DRV, so there must have been consensus. There were actually more arguments to delete other than WP:NOT#DIR, but since you bring that up, I don't see how any other list of persons of a certain nationality, ethnicity or religion are any more tightly associated, and less of a directory. Leuko 19:05, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • And the deletion of List of British Chinese people was overturned, relisted for AfD, and kept. Like I said, the fact that a list of German Americans was deleted does not mean all similar lists should be deleted. Furthermore, I did not say that AfDs are decided on vote count, I am saying I see no consensus established regarding these lists, and that I disagree with the application of the closing admin's argument of loose association on some of these lists. WP:NOT#DIR is not applicable here as you can see from the examples given in the policy that it pertains to articles or lists providing contact information and otherwise consumer-related information or how-to information. This is not such a list. And the whole point of listing these lists individually as opposed to en masse in the first place is because some of these lists should be kept and others deleted. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 19:20, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Actually, that was closed as no-consensus, which is not the same as keep. And the closing admin cited precedent of other lists of the same type being kept. By that logic, all these lists, including List of British Chinese people should be deleted per the new consensus and precedent. And I am not sure why we had to list each individually, as it seems we are making the same comments on each individual AfD, so evidently, there really isn't a significant difference between them. Leuko 19:50, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "precedent" is irrelevant, however this should go as extreme overcategorisation. Bigdaddy1981 18:02, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Precedent is irrelevant, but the closing admin could do exactly what the closing admin did in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of German Americans — look at arguments that tied in with Wikipedia policy and discount the keep arguments that did not. (See Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators#Rough consensus for how that's done.) The last item in WP:NOT#DIR was the crucial element in the closing admin's reasoning. IMHO, if editors who want to keep this list can provide good counter-arguments that (1) tie in with some Wikipedia policy and guidelines, or maybe at least (2) tie in with overriding, important Wikipedia encyclopedic goals, then it would save this article. Or perhaps an argument can be made that WP:NOT#DIR just doesn't apply. If none of that is done, this article is probably a goner. I'm neutral, but here's what I'm curious about, and answers to these might be good arguments: What is the encyclopedic use for this list? Is it a useful illustration of some other Wikipedia article(s)? Should it be broken up into Chinese-American/Indian-American/Japanese-American lists if those don't already exist? Noroton 21:06, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong, speedy keep - Notable subject and the article is an important aid for researchers. We only include notable individuals in these lists and they are well sourced. As with previous ethnic group nominations, this nomination, apparently done along with dozens if not hundreds of others all in a single day, is disruptive, WP:POINT, and does not enhance our encyclopedia. This manner of disruption should be eschewed in the strongest terms. Improve, don't delete. Badagnani 01:23, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete Lists should be turned into categories.----DarkTea© 01:46, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per above Elmao 06:34, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Nomination Withdrawn. It has become apparent that individual nominations of each list of this type is pointless, and a consensus on what to do with the entire group of lists of this type is needed, and will result in a broader consensus with less work. I have created a discussion page at: Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups/Lists of Ethnic Americans to try and determine a policy on these type of lists. Please join the discussion there. Thank you. Leuko 14:45, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of French Americans

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
List of French Americans (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Portuguese Americans, relisting as individual AfD's. Precedent for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of German Americans. Leuko 17:49, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong, speedy keep - Important aid for researchers. We only include notable individuals in these lists and they are well sourced. As with previous ethnic group nominations, this nomination, apparently done along with dozens if not hundreds of others all in a single day, is disruptive, WP:POINT, and does not enhance our encyclopedia. This manner of disruption should be eschewed in the strongest terms. Improve, don't delete. Badagnani 01:24, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. While Wikipedia may not be a compendium of lists, these listings are extraordinarily helpful with research, as those searching for individuals of a particular ethnic background can easily find specific individuals and possibly contrast with others in the article. These listings for deletion are disruptive, in my opinion. They smack of nationalism and seem to presume that Americans have no (or shouldn't have) interest in the extreme diversity of the ethnic fabric of America. ExRat 02:13, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It has s already been pointed out that these lists are greatly superior in their content and usability (being on a single page, with individuals broken down by occupation, complete with footnotes and references), for ease of navigation and finding the information they are looking for, for our users. Thus, your argument holds no water, and your continued assertion that "categories are just as good as lists" in this context shows bad faith against the editors who have repeatedly pointed out that this is clearly not the case for our users who rely on having this information readily available, and not blanked by presumptuous characters such as yourself. Badagnani 04:47, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was deleted with summary Expired prod, concern was: Illiterate hoax about a made-up theory; "author" gets zero non-WP/mirror ghits. ~ Riana ⁂ 04:40, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Christina Borneo

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

It IS a Hoax. PROD tag is right. "Illiterate hoax about a made-up theory; "author" gets zero non-WP/mirror ghits." Spryde 17:48, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Nomination Withdrawn. It has become apparent that individual nominations of each list of this type is pointless, and a consensus on what to do with the entire group of lists of this type is needed, and will result in a broader consensus with less work. I have created a discussion page at: Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups/Lists of Ethnic Americans to try and determine a policy on these type of lists. Please join the discussion there. Thank you. Leuko 14:42, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Italian Americans

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
List of Italian Americans (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Portuguese Americans, relisting as individual AfD's. Precedent for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of German Americans. Leuko 17:48, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Keep How many times are we going to keep nominated this list for deletion? This is a notable ethnic group, and that a list of German Americans was deleted does not mean this list should be deleted. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:29, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: An article on the ethnicity would be encyclopedic and welcome, however, apparently the new consensus is that these list of people by nationality/ethnicity are not appropriate for WP. Leuko 18:41, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure I see such consensus anywhere. In fact, the List of German American AfD actually had more Keep votes than Delete votes, if I counted correctly. The closing admin's argument for deletion was loose association, and I highly disagree with the application of that argument on some of the lists (not all) that have been individually nominated for deletion. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:55, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, WP:AFD is not a vote (so counting is irrelevant), and the deletion decision was upheld at WP:DRV, so there must have been consensus. There were actually more arguments to delete other than WP:NOT#DIR, but since you bring that up, I don't see how any other list of persons of a certain nationality, ethnicity or religion are any more tightly associated, and less of a directory. Leuko 19:04, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • And the deletion of List of British Chinese people was overturned, relisted for AfD, and kept. Like I said, the fact that a list of German Americans was deleted does not mean all similar lists should be deleted. Furthermore, I did not say that AfDs are decided on vote count, I am saying I see no consensus established regarding these lists, and that I disagree with the application of the closing admin's argument of loose association on some of these lists. WP:NOT#DIR is not applicable here as you can see from the examples given in the policy that it pertains to articles or lists providing contact information and otherwise consumer-related information or how-to information. This is not such a list. And the whole point of listing these lists individually as opposed to en masse in the first place is because some of these lists should be kept and others deleted. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 19:24, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Actually, that was closed as no-consensus, which is not the same as keep. And the closing admin cited precedent of other lists of the same type being kept. By that logic, all these lists, including List of British Chinese people should be deleted per the new consensus and precedent. And I am not sure why we had to list each individually, as it seems we are making the same comments on each individual AfD, so evidently, there really isn't a significant difference between them. Leuko 19:39, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong, speedy keep - Important aid for researchers. We only include notable individuals in these lists and they are well sourced. As with previous ethnic group nominations, this nomination, apparently done along with dozens if not hundreds of others all in a single day, is disruptive, WP:POINT, and does not enhance our encyclopedia. This manner of disruption should be eschewed in the strongest terms. Improve, don't delete. Badagnani 01:24, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. While Wikipedia may not be a compendium of lists, these listings are extraordinarily helpful with research, as those searching for individuals of a particular ethnic background can easily find specific individuals and possibly contrast with others in the article. These listings for deletion are disruptive, in my opinion. They smack of nationalism and seem to presume that Americans have no (or shouldn't have) interest in the extreme diversity of the ethnic fabric of America.ExRat 02:31, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It has s already been pointed out that these lists are greatly superior in their content and usability (being on a single page, with individuals broken down by occupation, complete with footnotes and references), for ease of navigation and finding the information they are looking for, for our users. Thus, your argument holds no water, and your continued assertion that "categories are just as good as lists" in this context shows bad faith against the editors who have repeatedly pointed out that this is clearly not the case for our users who rely on having this information readily available, and not blanked by presumptuous characters such as yourself. Badagnani 04:45, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Nomination Withdrawn. It has become apparent that individual nominations of each list of this type is pointless, and a consensus on what to do with the entire group of lists of this type is needed, and will result in a broader consensus with less work. I have created a discussion page at: Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups/Lists of Ethnic Americans to try and determine a policy on these type of lists. Please join the discussion there. Thank you. Leuko 14:40, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Korean Americans

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

Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Portuguese Americans, relisting as individual AfD's. Precedent for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of German Americans. Leuko 17:47, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Notable ethnic group, and that a list of German Americans was deleted does not mean this list should be deleted. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:28, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: An article on the ethnic group would be encyclopedic and welcome, however, apparently the new consensus is that these list of people by nationality/ethnicity are not appropriate for WP. Leuko 18:37, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not sure I see such consensus anywhere. In fact, the List of German American AfD actually had more Keep votes than Delete votes, if I counted correctly. The closing admin's argument for deletion was loose association, and I highly disagree with the application of that argument on some of the lists (not all) that have been individually nominated for deletion. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:55, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, WP:AFD is not a vote (so counting is irrelevant), and the deletion decision was upheld at WP:DRV, so there must have been consensus. There were actually more arguments to delete other than WP:NOT#DIR, but since you bring that up, I don't see how any other list of persons of a certain nationality, ethnicity or religion are any more tightly associated, and less of a directory. Leuko 19:05, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • And the deletion of List of British Chinese people was overturned, relisted for AfD, and kept. Like I said, the fact that a list of German Americans was deleted does not mean all similar lists should be deleted. Furthermore, I did not say that AfDs are decided on vote count, I am saying I see no consensus established regarding these lists, and that I disagree with the application of the closing admin's argument of loose association on some of these lists. WP:NOT#DIR is not applicable here as you can see from the examples given in the policy that it pertains to articles or lists providing contact information and otherwise consumer-related information or how-to information. This is not such a list. And the whole point of listing these lists individually as opposed to en masse in the first place is because some of these lists should be kept and others deleted. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 19:24, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Actually, that was closed as no-consensus, which is not the same as keep. And the closing admin cited precedent of other lists of the same type being kept. By that logic, all these lists, including List of British Chinese people should be deleted per the new consensus and precedent. And I am not sure why we had to list each individually, as it seems we are making the same comments on each individual AfD, so evidently, there really isn't a significant difference between them. Leuko 19:38, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletions. —PC78 21:29, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong, speedy keep - Important aid for researchers. We only include notable individuals in these lists and they are well sourced. As with previous ethnic group nominations, this nomination, apparently done along with dozens if not hundreds of others all in a single day, is disruptive, WP:POINT, and does not enhance our encyclopedia. This manner of disruption should be eschewed in the strongest terms. Improve, don't delete. Badagnani 01:24, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete Lists should be turned into categories.----DarkTea© 01:46, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep -- Fuzheado | Talk 02:05, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. While Wikipedia may not be a compendium of lists, these listings are extraordinarily helpful with research, as those searching for individuals of a particular ethnic background can easily find specific individuals and possibly contrast with others in the article. These listings for deletion are disruptive, in my opinion. They smack of nationalism and seem to presume that Americans have no (or shouldn't have) interest in the extreme diversity of the ethnic fabric of America. ExRat 02:41, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It has s already been pointed out that these lists are greatly superior in their content and usability (being on a single page, with individuals broken down by occupation, complete with footnotes and references), for ease of navigation and finding the information they are looking for, for our users. Thus, your argument holds no water, and your continued assertion that "categories are just as good as lists" in this context shows bad faith against the editors who have repeatedly pointed out that this is clearly not the case for our users who rely on having this information readily available, and not blanked by presumptuous characters such as yourself. Badagnani 04:43, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Nomination Withdrawn. It has become apparent that individual nominations of each list of this type is pointless, and a consensus on what to do with the entire group of lists of this type is needed, and will result in a broader consensus with less work. I have created a discussion page at: Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups/Lists of Ethnic Americans to try and determine a policy on these type of lists. Please join the discussion there. Thank you. Leuko 14:38, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Salvadoran Americans

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

Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Portuguese Americans, relisting as individual AfD's. Precedent for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of German Americans. Leuko 18:23, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep. While Wikipedia may not be a compendium of lists, these listings are extraordinarily helpful with research, as those searching for individuals of a particular ethnic background can easily find specific individuals and possibly contrast with others in the article. These listings for deletion are disruptive, in my opinion. They smack of nationalism and seem to presume that Americans have no (or shouldn't have) interest in the extreme diversity of the ethnic fabric of America. ExRat 02:55, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It has s already been pointed out that these lists are greatly superior in their content and usability (being on a single page, with individuals broken down by occupation, complete with footnotes and references), for ease of navigation and finding the information they are looking for, for our users. Thus, your argument holds no water, and your continued assertion that "categories are just as good as lists" in this context shows bad faith against the editors who have repeatedly pointed out that this is clearly not the case for our users who rely on having this information readily available, and not blanked by presumptuous characters such as yourself. Badagnani 04:39, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong, speedy keep - Important aid for researchers. We only include notable individuals in these lists and they are well sourced. As with previous ethnic group nominations, this nomination, apparently done along with dozens if not hundreds of others all in a single day, is disruptive, WP:POINT, and does not enhance our encyclopedia. This manner of disruption should be eschewed in the strongest terms. Improve, don't delete. Badagnani 04:57, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --Haemo 00:38, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

StankDawg

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

Per WP:N; thousands of NN people can cite the same credentials. Article asserts notability with appeals to a podcast, calling it a "radio show". Subject has two superficial press hits in "IT Jungle" and "Technology Decisions"; neither of these are notable secondary sources (as a data point, neither pub is mentioned in the Wikipedia, unlike major tech pubs like eWeek, ZDNet, CNET, or IDG). Subject has written many articles for 2600, but lots of NN people write articles for 2600, which is a "zine". Subject had a "major" presentation at HOPE, a 2nd tier security venue, in 2004, but no major presentations since then (and one 2005 presentation at DefCon, also a 2nd tier venue). (like many NN security practitioners, he has been a recurring panelist at some 2nd tier venues and has hosted his podcast from them, which this article claims as a presentation). Note that article's primary assertion of notability is the "Binary Revolution Radio" podcast; but the talk page for Binary Revolution Radio asserts notability by association to the subject of this article! Posted a WP:N notice on the article 5 days ago, put a reason on the talk page, no response. Nobody will know who this person is 10 years from now. Let's delete the article. Tqbf 17:38, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete on notability and WP:ATT grounds. Many of the article references are pretty dodgy, and the first few pages of a google search turn up mostly blogs and board hits. There are mentions of security-related presentations in reasonable sources, but nothing like the 'significant coverage' that would establish notability. I could find little to back up the article content in the refs given. EyeSereneTALK 19:07, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 04:42, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The subject of this article clearly meets WP:BIO. He has founded notable organizations within the technology scene, has written extensively in a variety of publications, has co-hosted a highly-regarded show for several years now, and is even viewed by the mainstream as an expert, by the fact that he has also appeared on television programs, from "talking head" pieces to a longer segment on the "Super Sharks" documentary. He also lectures widely on the subject of technology, and pulls in audiences of several hundred people at multiple major conferences, from HOPE to Def Con. The subject also has a substantial fanbase, and his name is well-known enough that multiple people have been working on his bio, and it's had to be pared down to the "most notable" stuff. Caveat: I have met this individual and was invited to appear on his show a few times, but we have no financial relationship of any kind. I do, however, as one of the people within this field, affirm that StankDawg is clearly notable within it. --Elonka 17:18, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Rebut: re "I affirm StankDawg's notability": there's no guideline that offers you the ability to transitively assign notability to your friends. We can argue the degree of notability you have in my field in a different venue (I can secondary-source myself deeper than you can, but am not arrogant enough to believe I belong in an encyclopedia). But "I affirm StankDawg is notable" is a non-argument.tqbf 17:39, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Rebut: Elonka Dunin, I offered arguments against the subject's notability, and your response begs the question. (1) If the subject's podcast is notable and highly regarded, source that. I've been in this field for almost 15 years, and I don't believe that it is notable. (2) An appearance on "Super Sharks" doesn't establish notability (thousands of NN people appear briefly on television); moreover, in the article, the "Super Sharks" appearance is a biographical detail, not an appeal to notability. (3) Hundreds of NN people have presented at HOPE; almost any practioner in the industry can do it. By way of precedent, we just deleted John Flowers because his (substantially more notable) DefCon appearance didn't establish notability.tqbf 17:48, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Rebut: (my last in response to Elonka's comment): re: "founded notable organizations": this is the problem with this article. The subject founded an eponymous "hacker group", which is then credited with several people's zine articles in 2600. The hacker group (Digital_DawgPound) then uses the subject's article as an appeal to its own notability, which then uses the hacker group to foster its own. Is there a WP term for this? As a good faith gesture, I searched ZDNet, CMP, and IDG for references to "Digital Dawg Pound" in security. I found none. I see no secondary source evidence that this group is notable, yet it anchors a series of WP bio pages for people who are probably NN.tqbf 18:03, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I strongly object to the bad faith in your statement that I'm "assigning notability to my friends." Just because I briefly see someone at technology conferences does not mean that we have any kind of a personal relationship. And as I am, verifiably, a respected authority in certain technology and crypto-related fields,[11] I absolutely have the right to an opinion on who is or isn't notable in the tech scene. I agree with you that just because someone gives a talk at Def Con, doesn't make them notable. But by sheer breadth of contributions, StankDawg meets WP:BIO. He has significant name recognition, a notable body of work, and has founded several well-respected organizations within the tech scene. Just because you haven't heard of him, doesn't make him non-notable. --Elonka 19:29, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • So we agree that the subject's DefCon and HOPE presentations aren't prima facie evidence of notability. Please source reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability, the "primary notability criteria". I don't see any, and I looked. You haven't cited any, yet. I apologize for the wording of my previous reply.tqbf 19:42, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The nominating account Tqbf (talk · contribs) has a very limited amount of activity on Wikipedia. This may be a bad-faith nom. --Elonka 17:18, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notability is not subjective. This article has references, they check out, and there's obvious notability because the references support this start-class article. An article can be deleted if the references are so thin that the article can never be more than a stub. That's not the case here. - Jehochman Talk 17:45, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reference (1): _Techno Security's Guide to Managing Risks..._, a paperback Syngress title that the subject did not write. A shout-out in a tech book isn't a notable secondary source. (2) "Click Fraud Sponsored By Google", a blog post that *does not mention the subject*. (3) "Behind the Curtain At TCG", a blog post reviewing subject's DefCon talk. (4) _Technology Decisions_... a broken link, which I tracked down to an NN tech pub targeting the insurance industry, in which the subject is peripheral to the article. (5) _Dubious Achievement..._, a press hit about a HOPE presentation in an NN tech pub. If it's helpful, I can give you analyses about typical press coverage from first tier venues (RSA and Black Hat); by way of example, my talk hit all of ZDNet, CMP, and IDG (I'm NN). tqbf 17:55, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • So is that what's launching your attack on StankDawg's article? He has a bio and you don't? --Elonka 19:29, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ad-hominem. I'm comfortable and confident that I'm not notable, but familiar enough with the industry and how its PR works to know that the subject of this article isn't either. This reply you just made isn't an AfD argument. Can you cite reliable independent third-party sources in which the subject of this article receives significant coverage? Notoriety among a small subculture isn't notability. A subject is notable "by dint of people writing about it".tqbf 19:42, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This AfD seems to me to rest on two criteria (per my earlier comment): notability and verifiability. To take notability first: as an article that comes under WP:BIO, it looks like notability is being argued due to "demonstrable wide name recognition". StankDawg generates 953 ghits... but my own username generates over 850, and I'm utterly non-notable. Although ghits is imprecise as a measure, for someone whose identity is - even partially - tied to the web and the IT business, this is a very low hit count (and when one discounts the hits to StankDawg's sig in blogs and forum posts, and the various WP articles and mirrors, this drops even lower). There may well be name recognition amongst a niche community, but from what I could find this is neither "wide" or especially "demonstrable". Then we come to verifiability, which is established by evidence in reliable, independent secondary sources backing up every claim made in the article (preferably using inline citations). Again I saw almost no evidence of this; many of the sources, as tqbf has pointed out, only mention in passing the claims made... and this makes the bulk of the article unverifiable (and hence original research). This is very serious in a bio (see WP:BLP); unsourced information can be removed at will, and quite rightly unverifiable bios do not stay on WP long. EyeSereneTALK 21:40, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Additional data points: StankDawg's "David Blake" isn't in the first 3 Google pages for that search, or even with that search qualified by "Security". "StankDawg" has no current Google News hits, and only 2 hits in the archives, in "IT Jungle" (argued NN per above) and "National Underwriter Life & Health". There are only 7 Technorati blog hits that even mention StankDawg, several of which are written by the subject, one of which is a Transformers movie review. There is 1 Google Scholar mention of StankDawg, in an undergrad paper on "leetspeak", but otherwise no academic mention of StankDawg. The subject's lack of name recognition in my own field prompted this AfD.--- tqbf 21:49, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep With Caveats. I would like to keep the article but only under three conditions. The first being that the article's primary name be changed to David Blake or some disambiguation there of. My reason for this is that "StankDawg" is not a very encyclopedic title for an article about a person. Even if he goes by StankDawg. (if you were to read about David in a history book, would his section be titled StankDawg or David Blake?). The second, which is included due to a more serious concern is that the article needs to be trimmed to include only material that is of note (and perhaps some simple background information, e.g. where he grew up, went to school, etc). For example the entire section on "Hacking" needs to go. to be honest unless his webpage itself is of international note then I don't really care that he started it because he was upset by "politics, in-fighting, "Elitism", and lack of supportive atmosphere". That reads more like a bio on a blog than it does a like a bio on an encyclopedia. As I see it, the notable parts here, seem to be the radio show(s), and his involvement in a hacking group (DDP). If both of those are notable enough to warrent pages of their own (and im not making comments either way on that as I've not reviewed them fully) then those seem to be the most relevant parts to why he's notable. If so lets trimm the article to include just those notable parts without all the fluff. Third we need to find some sources that make mention of Mr. Blake in a noteworthy way. I don't count many in the list. it is essecial (as with everything else in an encyclopedia) that everything that we say is noteworthy about him is cited clearly and from a reliable source. --Michael Lynn 22:43, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hey, Mike. You really think this material is keeper? I'll re-read it. But can I try to convince you that what we really want to do is merge all this into one article for Binary Revolution Radio? I went after this article because it's the center of a whole constellation of weird little articles about people in this "Binary Revolution Radio" / "Digital Dawg Pound" subculture. Frankly, it seems like noise pollution at best and misleading at worst considered in the context of the rest of the bio coverage of security here. --- A question: if you got rid of the "hacking" stuff, what would be left? --- tqbf 22:52, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree with you that some of these claims are shaky, but if some parts are totally NN (and i completely agree that large parts of this article are pure fluff), then we can remove those parts without removing the entire article. In my experience its best to do this in phases, if in the end he really isnt NN, then little by little it will be widdled away to nothing and will be deleted eventually. If however the other side is correct, and there are notable things here (and i think there *might* be some) then they can find sources, build up the parts that actually belong here and make the encyclopedia better. But i do totally see what set you off here so lets see what we can remove to keep this article notable and verifyable. --Michael Lynn 23:03, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Doesn't WP:BIO declare that "The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, which has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." Wouldn't this be covered under 2600: The Hacker Quarterly as a subject based printed magazine in which David contributed regularly and is recognized by his peers for doing so? Additionally in reference to notability based on Google search count and name recognition, I am having troubles using that as a credible method of giving notability. For example John Draper and Abe Lincoln have nearly the same search responses however it would be feasible to say that more people would consider the President of the United States far more notable than a accomplished phreak. Additionally lets take that one step down, you can bring yourself to Kevin Mitnick who not only is VERY notable in the field, even gained large conference coverage and TV coverage can only muster a simple 1 million results from Google search. Additionally the credibility of search response count and order for Google would also be in question. What I am getting at is what value of hits on google, if any, justifies notability. With regards to Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) in relation to his peers under the two organizations Binary Revolution and DDP. As a organization the Binary Revolution and DDP members have been published in notable magazines which in this case was mentioned to not be notable because no cross reference could be given. In this case I would recommend this issue be more of a lack of notable references vs. grounds for deletion. Additionally what grounds of notability do online publications have? What is classified as a online publication, can it be member contributed? This I think will ruffle some feathers on Wikipedia as topics of 'publication' on a website may be notable by current guidelines purely on subject matter and not value and understanding of content published. Correct me if I am wrong but is this or isn't this the reason Binary Revolution and DDP would be considered 'barely notable?' I would also like to request that user:tqbf please stop responding to the field in question in a possessive manner, one cannot own a field of study / practice. --Jeff Lockerman 17:39, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    — Zapperlink (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. --Elonka 18:32, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • 2600 is a zine, and zines have different reliability implications, per WP:BLP. Worth noting also that the bar for getting published in 2600 is quite low. More importantly, "DDP" and "Binary Revolution" are not independent reliable third party sources of notability; they are small groups, both started by the subject; the former (DDP) is actually eponymous! WP already distinguishes between blogs and other independent sources. John Draper, Kevin Mitnick, and the President are clearly notable. What's the case being made for this article? I apologize if I seem possessive, and believe elonka and I have mended that fence offline. --- tqbf 18:05, 14 September 2007 (UTC) (also, objection your honor! StankDawg has ~950 ghits, Abe Lincoln has 1.1MM, and John Draper has ~100,000 --- one-of-these-things-is-not-like-other, and I'm embarrassed I had to go look this up) 01:05, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • 2600:_The_Hacker_Quarterly is not a "zine" based on the definition of wikipedia Zine and therefore qualifies as a "reliable source" in this case. -Bad Monk3y 01:07, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Zine is not policy, and if it were, 2600 could still fall under it; it's a self-published work of minority interest. MRR, cited on that same page as the archetype of a successful zine sold in bookstores, has a broader circulation (and wider name recognition) than 2600 (note 2600's circ isn't audited, nor is the circ number on 2600:_The_Hacker_Quarterly sourced). Not that this matters; nobody is citing a 2600 story that covers the subject, only articles the subject wrote. Pizza Today (exists!) has staff writers too, but they aren't notable. Neither is this subject. --- tqbf 03:43, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • My comment was not arguing if Stankdawg is notable based on Google hits. My comment was questioning the usage of hits to determine notability, which IMO is a unreliable method of justifying anyones status (Not just Stankdawgs). However as I stick to my purpose of coming on here, is not to justify the saving or removal but to simply question the 'solid' reasonings behind them. Saying that a hits count on Google determines notability is like saying someone with a CCNA determines them qualified to handle a MBGP. Elonka and Mike had made previous comments which I was simply questioning back and would like to hear there educated input on. Additionally since I was already there I went ahead and edited the following "I'm embarased I had to go look this up)" to include correct spelling. --Zapperlink 17:11, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thank you for fixing my typo. The arguments against this page don't hinge on ghits. The problem is, 3000+ words of debate into this AfD, there are still no reliable, independent secondary sources that affirm this subject's notability. To believe the subject is notable, you have to believe that the subject's eponymous "hacker group" is notable and that the subject's podcast is notable. --- tqbf 17:35, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Since it was me that brought up g-hits... ;) I have to agree with Zapperlink that they are (as I mentioned) an unreliable tool... when used uncritically and in isolation. However in this case I believe they are one indicator (amongst others) of a lack of notability, since a notable person - especially one closely associated with IT/the web - could be reasonably expected to have a rather higher profile. Taken together with the lack of suitable source material (per tqbf), notability has not really been established. EyeSereneTALK 20:45, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • While I still have to re-read the explanation for groups / organizations listed to be 100% assured, I think at worse, since the big factor is that David Blake is not by the sites standards considered independently notable, that it be merged with the Binary Revolution / DDP Information as for those identities, he is not only the founder but a huge contributor, and knowing Binary Revolution from its very beginning, I can account that the numbers in which it is being recognized on a 'niche field'(Hacker Community) is greatly increasing each year and its contributors vary in levels of 'notability' (Mostly because each one cannot be identified at this moment.) --Zapperlink 23:08, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Being well-known inside of a small group of people (for instance, the listeners of a niche podcast) doesn't make you notable, per WP:NOT. Can you cite a reliable, independent secondary source claiming that BinRev is notable, or that David Blake is notable? If not, we should delete this.

