Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 October 20

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion‎ | Log

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Kalowski (talk | contribs) at 09:44, 20 October 2007. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

< October 19 October 21 >

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 No consensus. As several said in this discussion an edit war doesn't justify an article of being deleted. However, to the keep voters please provide some references to help satisfy WP:V and WP:N because as of now there is no sources provided which gives me the impression that it is borderline notable. I'm giving this article a chance to be improved.--JForget 23:21, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Hoffman

should be deleted. For too long an edit war has taken place over the entry and/or removal of a supposedly controversial section. Having read the opinions of wikipedia editors I have lost faith in their ability to judge sources and feel that the only solution is to remove this person from the wiki. After all, he is really a very minor character in the world of music, neither composing nor performing. Kalowski 09:47, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kalowski, I agree on your comments. The particular editor protecting Steve Hoffman's page, iMHO, leaves much to be desired. He has been presented tangible evidence of his mistakes in protecting the page, proof about every allegation made, and he avoids discussion entirely. He, in fact, has made me lose confidence in Wikipedia and its modus operandi. I vote for deletion. EricGoberman 14:58, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note both Kalowski and EricGoberman are new editors. --Ronz 16:15, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've added the template. -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 19:44, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are still five proposed references on the article talk page that appear to show notability of the subject that no one has contended. --Ronz 16:03, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


  • Delete and I cannot accept Ronz's reasoning. The LA Times is no more authoritative than the Houston Press. If the LA Times articles is acceptable then return the Contraversy section and I will no longer call for the section to be deleted. Kalowski 17:12, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep. I see no valid reason offered for deletion. Edit warring is a separate behavioral issue. Deletions are a content matter. We don't delete articles simply because people can't get alongWikidemo 17:36, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Note both Kalowski and EricGoberman are new editors. --Ronz 16:15, 20 October 2007 (UTC)" This is true... however this is also irrelevant. Kalowski 18:31, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to WP:AFD, Unregistered or new users are welcome to contribute to the discussion, but their recommendations may be discounted, especially if they seem to be made in bad faith (for example, if they misrepresent their reasons). Conversely, the opinions of logged in users whose accounts predate the article's AfD nomination are given more weight. This is a standard note to put in a discussion. --Dhartung | Talk 19:25, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep. The main problem with the article is the underlying edit war. The only ones who are even discussing are those who want the Controversy section in - the ones who are removing it aren't even showing up on the talk page, and it has been suggested (more than once) that they are conflicted! Someone needs to, after this article is finished, hand out {{uw-coi}} to every editor who has been shown to have one, unprot the article, and aggressively revert and warn those who keep making COI edits. RfCs, Mediation, etc. won't work because these editors don't parley. This nonsense should end. Wikipedia is not a public-relations tool. -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 19:51, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Funny how all the people willing to "keep" the article aren't willing to discuss why the "Controversy" section should be deleted - they just want it deleted. After properly documenting this section, Ronz insists it should be deleted because it doesn't "meet his criteria" (a Houston Press article), and then justifies keeping the article because he found an LA Times article. This is ridiculous - either leave in all documented sections, or delete the whole article, since it's basically useless in its current state. EricGoberman 04:41, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Funny how..." As has already been pointed out multiple times, this is a forum for discussions of article deletion, not content disputes. --Ronz 20:16, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're saying the Houston Press article shows notability, so your vote should be Keep, right? --Ronz 16:02, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
His notability is based on both his remastering work and the disappearance of master tapes under his responsability. As long as both sides of his career are shown, my vote would be Keep. Unfortunately, SH representatives (with a conflict of interest, as demonstrated in the talk page for Steve Hoffman) are repeatedly vandalizing the entry, deleting anything they deem to be not in the best interest of their boss. Due to this fact, I vote "delete" - there's no way to mantain a non-biased article on him. EricGoberman 16:12, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete- for lack of notability and above reasons.JJJ999 05:41, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I know absolutely nothing about the controversy, and have not bothered to learn anything, but the keep or delete discussion on the notability of the person involved should involve that, only. And there is nothing in the article to indicate that this person is notable. Being an audio engineer is not de facto a notability, and other than that, what makes him notable? The article doesn't say. Therefore, he fails notability criteria. Corvus cornix 21:45, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The talk page lists multiple sources that appear to indicate notability. (See Talk:Steve_Hoffman#Possible_references) --Ronz 21:54, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[1] - one sentence with no claim of notability
[2] - requires registration, so I can't read it.
[3] - requires registration to read, I'm not sure this is a reliable site, anyway.
[4] - requires payment to read article. Corvus cornix 22:00, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for looking at the references. Note that on the second page of the first article, Hoffman is quoted multiple times as an expert. --Ronz 22:35, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what you mean, Ronz, that Hoffman is quoted multiple times as an expert. I notice:

  • ...veteran recording engineers such as Steve Hoffman, Gustavo Hidalgo and Elliot Midwood...
  • Hoffman then proffers an opinion on capturing recorded sound.
  • And Hoffman, who commands high fees for his commercial work...
  • And then a final quote from Hoffman
    • The other veteran recording engineers Gustavo Hidalgo and Elliot Midwood do not have pages on Wikipedia. I submit that the only thing that makes Hoffman different and thus more interesting than any other veteran recording engineer is the controversy surrounding his dismissal. Without that section there is no notability. Delete

Kalowski 11:37, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So you're arguing that we have a source that shows notability. Your nomination of the article for deletion then should be withdrawn by your own admission that the subject is notable. --Ronz 15:29, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to Ronz Well, Ronz, I am admitting that I wrote the following:

I submit that the only thing that makes Hoffman different and thus more interesting than any other veteran recording engineer is the controversy surrounding his dismissal. Without that section there is no notability.

