Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 June 25

< June 24	June 26 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 05:35, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Socorro Herrera

NN actress who played an extremely minor role in High School Musical Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 23:45, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete NN by IMDB and ghits. Malc82 00:01, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete At this time does not meet the criteria for WP:Notability. Ozgod 05:13, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 14:58, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Peacent 02:04, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Haber (Spanish verb)

Falls under WP:NOT, per Wikipedia is not a dictionary. KJS 77 23:36, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, since Wikipedia also isn't a language-learning site. Nyttend 23:36, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Suprimir, Wikipedia no es un diccionario de español/inglés. (Delete, Wikipedia is not a Spanish/English dictionary). Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 23:38, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not only dictionary content, but Spanish dictionary content. -- Jimmi Hugh 23:38, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per all, and this should probably have been prodded rather than brought up for AfD, as it's surely going to snow. — Swpb ^{talk contribs} 00:44, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 14:58, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and everyone else. Maxa megalon 2000 05:34, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this is adequately covered in wikt:haber#Spanish. John Vandenberg 05:58, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Anas ^talk? 22:09, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tour de force joke

Not noteworthy or unique enough to merit an encyclopedia article - A quoted search of the phrase returns less than 20 non-wikipedia or wikipedia database dump results. Article as it exists contains no description of what the concept actually IS, nor is it noteworthy in any way. Zooman55 23:23, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, nothing relevant found with Google Books or Google News Archive. WP:OR or utterly unnotable. "tour de force" + "comedy" generally yields results referring to plays or movies generally. --Dhartung | Talk 23:45, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is just a combination of words, and an article about how they would be used in peacock terms. I don't see any notability here. --Haemo 23:54, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - uncited, and might just be a joke. Should only be allowed back with citations, and then perhaps in wikidictionary. --Tagishsimon (talk)
Delete No assertion of notability, and uncited. — Wen li ^(contribs) 01:54, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone. Original research. --Charlene 02:39, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Guys, I think it's a good article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.106.127.195 (talk • contribs).
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:00, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nom. Zooman55 19:30, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Peacent 02:11, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of final girls

Extreme indiscriminate collection of information. Corvus cornix 23:13, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a well-written list with a lot of info that a category couldn't provide. Almost all movies, actors and even many roles have their own article, so it isn't really indiscriminate. Since final girl seems to be a well-established concept I don't see a reason to delete. Malc82 23:28, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, pure WP:TRIVIA, extremely indiscriminate, et cetera. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 23:38, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. Who cares about whether a character was a "final girl" or not? Obviously no reliable sources are, since nobody is talking about it and there is no attribution for even the importance of the category, let alone the identities of the individuals. What's next: "List of guys who pull knives in movies"? --Charlene 02:37, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and for the record, 'Abernathy' is most definitely not a "final girl" from Grindhouse --Tellerman
- Nor is Ashley from Disturbia. Corvus cornix 15:32, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:01, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, listcruft, indiscriminate. Kill it with a hatchet. Realkyhick 15:20, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 132.205.44.5 01:30, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because Wikipedia is not a directory. There is no encyclopedic value in indiscriminately listing all the films that have this phenomenon. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:15, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Peacent 02:21, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deathrash

I have wondered about this one for a while, and with the discussion on the Talk page going incredibly slow i decided to put it up to the test. All Google references to Deathrash are about a non-notable band, making this neologism even less notable than that. Jimmi Hugh 23:15, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete as obvious neologism, and possible musical hairsplitting too. What's the difference between thrash and death metal anyway? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 01:38, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. I'm sure someone can point out some arcane reason why they think thrash and death metal are different, but since no reliable sources are specifically discussing this word it fails WP:NEO. --Charlene 02:38, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Well i actually feel there is a world of difference between the two genres... I wouldn't class Metallica or Megadeth as anything like Cannibal Corpse or Dying Fetus. As i mentioned on the Article page though, the softest form of Death Metal is just Thrash metal with slight Death Metal tendencies, there is no inbetween. -- Jimmi Hugh 12:33, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:02, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no references, and all the artists in the list belong to other genres as noted in their articles. Not convinced this genre exists, and as Jimmi Hugh says above, I don't quite see how death and thrash metal can "cross over". While the two are different, death metal minus all the complexities just gives you thrash, and the wording in the death metal article seems to agree with me there. - Zeibura ^(Talk) 13:54, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 02:45, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Conder Primary School

Contested prod. No assertion of notability and no context given. Farosdaughter 22:54, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The school may be notable but the article is written like an advertisement. — Wen li ^(contribs) 01:55, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I have actually added that the school is in Conder, Australian Capital Territory and that it is named after artist Charles Conder. Google News Archive comes up with a couple of hits [1]. It might be better as part of our article on the suburb of Conder. Capitalistroadster 03:04, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 03:10, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment A couple of hits is right: one about Karyn Gordon, one of the teachers, and another about the local wetlands, which the school students studied. Create articles about the teacher and the wetlands, if you find something else about them.Ga rr ie 05:06, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge / Redirect to Conder, Australian Capital Territory per WP:LOCAL (the school's already mentioned there so only the redirect is left to do).Ga rr ie 05:06, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. When will people stop trying to judge notability based on the current state of the article? It's a completely nonsensical approach. Rebecca 14:37, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Rebecca, what other criteria should we use? It is up to the author to assert notability. Are we to do original research on our own or something? Gee, my knee! Realkyhick 15:22, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure. You could actually do some research of your own, and we could actually have a discussion about the actual notability of the school, instead of arguing "well, I don't care about the notability, but I'll just vote delete anyway." Rebecca 14:16, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:02, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:N, as notability is not even asserted, and WP:V, as no asserted facts are cited to WP:RS. It can always be re-created if someone is sufficiently moved to write a proper article. For now, it needs to go bye bye. --Butseriouslyfolks 05:31, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, no reason for deletion provided; just saying not notable doesnt count as a reason. The prod was procedural, the deprod was thanks to the watchful eye of User:DGG. There are 150 results in .gov.au which can make for a reasonable article. In comparison, St Edwards College , which was recently kept (see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/St._Edward's_College,_Gosford), only has five results on gov.au. John Vandenberg 14:57, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete based on Gooogle test, a non-notable primary school, and no assertion of notability, per Butseriouslyfolks. Bearian 18:26, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Redirect. Except that schools are not explicitly mentioned there, this fails CSD A7. If anyone seriously wants to Keep, edit the article to assert notability. Anomie 19:50, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, notability not asserted, and I suspect this is because the school is not notable. Lankiveil 10:26, 29 June 2007 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Anas ^talk? 22:10, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Student Youth Network

No indepent verifiable information, arguably not notable Cazza411 22:48, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletions. —E ddie 23:02, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:03, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Fails WP:RELY at the moment. Might be notable if some reference to that award can be found. Assize 11:21, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Anas ^talk? 22:10, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mistress sidonia

Does not seem to meet noticeably standards -- (Cocoaguy ここがいい _contribs^talk) 22:54, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. West Brom 4ever 22:57, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-per above ChrisLamb 23:03, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: She gets lots of google hits, but I'm not about to open any of them right now. Corvus cornix 23:19, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've braved opening a few and they just look like run of the mill porn sites to me, although I'll admit I'm no expert!--Farosdaughter 23:28, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'll cop to being an expert. This is just another run of the mill bdsm entrepreneur who's gone into the porn industry. There are probably a dozen women and a few men in every major city with the same talents and the same notability. She fails WP:BIO. Delete. --Charlene 02:41, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as a advertisment for a non-notable person and/or company and tagged as such. NeoFreak 03:46, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Without references (and foregoing the aforementioned google search) the subject does not appear to meet the criteria for WP:Notability Ozgod 05:14, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:04, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 00:01, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The key point is an assertion that the album is imminent (indeed listed on Amazon) and hence is bound to come out shortly, and that it is bound to be a notable album when it does, and WP:CRYSTAL doesn't mean deleting obvious imminent matters for the sake of a few weeks. I concur with the latter; we have good evidence its imminent release is confirmed, and not just speculative. The question therefore revolves around, would the album of itself (if released) be notable? We (obviously) have no evidence of sales uptake or critical reviews yet, only the hearsay of buzz that accompanies a new album, and which may or may not translate into billboards, acclaim, and sales. So the question rolls back, is the singer notable, to an extent that any album she is likely to release, is going to be notable? And looking at Amy Macdonald (singer), where this is described as a "debut" album, and little except self promotion is cited to demonstrate verifiably her own standing, that too is in question. (The "delete" view is mostly based on non-notability, either of the singer or of the album.)

With that as background, examining the points made in this discussion, the main keep reasons are that it is "from a very major label" (but not all major label albums will be notable), and that she is "deemed" (by whom?) to be "one of the hottest solo artists right now". AFD looks at evidence, not editor's hearsay; if she was that notable, then someone somewhere would have said so with authority in the music business, editorials, magazine front pages, etc. And this would have been cited. Nothing to evidence any of this from reliable sources is cited in this AFD or her article. So at the present, such views must be counted as editors' personal views and impressions. The last argument left, that it is given free release by iTunes, and listed on various sites doesn't of itself seem notable - those sites exist to make hype around albums. It's not by itself evidence the album is special, that its prospective sellers hype it as such. Again, if it was, or she was, then there would be reliable credible voices to cite to that effect. We don't have any evidence of these here, and the delete view seems to be supported by the evidence in this discussion.

(NB: - Salting declined; insufficient basis to salt for now.)