--- tqbf 00:14, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

        • I would have to disagree with the idea that David's outreach is insignificant enough not to in some fashion be noted in at least conjunction with his partnering entity Binary Revolution, not specifically Binary Revolution Radio, which itself should be a subject of Binary Revolution. Binary Revolution has reached a similar growing scale as 2600 has done in the past and still continues to grow. The Binary Revolution has had successful physically printed magazines, a active website, a developing project base, and even a ongoing Podcast seems to be more than just a 'fanboy' website for the hacker subculture. Additionally Binary Revolution has extended even further to have actual meetings nationally, maybe even internationally. David Blake, founder of DDP (no notable by site standards) and Binary Revolution (potentially notable), is no longer an issue of being independently notable. While I disagree there is no just reason to commit to ongoing debate, I will commit only to agree in disagreeing. However in the end being that Binary Revolution is not what I would consider a small organization. Binary Revolution, a entity that impacts more than just a handful of people, would give a piece of mind to say that all of these 'entities' should fall under at least one page in Wikipedia. --Zapperlink (talk • contribs) 00:17, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. I'm sure it's possible BinRev could become notable, but nobody has cited any reliable independent secondary sources to establish that it is now. --- tqbf 01:59, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • What independent sources are sufficient enough under WP policy yet fall under a interest group? I have seen a few interest groups on here that I personally wouldn't consider important or significant, I find the WP entry for organizations to be fairly vague. As a side note I found a lot of interesting aspects on notability for Wikipedia, some examples are John_E._Pike whom I personally have listened to on CNN as a 'reliable source' for their debates. --Zapperlink 20:14, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Hey, Jeff. See WP:AFD for general information and WP:WAX for an essay on the argument you're making, which is that "the subject should stay because less notable subjects are already on the WP". Obviously, I feel that if you can show that another WP article is less notable than this one, we should AfD it as well. WP:NOT states notability's requirement clearly: A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.. Can you find any such source? --- tqbf 20:51, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - According to the notability guidelines a reliable source is defined as: "Reliable sources are authors or publications regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand.". In this particular application of that description, 2600:_The_Hacker_Quarterly (for whom the subject is a staff writer) seems to qualify as authoritative on the subject at hand (A hacker). He has many articles published there as well as for other peer-approved magazines (as well as some true "Zines" as you mentioned earlier). In addition, StankDawg has presented at three very well known hacker conferences two of which are notable enough for their own respective entries(DEFCON and HOPE). These are very well respected by peers in his industry ("hackers", not necessarily "security professionals") and qualify as "reliable sources" that are clearly "notable" within his industry as well even if you don't personally hold them in high regards. In summary, everything in this entry seems to be verifiable by "reliable sources" and are linked to where appropriate. Some parts of this entry may need to be cleaned up (it is a start-class entry after all), or removed/merged into other articles. Just because one person does not seem to acknowledge them, does not make them unverified, unreliable, on non-notable. The only thing that I would say needs to be deleted is the category "computer security specialist" which I would say is very fair. -Bad Monk3y 01:07, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't concede that 2600 is notable or reliable, but I don't think I have to: 2600 hasn't covered the subject, it has merely published articles on the subject's behalf. Sources that establish notability must be independent of the subject. The overwhelming majority of people who write articles for magazines aren't notable and properly aren't in WP. There are tens of thousands of those people. Take your argument to its logical conclusion, and a "staff writer" for Needlepoint Now magazine (exists!) merits inclusion; after all, he's important to needlepointers! --- tqbf 03:21, 19 September 2007 (UTC) (edit: i concede 2600 is notable in/of itself)[reply]
    • If 2600 is notable itself, and said notable publishings decides Stankdawg is notable enough to become a staff writer, wouldn't this indicate in the eyes of 'hacker culture' credible person. --Zapperlink 22:49, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Asserts and demonstrates why he is notable. • Lawrence Cohen 06:45, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 03:23, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BCF2000

[edit]
BCF2000 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non notable product. No importance asserted Spryde 17:36, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was keep. John254 01:17, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Demqog

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

Not really notable - inclusion in an exhaustive list of similar places doesn't pass WP:NOTE. Rambutan (talk) 17:18, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 16:54, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adam 'Beyonce' Lowe

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Adam 'Beyonce' Lowe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Recreation of CSD-deleted page. No real opinion on notability and worthiness, just wanted to run it through AfD to get a consensus. Not sure why it has to say 'Beyonce' in the article, though... GlassCobra (talk • contribs) 16:58, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 central concerns regarding reliable sourcing and the notability guidelines are not much addressed by the comments in support of keeping the article.--Kubigula (talk) 03:59, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Post Revolution

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

Delete Article written by the creator of Post Revolution (see his userpage in es.wiki as proof) (WP:COI?). It lacks significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, and thus is not notable. Chabacano 16:52, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I arrived to your article in this wikipedia because it is common for WP:COI affairs to spread from one wikipedia to another, and I consider irresponsible to do maintenance in es.wikipedia and to look the other way in en.wikipedia. Please, avoid ad hominem arguments, and focus in whether Post Revolution is notable or not. Avoid also insults and WP:CANVASSING outside wikipedia. Chabacano 16:05, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: When you mention its entries in SecurityFocus... do you mean [12]? This is not a valid secondary source. Chabacano 18:43, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment citing rules is not a valid argument. You must to explain and there´s no actual point in your claim. My own weblog is not an issue (focus on article you say, you too please). --Fabiomb
Comment Your weblog became an issue here when you wrote a post making a call for "help" to your readers. I will quote and translate your words there: "el imbécil de "Chabacano", ese usuario de Wikipedia español que me persigue y me baneó sin mediación alguna, ahora quiere borrar mis artículos en wikipedia en inglés ¿alguien con ganas de ayudar por mi lado?" -> "The idiot of Chabacano, that user of the Spanish Wikipiedia that is chasing me and that banned me without mediation, now wants to delete my articles in Wikipedia in English ¿anybody wanting to help me? (plus a link to this page)". That produced some meatpuppets, as you can see below. And the point is well explained, but I will repeat it one more time: It lacks significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Chabacano 19:18, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
CommentThe reason to eliminate the article is your personal problem with the creator of the CMS? --Gabotes— Gabotes (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
CommentWow Chabacano, you are admiting this is personal? c'mon, delete this discussion, the article does its job well, Chabacano is using and blogger reference to delete an article! first, "no suficient links", second, when all is lost, goes to personal issues, you are not serious, this whole poll is useless. And the sources sited in the article are independient from the subject, you must to re-read them.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Gabotes (talk • contribs)
  • Keep First. The objective of wikipedia is to create an encyclopedia. Not the persecution of the witches of Salem.
Second. In this case exist reliable sources, for example all users of this CRM or some reviews of argentine magazines.--Gabotes— Gabotes (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Comment: Users of a software are not sources. Where are those reviews by Argentinian magazines? this is not valid: Taringa is a Digg-like meta-blog. A post there is not a reliable (and probably nor independent) source. Chabacano 16:56, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment this is not the spanish wikipedia, here you can't use the samr arguments. Taringa style is not in discussion, but still is a correct soruce. there's an article of this software at secunia and security focus. only common software lands there. about 100+ users of his CMS are sufficient. if there's personal issues try to avoid them for this dicussion. sorry,im writing this with a treo , its hard, so im not logged in
comment: Can you provide links for the sources you are talking about? Is this the article os security focus? It is difficult vo verify your claims. Chabacano 20:06, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
CommentChabacano: An example in a first search in google: Digital blog: Blogs, la ventana al mundo (it is not a review, but it refutes the saying by Chabacano)
CommentTaringa is NOT a Digg-like meta-blog, to see the entrance in es.wikipedia… OPS was erased because only have 20,000 visits per day, is not relevant in es.wikipedia parameters, sorry. Gabotes 17:08, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You are right: The blog you are quoting does not make a review, and its depth of coverage of Post Revolution is minimal. I do not know what does it refute, but it is obviusly not the main flaw: "lack of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".Chabacano
Comment Chabacano: i don´t think like you, Social Networks are valid sources, wikipedia is a Social Network and Taringa is not like Digg or Meneame, so, i don´t get your point. I think this is a pointless discussion, trasnferring a personal issue to an article discussion. I believe you can make this article grow, not delete it, it´s better for wikipedia. Can you help to improve the article? --Fabiomb
Comment: Your personal thoughts about Wikipedia are, like mines, totally irrelevant here. The point is if it does violate the rules of Wikipedia. Taringa is a social network where, as happens here, anybody can write a post, and consequently a post there is not a reliable source. Chabacano 18:27, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Wrong, Taringa has it´s own rules to prevent casual user posts, you must to be aproved and has sufficient relevance on the site to write a post (more requirements than wikipedia!) so, it´s not a valid argument (for me, of course). Still the article has sufficient reasons to exist, and you can improve it. --Fabiomb —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fabiomb (talk • contribs) 18:33, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Then do you think that this post with 584 lectures until now at Taringa, a general purpose social community, is a reliable source??? (Reliable sources are authors or publications regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand.) I'm amazed.Chabacano —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chabacano (talk • contribs) 19:07, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Social networks are NOT valid sources to use for establishing notability. Please review the policy on reliable sources. In order to be notable, a subject must be covered significantly by multiple, independent sources. --Darkwind (talk) 20:18, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: So... Wikipedia is not a valid source, right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.122.114.243 (talk) — 200.122.114.243 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Comment Chabacano: who or what gives you enough credentials to determine what is valid content or not? what are you searching for? personal glory?. Please do not let your personal feelings for the user become your doom, or people are going to start looking at your articles and check if they have enough external references --Gmfnem —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gmfnem (talk • contribs) 18:13, 13 September 2007 (UTC) — GMfnem (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep I don't have an account here. If the question is being "worthy of wikipedia" or not, I think we are just out of the question here. Since other CMS like Phpnuke or Drupal are comfortably found in wikipedia. If it's a popularity matter, i think the users of PostRevolution are enough to make it "worthy". On a personal and professional (sorry, i have to mention here that I'm project leader on programming resources for the National and State (Provincia de Buenos Aires) governments) opinion I think it would be fair not only to keep the article, but to instruct es.wikipedia's mods on restoring it there as well. PostRevolution's community is growing as well as the interest on it on behalf of the Argentine (and most Latin American countries) government, which has stated privilege on the use and support for all OpenSource projects and developments (only mentioned it so whoever is asking, make your maths, it WILL continue to grow interest). For what's my opinion worth, I find no COI nor ORG here. If it's selfpromotion what is questioned here, I think (and most people would agree) Google is by far a much better promotion tool. This software IS free and GPL, people wants to know it's history in english AND IN SPANISH, as well as "what it is" and how can I learn more about it and about others of the kind. Please KEEP it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.231.173.53 (talk) 19:42, 13 September 2007 (UTC) — 201.231.173.53 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep Why is the article marked for deletion and not marked for completition? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.216.229.49 (talk) 19:57, September 13, 2007 (UTC) — 201.216.229.49 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Delete as non-notable. Google searching for "Post Revolution"+"content management" and "PostRev"+"content management" were both unhelpful in locating reliable sources to verify notability. As a comment on some arguments made above, number of users of a software package does not grant notability, and neither does the use of said software by a government body, unless that usage is significantly covered in multiple, independent sources. --Darkwind (talk) 20:27, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTE. The few sources provided are not reliable (blogs, social networks) nor independent of the subject, and do not provide significant coverage about it. And like Darkwind, I was unsuccessful locating valid sources (which is why there are so many comments about the existence of such sources but actually none have been provided, I suppose). Besides, the canvassing outside wikipedia is quite troubling. And I'm not even going to comment on the 'Voldemort' argument. Delete as non-notable. Raystorm (¿Sí?) 13:13, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very weak keep: The site Post Revolution site have no english translation in it (unable to comprehend it), and its name is clashing with common phrase (making google search hard to find it), thus making it hard to verify the claims. Source code, documentation and the software itself is in spanish (or maybe some similar language), therefore it is hard for english user to use it or find any information about the software, as target audience is spanish-speaking people. There are some vulnerabilities [13] suggesting the software is at least somewhat used and examined. --Mpx 16:25, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
reply:The fact that there is no English content is a sign of its lack of notability. But in Spanish there is no much difference: there are some blogs (of course, this is a software for bloggers), a post in a social community. Of course the software exists and some people are using it, nobody doubts it, but it is not notable. There are no reliable, independent sources talking about it. Even its own creator, Fabiomb, is unable to find them. Maybe in the future, but the promotion must be done outside Wikipedia. Chabacano 22:27, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: So even the author is unable to find any sources? I do not understand spanish, so I can't look for them myself, but if this is the case, I think perhaps delete would be better --Mpx 01:14, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: On what grounds? Raystorm (¿Sí?) 13:09, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. CitiCat ♫ 04:51, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kirti N. Chaudhuri

[edit]
Kirti N. Chaudhuri (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:PROF. Does not really establish notability at all. While the existence of several of his books have been referenced, the article reads like a memoir and it is otherwise completely without WP:RS. Tagged for {{cleanup}} (and {{tone}}, {{notability}}, and {{sources}}), but an editor who appears to be the subject removed all the tags twice without fixing the problems. Evb-wiki 16:49, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete. Cites the books, but not reviews and other reliable sources. Claims of notability appear to be hagiography. Bearian 01:16, 14 September 2007 (UTC) See below. Bearian 23:45, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Despite the unfortunate tone of the article, there are in fact sources for notability.AQccording to Book Review Index, "The Trading World Of Asia And The English East India Company 1660-1760." was reviewed in: Pacific Historical Review May 1983 p218, British Book News March 1982 p138, Times Literary Supplement July 25, 1980 p853, The Journal of Modern History Sept 1980 p506, Business History Review Summer 1980 p218, The Journal of Asian Studies Feb 1980 p388, Pacific Affairs Fall 1979 p500, Pacific Affairs Fall 1979 p500, The Journal of Economic History Sept 1979 p797, CHOICE: Current Reviews for Academic Libraries March 1979 p123 -- 10 reviews, including TLS and Choice and the leading specialized journals in the subject. The other books have also been reviewed, as shown by the references in the article. That is enough for notability. Berian, you usually look more carefully. People, don't let the poor state of the article discourage examining it all the way to the bottom. We're judging the subject. DGG (talk) 03:59, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I call attention to the recent additions to the article in the last day--a determined effort, and it certainly found material. Perhaps too much detail is included now, but we can edit it later.DGG (talk) 00:34, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Phaedriel - 02:43, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

31st century

[edit]
31st century (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This page contains very little information likely to be of any interest to anybody; it's just a collection of fictional events happening in the 31st century, and I'd guess that much of that is based upon original research. There is only one piece of worthwhile info there, about the Transit of Venus, but nobody would come to this article looking for that. I don't imagine that it passes WP:NOTE. What's the point? Rambutan (talk) 16:43, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Unless there are references discussing fictional events in the 31st century, it's original research. MarkBul 17:20, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. The only non-fictional thing on the list is the Venus transit, and that is a systematic/predetermined thing (see point #2 under WP:CRYSTAL). The rest is fictional, and if it should be kept at all, it should be moved to a "list of references to the 31st century in popular culture" or something, and I highly doubt that article would be kept (it isn't really encyclopaedic, and it is also a list of loosely-associated topics). Melsaran (talk) 18:35, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 05:06, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep Of course it's filled with fictional events. Ain't nothing wrong with fiction. Indeed, it's a common science fiction staple to gaze 1,000 years into the future, with classic bestselling authors such as Arthur C. Clarke and Robert A. Heinlein offering an idea as to the advance in technology that a millenium would bring. This is more frequent in "books" than in movies. Many of us used to "read" before the Internet was invented. Articles like this are of longstanding on Wikipedia, and every once in awhile someone gets upset because they won't live to see 2107 or 3007. Strangely enough, millions of people have been visiting the 30th and 31st Centuries by way of authors like Clarke and Heinlein, and have been doing so for a long time. We have articles about Oz, even though most of us have only gone there vicariously. And we were reading about 2007 a long time before 2007. Mandsford 22:52, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep It will grow with time, I was looking for it and found it helpful. futurebird 00:00, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep SF is within our scope, and being useful is appropriate justification for navigational pages; this is best seen as one of them. I note we have similar pages for every future sentury , and most future decades.DGG (talk) 04:39, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's part of a series, albeit the last item in category:Centuries at the moment. I've added another astronomical event. - Fayenatic (talk) 07:53, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - personally I think it is hard to argue that a century is not notable and even harder that the 30th century is but the 31st is not, especially if there are a similar number of SF publications listed, which refering to that time period. I actually do find the information provided rather interesting. Optimale Gu 12:20, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as there is no point to delete this article. I do agree that it needs huge clean up but I strongly vote for keeping this article. -- Niaz(Talk • Contribs) 07:23, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Perfectly notable. --ざくら木 12:49, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 03:23, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PDFView

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

Open source software with no evidence of notability. Delete. Isotope23 talk 16:11, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. Sandstein 22:39, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Mayberry

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

Article does not assert notability. Darrenhusted 15:58, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, agreed. Hardkore Championship Wrestling in non-notable, so he is non-notable, as well. Nikki311 20:53, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Definitely not notable. GlassCobra (talk • contribs) 21:41, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question "the youngest professional wrestling promoter ever." - can that be disproved..? John Vandenberg 05:10, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I think it should be noted that the main editor asked for the article to be undeleted, and his request was granted. Davnel03 19:36, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, Youngest pro-wrestling promoter in history. This is referenced in a Miami Herald article composed in June of this year, in regards to Mayberry's work with the band Peelander-Z. He is the creator of one of the industry's top annual events [The Incredible 8 Tournament], and as you can see by his Wikipedia page he is a notable independent wrestling promoter employing many of the industry's top superstars. I have fixed the internal links on his page and am working on adding content as I find it. I am also working on a page for HCW and The Incredible 8 Tournament. Forgive me for not knowing how to properly post on this page. Wrestlepedia
    • Reply, If he is truly notable, then finding the reliable third party sources shouldn't be difficult. Moreover, he may be the youngest pro-wrestling promoter in history (although this is original research until it is verified), but if it is for a non-notable independent promotion, then he is non-notable as well. Nikki311 03:14, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, The promotion is not non-notable, as it is responsible for one of the larger and more important national annual wrestling tournaments, and is one of FL's top indy promotions as well. You can see a slew of articles on mayberry at [14] that would attest to him being important enough to be included. --Wrestlepedia 23:42, 16 September 2007 (UTC)Wrestlepedia[reply]
  • delete this article fails Notability due to lack of sources which is required according to WP:A and WP:V. The only website that's not owned or operated by this guy or his company is Online World of Wrestling and that in itself isn't enough to establish notabililty. Arguments of "he's notable" fall on deaf ears, find the proof with Reliable sources that prove he's notable - prove it, don't just say it. MPJ-DK 18:45, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 due to lack of third-party, independent, reliable sources and salt due to persistent disruption of Wikipedia processes as noted below by Victoriagirl. — TKD::Talk 01:39, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tino Georgiou

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

Failed WP:BIO. A largely unreferenced article about a romance novelist with one self-published book to his credit. The product of a number of single purpose accounts - nearly all of which are anonymous. Victoriagirl 15:57, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, There are lots of web sites where the author can start, e.g. myspace. --Luis Augusto Peña (talk) 02:29, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't Delete I am the original poster of this thread. Tino Georgiou is dedicating a great deal of time to supporting local and national charities and continues to strive for the highest levels in the novels he writes. Striking a balance between professional and social activities, Tino Georgiou is an important member for the Greek community and the city of Chicago. Brandondev 23:41, 13 September 2007 (UTC)— Brandondev (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
If what you said is true, the article should comply with Wikipedia:Notability : "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.", and there is no reliables sources cited in the article that could verify your statement. Then, we fall back to WP:BIO guidelines where you can see that self publishing a couple of books are not enough to claim notability.--Luis Augusto Peña (talk) 02:23, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Could you please provide a link to the part of the iUniverse website that outlines that? I've searched the website quite thoroughly and can't find it. All four of their major publishing packages (as in, how much you pay and what you get) announce clearly that they are non-exclusive. Accounting4Taste 20:15, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply. You're right. I know that his work is published by a company that publishes self-published works, but I don't know if his work has received multiple independent reviews, or awards, or if his work is very widely read. I haven't seen any reliable sources that would confirm that any of those things are true, and when I googled, I didn't find any such sources. That's what this discussion is about. If that is true as you say, then all you need to do is draw those sources to our attention. -FisherQueen (Talk) 13:55, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll begin by pointing out that iUniverse is first and foremost a self-publisher. In fact, they have titled their entry page "iUniverse - Self Publishing Company". If the company did not charge in publishing Tino Georgiou's The Fates... well, that in itself is newsworthy. Before I address this point, I must note that there is no evidence that Georgiou's other novels (Kingdoms and Summer Blossom) have ever been published. This, despite the fact that they are included in the Bibliography. All this discussion about self-publishing would appear irrelevant if Georgiou met the notability guidelines, which states that the person should have "been the subject of published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may need to be cited to establish notability." The article, as it stands, fails to acheive this goal. I write this acknowleding that the following claim is included: "In both 1999 and 2000, USAToday [sic] listed him as "romance readers will begin to associate his name with multigenerational sagas. Tino is a master of the romance novel form, because he has a keen ear for dialogue, constructs deft scenes, maintains a page-turning pace, and provides compelling characterization." I find it curious that USA Today would print exactly the same words in two separate articles published a year apart. May we please be provided with dates, article titles, and page references? Victoriagirl 17:10, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Your whole argument seems to center around an issue that you don't even know to be true--self published. iUniverese DOES have contracted authors. You also seem to be missing the fact that Tino's books sell well--and he has a multitude of independently written reviews spanning across 35 countries.ProudGk 12:00, 16 September 2007 (UTC) — ProudGk (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Comment Could you please provide a link to the part of the iUniverse site that outlines how they have contracted authors? I looked over their site and couldn't find anything that suggested that they do that. Their four major packages for sale indicate that they make a point of issuing non-exclusive contracts. Accounting4Taste 14:51, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment ProudGk, with all due respect, my nomination is centered on the simple fact that, as it stands, the Tino Georgiou article fails notability guidelines. In fact, only two of the eleven sentences in my post address the issue of self-publishing. Furthermore, you'll note that I state that the issue would be irrelevant if Georgiou only met the criteria included in the guidelines. You appear to know your subject: you write that he has three published books, that they sell well, and that Georgiou's work has been the subject of a great number of independantly written reviews in 35 countries. Providing verifiable references would contribute greatly - not only to the article, but in this discussion. Victoriagirl 15:55, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clarification No, I think you missed my argument, so I'll clarify. My argument is that there are no reliable sources that verify anything you are saying, including that this book is one of iUniverse's contracted books, that Tino's books sell well, or that there are a multitude of independently written reviews. I haven't been able to verify any of these assertions from reliable sources. You seem to know a lot about this author, and you are the one most likely to know of these sources, so it would be really helpful if you would produce them. -FisherQueen (Talk) 12:03, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clarification To see how the book sells, just go around the various sites and look. Reviews are all over the place. Is Tino a contracted author at iUniverse? Don't know. My point was simply you and the other posters in this discussion just presumed he was self-published. And as for not finding anything--I did a search on google and none of his books show up, but when you go to various sites, there they are. Problems with google? For the sources used in the info posted, just read his books, there are the sources. As for this thread, I'm done with it, so do NOT post to me anymore, as your queries will go unanswered. P.S. If you want to know whether iUniverse offers contracts to authors, call them and ask. Go straight to the horses mouth. One last thing: Is Tino notable? His books rank in the top 10,000 globally and he receives favorable reviews. So, let Wikipedia decide. Wait, one last comment. That box at the top that states "this is not a ballot" has got to be the dumbest damn thing I've seen. Do you really think people are so stupid that they can't figure out this is a discussion, and not a ballot? 'Nuff said.ProudGk 16:49, 16 September 2007 (UTC) — ProudGk (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
We can't just take your word for it that he is in the top 10,000 globally and has been favorably reviewed in significant publications. You say that you've found verification at "various sites." Why won't you link to those sites so we can see them? Is it a secret? -FisherQueen (Talk) 17:21, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Carioca 00:21, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Teresa Rae Butler

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

Autobiographical and self-promotional article by non-notable self-published author. Article was originally created as Famous Milwaukee Author, Teresa Rae Butler before being moved to its current title. Article has undergone some spam/POV removal but remains unreferenced. --Finngall talk 15:52, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: If this AfD closes in delete, Butler should be removed from List of people from Milwaukee, Wisconsin. GlassCobra (talk • contribs) 21:39, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Carlossuarez46 05:30, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Klown Films

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

Nonnotable film production company that has made three six-minute films; source for a walled garden of articles about this company, its founder, and its films (included below). NawlinWiki 15:49, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also including:


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 deleted by Eagle 101 (t c) at 23:58, September 12, 2007 (UTC) per WP:CSD#G12. Non-admin closure. --Darkwind (talk) 00:30, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

World Challenge Inc.

[edit]
World Challenge Inc. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Outside of the worldchallenge and founder's websites. Google brings up nothing in the first 5 pages. I cannot establish notability. Spryde 15:34, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 15:45, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Smith (actor)

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

Does not appear to come close to meeting WP:BIO. When you look at his IMDB profile, he only has very small parts. The one that looks the most substantial is his role in Kamen Rider: Dragon Knight. However, the Wikipedia article on him states that he was originally cast in this role, but had to leave the show. None of the links provided in the article meet WP:RS. JamesTeterenko 15:32, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Creativewands is an SPA and his views, as such, should be discounted. Bigdaddy1981 23:49, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, almost all the accounts that have worked on the article are SPAs --Luis Augusto Peña (talk) 02:11, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's not the level of achievement but the level of coverage by independent, verifiable sources that matters. See WP:BIO. MrZaiustalk 07:44, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's not the statement but the double entendre humour that counts ;) ---- WebHamster 10:11, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --Haemo 22:41, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scandinavian Airlines Flight 2748

[edit]
Scandinavian Airlines Flight 2748 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Minor, injury-free crash landing. Hardly newsworthy, let alone encyclopedic. PROD tag added, but removed with talk page comments indicating that the creator has confused Wikipedia with Aviation Week and Space Technology: no, WP's not an aviation newsmagazine. Calton | Talk 15:28, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • "The two incidents looks very similar and Flight 2748 is now the reason for grounding many Dash-8-400 world-wide. Bombardier has issued an AOM (All Operator Message) about possible, unidentifed landing gear problems. SAS has grounded its 33 planes (of a total of 160) of this type and the implications of this event is important." - In other words, current events and technical aviation news. --Calton | Talk 14:18, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --Haemo 00:40, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scandinavian Airlines Flight 1209

[edit]
Scandinavian Airlines Flight 1209 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Minor crash landing with minor injuries. Hardly newsworthy, let alone encyclopedic. PROD tag added, but removed with talk page comments indicating that the creator has confused Wikipedia with Aviation Week and Space Technology: no, WP's not an aviation newsmagazine. Calton | Talk 15:26, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete and redirect to main article. The was consensus the appropriate material can be covered in the main article and concerns about original research & lack of referencing. Vassyana 03:44, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John Spartan

[edit]
John Spartan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Simon Phoenix (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Lenina Huxley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Raymond Cocteau (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Edgar Friendly (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Associate Bob (Demolition Man) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Zach Lamb (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Several articles about characters from the film Demolition Man. No notability, no references--just a recitation of trivia and of plot details already covered in the film's article. ShelfSkewed Talk 15:02, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete. I think the outcome is clear. Personally I would have just speedied this under g11. Spartaz Humbug! 18:14, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bang! photography

[edit]
Bang! photography (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
plus all the photos!

Original research. (Almost speediable but it is a disputed prod so bring it here.) -- RHaworth 14:47, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever, nerds. A sack of coal + the average wikipedia editor's ass = diamond mine. Free email accounts are so easy to get. Just try and keep this article down. wikipedia.org is nothing more than a fucking bathroom wall. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dnynumberone (talk • contribs) 06:01, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, so much jealousy. Aww, you couldn't create the only innovation in the field since digital photography 15 years ago? Awwwwwwwww, pardon me while I cry when you call my pictures rubbish. Jealous motherfuckers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dnynumberone (talk • contribs) 06:06, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fys - you readily admit that you will delete entries because you don't like the style? How are you allowed to get away with that sort of bullshit? "Much of modern photography involves what Wikipedia editors might find to be 'photographs that look awful.'" wikipedia is not supposed to be about taste, it's supposed to be about facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dnynumberone (talk • contribs) 06:16, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I don't like Picasso, maybe I should go delete his entry? I don't like Kenny G, maybe I should delete his entry? There is a difference between EDITING and CRITIQUING. If you are deleting something because you simply don't like the style, you really need to grow up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dnynumberone (talk • contribs) 06:19, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete So someone invented the double exposure. Congratulations. Take a flash photo in front of a mirror and invent some more art... like Picasso. Mandsford 23:04, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. CitiCat ♫ 04:55, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Web x.0

[edit]
Web x.0 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This is original research and opinion, however I rather than prodding, I have brought here in case it is worth merging into Web 2.0 Davidprior 14:47, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete as per WP:NFT —Preceding unsigned comment added by M2Ys4U (talk • contribs) 17:24, 12 September 2007 (UTC) [reply]
Actually, having quickly researched it, the IEEE has an "International Workshop on Web X.0" [15] so most likely the term is used in a professional context. However, I do not believe there would be enough content to justify a whole article. A short mention on Web 2.0 might be more appropriate, so I now suggest a Merge -- M2Ys4U (talk) 17:54, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 03:22, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

0verkill

[edit]
0verkill (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This is an unreferenced article about a video game that makes no assertion of its notability. -- Flyguy649 talk contribs 14:45, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Carlossuarez46 05:33, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kader Belbina

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

No independent reliable sources which could establish notability, just a link to a tournament results page which list only one 2005 tournament where he finished 14th of 18. High on a tree 14:36, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 03:24, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Beginners Programming Language

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

Wikipedia is not a place for people to advertise their pet projects. This "language" is according to its website, still in development. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Camillus (talk) 14:17, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Carlossuarez46 05:34, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Leopard (programming language)

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

Wikipedia is not a place for people to advertise their pet projects. Camillus (talk) 14:28, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • STRONG KEEP I can't find any evidence of this being an advertisement for a pet project. The article has been around for 3 years, at least nine different Wikipedians have edited it, and no one (until now) has suggested it be deleted. Using the principles of Inclusionism and good faith edits, this article should remain. As has been suggested, it might be appropriate it to merge it with another article. KEEP IT! Truthanado 14:36, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment "Inclusionism" is not a "principle" or a policy that can be used to justify keeping an article, it is a philosophy shared by some, but not all wikipedians. Try googling for Leopard programming language, and you'll find nothing other the projects web pages and other adverts - no independent articles, books etc. This is a project knocked up by a 14 year old, as anyone who knows anything about programming can tell. Camillus (talk) 16:54, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Rebuttal. The reason stated for the AfD is that this article was "to advertise their pet projects", and my argument was against that ... I still see no one providing evidence that it is a pet project. I didn't make any comment about notability because that wasn't the basic argument. If you have taken the time to determine that there are few independent verifiable sources, then I suggest you change the reason for the AfD to not notable or the like so it can properly be discussed. I still am somewhat confused though, what has changed in the past 3 years so that this article has gone from acceptable to unacceptable within Wikipedia. Inclusionism in this context should not be taken to mean that we should accept something just because someone has taken the time to do it; here several people have taken the time to improve this article with good faith edits, and I find it hard to overlook that. I still believe the article should stay. Truthanado 22:17, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. I notice on Camillus user page that he is knowledgeable in computer software, which is the topic of this article. I trust the Wikipedia policy of No original research does not taint his views and that we collectively, as a community, reach a just and valid decision. Truthanado 22:29, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- → AA (talk) — 15:42, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No sign of notability here. MarkBul 17:23, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's painful for me to write this because the technology clearly doesn't seem notable, but the subject seems to have lots of independent secondary source citations (Scoble, devshed); some of these hits are not independent (the author of the language works on a major blog) but some of them are. Tqbf 17:51, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the above notwithstanding, there is no real assertion of notability here. Eusebeus 18:41, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable, yet. • Lawrence Cohen 20:01, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless notability can be established by adding independent and reliable published sources. —David Eppstein 02:38, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete, for the same reasons as Beginner's Programming Language above. Pete Fenelon 01:21, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. This is a somewhat serious project and really shouldn't be tossed in the same bag as Beginners Programming Language. Still, only coverage I could find was an interview and a handful of blog posts. Might become notable in the near future, but I don't think it's there yet. — xDanielx T/C 21:04, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 23:47, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zero Gravity, Mound, MN

[edit]
Zero Gravity, Mound, MN (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Being bold and AfDing this. There are numerous problems with this article starting with lack of notabilty, reliable sources (few google hits, one set of pics, two Wikipedia references), and appears (not confirmed) to be posted by a company. Spryde 13:56, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This page has been blanked as a courtesy.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 03:25, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Kozlowski

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

Potentially fails WP:BIO, as there are no secondary sources about this man - he may have lived a relatively interesting life, but all the things he did according to Wikipedia which might be considered notable are linked to externally and not to a corresponding Wikipedia page e.g. Peabody's Monster, Rock Alaska Records, Juneau Information Service Technology, the Jackie Chan Fan Club Moglex 10:52, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 and cleanup --Haemo 00:41, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Camp_Scatico

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Camp_Scatico (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Extreme vandalism and misrepresentation of the true nature of the camp Rjg7872 00:04, 10 September 2007 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: Rjg7872 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic. --Oakshade 17:28, 10 September 2007 (UTC) [reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 13:31, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.--Kubigula (talk) 00:58, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Mitchel

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

I have added references to the article. All material is now properly cited. Please do not delete.