so if the controversy section is reinstated the subject will be notable and I will withdraw my nomination for deletion. Does that make sense? Kalowski 17:13, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • deleteQuoting someone as an expert does not justify a Wikipedia entry. If it did, I would add a friend of mine who is quoted as an expert in the biology field in many journals and newspapers. There are many sound engineers, mastering engineers, studio professionals, etc. that do not have Wiki entries. Mr. Hoffman has a popular Internet forum with many members. This alone does not justify an entry either. The members of his forum are the ones that are continually deleting relevant facts from this entry (COI) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Huberman (talk • contribs) 13:46, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, being identified as an expert by enough reliable sources does indeed make the subject notable. See WP:BIO --Ronz 15:32, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete - not notable. Rklawton 14:35, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Regarding notability, keep in mind the article is in the middle of an edit war and is fully protected so any non-admin can't edit it. Claims to notability that are available in the articles history have been removed from it's current state. For WP:N, there are multiple independent reliable sources about the subject:[5][6][7], also not on the web are features in the L.A. Times, Audiophile magazine, and Tape Op magazine. To peruse (many) notable recordings he's worked on: [8] dissolvetalk 16:45, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd counter-argue that Steve Hoffman or his representatives have been politely asked to discuss the issue on SH's Talk page. So far, they haven't engaged in conversation with the editors who believe the "Controversy" section should be kept. They haven't supported SH's notability by posting source material, either - so far, the notability arguments have been supported by the same people who believe the "Controversy" section should not be deleted. 200.38.162.11 22:18, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Bob Ludwig is the only other notable remaster engineer on Wikipedia. His work is much more expansive than that of Mr. Hoffman, who really is not notable outside of a small circle of so-called audiophiles. He is just a minor player in the world of CD reissues, not deserving of an article. Sidar 02:01, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I believe that the sources found by Ronz in Talk:Steve Hoffman#Possible references are enough to show notability. I still don't know whether the charges about mishandling of master tapes belong in the article (the 'Controversy' section) since the only thing backing that up is the single 1996 article in the Houston Press, a free alternative weekly paper. That issue is being discussed at WP:BLPN, and others are welcome to chime in there. As for AfD, I think our usual criteria for keeping the article are satisfed. I agree there are some notable audio engineers like Bob Ludwig who have won awards, and I don't see any reports that Steve H. has. However Ludwig has been (correctly) given a much longer article. EdJohnston 12:36, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Moreschi Talk 13:40, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Christos Papachristopoulos

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

Seems to be non-notable person. I can't find the books listed using google (or anything on google or google scholar with these names). I can't find a notabe person with this name. Anarchia 09:02, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can't find them because these are essays and articles in Greek newspapers! Well, my opinion is that the content is MOST important than the person... maybe you should read it, no? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.49.135.8 (talk) 09:12, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notice also its relation with The State of Siege and Insense and Prometheus and Aeschylus'. Maybe you don't care... but maybe in Greece someone is... and think that you could also reject Camus! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.49.135.8 (talk) 09:17, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion is that these entries are very important. Don't throw them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ChrysJazz (talk • contribs) 09:31, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, i just noticed that Anarchia and Sofia -as well as New Zealand, meaning Nea Zoi, Land of New Life- are Greek! Anarchia means without principles and Sofia means Wisdom... so, as a result, maybe all these seem Greek to you because you are not Greek. Now, is Wikipedia only English??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.49.135.8 (talk) 10:01, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


One more word - i searched in Wikipedia about what a reliable source is and i found that it depends on scrutiny. I went to the word scrutiny in Wikipedia to find what scrutiny is... well, guess what... even this article does not meet Wikipedia standards!!!!!!! hahahahaha! —Preceding unsigned comment added by ChrysJazz (talk • contribs) 10:10, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The article is a joke entry without sources of any kind and any way to verify anything in the article. There is not even his name written in Greek or a link to Greek Wikipedia's article on him. Mlewan 12:13, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not Delete It is a very serious article, original research and easily read, especially in univesities. Greek Wikipedia? What is this? Moreover, the phrase insense is in the text of L'Etat de Siege by Camus himself and it seems Papachristopoulos is the only one who can explain what it means. Eveybody must read this -and it seems that there is really a connection between Cadmus, Camus, Kandinsky, Insense and Synaesthesia. Read Kandinsky book The Spiritual in Art and also Maritain's Integral Humanism. This is a perfect entry for Wikipedia, you should be proud for your contributors, not for your administrators... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.49.135.8 (talk) 13:29, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • You do not seem to get this. In Wikipedia it does not matter if the content of an article is important and true. The only thing that matters is that it is verifiable. If it is important and true but not verifiable, you have to find somewhere else to publish it.
    • Original research is a criterion to delete material. It is not a good think in en encyclopaedia. Mlewan 14:09, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I made several changes to this article (and others linked to it) trying to clean it up a bit, while at the same time searching for sources. Couldn't find any, however I just thought it was something to do with it being a Greek topic and I wasn't searching properly. So gave it the benefit of the doubt and figured it just needed someone more familiar with the subject to provide sources. Further searches a little while ago still returned nothing. Certainly seems to fail WP:OR. Not sure how to do it, but might want to include Insensé in this Afd as it is basically the same content as half the Christos Papachristopoulos article. ARendedWinter 18:46, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I searched for his Greek name, Χρήστος Παπαχριστόπουλος. At least there is a journalist with that name. He writes for a car magazine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mlewan (talk • contribs) 23:19, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am also nominating the following related page because, as Arendedwinter has pointed out, it was created by the same person/people and contains almost the same material, and, again it seems to violate WP:OR. If the idea is a significant one in the work of Camus, then it could perhaps be saved by being properly referenced. But, a good portion of the article would still need to be deleted. Anarchia 20:07, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Insensé (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Insensé theory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