This Is The Life (album)

Future album by non-notable signer. Unable to find anything but trivial coverage of the singer. Perhaps once she gains some notability, a discography will be appropriate. Not right now. Coren 22:40, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Album release from a very major label. Certainly has some buzz, it's at #647 on Amazon even though it hasn't been released yet. Why bother deleting it when it's virtually certain to be undeleted just a month from now? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:52, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, gak, I'm going to sound like an old crone or something. Not counting the fact that the future doesn't belong on Wikipedia, albums are notable when their musicians are, and even then they require independent coverage. Besides, who knows if this album, regardless of buzz, will fizzle out and fade into obscurity or bust to the top of the charts? Coren 23:04, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, the spirit of WP:CRYSTAL isn't to prevent us from covering albums a few weeks before their release. Secondly, she does appear to pass WP:MUSIC on at least two counts, (4 and 11), possibly more. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:48, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless a.) Amy MacDonald (singer) is notable enough for an article (there's already an unrelated author of that name), and b.) a page is created for her. Otherwise it's WP:CRYSTAL. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 23:05, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete as the artist herself doesn't seem to be notable as per WP:HOLE. She could be, but I don't see anything in the article that says she is. If she's not notable, then her album is likely non-notable too. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 23:41, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Amy Macdonald - Without the capital D for some reason. -- Jimmi Hugh 23:19, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved the page to its proper name (maybe we'll need a disambig now?) but that just opens up a new can of worms. Reading the article has not left me convinced of notability there either. Is an iTunes single of the week enough to establish notability? Because everything else on that page is self-published. Coren 23:28, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't even believe the artist to be notable, and her being notable would not make this album notable. It clearly has had no serious promotion and is not well known. -- Jimmi Hugh 23:43, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:05, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:05, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article has no assertion of notability, and very little content other than a track listing. If I see some sources, I might change my vote Lurker 15:12, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'll add the sources for track listing as soon as the wikipedia server stops having problems. By the way, she's been deemed as one of the hottest solo artists right now. One of her videos I think had over 19000 views on youtube.com before her record label removed that version even though her album hasn't been released. Top bands in Scotland like Idlewild don't even get that many views. Her record label has built an official website for her and the fact that you can order the record on Amazon, HMV, Napster, iTunes, etc shows that it's not a small album. It's the second ever article I've made and I don't have time to spend time working on this but I do know that when you delete the article, it'll be recreated so I'd strongly advise you to leave it alone, it's not doing any harm. Fcsportfreunde 16:42, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Declaring your intention to disregard consensus on Wikipedia (should the consensus be in favour of deletion) is not a smart move. And YouTube does not count as a source for notability, since anyone can post there. Please see Wikipedia:Notability (music) and find appropriate sources Lurker 16:46, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE and SALT as intention has been declared to recreate---and not yet notable.Balloonman 03:35, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep There's enough buzz for the artist and album that I'd rather err on the side of inclusionism here...Release by a highly notable label and free iTunes pub is somewhat compelling. And I concur with Andrew Lenahan's reading of WP:CRYSTAL. — Scientizzle 22:58, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. I looked at the sources personally and think they establish some level notability, the nominator apparently doesn't agree. So no consensus to delete. W.marsh 21:32, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Limbo 41414

Does not assert notability under WP:CORP. Was nominated as a prod but tag was removed so bringing it here. Article read more like an advertisement then an encyclopedic entry. Vegaswikian 22:29, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:07, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable...Balloonman 03:37, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fuhghettaboutit 03:57, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Evil Spartan 23:29, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The references listed do not qualify as independent third-party reliable sources. The article has no content that is not advertisement for the subject company. ≈≈Carolfrog≈≈♦тос♦ 00:02, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Having checked on the search engine, I could see a considerable number of secondary sources, although most of those sites aren't very mainstream. Borderline.--Kylohk 12:19, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've added an additional source to the article, which I believe sufficiently asserts notability when combined with USA Today's article. However, I think the page could use a rewrite or the addition of content that doesn't focus directly on Limbo's products.
- I'm not convinced that those sources meet the requirement for "Significant coverage" or "Reliable" sources (means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability). They do support that the company exists. However one is a press release, not reliable or NPOV. Vegaswikian 18:26, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete by User:Tone, author blanked page. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 23:42, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Therapist (novel)

Book not found in google books, author not found in google. No external links or references. KJS 77 22:30, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, future book from non-notable author. Coren 22:32, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The author blanked the page, so I'm going to Speedy Delete. KJS 77 22:53, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep and clean up. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 00:38, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Although only few comments were made, the policy-based result seems fairly clear-cut. There are two issues - 1/ should it be deleted as advertising or copyvio, or 2/ is there verifiable reliable source evidence to support a view that it is notable. The policy and guidelines on advertizing spam ("adspam") and copyright violation ("copyvio") are fairly clear cut -- pure adspam and pure copyvio with nothing notable, can be speedy deleted. But if there is the basis of a good article, on a notable topic, and the copyvio can be readily cleaned or rewritten, and the NPOV bias from advertizing made more encyclopedic and balanced in a neutral manner with other viewpoints, then advertizing and copyvio themselves are not sufficient for deletion; instead we aim to remove violations and improve the stub to encyclopedic quality if it isn't too much of a stretch.

From evidence provided in the article, its talk page and comments in this AFD (including the styling and citing of the article), there seems little doubt that the topic is notable. Green Map seems widespread, a quick search confirms the cites in the article are bona fide, and the statement (below, by User:ChrisLamb) about National and International attention does seem to be supported by evidence of media attention, even if not the kind that all editors would hope to see. The article itself is not in a bad state, it's on a notable topic, and should be relatively easy to clean of remaining copyvio (which should be done) (and POV if any), so deletion seems unwarranted.

Green Map

Advertising. I would have nominated it for speedy deletion, but it has had several editors during its lifetime. Corvus cornix 22:00, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep- While it is advertising, this organazation is notable if we use WP:CORP and acording to said policy we should deal with he article by:

1)Clean up per Wikipedia:neutral point of view

2)Delete remaining advertising content from the article,

3)Delete the article, by listing it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion if no notable content remains. However, if an article contains only blatant advertising, with no other useful content, it may be tagged per Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion instead.

So even though there is a lot of advertising we should try to clean the article up since it is notable ChrisLamb 22:14, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources? One's an email, two are the company's website. Corvus cornix 22:28, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- on the article in questions talk page you can find several newspaper articles (including one from the Boston Globe)that are about Green Maps ChrisLamb 22:39, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All of which are referred to as "fluffy pieces". Corvus cornix 23:07, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- Whether or not those pieces are "Fluffy" or "Feel Good" news does not matter the fact is that Green Maps have attracted National and International attention; making it notable under WP:CORP's section on non-profit organizations ChrisLamb 00:40, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:09, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete while not quite a copy-vio, it comes very close. If the similarities between the two pages don't demonstrate this to be advertising I don't know what will. (I found the page by cutting and pasting "inclusive participation in sustainable community development around the world" which is word for word in the article! As are numerous other statements.Balloonman 03:46, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 01:55, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maris-McGwire-Sosa pair

This article has not asserted any notability that i can see. It seems to be an advanced sabrmetrics or statistics page with little to no use here. It could even be viewed as WP:TRIVIA Tecmobowl 21:54, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as useless trivia, fancruft. P.S., I like your username. Useight 22:14, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject of the article is about mathematics. That the name is the only connection it has to baseball, and is utterly unrelated to the players themselves. It's not baseball trivia, it's math. Coverage such as here shows that this is taken seriously as a math topic. Alansohn 22:25, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Math, not baseball. ¿SFGiДnts! ^{¿Complain! ¿Analyze! ¿Review!} 23:36, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, more of a mathetmatical game than a serious math topic, but I added a book reference.--Dhartung | Talk 23:50, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I believe I correctly identified this as a statistics / sabrmetrics related article in my initial statement. If this content is valuable to the community as a whole, then does it really deserve it's own article? Again, while it is mathematically true, it seems trivial and not worthy of its own article on wikipedia. //Tecmobowl 00:07, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Again, this has nothing to do with baseball stats (or SABRmetrics) except the name/discovery. It is mathematically interesting that two such numbers might be paired, which is why it has some notability. It's not a major mathematical topic but I think it meets minimum standards for an article. --Dhartung | Talk 08:03, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How many times do i have to say that I am aware of why this article is in place. It is related to SABRmetrics, but is a statistics article. We're good on that...stop bringing it up. I reviewed WP:NUMBER and a related (but not really applicable) WP:PROF before making this request. It would seem that it is reasonable to delete this article. Perhaps another opportunity would be to merge it, but i don't know where to put it and since it seems to be un-notable, I would say get rid of it all together. //Tecmobowl 12:07, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sabermetrics is defined as "the analysis of baseball through objective evidence, especially baseball statistics. The term is derived from the acronym SABR, which stands for the Society for American Baseball Research." This article is about number theory, which in turn is defined as "branch of pure mathematics concerned with the properties of numbers in general, and integers in particular, as well as the wider classes of problems that arise from their study." I understand why there is such confusion here, as the name given to this number pair mentions baseball players and arose from numbers of home runs. But this is a matter of pure mathematics that has absolutely nothing to do with who is the better home run hitter or any issue to do with baseball statistics in any way whatsoever. It is NOT related to Sabermetrics and it is NOT a baseball statistics article. This article has nothing to do with the sport of baseball, and everything to do with the world of mathematics. Alansohn 13:19, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is no confusion here. You guys keep talking about that we all know: THIS IS AN ARTICLE ABOUT MATH (or statistics or whatever the hell you want to call it). THAT DOESN'T MATTER! What matters is my claim that it does not meet the NOTABILITY guidelines. //Tecmobowl 13:31, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. References demonstrate sufficient notability. No connection with baseball statistics apart from name - like Ruth-Aaron pairs. Could someone who knows how to change cats on AfDs please move this from Games or sports sub-cat to Science and technology, where it belongs. Gandalf61 13:53, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for addressing the topic. I marked it as G because it seemed like a mathmatical game. Regardless, this is the first comment that sufficently address the topic. I still don't agree with notability, but at least we have a well constructed argument here. //Tecmobowl 13:59, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, definitely not a candidate for outright deletion. Multiple sources on the article and [2]. p.s. I couldnt find an appropriate delsort list for this, so I have commented instead. John Vandenberg 15:27, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
strong keep mathematical result, not fancruft. Thinly cited, but entry on Sloane's integer encylcopedia is helpful to show notability. Debivort 06:12, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Not that I necessarily disagree with your conclusion, but an OEIS entry should not be used as any indication of notability. They will accept any sequence as long as long as it is not utter garbage. They don't accept sequences based on a preformed notion of whether it is important, useful, etc. --C S (Talk) 07:07, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weakest Keep: the Ivars Peterson article gives the independent notability that the Keith articles and OEIS pages do not (as Chan-Ho has pointed out, they accept most sequences). However, I think better would be to Merge with Ruth-Aaron pairs which they are similar to (mathematically) and derived from (in name and inspiration). (It's only a weak consideration in an AfD, but are the Maris pairs actually mathematically interesting to anyone other than Peterson and Klein? The sum of digits is such an arbitrary consideration and makes the sequence dependent on base 10). -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 05:20, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I have just moved the article from Category:Integer sequences to Category:Base-dependent integer sequences. Many laymen and hobby mathematicians are interested in numbers with special base-10 properties although Maris-McGwire-Sosa pairs seem to have attracted little attention. Ruth-Aaron pairs are more notable and were named by Carl Pomerance who has published papers about them. They are not base-dependant and I'm not sure it's good to mix them with Maris-McGwire-Sosa pairs. PrimeHunter 13:50, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If Ivars Petersen has cited it, it has value. Johnbibby:::