Jim Bruce 17:16, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 WP:V. Sandstein 22:37, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese Foo Dog

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

Lengthy nomination that mainly consisted of complaints about one particular dog dealer redacted because of WP:BLP concerns. Sandstein 22:36, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

tundraline

  • Comment In that google link, which one of those would be considered a reliable source? Rarebreed is a site which nearly anything can get listed on (look at the disclaimer at the bottom). I agree with Starblind and it should be redirected the the Imperial Lions. Spryde 15:13, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 23:44, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dr David Cooper

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

No proof of notability on page. Page started with user of same or similar user name Snowman 13:30, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 13:31, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Camillus (talk) 16:57, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Carlossuarez46 05:38, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Emma and Eve Ryan

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


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

The result was Delete. Carlossuarez46 05:39, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

HHCL

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

Hi -- interested to know why or in what way HHCL's notability is not established by the references quoted. As noted in the entry (with substantiation), the agency was awarded Agency of the Decade by Campaign magazine -- the ad industry publication of record in the UK. Advertising may be a niche as far as outsiders are concerned, but within that niche, HHCL is legendary -- anyone familiar with the workings of the UK ad industry taking time to read the existing references in the wikipedia entry would, i think, agree that they collectively testify to HHCL's importance AND notability within the sector (and outside it!). -- Darrellberry (talk · contribs · logs) 16:09, 11 September 2007 (UTC) Oh I see that one of the reasons for proposed deletion is 'less than 700 Google hits for Howell Henry Chaldecott Lury'. As is standard in the ad industry, references to HHCL were (and are) generally via the acronym HHCL, for which there are vastly more, as would be expected. -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darrellberry (talk • contribs) 2007/09/11 16:15:20 ans also -- in the Wikipedia Notability guidelines for companies (Wikipedia:Notability_(companies_and_corporations)), the example is given that "Hewlett-Packard satisfies this criterion for, amongst other things, being covered in a feature article in the Palo Alto Weekly." Likewise, HHCL should, I think, satisfy this criteria, by its Agency of the Decade Award from Campaign magazine. -- darrellberry —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.31.226.238 (talk) 17:44, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Carlossuarez46 05:40, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Harleysville area ems

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

Local EMS company with no assertion of notability. Sasha Callahan 19:59, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Carlossuarez46 05:40, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jiri Meitner

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

No references, tone is unencyclopedic. The popularity of the artist remains unclear. Jón + 22:11, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article here and on Czech Wiki was almost certainly written by Meitner himself (posing as an art student at the University of West Bohemia but sharing the same ICQ number as Meitner :).
When the text gets deleted all other edits by Bahir(cz) should be reverted - he inserted references to himself to many articles, including red-color category for Lise Meitner. Pavel Vozenilek 14:50, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I still believe that author isn't Jiri Meitner himself, but his son (as he claimed). But it's not relevant. --Adam Zivner 09:34, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --Haemo 00:43, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Aboriginal and Anangu schools in South Australia

[edit]
List of Aboriginal and Anangu schools in South Australia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article is covered by List of schools in South Australia. Twenty Years 11:48, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --Haemo 00:51, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Lutheran schools in Australia

[edit]
List of Lutheran schools in Australia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Wikipedia is not a directory. Information is covered in the relevant state lists. Twenty Years 12:03, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment agree that the redlinks should turned into plain text if kept. Not too OT I hope, but Lutheranism does have some presence in other parts of Australia. Transmigration from South Australia to the Wimmera and interestingly to the south east corner of the Riverina has made Lutherans reasonably numerous in those areas. Direct migration from Germany to Queensland, particularly the Darling Downs, Lockyer Valley and the Burnett has also seen Lutheranism take root there. -- Mattinbgn\ talk 04:12, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete although an article on Lutheran education would be valuable. Capitalistroadster 03:48, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 05:34, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge relevant sections into each state/territory list to indicate that they are Lutheran schools, also as names are often commemorative indication of location in S/T is also of value. I have done this at the List of schools in South Australia -- Paul foord 09:47, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Lutheran schools are a recognised category of independent school in Australia and have been considered a category for the purposes of at least two research papers at a significant Australian University. The Australian Bureau of Statistics also collects statistics based on this category. The list therefore satisfies WP:N and should be kept. I have added an introduction to reflect this. Somebody might wish to rename the page after the debate.Assize 07:42, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Lutheran schools follow Lutheran school standards and can therefore be compared in that way. Parents interested in sending their children to Lutheran schools would find this list a useful tool, and usefulness is a proper argument when discussing a list as opposed to an article. If we're going to have a Wikipedia, then we're going to want to navigate it, compare articles within it when they are comparable, and allow readers to focus on particular sets of articles -- meaning that this list is encyclopedic. This list is better than a category because red links will show whether or not Wikipedia has an article on a particular school, and since school names tend to be rather exact, the red-link feature is particularly useful for school lists. Additional information can always be added to items on a list, helping to identify the school, its location (also extremely useful for parents) and such information as what grades are covered or whether or not the school is just a high school or also a middle school or even an elementary school as well. Noroton 17:08, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • PLEASE SEE: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of high schools in Victoria For some reason, the Victoria list hasn't received the same attention from editors that all the other Australian school lists have in these deletion discussions. Please take a look. Noroton 18:23, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, this list does not contain any information that a category wouldn't be able to. Would support the creation of a category hierarchy for this, as well as for a general article on the Lutheran education system within Australia. Lankiveil 05:13, 22 September 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep, it is useful for navigation per Noroton, and can be embellished with ABS data per Assize. John Vandenberg 13:05, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --Haemo 00:49, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of high schools in Victoria

[edit]
List of high schools in Victoria (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This list is already covered by List of schools in Victoria. Twenty Years 11:51, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(2) Calling a list "unencyclopedic" is just as problematic: the purpose of a list is somewhat different than the purpose of an article and always must be. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia with lists (partly because an online encyclopedia works better with lists that have links) and longstanding practice has been to keep lists unless there arises some other reason to delete. Get over it.
(3) Moondyne calls the list "indiscriminate" and "incomplete". Incompleteness is a fault, not a reason to delete. The article has clear boundaries: The boundaries of the State of Victoria and the definition of an Australian high school. There's nothing indiscriminate at all about those boundaries and we have similar lists for every state in the U.S., every province of Canada and, I'm sure, every other state in Australia.
Additional comment: As the article Education in Australia states in its very first sentence: Education in Australia is primarily regulated by the individual state governments. The state of Victoria has its own Department of Education, which sets standards for schools and curricula that are independent of other schools in Australia (and of every other place on the face of the earth). See Victorian Curriculum and Assessment Authority, and see Victorian Certificate of Education (VCE) and the Victorian Certificate of Applied Learning (VCAL). If Victoria students, parents, teachers or researchers are interested in learning more about how various Victoria education programs are actually working in the high schools of Victoria, wouldn't it be potentially useful to have this list? I'm not trying to prove that it definitely would be useful — I just want to show that the existence of specific characteristics of education in the State of Victoria mean that it will likely be useful for readers to be able to know what articles we have on Victoria high schools and what articles we don't, and then immediately jump to particular articles. Perhaps readers will simply want to use the external links to go to school Web sites, but however they compare these articles, we should be helping them by providing the easiest navigation possible. Noroton 16:32, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(4) Orderinchaos asserts that there is no good reason to separate the high school list from the general list of schools in Victoria. Actually, readers and editors are often more interested in high schools (for which we have a growing de facto standard of inherent notability) than in other schools. Readers and editors may well want to compare the same types of schools and school articles, as I mention in (1) above. Noroton 16:07, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • To the closing administrator For some reason, unlike the other deletion discussions that have just come up for lists of schools in Australia, this one hasn't attracted much participation. I doubt that the reason is that the editors who commented on the other articles are just not as interested in this strongly related topic. Please either extend the time for discussion by doing nothing for a bit longer or relist for more discussion. I'm adding comments to the other discussions to suggest editors participate here. Noroton 18:15, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, information is a duplicate of that at List of schools in Victoria. That article even has a sub-heading for high schools! This list adds no extra value to the information. Lankiveil 05:16, 22 September 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep and improve. I would rather see List of schools in Victoria become a list of smaller lists like this one that are more manageable, and have room to improve separately. The list of all schools is already 30 kilobytes with very little additional "value-added" information for each entry. John Vandenberg 13:00, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 03:26, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of school clusters in the Northern Territory

[edit]
List of school clusters in the Northern Territory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Useless information about school clusters in the Northern territory, should be covered under List of schools in the Northern Territory. Twenty Years 11:56, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --Haemo 00:48, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of schools in Geelong

[edit]
List of schools in Geelong (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

List is already covered under List of schools in Victoria. Twenty Years 11:52, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is also a history section about mergers of schools in the region that isn't in the main article. I've been intending to expand it when I get the time. It doesn't really belong in a list format, but I'm not sure where else it should go. Cull the list, and create History of Geelong schools or something like it instead? Wongm 12:01, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As legitimate content fork of the Geelong article. The nominator's reasons for deletion are insufficient: just because the schools are listed elsewhere, does not mean a legitimate list containing a subgroup of them cannot also be created. It would be absurd to argue that all the schools in Australia should be merged into a "Schools in Australia" page, and all the state lists deleted. The question is whether the criteria for grouping, in this case their location within the large city of Geelong, is legitimate. I think so. Recurring dreams 12:09, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • (reduce indent)Comment by creating an article on the schools of a smallish place like Geelong, you are opening the flood gates to articles from all parts of Australia. Some wiki-analysts would point to the amount of wikiprojects made under WP:AUS, we have Geelong, Townsville etc, and then we get to the point where people make them on topics like Lake MacQuarie (which will eventually be deleted). So why are we allowing this list to sit here when it can easily be accomodated in a larger list. Twenty Years 13:02, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think it's fair to argue about the merits of this page in comparison to pages that don't exist. If those pages are ever created, you can take them to AFD if you wish. Recurring dreams 13:07, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • So what makes this page any different to say List of schools in Townsville? I can see one comparison: they both fail notability, and deserve to be deleted. Twenty Years 13:08, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • OK, great. That's the first reason given for deletion. Why are the not notable? Geelong is a large, geographically distinct locality. Why isn't a list of schools within it notable? Recurring dreams 13:11, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Geelong is small in relation to Melbourne, and possibly even Victoria. The answer is why duplicate the material, when it can be adequately viewed on the List of schools in Victoria. Twenty Years 13:24, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Yes, we have finally gotten to the crux of it. I think its large and important enough, you don't think it is. It's something of a subjective assessment, so I respect your point of view. I'll be interested to see what others think, and whatever the consensus is, we'll roll with it. Recurring dreams 13:29, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • (reduce indent) Good to see, after a small essay :) Twenty Years 13:32, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unencyclopaedic list which seems to be an indiscriminate collection of information. I don't see how this is helps Wik[pedia. —Moondyne 13:57, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Recurring dreams. A legitimate spun out section of Geelong, Victoria. A common theme of deletion discussions on schools is to merge content into the article on the locality. When that locality article gets to a certain size, spinning out the schools section is entirely legitimate. The list needs working on and perhaps Schools in Tamworth, New South Wales (another content fork) is a better and more informative format to use but needing work is not a reason to delete. -- Mattinbgn\ talk 22:57, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Perfectly good list, though could do with a bit of formatting. The deletion arguments are a complete stretch at best. Rebecca 01:37, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a legitimate spinoff from the Geelong article. The list has value in guiding the reader to pages on individual Geelong schools. It's too long to include in the Geelong article directly and would lose any utility in the vast List of schools in Victoria. I appreciate that this may lend itself to Lists of schools in Nowheresville, but Geelong is big enough to justify this list and we can deal with hypothetical pages if and when they are created. As it stands this one is a potentially useful resource for readers of the encyclopedia and should be kept. Euryalus 05:05, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - as suggested by others, I have gone ahead and started reformatting the page using the template Schools in Tamworth, New South Wales. Later tonight I'll do the secondary schools and add enrolment data/references and an expansion of the lead section to be a more detailed history of Geelong schools. The point being to make the page a more useful and encyclopedic fork from the already-long Geelong page, and a guide to readers regarding articles on Geelong schools. I hope this will address some of the notability concerns raised above. Let me know if it still sounds insufficient. Euryalus 06:04, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 05:36, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep In deletion discussions "usefulness" is usually a poor argument in favor of keeping, but when it comes to any list, usefulness is a strong argument: Wikipedia has lists to both help readers navigate and to understand what is encompassed in the subject. It is either useful to be able to do that or not; and the highest compliment we can pay to a list that does it effectively is that it is useful for this encyclopedia to have it. People will want to compare Geelong schools and even compare Wikipedia articles on Geelong schools. This list is useful, potentially, to Geelong parents wanting to know what neighborhood to raise their children in (quality of the local school is an important consideration), to teachers, students, taxpayers, researchers. If the Geelong schools were merged into a larger list, we'd simply produce headaches for our readers and editors. One last argument: Geelong schools no doubt compete against each other in sports, in academics (spelling bees and similar contests), for funding, for students. Therefore a reader of one article on a Geelong school is likely, at some point, to want to read an article on another Geelong school. That's the Geelong and the Geeshort of it. Well, mostly the Geelong. Noroton 17:30, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Notability is not a good argument to delete a list: If the list has items that are articles, then the notability adheres to the articles, not the list, which is a Wikipedia creation at least partly made for the Wikipedia purpose of navigation. An indiscriminate list would be one where we can't assign the boundaries. This list is bounded by the geographic extent of Geelong and the definition of "school" -- meet the two definitions and your item is in; don't meet the definition and your item is out. Noroton 17:56, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of high schools in Victoria For some reason, the Victoria list hasn't received the same attention from editors that all the other Australian school lists have in these deletion discussions. Please take a look. Noroton 18:20, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, while Geelong isn't Melbourne or Sydney, I dont see how that should have any bearing on its encyclopedic value. Different regions of Australia should be allowed to consume equal space on Wikipedia, as each region can be just as interesting even though it isnt as "busy". In the case of Geelong, its effective footprint equals that of Melbourne because a large segment of rural Victoria's prefer to send their children to Geelong. John Vandenberg 13:19, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 [[List of schools in Western Australia — page redirected; merge from history. --Haemo 00:46, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of schools in Perth, Western Australia

[edit]
List of schools in Perth, Western Australia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Duplication of List of schools in Western Australia. Twenty Years 11:41, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 16:38, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nubbinsville Prep

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

Can not find any reliable information that this school exists. Danniiboi 01:03, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Yes, this appears to be a hoax. It seems related to the radio show team The Junkies. Notice that the "Notable Nubbinsville Prep alumni" all have remarkably similar names to the members of radio group. They're probably having a laugh about it on their show. --Oakshade 00:35, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:06, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Public library ratings

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

I believe this article uses Wikipedia as an advertising venue for the "HAPLR Index," which the self-described author of the article markets to public libraries. In hopes of adding some balanced content to the piece, I entered the "criticism" section and the bibliography that follows the article. Before my addition, there was nothing in the article that did anything other than promote Mr. Hennen's product. He cites other nations' ratings systems, true, but always within the context of the HAPLR index. So, even with my addition, the article seems too promotional to be included.--Cameron A. Johnson, reference librarian, Everett, WA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Camjoe (talk • contribs) 2007/09/08 18:53:13

  • Keep and cleanup I think a decent article on this should be possible, and a Google news search shows that the index is taken seriously enough to make mainstream news. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:34, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep when edited for balance. Hennan's rating do deserve a mention--they are featured each year in American Libraries published by the ALA, giving them a certain respectability. (They are also referred to in a number of WP articles on public libraries, and might in fact serve a a rough screen) They are not just opinion, but at least bases on a analysis of various factors--the weighting and so forth are of course subjective, but they aren't really any worse than most ratings in other fields.
As for balance, I have just re-edited it rather drastically--possibly over-drastically. Maybe the Hennan ratings deserve a little more emphasis than i gave them. I did leave in a 1 sentence bio of Henning, however. DGG (talk) 08:15, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 03:28, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quantazelle

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

Article about American electronic musician, music producer and founder of the subVariant music label. Speedy declined. Prodded. One of several deprodded w/o comment by anon except to assert right to do so. 273 Google hits. Not all relevant. Noting helpful at Allmusic. Does not meet WP:MUSIC. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 14:44, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete, as I originally tagged it. Just a mere assertion of notability, when that assertion is obviously not valid, is not a reason to remove a speedy a go through prod and then AfD. No label, no reliable sources except XLR8R, just one album, lots of redlinks, simply not notable at all. Realkyhick 16:23, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
CommentNo, I the mere assertion of notability does remove it from WP:CSD. Debating that assertion's validity would be something to take up on the talk page of a prodded article, but another editor seemed to believe subject was sufficiently notable to de-prod. So I brought it here. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 18:48, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per comprehensive nomination. Assertion of notability does not appear to meet WP:MUSIC. This was not a speedy, Realkyhick. Process is important to the person whose article is being nominated. Rockpocket 22:45, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: True. I guess I'm getting a bit cranky because of some anon editors de-prodding articles just because they can. Not much of an excuse, but it's the best I've got. Realkyhick 00:22, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I understand, and often unprodded articles (as you say, just because they can) will slip back under the radar. However, I had it watchlisted and would have taken it to AfD myself as part of the speedy review process, but Dlohcierekim very kindly beat me to it. Rockpocket 00:41, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Glad to be of help. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 00:51, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 23:41, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shirley Parish Church

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

No claim of notability. Even having one of Britain's best ever sportsman married here doesn't merit this article existing Montchav 18:08, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete no evidence shown of coverage reliable sources and I can't find any. The article creator says that "This church is referred to in a wide range of local history books and other resources" but these books have not been cited in six months. The burden of proof is on the person adding the content. Hut 8.5 18:58, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Change to Keep now that we have sources. Hut 8.5 17:32, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep - Wikipedia has no time limits. A stub is a stub, and just because it's been a stub for 6 months is not a valid reason for deletion. It's included in several reliable sources, including this, and probably this, this, this and this as well. It's also mentioned in passing in this book. As I say, I haven't yet found the time to add the necessary references, but that certainly doesn't mean they don't exist. Furthermore, some of the church buildings are Grade II listed [22], which means that further independent, highly qualified people have deemed them "particularly important buildings of special interest"[23]. The notion that such subjects should be excluded from Wikipedia is preposterous. Waggers 11:21, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"It's been a stub for 6 months" is not a valid rationale for deletion, no. The rationale for deletion was that the article cited no references, the nominator couldn't find any, and there had been plenty of time given to cite references (six months). The fact that it is a stub has nothing to do with it. I've changed my vote now that sources have been added, but please note this is not a speedy keep candidate. Hut 8.5 17:32, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. CitiCat ♫ 03:43, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Special interest high schools in South Australia

[edit]
Special interest high schools in South Australia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Complete waste of space, that provides no benefit to the community Twenty Years 12:28, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - per TerriersFan. Additionally, the user's deletion rationale is not appropriate and is contemptuous to those who created the article in question - how would he like it if I termed him "a waste of space that provides no benefit to the community"? I suspect he wouldn't - and people's articles should not be characterised likewise. JRG 05:15, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The list can't be indiscriminate because the criteria are clear: an item must be a special interest high school and it must be located within the state of South Australia. The list wouldn't work as well as a category because the list allows the reader to see which schools are involved with music, which specialize in particular sports and which are for students with "high intellectual potential" or however they phrase it Down Under. "Usefulness" is an excellent reason to keep a Wikipedia list since being of use is one of the two main reasons we have Wikipedia lists (the other is to illustrate or to show the extent of a particular concept: in this case "Special interest high schools in South Australia"). The list is justifiable as only covering South Australia because, as the article Education in Australia points out in its very first sentence, education policy in that country is largely set at the state level. It is only natural to want to focus on types of schools within a particular Australian state. Noroton 18:09, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of high schools in Victoria For some reason, the Victoria list hasn't received the same attention from editors that all the other Australian school lists have in these deletion discussions. Please take a look. Noroton 18:18, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, normally I don't like lists, but this is an unusually good example, it provides extra information that cannot be done with a category, and the criteria for inclusion are pretty discrete. Also would like to remind the nominator to maintain civility when nominating articles for deletion. Lankiveil 05:12, 22 September 2007 (UTC).[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 16:34, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Westfair Mall

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

Non-notable shopping mall, far too small and obscure to have ever had any coverage in reliable sources. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 18:03, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Disney's BoardWalk Villas. Non-admin closure. GlassCobra 23:38, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BoardWalk Villas

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

Duplicate article. Already exists at Disney's BoardWalk Villas Spryde 13:19, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. I'm closing this a few hours early. The debate is already 139KB long, one of the longest and craziest debates I seen, and the results seem rather obvious even though I don't agree with an article nither. I watchlisted this for a couple of days now, and a good 75% of the votes aren't valid, mainly WP:ILIKEIT, WP:ITSNOTABLE without a reason and WP:IDONTLIKEIT with comments like if it's kept, wikipedia is going to be a joke. Another delete comment that I saw is that there was no reliable sources, but there is several non-trivial ones, from reliable websides and alot of international coverage that sadly makes the fails WP:BIO agruements moot. With the few that are still valid, it's sad to say it's mainly in the keep side with Irishjp and 64.190.140.138 as the most valid in the delete side. It can be renominated for deletion in a few months if he's no longer in the news, as WP:BLP1E starts to apply. Jaranda wat's sup Sports! 21:44, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Crocker (internet celebrity)

[edit]
Chris Crocker (internet celebrity) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

More crap off the Internet. Ludicrously thin claim to fame. Escapes speedy ONLY because it *asserts* notability, not actually having it. PROD tag added, but removed without comment by an anon IP. Calton | Talk 13:18, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NEW COMMENTS GO AT THE BOTTOM - NEW COMMENTS GO AT THE BOTTOM -- ALLSTAR ECHO 21:53, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Media Votes

[edit]

(So there is no confusion, this is not a serious vote.)