No, he is not the same with the one who writes in the car magazine... but, you should consider saving his contributions because it the best material you had since years for Camus and synaesthesia... and, then, wikipedia has the copyrights for it, so everyone is happy... or you will be ever able to learn Greek? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.49.129.58 (talk) 06:28, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As i said, you scholars people, you would even delete Camus as not a notable person... even the article for the word scrutiny you have judged it as not appropriate for wikipedia. Just see this and ask yourselves... —Preceding unsigned comment added by ChrysJazz (talk • contribs) 06:41, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But it is really a Greek joke - "ανέκδοτον" - anekdoton - unedited - that Anarchia which means "αν-αρχία" meaning without principles/sources wants sources!!! Well, if you are really scholars and not computers, you know what source, principle, origin and root' mean!


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 failed verification. Carlosguitar 19:03, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comedy hip hop

Comedy hip hop (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Seems like original research. A Google search reveals a mirror of this article and no sites recognising this as a valid sub-genre of hip hop. Spellcast 08:54, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If kept, should probably be renamed to Comedy Rap. --Alessandro 10:21, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I agree. --¤ The-G-Unit-฿oss ¤ 10:10, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete It's my opinion that a reasonable article could be written about this subject, but this mess of original research isn't it, and it might be better to just start over. No prejudice against recreation of this article with different contents, and improvements to the existing one could convince me to change my !vote. JavaTenor 18:08, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I'd support recreation if it can be sourced. WP:V and WP:OR is non-negotiable and the page is just riddled with unsourced info and OR for me to support keeping it right now. Spellcast 05:57, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Eluchil404 05:37, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Helmut Ghose

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

There are no sources to indicate notability. Article is possibly a hoax. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Helmut ghose. Relisting as disputed. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 08:21, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Carlosguitar 21:11, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Live AIDS

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

Delete This is an annual college musical show. Unref and orphan since November 2006. 28 ghits found[9], most from wp mirrors. Originally promotional article by SPA, who hasn't been back. Makes just enough of a claim to not be speedy. Fails WP:N among others. Horrorshowj 07:30, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Carlosguitar 20:47, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Red Dwarf DVD Easter Eggs

Red Dwarf DVD Easter Eggs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This lies somewhere between indiscriminate information and a guide/manual; subject and tone inappropriate for an encyclopedia. Prod removed by anonymous user without comment. Marasmusine 07:02, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 it stands this is an essay and almost pure WP:OR. If it can be sourced, some of this could find a home in Zombies in popular culture or a similar article. No article at this title can stay, though, unless relialbe sources using it for a specific zombie archetype can be found. Eluchil404 05:35, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Romero zombies

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

Delete this opinion-riddled essay that adds no information not already covered in other articles. Severe lack of sources and insertion of opinions runs into OR and POV problems. Doczilla 06:53, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Eluchil404 05:30, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Firmin

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

Notable? Neutralitytalk 05:24, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Eluchil404 05:29, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ShoZu

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

Not encyclopedic in tone or content; questionable notability; possible COI issues; needs complete re-write --ROGER DAVIES TALK 06:44, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Eluchil404 05:23, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pirivom Santhippom

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

Fails WP:NF, unreferenced, no notability asserted Girolamo Savonarola 06:36, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Eluchil404 05:22, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Raman Thediya Seethai

Raman Thediya Seethai (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:NF, unreferenced, and no notability asserted. Girolamo Savonarola 06:33, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 20:43, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Striker (film)

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

Fails WP:NF, no notability asserted, and article was recreated less than 24 hours after a speedy deletion on these very grounds. Girolamo Savonarola 06:22, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. W.marsh 20:44, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yavarum Nalam

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

Fails WP:NF, does not assert notability, more pertinent referencing needed. Girolamo Savonarola 06:18, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Eluchil404 05:20, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deadlywind

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

Deletion nomination Contested speedy. Article provides no evidence of notability as spelled out in WP:CORP and WP:N guidelines. There are tenuous claims of notability as to providing some unique products, but there is no evidence provided that such products themselves are recognized by reliable sources as notable. Jayron32|talk|contribs 06:17, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Eluchil404 05:18, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yezhu

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

Fails WP:NF, does not assert notability. Girolamo Savonarola 06:15, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 14:07, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perumal (film)

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

Fails WP:NF, unreferenced, does not assert notability. Girolamo Savonarola 06:13, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. W.marsh 14:08, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pagalavan

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

Fails WP:NF, no references. Girolamo Savonarola 06:05, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Eluchil404 05:16, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Current events in Pakistan

Current events in Pakistan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Furthermore, this is just a duplicate of Portal:Current events/Pakistan, so redirection would produce an unwanted cross-namespace redirect. MER-C 06:03, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Eluchil404 05:14, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nerrupukozhi

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

Fails WP:NF, no references, no notability asserted. Girolamo Savonarola 05:57, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 19:55, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Columbian Crocodile

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

Does this even exist? I tried to improve this article and verify its contents by looking for species info, but didn't find any. 10 ghits. MER-C 05:52, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Eluchil404 05:13, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nee Oda Naan Thuratha

Nee Oda Naan Thuratha (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:NF, unreferenced, does not assert notability. Girolamo Savonarola 05:49, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 19:54, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nandalala

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

Fails WP:NF, no notability asserted, and no references. Girolamo Savonarola 05:39, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. No reliable sources. Article is a complete NPOV failure. PeaceNT 07:32, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Yellow Bird's diary