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 05:43, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bedroom Studios

Claims to have made several games that got good reviews. I was, however, unable to find any mention of either the company or any of their games, using Google. A strong indication that they fail the notability test. Pekaje 21:48, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Couldn't find a single link or mention of them on Google, clearly non-notable. -- Jimmi Hugh 21:54, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Ditto, official website is on Freewebs.(lemonflash)^talk 23:25, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. — Wen li ^(contribs) 01:56, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:28, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete I note that a number of opinions also expressed that the content should be merged in to Criticism of Islam as the content appears to already be included in this article I have deleted and then created a redirect from this title.

A number of other articles were questioned in relation to a result here, they should be nominated with any issues addressed separately especially given the nature of the subjects and the obvious personal POV's that such discussions attract. Something that should be noted about some of these other articles compared to this, the article Crime of apartheid has the United Nations Definition of apartheid It defined the crime of apartheid as "inhuman acts committed for the purpose of establishing and maintaining domination by one racial group of persons over any other racial group of persons and systematically oppressing them." It mentions racially based acts such as murder, infringement on freedom or dignity, arbitrary arrest and imprisonment, imposition of inhumane living conditions, forced labor, or enacting measures calculated to prevent a racial group from "participation in the political, social, economic and cultural life of the country" under this definition an article where the allegations is a country ie Isreal, France, Saudi Arabia would fit within this definition. Gnan garra 14:16, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Allegations of Islamic apartheid

Some people are saying Accusations of French genocide against Algerians is not a neutral title and have nominated it for afd, allegations and accusations are both equally POV, I would like the community to debate this as well since both articles are based on recent opinions Bleh999 21:41, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge- Merge with article Criticism of Islam ChrisLamb 21:45, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge is there is any content that is mergeable. This article seems to be more of an essay than about specific Allegations that have been made. -- Jimmi Hugh 21:47, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-The section about discrimination against non-muslims should be merged with the Criticism of Islam article sine that articles section on the same issue simply has a sentence about "Islamic Apartheid" and the reader will undoubtly go to this article ChrisLamb 21:56, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, no merge considering the existance of Allegations of Israeli apartheid or delete all allegations of apartheid articles.--Sefringle^Talk 02:17, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Sefringle. Jaakobou 22:44, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletions. —Sefringle^Talk 02:18, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I now nominated Allegations of Israeli apartheid for deletion. (See here) If this article should be deleted, so should the other one.--Sefringle^Talk 04:17, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:ALLORNOTHING? Why shouldn't each be considered on its own merits, especially since Israeli apartheid has already survived five deletion nominations. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 04:36, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is very POV pushing. Somehow it is neutral to have an Israeli apartheid article, but an Islamic apartheid article cannot exist? Either they both exist of they both don't. That is only neutral way to do it.--Sefringle^Talk 04:47, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget we still have Allegations of Saudi Arabian apartheid which is at least examining something specific rather than an entire religion --Bleh999 10:24, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I support keeping this article (see below), but it is absurd to say that either both allegations of apartheid exist or neither do. You wouldn't say that either both "allegations of Somali apartheid" and "allegations of Israeli apartheid" exist, or neither do... If some allegations are notable and some are non-notable, so be it. It's not our job to make sure both allegations are presented with equal force here if they're not presented with equal force outside Wikipedia. Calliopejen1 09:14, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Criticism of Islam per ChrisLamb. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 04:36, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or delete I'm not sure there is any useful material in here that isn't covered in other articles. It is ridiculous to say that if Allegations of Israeli apartheid exists, this should too; "Israeli apartheid" gets over 210k ghits, "Islamic apartheid" gets about 660. Whether you like it or not, one term is widely used and discussed, the other you need to look carefully even to find examples of people using it. Brianyoumans 05:11, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. A better-constructed google search gets over 46,000 results, see below.