Comments

[edit]
  • Keep - People only want this deleted because he is gay. There is no reason to delete it; there are plenty of sources now. It needs to stay. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.2.20.109 (talk) 19:09, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response - Don't make absolutes. People want this deleted because it is merely an attention-seeking teen with no cultural significance and very questionable notoriety beyond a single overblown Youtube incident. Encyclopedia dramatica exists for things such as this nonsense.
  • Consideration - Given it's exposure, argument could be made for the -video- having suitable notability. Joe Average may well be aware of it due to the press coverage, but it's doubtful anyone not more than passingly familiar with the whole affair already would know the originator's name outside of the context of this one isolated incident. This may be better served as an example or sub of the viral video article. Stugein 04:55, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Give me a break. The radio show I was listening to on the way to work the day I wrote that was slightly... misinformed. LOL. Turlo Lomon 07:02, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're not alone. Keith Olbermann made the same mistake: http://youtube.com/watch?v=ubUHbwAzydc Ichormosquito 03:16, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – Just becuase he got famous on the internet does not make him less notable. Here a Danish newspaper (Ekstrabladet) has an article about Chris on their website, this spread halfway across the globe underlines the notability. --Morten LJ 13:30, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, pay attention: I offer a link to a common -- and widely accepted -- rationale. You, instead of actually addressing the rationale, simply offer up a link about not offering up links -- which makes it not only a rhetorical dodge, but an ironic one at that. So, were you actually going to address it, or were you going to dredge up some more shortcuts? --Calton | Talk 05:47, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are you actually attempting the passive-aggressive rhetorical-question dodge? Really? Instead, you know, honestly answering the questions asked? Are you? Have you been reduced to that sort of rhetorical handwaving? --Calton | Talk 06:17, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Really. And your passive-aggressive rhetorical-question crap about "are you honestly still maintaining" WAS intended to be helpful -- or is this another exception you've granted yourself? At this point, I'm thinking I could start a drinking game based on each time you pull a new rhetorical dodge out of your hat. Good thing the weekend's coming up or I'd be unfit for work. --Calton | Talk 17:21, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This discussion is not about me or my apparent "rhetorical dodges". If you don't believe this article should be included in wikipedia then please explain precisely what policy it does not meet, and why it does not meet it. Fosnez 05:31, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Deserving to be notable is not the same as being notable, only the latter matters here. Debolaz 23:37, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; the news articles are mostly of the News of the Weird kind, and being famous for 10 seconds does not mean being worth of note in an encyclopedia. Other than the hilarious video, what has he done? We don't even know his date of birth! If this article is kept, it should be renamed to "Britney Spears Fan video" or something similar, as the article subject is the video, not the person. Tizio 13:49, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Blink. You're seriously saying that appearing once on the home page of an Australian website means makes him famous forever? You're actually making this claim? --Calton | Talk 14:05, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As mentioned before, notability is not the same as being a celebrity. Debolaz 14:27, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And a dessert topping is not a floor wax, and what does any of it mean regarding the price of tea in China? --Calton | Talk 15:05, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The man's made a tearstained legend of himself, he's been on Fox News, CNN, TMZ, the Age, God knows what else. If absolutely nothing else it should be merged with a larger article, though expanding the article would be preferable. Arguing that he's not going to be famous a year from now is pointless- why do we still have that awful song by Samwell on here then? dethtoll 17:28, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep Keep.Neutral. Here's a fairly thorough biographical write up from The Stranger (newspaper): http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/Content?oid=232684. Quotes: "Nineteen and gay, too effeminate to hide, and persecuted by haters in his small town, Chris Crocker turned to the web to vent. Now he's a huge YouTube celebrity." and "Over on YouTube, where Chris also posts, the total number of views for his videos long ago passed the one million mark. Among the people far away from Real Bitch Island who are tuning in: Cassie, the R&B star, who has a subscription to the Chris Crocker video stream on her YouTube page; Glenn Meehan, a Los Angeles producer who recently inked a deal with Chris to develop ideas for a TV show; and Matt Sunbulli, MTV's 'web correspondent,' who has requested a Chris Crocker video for the MTV website. 'He's got this incredible energy,' Meehan, the L.A. producer, told me. Sunbulli, the MTV correspondent, told me Chris has 'virality.'" God help us all, he might be notable. Ichormosquito 17:31, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Wikipedia isn't going to make him famous, He's already famous. Allstarecho™ 01:00, 14 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Allstarecho (talk • contribs)
  • Comment Let me reiterate: Why do we continue to have an article on Samwell's What What (In the Butt), why do we continue to have an article on, say, this guy, why do we have an article on just about every useless person or thing that was only famous for a short period of time? What makes Samwell notable? What makes any of these people notable? If we can have that sort of thing on here, then I honestly don't see why we can't have Chris Crocker on here. dethtoll 19:38, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is about the weakest reason I can think of to keep any one piece of crap. If you think some page isn't worthy, by all means please nominate it for deletion so we can get rid of stuff that isn't worthy. But wikipedia is huge and nobody can know about what one person considers deletable unless he/she says something. DMacks 19:43, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're misunderstanding my point. It's not a question of whether I think those articles are notable- I'm just saying that Chris Crocker is JUST AS notable as they are, no more, no less (with maybe one or two exceptions, like the Evolution of Dance guy) so if we're going to delete this article we may as well delete all the others, because by declaring Chris Crocker non-notable we're declaring most of the other Youtube celebs with 15 seconds of fame non-notable too. But if this article is kept then that validates the existence of the other articles. See what I'm saying here? It's either all or nothing. dethtoll 19:54, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please read over WP:NOTE and WP:BIO. It's not "all or nothing". The Bus Uncle passes WP:WEB with flying colors. What What (In the Butt) is borderline. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Happyslip for an example of the notability guidelines in action as applied to YouTube celebrities. Ichormosquito 19:57, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Notability is not temporary. There is nothing this guy has done to make himself notable long term. Think of it this way - Britney's performance in and of itself is not notable enough to have its own page. The criticism is definitely not notable enough to have a WP article. So why would the criticism of the criticism have enough notability? Smashville 21:19, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't follow. If the news media finds criticism of criticism notable, who are we to say otherwise? In response to your concerns about his longterm notability, I again quote ABC News: "Crocker has been posting videos on YouTube for six months and has acquired quite a fan base." You might also want to look over the article from The Stranger (newspaper)[31], which is surprisingly thorough and was published BEFORE the Britney video. Ichormosquito 21:26, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not arguing that his being on ABC News establishes notability. I'm arguing that the nature of his coverage might. Being the 30th or so most subscribed user on YouTube tends to give one a healthy amount of exposure, and both ABC News and The Stranger acknowledge he had a significant fan base before the Britney video. Ichormosquito 21:47, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - A nobody criticising wannabes who criticize nobodies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.23.217.240 (talk) 21:55, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete in a week's time, everyone will have forgotten about him. Hell, a fan video for a Doctor Who episode got at least two newspaper articles. It's not even mentioned on the episode page. Will (talk) 22:39, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Not notable. In that case, anyone can just make some weird video on youtube and become notable for a week or two. Unless this person does something special and we get a full bio of him, then just delete it. We can merge it into another article which relates to this (if there is one). Anyhow, this article is filled with nonsens, vandalism and it's poorly written and not enough sources to back all the claims it makes. --Arad 22:41, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Seriously, did you even read the article? this article is filled with nonsens, vandalism and it's poorly written and not enough sources to back all the claims it makes If you find vandalism, fix it. If it's poorly written, rewrite it. Six sources have been added to the article, thats not enough? Fosnez 23:07, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very Strong Delete The fact that this even needs discussing is insanity. If this gentelman's fans wish to extend his fame they should perhaps consider writing a few lines concerning his video on Britney Spears Wikipedia entry. Otherwise the essential purpose of any true encyclopedia is to provide knowledge. This article certainly does not function in that capacity.SerpentOfDarkness 22:48, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - non notable, another 15 minutes of fame case. Completely irrelevant and non-encyclopedic. --71.231.7.20 22:55, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep He is notable. he is one of the most suscribed on youtube, and so are other people that have pages on here. He is very notable on Myspace, he has the most views on Myspace. He is seen National fame in recent weeks due to his videos. Keep this page —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.65.167.236 (talk) 23:28, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not notable. Creating entries at youtube and myspace do not make you notable. Being made a laughing stock in several newspapers does not make you notable. He'll now sink back into his 23.75 hours of lack of fame and we'll never hear from hinm again. Corvus cornix 23:31, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, I'm quoting you -- it's called "irony", you could look it up -- about the defects in simply pointing to a link, especially when said link contains no evidence of what you claim. Or does it? Now might be the time to actually prove that. --Calton | Talk 05:47, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please clarify what you mean by not notable? If its sources then they have well been established as being reliable etc. Or is it that you Don't like the article and believe that it shouldn't be on wikipedia(because thats not a valid reason for deletion)? (please, this is not ment as a personal attack) Fosnez 08:06, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This is most likely fancruft created by Chris to self promote his latest video, clearly he is doing a good job because it has been viewed more then 3 million times since he posted it 24 hrs ago. He is just like Jeffery Starr he is a self promoting nothing who is not note worthy. As with Jeffery I believe Wiki should salt the earth on this subject. I look at an encyclopedia as a record of humanity and our observations, if we were to all die today is this what we want in these records? User: RushDoggr IP:209.12.37.114
Comment: Do you mean Jeffree Star, who has an article? Where through afd it was decided to keep the article? -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 21:40, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
More like the Jeffree Starr who bludgeoned his way, tirelessly and relentlessly onto Wikipedia. --Calton | Talk 21:56, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd like to see more evidence than a Seattle alt-weekly's claim regarding this alleged "huge" celebrity status. Being a "Youtube celebrity", for all I know, is the equivalent of the World's Tallest Pygmy. --Calton | Talk 05:47, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
-- Jreferee (Talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jreferee (talk • contribs) 06:32, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sadly Keep per Jreferee... it would appear notability is easily earned these days thanks to youtube... you too can have the next 15 minute of fame... and then a nervous breakdown and get a wikipedia page!  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 07:30, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very Strong Keep This article will almost certainly be deleted, and I have to admit that I will not be sad to see it go. However, I feel I have to speak up; it seems that all of those who are arguing delete simply don't like it, and haven't even bothered with the notability guideline, which states A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. This is obviously the case here. I don't like this article any more than anyone else, but we can't pick and choose when we observe policy and guidelines, we have to apply them uniformly. faithless (speak) 09:17, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - after reading through WP:ITSSOURCED, I think that this should go. There is a line that states "Even articles that cite reliable sources and are verifiable do not necessarily merit inclusion in an encyclopaedia. Many events that were briefly in the news have multiple newspaper articles written about them (frequently with similar content), and can thus be sourced, but are (after the event is over) not of a significant historical or cultural impact." This seems to hit the nail on the head on this occassion. Irishjp 12:10, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - "Significant historical or cultural impact" is ridiculously subjective, which might be part of the reason why WP:ITSSOURCED is an essay, not a guideline. Even after this Britney thing blows over, Crocker will continue to make videos, as he has for the past six months, and they will continue to get 300,000+ views. The site might not look it, but YouTube is highly competitive. Once a personality reaches the heights that Crocker has, he or she stays in the limelight there for at least a year. And the sources have already tried to place him in a wider cultural context. According to them, Crocker is a stifled homosexual in the Southern United States for whom YouTube is a godsend. Ichormosquito 13:47, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP There are twenty plus Youtube celebrities with pages. This guys has become a pseudo-celebrity, has been featured in the media. He's annoying, but it doesnt mean he shouldnt get a page. Saopaulo1 12:32, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I see your point but however he is making himself into an well attention (well you know the word that you should insert here) and giving him a Wikipedia page is catering to him wanting to get famous for nothing deal. Its not exactly like Pars Hilton who yes got famous for being famous but she at least has been in movies. But thats just my opinion on this. Evolutionselene 12:53, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"If Wikipedia hasn’t recognized Chris as an official Internet phenomenon, he certainly is now." Is this mocking? Looks like an opinion to me. Legitimate, of course, but are we bound to follow it? I don't think so. Tizio 14:04, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, note the comparison to Warhol. Who's being mocked here, in your opinion? Tizio 14:06, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say it's mocking. Taunting, anyway. The author has obviously seen that his article is disputed. And the Warhol comparison is apt, if exaggerated. He's not being compared to Warhol, but to Candy Darling. Ichormosquito 14:08, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The author of that article is talking about the fact we don't have this guy on List_of_Internet_phenomena, not this article or this AFD. At least, that's the page her article is linking to. But seriously, the day we let an editorial comment made by one journalist dictate our editorial decisions is the day most of us will give up on this project. Sarah 14:31, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not arguing we should cave to the opinion of one journalist. I just thought it was funny. For the sake of balance, I don't think Richard Roeper would be happy if we legitimized Crocker's grab for fame.[34] Still, as Roeper acknowledges, a mention in his column does nothing but support Crocker's self-promotion. Ichormosquito 14:40, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • VERY Strong DELETE... how is Chris Crocker so notable? Just because he can make a video and show up on youtube or myspace like any other Joe Blow? The guy is an actor who's just to make a name for himself. 15.251.169.70 15:14, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not notable. The mainstream media fell for the video and reported on it (on a slow news day) because they thought it was one of those quirky stories about how a no-life Britney Spears superfan suffered a mental breakdown on youtube. And that isn't the truth; the subject is a wannabe attention-getter and the video is clearly another one of his performance art bits. Yes, he's been interviewed by several radio and TV stations, and he's clearly engaging in self-promotion in each interview. The statements in some news articles that he has a "significant fan base" are attributed to . . . guess who? Crocker. Having someone watch your video on youtube doesn't make the viewer a fan. (E.g., most of the people who watched the Britney Spears VMA clips on youtubes are not fans of Spears, but people who wanted to laugh at her bad performance.) A bunch of "friends" on myspace - so what? Is someone with a 1000 friends on myspace entitled to a Wikipedia entry? Or 10,000? Or 10 million? Crocker himself is not notable enough to merit an entry in an encyclopedia. 64.190.140.138 15:42, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm not a fan - in fact, the prospect of watching another video of his frightens me after watching several a few days ago - but the arguments against notability seem to be entirely based on the fact that he's a temporary star. That's entirely probable, yes, but that argument would eliminate one-hit wonders and fads from notability. Furthermore, most of the arguments against keeping it do seem to be based on people just not liking the subject of the article - in some cases, pretty passionately. From what I've seen, notability has been shown, and the idea that a person is just a flash in the pan isn't enough to undo that - especially when that can't be determined yet. I thought Britney Spears herself would be just a flash in the pan. When I first read an article on Brookers in The Oregonian, I didn't think I'd keep hearing about her more and more and more afterward. No, a Youtube video rant certainly doesn't make a person automatically notable. However, when said video rant gains the attention of the news and culture, I'd say that's notable. If notability was only established by "groundbreaking, critically-acclaimed" things, we'd be a lot better off...but notability isn't limited like that. I do, however, have issues with the article name...while the Britney Spears rant seems to be what's garnering the most attention right now, "Chris Crocker (Britney Spears Fan)" seems an odd title choice which is probably inspiring further passion toward deletion. I know I twitched toward the "delete" opinion based on that, before I took a better look at the situation and arguments. --Adam the Alien 17:15, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete He hasn't done anything major such as saved someone's life or cured a disease. All he did was cry about a celebrity. And besides, like some of the other comments say, he'll be forgotten within a week. - Jigsy 18:29, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment No on says you have to save someone's life to have a Wikipedia article. In fact, WP:N says "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject," which is satisfied. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 21:49, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I don't see why it should be deleted when there's also an article on other Internet Celebrities such as Lonelygirl 15- now THAT was retarded, but because she wasn't gay, no one requested it to be taken off. And Chris Crocker was famous even BEFORE the Britney video. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Countess 2007 (talk • contribs) 18:23, 13 September 2007
  • Strong keep. This video blogger is extremely high profile and is one of a handful of prominent openly gay YouTube stars whose videos regularly land in the top 20 most veiwed out of hundreds of thousands of videos on offer. Also seems referenced enough to denote importance. Benjiboi 18:53, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete if I had my way, but in reality, keep per WP:N. Unfortunately, this is the kind of stuff that makes Wikipedia these days. A popular Internet video, soon to be forgotten in coming years. Will anyone ever research this subject? Will anyone ever ask "what would Chris Crocker do?" And for those of you claiming this AfD is about homophobia, you need more things to fill out your day. ♠ SG →Talk 22:34, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Will anyone ever research this subject? Probably, I would see this as a good case study in the changing landscape of media and convergence of pop culture and personal politics. I also think that homophobia has at least a little to do with some of the motivations as is evidenced by the comments both here and on the talk page that have been removed. Benjiboi 23:34, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep He is most certainly notable enough to meet guidelines. I think alot of these delete's have to do with not liking him or homophobia, i'm sorry to say. I can't believe this is still going on, he meets requirements for a page. BigCoop 23:18, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - There are plenty of moderately successful videos on the internet and they don't receive the same coverage. This person is otherwise unnotable. 98.197.248.244 00:01, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep: Even MSNBC tags him "an Internet rock star". His Britney Spears video has made him a world-wide name. Further, a Google News search brings back over a thousand news hits. According to Wikipedia's List of Internet phenomena: "Only a sampling of Internet phenomena which have achieved recognition in a context wider than that of the Internet, such as coverage in the mainstream media, are present here." Chris has also inked a television production deal, as reported back in May, long before his Britney video. I'd say not only now is Chris an internet phenomena but is a notable famous entity outside of the internet and not only worthy of inclusion in the List of Internet Phenomena but also worthy of his own entry in Wikipedia. Allstarecho™ 01:09, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment If the topic of an article is in the news today and it ceases to be in the news or anyone's mind, should the article be deleted? Should the article on scientists except Galileo, Newton, Eisntien, and Hawking be deleted? Should the article on ... I guess you get the idea. --Do not click me! 01:24, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete This is an encylopedia, not a damn tabloid. His splash in the news is only for the Britney video. He is only notable because of the Britney video. WP:BLP1E applies. Add something to the Britney Spears article if you must, but delete this article. --Phirazo 05:03, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment WP:BLP1E does not apply. He's a notable entertainer per WP:BIO, as has been argued ad nauseam above. Ichormosquito 05:15, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment "Notable entertainer???" According to whom??? Crocker telling the media that he is an entertainer "with a huge fan base" on the internet does not count. As someone mentioned way up above, this page has been deleted once or twice before, before Crocker's "Leave Britney Alone" video surfaced. Almost speedy deletes, if you go back and look at them. I agree with Phirazo, if Crocker belongs anywhere on Wikipedia, it is only as a footnote on the Britney Spears article, and not a entire page devoted to him. This article needs to be deleted. 64.190.140.138 15:22, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment There is one source about the subject of the article that is before Wednesday. The sources are about the video, not the person, and there is little that can be said about him. --Phirazo 17:19, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete Wikipedia is not a repository of memes. As has been said far more eloquently, five minutes of fame is not notability. To quote WP:NOTE
  • Strong keep - Wikipedia should try to be as broad and far ranging as possible; insofar as Chris Crocker can't be associated with any greater topic, he deserves his own article. He is no less well known for the britney video than for his incest joke with his brother. It's worth having and certainly worth documenting for this point in internet history. Moreover, to argue that this is an encyclopedia in the most proper sense is false. Being a website, wikipedia is already tied to the internet and internet culture much more so than an encyclopedia is or most likely will ever be. Even if wikipedia strives to be like paper encyclopedias (though it shouldn't, it can be so much more), their initial purpose was to document philosophical ideas, concept, and anything else that philosophers cared about. Insofar as this is cared about internet users, it is worth documenting. Finally, in so far as it is impossible to delineate between what are "serious, important cultural artifacts" and what are not, there is no need to remove articles because a few ignoramuses didn't know about it prior to the britney incident." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.139.185.124 (talk) 08:18, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikinews, not Wikipedia, is better suited to present topics receiving a short burst of present news coverage. Thus, this guideline properly considers the long-term written coverage of persons and events. In particular, a short burst of present news coverage about a topic does not necessarily constitute objective evidence of long-term notability. Conversely, if long-term coverage has been sufficiently demonstrated, there is no need to show continual coverage or interest.
Topics that did not meet the notability guidelines at one point in time may meet the notability guidelines as time passes. However, articles should not be written based on speculation that the topic may receive additional coverage in the future. --Walther Atkinson 07:53, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Partial Answer. He has been more prominent in the last year but emerging information suggests he was developing a cult foloowing over eight years ago as a pre-teen on Aol. That has yet to be sourced so has not entered the article in any form. Benjiboi 00:57, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable as demonstrated by coverage in multiple (international, even) reliable sources. That the world would decide to make someone like him notable may be depressing and wrong, but it's not our place to judge the world's tastes, just to document them. --tjstrf talk 09:05, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


An "its unequivocally time for a section break" section break!

[edit]

FURTHER NEW COMMENTS GO AT THE BOTTOM - FURTHER NEW COMMENTS GO AT THE BOTTOM -- ALLSTAR ECHO 22:14, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


  • Notability is permanent. Or perhaps I should say WP:NOT#CRYSTAL? It's no more appropriate to claim an article should be deleted because you think it will have stopped being notable in a few months than it is to claim an article should be kept because you think it will become notable in a few months. --tjstrf talk 10:38, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong, notability is not permanant, and i found the policy, here. --Jac16888 10:48, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, i wrote that wrong, Notability is permanant, Crocker's is not long-term, it is "a short burst of present news coverage about a topic does not necessarily constitute objective evidence of long-term notability"--Jac16888 10:53, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We can't use presumptions of future (non-)notability to judge the page one way or another. --tjstrf talk 10:56, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia is an online ENCYCLOPEDIA not a place for trash like this person. He'll be famous for a little while and then he'll disappear into oblivion and people won't have to hear him make silly dramatic outbursts about Britney Spears. Sound of white 11:08, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There are stub articles on Wikipedia that do not have any much notability as this guy and his Britney video and his other fake incest video. Many of the free software stubs and Olympians and sucky players in professional football and basketball stubs out there do have a Wikipedia page yet pale in comparison to him. ...though I believe that this guy is an attention whore. — 6etonyourfeet\t\c 11:51, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, secondly, how can you compare the notability of an Olympic athlete or professional sports player, no matter how good or bad they are at the sport, to this guy? Its an entirely different level of notability--Jac16888 11:58, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your first point I agree. Your second point you can compare notability though "general notability guidelines" found in WP:NOTABILITY. Interesting thing here is that there's Chris Crocker the football player and Chris Crocker the internet celebrity ... looking at the football players references which he hasn't any I would delete him too. Some would even fix the disamb so that the internet celebrity page would be immediately shown. — 6etonyourfeet\t\c 13:38, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I came to this page after spotting the video on an internet forum. Wanting to know who the guy is, I visited here first as I reckoned someone with that many YouTube views is bound to have a Wikipedia page. I was right. I doubt I'll be the only one to come to the page via this route, and given the fact that it's one of the most commented-on videos on YouTube, his MySpace is one of the most viewed profiles on the site and the Leave Britney Alone vid has spawned a number of parodies, one from National Lampoon, how could he not be notable? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.201.12.112 (talk) 12:13, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - So 3 million people wasted 2 minutes of their life watching this video. You could maybe make a case that the video is notable (but then again, by a similar reasoning every new Pepsi commercial would have its own WP article), but the author is definitely not notable unless & until he gains a significant and consistent viewership such as 'geriatric1927'. Eseymour 13:30, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm... I thought geriatric1927's vids had more views than they did, since he was the #1 subscribed director at one time. I guess YouTube didn't have as many users at that time. Still, Crocker is only the #25 most subscribed director, and he's surely more popular right now than he ever has been. Eseymour 16:30, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP - So he reached Mega internet stardom with his Britney vlog; he was already well known in and out of the YouTube community well before that. Further, the article is better sourced than 90% of the articles on this site. Perhaps people think the guy is silly, but that is no reason to delete him from this site. The joy of a net 'pedia is being able to cover even minor subjects without space concerns. Jeffpw 13:43, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - clear example of recentism, as internet meme who gained his fifteen minutes of fame (even if I doubt if he is that famous outside the US, but that's not a good reason for deleting the article anyway). Number of YouTube contacts are unrelevant in this particular case, as Google hits are. --Angelo 15:21, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fourteen minutes, fifty-nine seconds and counting. Some of the purported sources don't even appear to mention the guy, and in any case are about the Britney debacle not about this individual. I see no non-trivial sources about this person. Guy (Help!) 15:24, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep We would absolutely not be having this discussion if it were not for the fact that the person in question is mainly famous on the internet. For some reason, internet-related articles seem to draw a lot of controversy and cause all the little hivemind deletionists to come out of their basements and vote "DELETE, NON-NOTABLE, UNENCYCLOPEDIC" even when, as in this case, the article completely meets notability guidelines as it has MULTIPLE links discussing the person in question. If we can have articles about minor actors who played bit parts in movies or commercials, such as Clara Peller, then we have no reason to delete this article based on "temporary notability" or any other such nonsense. --BlarghHgralb 15:31, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The reason Internet memes get nominated for deletion is because they are typically so short-lived. There's just no comparison between this guy and Clara Peller (the "Where's the beef" lady). Outside of a small group of fans, no one knew this guy before a few days ago. "Where's the Beef" is still part of America's cultural memory over two decades later. Maybe everyone will remember "Leave Britney Alone" a year from now, but right now there's no indication that this guy's fame is more than "a short burst of present news coverage." Furthermore, the guideline states that "articles should not be written based on speculation that the topic may receive additional coverage in the future." Eseymour 16:00, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was just about to say the exact same thing. Some phenomenon may be temporarily famous on the internet, but unless it has some impact on the wider world, it's not notable. (Examples of internet phenomena that did achieve wider impact are Lonelygirl15 and the Star Wars kid.) Clara Peller is familiar to a generation (even if they don't know her name) because she was on national television; Chris Crocker is unknown beyond the relatively small blogging/forum/YouTube community that discovered him in the first place, and is likely to remain that way. Terraxos 16:04, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • So the Where's the Beef lady had an impact on a generation, but you would never know that in the 80s. How are you so sure that Crocker wont become a new annoying catch phrase. After all it's only been a few days. Saopaulo1 05:51, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • And what exactly makes Chris Crocker any less notable than the Star Wars kid or Lonelygirl15? They've receieved about the same amount of coverage as Chris Crocker has. --BlarghHgralb 16:09, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the MSNBC source is a blog. The byline is accompanied by a cartoon caricature of the writer. This is not typical of straight news articles on the site (or anywhere). Eseymour 16:36, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • And I'm not sure you can dismiss the YouTube community so hastily. Internet video and YouTube in particular are big deals, as sources like this one released yesterday assert: http://www.macworld.com/news/2007/09/13/video/. Internet video has a mainstream appeal; we're not just talking about memetics.

Ichormosquito 16:23, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Anyway, Delete. Vote changed to Keep - see below. This article may meet the letter of WP:N by including multiple, independent reliable sources, but it doesn't conform to the spirit - is the subject really notable enough for a Wikipedia article, and going to stay that way? To me, the answer is obviously not - no one will be talking about Chris Crocker in two weeks, let alone six months. Hence, this is a classic example of recentism, and 'internet fame' to boot (as I argued above, brief internet fame does not equate to notability in the real world). While I realise it's taboo to even mention the other place here... this article belongs on Encyclopedia Dramatica, not Wikipedia. Let's leave the arguments about minor 'internet people' to them, please, while we concentrate on covering real life. Terraxos 16:13, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It really enhances wikipedia's reputation that it is the only forum big enough and with a participation wide enough to keep track of pop culture things like this. It is notable, and wikipedia is the first place to come when looking for information about this type of stuff. --Ehinger222 16:19, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Appears, after reading all this, to be at least just notable enough. Question for Terraxos, just above me... does notability "degrade" over time? Fame certainly may. Britney Spears gets more fame and press today than a man born and notable for something in the year 1857. But if the notability, once set for the man born in 1857 does not "degrade", or have a half-life, why would or could the notability of someone born in the latter half the 20th century degrade? • Lawrence Cohen 16:24, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notability only lasts if there is a good reason for it to last. A person born in 1857 might still be notable today if s/he did something of lasting importance; but someone who was simply well-known for a while, then faded away, might not be. See Notability is not temporary, which states that if someone was only notable for a brief period in the past, they may not meet the notability requirement for Wikipedia today. Of course, in this case, it's disputed whether Chris Crocker is even notable now, let alone 100 years in the future - hence we're having this AfD. Terraxos 17:07, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I find it troubling that you skipped over WP:BIO's "Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following." According to this source, he had a "cult following", a direct quote, even before the Britney video. According to this one: "Crocker has been posting videos on YouTube for six months and has acquired quite a fan base." Ichormosquito 17:00, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, you guys have convinced me: it looks like Chris Crocker has received more mainstream attention than I realised. I still DON'TLIKEIT, but I accept he meets notability, and have changed my vote above to Keep. Terraxos 17:51, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Important distinction - There's a difference between the "Britney" video being notable and its author being notable. The fact that there have been X million views of the vid and various parodies made strengthens the case for the video being notable, but not necessarily the author. Eseymour 17:56, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Not notable. There is no practical, cultural or historical significance for this article or it's subject. Outside of this one passing "viral video" event there is no substantial notoriety for the subject. My local news also did a piece on pet adoption, but I don't think every kitten in the segment needs it's own encyclopedia entry. Stugein 20:20, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This is exactly what wikipedia is good at - collecting and cataloguing even the weirder strands of information that make up the tapestry of life.
LEAVE WIKIPEDIA ALONE! - The Daddy 11:45, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep I deliberately searched for 'chris crocker' on wikipedia, and found this article -- this is a good use of wikipedia. I wanted to know what the Seth Green parody video was parodying, and this answered my question and gave me more info. I don't care for any of the subject matter, but that's not the point. There are going to be a lot of niches, and a lot of subjects that a huge majority of people don't want to hear about, or don't care about, and I'm sure this is one. But there is no reason not to cover it. Most people arguing for deletion seem to be arguing from moralisitc grounds (e.g., this is evidence of the debasement of culture), or because they believe that this is an article designed for PR, promotion, self-aggrandizement, or vanity. It isn't our job to police the culture, so the first argument is moot. And from the comments there seems to be sufficient documented interest in C.Crocker to justify an (objectivity-written) article. Even if this describes cultural ephemera (which it might not be -- how long does it take before our subjectively understood notions of 'persistence,' 'brevity,' etc. are tipped to the other side? ) why shouldn't wikipedia cover cultural ephemera? This is an issue that is going to come up repeatedly, and while I think it might be argued that classification of such articles might be an issue, it seems like the article's subject here is sufficiently referenced to merit an entry. Skandha101 22:37, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep While this individual arouses pity on my behalf, granted I can only laugh for the first 10 seconds into the video before closing it, the numbers don't seem to lie. Four million views on YouTube. Press coverage by the major news outlets. I don't the non-notability argument is out the window. The article itself needs to be expanded upon, maybe some cited statements by psychologists who could give some expert analysis based on what little background information is known about him. I know that sounds harsh in terms of sympathizing with his feelings, but there has to be some reason as to why the Britney Spears performance and backlash has driven this individual to complete madness. In short, an expanded NPOV paragraph would be convenient. --205.237.161.180 23:41, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If Leeroy Jenkins (which started as a Youtube phenomenon itself) is keepable, then so's the entry for a whiny 19-year-old humiliating himself and becoming a viral meme in the process. The entry for Crocker contains about 3 times as many references as Leeroy Jenkins as well. I don't like it, but there it is. Longshot14 00:16, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't have all that much to say, it's all been covered by the multitude of non-notable deletes above. MookieZ 00:49, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but not in its current form. It seems difficult to argue for deletion when Star Wars Kid and The Bus Uncle have articles. However, I feel the article in its current form exaggerates the importance its subject. If the article is to stay it should be re-written as an article on a cultural phenomenon, as I do not think Chris Crocker as a person is sufficiently notable to warrant the kind of biographical article we currently have. --carelesshx talk 01:13, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Do not delete this Wikipedia entry, as he is in fact, an internet celebrity now.(UTC)Comment Page views on —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.12.134.116 (talk) 01:24, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If it wasn't notable then people wouldn't be coming here en mass to argue about it 24.210.79.18601:47, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep No comment, other than WP:N says it's clear. 72.77.5.2 02:09, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn Are nationally or internationally reported "stupid criminals" going to get their own pages next? Шизомби 02:36, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep with no prejudice against deleting in another AfD a year or so down the road if this proves not to have the lasting encyclopedic worth that the lonelygirl15 or Star Wars Kid apparently have. The bottom line is that people use Wikipedia as a reference tool, even for inane pop culture crap like this . If people are going to see mention of this kid on Carson Daily, Fox News and other reliable and mainstream sources then they are going to go to Wikipedia to read more. It would be a disservice to our readers to not fill our purpose. While I think there is a heavy dose of recentisim here, anti-recentisim is just as deadly and counterproductive to writing a worthwhile encyclopedia here. It is very short-sighted and narrow minded to try and judge the lasting worth of something that just happened. The idea that notability is permenant is a joke. It's temporal and eventually gives way to lasting encyclopedic relavance. Notability is based on what the available reliable sources take note of and write about. Lasting encyclopedic relevance is based on what our readers will be searching for years and decades down the road. That determination takes time to evaluate and if in a years time it becomes more clear that this dude is a flash in the pan then the community will be in better position to delete the article. 205.157.110.11 03:00, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hang on, I could have sworn that an article about this same guy was up for deletion a couple of months ago...pretty much the same content, with the major exception of the video which is such a subject of interest...or maybe I'm just imagining it. Anyway, I'm a bit divided here, because several things are clear. 1), this person/the video has indeed recieved significant coverage by the media, which makes it seem as though it is in line with Wikipedia's notability guidelines, 2), notability is not temporary, and this person/video may or may not have the longevity necessary for an article, 3) even if notability does exist, it is quite likely that the notability is of the video, and not the person, and that to have a biographical article for a person, while it is in fact a creation of theirs that is notable may be a bit of misplaced judgement, and 4), this article seems really familiar. So overall I don't have a resounding opinion here as to whether or not to delete. One thing that I will say is that Wikipedia definitely needs more clearly defined guidelines as far as intenet celebrities and viral videos are concerned, and fast. Calgary 03:27, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - ANY person can consider one an "internet celebrity". To be honest, this person won't get anymore famous as "Perez Hilton" - who I think shouldn't even have a Wikipedia article. Just because he made a blog? Come on. Has this person made any marketed sales or made any public appearances on TV? No. He's just a guy with a camera and puts his videos on Youtube. That's it! Furik 04:08, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment And yet, I can't turn a corner without hearing about Perez Hilton, in the real world as well as online. And to address your questions about the Crocker kid: 1) What do marketed sales have to do with celebrity and fame, let alone simple notability? 2) Yes, unfortunately, he has made public appearances on TV. But, again, what does that have to do with anything? Does your life revolve around television? The frightening and annoying nature of this example aside, I find the mockery of Internet fame amusing...when Lucille Balle left B movies to go into television, televison stardom was mocked and looked down on. It was more than just a few rungs below even B movie stardom. So the fact that you seem to imply that appearing on television makes someone a real celebrity, as oppposed to an Internet one...well, it's amusing.--Adam the Alien 04:34, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment First off, i'd like to thank you for your reply. Now, i'm not saying i'm a constant TV watcher at all but i've never seen any public appearances from this kid so I was wondering, excluding his "Leave Britney Alone" video, how he has even become an "internet celebrity". As for the marketed sales thing, I see a celebrity as someone who at least makes a profit from something or is involved in something that sells - musician, actor, all that. Could even go as far as saying a painter or author but I have yet to see this kid become a celebrity. Furik 14:44, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Keep in mind that Wikipedia recognizes a celebrity as "A celebrity is a widely-recognized or famous person who commands a high degree of public and media attention.". Celebrity has absolutely nothing to do with the significance of a person's contributions or, more to your point, the medium of a person's fame. Television may have been around for longer, but the internet is one of the most major forms of media in existence, and comes close to rivaling television as the world's greatest media outlet. That being said, regardless of how much legitimacy one may feel the internet reputes, the internet is indeed a media outlet, and must be recognized as such for a definitive conclusion to be reached here. Calgary 20:18, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He's as notable as any other one hit wonder, be it a music artist or a movie actor. The medium of the one hit wonder does not automatically make him less notable. Plus he's gotten a ton of nationwide media attention.Heavytundra 04:51, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I say delete it and rewrite it focusing on the videos and not the person. Here's why: The notability and phenomenon of Chris Crocker's "work" (distraught videos over Britney Spears) certainly supersedes the notability of the person himself. Thus the article should be primarily about the videos, and not the person. I think that it should be deleted and rebuilt. Otherwise we have a double standard here on Wikipedia, as displayed in the example of goatse.cx. With the Goatse article, the person's work (ie, horrifying pictures of a overly-stretched sphincter and their subsequent website) is the entire focus of the article, while the person himself is not mentioned by name. And yet, there is verifiable evidence that his name is known and that he is certainly notable, internet-wise, for his photograph(s). Witness a piece of discussion from the Goatse article:

I have found some evidence that the man is in fact Kirk Johnson. I typed his name in google (along with "goatse" so we can results of him and not the boxer) [40]. Most of the results say that the man is Kirk Johnson. Not only that, I viewed the HTML source of the goatse.cz mirror, and the keywords in the code contained "Kirk Johnson" in it. Here is the source: 

<HTML><HEAD><!-- Start Quantcast tag -->
<script type="text/javascript" src="http://edge.quantserve.com/quant.js"></script>
<script type="text/javascript">
_qacct="p-95ACIuCMJpQa2";quantserve();</script>
<noscript>
<img src="http://pixel.quantserve.com/pixel/p-95ACIuCMJpQa2.gif" style="display: none" height="1" width="1" alt="Quantcast"/></noscript>
<!-- End Quantcast tag -->
<TITLE>Goatse - the official site</TITLE>
<META NAME="Keywords" CONTENT="Goatse, Goatse.cz, Goatse.cx, Goatsecz, Goatsecx, Anal Stretching, Goatse Man, Kirk Johnson, 
Shock site, Tubgirl, the giver, the receiver">
<META NAME="Description" CONTENT="The official Goatse site at Goatse.cz. Visit us to find what you're looking for...">
<META NAME="Author" CONTENT="info@goatse.cz">
<META name="Rating" content="General">
<META name="Robots" content="All">
</HEAD>
<BODY>

<FONT SIZE="5" FACE="Helvetica, Arial, San Serif, Serif, Times"><BLOCKQUOTE><FONT SIZE="+2">
....
style="text-decoration: none" href="http://goatse.unfg.org/whygoatse.htm"><span style="color:#000000;">dolphinsex</span></a>*
src="http://www.google-analytics.com/urchin.js" type="text/javascript">

</script>
<script type="text/javascript">
_uacct = "UA-422197-6";
urchinTracker();</script>
 </BODY></HTML>

Now, if you look on the line that says 'META NAME="Keywords"', you'll see Kirk Johnson's name in the list of keywords. Not only that, you can also see the alt attribute "stinger" in the source aswell, which was removed recently.

Also, on the goatse mirror, there is an information page that's a biography of goatse. They also mention the identity of him [41] (safe to view). It says he's a regular poster to the newsgroup "alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.male.anal". Since it's mentioning that Kirk Johnson is the goatse man and a regular contributor to an anal site of some sort, I don't think this is violating the WP:BLP policy. And to make things even better, the work on that site is licensed under the GFDL, just like Wikipedia.

Second, it also mentions the origin of the alt attribute "Stinger" of the #quake channel, and the origin of the word "goatse". Although it says some of it is from the Wikipedia article, notice how it says "some of it".