AfDs for this article:
The Yellow Bird's diary (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article was previously proposed for deletion using PROD, but somebody removes it. Believing that the article should still be deleted, I changed it to AfD. The show mentioned by the article (The Oriolus's diary) is of little importance. The article seems to contain some bias and focus more on the sex clip scandal (which is already discussed in Celebrity sex tape) rather than the targeted TV show. If the article is to be kept, it should be re-written, perhaps focusing more on the show with link to detailed information on the mentioned sex clip scandal.Mdanh2002 05:09, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. PeaceNT 13:15, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Travis Kirke

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

Subject is non-notable, there are zero google hits for its name. Seem to be written by someone close to him. Kevin 04:22, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Speedy Keep - AfD is not a place for content disputes. Non-admin closure. NASCAR Fan24(radio me!) 21:34, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Putinisms

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

POV fork from putinism. Content overlap with wikiquote for "Vladimir Putin". DonaldDuck 03:58, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Let me explain this. User:DonaldDuck created himself a POV fork: [13] and now asks to delete this article to eliminate POV fork created by him. In more detail, we had two completely different articles with zero content overlap, which described two different uses of the same word (one of them is plural). Please see these versions the articles Putinism and Putinisms. This is a common situation in WP, which is treated using disambig pages. Previously, User:DonaldDuck have done the following: (1) he deleted article Putinisms and replaced it by a redirect [14]; (2) he deleted the entire content of article Putinism to cut and paste the content of another article, Putinisms there [15]. This way, he unilaterally deleted article Putinism. Now he is making this AfD request.Biophys 04:12, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. This should be closed ASAP. - Rjd0060 05:01, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 19:52, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wu Pak Chiu

Wu Pak Chiu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Notability doesn't seem to be well-established. Wizardman 03:57, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Considering when and where, it's probably going to be hard to find sources, but the article does seem to assert notability as a famous singer of his time. Edward321 04:13, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Which is why there is a cleanup tag. I hope you really don't think we should go around deleting articles that need to be wikified. - Rjd0060 14:27, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I often wish that we could, actually. Adrian M. H. 10:19, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nevermind, I've wikified it.;-) It seemed worth the effort (see my comment below).Voceditenore 09:37, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless WP:V can be met. That's the worst issue with it. There is some notability, but this needs to be proven. Adrian M. H. 10:19, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The sole source at the moment is the site created by his grandson, who I'm pretty sure also created the article. However, the site does have a scan of Wu Pak Chiu's obituary in a Hong Kong newspaper (from which most of the information in the article was taken) as well as several photographs of him with Gigli. It may be difficult to find other online sources, but there may be more to be found in books and newspapers from the period. Perhaps even in a biography of Gigli? (There was also a quote in the original article from the Spanish paper ABC which I left it out when I wikified the article as there was no mention of it on the web site.) I'd suggest leaving this up to see if more can be found. He sounds like an interesting person. Voceditenore 13:08, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. He is the first operatic tenor from China, probably Asia. Although not many sources can be found about him, he was indeed a notable tenor and well-known in Asia. What we need to do is to find more info about him and not simply deleting it just because the info is scarce. - Jay 03:20, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete no verifiable/sourced information that can be merged. Gnangarra 07:03, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of minor characters from Recess

List of minor characters from Recess (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

A tricky list, as it mixes up characters that are somewhat notable to the show with others that are completely trivial. On the whole though, the characters are, as the list says, minor and do not have real world notability. A few character entries might should be merged into the main article though.SeizureDog 03:42, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --JForget 01:47, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hairy Pothead and Marijuana Stone

Hairy Pothead and Marijuana Stone (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Harry Potter parody, no assertion of notability, published this month. I assume the theme wears thin after a while. Acroterion (talk) 03:09, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Sounds from the tone like "Cannabis Culture" is a magazine of some sort, which would make this just an article within it. Definitely not notable. Dylan 03:11, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Result: The article was redirected to Postgraduate education--JForget 01:46, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Graduate-entry

Graduate-entry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Redirect to Postgraduate education. Snigbrook 02:53, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Close Of this discussion. I decided to be bold and do the redirect myself. There is no reason to have this AfD. That article had very little context anyways (about 1-2 sentences). - Rjd0060 05:08, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. W.marsh 14:06, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keyboard Sathya

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

Notable? Neutralitytalk 02:53, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Neutral: The POGO award is no reason to keep, as that is not notable. But there are actually albums listed, so I don't know if this is notable or not. There are about 1,800 G-hits so maybe this person is notable? - Rjd0060 05:11, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep There are about 4 albums that appear to be legitimately published (i.e. not self-published), albeit not readily available. Agree that POGO is weak reason for keeping, but there does seem to be some notability (which does need to be bolstered a bit in the article). SkierRMH 06:07, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The album releases do not satisfy the requirements of point #5 of WP:MUSIC and the award appears to be too minor to satisfy point #8. Adrian M. H. 10:13, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Eluchil404 05:09, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

R. D. Mindlin and Applied Mechanics

R. D. Mindlin and Applied Mechanics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Notable? Neutralitytalk 02:53, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 by nominator) and Rename Reid-Limbaugh letter controversy B1atv 14:44, 24 October 2007 (UTC) (Non admin closure)[reply]

Reid Smear Letter

Reid Smear Letter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Only one dubious source. No external links. Title is POV. Maybe if it was more neutral there may be more justification for this article. Right now it comes across as an attack article. MrMurph101 02:38, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep or merge, and rewrite. This is a valid story - the CNN coverage of it is here. Not sure if it merits a separate article, and if it does, obviously it has to be renamed. Obviously too the article requires a heavy rewrite for NPOV. Wasted Time R 03:01, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not questioning the notability of this but, like you, not sure if it warrants its own article. The way it's presented also seems to have WP:BLP issues even if the mainstream media refer to the letter this way. MrMurph101 03:28, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Based on the above, and per the biographies of living persons/neutral point of view policies, I have (at least) temporarily moved the article to Reid-Limbaugh letter controversy. --Ali'i 13:07, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 closure. NASCAR Fan24(radio me!) 21:35, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cyanide (Studio)

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

Delete articles are basically unsourced advertisements for a nn company and its nn products.