Delete' - Not a notable allegation. The Behnam 06:53, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not a notable term for Islam. per [[User:Brianyoumans|Brianyoumans]. --- A. L. M. 11:11, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Whether or not other articles exist, this is clearly not a keeper. -- Simon Cursitor 14:31, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — issues already covered in Dhimmi and Criticism of Islam. The term is not notable either. → AA ^{(talk • contribs)} — 14:55, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- For the treatment of non-muslims part the Criticism of Islam article simply has a sentence about Islamic apartheid ChrisLamb 19:35, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if WP wants to continue to report "allegations" and to use the term "apartheid" beyond its application to South Africa, its use in regards to Islam's treatment of women has borne the term, which between "Islamic Apartheid" and "Muslim Apartheid" gets a few thousand google hits, and seems to be used as an allegation. Carlossuarez46 19:12, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment We don't currently have Allegations of Christian apartheid, but I think such an article could be created, imho if this stays the door is open for one on every major religion, how do you feel about that? --Bleh999 23:29, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to create it, if you can find WP:RSes that use that terminology. I don't feel bad at all about it, if it can be done. I don't have to defend Christianity from its critics. True faiths never need defending. Carlossuarez46 21:07, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The international media coverage referenced in the article indicate a level of notability suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. PCock 19:56, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per PCock Arkon 23:28, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Criticism of Islam. There's some good material here, but it's inappropriately cast as "allegations of apartheid". This has more to do with a POV-pushing effort to "contextualise" allegations of Israeli apartheid than it does with the material itself. —Ashley Y 04:40, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - just as notable as other allegations articles.--Urthogie 15:12, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly keep and rename? This article seems to be mushing together two entirely different things, only one of which may be notable. I'm not sure about this concept of treating dhimmi badly or how many ghits an allegation of apartheid has to have to be notable, but "gender apartheid" islam gets 46,100 hits on google[3], which seems like a notable allegation to me. Major feminist organizations seem to be using this trope to draw attention to the status of women in Muslim countries. (See, e.g., http://www.feminist.org/afghan/facts.html.) I might delete the stuff about dhimmi and rename the article to "Allegations of gender apartheid in Muslim-majority countries" or something similar. I oppose a merge, having worked on the women and Islam section of the criticism of Islam article. When I was reworking things, I actually tried to merge it all in but moved it back because it seemed unnecessary to have a list of people who have called it "apartheid" for its own sake, because readers of "Criticism of Islam" probably don't care. On the other hand, readers of an article specifically about allegations of apartheid would care. Calliopejen1 09:00, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Criticism of Islam. This article doesn't say anything that isn't said there, plus the soiurces it mentions are weak (a few journalists for the most part).PiCo 01:35, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, google hits generally aren't worth anything, neither are WP:ALLORNOTHING arguments. there doesn't appear to be specific unanimity on the meaning/usage of the phrase either. much of it is simply a replication of the material in Dhimmi and Criticism of Islam. ITAQALLAH 23:36, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep at least as notable as allegations of Israeli apartheid, although it might get a lot fewer hits because it's a little-discussed topic unlike Israeli policies. However, gender apartheid in the Islamic world is a well-known subject to most people. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 00:13, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you won't have any objection to the creation of Allegations of Christian apartheid, because Israel is state whereas islamic refers to a religion the comparison is not entirely valid, there are enough sources to create similar articles for other major religions however. Bleh999 02:48, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge with Criticism of Islam. This article's raison d'etre is to mirror Allegations of Israeli apartheid, but there are no RS-foundations on which to build the comparison. Casual journalistic pieces, interviews and so on have used the word "apartheid" passingly and rhetorically to describe oppression of women and non-Muslims under Islamism, but there are no sustained scholarly, historical, or even journalistic comparisons between Islam and apartheid – only passing mentions, so the RS-context couldn't be more different from that of the Israeli case. To call the result a quote farm would be an unmerited compliment, because farms involve things which are rooted and substantial. This is more like a quote bouquet. Wildflowers gathered in this way may please the picker but they invariably wilt quickly and die off the vine.--G-Dett 17:09, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Criticism of Islam. Obvious POV fork motivated by the existence of the Allegations of Israeli apartheid. An Allegations of Saudi apartheid and Allegations of Iranian apartheid, if properly sourced and notable might fly, but to allege a religion - not a State - engages in apartheid is beyond any logical reasoning.--Cerejota 17:06, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- OOOPS. Allegations of Saudi apartheid already exists, sorry.--Cerejota 17:13, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: An obvious phenomena in Islam, documented as well. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 01:37, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Well documented fact that the Islamic treatment of women and non-Musims has been described as apartheid. Article is well sourced. Epson291 06:27, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete:per Itaqallah.--Flamgirlant 06:47, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Deletion of this article would be atrocious. Gender apartheid is an institutionalized reality in countries such as Saudi Arabia and Iran, and formerly in Taliban Afghanistan. Seeing as women constitute half of the entire human population, their legal, social and political disenfranchisement should garner the same level of outrage as racial apartheid did in South Africa. Despite its obvious sameness to that regime, however, it does not, and gender is not even recognised as being apartheid in the definitions of that crime in international law. Deleting this title would be an affront to the half of the population rendered sub-human by these regimes. User:Thalgs 10:54, 2 July 2007
- Even on glancing at the other related pages referenced above, I think it's important to have this page as a stand-alone. Or, perhaps if there is to be any merge, the page should be retitled "gender apartheid". --[[User:Thalgs] 11:05, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
  - Comment None of that is part of any Wikipedia criteria for deletion.--Flamgirlant 09:15, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment - suggest you have a look at Sex segregation in Islam. Addhoc 11:12, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a news search for Islamic apartheid produces 4 results, while a similar search for Israel apartheid produces nearly 400. Subject is covered adequately by Sex segregation in Islam, Women and Islam, Allegations of Saudi Arabian apartheid, Dhimmi and Criticism of Islam. If anything a new article on the Islamic cultural apartheid in France could possibly be created, however we already have sufficient generalist articles on this subject area. Addhoc 11:10, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge it seems like this is a touchy issue due to comparisons with other articles and the much more global turmoil in the Middle East. Some arguments above seem to touch on the idea of 'equality', in that since there is an article about Israel with the big "A"-word in the title, there has to be an article about the other side of the Middle East conflict that also has the big "A"-word in it or we aren't being "equal". However, wikipedia does not operate on the "give all POV equal weight" principle, we operate on the NPOV principle that says don't give undue weight. Unfortunately, the use of the big "A"-word in relation to Islam is less notable than the use of the big "A"-word with Israel. You can see from the Treatment of non-Muslims as alleged apartheid section that it is just a small collection of web links that happen to use the big "A"-word. (and come on, a blog is being used as a reliable source?) Plus, most of those stories are dealing with "Saudi Arabia" which, BTW, already has an article: Allegations of Saudi Arabian apartheid. As for the treatment of women under Islam, this already has multiple articles: Sex segregation in Islam, Women and Islam, etc. I agree that the treatment of women under Islam is often criticized, and I agree that the term "gender apartheid" is used, however and article about the criticism of women under Islam should not be reduced to a single controversial term that not all critics use. I think we should discuss criticisms in the corresponding existing articles, in a neutral manner, and even mention the big "A"-word is sometimes used by critics. However, I do not believe a short list of people who use this word is notable enough, nor does it adequately cover the much more extensive treatment of the topic. Limiting an article based on whether a critic uses the big "A"-word or not is severely limiting the literature we cite. Finally, I also get a feeling that some editors do not want the Israeli apartheid article to exist, but since that has been unsuccessful 6 times in the past, it seems to them the only way to "get even" or "settle the score" is to keep this article. Look, we can all agree that the big "A"-word is used less in the criticism of Islam than it is in the criticism of Israel, and if you think the Israeli apartheid article should go, then there is no objective reason why this article needs to stay (sure, there are subjective reasons, but we should try to approach this situation individually, and not cite that "other crap exists" already). In summary, an article about Dhimmi can give more holistic coverage of criticism than an article that singles out critics based on the use of one pejorative term. I see no reason to fork out content based solely on the use of the big "A"-word, and therefore view this article as a POV fork.-Andrew c 14:19, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as all this info appears in other relevant articles, especially criticism of Islam, dhimmi, and Women and Islam. A comparison with the article on Israel is a canard because one is a political entity and the other is not. Jayran 06:19, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Articles should be about real things, not about political catchphrases or epithets (e.g. Flying while Muslim). And yes, the Israeli Apartheid article should be deleted for the same reason - although it is true, as observed, that in the war of epithets, this is more common. It is depressing to see that in so many of these AfD's so many (though not all) !votes are cast solely based on POV; this is easy to see by following a number of them and observing how editors effortlessly adopt the very same standards that their opponents used on the last one, and vice-versa. So long as the criteria remain so loosely defined, no doubt we will continue on this path of creating these articles and bickering about them as they are rightfully brought up for repeated deletion discussions, most of which will fail for lack of consensus, and persist as lasting reminders to readers that we aren't, after all, a serious academic resource.Proabivouac 19:31, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge POV forks are a bad thing. Jtrainor 21:42, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, no merge. Per Sefringle, and also, Islamic Sharia law and Dhimmi status, is indeed Apartheid for non-muslims and women. No one in his right mind can deny this. It's also a notable subject, and shouldn't be deleted due to religious censorship. EliasAlucard|Talk 04:22 04 Jul, 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 delete. I'll have the honors on this one. The reason for my decision is that no likely improvements are to be made, besides the fact that this discussion has ensued for over a month. I hold no prejudice toward recreation on the condition that appropriate verifiable sourcing is found. Sr 13 05:55, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sundiata Xian Tellem

The article is poorly written, isn't sourced, and he fails WP:BIO. Delete GreenJoe 15:44, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge already Has a article as an author. best to put this info there--Cryo921 17:57, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Where? -- saberwyn 23:43, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I merged the other article into this one. Still non-notable. GreenJoe 00:06, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete he's nn based on his political career; and his books are nn, too. Spring break with Melanie Nuntia ranks 4,047,668 at Amazon.com; Reptilian Aliens A Book of Memes is ranked 1,537,157; and the others aren't even ranked at Amazon.com. There is no assertion of notability; being on some bookclub's lukewarm review receipts list doesn't confer notability. Carlossuarez46 22:09, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Green Party Black Caucus Co-chair, published author. Poorly written and lack of sources are grounds for rewrite and sourcing, not deletion.--killing sparrows ^(chirp!) 05:33, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, W.marsh 21:00, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --GreenJoe 21:22, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and merge political parts of article to Green Party of Texas. If sources indicating notability beyond that come along later (since his literary career appears non-notable currently), the article is free to be restarted. SnowFire 00:28, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is anyone going to close this? Relisting, I guess. SnowFire 21:32, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SnowFire 21:32, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - when I first looked at this one, I was on the fence. However, no improvement seems to be happening, and it's been relisted 3 (!) times, which pushes me slightly towards delete, since no one seems likely to work on it. No strong prejudice against recreation though. Charlie-talk to me-what I've done 22:12, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:28, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:29, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Anas ^talk? 22:11, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DBLOCK

Non-notable code for Halo. Also appears to be a slight ad for the gaming clan listed in article, and I find it hard to believe that "(T$) clan and microsoft have also worked quite alot with the new halo" Wildthing61476 21:22, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - nothing remotely notable about this, and the article is otherwise unsalvageable. — Swpb ^{talk contribs} 22:18, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete absolutely reeks of hoax (nothing on Google about this either) and even if true, articles on individual game cheats are cruft. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:20, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It really does sound like a hoax, and doesn't cite any sources. — Wen li ^(contribs) 01:57, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:29, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom. --Kukini ^{hablame aqui} 00:21, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete as CSD G12. Naconkantari 00:41, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

James Sclater

Non-notable professor Leeannedy 21:16, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete appears to be largely a cut-and-paste (and thus likely copyvio) of this. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:13, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per {{db-copyvio}}, so tagged. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 23:44, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Honestly, I don't care whether the article gets into BJAODN or not. But if someone wants it there so bad, they can ask me for the content. Sr 13 06:07, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pokemon Flynon version

Clearly unreferenced and unsupported. This article appears to be either a hoax or a piece of wishful thinking on the part of its creator. Note, for example, the complete lack of references on Google, as well as the fact that most of the sections are copied from the author's user page. BassoProfundo 21:11, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- clearly a hoax only google result was an adult blog ChrisLamb 21:17, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a hoax. Someone has some, um, "interesting" wishful thinking. Useight 22:15, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. John Vandenberg 15:32, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Per nom. FunPika 01:25, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Maxa megalon 2000 05:37, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Doesn't exist. --The Raven's Apprentice ^{(PokéNav|Trainer Card)} 16:40, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and indef block User:Austin7895 and User:Sa007ak (probable sock puppets), only contribution : this article and duplicates on their user pages. They keep uploading images they find at random on internet with no license tag, and have no contribution unrelated to "Pokemon Flynon" thing. Jackaranga 01:18, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Same for Kosmo7895. His only mainspace contrib was adding fanfic to an article. And his userpage links to Austin's. --The Raven's Apprentice ^{(PokéNav|Trainer Card)} 02:50, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hold on-- Move to a supbage of BJAODN. Then speedy the redirect. --The Raven's Apprentice ^{(PokéNav|Trainer Card)} 02:50, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hold on per The Raven's Apprentice. JumpingInSlowMotion 07:57, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-Delete this article already, this hoax, proves how flawed Wikipedia's policies are, there's no question that this is fake. Wikipedia is flawed and this article should have been deleted the day it was written. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.159.61.28 (talk)
- Dude, don't be a mastodon. :) --02:52, 30 June 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 delete. Anas ^talk? 22:13, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