Now, I know this may not be sufficient evidence for the origin of the term "goatse" and the "stinger" alt, but I think it's sufficient evidence that the man is Kirk Johnson (The page source, the google results...). Any questions? --AAA! (AAAA) 09:01, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Interesting... but when I first started reading your comment it appeared to be a heavy dose of original research, once I got to the end however and saw the source I can tell now it is ok. So I'll say this looks fine and you can add it in, so long as you carefully source it and do not add in any of your own extra original research. Mathmo Talk 21:50, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Do a google search for "Kirk Johnson" and "goatse" and you'll see evidence that the "Goatse photograph" is of Kirk Johnson, and yet, despite the research done by AAA!' (AAAA), as well as Goatse's identity being "known" (as much as anyone's identity can be know on the internet), the Goatse Wikipedia article does not mention him by name. How is Kirk Johnson any less notable than Chris Crocker? I'd say he's not. But it doesn't matter: Goatse guy (and many others) is known by his "work" on the internet, as is Chris Crocker. Delete Crocker's name and make the article about his viral videos. The videos, not the person, are what's significant culturally. Zebraic

Comment. Seriously - you just posted this massive piece on the article's talk page, are you hoping to build interest in that article or some other agenda? I'll give you a good faith pass that you are just providing a lengthy example but I think brevity would help make your point. Benjiboi 05:07, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm merely defending my stance. I have NO agenda about the Goatse article. I just cut and pasted my argument because my argument is the same. I really would rather not talk about Goatse, in fact. I'm merely using an illustration. Zebraic 08:55, 15 September 2007 (UTC) Edit: And you're probably right about the brevity; I felt like I ought to be thorough at the time. That's a good point, though. Thanks! Zebraic 09:06, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Took a lot of the HTML out to make it shorter. Zebraic 19:28, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If Chewbacca lives on Endor, you must delete? -- But|seriously|folks  06:37, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Did you bother to read my argument? Why do these things always burst into flame wars? That comment is dismissive and inasmuch I find it bordering on a personal attack on me. Please don't do that. Thanks. Zebraic 08:55, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I read it, but I guess I don't understand it. It was obviously well intentioned, so I have stricken through my flip comment. Please accept my apologies. -- But|seriously|folks  16:39, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Apology accepted. If you go to the discussion of the article we're reviewing, there's a shorter argument by me, following this one, under "Viral Video?". Like I said on the talk page, I'm through talking about this though. Zebraic 19:28, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:NOTE "In particular, a short burst of present news coverage about a topic does not necessarily constitute objective evidence of long-term notability." This is 15 minutes of fame. Delete it. — Steven Andrew Miller (talk) 05:37, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It's admirable that you are willing to note policies but it would be better to follow them Per WP:NOTE. Benjiboi 06:00, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject.

  • Comment: I stated my position for keeping this article earlier, but I don't understand the justification for deleting this article yet allowing William Sledd to have one. Aren't the circumstances the same (with the explicit exception of the recent Chris Crocker video phenomenon, which would only advance his notability)? Keithbrooks 06:28, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I figured. :) Keithbrooks 09:35, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Regardless of how long he stays famous, this is a pop culture sensation that should be catalogued as a portrait of what was happening in September of 2007. Wikipedia is an amazing resource to amass data on what shaped our world at any time. Who are we to say that 5 years from now, someone wouldn't want to see what was occurring in pop culture during this time? Danflave 07:35, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, about half the references are about the Britney Spears concert none of which mention the subject or are youtube.com or myspace.com links which are not reliable. If sources cannot be found on the basic information then it cannot be considerably notable. Also they are all web-references, notable "internet-celebrities" are in newspapers and other reading material. Wait a few years and nobody will remember this guy. Quote from WP:NOTE "In particular, a short burst of present news coverage about a topic does not necessarily constitute objective evidence of long-term notability".--The Negotiator 09:40, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The sheer number of secondary sources that have mentioned him and reviewed him as a person satisfies WP:WEB. Buspar 09:58, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, because of significant coverage on Countdown with Keith Olberman and The Soup. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 14:44, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Super Mega Ultra King-Sized Adjective (for all the good it does) Delete. The only reason this ginger beer has received any coverage is because the very concept of some girl (oh how wrong we were!) breaking out the waterworks over something as inane and sad as Britney Spears is laughable...and sad...mostly sad...and frightening. Probably slightly less notable than that clever parrot who died recently. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Comradeash (talk • contribs) 15:05, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, but this is a public forum, and such deregatory terms are unnecessary.
  • Strong Keep. He's been on Keith Olbermann, on several late night talk shows...look, when did having a Wikipedia article become a prestigious honor? He is something of a pop culture icon (At least on the internet) at this point. Why is Chocolate Rain notable? Why is Tila Tequila notable? Face it, the internet is one of, if not the biggest form of media today. Since he is currently one of the biggest "stars" of the internet, I see no reason as to why this article should be deleted. Irk Come in for a drink! 15:32, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable, even if a flash in the pan (what is not?). Haiduc 15:40, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep you really can't say delete just because he was notable via the internet! How do you think Jimbo was made famous? Via the internet! By creating THIS website! Davnel03 15:55, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Satisfies WP:NOTE & WP:WEB, with multiple reliable sources, so keep. All the keep arguments I could make have been made. — Becksguy 16:22, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sad Keep The topic apears to have significant recognition. History is not always pleasant nor are hsitoric figures consistently admirable. We don't ask for greatness or importance, just that the topic be noticed. I am sad to see this shameless manipulator meet our criteria, but I am concerned that manipulating the rules to exclude him/her would cause more harm than good. On the other hand, I think the article needs to be rewritten limited tot he pertinent verifiable facts. --Kevin Murray 16:53, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep LEAVE CHRIS CROCKER ALONE!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.60.221.167 (talk) 19:44, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I just saw a reference to this guy on a message board and hit wiki to find out who he is instead of having to watch what appear to be insufferable videos in order to find out the hard way.— Preceding unsigned comment added by IvyGold (talk • contribs)

Another arbitrary section break

[edit]

FURTHER NEW COMMENTS GO AT THE BOTTOM - FURTHER NEW COMMENTS GO AT THE BOTTOM -- ALLSTAR ECHO 22:15, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


  • KeepStrong Keep Even though this will just stand as a rallying cry for people who want to delete articles for their own personal reasons, regardless of community consensus, we do have standards and should stick to them. And this is actually an excellent case for why we should be consistent, because it avoids questions of bias, which are otherwise unavoidable if we make subjective judgments as so many have. The article cites enough mainstream sources to firmly establish notability, and uses many additional sources to produce a detailed bio that covers more than just the video. WP:IDON'TLIKEIT, but that and $2.00 will get you on the NYC Subway. Changing my vote to strong keep--now that I see the video has been widely parodied, including by notable comedians Jimmy Kimmel and Seth Green, the topic clearly has wide interest in the outside world. Humor requires a shared understanding, and works of parody are an excellent secondary source reference for notability. Dhaluza 16:45, 15 September 2007 (UTC), revised Dhaluza 14:00, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep And I'll just second what Dhaluza has put so articulately above. Annoying isn't a criteria for deletion. Into The Fray T/C 16:58, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Most here are calling for deletion on the basis of "I Don't Like It". The subject matter is certainly notable as defined by policy - citation material is everywhere. AlexReynolds 17:34, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom --Barryob Vigeur de dessus 18:11, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Internet Celebrity? Where do we draw the lines, there's millions of these people. Zodiiak 18:56, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Self-loathing keep - no doubt about the notability. But what a sad world. Mind you, I am ill, so leave me alone. The Rambling Man 19:21, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Very few of the delete votes have been pure WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I'll freely admit that I believe the attention his "Leave Britney Alone!" video attracted is yet another sign of the decline of Western civilization and further proof that the Internet is cruel, but that is not why I !voted delete. My primary concerns are that his notability is fleeting (WP:NOT#NEWS), and he is only known for one thing (WP:BLP1E), being the "Leave Britney Alone guy". There is a consensus (sort of) at Star Wars kid not to mention the Star War kid's name, even though it can be sourced to reliable sources. The "Leave Britney Alone!" video may perhaps be notable, but Chris Crocker is not. What is known about this guy other than he made the video? --Phirazo 19:38, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • There have been a large number of WP:IDONTLIKEIT comments, if not a large percentage given the number of commenters. But there have also been a lot of novel interpretations of WP:N and WP:BIO, including yours above. Notability, at least as defined on WP, is not fleeting. Once the threshold is crossed, there is no going back. Notability only requires that RS have already taken sufficient notice--it has no bearing on the future interest. WP:NOT#NEWS is a separate thing, and this excludes subjects which are only relevant in a current news context, and cannot be contextualized in an encyclopedia. It's only applicable to things that get very brief or routine news coverage, not someone that gets this much coverage (deserved or not). WP:BLP1E is not applicable, because the subject was seeking the publicity, and was also recognized for prior work. I just don't see a good reason to throw guidelines out the window to try to pretend this did not happen. Dhaluza 20:08, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indent reset * Comment. The MySpace and Youtube refs were used to provide factual information about what was said, how many views, date added, rankings at each site, numbers of videos on site presently, etc. to supplement what WP:RS were asserting. Per WP:SELFPUB may be used as sources in articles about themselves, so long as:

  • it is relevant to their notability;
  • it is not contentious;
  • it is not unduly self-serving;
  • it does not involve claims about third parties;
  • it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
  • there is no reasonable doubt as to who wrote it;
  • the article is not based primarily on such sources.

I wouldn't have kept any material in that I thought was violating the spirit of these policies and indeed have been working to revert and warn editors who have been adding material that does violate policies. Benjiboi 23:44, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep This AfD appears to be about two issues, WP:NOT and WP:BIO.
WP:NOT, this article is about a living person who has received a significant degree of attention by both the internet community and major world media outlets, thus it is a sutible topic for wikipedia.
WP:BIO, does this article meet the requirement of notability? He meets "The person has been the subject of published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." The coverage is not trivial because it is so widespread internationally. He also meets "Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following." as described on several of the news sources and thus qualifies under "Entertainer". Is the notability temporary? The major media attention may be temporary, but it is documented that he had posted videos on youtube that received significant numbers of viewings as far back as January, which suggests that his following is not temporary.
--Mattarata 19:49, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If the Chocolate Rain guy has a page why can't Crocker have one? ۝ ۞ ░ 20:46, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep WP:ILIKEIT. Reinistalk 21:11, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, he has gotten world wide media attention. Thats enough IMO. bbx 21:25, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Content not suitable for an encyclopedia. And the bulk of the article is about his recent videos about Britney Spears - a current event and not notable at that - not an analysis of his internet celebrity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.165.184.42 (talk) 21:40, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Even if the popularity dwindles in a few weeks it will still be an example of internet celebrity.Joshua4 19:25, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - As above - example of Internet celebrity, also a well written article, with verifiable sources --bdude the duck 23:50, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the person passes WP:BIO with flying colors. At the time of this writing, there are 38 different reliable sources written about the subject. It is my opinion that WP:BLP1E does not apply as notability was mounting many months in advance of the publication the infamous Britney Spears video. I do not understand why we as a community hold such a systemic WP:BIAS against these type of personalities. Yamaguchi先生 23:54, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I believe the concern in the cases of "these type of personalities" is ephemerality. The Internet seems to magnify celebrity, distorting traditional metrics for what makes someone "celebrated". I don't know that it's systemic bias, but more a reflection of some inherent feeling by certain editors that current standards of notability aren't sufficient to cover this still-relatively-new medium. Powers T 00:03, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This perhaps illustrates a deficiency in the Notability guidelines as currently expressed. The "multiple reliable sources" metric is great for people who lived before the advent of the Internet. Now, however, the instant anyone does anything that attracts some bit of attention, the news media are all over it and directing their considerable resources to uncovering as much information about the individual as possible -- when in less than two weeks those same news media would be hard pressed to remember what the fuss was about. Yet those few, heady days of euphoric attention will be preserved indefinitely on Internet servers around the country. "Multiple reliable sources" just isn't as hard to attain anymore. Powers T 23:59, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I agree to a point and sadly that point seems to be getting a bit blurry as traditional media and new media outlets merge and challenge the traditional news models that many experts were trained in. I hardly expect this to be the last case we see of online celebrity raising such passionate ick feelings. Benjiboi 00:23, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Without exaggerating, there are millions of YouTube participants. When one of them attracts large-scale worldwide attention from the media, it is not unreasonable for Wikipedia, the sum of human knowledge, to cover them as well. Yamaguchi先生 00:58, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • My comment here was more on the Internet as a source of coverage than as a source of celebrity (to that, see the comment above mine). The question, I think, is this: does large-scale worldwide attention from the media mean as much as it used to? Powers T 02:44, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe not, but what's the alternative? Just use the random opinions of WP editors? The media still have finite resources, and cannot cover everything, so they do provide a useful 3rd party filter for WP content. They can't make someone famous every day, so if we get say one new media darling per week or so, or 50 cases like this per year, so what? We are creating new articles at a rate of around 50,000 per month. It just doesn't matter. Better to stick with a reasonable system that mostly works, than to try to fix something that's not broken just because we don't like 100.00% of the outcomes. Dhaluza 13:20, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Just out of interest, why're we having this discussion if the article was originally deleted? Just delete it again ... - Jigsy 00:34, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Whereas the article may be controversial, there doesn't seem to be any legitimate reason to delete it. Crocker has achieved a sort of 'meme-ship' on the internet; if this article is deleted, why don't we just delete 90% of the articles on Wiki's List of Internet Phenomena? There are plenty of articles on that list whose subject matter has received far less attention than Crocker has, but we still keep them, so why not this one too? Granted, I feel it should be cleaned up a little, but still, deletion takes things a little too far. 71.233.101.187 01:13, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- Wikipedia is not a repository of memes. First and foremost, any need for this page is outweighed by subsections in other articles. Second, if this warranted an article, it would certainly not warrant all the biographical information. There are many YouTube celebrities and they do not warrant individual pages. File on a celebs-in-youtube section, file under each event that is notable, but do not file in a separate page. Amicuspublilius 01:27, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • But then why does Wikipedia have the list of memes, and several useless articles about them? Why do people care so much about this article when there is virtually nothing, in a relative sense, happening to other articles of the like? If Crocker's article is deleted, so be it, whatever, but by the same reasoning, we should also be focusing on getting rid of the other articles about memes. I believe someone said we can leave them for Encyclopedia Dramatica. 71.233.101.187 03:11, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It has media coverage and not only that, it has become a phenomenon recently due to the infamous "Leave Britney Alone" video. Reginmund 06:02, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete - A fanatic and unbiased Britney Spears fan who has oh-so-happened to get about 6 million views of his videos. There's nothing notable about him, no one will care in a month's time. Bopash4 10:22, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A "whew! take a breather!" section break!

[edit]
BAM?????--Jac16888 17:04, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Disagree. He is mostly notable for one event because of wider public recognition but clearly had a huge cult following prior as well as prior media interest, coverage, a TV deal and a working relationship with MTV. Benjiboi 15:19, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well many websites owners, websites, myspace and youtube users may have what you consider a "huge cult following", but they don't get their own page. Does having 1,000 subscribers and 1 million views to my youtube give me a huge cult following and notable? No. No MTV deal has been sealed yet. There is nothing stopping this person from being forgotten within months.--The Negotiator 15:31, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, if they get media coverage for such maybe they do, Crocker certainly did. And it wasn't me calling it a cult following it was member sof the media although with so many people subscribing I think it's hard to disagree with that. If, as you suggest is possible, he falls from our collective consciousness the article can certainly be re-interpreted for just the video alone. Regardless he has gotten plenty of coverage with or without the MTV deal in place to assert notability which is what this AfD seems to need.Benjiboi 18:05, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep This was on the internet fror a while. This should not be exterminated, as it shows what happens when the internet and the mainstream collide.

WngLdr34 15:21, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete Was already deleted, is way overreferenced, and most of the references just have a mention of this in passing, or are from gossip mags/sites. This was big for a few days, and is not notable or worthy of an article on this site. Dannycali 17:34, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
but, the lonelygirl15 article isn't about a person, its about the hoax that was lonelygirl15, it says nothing about the real person behind her.--Jac16888 18:36, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Look no further than Jessica Lee Rose, we do have an article about the person behind the persona. RFerreira 19:03, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point, but reading that article, she has notability both from and beyond lonelygirl15, such as lonelygirl was actually a paying role, and has since been in a UN antipoverty campaign--Jac16888 19:09, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that this discussion is a greater embarrassment to WP than the article was before it was rescued. After improvement, this whole discussion is moot anyway. Also the point about goal post shifting is right on target. People who contribute content to WP have a right to expect the community to respect its own standards, and not delete work based on arbitrary standards made up after the fact. Consensus can change over time, but it should not be interpreted as changing from time-to-time. Dhaluza 19:20, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep – The sources are more than enough to keep it. I cannot view the previous article's revisions, so I don't know if it's been recreated verbatim, but I assume if it had been, a sysop would have gotten it by now. And we wouldn't be having this discussion. ABC News, MSNBC, the Times... all reliable sources, and the people arguing for deletion... have no argument, as far as I can see. It clearly meets the notability guidelines for biographies. — madman bum and angel 19:16, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong but unfortunate keep I don't like articles for YouTube celebrities who probably would only have short-lived fame but he's too famous now. He is an internet phenomenon. mirageinred 21:13, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Mr.Z-man 05:30, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Yellowknife MPs and MLAs

[edit]
List of Yellowknife MPs and MLAs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Redundant list, this information already exists in the Yellowknife, Northwest Territories article and numerous other articles relating to elections and the assembly, nothing links here and it won't grow any bigger. Cloveious 13:05, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vassyana 03:56, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Carlossuarez46 05:43, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TV Photog

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
TV Photog (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Since the last AfD two years ago, the article has not been expanded, nor have reliable sources been added. Two websites are given as sources, which have "TV Photographer" or "TV Photog" in their title; but that doesn't even define the subject. Some seem to understand the term as a colloquial abbreviation for Videographer (then it should be a redirect), other say it's an independent concept. Both views actually appear in the last AfD. But how should we decide, without a reliable source? -- Sent here as part of the Notability wikiproject. --B. Wolterding 11:57, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 a continuing discussion as to whether a merge is the correct editorial decision. I second Edison's compliments on an excellent scholarly AfD discussion.--Kubigula (talk) 15:26, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Angaur language

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

This language might be a hoax. According to the article, it is one of the official languages of Palau (contradicting that very article which states English, Palauan and Japanese as the official languages of this country) and that it is spoken in the island of Angaur (again, contradicting). Article has no sources. The Ethnologue has no records of this language. Google search retrieves Wikipedia and its mirrors. Húsönd 03:18, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. The CIA World Factbook lists Angaur language as one of the three official languages of the island of Angaur. Ethnologue states that Palauan is not an official language of Sonsorol, Tobi and Angaur. E.B. Carr, "Notes concerning Language-Names", American Speech (1953)[42] also mentions "Angaurese". Since the island state itself only has a population of 188, it's possible the language may be nearly or actually extinct. Ethnologue only appears to list living languages in Palau. Dbromage [Talk] 03:35, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Normally Ethnologue lists recently extinct languages as well. What is possible is that Angaurese is another name for Palauan, or is a dialect of Palauan. This map suggests that Ethnologue believes the only language spoken on Angaur is Palauan. I'll have to take your word for the ref in American Speech since the jstor link doesn't work for me. Can you see the entire article? Does he discuss Angaurese at all, or just mention it in passing? —Angr/talk 17:19, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Seems like Ethnologue contradicts itself as the entry on Palauan says it is not an official language in Angaur. The JSTOR article mentions Angaurese in the context of other Micronesian languages. I have asked Wikiproject Languages for guidance. What's the definition of "recently extinct"? Dbromage [Talk] 00:29, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't know if they ever define it; I just phrased it that way to explain that many indigenous languages that became extinct since the era of colonization (or so) are included, but extinct ancient languages like Sumerian and Etruscan are not. Ancient languages are generally only included if they're still used liturgically, like Latin and Sanskrit. —Angr 03:56, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • A logical conclusion is the language may have become extinct since WW2. The Factbook may be technically correct even if it's no longer a living language. My own conclusion for the purposes of this AFD is the language and therefore article is not a hoax. The Factbook is generally considered (at least on Wikipedia) to be a reliable source for the purposes of citations so I see no pressing reason to delete the article. It certainly needs more research, but for now I'm inclined to Keep. Dbromage [Talk] 04:46, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I guess I'm going to come down on the side of reluctant keep with a plea for someone to actually go to the library and track down sources on the languages of Palau; it's clear the Internet isn't going to help us much more than this. Ultimately, it's more likely that Ethnologue accidentally overlooked a living or recently extinct language than that both the JSTOR article and the CIA Factbook accidentally created a fictitious language. —Angr 16:07, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • I'm even more reluctant. A mere mention on the CIA Factbook, without any backing from other sources, hints at a mistake. If it's not a mistake, then this article would still need a lot more sourced info to be any useful. I think it's preferable to delete this and wait for better sources with actual info about this purported language, than risking having an article about a non-existent language simply because it's briefly mentioned somewhere.--Húsönd 16:39, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • If it were just the CIA Factbook, I'd agree; but the 1953 article in American Speech gets my attention. —Angr 19:33, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                • Such a hiatus between that source and the CIA Factbook is worrisome. How come this language isn't mentioned elsewhere through all this time? My guess would be that the 1953 source made a mistake, and either the CIA Factbook tagged along or coincidentally made the same mistake. Unless some precise, thorough records about this language are found, I don't think we should risk having this article which might just be perpetuating a mistake. Húsönd 20:31, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                • By the way, why would this language not be mentioned in the article about Angaur, the very island where it is spoken and official? One would think that the contributors of that article wouldn't have forgotten to add that extremely pertinent piece of information. Húsönd 20:34, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                • Palau was in German hands for 30 years and then Japanese hands for the next 30. Japan forced cultural change but it's very possible there may be some reliable German sources. Dbromage [Talk] 00:22, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Journal of an Expedition to the Western Caroline Islands, September 4 to October 1, 1961 by Daniel Carleton Gajdusek, National Institute of Neurological Diseases and Blindness includes a hint: "The medical corpsman of the detachment--a part-Negro American, I believe, who corrected me quickly when I implied that I thought he might be an islander, by asking if he spoke local Angaur language".[43] Dbromage [Talk] 01:55, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's just another brief mention, doesn't say anything really about the language. As far as we know, the corpsman could have referred to any language spoken on the island that he could not understand as "local Angaur language". Or, he could err in believing that there existed a local Angaur language in the first place. This doesn't add much. I am very skeptical about this language and don't think that these brief mentions should suffice to establish the existence of an actual language. Sources abound for any other language spoken on this planet, no matter how scarce or remote their speakers. Same should be expected for this one, unless it's not a language at all. Húsönd 02:04, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm skeptical too, but I'm willing to at least have a skeptical-sounding encyclopedia article about it. And it isn't true that "source abound for any other language spoken on this planet", or do you know something about Sentinelese that the rest of us don't? —Angr 04:28, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, about the Sentinelese at least we know that they've been isolated enough for a long time to likely speak their own language, and that research about it hasn't been possible. Not like Angaur, whose people haven't been isolated and any research about their language could (and would) have been conducted.--Húsönd 09:50, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TerriersFan 22:27, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Wknight94 (talk) 11:09, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to Angaur; muliple reliable sources give weak support to this having in the past been a distinct dialect. An extinct or nearly extinct language can still be notable. If we don't know enough about it to discuss its special vocabulary, grammar, differences from related dialects, etc. then merge it to the locality. (And complements to all for having a scholarly and collaborative AFD without the incivility that disagreements sometimes descend into). Edison 15:35, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. CitiCat ♫ 03:47, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hindu and Buddhist architectural heritage of Pakistan

[edit]
Hindu and Buddhist architectural heritage of Pakistan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This page simply mentions the histories of the Vedic period, a summary of the picture, and a few historic sites in Serikistan. Anything in this article that is not already mentioned elsewhere, should be merged with the Hinduism in Pakistan, and Buddhism in Pakistan IP198 21:49, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep :This article does not only include a writeup of the pre islamic historic sites in Serikistan but also provides a comprehensive list of links to articles in wikipedia relating to architectural sites in other areas of Pakistan viz

It has also received various wikiproject Classifications . Intothefire 05:41, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Wknight94 (talk) 11:10, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. CitiCat ♫ 04:16, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hindu and Buddhist heritage of Pakistan

[edit]
Hindu and Buddhist heritage of Pakistan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Almost all of this information already exist in other articles, and what is not can be merged. This article does not talk about the Hindu and Buddhist heritage of Pakistan, but states the histories of Sindh, Punjab, and Peshawar. The histories of these regions already have articles, and the rest of the material can be merged into Hinduism in Pakistan, and Buddhism in Pakistan IP198 21:10, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Wknight94 (talk) 11:10, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The religious heritage of a country is a fit topic for an encyclopedic article .The article could be compared for instance to the importance of the Hellenic religious heritage of Greece . Cheers Intothefire 18:51, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 03:20, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sheikh Amin

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

Non-notable person: Fails WP:BIO, no non-trivial Wikipedia page links to him, content is unsourced and based primarily on one person's first-hand observations, difficult to impossible to find sources on Google Deusnoctum 20:44, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Wknight94 (talk) 11:11, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

White Terror (United States)

[edit]

The result was Delete. Alabamaboy 00:23, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

I just created this article to separate it from the article on other White Terrors to which it seemed to have no relationship, however on googling for sources I'm starting to think that this is complete OR. Does this name have any respectability and or common use? I'll leave to others to decide. Nwe 16:10, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment There seems to be some usage, but it is not widespread. The one book cited uses the term in its title, but the book is #815,050 on Amazon, and is not sold by Amazon themselves - just used and outside vendors. It seems like an insiders term from African-American Studies departments. MarkBul 16:46, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Amazon.com sales rank does not mean the book isn't a a valid source. You're not going to find many books with a high sales rank on plenty of academic subjects that belong in an encyclopedia. The book was published by a major university (Louisiana State University), meaning it probably underwent some form of editorial review and is suitable as a source. The real question to ask is did the term "white terror" as used in the article originate from this book, and has it been used since? Sbacle 15:44, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Wknight94 (talk) 11:14, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. – Black Falcon (Talk) 18:16, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

David Talbott

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

The subject of this article is an amateur comparative mythologist who has some quirky theories but hasn't received the recognition required for a notable Wikipedia article. In particular, he, as a subject, does not rise to the level of WP:BIO. Nondistinguished 15:52, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: See related Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pensée (Immanuel Velikovsky Reconsidered) Nondistinguished 16:01, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Text removed that was posted by a banned user

  • Comment: This is 76.209.50.134's one and only edit. Additionally, mere mention of something in a book is not enough to establish notability per WP:N nor is it a good justification for an encyclopedia article. Kronos (journal), which is not peer-reviewed in the normal sense, is not generally considered a reliable source, and neither Ev Cochrane nor Alfred de Grazia are not an independent source both being heavily enculturated in catastrophism circles. I wonder whether Alfred de Grazia deserves a Wikipedia article himself as it seems that he doesn't rise to the notability asked for in WP:PROF. Nondistinguished 17:11, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Trevor Palmer mentions Talbott once on p. 122 in a group of fellow "Saturnists", hardly a "notable" citation. Talbott is arguably the most active player in the post-Velikovsky era of "Velikovskian and neo-Velikovskian" studies, pursuing his monomania of the "Saturn Hypothesis" for 35 years, who has been successful in obtaining financial support from a small number of entrepreneurs with more money than sound scientific understanding for his multi-media activities (video documentaries, conferences, publishing, private moderated list-serve, etc.). In 1998 he attempted an unregistered stock offering to raise a million dollars for his umbrella organization WholeMind Corp. that envisioned a distance-learning component, which evidently was not successful. Agreed, Kronos was not a meaningfully peer-reviewed journal. Although Talbott's book The Saturn Myth from Doubleday never had a second printing, it is held by 193 libraries according to WorldCat database, compared to John White's Pole Shift from same publisher in the same year which is held by 280 libraries. Cochrane's Martian Metamorphoses is held by only two libraries; de Grazia's Chaos and Creation, by 31 libraries. In comparison, Henry Bauer's 1984 Beyond Velikovsky is held by 554 libraries, de Grazia's 1966 The Velikovsky Affair by 520, Scientists Confront Velikovsky by 1340, Velikovsky and Establishment Science by 147, and Carl Sagan and Immmanuel Velikovsky by 58. Cochrane's book and de Grazia's recent "Quantavolution" series books are self-published.--Phaedrus7 16:50, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Non-mainstream ideas need to be notable to be included in Wikipedia. In particular, you haven't answered the basic point that the article fails to rise to the level asked for of WP:BIO. If subjects of articles aren't notable the articles should be deleted. Nondistinguished 19:44, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are clearly User:ScienceApologist, I recognise your prose style a mile off! LOL You make take that as a compliment if you wish; it is however just intended as a neutral statement of fact, not as a personal attack. Your assertion "Non-mainstream ideas need to be notable to be included in Wikipedia" displays the very nub of your agenda, doesn't it? Are you implying that "mainstream" ideas do *not* need to be notable to be included in wikipedia? Basically, you just want to eradicate "non-mainstream" ideas from wikipedia, don't you? Why are you so scared of them? If articles on them are well written, from a neutral point of view, and verifiable, what is the problem?--feline1 20:05, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Accusing somebody of starting a sockpuppet account for conducting witch hunts is a serious offense. You should not be making it here. Nondistinguished 20:11, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But you already told me (months ago) that your User:ScienceApologist account was technically a "sock puppet" by rules of the policy anyways... I don't really see what difference it makes what login name you use anyways, it's only a handle! It's your actual editing style that's the important thing.--feline1 20:32, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is the first time that I ever had contact with you since I started my account. Nondistinguished 20:44, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well it doesn't really matter, does it? Let's just say once upon a time there was another editor called User:ScienceApologist. He seems to have since departed the community. It's a shame he's not still around, cos I think you would've gotten on with him so well. Man, seems to me you two guys were like peas in a pod - same views, same interests, even exact same writing style, same excellent knowledge of wikipedia policies and guidelines (gee, you picked them up real quick, I must say! Me, I've been here years, and I'm still learning). He gave me a bit of a hard time on the Immanuel Velikovsky article, but I guess come to think about it, he did spur us to improve the article and make it more verifiable and neutral. Yep, sure miss that ole' ScienceApologist. --feline1 20:52, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is not my agenda to exclude or include anything in the encyclopedia except for those articles which do not live up to the guidelines and policies set forth by the Wikipedia community. My agenda is not what makes WP:N a guideline for Wikipedia. Instead community consensus is what determines the applicability of certain inclusion and exclusion guidelines. If you dislike notability as a requirement for inclusion of Wikipedia articles, you can discuss your objections at Wikipedia talk:Notability. Here is not the place to do it. Please respond directly to the objections I outlined in my nomination. Nondistinguished 20:11, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've already given my vote for the article's deletion. There's little point in you trying to harrass me into changing it. And if you continue to delete my comments calling them "personal attacks", there's not much point me bothing to type anything at all!--feline1 20:32, 7 September 2007 (UTC) Anyways, if the consensus of the vote turns out to be for "delete", that's fine by me.... --feline1 20:41, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have pointed out that your opinion is contrary to the guidelines and policies of Wikipedia. You have not responded to this. Also, WP:AfD is not about "voting". Nondistinguished 20:44, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Text removed that was posted by a banned user

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Wknight94 (talk) 11:15, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.--Kubigula (talk) 04:04, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nicole Peters

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

Again, I don't think this girl's notable. Fails WP:PORNBIO. h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 13:50, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Wknight94 (talk) 11:16, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 copyright issue is a compelling argument. If someone wants access in order to merge some of the content, feel free to contact me.--Kubigula (talk) 04:14, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Halloween 6: The Producer's Cut