I am also nominating:

Carlossuarez46 16:36, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Cyanide (Studio) information is about a company that makes products (games). There are no opinions. Just facts. I can't see why it should be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joe ryan (talk • contribs) 14:41, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, W.marsh 02:22, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not delete this article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.196.42.70 (talk) 12:27, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge/redirect to Microsoft Flight Simulator. W.marsh 14:05, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Project Open Sky

Project Open Sky (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non notable article, unencyclopedic Astroview120mm 02:10, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - that may be the best solution; adding a brief section on add-on makers to the main article. There's also IFDG, which was apparently deleted in an AFD some time back and has presumably been re-created since. Mark Grant 18:41, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 is that the stated award is not enough to satisfy inclusion criteria. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 19:50, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Birkmeier

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

Teenage film director. Some assertion of notability - is it enough? -- RHaworth 17:27, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, W.marsh 02:08, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The award has been around for 85 years and they have given it 2.5 million people, Are all of them notable? [1]Ridernyc 06:13, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not necessarily. This person does have other notability mentioned in the article. It may be questionable (as evident from the Notability tag on Muskegon Film Festival, but as of now, it seems notable enough. - Rjd0060 14:24, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest the film festival should also be up for AFD.19:47, 20 October 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. Ρх₥α 02:38, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of doo-wop songs

List of doo-wop songs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

An unmaintainable list. List of doo wop musicians sufficiently covers the topic; we don't need a list of every doo wop song written, just like there are no List of rock songs or List of hip hop songs articles. 17Drew 01:29, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But the same (specious, IMO) reason for deletion could be offered for that list, too. Then what? Jeh 23:56, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm guessing that there's already a consensus to have lists of musicians by genre since artists often make significant impacts on genres on a genre, unlike individual songs such as album tracks. 17Drew 20:58, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Perhaps repurpose to "significant doo-wop songs" (as defined by their being mentioned in other references, such as John Javna's book, or covered multiple times) and trim it back. Jeh 23:56, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Categorify Seems like a viable category. Useless as an article. —  MusicMaker5376 21:42, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - this is a very useful article, and there are hundreds more structured just like it on a wide variety of subjects. The redlinks alone make this list worth keeping, as cateogories are incapable of displaying redlinks. See: Wikipedia:Red link. This nomination should not be an issue of categories vs. lists, as the two overlap in very positive and synergistic ways. To favor one over the other is counterproductive, as there are users who prefer to build categories and there are users who prefer to build lists. The two camps leapfrog each other. Lists have many advantages over categories, but the two working in concert as a whole is greater than the sum of the two parts. The Transhumanist    02:58, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, W.marsh 14:04, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete To many red links and no real way to source this list. The notable songs have articles, so this seems like a clear case of a subject that is better served by category.Ridernyc 14:40, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - this is a list of topics, and not a list of articles. Therefore, the existence of redlinks is not a consideration for deletion. Redlinks are to be encouraged, not discouraged, as they are useful indicators and present opportunities for the expansion of Wikipedia's coverage. Please see Wikipedia:Red link for more information. The Transhumanist    02:58, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Drew, please explain in explicit detail how this list is unmaintainable. We're managing to maintain Wikipedia, which has over 2,000,000 articles. So I'm very interested to learn how this list of topics, which is tiny in comparison, eludes maintainability in your opinion. Which acts of maintenance are impossible on this list, and how are they so? The Transhumanist    02:18, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Because this is nothing near a complete list of all doo-wop songs. Were it close to complete, it'd essentially be a huge catalog of songs, with too many entries to perform any sort of maintenance task. That's why Category:Doo-wop songs is far preferrable, and part of why all other genres only use a category and not a list. 17Drew 23:55, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - who is to say that the list of musicians covers this topic sufficiently for the whole World's population? How do you know that there aren't users who would would like to browse songs by song title, rather than by the composer's name? All the libraries I've visited list their books by author, by title, and by subject. So the creator of this list was in no way out of line or off base. The list serves a standard referencing purpose, and adds value over categories by including further details in annotations, and also due to the fact that building lists is far more efficient than building categories. (Categories are decentralized and awkward to build, and they are not subject to feature expansion as lists are, such as formatting, subheadings, annotations, lead sections, etc.). This list is also useful for tracking coverage of this subject (via redlinks), and also serves as a task list for those interested in writing articles about notable doo-wop songs. That Wikipedia lacks lists on other genres of songs is not a compelling argument for deletion of this list, as it simply means no one has gotten around to making decent lists for those genres yet. Deficiency in one area is a poor argument for extending that deficiency to other areas. All the reasons given by the nominator for deletion are invalid. The Transhumanist    02:58, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Re: "This list is also useful for tracking coverage of this subject (via redlinks), and also serves as a task list for those interested in writing articles about notable doo-wop songs." Perhaps editors interested in articles about doo-wop songs could form a WikiProject on the topic, then move this list from the mainspace to their subspace. Thus the list is easily accessible by those whom it would best serve, but not to the general reader who would neither care about nor have the ability to remove the redlinks. Just a suggestion. JFlav 18:50, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    If people want a database of all doo-wop songs, then they should be using a database, not an encyclopedia. Task lists do not go in the article space; they belong in either someone's user space or in the project space. That there aren't lists of songs for other (more notable) genres doesn't imply that information about those genres is underdeveloped; it indicates that those genres, many of which receive more attention, do not have a consensus that this sort of list is appropriate for Wikipedia. 17Drew 00:00, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak keep I'd suggest transwiki if there was somewhere move it to. Lists like this are useful to people who don't know the material. Barry Mann has a song in the list, but isn't in the list of musicians. I'll leave to somebody else to decided whether or not Who Put the Bomp (song) - Barry Mann belongs on the list jonathon 03:36, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Some might find this WP:USEFUL, but that's what we have categories for. Burntsauce 20:39, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 closure. NASCAR Fan24(radio me!) 21:36, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Standard Building