James_A._Coker

Non-notable local law enforcement official Leeannedy 20:52, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete- Clearly Fails WP:BIO ChrisLamb 21:01, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not even a chief of police, just a department commander, in a modest-sized city. --Dhartung | Talk 22:03, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Subject does not meet WP:Notability requirements and I must also cite WP:COI since Cokerj is the orginator of the article. Ozgod 05:16, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:30, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable police chief of small city; autobiography. Bearian 18:31, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Anas ^talk? 22:15, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Downtownies

Apparently non-notable online television show. Only about 500 Google hits. Edited almost exclusively by a single-purpose account. I smell a vanity article. —Psychonaut 20:32, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does not meet WP:WEB and also looks like cruft. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (ταlκ) 20:37, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It looks like a bad article. Assuming that the nom has his facts right, delete. Shalom ^Hello 20:40, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nominator. —Psychonaut 20:48, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lacking any reliable, third-party sources and evidencing no notability. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 20:54, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone. Fails WP:WEB. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:45, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No assertion of notability, and no sources cited. — Wen li ^(contribs) 01:58, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per failure to meet WP:WEB. This one is similar to Sim Street, both are non-notable fan cruft with no supporting 3rd party reviews. Subject of article is not really even a TV show, just a set of screen caps with dialog by them. Looks like a vanity article,as the same SPAs were creating a walled garden of articles Sim Brother, Crystal Town and Sim Media possibly to promote their site or for some other vanity purpose. --Dual Freq 05:04, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete the other pages if you must, but the Sim Media page shouldn't be deleted on the grounds that it isn't simply a 'fan cruft' (whatever that means. )It is a real fansite, and there was no call for any deletion of it before article on the shows it hosts were made. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jamster 4 (talk • contribs) 18:47, 26 June 2007.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:32, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:57, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hay Grade

Subject may not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Hay Grade is a proprietary HR evaluation method and it is unclear if even its creator, the Hay Group meets notability guidelines. It has been a year since the article was created and no contributors were able to establish enough facts about the subject to assert notability. The articles that link to this subject also does not assert the importance of using the Hay Grade as an evaluation method. -- Emana 20:21, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Neologism Corpx 20:35, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I found one reference to this in Google Books. The "Hay Job Evaluation System" (of which this seems to be a derivative part) is the more general and better-known term. Google Books results Possibly salvageable with a massive rewrite, not sure if it's worth it. (Hay Group itself is a major employment consultant and has been for decades; it should be trivial to source.) --Dhartung | Talk 22:08, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This article was probably requested by somebody who was too lazy to Google it. It is true that the Hay Group does have extensive market reach in its industry, but the term or usage of it may not be notable enough to be its own article. It may be more worthwhile to expand the Hay Group article. -- Emana 19:44, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:33, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete consensus is for deletion but even without such a consensus the copyright violations would take precedence anyway. Gnan garra 14:29, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just a Minute Radio Episodes

Wikipedia is not an indiscrminate collection of information. List seems to promote Tripod site with transcripts, which is a big ol' violation of WP:EL right there but so help me if I don't have the patience to remove 671 inappropriate links. -- Merope 20:18, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Seems rather like list cruft to me. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (ταlκ) 20:29, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Or at least add a link to the information and the transcripts to the Just a Minute page. This is useful information for people looking for specific episodes. Most people who have heard a few episodes will ask themselves "what did Peter Jones actually say about utilitarianism? and was it really Peter Jones?" or questions like that. Wikipedia's task is to answer people's questions. I would much rather remove all the hundreds of Simpson episode guides. Mlewan 20:47, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. We can't keep the links at all -- they violate WP:EL. -- Merope 20:49, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Could someone explain which part of WP:EL it violates to link to transcripts and lists of episodes? Mlewan 03:30, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Assuming the transcripts aren't being published with the BBC's express permission, WP:EL#Restrictions_on_linking item number 1. JulesH 14:17, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Ok. I see the point. I do not necessarily agree with it, but this is not the place to discuss policies. I stick to my keep anyhow. And if the article were to be deleted, it would be good to have a link to an external episode list, even if we avoid transcripts which are not 100% guaranteed to be 100% legal in all countries. Mlewan 18:22, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Barely notable radio program may deserve its own article but this is a list of trivia that links to hundreds of copyright violations. This is a banned use of external links per WP:EL and according to that policy these links absolutely must be removed - every one of them - to avoid contributory infringement. Without the links the article is just a useless list. --Charlene 21:14, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever the merits of this particular page "Just a minute" is not a 'barely notable' radio programme. It's one of the most popular programmes on BBC Radio 4 in the UK, the serious speech network, and has been running for decades. It's actually one of the most notable radio programmes there is along with "I'm sorry I havent' a clue" and has a large and loyal following. Nick mallory 00:11, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heard right around the globe, too. Not convinced that we need a list of its episodes, though, so weak delete. Oh and sorry Nick, but I'm going to have to buzz you for repetition of "programmes". Grutness...wha? 00:55, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A point for a correct challenge. The subject is "Just a minute radio episodes", you have twenty nine seconds and your time starts..now. Nick mallory 02:51, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The "barely notable" above is an insult, see for example how the summary of its rules has passed into common usage in British English. But this article is just listcruft and ten times too big. The author should move it to the tripod site. -- RHaworth 06:30, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are episode guides for every television show under the sun on Wikipedia, sometimes with a separate page for each episode, so I don't see any problem with an episode guide for Just a Minute. If the links are the problem, they can be removed or discussed on the article's talk page, but deleting the article because of them would be throwing out the baby with the bath water. Gengulfus 08:07, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Episode lists might be useful for shows that tell an ongoing story, but I fail to see any encyclopedic value in a list of panelists and the subjects they talked about on a panel game. JulesH 14:17, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:34, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:34, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Wikipedia is not paper. Nothing "barely notable" about Just a Minute. AndyJones 17:58, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Because I am a glutton for punishment, I am trying to remove all of the external links and wikify some of the subjects. I've noticed that there are appalling spelling errors which can be best explained by someone transcribing the episodes without an understanding of what he or she was hearing (my favorite example is "Hyerotitus" for "Herodotus"). Amusingly, or, well, not, the a number of the links don't work. I googled "Hyerotitus" to find the transcript online, and I see that this page is copied and pasted (and wikified) from [4], for example. My question now is whether this is a copyright violation -- it's text directly lifted and reproduced, though a lot of it is information that isn't subject to copyright, such as the names of the persons in each episode. Any thoughts? I'm back to working on removing the links; only 400 more to go. -- Merope 18:33, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I've no real time to review your question, but I would change my vote if this turned out to be a copyvio. AndyJones 19:59, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 06:49, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ECW Most Extreme Player

Non-notable website award. Was proded (and endorsed) but templates have been removed. Oakster Talk 20:11, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete Not notable enough to be on wikipedia. Also, less than a year old Corpx 20:33, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Textbook case of WP:NOT#INFO. It's a trivial award without any real-world meaning. Shalom ^Hello 20:42, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks more like a trivia article, maybe a brief mention on ECW, but not with that list.--JForget 00:31, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per JForget — Wen li ^(contribs) 01:59, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it really does look like a trivia article, a non-notable trivia article. Nikki311 04:11, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
please dont delete the page, what can i do to improve it? George bennett 16:04, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:35, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per nom, trivial trivia, and the words "Someone please add a picture" do not help. Darrenhusted 16:48, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to http://prowrestling.wikia.com/ John Vandenberg 04:11, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Cruft MPJ-DK 11:32, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This information is irrelevant. Sorry Bennett, you're fighting a losing battle. --SteelersFan UK06 14:28, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note Author of the page, George bennett has, on more than one occasion, attempted to alter this discussion, such as removing other user's comments and even removing all comments from the page.--SteelersFan UK06 18:51, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete its unsourced and without any direct confirmation from an editor who hasnt edited since May I'm reluctant to userfy. That said if JakeVortex (talk · contribs) contacts another administrator or myself specifically requesting for it to be userfied with the intention of improving the article then that should occur. Gnan garra 14:38, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IEEE 754r/Annex Z