[edit]
Halloween 6: The Producer's Cut (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Copyright violation, lists storyline, plot, and other aspects of an unofficial never released version of a film, claiming it to be a "Producer's Cut" implying it was created by the Producer of the original film Ejfetters 13:25, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as per nom. The page really isn't encyclopedic and is in copyright violation. The main changes can be noted somewhere on the main article but the rest of the information no. Plus it goes into detail about the various bootlegs available and that in itself is illegal, bootlegs. Wikipedia shouldn't list a movie's various bootlegs and how to tell which is which. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 18:03, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Halloween: The Curse of Michael Myers. Some of the information is vaulable, but needs to be greatly condensed. The main problem is the copyright issues and the fact that this version of the film simply doesn't need its own article. Cut the bullshit and integrate the rest properly into the main article. --Bacteria 02:03, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with Bacteria, many copyright issues and article is just a storyline of the unofficial movie. Make it real world information, not in-universe and merge it. It really only deserves a small mention in the article, as none of it is official, but it clearly exists. We just don't need to list every single difference from the official version. We could say for real world, when it was discovered, how it spread, critical commentary on the different version, studio/producer's stance on the material, etc. The cover art needs to go, its unofficial and a copyright vio. in itself, and it's already nominated for deletion itself. Ejfetters 11:40, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • We can't really add any images though can we? I was just thinking we could add a screencap from it, but, as it was never "released" by the studio, even a screen cap would be a copyright violation wouldn't it - because I believe the screencap tag says it's been "released". Ejfetters 11:42, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge, because lots of good information and external links that can somehow be salvaged and does concern a relatively notable alternate version of a film. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 02:29, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 23:48, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Wknight94 (talk) 11:17, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 03:19, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Carlo Dellonte

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

Italian author who appears to have only written one book (which doesn't have its own article. Other than that the article makes no further assertions of notability. The CSD tag was removed by another editor and it was given stub status. Doesn't meet WP:BIO WebHamster 23:50, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I don't think this should be deleted. Carlo Dellonte is a published writer and hence has a growing number of fans. Please, since this is my first article contribution to wiki, let me know what i should do to prevent articles from being deleted. thank you! Just to point out: Carlo Dellonte wrote 'The Hollow House'. He also published: 'Lost e i suoi segreti Un libro di Carlo Dellonte e Giorgio Glaviano'. Furthermore, he recently started working for a radio (radio 3) show called "La Storia in Giallo" (which would translate into something like "Detective History"). The show deals (quite broadly) with historical murders and mysteries and it is made up of a radio-drama + interview with expert on the topic. His occupation: research and write the radio-dramas. So far he has written two; one aired in May (on Mary Shelley and the "mysterious" invention of Frankenstein) and the other will air in September (on the Sci-fi writer Philip K. Dick). Also, for those Tesla fans, there will be a 3rd one on Nikola Tesla. Therefore I still think Carlo Dellonte should stay in the writer, poet or playwright stub. Some external links for your reference below. Thanks

--Nvasi 05:27, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

fwiw, the review in the scotsman quoted says " I cannot imagine what virtues the publisher could have seen in this" DGG (talk) 18:58, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 11:29, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Wknight94 (talk) 11:21, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, at least for now. As Kubigula mentioned, things can always be reexamined in the future if need be. Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:44, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jurijus Kadamovas and Iouri Mikhel

[edit]
Jurijus Kadamovas and Iouri Mikhel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Despite having sources for this article, editors involved are not sure that the material is notable enough to warrant an article in WP, so we are asking the community at large to comment. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:31, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment After seeing the article created (initial version), I was concerned that it may have some WP:BLP issues, but since there did seem to be Google search results, I was not comfortable simply tagging it for CSD. After reflection, I brought the issue to Jossi's attention, expressed my concerns, and between the two of us, we cleaned up the BLP issues and sourced it with references. (Initially it had none, just two external links.) Jossi created two redirects from the individuals, and while the article is now properly sourced, and neutral, I think the issue of if this should be included is still a valid one, as raised by another editor. WP:NOT#NEWS would suggest that in the long term, historical context, this entry may not prove notable enough. Ariel♥Gold 01:34, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm the other editor Jossi and ArielGold mention. This appears to fall under WP:NOT#NEWS. "The fact that someone or something has been in the news for a brief period of time does not automatically justify an encyclopedia article." It's the nature of news agencies to report crimes, extensively, and for an encyclopedia to report "long-term historical notability of persons and events." Although this may be a rare federal death penalty case, that's only mentioned in passing in one source. This article doesn't seem to have any real notability, yet, and if it ever does it can be recreated then. Pairadox 01:37, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Wknight94 (talk) 11:22, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was do something or other. This is an interesting discussion but it's probably time to move it back on to talk pages. Clearly this material is not going to be deleted, but it's just as clear that editors find using "Simulism" as an umbrella term problematic (definitely a neologism). I would suggest merge discussions at Talk:Simulism. Mackensen (talk) 14:27, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Simulism

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

This is a remarkable article, with good content, but the theory itself was dreamed up a year ago by Ivo Jansch, who wrote at that time: "Lately I've been having these crazy thoughts about what the implications would be if the world as we know it wasn't really real but a computer simulation....I found it kind of fun to discuss and ponder the subject and I needed a place to write down my thoughts, so I installed a wiki....and somehow the term 'Simulism' seemed appropriate and the domainname wasn't taken yet, so here we are: [45]. It's almost like creating your own religion, only, it isn't." Quote from [46] This page violates WP:N and WP:RS. Anarchia 11:25, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Clearly, as the main author of this article, I would be aggrieved to see it deleted. I believe it has an integrity, in that it is about the belief that the world as we perceive it is simulated, rather than the technical details of how it should be done, or whether or not it is actually simulated. There is a long history to this idea, which, I think is not covered elsewhere. The article began as a counter to simulated reality which, quite honestly is a mess. I have no idea why the afd on this article is being suggested, but I would suggest that whoever suggested it, looks at the simulated reality entry, and compare the two.
--TonyFleet 19:37, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I put an AfD on this article, first, because some of it seems to be original research, and, second, because as far as I can determine using google and academic database searches, 'simulism' is not a generally recognised term. (It used to be used in biology, but in a different way.) Tony, you are undoubtedly correct about the simulated reality page. And, for what it is worth, I meant it when I said that the simulism article is remarkable. But, why don't you use the information you have gathered to improve the simulated reality article? There are already multiple article dealing with the brain in the vat, evil genius, etc ideas. Anarchia 04:46, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What's the difference between this and Simulated reality, Evil genius, Brain in a vat, etc., etc., etc.? Ewlyahoocom 06:05, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mackensen (talk) 18:11, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep In spite of possible less-than-serious origins, its a real topic. and not quite a new one--the possibility of the entire perceived world not being real has occurred to people for millennia. DGG (talk) 03:37, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that there is no established notable theory called 'simulism'.Anarchia 04:54, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. There is a notable theory which is about the world not being 'real', and completely illusory, and it has taken many forms. This is described in the article. This theory does not have a name (but lots of different names). The article brings them together and uses a name coined recently. That, I would argue is legitimate, and is allowed in many other contexts. For example, Fictional technology just brings up a whole load of mirrors of the wikipedia article. There is a genuine concept, and clearly the idea has currency. The name, though may be unique to Wikipedia, and even if it is not, are we sure that the name was not intiated by the Wikipedia article?
Even if we were to accept the argument that the title is not 'notable', then that is an argument for moving it, but NOT for deleting it. I understand what you are saying, but the issue here (at the moment) is whether or not the article should be deleted. I think there is enough in the article to make it of value so that it should be kept in some form, and could end up being expanded. The argument that it should be merged with another article needs to be had at another time.
In addition, I think that to put an AfD on this article, "because some of it seems to be original research", (as stated above)is not actually a valid reason. There are lots of articles, parts of which have been tagged as "original research", and very few of them are proposed as afds; the way to deal with them is to tag the offending parts and request that they be improved. I am not sure which sections of this article actually are being referred to here, and it would be useful to have these identified.
I believe that the article needs to stay, and it needs to be completed as it was originally envisaged (please see the underlying code for the full extent of this article).--TonyFleet 15:48, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As you say there is a long and significant history of people exploring the idea that humans do not have contact with so-called 'reality'. This idea is covered in many articles in wikipedia: Brain in a vat; Evil demon; Cartesian skepticism; idealism; simulated reality; Phenomenalism; Phenomenology; Simulation hypothesis; Transcendental idealism; Dream argument; Allegory of the cave, and so on (I will find more if you wish), as well as discussions on the pages of individual philosophers. I think a very good reason needs to be given for beginning another page that contains information that ought to be on these other pages.
It is true that an article that gathered interesting ideas from material that ought to be on these other pages could be interesting. But, this raises at least two questions. Is the construction of such a page an act of original research of a kind that violates WP:NOR? What should the page be called? I am not an administrator, so I don't feel qualified to answer the first question. However, assuming that there is a consensus that such an article is necessary, it seems inappropriate to call it 'simulism'. The term 'simulism' is not a notable or recognised term; it clearly violoates WP:NOR, and, I believe, violates it in an important way. First, encyclopedias are supposed to report on things; they are not tools for propogating individuals (or small groups of individuals) ideas. Second, 'ism' is a suffix that is usually added to words when there is a substantial body theory existing in an area to provide a quick way of refering to a position. I just don't think that it is okay for individuals to coin neologisms that sound as though they reflect a substantial theory, and then use that neologism to refer to something they, or a few people have just dreamed up - especially when there are closely related existing philosophical theories with other names.
The simulism article was created by someone(s) with good research and writing skills. Why not use those skills to refine existing articles on the same topic?
I am not going to contribute to this debate any more. I am only one person, and I think my position is obvious. If others disagree with me, that is fine. Anarchia 21:58, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge in one or more of the articles mentioned by Anarchia. It is true that much of the material is interesting: paradoxically, it is just the hat under which it goes that is non-notable. The fact that somebody has coined a new word (and a wiki) for his own version of a millenium-old hypothesis might be interesting, but as a mention in a relevant article. --Goochelaar 22:24, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Wknight94 (talk) 11:23, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge. The article is a good article and worth having, as a compendium/meta-article about various different theories of the world being unreal, but it is awfully close to simulated reality. If either of the two articles should survive this one should, and the content there merged here. As long as the articles are that would be a big chore, and keeping two articles is far better than a messy merge. The two articles could also be distinguished and kept separate, with this one about the philosophical and existential implications, and the other about technological/technical speculation on the feasibility, means, etc. Wikidemo 22:34, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - consensus, closed early per WP:SNOW. - KrakatoaKatie 03:39, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Godverdomme

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

Dictionary definition, already exists on Wiktionary Blair - Speak to me 11:03, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closer: If this AfD results in the page being deleted, please tag GODVERDOMME MAN! with {{db-r1}}. GlassCobra (talk • contribs) 17:08, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Punkmorten 06:51, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blackpool Sands

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

A disambiguation page that disambiguates between two nonexistent articles. Neither shows in the log, so I guess they weren't deleted, but I still can't see the utility in this page. Dylan 10:37, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete.--Kubigula (talk) 19:10, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

David M. Thompson

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

notability, possible vanity page, probable violation of WP:COI Chris 03:22, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Wknight94 (talk) 10:24, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - His corpus of work is a specialist book and a few articles. SolidPlaid 01:14, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete Specialist books are what academics write--that's not a negative comment. But in general I do not think one book is enough to show notability for someone in the humanities. His composition would add to it, but whether his compositions are notable would depend upon whether they have been reviewed or performed. We need specialist help in this, and it has not been forthcoming. DGG (talk) 03:17, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 attack page. Non-admin closure.--JForget 22:37, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chris chow

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

At first glance this only seems like an unreferenced article; however, further investigation of the credits of the movie in question leads me to believe that this might be an attack/hoax page. GlassCobra (talk • contribs) 10:27, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 all a1 (empty), Wikipedia is not for reprints of the Bible. NawlinWiki 11:18, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Revelation 20:14

[edit]
Revelation 20:14 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The article is a sole Bible citation; the Wikipedia policy states "Source text generally belongs on WikiSource". However, if you feel this citation is a suitable topic for encyclopedic article please provide reasons. Kubanczyk 09:56, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages (same reason):

Romans 3:23 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Romans 6:23‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
John 1:12‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Revelation 3:20‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 15:52, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eastbourne Dynamos F.C.

[edit]
Eastbourne Dynamos F.C. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Amateur football club playing three divisions below Step 7. No reason for notability (e.g. cup runs, formerly playing at a higher level) as the club was only formed a couple of years ago. Article also appears to have been written by club chairman and he has contested a prod on it. Number 57 09:35, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — TKD::Talk 20:48, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Christian H. Paz

[edit]
Christian H. Paz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)(View log)
Encuentro de 3 en 1 cuarto (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Aborigenes en la Argentina (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The only assertion of notability is his having directed three films, two of which are also nominated in this afd (the third is in another afd). These "films" are 6, 13, and 20 minutes long, and their only assertion of notability is having been directed by Christian H. Paz. So, a circular lack of evidence of notability. Someguy1221 06:08, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 deleted per WP:CSD#A7. MessedRocker (talk) 05:52, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Subdreamer

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

A content management system, just like all the others. No evidence of widespread use or significance. Article was started by a single-purpose account but has attracted some edits by other interested editors; these have not remedied a fundamental paucity of sources and a lack of demonstration of notability. Guy (Help!) 08:57, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Please read the log a bit more carefully. I recreated this page on 5 September, it was deleted due to its prior history (i.e. spam) but I got it reinstated. The deleting admin said it was an error on his part to delete it. All prior history is irrelevant because the original content no longer exists and none of the original contributors are adding to the article - therefore our motives are the same as on any other Wikipedia article.
Please also read Talk:Subdreamer. I find it extremely frustrating that people keep flagging this page for deletion. How is it supposed to grow into a better article if you don't give it a chance?
All of my arguments on the Talk page still stand. Please do not delete this, I already got it reinstated once. JamminBen 09:51, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note There was no discussion, in which other people than the contributor and User:Jmlk17 participated. I wouldn't have nominated for deletion yet, probably would have been best to wait a bit after the DRV to see if the article was improved, however it is unacceptable in it's current state, fails WP:VERIFY, WP:SPAM (14 links to the website in such a short page, come on). Personally I couldn't see any real proof of notability. I hope this AfD won't be speedy closed, or that would mean only User:Jmlk17 would have a say on the deletion (no original AfDs: page was speedy deleted, also the DRV was only open for 45 minutes Wp:drv#Subdreamer_.28closed.29). The page was undeleted, unsalted 21 minutes after having been tagged, so I think the AfD should stay open to have more views. My opinion for the moment is Keep to allow for improvement, but relist if no proof of notability if given. Jackaranga 10:48, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If possible avoid phrases such as It is a "powerful yet simple program", by the way. Jackaranga 10:51, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply OK, for starters I have removed the phrase you mentioned. I can remove some or all of the 14 links you mentioned, I have no issue with that, but where else do you get sources from a list of features besides the official website? If I take them out and someone adds a citation needed tag, it's just going to go round in circles.
Also, if this article is not worthy, why aren't some of the other similar articles being raised here too, such as e107? The e107 article has quite a few similarities to the Subdreamer article, and that hasn't been flagged. JamminBen 12:21, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I left a message on your talk page to some policies JamminBen. Hope you read them, can't really discuss much here if you don't know about the basic ones. I'm not sure lists of features are encouraged either. There are loads of things on wikipedia that need deleting, I don't know if that article you mention is one, but such a comparison is rarely well greeted in an AfD discussion (see WP:WAX not an official policy). Jackaranga 12:31, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, point taken. Thanks for the info, I will check it out. JamminBen 12:40, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable and unsourced. There are no Google News hits (not even press releases), no reliable sources in a regular Google search, and no hits whatsoever in library databases ProQuest or EBSCOhost. More time isn't going to make sources appear. --Darkwind (talk) 10:54, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep Why are admins so quick to delete articles? Anything is notable, it's a basic concept of sourcing. Please, if you are unable to find sources, that does not mean they do not exist, that is just silly. They might be hard to find, and in this article they probably will be hard to find, however I can't sit here and believe nobody has ever written anything about this piece of software. I say keep, and review in 2 weeks. That will give the author and other editors enough time to write the article in a neutral manner, remove most of the citations of the products own website, and do a good comparison, history, and user statistics sections. 68.143.88.2 15:27, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Not everything is notable; your neighbor's dog doesn't deserve a Wikipedia article. What would distinguish this software is not a better article; it would be multiple reliable sources, independent of the subject, that have covered this software. I'll agree that there may be sources that I wasn't able to find, but the fact that this isn't listed in two major library research databases (including EBSCOhost's information technology file) suggests an uphill battle to locate them. (Incidentally, why would a truly notable WEB content management package NOT have sources that can be located online? Where would the sources BE if not on the Internet? --Darkwind (talk)) Per WP:V, the burden is on the article's contributor(s) to find the source, not the person/people who suggest removing the article. Even so, I made an effort in good faith to locate something to verify the content of the article, and failed to find anything reliable. See my comment on the article's talk page for additional details. --Darkwind (talk) 17:38, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment I agree, you did make a good faith effort. I apologize if I sounded like I was accusing you of being too quick to delete, that wasn't my intent, and I could have selected more effective wording. You are making the right call about the speedy deletion of this article, 100%. What I was trying to suggest is that many good articles start just like this one has, and if you would simply add the article on your watch list and give the author and other possible editors even 7 days with it, I personally think with some hard work it will turn out to be a good article. Anything takes time, especially when the English Wikipedia has almost 2 million articles already, in the near future I can foresee "slim pickins" in the new article creation segment. (This paragraph is part of DigitalNinja (t c)'s !vote below.)

*Keep...for 1 week and re-evaluate. At the end of that week, delete if no 3rd party, neutral, note worthly enhancing progress has been made. DigitalNinja 03:01, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • changed vote to delete. I tried searching for any kind of 3rd party, reliable source I could find. I realize what DarkWind was thinking when he cast his vote. I don't like supporting deletion of articles I think were created in good faith, but I have no choice as a serious-minded contributor but to change my vote. Perhaps if the author can find something solid, but it is definitely going to be an up-hill battle. DigitalNinja 02:38, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply I haven't been able to find sources either. I thought there would be some as Subdreamer seems to be well-known. If there are sources, they're pretty well hidden. For what it's worth, I got the ref tag working... you might find it easier to click Show Preview after making a change instead of making lots of changes in a row. JamminBen 02:52, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good call on the show preview button...forgot about that :) (actually, I didn't think I needed it. Guess I was mistaken!) DigitalNinja 03:02, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Notable sources need to be external. I added Subdreamer to the list of content management systems when I created the page. That doesn't automatically make it notable, it's really just for reference. JamminBen 04:26, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Maxim(talk) 20:18, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chuff Chuff

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

Term is British slang for house music rave. No sources. SolidPlaid 08:53, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:01, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GURPS Discworld

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

This book of gaming instructions has not received coverage from reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject as evidence of notability under WP:Notability. The text of the article appears to be WP:Fancruft, as it does not contain context or sourced analysis, or detail on a work's development. Fans of the GURPS series will argue that notability is inherited, but this is not the case. --Gavin Collins 08:28, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Sources added. It is important to note that in addition to this being the only game devised for Discworld, it is an article about all the books in the series, not just one. More refs being worked on. Turlo Lomon 20:45, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Pant, pant, pant Ok that one is done. Next project please? Turlo Lomon 21:13, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — TKD::Talk 21:09, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Waleed Ehsanul Karim

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

Pilot from Bangladesh. No reliable sources, fails WP:BIO. ~Eliz81(C) 08:15, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:58, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Walden West

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Walden West (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Outdoor school for children. Had been nominated for deletion before and was kept, but I can find no claims of notability in the article, or reliable third party sources to establish notability. ~Eliz81(C) 08:14, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — TKD::Talk 20:53, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Genki Rockets

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

Non-notable band that isn't even really a band; it's a "virtual band" that doesn't even really exist in normal form. Sole claim to fame is a holographic performance at Live Earth, which isn't enough to meet WP:BAND No albums, one iTunes release, Only one independent source cited that isn't otherwise promoting the band's recording. They just haven't met notability standards yet. Realkyhick 08:07, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:49, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Wolf

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

Spammy, no sources, no evidence of notability. All edits are by accounts with o history other than to this individual and linked articles on the school he attended and the releases listed. Since these album articles contained one short sentence plus the track listing already in this article, and no assertion of notability, no references or sources, I have removed them. Guy (Help!) 08:02, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Carlossuarez46 18:57, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moshpit Tragedy Records

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

Apparently non-notable record label. Few claims of notability, trivial references (based on their press releases). Company website has no Alexa rank; while there's a fair amount of Google hits for "Moshpit Tragedy Records", only 79 unique ones among the first 1000 (Google never displays more than 1000 search results). Delete, unless notability is independently established. - Mike Rosoft 07:45, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mike Rosoft 21:03, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Page has been updated and now contains scanned review of label's release from magazine, mp3 link in which radio show host speaks about label and free downloads for 36 second segment, entire show and segment are both linked as well as urls. Also quotes from third parties, interview snippets, bands which are recognized by wikipedia and mention the label on their pages, references, etc have all been included. Do you know how long it will take to have the deletion tag removed? Has notability been proven enough? If anything is done improperly please just let me know here. Thank you. Moshpit tragedy 21:13, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - unfortunately we still don't have reliable sources (independent from Moshpit Tragedy) for this one. We have blogs, forum posts, news snippets at blabbermouth.net that were probably written by the record label itself. Admittedly we also have an mp3 file supposed to contain a radio show episode where they're mentioned, but since the file is more than 50MB, I didn't check it out. Even worse, none of the sources we have tell us much about the record label itself, more about the bands signed to them (or not - an entire paragraph is about a deal that didn't happen). Seems non-notable. The fact that it's massively edited by User:Moshpit tragedy and thus a possible conflict of interest doesn't help. Huon 21:26, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Huon, there are two links from the radio show. One is a smaller snippet, please have a listen to that one. It will help, as the host says the label is giving away free music and how people can get it. I haven't included any of the label's press releases as an actual reference, only as an outside article for more info for readers. I am just a fan of the label but have done too much work to let it go. The Extinction of Mankind release is high profile, and so was the Eyehategod cancellation, thats why it is noted, it was a talked widely about among metal and punk fans. If it is decided more is still needed please let me know, I know it can be proven because the label's stance on the current record industry and their actions are at the forefront in terms of direction for small labels.Moshpit tragedy 21:33, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete without prejudic for later recreation. I have reviewed the audio and even so, it is still falling short of what is needed. Basically we need mutiple newpaper articles/tv show segments/National radio show segment/books or other such mentions from reputable, reliable, third-party sources. While I applaud the effort put forth in this article, it does not meet the standards wikipedia has set. Blogs, forum posts, news snippets at blabbermouth.net are not valid sources to base an article on. This is a non-notable label, at this time. --Brian(view my history)/(How am I doing?) 22:08, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have begun an article on co-founder Rayny Forster who is a notable singer and was written about in many magazines and other sources. Included there is a link to his old band's label's (Cargo Music) site about the band which mentions him and also a review which mentions his singing style in Heckler magazine which is another reliable source. I am determined to find enough info for this as it is out there. Will add more magazine ads and expand on the founder and his other notable projects. Thanks. Moshpit tragedy 22:29, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - I have by now heard the short version of that show, but I remain unconvinced. For example, Google News gives precisely two hits, both from blabbermouth. As for Rayny Forster, I'm not sure whether that very short review makes him notable - compare WP:MUSIC - but this is the wrong place for that discussion anyway. Even if he is, the record label he co-founded need not be so. Until something "high-profile" gets at least some independent news coverage, this label just isn't notable. Huon 22:55, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I understand. I have been in touch and have received word that there is such news coverage being published very soon and I will link that up immediately. Thanks for your patience with the newbie. Moshpit tragedy 23:39, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just added another reference which has a short writeup for a magazine's website and not a press release. It contains the founders names, and has some of the bands listed here. Also Extinction of Mankind are very well known, they had a split record with Doom, who sold 15,000 copies of one EP ("Police Bastard" number one selling crust record of all time). I am also going to add some more scans from magazine coverage. Moshpit tragedy 15:17, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Have added over 12 reviews of the label's releases from reliable independent news sources. There is more coming. Can we take the deletion notice off?Moshpit tragedy 17:09, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - concerning process: The Article for Deletion process takes five days (in this case counting from the September 17 relisting), and in the end an admin will have a look, determine consensus (not counting the number of votes, but weighing the reasons given for keeping/deleting), and initiate the appropriate action (either remove the deletion notice or delete the article). So no, we can't yet take the deletion notice off. Concerning your added reviews: I still don't see notability for the record label. Of the reviews I checked out, two didn't even mention that label at all (one claiming the release was "independent"), and but one did more than just mention the name. They may possibly serve as indications for notability of the bands whose music is discussed, but such passing mentions won't make the label notable even if there are thousands of them. By the way, the one non-trivial review was this, which claims to be a blog. I'm not sure whether it really is; blogs usually are not accepted as main sources for articles. Anyway, it already was a reference before it was added among the reviews. Huon 22:43, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Added new Review link, its in Dutch I believe, and roughly translated says something pleasurable about the label for putting out the release. Probably still not enough for you but there is more coming if I can get it up in time. If not I will recreate the account if that is allowed when there is something even more concrete if all this is not enough for you, and I'll leave out all the small link stuff if its of no use anyhow. Thanks to everyone for their time.MetalPunk013 15:42, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • In general, an article which has been deleted after a discussion like this one should not be re-created in article space without a very good reason; otherwise, it may be immediately deleted again in accordance with our speedy deletion criteria. If (even after the deletion) you believe Wikipedia should have an article about the recording label, consider creating the page as a draft in a subpage of your user space (such as User:MetalPunk013/draft) first. (When ready, you may notify administrators at admins' noticeboard or otherwise ask the page to be reviewed.) And uploading scanned articles from newspapers etc. will not be particularly helpful, because they probably can't be used on Wikipedia anyway - see the image use and fair use policy. (Instead of uploading them to Wikipedia, you may link to them from the article if they are available online.) Regards, Mike Rosoft 18:53, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Added section about the label's ridiculously limited edition T-shirt for the band Fuck The Facts, a very well known working band on a large label, Relapse Records. Includes quote from bands website and reference. http://ftf.electrocutionerdz.com/index2.htm It is about three quarters of the way down their news section, Dated Jan 1. Also in their links section they call Moshpit Tragedy a "Punk Grind label from Windsor ON" These shirts were of special interest because of the groups status and the fact that only 20 were made. MetalPunk013 14:54, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was keep. John254 01:06, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jorge Pullin

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

Stub page about a professor, that has existed in its present two-sentence form since Oct 2003. Nothing mentioned to establish notability. SolidPlaid 07:45, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete as per nom. --Crusio 09:03, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The holder of a named chair would seem in general to be notable; Google Scholar [47] finds several papers with high citation counts, eg one at 314, four others >100 and lots more >50; he has also cowritten a book Loops, Knots, Gauge Theories and Quantum Gravity, published by CUP, for which Google Scholar finds several reviews. The Amazon page for the book [48] quotes Hugo A. Morales in Mathematical Reviews as saying 'the authors...are pioneers and leaders in the field'. Meets with my understanding of WP:PROF. Willing to change my mind as I'm not familiar with the Louisiana State University and this is far from my area. Espresso Addict 13:33, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I've added some awards and honors and sourcing to the article. —David Eppstein 17:20, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per David Eppstein. --Crusio 18:09, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete.--Kubigula (talk) 19:26, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Snaps (game) (3rd nomination)

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Snaps (game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non notable game. A google search again shows that the majority of hits have nothing to do with this game [49]. There are no sources listed, and nothing referenced to verify the claims of this article. This 'game's article needs to have multiple, reliable, independent, non-biased, third-party sources cited, which it doesn't and I was not able to find. Furthermore, this is basicly a re-worded version of the previously deleted page but Wikipedia is STILL not a how-to guide. Notability standards usually require citing more than one major news source. I looked at a few of the Wiki guidelines and we must note that Wikipedia is not a Publisher of Original Thought - Specifically - Original inventions: If you invent the word frindle or a new type of dance move (or punching game), it is not article material until a secondary source reports on it. You can review the previous nomination here - Brian(view my history)/(How am I doing?) 06:33, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Jay, thanks for the links but as you have said, they don't meet the verifiable sources criterion. These would be good as filler links but we still would need to have a few book citations or a few TV shows or newspaper/magazine articles that were about this game as you pointed out. --Brian(view my history)/(How am I doing?) 04:29, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

no don't delete, it was useful —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.75.143.37 (talk) 01:36, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Mr.Z-man 05:46, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Army Gunz

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

Non-notable song. Single source says it will be last collaboration of the musicians. No mention of charting. SolidPlaid 06:39, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — TKD::Talk 20:45, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

22-7

[edit]
22-7 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

No notability asserted. Girolamo Savonarola 05:44, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Please also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christian H. Paz for the director of this film. GlassCobra (talk • contribs) 09:49, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was keep. John254 01:00, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Steal This Film

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Steal This Film (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

My reasons for nominating this now are the same for supporting deletion during the first nomination. This article provides no evidence of notability through the provision of multiple, reliable, independent sources. Those sources provided on the page (as well as those most immediately apparent from a google search) are either forum threads or blog postings. The arguments presented for keeping the article during the first discussion were essentially suggesting that WP:N be suspended for this article, because its subjects discussed very "important issues." Someguy1221 05:41, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thankyou, I have added the reference in the introduction of the article, but it needs a rewite to make it flow better. I will add it to my list of ones to do, but if anyone else could have a crack at it that would be great. Fosnez 07:25, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - as noted above, there are sources referring to this film. Remaining issues are cosmetic for the most part. This article could serve as a test case regarding "non-traditional" film distribution. It's no longer current to claim a film is non-notable simply because it's distributed only over the Internet. Wikipedia policy and attitudes on this (and this goes for other Web-based productions, etc) probably need some updating. 23skidoo 11:33, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notability might be hard to establish with main stream media, but that is the entire idea of an underground "movement" that is known by many outside of the mainstream. Topic and film are notable, as is the source. I thought we just went through this two weeks ago. I bit much to nominate it "for the same reasons that led to a keep before". I think perhaps a good faith nom should at least be creative as to why to renom it after two weeks. Otherwise it looks simply like you want it deleted, regardless of consensus. (ie: not good faith). Pharmboy 23:24, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Thank you for not assuming good faith. I thought I stated my reasons quite clearly above. The keep !voters from the last AFD seemed to be ignoring WP:N. I had doubts that a few people who thought the movie was so important it didn't need good sourcing could form a good representation of what the larger community concensus would be. And just to nitpick, it was "no consensus," not "keep." And concensus can change. Someguy1221 03:18, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am going to have to agree with Someguy here that the previous discussion specifically ignored the discussion of notability. However, I feel that notability has been established, and that this is no longer an issue - for either debate. Turlo Lomon 07:19, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 03:19, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fan-Centric