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

Building in Cleveland. Has no assertion of notability whatsoever. Borjon22 01:18, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Wrong "Standard Building", as it turns out, but I'm still trying to determine when it got that name and why (seeing as how Standard and Cleveland pretty much mean oil & Rockefeller). --Dhartung | Talk 05:13, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I added a press release about it being nominated for inclusion in an NRHP district. As it's passed the state board it is all but automatic that it will become a contributing structure within the district. I also found out the source of the name, not Standard Oil as it turns out. --Dhartung | Talk 19:55, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 19:47, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Grindfest

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

Not notable. There isn't really anything to be said about this. P4k 01:17, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(I'm the author but I would prefer the AfD to go through, since there are no grounds for speedy)

http://www.roadrunnerrecords.com/blabbermouth.net/news.aspx?mode=Search&searchtext=GRINDFEST&x=72&y=7

http://www.roadrunnerrecords.com/blabbermouth.net/news.aspx?mode=Search&searchtext=GRINDFEST&x=72&y=7

http://www.roadrunnerrecords.com/blabbermouth.net/news.aspx?mode=Search&searchtext=GRINDFEST&x=72&y=7

http://www.roadrunnerrecords.com/blabbermouth.net/news.aspx?mode=Search&searchtext=GRINDFEST&x=72&y=7

http://www.roadrunnerrecords.com/blabbermouth.net/news.aspx?mode=Search&searchtext=GRINDFEST&x=72&y=7 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.198.96.200 (talk) 23:40, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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--JForget 01:43, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lauren stuart

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

Not notable; Lauren Stuart has been mentioned in a magazine, but I don't think this justifies having a Wikipedia article on her. --Akiyama 01:05, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Hut 8.5 11:03, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nokia 5510

Nokia 5510 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable cellular phone. This product isn't notable; it's just another incarnation of a common object with no discerning features, no sustaining influence on the market or design, and little longevity. Doesn't meet WP:PRODUCT. Article is unlikely to be repaired because of the lack of substantial sources for this product. Prod expired 2007-10-15 18:39, the article wasn't deleted, and the prod was contested at 19:03, 16 October 2007. Mikeblas 00:58, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The prod was removed by an admin considering it for deletion because it had expired, so there's nothing unusual about the timing. It does make a claim for notability — "The 5510 is unusual compared to most mobile phones, as it has an almost complete QWERTY keyboard, rather than the conventional telephone keypad" — and that kind of claim needs to be discussed at an AfD, so I agree with the removal of the prod. Here's an article about it at ZDnet, which supports the claim that its design was a unique feature at the time of its release. Another review at The Register, which again notes the unusual design. An Australian review which is unfavourable but again notes the unique design. I found these in the first 70 hits of around 1.5 million, so I'm sure there are more sources to be dug out. I usually say delete to the mobile phone articles, but this one does look like a good example of a notable case. Thomjakobsen 01:42, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The linked "article" at zdnet is only 400 words, not counting the misplaced glossary of snowboarding terms in the piece. The capsule reviews are 150 words or less. Wikipedia requires substantial references to establish notability. -- Mikeblas 03:41, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Right, but that's the shortest of the articles I linked to. The second and third ones are much longer than that, and are "substantial" by any measure. Further down the list of results, you find this Google Books reference ("Product Concept Design"), which is a discussion of the 5510's role in Nokia's design history, together with a diagram, claiming that it was a key product because it paved the way for the N-Gage. And here, a national newspaper article on 2001 being a year of great innovation for phones, and the 5510 is the only model named as a prime example. These are at odds with the claims of "non-notable", "no discerning features", "no influence on the market and design" in the nomination. Thomjakobsen 14:57, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 19:45, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arklow vs. MacLean

Arklow vs. MacLean (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I don't know if this is notable, and I couldn't find anything in WP:OUTCOMES covering court cases, but if it isn't notable, it should be deleted. J-ſtanTalkContribs 00:47, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm not sure whether this is notable in New Zealand law either. I suspect it isn't particularly notable, despite having gone all the way to the Privy Council, and I looked for references to it without finding anything other than legal documents. The case being so old may account for lack of coverage in online newspapers though. However, the clincher for me is that the article was written by someone directly involved in the case.-gadfium 01:20, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have just noted another attempt to attack Arklow. I draw your attention to the following.

Wikipedia chat- Legal disputes are to be strictly avoided. Picture for a moment, a minor celebrity (we'll say an author) decides to Google him or herself just to find a few reviews of their work. Wikipedia is often in the initial ten Google results. So they click on the link to find some misinformation that could have been added with innocent intentions. The author is unaware of guidelines such as WP:AGF and WP:NLT, and complains on the talk page, making a legal threat. Wikipedia has just lost an author, someone who could greatly contribute to Wikipedia, and could possibly (though not likely) face some form of legal action.

Note the Arklow litigation involves $3.43b. To date the defendants have tried everything. If I have to take legal action against someone I will do that for either reason; The person is ignorant and has no right to interfere, or may be working for some other interest group and so litigation against them will expose either.