I'm creating this nomination page on User:EdJohnston's behalf, so he probably knows the reason better than I do, but from what I see the page is unreferenced, asserts little independant notability, and could be covered quite well as a subsection of the IEEE 754r page. --tjstrf talk 20:10, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Thanks to tjstrf for completing the nomination! (I was defeated by the slash in the article name). Here's what I would have put in the nomination statement: 'The latest draft of the IEEE 754r proposal contains no Annex Z and nothing about arbitrary precision formats. (The word 'arbitrary' does not occur in the text). The last edit in which anyone added new technical information to the present article was 31 March, 2005, by an editor named JakeVortex who has not come back here since. It appears that this is an obsolete proposal that might have been considered at one time for inclusion in IEEE754r but is no longer active. Deletion seems the wisest course. That would make the previous suggestion of merging the material to IEEE 754r unnecessary. In fact, there is no properly-referenced material to merge. I left a message for JakeVortex, the creator of the article'. EdJohnston 21:14, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it would be better in the IEEE 754r article, but from what I see, the information is unlikely to be scavenged and is an implausible typo. Will ^(talk) 20:16, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Savidan 22:30, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Except for some geek conference from 2004 [5], the only mention of this on the web appears to be Wikipedia and mirrors. Whatever it was was left by the wayside. -N 00:36, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:36, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy them to User:JakeVortex who has been participating in the process to some degree. A mention on the main article already exists, and this article is full of details that are not verifiable unless we can get our hands on the Annex Z. However, this mentions the Wikipedia pages as a resource, and IEEE 754r/Annex L is also a work in progress by the same user. John Vandenberg 17:06, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The current version of IEEE 754r contains no Annex L either. I suspect that the Annex L article should also should be deleted. (A proposal that was never made is surely not notable). I wish we could get the attention of User:JakeVortex (=Jeff Kidder, according to his user page) but his email is not enabled and he's not edited since May. EdJohnston 17:41, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, changing !vote to userfy this and Annex L. -N 20:26, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy 132.205.44.5 01:11, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete to be replaced by a redirect. — Scientizzle 01:10, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're Crashing, But You're No Wave

AfDs for this article:

prod removed by IP, this article simply copies information from the Infinity On High article. ChrisLamb 19:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment sorry for the previous nominations for some reason they appeared red on the article page and did not show up on the list ChrisLamb 20:03, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unless more sources are found and integrated. Evouga 03:01, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:37, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing notable about this song. A redirect to its parent album page will suffice. GassyGuy 10:24, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep, only one delete vote and a ton of keep votes, and the delete vote was for an older version of the article. A consensus has obviously been reached by now. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 18:10, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ana María Martínez

Unsourced stub about a non-notable opera singer. E ddie 19:48, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:BIO, no independent secondary sources verify her notability. MastCell ^Talk 20:04, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Source and then speedy keep. Of course she's notable; she's singing Donna Elvira at Covent Garden this season. Blurb from her management agency. (Which of course can't be used directly, but will provide leads to real RS.) Article needs work, not deletion.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bpmullins (talk • contribs)
- Comment- If there's no media coverage, then it doesn't meet WP:MUSIC. Eddie 20:13, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - I don't know about notability but here is a potential source. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (ταlκ) 20:21, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep She's won a Grammy, clearly meeting WP:MUSIC. Wildthing61476 20:23, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment- The article says nothing about a Grammy. Eddie 20:29, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Her site says she won a Latin Grammy Corpx 20:32, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment - And if you want 3P, read my source. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (ταlκ) 20:33, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - The source is not a reliable third party source, as IMG is the artist's manager (see here). E ddie 20:46, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        The Grammy award is easily sourced, she won the 2001 Latin Grammy for best Classical Album (per the Official Grammy Website). Wildthing61476 20:50, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Source properly. Then it will meet WP:MUSIC and WP:BIO. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (ταlκ) 20:35, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Forgive my ignorance, is a Latin Grammy not considered a major award? Wildthing61476 20:36, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I believe it is. Eddie 20:42, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment - I believe it would be a major award, as well. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (ταlκ) 20:44, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment Piling on: yes, it is a major award. --Charlene 21:16, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, NPR source. Corvus cornix 21:09, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I have expanded it some. Corvus cornix 21:36, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, easily passes WP:RS and WP:N. She's won a Latin Grammy, which in itself is notable. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 21:58, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Based on the original article, I can see why the nomination was made. Corvus cornix 22:05, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, obviously notable. 400+ Google News Archive results show how easily this article could be sourced. The stub was perfectly acceptable and the nominator should have exercised more diligence. Note: Unless MastCell changes vote, article appears ineligible for WP:SK. --Dhartung | Talk 22:21, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that the article is now acceptable, but I would like to know is why you think the three-sentence unreferenced stub was acceptable. Eddie 22:35, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - It made assertions of notability which were trivially verifiable. {{unreferenced}} solves the sort of problem you see, not AFD. --Dhartung | Talk 23:40, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly notable. ¿SFGiДnts! ^{¿Complain! ¿Analyze! ¿Review!} 23:37, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As mentioned clearly notable; winner of a Latin Grammy. Ozgod 05:18, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:38, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:38, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Anas ^talk? 22:17, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Melissa Lane

Fails WP:BIO she is a non-notable local politician ChrisLamb 19:42, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Relevant part of WP:BIO requires "international, national or statewide/provincewide office" for notability. She doesn't meet those criteria, nor has she been the subject of any cited independent secondary sources. Therefore, fails WP:BIO - delete. MastCell ^Talk 20:07, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Same notability as this person Corpx 20:29, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn. JJL 21:10, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Although the Council of the District of Columbia is the ranking equivalent of a state legislature, subject has not reached that level. Fails WP:BIO. --Dhartung | Talk 22:24, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO and is non-notable. — Wen li ^(contribs) 01:59, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I will concur with the previous editors who have stated that she has failed not only the WP:BIO requirements but WP:Notability as well. Ozgod 05:19, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:44, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete as per above. Being in a volunteer political position -- even in a capital city -- does not make one notable. Bearian 18:29, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete all. Anas ^talk? 22:19, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Richa Aneja

Being a contestant on reality show does not confer automatic notability. Fails WP:BIO. I am also nominating:

-- Merope 19:40, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all as lacking in independent, reliable secondary sources and thereby failing WP:BIO. MastCell ^Talk 20:09, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all Only known for 1 event, hence failing WP:BIO - Can be notable if they do something notable outside the show Corpx 20:30, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I stand by my longtime opinion that reality show contestants are not inherently notable, and there is no other assertion of notability for these people. Shalom ^Hello 20:44, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all The only difference between a game show contestant and a reality show contestant is the name the corporate suits give the shows. Reality shows *are* game shows, no exception. Since game show contestants are only notable in extreme cases unless they're notable for other reasons, the same should apply to reality shows. --Charlene 21:20, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all gameshow contestants are not inherently notable. Resolute 03:36, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:45, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Peacent 03:06, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lenwood Johnson

Fails WP:BIO he is a non-notable local politician ChrisLamb 19:40, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails both general WP:BIO criteria (no independent secondary-source coverage) and the politician-specific criteria of WP:BIO (not a holder of international, national, or statewide office). MastCell ^Talk 20:10, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Same as this person Corpx 20:28, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable.--Mantanmoreland 14:32, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:46, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Anas ^talk? 22:20, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Consultationologist

Neologism and dicdef. (Disputed prod). -- RHaworth 19:19, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Per nom ChrisLamb 19:21, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per above - not a dictionary Corpx
Delete: Unsourced neologism, dicdef, possibly made up in school one day, etc. MastCell ^Talk 20:11, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everything said above. — Wen li 20:23, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Probably WP:NFT, and maybe WP:HOAX. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (ταlκ) 20:25, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. JJL 21:11, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; only ghits are to Wikipedia. John Vandenberg 15:47, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Peacent 03:11, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Crossley

Declined prod. Article is about a footballer who has never won anything major or has done anything other than play professionally. It is unsourced and has few g-hits, many of which are another Ryan Crossley. There are zero WP links to it and is heck, only one sentence long. Reywas92^Talk 19:14, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: My gut says delete, but WP:BIO (on athletes) says that "Competitors who have played in a fully professional league" are notable; I'm not 100% clear on this, but it appears he qualifies. MastCell ^Talk 20:13, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You know what would be handy? If at the top of the page for every league (not necessarily the teams, but the league) it said "This team plays in a fully professional league" or "This team played in a fully professional league from year x to x". This would make deciding whether someone actually passes WP:BIO so much easier. --Charlene 21:23, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If he played for Huddersfield Town in a competitive game then he'd be notable; however soccerbase.com claims he was only a trainee there, and allfootballers.com has no record of him (or indeed any other Ryan Crossley) playing in the league. Unless it can be shown otherwise, he doesn't pass WP:BIO. EliminatorJR ^Talk 22:49, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude 07:29, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As he's only ever played in the lower leagues, or for Huddersfield Town Youth, he fails WP:BIO. Daemonic Kangaroo 07:50, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It seems clear that he didn't play at a professional level, so he does not meet notability requirements.--EH74DK 18:12, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In the articles current state I will go with delete, however if the article was improved and had citation that he played professional that would help. I noticed it said he was a professional footballer. I don't know if he is retired now, but according to that DOB, 27 can be an early retired. There would be some kind of injury report that can confirm what happened to him. But as it is, delete. Govvy 11:21, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per D. Kangaroo. slυмgυм [ ←→ ] 12:17, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Although he was contracted to Huddersfield, he never appears to have played for their first team. Soccerbase shows only an appearance for Bradford Park Lane, which is not a team in a fully professional league. Robotforaday 12:12, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination as utterly non-notable. Burntsauce 18:18, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Stupid bowl

The result was Merge to Howard Stern Show Games and Bits. Sancho 19:52, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable program on "OnDemand" channel. No third party reliable sources. — Ocatecir ^T 19:11, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Merge to Howard Stern Show Games and Bits. — Ocatecir ^T 19:11, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Per above -Corpx 19:35, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Howard Stern Show Games and Bits. MastCell ^Talk 20:14, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. ¿SFGiДnts! ^{¿Complain! ¿Analyze! ¿Review!} 23:38, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect - Non-notable TV show with no reliable sources. Article was created and developed, but has not grown or changed since February. I already suggested merge on this article back around its initial creation. This article is different from the lingerie bowl articles where multiple media outlets covered those events. Optigan13 04:43, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:48, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per MastCell. Precious Roy 08:13, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge & Redirect to minimum wage. Most of the content has apparently already been merged, but I'll create a soft redirect so that as-yet unmerged content can be readily accessed... — Scientizzle 17:31, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Minimum wage economics