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

Unreferenced, original research, dicdef. Alksub 05:40, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 03:18, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brujos

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

Contested prod. Article is a patent dicdef that already exists on wiktionary. Bfigura (talk) 04:51, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Carlossuarez46 05:48, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nervous Lies

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

Episode is already covered in article List of Curb Your Enthusiasm episodes under HBO Special (1999). Also this article was created by user who has been permanently blocked for vandalism. Msw1002 04:15, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 copy/vio. Sandahl 05:40, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edna Eicke

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

The subject is not very notable, the article is not sourced & the entire article is a copy vio of [52]. These things suggest to me that this article needs to be Deleted. Spawn Man 04:14, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 03:18, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Southeast museum of photography

[edit]
Southeast museum of photography (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article doesn't assert notability, is made by User:Smpmuseum, who obviously has a COI based on their user name, and the article is not sourced. Delete. Spawn Man 04:08, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was keep (non admin). Dihydrogen Monoxide (H2O) 03:59, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Order of the Phoenix (organisation)

[edit]

The article asserts no notability, and has no real world sources to discuss it; as such, it is just a repetition of the plot of several Harry Potter books, and since the plot of those books is covered in their own articles, this article is just duplicative and should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 04:03, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are apparently just arguing now for the sake of arguing. The 925 Google News hits I just mentioned obviously are the real world context, and the fact that the Order of the Phoenix is in the title of the book and film is precisely why it's notable. Finally, WP:FICT is not policy and therefore invoking it in an AfD process is not criteria for deletion. wikipediatrix 22:12, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You've shown that the book and the film are notable, not the organization. notability is not inherited. You need sources about the organization, not about the book and the film. Being a guideline does not mean you can ignore WP:FICT for no reason, WP:ONLYESSAY. Jay32183 23:06, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ONLYESSAY isn't policy either. wikipediatrix 23:13, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Should we delete S.P.E.C.T.R.E. from James Bond too? SolidPlaid 23:03, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The answer to that question could very well be "yes", which is why other stuff exists is considered a bad argument. Jay32183 23:09, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - Okay, let's delete Number since a number is only an abstract idea that occurs in some books. SolidPlaid 23:18, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • More importantly, WP:WAX is, once again, not policy. wikipediatrix 23:26, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • It doesn't have to be policy for you to be wrong. I am not saying that's what it says so obey, I'm saying that "What about X?" is a bad argument and you can read that essay for details, which is what WP:ONLYESSAY says. Actually try reading these guidelines and essays before rejecting them if you wish to contribute to the discussion in a constructive manner. Notability has not been demonstrated. Another essay you should read is WP:ITSNOTABLE, because simply saying something is notable doesn't make it true, provide the sources. The sources don't exist, so you're kinda stuck. Jay32183 01:14, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Please do not accuse other editors of doing that again without considerably stronger evidence that they've committed such a glaring mistake. In fact, please don't do so with the same. It's not particularily constructive in either case. --Kizor 21:39, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • It is always constructive to ask users not to make bad arguments. Bad arguments get in the way of discussion. Instead of discussing the actual issue we have to explain why the argument is bad. In this specific case, I had linked to WP:ONLYESSAY, which was met with "That's not policy." WP:ONLYESSAY explains why saying something "isn't policy" isn't a good argument. I don't see how I could have done anything wrong or even impolite. Jay32183 23:02, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • To reply to a few of the threads above, I agree the guidelines go against keeping the article. But they do say that there are exceptions, and maybe this should be one of them. The Order of the Phoenix gives its name to a major movie and one of the best selling books of all time. Its also mentioned in many reviews, including a Time magazine review of the last Harry Potter book (http://www.time.com/time/arts/article/0,8599,1645771,00.html, fourth paragraph down) It seems to me to be a reasonable canidate for an exception, though it does need heavy editing. It could also be merged into one of the other Potter pages.--Gyrcompass 02:05, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • But we don't have real world sources about the organization. The guideline WP:FICT is derived from the policy WP:NOT#PLOT. Articles are not supposed to be dominated by fictional elements. Because of WP:NOR and WP:V we must have sources to provide the real world content. Simply mentioning something isn't a sufficient source, and having multiple sources is meaningless if they all say the same thing. There's no point in merging if the content here is already at the target article, and there's no point in a redirect because searching for "Order of the Phoenix" will take you to the right place anyway, no one would add (organization) or (organisation) unless they know the subpage is there. Jay32183 04:48, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep WP:FICT says to use deletion only as a last resort. Although the it-has-no-notability-in-the-real-world arguments are very convincing, I'd still say Ignore all rules for this article which happens to be the book title of one of the most selling books of all time and in-universe-notably spans several books. This article would be a perfect candidate for the planned {{In-universe rationale}} template that's currently planned on WP:FICT. – sgeureka t•c 09:08, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's a slight problem with your "use deletion as a last resort" argument. Where are you proposing the content be merged, the main articles already have the necessary information. When the merge option fails you're supposed to keep going down the list, not back up. Next is transwiki, and again, the question is "where?". Jay32183 19:00, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:FICT states an article on a fictional topic must "contain substantial real-world content from reliable primary and secondary sources." - the topic of this article has no real world notability. Since this fictional organisation plays a large role in the clearly notable book Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix any information on it should be included in that article. [[Guest9999 10:18, 13 September 2007 (UTC)]][reply]
  • Strong Keep; this one has a good deal of content that cannot be added anywhere else. =David(talk)(contribs) 13:28, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable fictional organization with reliable sources easily available and does not fail any policies. --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 23:46, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Where are these reliable sources that have significant coverage about the organization? The Google News search only showed articles about the book and the film, not the organization. Jay32183 02:09, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or delete. Way to much excessive plot detail, moreso than is necessary for basic understanding of the parent topics. -- Ned Scott 05:07, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • STRONG Keep, It can be edited down, however it is a very NOTABLE, in the HP universe, and the information can not be added elsewhere. It should have its own page! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ko2007 (talk • contribs) 16:01, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Comment Being very notable in the Harry Potter world does not mean a topic meets notability criteria. Real world notability (significant coverage by multiple rleiable independent secondary sources) is required as described in WP:NN, WP:WAF and WP:FICT/ [[Guest9999 23:45, 15 September 2007 (UTC)]][reply]
    • Well, my vote was still keep, and I really don't care what you think 9999, at all. As many people have argued WP:FICT says deletion is only a last resort. You're just taking a "nazi" point of view, anything you don't like you get rid of! ** ko2007 ** 00:46, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • OK, this sort of comment is rather unhelpful. I still sort of think we should keep it under the Ignore All Rules rationale, because it's such a big part of the Harry Potter books. The article does need heavy editing though. Then again, the article is a huge wreck, and will take a ton of effort to fix. Especially with fans wanting to throw in every bit of trivia possible. Delete.--Gyrcompass 01:32, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I DID NOT call you a "Nazi" I said that you were taking a "Nazi" POV. There IS a difference! ** ko2007 ** 14:54, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Deletion is a last resort" is not an argument for keeping. The order is keep, merge, transwiki, delete. The article fails the inclusion criteria, so "keep" is out. "Merge" creates too much of a burden on the main page, so we cross that out. With "transwiki", you'll need to say where to transwiki it, and that place would have to accept it. They may not if they feel what they already have is better. So we are, in fact, down to "delete". Jay32183 16:38, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If it was transwikied, it would probably go here http://harrypotter.wikia.com/wiki/Order_of_the_Phoenix but I don't see any reason they'd want it.--Gyrcompass 18:25, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That looks like the best transwiki target, but I think their current article is better than ours, even by fan site standards. Jay32183 19:43, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, Guest9999, I apologize for using the term "Nazi", it was inappropriate. But it does seem that you have been taking a POV that would suggest that you do not like Harry Potter. Please correct me if I am wrong. ** ko2007 ** 21:40, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I can't speak for Guest, but as one of the people who'd rather see this article merged I can say that I love the series. Liking Harry Potter or not really doesn't change most of the arguments presented here, for both sides. -- Ned Scott 06:33, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as per Alasdair - Very important part of the Harry Potter universe, and useful listing when searching for information on said universe. Ramskjell 08:15, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. So we now have a new piece of essay that binds us to essays and guidelines without good reason to do otherwise, with 'good reason' left up to individual discretion, meaning it's what that individual considers to be convincing... Please excuse me I exceed my ambient background level of cynicism about this matter. It's argued above that we shouldn't keep from following WP:FICT to the letter - apply that bit of common sense that guidelines definitionally encourage - for "no reason." I argue that being a central concept in the biggest book series in all of time is very much a reason. (This particular revision of FICT is also contentious and sparked a revision effort. Its author intended it to be a tool for retaining information but found it used too easily for deleting it.)
    Another reason to retain the article is that it leaves the decision up to the experts. The Harry Potter Wikiproject has an ongoing project to determine the breadth and form of its coverage - and (alas) not even close to a kneejerk "keep everything" decision. It's the most suited party to evaluate the main issue of what, how and where should be said about this subject. --Kizor 02:16, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Since Wikipedia is not a collection of plot summaries, it is supposed to be easy to delete articles that consist only of plot summary. Common sense actually dictates that this article should be deleted, because there are no real world sources. Jay32183 04:01, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:FICT is just meant to show how WP:NN can be applied to articles on fiction. WP:NN requires evidence of significant coverage by reliable, independent secondary sources - no evidence of which have been shown in this discussion. I agree the information should be available on the internet for those who want to use it but I do not think it should be on Wikipedia. [[Guest9999 18:49, 21 September 2007 (UTC)]][reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 03:17, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Ludlam

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

Not notable green candidate using Wikipedia as a soapbox. He is the "leading Green candidate" for Western Australia's Senate seat. Google news archives gives 5 hits Green plus Scott Ludlum. 96 UNIQUE G hits, mostly blogs. I do not see significant news coverage. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 03:46, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, non-notable bio. The bulk of the article was mass-copied from Bobby Morley. There are no references relating to Martin. —C.Fred (talk) 04:02, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jace Martin

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

Most of the article is gossip/un-encyclopedic info about the person, article is unreferenced, very little info to prove notability. Tiptoety 03:33, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete and redirect to Octal. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:42, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Octomatics

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

Previously PRODded but recreated. PROD reason was: "non-notable project to encourage the use of the octal system (base 8); Wikipedia has an article about octal but it is not clear that this particular project is worthy of an article." I agree with that, so I propose the page be deleted. Jitse Niesen (talk) 03:26, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as non-notable and WP:MADEUP. I was unable to locate a single source with this term in any of the library databases I have access to, including the complete Books in Print. --Darkwind (talk) 04:39, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This project isn't referenced by any reliable sources, so it fails the notability requirement.--Danaman5 05:27, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep I hadn't heard of this before I did a little digging, but I found references [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] Not the best sources, but sources none-the-less. There is enough information on this specific subject to warrent a seperate article from Octal. Turlo Lomon 06:49, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. None of those sources are reliable, and thus cannot be used to establish notability. The only one that isn't obviously a blog or self-published website is the digitalus.co.nz link, and even it looks bloggy to me. I'd agree to using them as references once notability has been established, but someone'd have to find a reliable source for that purpose first. --Darkwind (talk) 12:32, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep As the author of the present article, I am of course in favor of keeping it. I did notice that it had been previously deleted. My reason, aside from personal enthusiasm is that I keep running into references to it -- small references and citations, comments in blogs, that it is precisely the kind of thing one would look up on wikipedia. I also fully grant that this discussion about deletion is appropriate and necessary, as the article rides clearly in the grey area of the deletion policy. My hope is that you will err on the side of tolerance give it a few months to be fleshed out, perhaps probationary period? Jjunken 07:53, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If that's the case, insert links to those sources that clearly fall under WP:RELY. The ones mentioned above don't cut it, and there don't seem to be any scholarly articles on the topic, if that's what you intended to hint at in your mention of citations. Barring that, the article probably should be deleted until a clear case for Wikipedia:Notability can be made. MrZaiustalk 07:20, 13 September 2007 (UTC) PS: You have a ~5 day probationary period to flesh it out while the AfD is in progress[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 03:17, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Star wars titanium

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

As per WP:NOT#INFO, Wikipedia is not a discriminate collection of information. GlassCobra (talk • contribs) 03:23, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 and rewrite.--Kubigula (talk) 21:05, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MyEclipse

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

I don't believe this software/company warrants an encyclopedia article, and as of now, the article is written like an advertisement. SaveThePoint 19:07, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would be curious as to why you feel we do not warrant a page. We have over 1.2 million Google links, over 500,000 users of our product and have been in business in this highly competitive industry since 1996. We have been sited in multiple books and other published works as a leader in developer productivity and learning. Over 80% of the Fortune 100 companies are our customers. I fail to see how we are somehow illegitimate.

The article in question states only factual information and is not arbitrary. Any claims made are backed up directly with reference or are easily verifiable. Compared to other comparable tools, we have followed suit in form, function and neutrality.Jense 20:54, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the article contain only one reference. If you could supply the rest (the books where are you cited for example, as these are easily verifiable, but not easily findable), perhaps there would be less doubt about notability --Mpx 16:04, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CitiCat ♫ 03:24, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep as I was able to find a couple of newspaper articles in ProQuest that discuss MyEclipse, but I'm not sure if they were originally sourced from a press release (and I can't link them, it's not a public database). It would certainly help if the author(s) of the article would add some neutral verifiable sources. --Darkwind (talk) 04:45, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I wonder if Maralia was thinking of Eclipse (software), which is what MyEclipse is based off of. That is a well known software IDE, but I think MyEclipse is considerably lesser well known and not used as often. However, I easily found numerous news articles relating to MyEclipse (as did Darkwind) and it was easy to find many reputable software development websites that contain pages dedicated to providing information about MyEclipse. This article however needs a lot of work. It reads like a company press release, and needs to be reworked to be neutral. --Keithn 05:23, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very Very Weak Keep Normally I am a notorious deletionist but I have heard of this software. Unfortunately, I couldn't find any Notable news articles on this beyond rehashed press releases from the company and blogs stating tips on how to get the most out of the IDE. Personally, I would ask that the article be removed for now and moved to someone's sandbox, cleaned up, added notable, reliable and verifiable sources beyond the company's own website (something like PC World or the New York Times...something beyond a trade magazine). Only reason I vote keep is because I have a feeling there may be something out there in a magazine. Well, at least we have 7 days to find it and cite it...otherwise...well...--Brian(view my history)/(How am I doing?) 07:16, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is a non-notable commercial derivative of freely available software. I did not even know this existed until I saw this AfD. The fact that the author used the word "We" implies that it was written by the company itself. If I saw this, I would have CSD'ed it. The company itself also is non-notable and should be deleted as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spryde (talk • contribs) 11:16, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: The article's creator removed the deletion notice immediately after the nomination; I re-added it today. - Mike Rosoft 16:08, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As for the notion this software is non-notable and a derivative of free software, the claim is false. Over half of the software included in the distribution is proprietary, and the value add of the software is in its integration of open source tools that are notorious for incompatibility. Not sure of the agenda to remove, as all other tools in this space are allowed to remain, many of which have far fewer users and notoriety.

Mike - sorry about the deletion. Inadvertent.

As for notable references to the product...

Jense 21:24, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 03:16, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CNNBS

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
CNNBS (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Insufficient notability of the group itself, even if members might be notable. One member link refers to soccer player, not musician. CobaltBlueTony 14:54, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I took link away from member. Band is gaining notoriety, plus is my favourite rnr band. Also, there are no articles with same name. please, leave the article up... I'll keep it updated with info. i'll fix it. Juliette Moore 17:16, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per asserted notability ('"Rock Band of the Year 2007" prize in Buenos Aires', going on a national tour) provided citations are added to support these claims. I also assume that there are independent reviews of this band, given these claims, so links to them should be added to support it being a notable group. DMacks 17:29, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From the author

[edit]

I've added some references of gigs and articles related to cnnbs! I really hope this helps! Thank u all :) Juliette Moore 06:19, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just need to keep the one in capital letters. I'm new! I didn´t know how to do it. I don't want/need both articles. Thanks for your help Juliette Moore 14:01, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can I get that message out please? Juliette Moore 21:01, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - wikipedia is not a place to get your message out, but rather to report that others have your message. find third party sources for the tour, awards, and such to verify notability as a band and the article will be fine. --Rocksanddirt 21:09, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From JulietteThanks for the tip! I've found a couple of third party articles and have referenced them in the article. will continue to look.Juliette Moore 22:52, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CitiCat ♫ 03:24, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 03:15, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Californian Guns

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

Contested prod, removed without comment by anon IP editor. Non-notable slang term, no sources, no verification, not much of anything -- the article is all of three sentences long. Realkyhick 03:18, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. SPAs taken into account. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:29, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PDF-Office Professional

[edit]
PDF-Office Professional (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Originally PROD'd, but PROD removed without commment. This is a shareware program with no external evidence of notability. Delete. Isotope23 talk 03:06, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.it-enquirer.com/main/ite/more/pdf_office_7/ http://www.designtaxi.com/news.jsp?id=1510&monthview=1&month=11&year=2005 http://www.planetpdf.com/enterprise/article.asp?ContentID=This_week_in_PDF_-_Planet_PDF_goes_on_the_road&gid=7499 http://www.mactechpress.com/news/?p=1009761 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.130.43.195 (talk) 10:52, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 03:15, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kelso's Pizza & Pub

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Kelso's Pizza & Pub (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Does not appear to be sufficiently notable to warrant an article; prod removed, I am placing it here. Into The Fray T/C 03:02, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. The JPStalk to me 10:07, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The strongest source is a local restaurant review of the sort that almost any restaurant has been the subject of, but there's no evidence, even in that source, that this restaurant is particularly notable or significant. -FisherQueen (Talk) 10:45, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But, what about Pizza Shoppe? It's a HUGE Kansas City chain, but it keep getting deleted too... <cries> Everyone dislikes my articles.. PS: The main reason I want Kelso's not to be deleted because it's my fave pizza place, and because my grandpa knows all about it... he was friends with the guy who started it, Bill Kelso and even delivered beer to them back in the days of beer trucks and he even worked at one or two of the ones past, and could tell you exactly where all of the 5 or so previous ones were. It's a part of me in a way, that's why I care so much. CloversMallRat 22:22, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You probably gave the others a reason to delete this even more. You obviously have a COI (Conflict of interest) and this has clouded your judgement over the article's real notability... Sorry dude, but this article just isn't notable. Spawn Man 05:02, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply. If you want to write about the place because you love it, that's a worthy goal. But Wikipedia isn't the right place to do it. What you should do is write a magazine article, or a novel, or a collection of poetry, and submit them for publication to an appropriate publisher. Then you can express your love for Kelso's and help it become more widely known. Maybe someday it'll even become important enough for someone to write an article about it here. -FisherQueen (Talk) 10:49, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whats a conflict interest? 0_o I mean like, my grandpa knew the guy who owned it and worked there - it's been around a long time.. that's all CloversMallRat 19:56, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - It's a conflict of interest inasmuch as you appear to have an emotional attachment to the subject matter of the piece. I am personally touched by your interest in it and wish that it were notable so that it could stay, believe it or not. But it simply does not seem so. The only suggestion that I could make to you at this point is that you attempt to establish its notability. A visit to the local library might be in order to see if there is any significant news coverage, if the company has played a significant role in local history, etc. I looked on Yahoo!, Google, Google News and Google's News Archives, but was unable to find anything that changed my mind. Please see verifiability and conflict of interest, notability guidelines and notability guidelines for companies. Good luck to you. Into The Fray T/C 01:25, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I feel for you Mallrat, I really do, but I'm not going to pander to a sob story - Fray, let's not give him false notions; Kelso's Pizza & Pub is not notable, there's no two ways about it. If we say that there's a chance it might be notable if he works really hard trying to find something in a local newspaper, then he'll never be able to discern what articles are notable and which are not. We'll just end up with another AfD and more time wasted. Mallrat, let me give you a demo - Fifteen (restaurant); notable... Kelso's Pizza & Pub; not notable. Per your question over what a COI was, I would suggest you read both WP:COI and also WP:Notability. Hoepfully you'll keep editing here, but please do make it about things which are notable. Regards, Spawn Man 09:07, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I am all for having businesses added to Wikipedia, even small ones, but they need to have a significant reason for being here. There should be a history, perhaps a major contribution to the community in which they exist in and more information on the business itself, otherwise as is the case with this article, it reads like an advertisement for the location which is against Wikipedia policy.--Christopher Allen Tanner, CCC 16:46, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was: Deleted - lacks context (unsourced/made-up neologism), WP:SNOW. - Mike Rosoft 16:14, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Enthusiasticer

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

Tagged as speedy, but neologisms aren't speediable. However, I trust that the AfD editors can get a huge lump of snow all over this one Daniel Case 02:54, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 03:14, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Subway menu

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

Unencyclopaedic and close to being an indiscriminate collection of information. A couple of paras in the main article would suffice. —Moondyne 02:38, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]



The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 03:13, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fireball (Charmed)

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

No secondary sources to establish notability or provide real world context. Jay32183 02:32, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Maxim(talk) 13:35, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ibero-American Literary Awards

[edit]
Ibero-American Literary Awards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Page consists of mainly wikilinks, it is a mess. The page is named "Ibero-American Literary Awards", but contains little or next to no information about awards, only writers who have won, which is doubtful because everything is unreferenced. LaNicoya 02:26, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you visit the list of literary awards page and note how many of the pages linked to there are for reference purposes. Ibero-American Literary Awards is intended to serve primarily a reference purpose. If you have questions concerning the validity of the factual information contained within the article I would kindly suggest you to consider doing something which is often done by intelligent people in such situations, and which you might perhaps have inadvertently overlooked doing: look it up. Your most humble servant, Rubbersoul20 11:17, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why do we want to delete it friend? You never know, (Unlike some of us who lack the curiosity for such things), there might be somebody out there for whom such information is worth perusing. --Rubbersoul20 11:30, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this unfocused mess. Individual awards should have their own articles, with winners listed there. Compiling a list of "meta-winners" (see bottom), i.e. who won the most awards, is original research (that assumes, for example, that all the awards represent equal merit or are for comparable things). By my pro-list thinking, there's room for a List of Ibero-American literary awards, where the list is of the award articles. But munging them all into one article, and simply listing the winners and not the history or purpose of the prize, is odd and anti-encyclopedic. --Dhartung | Talk 03:23, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dhartung, my dear, I disagree with your idea that "individual awards should have their own articles" -- What do you suppose reference pages are for? ...(hint, hint: for reference). The meta-list at the bottom does not 'assume' anything, my dear. Show me where it asserts that "all the awards represent equal merit or are for comparable things." I tell you what: If you show me where that is asserted i'll give you 100 dollars. As for the article being 'odd and anti-encyclopedic': let us not ostracize wikipages for being a little different from the others. Wikipedia, in case you have not noticed, has many reference pages under its belly. Your most humble servant, Rubbersoul20 11:30, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]



The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Carlossuarez46 17:10, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Bandit Run

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

Non-notable event. No references, article created by apparent SPA, article is a complete mess. LaMenta3 05:49, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Wknight94 (talk) 01:38, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 03:13, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Throw Your Hands Up

[edit]
Throw Your Hands Up (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable single. Inclusion in the article about the album should be plenty as I can't find indication that this song even charted. LaMenta3 04:27, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Wknight94 (talk) 01:37, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - Nomination withdrawn without delete vote. (Non-administrator closing). --Tikiwont 14:47, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tiamat (sailing)

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

Non-notable yacht. Article also has some serious referencing and POV problems. LaMenta3 04:17, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article has been sourced and improved to my satisfaction. LaMenta3 14:19, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Wknight94 (talk) 01:37, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. John254 00:41, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John Hassall (musician)

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

Possibly notable band member. BLP article lacking sources since October 2006. Mr.Z-man 04:05, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Wknight94 (talk) 01:36, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 03:12, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Townend

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Harry Townend (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Fails Notability test. Unimportant curator Tovojolo 01:35, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Personally, I see this as listcruft, but both sides have good arguments. Upmerging all the rosters to the main artile wouldn't be a bad idea as well, they're small enough where it's within reason. Wizardman 16:00, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Very trivial info on who were on who were considered as Topps best rookies per year, borderline WP:OR here, as a person can look at the small little baseball trophy on the card and create an article based on that. Not considered as a major award and no sources to indicate any notabilty. Adding the indiviual years articles as well. Delete All Jaranda wat's sup Sports! 01:38, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yea I need someone to update my monobook for that, I'm horrible with them. Thanks Jaranda wat's sup Sports! 02:27, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 15:49, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mastery International School Bangalore

[edit]
Mastery International School Bangalore (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Tiny school that does not establish notability. Went with AfD over speedy all the same, though. GlassCobra (talk • contribs) 01:25, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There still aren't any sources for it, and as Keb25 said, it reads exactly like an advertisement. GlassCobra 22:42, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable school, advertising article. Keb25 22:38, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There's a reason why the text of this article sounds like an advertisement: It's taken directly and without quotations from various spots on the school's Web site. I suspect every word here is a copyright violation, just as the single picture in the gallery is owned by the school. I see no useful purpose to this article (since it all can be found on the school's Web site) and I see no reason to think it will ever be improved. Noroton 03:01, 18 September 2007 (UTC) ((add words in parentheses Noroton 03:03, 18 September 2007 (UTC)))[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Articles for deletion archivesThis is an archive of a closed deletion discussion for the article Kiara Hunter. Please do not modify it. The result was "delete". The actual discussion is hidden from view for privacy reasons. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Mr.Z-man 05:14, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of cemeteries in Somerset County, New Jersey

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
List of cemeteries in Somerset County, New Jersey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This was originally deleted at an AfD last year. With the consent of the original closer, DRV overturned to determine if consensus has changed over time. (Not the strongest DRV rationale, but I won't argue with the original deleter.) Deletion is on the table, as the list lacks sources, and might be called excessively granular. Xoloz 01:24, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep the article provides sources re notable cemeteries in the and serves as a central point for information on burials in the county. Lists serve purposes unavailable with use of categories, including allowing entries without articles to be listed and providing additional information (e.g., regarding location) that is impossible to provide in a category. The notability standard for such lists is satisfied. Alansohn 02:04, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, most of these cemeteries also has no claim of notabilty, I don't see why a category isn't helpful for these kind of lists, and as for Alansohn, wikipedia is not an address directory nither for locations of cementeries. Thanks Jaranda wat's sup Sports! 02:24, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • You're absolutely correct, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. However, this article is a very clearly defined, discriminate and finite listing of information, that is exactly what the intended function of such articles, as specified at WP:LISTS#Purpose of lists. WP:NOT is simply NOT relevant here. Do you have any valid justification for deletion of this article? Alansohn 02:43, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Meets standards for lists. Used by the New Jersey geography workgroup and the Cemetery workgroups. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 02:30, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Being used by a workgroup isn't a reason for keeping Jaranda wat's sup Sports! 02:35, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If the list was on the main County page, it would be a keep, so why not. It's probably too big for the main page, so making a new linked page is probably good housekeeping.MarkBul 03:05, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Does not assert notability of cemeteries in ... Somerset County, New Jersey. Possibly better served by categories? OSbornarf 04:05, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or move to project space. In the original AFD and this one I see all the poor arguments for and against deleting, such as: "Listcruft" "I like it" "I don't like it" "Other stuff exists" "We worked hard on it" "It is useful" "Indiscriminate"(no, a list of stuff I saw on the sidewalk while I was walking to work would be indiscriminate. To be on this list it must be a cemetary in a certain geographic location). Major questions: 1)Is the "Political Graveyard," which is the only source, even a reliable and independent source, to show that this satisfies WP:V? 2)Are all counties or other geographic units in the world entitled to similar lists, based on cemetary lists maintained by the governmental units or genealogical societies, in the eyes of "Keep" !voters, or is this county special because of the Famous Dead People not mentioned in the list? Checking WP:LISTS#Purpose of lists I do not see that this satisfies the first two possibiilities. It does not fit "Information: lists organized chronologically, grouped by theme, or annotated lists." It does not fit "Navigation: Lists can be used as a table of contents." In the third area, "Development" I note "any lists which exist primarily for development or maintenance purposes (such as a list of red link articles needed) should be in project or user space not the main space, if the list is not otherwise encyclopedic." The guideline seems to indicate this list belongs in project space rather than main space, being a directory of mostly non-notable cemetaries. (edited)Edison 15:52, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The problem is that the list is now ordered and grouped by location and provides information that cannot be provided in any other format, such as a category. There is not a single red link here, and dozens of articles on cemeteries in the area are forthcoming, with links to be added (in blue, of course), as additional articles are created. The slippery slope argument -- now everyone will want a list for their cemeteries -- doesn't work; the list complies with all relevant Wikipedia policy and needs to be judged on its own merits, and makes a clear assertion of notability, which is far more than precedent requires for such articles. Alansohn 17:58, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete on the same grounds as the last AfD. I am confused why this was resubmitted to AfD. Eusebeus 19:01, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Ditto" is not an acceptable excuse for deletion, nor is this article the same one that you automatically rejected last time. Which Wikipedia policy does this article violate? Alansohn 19:04, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Resembles more like a directory for seemingly nn places.--JForget 23:57, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 06:59, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP is not a directory, if this stays we'll have List of laudramats in Somerset County, New Jersey, List of bars in Somerset County, New Jersey, and List of fire stations in Somerset County, New Jersey, and dozens of others and multiply that by a couple thousand counties in the US and the same worldwide. Cemeteries are note inherently notable, lists of them aren't either. Carlossuarez46 17:14, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 03:11, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New Grave

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

Non-notable music genre. Only two examples of bands, one of which is non-notable in itself. GlassCobra (talk • contribs) 01:17, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 03:10, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Montclaire Elementary School

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

Article is about a local elementary school with no assertion of notability, nor it doesn't seem it is really notable. Also the Notability taggged has been placed since May 2007 and nothing significant has been really made to make it look like this is a notable place and it also fails WP:V. Delete JForget 01:03, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, as references to significant coverage in multiple third-party, reliable sources have been added, thereby meeting the requirements of the general notability guideline. John254 00:38, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Detska Kitka Choir

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

There is insufficient evidence of notability. Prod removed by creator after adding link to the choir's web page but no independent sources. FisherQueen (Talk) 00:58, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:23, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pirates vs. Ninjas Dodgeball

[edit]
Pirates vs. Ninjas Dodgeball (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete has been speedy deleted twice recently but the author says that there are more sources he's adding, I'll let the community decide whether the new sources (a preview of them are here) is sufficient; I think not. Carlossuarez46 00:57, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 03:12, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

U.I. Pacific Games

[edit]
U.I. Pacific Games (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article is a crystal ball for a company that has yet to make a name for itself. Article should be recreated once the company makes a name for itself. Burzmali 00:55, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Result based upon combination of the arguments below and the blanking of the article by its primary contributor with an edit summary indicating the article subject had requested removal of the article. Allen3 talk 14:44, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lauren Cohen (economist)