The information on Arklow is correct. It is not bias, in fact it does not even cover the fraud of evidence, the murder of one of my witnesses New Zealand Herald Story - Island mourns young leader of vision Saturday July 10, 1999 By Rosaleen MacBrayne. Arklow is a complex legal issue and is open to review by any of the 40 strong legal team for the 17 defendants. It has already been looked at by Professor Rick Bigwood of Auckland University. If there were any problems they would appear on the talk page. Any unwarranted attack I promise will lead to an immediate writ being served to uncover the thinking and motive behind the attack. --WingateChristopher 01:47, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Are you threatening Wikipedia or its contributors with legal action? That's not a good idea.... Marjaliisa 00:03, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, well, That bit that was quoted was found (I won't even think about how he found it) as part of my admin coaching, and shouldn't be understood as policy. I wasn't making an attempt to attack anyone, I was trying to complete my assignment, which was written before this article came to my attention. J-ſtanTalkContribs 02:31, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Agree with gadfium, little public information on notibility and it looks like there may be practical problems bringing it up to scratch (espcially in the NPOV) area. - SimonLyall 04:18, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The case actually seems to be very modestly notable in Commonwealth law (in the legal world), splitting hairs over when and whether a party becomes a fiduciary; it's an example of a kind of thing that legal practitioners need to know. However, I don't see much to suggest that it is substantially notable generally, it's somewhere around the borderline, IMHO. The bigger problem is that the current article is wildly inappropriate for the importance of the material, the main editor has just been indef blocked, and he appears to have been an actual party to the litigation, carrying his view of things to a wider world. Unless someone neutral with knowledge/interest in this area steps up, I don't see how we get to a reasonable legal article. Delete it now, but a new article on the topic should be considered on its own merits. Studerby 09:49, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, work by a blocked author. WP is not a battle ground, historical record, or soapbox meshach 17:32, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/rewrite, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia of knowledge - not of law. If it is a notable legal case (IANAL, but the eveidence of it seems scarce), then it needs to be rewritten with a NPOV. Malathos 04:27, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nnon-notable case, possible copyright violation, and soapbox. Bearian 23:34, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There are far better cases to quote regarding what makes up a fiduciary duty, both in New Zealand and in the common law at large. As it stands, the article states the facts (as perceived by a party), and barely touches on the law. It really isn't a notable case, and it doesn't provide the kind of explanation of how it affects the law as it stands.

By the by, I think that Wikipedia should be an Encyclopedia or law, amongst everything else. Unfortunately, even the most important cases (espcially New Zealand ones) don't seem to be covered, and random fact scenarios like this don't really help.--Matthew Proctor 10:49, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. PeaceNT 13:17, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of psychological thriller films

List of psychological thriller films (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Per WP:NOT#IINFO, this article is adequately covered by Category:Psychological thriller films UnfriendlyFire 00:40, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Two things are certain - this article is primarily OR, yet there are well-put arguments in its defense. Given the current discussion I cannot delete this article at this time, but if no one can (or will) demonstrate that a sourceable article exists behind this OR, a subsequent AFD might not bode well for the article. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 19:43, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bambi effect

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

Delete OR item about unsourced "Bambi effect". Most web pages I find that uses the phrase is talking about other things (including something sexual). This is insufficiently notable. And regardless of all that, we still have WP:NOT: Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Doczilla 00:22, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That last article does not mention a Bambi effect in so many words. It merely says that Bambi had an effect, which I think is different. If I researched, I may well find articles saying that the book and film of Tarka the Otter had a similar effect in respect of hunting in the UK, but no one talks about a "Tarka-effect" as far as I know. My point is that a source that does not refer to this "effect" as the Bambi effect may not serve as suitable evidence of notability. MikeHobday 21:28, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In isolation, no it wouldn't, but it does act as a support source for the prior 3 references. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 02:02, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep — I'm not sure how many more examples we need. The term is referenced in lots of blogs but I won't refer to them even though they demonstrate that the term has entered the popular vernacular. It's in The Urban Dictionary, it's described on EconomyPoint.org, The "Oneness Commitment", a sort of New Age community, has an encyclopedia entry on it, where it's referenced in six articles, Mother Linda's News refers to it and check out page 17 of these lecture notes from a zoology course at the University of Wisconsin. There are scads and scads of examples of where the term is used, in the fashion of this article, in the popular culture out there. A search on Google for "Bambi Effect" returns 1600 hits and, from a subsample I took, about 25% of them are direct hits on the term as used in the article and about an equal number are oblique references to it. I'm assuming good faith and, as a result, I realise that those recommending deletion are not doing so for POV reasons. Therefore, I challenge each of you to do the google search for yourself to see if this is, indeed, a neologism that has no cultural currency and that it does not describe something that is relevant to this encyclopedia. I, for one, was neutral until I proved to myself that this article should be kept. — Dave (Talk | contribs) 21:01, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just a minor comment, you can't use the Urban Dictionary as a source anymore than you can a Wiki since it is also user created. I could make up something and add it to the UD tonight if I wanted to. TJ Spyke 03:37, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The additional reference shown above are sufficient. DGG (talk) 17:43, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, John254 01:40, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per WP:NEO in the absence of sources that are substantially about the term rather than simply using the term. Otto4711 04:28, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Although the article in its current state smacks of original research, I think the fact that a number of sources have been found so far indicates that this is a real phenomenon. I would, however, suggest paring it down to the bare minimum, tagging it as a stub (if it's not already), and trying to find some stronger sources. --jonny-mt(t)(c) 04:46, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep with sources added, the article describes a concept that is supported using reliable and verifiable sources to establish notability. See this Google news Archive search for additional sources. Some of our early voters may want to revisit the article in light of the sources added. Alansohn 05:32, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Someone invented a catch-phrase and its notable. Ugh. What if you haven't watched Bambi and still get the effect? Wouldn't it be a psychological symptom in people that has another description elsewhere? Could it Merge with something that already exists? I was nearly on neutral on this one, maybe more sources would compel me to be claiming Bambi Effect on those roo shooters one day. T--T3Smile 12:29, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was good series, err... speedy redirect to A Song of Ice and Fire. —Verrai 04:23, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rains of castamere