Is a neologism created by the author to create a fork of minimum wage

Delete Minimum wage discusses the economics, as would any reasonable article on the topic. Relevant discussion can be read at Talk:Minimum wage#Oh dear. ~ UBeR 19:08, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge with Minimum wage. -Ĭ₠ŴΣĐĝё^(autographs) 19:21, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Minimum wage subsumes this page. Wikiant 19:24, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't. (i.e. Don't delete the article but Keep) The issues dealing with economics on the minimum wage are so big that they deserve their own page. I simultaneously recommending a slimming down of the economic material there, which the above have not addressed. No doubt this material will continue to expand, and there is nothing wrong with that. But it is big enough to deserve its own separate page. Clearly the minimum wage "subsumes" this page, the main article discusses the same and this is a "fork" of it. That's the whole point! These three statements above make no case for deletion whatsoever. Wik idea 20:02, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Content fork. The parent article, minimum wage, can and should cover this in depth, and it's not so long or disorganized that it requires a spinoff. MastCell ^Talk 20:16, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Agree with User:Wikidea. The parent article can cover the economics in a brief overview and this article can discuss it in greater detail. --Richard 06:19, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:49, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect or Keep per Wikidea if new content is referenced and large enough.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 17:42, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Minimum wage per above--Sefringle^Talk 22:42, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. __earth ^(Talk) 14:28, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:58, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alma Gates

Fails WP:BIO she is a non-notable local politician ChrisLamb 19:09, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Being a member of a local committee is not notable. Lenwood Johnson and Melissa Lane also meet the same criteria Corpx 19:37, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails general and politician-specific WP:BIO criteria. MastCell ^Talk 20:16, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable and fails WP:BIO. — Wen li 20:24, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn. JJL 21:11, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:BIO. Subject is not a member of the Council of the District of Columbia, the statewide legislature equivalent. --Dhartung | Talk 22:26, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:49, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep needs to be rewritten and more references put in. But person is notable.Callelinea 20:16, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable, volunteer polician, a dime a dozen. Bearian 18:33, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge/Redirect. — Scientizzle 17:41, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Higginson

Has done nothing outside of the context of his band which already has it's own page. Completely fails WP:MUSIC. Jimmi Hugh 18:56, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Doesnt the band having notability transcend the notability to its members? Corpx 19:39, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Plain White T's. Notability is not automatically inherited by members of a notable band. What little sourced content there is could easily be merged into the band's article. MastCell ^Talk 20:18, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:50, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
merge as per MastCell. Kripto 11:21, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per MastCell. Ratio cinate 13:54, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete (A7).--Hús ö nd 23:04, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nana Boateng

PROD removed by IP user. This junior footballer fails Wikipedia's notability guideline and might be a hoax. I found no sources for a player of that name with Millwall, Tottenham or anywhere, so I doubt that he was invited to play for 3(!) different U16 national teams. Malc82 18:43, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, junior atheletes are defined as non noteable I belive. -Ĭ₠ŴΣĐĝё^(autographs) 19:24, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Added speedy tags Corpx 19:40, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable and badly written. — Wen li ^(contribs) 20:27, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete A7 per Corpx; author has probable WP:COI and has been reported to AIV for removing tags. Shalom ^Hello 23:00, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep, nominator withdrawn. Non-admin closure. -- Jimmi Hugh 14:38, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interactive PR

~~Yet another "Web 2.0" Neologism, completely unsourced and non-existent on google, beyond blog references.~~ I would like to withdraw on the grounds that i am a rushed imbecile. Apologies. Jimmi Hugh 18:38, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Non-existent on Google" --?? It gets 24,800,000 hits! Tomcat66 g500 19:02, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well i get around 30,000... but i went through the first 15 pages, and as i said in the nom. it is all in unknown Blogs or used as a term without description. There are not numerous serious articles on the word and it is clearly not encylopedic content. -- Jimmi Hugh 19:07, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- <points to http://www.prfirms.org/resources/interactive/> It is used on The Council of Public Relations Firms Website and, I would consider that something other than an "Unknown Blog" ChrisLamb 19:19, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah i am really stuffed for a rebuttal after this one. -- Jimmi Hugh 19:20, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, the entry is okay then?71.210.155.136 20:12, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now: per sources provided above (e.g. Council of Public Relations Firms), but still on the fence as to whether there's enough there to create an encyclopedic article. MastCell ^Talk 20:20, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is also an interactive PR event <points to http://www.eventme.com/Event.aspx?Event=eoBYQ2ktoxQ&In=New-York-City> as well as a public group devoted to the topic on Ma.gnolia <points to http://ma.gnolia.com/groups/interactivepr> among other uses. The comment about "unknown blogs" also struck me as inappropriately condescending, but Jimmi Hugh is forgiven.71.210.155.136 22:13, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ironic that you are almost condescending to me in this post. My apologies to all, if an admin doesn't clear it soon, someone should Ignore All Rules and save me a tiny little bit of embarasment. I'll make sure not to rush next time. -- Jimmi Hugh 22:31, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What will it take to clear this? The article isn't perfect, but that's why I posted it here -- so the community can help improve it. Deleting it isn't the answer. Hope you are okay now Jimmi Hugh.Tomcat66 g500 14:16, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well would you say the rule of waiting for an admin to end this is preventing us from improving wikipedia? I would say so, so i'm going to ignore all rules and close it myself. -- Jimmi Hugh 14:33, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Article fails notability. ChrisO 21:37, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trusted Opinion

Fails WP:CORP and is borderline advertising - No reviews by media except some mentions in blog-ish type sites Corpx 18:37, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree with above: The article avoids superlatives, and attempts to be a clear description of the service that the website provides. The website review cited is not a "mention in a blog-ish site", but a formal review by Michael Arrington of TechCrunch. Michael Arrington is considered a highly influential figure in the Web 2.0 community, and is frequently cited in the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, L.A. Times, CNN, and many other leading newspapers and other publications. Please also note that his review was critical of the company in places, and a fair and honest assessment of the new technology leveraged by this site. tngreene 18:51, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TechCrunch is a blog Corpx 19:47, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How does a review by an industry expert in a leading blog with readership exceeding many print publications not count as "reviews by media"? tngreene 21:20, 25 June 2007
As much readership as some blogs might get, they're not media. Readership doesnt grant a site media status Corpx 20:26, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete: I don't think a single, brief mention in a blog (however well-known the blog is) gets this over the WP:CORP bar for me. Note that "if the depth of coverage is not substantial, multiple independent sources" may be required to establish notability. Others may disagree, though. MastCell ^Talk 20:23, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not sufficiently sourced and it is written like an advert. VanTucky 20:31, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Article Update--> Added another source (winner of the Israel Web Tour 2006), and changed language in the first paragraph that some may consider to sound "like an advert". Does this alleviate both concerns? tngreene ^Talk 20:44, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. It still does not meet the WP:Notability guideline for Companies. And if it is as notable as you purport, shouldn't it have 1. notable criticisms of it and its practices and 2. Have the overview written in much broader strokes, and less PR language created to market itself. Here's some examples of just some of the more explicitly advert-like language, "The benefit of this recommendation model is that it avoids commercial bias by always weighing friends’ opinions higher than those of a stranger." (this needs sourcing like mad), "TrustedOpinion.com is designed for "people discovery"...". The Israeli thing needs to be referenced in proper format, and it alone (blogs do not count for notability) is not nearly enough. A simple cleanup of the style of language now present is not enough. This article is written like an advert bc it provides no reliable, published independent sources and is just drunken cheerleading for Trusted Opinion and its services throughout the entire thing. VanTucky 20:57, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:51, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. — Scientizzle 01:26, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Natalie Rogers

Contested speedy, then prod. Non-notable person. All Google hits are either links to booksellers carrying her books, her own sites or sites of those with whom she is directly associated. Ties to several organizations listed which don't have their own articles. Author attempts to assert notability because "she has also admirably carried on the legacy of her father Carl Rogers" (from edit summary), but notability is not often inherited. No reliable outside sources given. Article seems to be more to promote Ms. Rogers, especially given original author's glowing remarks in edit summaries. Many publications listed appear to be self-published, though I can't verify that. I just don't think she meets notability standards, and this article exists largely to promote her. Realkyhick 18:25, 25 June 2007 (UTC) (further edited 18:31, 25 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Weak Delete She really hasnt done anything notable outside her trade-publications Corpx 19:42, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:BIO at present (no independent, reliable secondary sources demonstrating notability, and notability of her father is not inherited). However, the article is quite new; if such independent, reliable secondary sources turn up by the end of the AfD, I'll change my opinion. MastCell ^Talk 20:25, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:51, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Based on the information currently in the article, she doesn't appear to be particularly notable, and I'm concerned that this article may become a WP:COATRACK on which to hang a lot of the article's redlinked educational programs and organizations. (Perhaps the first stone of a walled garden?) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:10, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Anas ^talk? 22:20, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Wonders (channelled collective consciousness)