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

Lack of notability. WP:PROF probably applies here and Cohen does not satisfy any of the criteria. He comes closest to Number 6: "The person has received a notable award or honor, or has been often nominated for them." However, there is no evidence that the awards he received are notable. Carabinieri 00:47, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It looks like weightlifting si a sport different from powerlifting, see [62] versus [63] --Crusio 17:53, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as it stands per WP:PROF; if the article is recreated to focus on his powerlifting career, with due assertions of notability that's another matter, although even then I think the subject is only marginally notable, in the dark with the light behind him. Eusebeus 19:06, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or rename, as an economist he isn't notable enough. As a powerlifter maybe he is, so if that's the case, rename accordingly. But making the focus his academic rather than sporting work seems to be a way of piggy backing his non notable career onto a notable one. Needs a rewrite, or at least a rename. Also see WP:Crystal Ball. Maybe he will become a notable economist but that's not for us to say at the moment and it'd be wrong to anticipate. Also potential conflict of interest as User:TonyTheTiger seems to know this figure personally, from the photo description.Benea 01:27, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment1 I have moved the page to Lauren H. Cohen with redirects from Lauren Harry Cohen, Lauren Cohen (economist), Lauren Cohen (powerlifter), Lauren Cohen (professor). That should address all the rename concerns.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 16:10, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment2 Recall that according to WP:NAME, the page name should be what most people would "easily recognize". Also, according to WP:COMMONNAME you should ask what will people be searching for. Although by WP notability rules he is more notable as a powerlifter, he will probably be most searched by students and collegues trying to figure out why Harvard stole this guy from Yale after two years there. I think this page move answers that and a change in emphasis of the page is not really important given that probability.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 16:10, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment3 with respect to WP:COI, policy expressly states that there is no bar from my editorial participation in the article. My conflict of interest is minor in that I was a former classmate of his who knows him as well as anyone in the WP community. We have visited at each others residences, worked out at the gym together (I am a former powerlifter) and entertained together. At weddings, we have been seated next to each other and the picture is what use to be on my cell phone. I know his wife and Lauren and I share many common acquaintances. None of these facts nor the image caption really indicate anything that is not POV, IMO.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 16:18, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment4WRT WP:PROF, I think a special consideration should be given in this case and any similar ones where any junior faculty member who has been so outstanding in the first two years after receiveing his Ph.D. that he has been stolen by one of the top five departments in the nation in his field, with special attention to Harvard stealing a Yale faculty member in this case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TonyTheTiger (talk • contribs) 19:32, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - my concerns have been largely addressed by the rename. No particularly obvious POV or COI violations in the text, and as long as he's notable as a powerlifter then I don't have a particular problem with the article. Benea 20:36, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Cohen doesn't at all meet WP:BIO. The criterium you are basing your keep votes on is "Competitors who have played or competed at the highest level in amateur sports (who meet the general criteria of secondary sources published about them)." Please read the part in the parentheses. There are no secondary, non-trivial sources about Cohen's athletic career, therefore the article also fails WP:BIO and should be deleted.--Carabinieri 12:55, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment You may not have noticed my comment4 above, but I believe that there should be special considertaion on that basis as a professor. Also, I believe a Federation national #1 ranking counts as secondary source as far as athletes go.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 16:02, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I disagree that any article should get special consideration. There are three different notability standards that could possibly apply to this article: WP:N, WP:BIO, and WP:PROF; it fails all of them. There just aren't any secondary, non-trivial sources on this topic. Score sheets from competitions don't "count" as secondary sources, because they just aren't secondary sources, they are primary sources.--Carabinieri 16:35, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - sorry to keep changing my view on this but I've been looking seriously at the evidence and I agree with User:Carabinieri. There are no independent sources that prove he is notable as an athelete. There are lots of tables for competitions that he has done well in, but so did a lot of people. He came first in one weight group (I think that's how it works) but then dozens of other people came first in their respective weight groups. How is he any different to them? And your comment 4 really isn't convincing. Yes he seems to be very good at what he does but that does not make him notable, a lot of people are good at their jobs and are not worthy of an entry. Wait until his achievements make him notable, not his potential, see WP:Crystal Ball. And if you're asking for special dispensation, it's a good indicator your subject does not meet those standards. You're trying to base this article on a combination of two areas where he might be notable. I can't see how he is notable in either, and combining the two still doesn't make him notable. Fails WP:BIO. Benea 04:39, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article now cites plenty of sources and establishes notability as a powerlifter. Chubbles 23:11, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:PROF and any reasonable guidelines for academics. Assistant professor, with three articles in press. That just isn't enough, even though they are in first rate journals. If they are sensationally successful articles and become widely cited, then he would probably be notable--and I would rely on the number of citations and whether the Harvard Business School gives tenure on that--if they do, it would say something. "Harvard stealing the guy from Yale" would have meant much more if they had promoted him, rather than just giving him the same rank--the beginning tenure-track rank. I'm not about to judge the notability of unpublished manuscripts--or even published papers--that's not the role of WP--rather we judge whether the academic world thinks they're notable. Nor are the awards notable or significant. Most of them are merely undergraduate or graduate fellowships. I'm sorry for coming in late here, but i did not imagine the article would be seriously defended. If he is notable as an athlete, then we can remove all the puffery about his so far undemonstrated academic proficiency. DGG (talk) 03:30, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Close this already, obviously non-notable. Article does not cite plenty of reliable sources to establish notability. Bring it back when the guy does something notable. IvoShandor 22:51, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete per OTRS ticket Ticket#2007092110001117, plus fails prof test. ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 03:56, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Maxim(talk) 01:43, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nethera Studios

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

Article is a crystal ball at best and a hoax at worst. Their product ("Red Kangaroo") doesn't seem to exist, or at least isn't notable enough to show up in Google. Page should be created if the company does anything notable. Burzmali 00:45, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I can't find any evidence that "Red Kangaroo" even exists, and if it's their most well-known achievement, then it's hard to argue notability. -FisherQueen (Talk) 01:06, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete self-proclaimed company that doesn't seem to have actually done anything (despite claiming 65 employees). Not only does their supposed "Red Kangaroo" show seem to not exist, it's not even mentioned on their own website... and why would a fledgling video-game company make a cartoon show rather than, y'know, an actual game? I strongly suspect we're looking at a hoax here. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:37, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

Rio Bravo Cantina

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

Restaurant "chain" lacking sufficient notability. Basically hasn't been edited for over a year. The article creator made 13 edits total, 9 of which pertaining to this article and an entry on the Río Bravo (disambiguation) page. — [ aldebaer ] 00:32, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

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

The result was Keep. Groundless AFD. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:19, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Marwan al-Shehhi

[edit]
Marwan al-Shehhi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article should be merged with Mohammad Atta. al-Shehhi is a non-notable figure whose only claim to fame is killing people on September 11th. He is the subject of pratically no citations (unlike Atta) except mentioned in passing. The event, Septebmer 11th, is notable, not al-Shehhi. Goss9900 00:34, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In case you are unaware of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA, please read up, as that comment is totally inappropriate in tone. CitiCat ♫ 03:29, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm aware thanks. Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 15:32, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Key participant in largest terrorist attack in history makes him notable. Suspect bad faith nomination considering the date. --Dhartung | Talk 03:37, 12 September 2007

(UTC)

You may suspect but you are incorrect. September 11th made me remember that the victims of terrorist attack articles are routinely deleted citing non-notability. Moussaoui and Atta, I can see. al-Shehhi, non-notable...sorry. Goss9900 04:11, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Nomination appears to be because of the fact that victim articles are routinely deleted, because Wikipedia is not memorial. Suspect that significant sources exist on this person, there have been so many books written on this attack that it seems impossible that this person is non-notable. IvoShandor 18:01, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: meets all the criteria for notability in my opinion. Like it or not mass murderers are notable. NOt trying to say victims mean nothing, because that would be wrong to say. It's just a different scale we are measuring them on. Fighting for Justice 23:17, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, simply notable. Punkmorten 06:50, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 07:05, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep -- Complies with WP:NPOV, WP:NOR and WP:RS.
    • WP:CSD#A7 explicitly says that the lack of a claim of notability should not be used to justify the deletion of controversial articles. I have been a wikipedia contributor for three years. For the last two years I have mainly been work on articles on controversial topics, mainly articles related to the "global war on terror". I work very hard to fully comply with WP:NPOV, WP:NOR and WP:RS.
    • There are wikipedians who want to suppress coverage of certain topics from the wikipedia, even if the articles covering those topics fully comply with {{npov}}, {{nor}} and {{rs}}, because they don't like those topics being covered. And, unfortunately, there are wikipedians who will misuse tags, including {{aafd}}, to suppress material they don't want covered.
    • Notability is a lousy yardstick for measuring the merits of articles on controversial topics -- because it is highly, highly sensitive to POV. IMO notability should be deprecated. I don't believe in astrology, iridology, or homeopathy. But I am not going to try to suppress those topics from the wikipedia. I expect those who contribute to articles on those topics to work hard to comply with {{npov}}, {{nor}} and {{rs}}, same as I do.
    • Even if the ranks of wikipedians somehow didn't include a single person who believed in astrology, iridology or homeopathy, it would still be important for us to cover them. I think I could write a fair, neutral stub on those topics. I think most of us could, if we really put our minds to it. We have to bring that kind of objectivity to our contributions.
    • But, it seems to me that too many of those claiming the authority of notability to justify deletion are not exercising enough objectivity to tolerate articles they don't like seeing being covered Too often these justifications for deletion are really a form of POV-pushing.
    • {{Npov}}, {{nor}} and {{rs}} are core policies.
    • So far as I am concerned, for controversial topics, if we can find enough references to write an article of meaningful length that complies with {{Npov}}, {{nor}} and {{rs}} that is all the notability we need.
    • I don't know the nominator. So I will assume good faith, and assume that this nomination was an honest mistake. I urge them to reconsider their respect for notability as a meaningful criteria for justifying deletion.
    • Cheers! Geo Swan 16:26, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect with [[Hijackers of United Airlines flight 175]] - Each of the hijackers fail WP criteria of notability. Each hijacker is not the subject of a single reference, they are all mentioned only in passing. Their act is notable. However, the Hijackers of United Airlines flight 175 article covers the act and a brief biography of all of them, including al-Shehhi. There is a precedent to delete and redirect to the article of the attack. See this excerpt from administrator:

The result was redirect to the new article 1993 CIA shootings per Thomjakobsen's suggestion at the bottom of this discussion. The subject is notable only for his involvement in that event (see also WP:BLP1E). Sandstein 19:35, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Official Wikipedia policy is very clear in what to do in this AFD; Delete and Redirect. Wikipedia policy is clear that AFD's are not a vote. Therefore, with due respect to the opinions of the other editors, we should comply with Wikipedia policy and redirect the al-Shehhi article to United Airlines Flight 175 See [64] WP:BLP1E

Mrs.EasterBunny 22:41, 15 September 2007 (UTC) Correction: I've examined the logic and wikipedia policy actually says the article must be directed to "United Airlines Flight 175", not the "Hijackers of United Airlines Flight 175" The hijacker article (which I started) must be deleted along with al-Shehhi, according to WP:BLP1E. Sorry for the mixup. Mrs.EasterBunny 16:50, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Mr.Z-man 02:58, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Castaway Entertainment

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

Page has been a crystal ball since 2004. While I don't know if the company has closed up shop yet, they haven't had any news in 2 years. Page should be recreated once the company establishes itself. Burzmali 00:32, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment So Bill Gates and Steve Jobs leaving their companies to start a new one (but not releasing anything for three years) would not be notable?(I think that would be VERY notable... what have Bill and Steve been been working on for three years? Must be big!) I agree that the article needs fleshing out, but the sum of its parts (Employees) makes it notable, considering the Blizzard North history. - Fosnez 07:19, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please remember that notability is not inherited. An article about a company can't solely be about the company's founding. Where is the WP:N besides that? Burzmali 12:06, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Microsoft has released a number of major products over the years. Perhaps when it was started it was not notable enough of a Wiki article- if Castaway Entertainment does release something major that warrants their own Wiki article, then I would say keep. OSbornarf 17:01, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe Fosnez's argument is that if Bill Gates left Microsoft and started a new company today, we would consider that company notable even before it released a product, simply because it's Bill Gates. That the same rationale should be applied here — the team in question has a track record which generates interest in whatever they're doing now, even if their past activities took place under a different banner. -- Vardion 20:51, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Company cannot inherit notability from founders. No source given to back up Vardion claim. SolidPlaid 06:43, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Which claim? The team's profile in the industry is demonstrated by the articles that accompanied the company's founding (an anonymous start-up doesn't get that sort of attention), and the deal was widely reported in industry media too. Turlo Lomon has provided a few citations for both below. -- Vardion 20:51, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notability does not expire. The people founding this make it notable. Turlo Lomon 07:21, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral I'm not convinced that a company is automatically notable because of it's founders if nothing has been created by them yet. Just like if a new band is created from the lead singer of a popular established band and the lead guitarist from another band, but they do not release an album or perform on stage for three years, does that make the new band notable? I'm not sure --Brian(view my history)/(How am I doing?) 07:50, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment At the time this happened (9 people from Blizzard's development team walking off to create their own company), this was considered a significant event, and it was documented as such. It is clear in the notability, the notability is not temporary. Turlo Lomon 07:55, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Surely then the trade journals have written about how these guys haven't produced squat? What I'm getting at here is if they are so notable, why hasn't their lack of product provoked comment anywhere that can be cited? SolidPlaid 08:58, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Found an interesting reference that should be added. [65] Turlo Lomon 09:21, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And more. [66] [67] [68] The information from these articles really needs to be added to main one. Turlo Lomon 09:34, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
With regards to the lack of product — games can take years to develop, and the fact that the company hasn't released anything yet isn't necessarily going to be considered strange. -- Vardion 20:51, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. John254 00:23, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Red 5 Studios

[edit]
Red 5 Studios (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article was a crystal ball back in February 2006, and their project still doesn't have a name. Page should be recreated after the company establishes itself. Burzmali 00:28, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty of articles about untitled projects that are notable. IMO the fact that the team leader of the World of Warcraft design team founded this company should end the notability discussion. JACOPLANE • 2007-09-12 23:19
WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS does not justify keeping an article, and notability is not inherited (even if it were Rob Pardo, Jeff Kaplan, and Tom Chilton are listed as the designers of World of Warcraft, and Mark Kern doesn't even rate a mention in the page.) Burzmali 00:25, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So you're saying that because the Wikipedia entry on "World of Warcraft" does not mention the team leader and art director, those people are not notable? Interesting perspective. JACOPLANE • 2007-09-13 00:38
The tone of this comment is not correct. If it comes off as condescending because of my bad attempt at sarcasm, I apologise. You're quite right that WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS should not be an argument for notability. Mainly I feel that this article is bound to eventually meet the notability guidelines, so deleting now serves little purpose, even if it tends towards WP:CRYSTAL. I tend to stay out of AfD discussions since I don't agree with the notability guidelines and am a fundamentalist inclusionist, so please take everything I say with a grain of salt. JACOPLANE • 2007-09-13 00:56
No offense taken, but this article, as 3 others I nominated at the same time, all seem to be trying to ride Blizzard coattails to notability (see Blizzard Entertainment#Former employees for my hitlist), before they have even announced their projects. Burzmali 01:10, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 07:06, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per wikidemo. Burzmali's response makes me wonder since when having announced a product is a requirement for a company to be notable. WP:CORP certainly does not read that the "name of the product and a tentative release date" is required. User:Krator (t c) 12:22, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Never said that was the only way to be notable, but for a random technology start up it helps. At the end of the day, they have no product, their only coverage of them in the media is focused on their start up and connection to Blizzard, and their publisher, Webzen, is/was a one hit wonder. I'm sure that Red 5 is determined to achieve something, and when they do, I'll be the first to recreate the article. Burzmali 13:35, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    This is far from a 'random' startup. SashaNein 14:03, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    So, show me that it isn't. So far the !vote for keep center around
    1. Red 5 got Getting 18 million in start up capital: Well that isn't all that unique and certainly doesn't pass WP:CORP.
    2. The WSJ article: Launching a massive HR blitz to poach developers from other companies will get your name in the papers, but that's one event.
    3. The Blizzard connection: As always notability is not inherited, and having employees that are notable does get you passed WP:CORP.
    4. Publishing deal with Webzen: Webzen is notable for their one hit Mu Online, but their follow-up seems to have stalled, and their website reports that "in-development" games are going to be released in 2006. Furthermore, I can't find any WP:RS reporting on the publishing deal, only gaming site posting the press release. Burzmali 14:49, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep Achievement is not a prerequisite for notability; the WSJ article and connection to Blizzard are enough to establish it. — brighterorange (talk) 13:55, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Their notability will grow with time, and I think they are just notable enough to have their own article. Judgesurreal777 20:25, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 clean up article, with cleanup needed by any contributors with medical/cardiological knowledge (as QRS suggested). Alabamaboy 00:04, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Noel Gray

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

Article evidently written by subjects son. Violates WP:NPOV, WP:Autobiography. 2) WP not a family history site WP:NOT. 3)Multiple assertions not supported by verifiable references. 4) Author never signs posts. 5) Postnominals GIRE. There is no G ranking of membership of the Institute of Radio Engineers. 6) Contains nonsense in section "World War 11"; eg: relative to "suck up marks" and "Radar" "that he used during Coral Sea Battle". A non-commissioned rank would not have authority to perform action claimed. An exaggeration at least. See also http://www.st.net.au/~dunn/ausarmy/3ac2ard.htm and acknowledgement at bottom. 7) In "vindication" reference to US patent 6,144,879. A search of this patent shows it to be a nonsense patent as evident to anyone trained in cardiology. 8) On the talk page it had been suggested the author should rewrite the article. No attempt made. 9) Talk page concludes with an unsigned illiterate & offensive statement. QRS 00:13, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep, clean up, and handle the incivility through proper channels. This article has major problems, but although sources that actually mention Noel Gray are slim, he appears to have played a notable role in the development of the pacemaker. Beyond that he is merely a normally accomplished businessman with a minor military career, and the article does its subject a disservice by pretending otherwise. --Dhartung | Talk 03:56, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • STRONG DELETE ASAP On the surface this appears to be a deliriously ranting POV memorial tribute article to Noel Gray, but in fact what I see is WP:COATRACK. This is actually a thinly disguised attack article against Paul Trainor in violation of WP:ATTACK. Trainor's alleged underhanded business machinations deprived the article's main contributor (Noel Gray's son, ostensibly) of what should have been a vast inheritance of riches. Note the "Vindication" section. WP:ATTACK trumps any notability that Noel Gray might have. Let's delete this article now, without prejudice to recreation at a later date if another Wikipedia editor becomes ready to sanely and appropriately report on the facts and notability from a neutral point of view with reliable sources.OfficeGirl 04:18, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Re "Paul Trainor" see Nucleus Limited and 'discussion'.QRS 06:18, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep and format properly Any other issues can be settled though editing, and proper citation. Your son can't write your autobiography, no matter how sharp his pencil is, at that point it is a biography, and just needs to be sourced properly. The tone is too enthusiastic, and it relies on too many primary documents, but that can be handled by the normal editing process. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 05:21, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I still have concerns about the "attack page" issue WP:ATP. Seems like it would be a good thing to re-create the article immediately after deletion, to wipe the attack page history off the record.OfficeGirl 11:24, 17 September 2007
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (Note: One of the keep !votes was cast by a sockpuppet of an indef banned editor, and was disregarded.) — Caknuck 05:00, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BulletBall

[edit]

Bulletball / Inclusion Sports has become a Senior Olympic Sport and is utilized as therapy by military hospitals. It has somehow grown since the American Inventor TV appearance into a sport known throughout the country and in other parts of the world. Review their face book bulletball game site as well as inclusionsports to get caught up on their advances since 2007. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.217.77.203 (talk) 17:32, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The discussion was previously closed by the nominator, therefore there is a serious conflict of interest per WP:DPR#NAC. Relisting in a fresh AfD to generate more consensus. --DarkFalls talk 06:39, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - I don't think it's really proper to re-open a closed, two month old AFD, even if the closing of that AFD is questionable. At this point, I think a whole new AFD is required. - TexasAndroid 11:17, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete-No reliable references Aatomic1 15:32, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable enough Czac 20:43, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not really sure if I should give my opinion since I nominated it two months ago, but here it is just in case. There are no reliable references to prove BB's notability. Slartibartfast (1992) 21:16, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't know whether this discussion should have been reopened in this way, but I think getting new opinions in another discussion (as is happening now) is a good idea since my way of closing the original discussion may have been, after all, somewhat incorrect. Slartibartfast (1992) 21:16, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep BulletBall has become sort of phenomenon, and at this point most people who talk about it have never even seen American Inventor and came to learn about it through links on websites, news articles, blog postings, and word of mouth. I know I heard about BulletBall before I had ever even heard of American Inventor. It may be more notable for its failure than its success, but it is still notable. --Keithn 22:53, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Would you please provide some links to some of these "news articles"? If someone would just do that, it's notability could be established once and for all. Until someone can provide references for the notability, then I'm sorry, but it's just talk. Wikipedia requires references. And except for the minor appearance on American Inventor, noone has been able to provide a single valid source for this game's notability, despite lots of talk like this. - TexasAndroid 11:27, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think it's a misuse of the relisting process to ask for a "more thorough discussion" when lots of people already debated this. You know, I can understand when only 2 or 3 people ventured a comment, but you folks can't do this every time an AfD "doesn't go your way". Maybe it was kept, maybe it was deleted. Who cares? Don't try to sell us on some nonsense that the discussion wasn't "through enough" if you didn't like the outcome. Mandsford 17:19, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please assume good faith here. The relist was performed by a previously uninvolved admin. A couple of us have already expressed on his talk page that we think that reopening this was not the right course of action, but there is absolutely no reason to think that this had anything to do with it not going "his way", when he was not previously involved with the situation. - TexasAndroid 18:22, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply This is the second time I've seen this, and the first time was not long after we started seeing articles relisted for a more thorough discussion; and while I agree that something should be relisted if there was little debate the first time (3 comments), it's like asking for a "more thorough election" after a everyone has voted. Bonus points to the first person who points out "AfD isn't a vote". Yes, I know, we don't keep a tally, but I vote keep or I vote delete... and if I don't do either, I'm merely making a comment. Mandsford 22:07, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge to American Inventor As I stated last time, it's simply not notable. BB was rejected, and the winning inventions don't have articles. When we see it on Walmart's shelves, then we can recreate it. For now, it's a game that only exists in the heart of its inventor. The existence of a website for the game or YouTube popularity or Google hit counts does not make it notable, either. --User101010 11:49, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Until/unless someone can provide reliable, independent, non-trivial references that this has notability beyond it's small appearance on AI, I cannot consider it notable enough for this project. - TexasAndroid 15:12, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Snow/Nomination withdrawn - Non-Admin Closure . Fosnez 13:15, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gumtree

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

Does not assert notability. Cites only one third party source, which is itself very brief. The JPStalk to me 10:05, 12 September 2007 (UTC) Keep now that article is referenced. The JPStalk to me 11:53, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. Yamakiri 10:58, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I had a quick look for sources after filtering out all (well, most) of their sites from Google.
  • Called "immensely popular" by the BBC 1
  • in July Computing magazine quoted their Head of Technology, "[We] recently broke into the top 20 most popular web sites in the UK." 2.
  • A more detailed report of the eBay buyout from the Manchester Evening News 3
  • confirmation of the top 20 sites thing and Gumtree apparently has 18.4% of UK classified site visits by June 2007 4.
  • IT Pro article about a technology rollout 5,
  • brief mention in the Good Web Guide 6 (Not sure whether this is reliable source?).
  • Brief mention of the buyout in ZDNet, more from ebay's point-of-view 7.

Would any of this help assert notability? I don't really have an opinion about the article either way. Alternatively, information could be merged with Ebay or Kijiji (what an awful name!) --Kateshortforbob 11:03, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strongest Possible Keep and SNOW - When in San Fransico you look for flats/jobs on Craigslist. When in London you look for flats/jobs on Gumtree. I am invoking common sense/Wikipedia:Ignore all rules on this one. As you can see here, Craigslist is compared TO Gumtree, not the other way around, infering that Gumtree is locally notable (and it is). Also of note, Ebay owns Gumtree[69][70] - Fosnez 11:12, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment More references - MySQL Press release, Sage Business Awards 2004, Press releases about: [71][72][73][74][75][76]
Comment I have extensivly referenced the article now. Fosnez 11:33, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy to withdraw my nomination now that the article has more references. I haven't seen the rescue task force before: I like the positive tone! How do you respond to users (such as the one this morning) who attempted to use this to advertise their service? (check out the history.) The JPStalk to me 11:52, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 deleted by Eagle 101 (t c) at 23:57, September 12, 2007 (UTC) per WP:CSD#G4. Non-admin closure. --Darkwind (talk) 00:20, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yu-Gi-Oh! the Abridged Series

[edit]
Yu-Gi-Oh! the Abridged Series (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Page is a {{deletedpage}} elsewhere. Borderline G4. Will (talk) 21:53, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And before anyone kicks up a fuss: Yes, I do watch TAS, and I enjoy it. But at the moment, the article's full of crap. Will (talk) 21:54, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, IMO. It's a perfectly notable item, and if it gets a cleanup tag and gets cleaned up a bit, it could be a fine article. PKKnoHaseo-san 22:33, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. These articles are still unsourced, and WP:V / WP:NOR, as core policies, are not negotiable. All but one of the "keep" or "merge" opinions do not address this issue. As to the merger proposals, unsourced content should not be merged, but Fbv65edel has provided links to similar, sourced content that could be. Sandstein 22:22, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Differences between book and film versions of Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Differences between book and film versions of Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Also nominated
Differences between book and film versions of Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Differences between book and film versions of Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Differences between book and film versions of Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Differences between book and film versions of Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Nearly, three months on, there has been no attempt to source the pages at all - the only thing sourced throughout the set of five is the cutlist from OotP. As it stands now, it's still the original research I nominated first time around. Will (talk) 22:11, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete because these entries have zero real-world context. There are always, always going to be changes in the adaptation of a source material for creative and conventional reasons -- the only notable changes to record should be those covered by published, secondary sources, not what an editor subjectively deems appropriate. It is original research for an editor who has watched the film and read the book to put 2 and 2 together and determine, "The difference between these pieces of information is notable to belong on Wikipedia!" I'm looking at the article now, and I see an incredibly insipid difference in hair color. I can't say that the other changes mean much, either, if there is no real-world context to determine that all these differences mean something except to "It's useful" to Harry Potter fans. Such differences should belong on a Harry Potter Wikia, not on this encyclopedia. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 12:57, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Differences in hair color are not the differences we are negotiating keeping. We are debating differences such as the absence of a major character, or a major change in the plot, which should all, IMO, be condensed to one or two paragraphs in the main film article. Lots of other book-to-film articles note differences in plot and we're just following that standard. No, we're not going to merge them and note the fact that Filch says "Caught in the act!" in the second film, while really Ernie Macmillan says it in the book. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 14:02, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • These are not reliable sources -- these are fan sites. This is reflected in its history. Per WP:RS, "Reliable sources are authors or publications regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. Reliable publications are those with an established structure for fact-checking and editorial oversight." Anyone can publish a page like that and cite it to be used on Wikipedia -- that's why we have these standards. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:13, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The previous AfD's already pointed to a strong merge, and since this topic is already discussed in an editorial process, I endorse keep for now with a necessary merge rather sooner than later. – sgeureka t•c 14:31, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral, but don't close the discussion. Editors outside the Harry Potter project have the right to have their voice heard, and not it's here it should stay here until the normal period expires. Discussions at the project could, of course, be taken into account by the closing admin. - fchd 16:34, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was simply saying it would make things a whole lot easier if there wasn't a strong voice of dissent or disagreement from the project -- if we all agreed on one thing it would make things organized. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 17:49, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, because some movies do not yet have a book/film differences section on their page. Libertyernie2 17:03, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why do you want to merge content that is not backed by authors or publications regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand? The only contributors here have been the editors themselves, and it's not encyclopedic to let them decide for themselves, after comparing two different resources, what differences to note between the two. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:33, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think if you can find multible HP fansites with information, it can be in the Wikipedia page, but as a section, not as its own page. This is very important info to include in the films' pages, however. harry potter book movie differences - Google Search Libertyernie2 19:35, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is also this article from Digital Spy, a reputable science fiction publication. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 20:08, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen that article before, and I think that it would be acceptable to use. Most of the resources provided, however, do not seem to meet reliable source criteria. I would suggest using the DS citation to create the appropriate sections (Writing seems best). But on the whole, this article's content does not warrant encyclopedic existence. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:17, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. We've just started to write a very condensed version of the articles on subpages of Wikipedia:WikiProject Harry Potter/Notability/Differences. For Order of the Phoenix, I found a great source at Salon.com, an interview with the screenwriter, in which he discusses the reasons for cutting a number of scenes, as well as Rowling's views on film changes. MTV wrote about the change in Kreacher's role. Miranda Richardson commented in a red carpet interview for movie 4 about the cutting of her character in the fifth. So there are a number of sources which document the changes, which we will use to write two to three paragraphs, approximately, to make a new section in the film articles. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 20:56, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We've basically completed primary drafts of the cutting down of information. See subpages 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 for our planned merges of each article to its film article.. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 06:04, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the film and book are notable, however the subject of the article - their comparison - isn't sufficiently notable. Addhoc 15:29, 16 September 2007 (UTC) (duplicate)[reply]
  • I don't think Happy-melon is (necessarily) suggesting the articles be deleted -- just that they at least be redirected to their film articles, and a new section be added to the film articles, as written on the subpages linked above. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 19:32, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • What I mean is, there is no likely AfD outcome that will not result in this replacement occuring. Delete --> articles are deleted, the drafts are inserted into the relevant film articles. Merge --> articles are redirected, the drafts are inserted into the relevant film articles. Redirect --> same as for merge. The only outcome that will not result in these articles being blanked is Keep, which I have explained above is extremely unlikely. Given that this is almost certain to the outcome of the debate, why wait unnecessarily? Happy‑melon 20:59, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Trim and Merge: It would be better to remove the enormous amounts of access details and put a small sentence summary of the differences in the films section such as for Order of the Phoenix; In the book Umbridge was responsible for sending for the Demontors to Harry in order to discredit him while in the movie Dumbledore suggested to Harry that Voldemort was responsible.

So my point is no access detail, no need for seperate pages and a still an appropriate way for inexperinced readers to understand the minor changes between the books and movies and perhaps to not include any small or irrevant facts of things that can be explained in a character bio. As a last resort I would choose to Transwiki it to the Harry Potter Wiki and would urge other people who want to remove this stuff to consider that option. -Adv193 05:31, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Keep, merge and trim. It is important to have such an article. it displays the difference between the books and the films, and hence the interests in the viewer vs reader, which is a very important film technique, especially in harry potter. Since harry potter books are so long, its important that they only extract the parts within the books that appeal to the viewer, and more importantly the subject audience, -(after all they are only making these films to make money and win awards). If they include all the lessons, and conversations within harry potter, frankly it would bore the audience to death. an example is the 4th book, where the middle of the book, which was a degraded cliche, was mainly cut out, and the 3 tasks, and the yule ball were shown, as they appeal to the viewer. If we delete this section we will be delete an important dimension to the anaylisis of harry potter. addy-gAddy-g-indahouse 22:49, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2007_September_12&oldid=1081101688"