Rains of castamere (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

non-notable song from fictional universe, copyvio. prod removed by anon. Calliopejen1 00:06, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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--JForget 01:41, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cutesy

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

Simple dictionary definition, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Prod removed without comment by creator. Iain99Balderdash and piffle 00:04, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 19:37, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brazilian Fedora Project

Brazilian Fedora Project (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Contested PROD, non-notable website or group. Carlosguitar 23:02, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was SPEEDY KEEP; it's been less than a week since the last AfD. -GTBacchus(talk) 08:34, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese in the Russian Revolution and in the Russian Civil War‎

Chinese in the Russian Revolution and in the Russian Civil War‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Comment - This article has been recently considered for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chinese in Russian Revolution. The AFD discussion was closed on October 15 as Keep. --Richard 02:53, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Follow-up - The above statement is purely informational and does not reflect my opinion on this nomination.
--Richard 05:24, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Further follow-up - OK, now it does. See my fuller comment below. --Richard 06:43, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article is a hodge podge of facts connected only by the terms, expressions, and historical events, Chinese, Russian Revolution (RR), and Russian Civil War (RCW), covering therefore a three-year span: 1917 (RR) and 1918-1920 (RCW). It consists of what I believe is the original research (OR) of one editor, User:Mikkalai. It relies heavily on primary sources, propaganda, both from the Red Scare period, and from the White Russians who tried desperately to discredit the Bolsheviks. The standard works on the RR or RCW, to the best of my knowledge, do not mention the Chinese. I do not believe there is understanding here of what OR is under WP. I also believe that there is no understanding of notability under WP. There may have been Chinese in the RR and the RCW - but so what? Shall we examine under a separate article every distinct ethnic group within Russia during this 3-year period? Why? Neither historians, nor other authors have done that, to the best of my knowledge. The title itself is contrived and artificial: why not include the period before 1917 as well as after 1921? Finally, one must be extremely cautious when using propaganda published in times of revolutions and civil wars - that's why only scholars are qualified (under WP policy) to make the assessments as to the veracity of such material. The article itself, however, brings in every and any kind of source which either mention or depicts the Chinese in Russia during said three year period.

  • speedy keep, see Talk:Chinese in the Russian Revolution and in the Russian Civil War‎ for passionate activity of this user. `'Míkka 03:20, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for the same reasons as last time. Article is sourced, and just the propaganda aspects show notability. The consensus from the previous nomination by Ludvikus [28] on 10/11 closed as Keep. Edward321 03:34, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Further research tonight has turned up better sources (secondary ones rather than primary ones and in English rather than Russian or Chinese). While there is at least two inconsistencies that need to be resolved (thousands of Chinese troops or tens of thousands?; significant role or insignificant role?) I am now convinced that the topic of the article is encyclopedic and the amount of OR in the article has been reduced to the point where we can "put it in the bathtub and drown it". --Richard 06:43, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Change to Delete--editor states below that he will continue to only speak abusively at the article's talk page rather than discuss in a professional manner. per User:Richardshusr IF AND ONLY IF the editors working on the article actually discuss facts in the article, and answer all questions other editors ask regarding sources and content in a collegial and calm way, without insulting any other editor at all. Badagnani 07:27, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Nah. I understand why you think that way. But we gotta separate the article from the personalities of the editors. Articles stand or fall on their own merits. Imagine that you were told that all the current editors of the article had died. Would you vote to keep or delete this article? If editors of an article misbehave, then block them but don't judge the article by the behavior of the editors. If we did things that way, we would have to delete half of Wikipedia. --Richard 07:32, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • "If the editors misbehave..." Don't throw plurals here. There was one single nasty troll with agenda to get rid of the article out of his militant ignorance devoid of listening to any arguments. And no one said not a single word to him. Of course I was pissed off. This attitude to smear the guilt into an even layer is disgusting. `'Míkka 07:40, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Mikka and Badagnani - please take the discussion of editor misconduct back to the article Talk Page. Editor misconduct should not be relevant to an AFD discussion. --Richard 07:44, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I will discuss whatever I want wherever I feel necessary. Trolls may smear my name with shit wherever they want with nobody to wave a finger at him, and I have to sit on my hands. If you are so fond of policing, why don't you speedily close this trolling second AfD nomination? `'Míkka 08:01, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Because admins who take part in debates are not supposed to also close them. Badagnani 08:04, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • There should be no debate at all, that's the point. The second nomination is clean-cut bad faith trolling. Yet you want to chat. I am ranting because it insults me, but what's your grief? To write n-th time how bad am I and how I refuse to cooperate? Yes, I refuse to cooperate with trolls. `'Míkka 08:20, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • Yeh, if either Mikka or I had kept out of this debate, one of us could have done a speedy close on the grounds that the previous AFD was only 4 days ago. Maybe another uninvolved admin will put us out of our misery. --Richard 08:15, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                • We can't have a smoothly operating encyclopedia if an editor (for whatever reason) insists on using garbage words, again and again, instead of discussing sources in a calm, professional way and answering and addressing questions addressed to him regarding these sources. That is called being "Wikipedian," as opposed to "un-Wikipedian." I cannot trust the content added by an editor who refuses, even after being asked courteously several times, to abide by this very simple rule the rest of us follow. Badagnani 08:32, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
  1. ^ The Scholastic Art & Writing Awards
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2007_October_20&oldid=165810254"