Nonsense "collective consciousness", AfD article created as db-nonsense wasn't quite accurate but I couldn't find something better. Strong Delete as either a hoax or just nonsense. Improbcat 18:14, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Unreferenced, therefore nn-group. -- RHaworth 18:16, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Bollocks. Realkyhick 18:28, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:ORG. "Bollocks" is, alas, not a speedy-deletion criteria (though it should be, and then we wouldn't need all of the others). MastCell ^Talk 20:26, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well there is Wikipedia:Complete bollocks, but alas that is also not policy. I am delighted that you brought up WP:ORG though, I wouldn't have thought to apply that one. Improbcat 15:25, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Non-notable, unreferenced, and badly written. — Wen li ^(contribs) 20:30, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete per nom. Not quite worth an A7, as "wider public awareness" is an assertion of notability. Not quite worth a G1, as it's at least comprehensible. But, it should go, and go quickly. Tevildo 21:18, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above. ¿SFGiДnts! ^{¿Complain! ¿Analyze! ¿Review!} 23:39, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not incomprehensible nonsense, but it is also not notable or verifiable. John Vandenberg 15:56, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Anas ^talk? 22:21, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Periodically Smiling"

Originally tagged as prod, but prod tag was removed without comment. No references, unverifiable. Probable hoax: see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deceptive Overload -- MisterHand 18:08, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. "Windows XP Professional" on an album in 1994? Right. Next! Flyguy649^talk_contribs 18:14, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:HOAX. Gotta do better than this, guys. Realkyhick 18:30, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per above Corpx 19:43, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. — Wen li ^(contribs) 20:31, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; band "Deceptive Overload" is a hoax. John Vandenberg 16:00, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete -- The consensus is that the person doesnt meet the requires of notability. I did notice the opinions expressed JulesH (talk · contribs) together with a number of sources, these sources are mostly from blogs with two being from www.stateline.org which alone may have established notability but neither of the articles was about the subject, the subject was mentioned only in passing. Gnan garra 14:53, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cris Ericson

Both unnotable and subject has expressed desire not to have the article here (she created it and then changed her mind), SqueakBox 17:41, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep To my knowledge the desire of a subject to be included or excluded is notr relevant. The page is encyclopedic as it stands.TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 18:17, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She was a candidate in '04 in a major election which meets our notability requirements, last I checked. Her website http://crisericson.com now redirects to the Vermont Marijuana Party's MySpace page which is soliciting for voters to get someone on the ballot for governor in '08 and though I don't see a name listed, having it redirected from her site makes me think it's her that they're trying to get into office. Dismas|^(talk) 18:27, 25 June 2007 (UTC
- Comment we have no sources whatesoever for this article, SqueakBox 19:36, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Candidates for legislative or state/provincial do not meet our notability requirements. In many countries a notable position (e.g a position in a provincial legislature) may have twenty or more candidates. That could over a ten year period add up to 10,000 people in Canada alone! The winner is notable per WP:BIO but candidates generally aren't. Edited because I can't add. --Charlene 21:32, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- auto-biographies are not allowed in Wikipedia ChrisLamb 19:31, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Based on her campaigns for office, however big a joke that might be Corpx 19:44, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Gaining less than one percent of the vote in a significant regional election is not sufficient for notability as I understand it. Shalom ^Hello 20:50, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Closing admin please note: User:Crisericson was blocked over a "username concern" that she might be trying to impersonate the subject of this article. It is perfectly clear, looking at her initial edits to this article, that she is the subject of this article. I don't expect her to edit again from this account, but as a formality we should correct the injustice. Shalom ^Hello 20:50, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete Tony is right, it doesn't matter whether subject wants it or not, but this person is clearly not notable. as mentioned, wp:bio states they have to hold office to be notable, and this person hasn't. also, very unlikely anyone would be doing scholarly research on this candidate; any searches or queries would likely be voters seeking information which is her website's job, not wikipedia's. Barsportsunlimited 22:20, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly nn. ¿SFGiДnts! ^{¿Complain! ¿Analyze! ¿Review!} 23:40, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete failed political candidates are not inherently notable. Resolute 03:39, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Subject's wishes are irrelevant. There are large numbers of third party sources about this woman, so clearly meets WP:BIO and WP:N. See: [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] JulesH 14:48, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep per Dismasn and JulesH. It should also be noted that while autobiographies are discouraged, they are not disallowed.--JayJasper 13:13, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vermont-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 16:01, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 16:01, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete just misses out on meeting notability requirements. Cedars 02:30, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Child-Killer has been deleted (expired prod), so there's nothing to merge here. WP:BLP concerns, combined with a lack of sources, equals deletion. — Scientizzle 19:21, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Leo Vardiashvili

Under-age killer. He is mentioned in the separate article on the case, to which I have temporarity redirected this named page. The issue, IMHO, is whether he is notable enough for his own page, separate from the page for the case. And I just do not see it. WP:BLP concerns as well, so I ask that the page remain redirected during this AFD. The most recent version of the full page can be seen here. TexasAndroid 17:37, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is clearly a very difficult and sensitive case, but it appears to me to be disruptive of the deletion process to turn a page into a redirect while the deletion discussion is taking place, without giving us a chance to see what it is we are discussing. If you feel there are exceptional legal problems raise it for administrative action. PatGallacher 18:04, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How can you say I gave no chance for you to see what was being discussed? It's not like I went and deleted it, hiding it from non-admins. The latest version was right there in the history for all to see, and for you to revert. And I gave a direct link to the latest version in my comments. To say that I made it so that it could not be seen is simply incorrect. - TexasAndroid 18:42, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Child-Killer article says the killers, aged 6 and 12, of three children,, aged 8 to 13, were "deemed guilty" but "held unaccountable" under (former Soviet) Georgian law on account of age, so WP:BLP1E would seem to allow deletion of this. It is also lacking references beside a court report to show it was a controversial and notable case. Wikipedia is not a repository of every serious crime in the world. Edison 18:31, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge any information into the article for the case and deal with the BLP concerns there. DGG 21:32, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 16:02, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 16:02, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Changed to disambiguation page for the magazine (without link) and for Cruella de Vil. NawlinWiki 20:49, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cruella

Non-notable magazine, no references or sources. Contested prod. Videmus Omnia 17:25, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete Not notable. Reywas92^Talk 19:22, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep did a seach seems like to be a number of sites of information for this magazine makeing it notable enough it does not more information and sources but this does not mean it should be gone from hereOo7565 19:40, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 16:03, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fuhghettaboutit 03:54, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unsourced, no real claim to notability in the article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:12, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:58, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clarence Barnes

Local TV personality. Unreferenced, but even so, I don't see any reason he is really notable. TexasAndroid 17:22, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No sources, no notability. Realkyhick 18:33, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 16:03, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; also possible WP:COI. Bearian 18:46, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Anas ^talk? 22:22, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gnu/communism

Non-notable insult. Page has no references and only one external link, which is broken. Written in unencyclopediac style. Topic isn't big enough for an article. Search engines turn up little relavant content. Contains nonsense. etc. Gronky 17:11, 25 June 2007 (UTC) UPDATE: I've notified each of the five non-bot non-anon contributors to this article.[reply]

Delete per nom Gronky 17:11, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete little-used term Lurker 17:23, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Doesnt even sound like a term but more like WP:OR. Plm209^{(talk • contribs)} 17:32, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clear Neologism. If it wasn't the purely opinion based tone of the article and uneventful history of the term would make it not only non encyclopedic content but possibly viable for NPOV. -- Jimmi Hugh 18:02, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everything said above. — Wen li ^(contribs) 20:31, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 16:04, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, neologism. Pavel Vozenilek 15:26, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 15:39, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stoplight (Basketball)

Hoax. The talk page shows several attempts to verify this without success. I was unable to verify any of it myself. Hoax or not it fails WP:BIO since no reliable sources are given to establish notability. MartinDK 17:13, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does make quite the enthralling story but it seems like a WP:HOAX to me. Plm209^{(talk • contribs)} 17:39, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, agreed, it does seem like a hoax. Too bad actually. I'll give a shot at verifying it, but it doesn't look like that's going to happen. Most likely a hoax. Too bad. --HAL2008 talk 17:53, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a hoax. Acalamari 18:25, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Obviously a joke. Indef block the creator. --- RockMFR 18:29, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedier delete. Hoax, though a bit elaborate. Also move for block of author. Realkyhick 18:36, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nonsense Corpx 19:45, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Hoax, nonsense, and doesn't cite any references. — Wen li ^(contribs) 20:32, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unsure In the original discussion I had with NawlinWiki regarding the page, we had a lot of discussion about the context of the content of the article. As I was pointing out to him, Stoplight (and various other streetballers) are much like professional wrestlers. That is, they are real people about whom fictional stories are told. In Wikipedia articles regarding professional wrestlers, their stories are told from a primarily in-universe viewpoint, and so I followed that model when writing the article. I can go to greater lengths to emphasize the fictional nature of Stoplight's "accomplishments" because it seems the disclaimer at the beginning of the article was not sufficient. ("...the details regarding his accomplishments have largely been embellished... Even his supposed death was greatly exaggerated and most likely staged..." ) Of course, then there is the issue of notability. Which, short of scanning pages out of the various Austin, TX streetball magazines available, I don't really know how to prove the source's reliability. StreetballazCrunk 12:10, 26 June 2007 (UTC)StreetballazCrunk[reply]
- Comment if articles on wrestlers are written from an in-universe perspective, that is the fault of those articles and not a model to be followed. Wikipedia:Writing about fiction is the relevant guideline, which should be followed in all articles of this kind. JulesH 14:54, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment See Kayfabe. That is the closest explanation I can find. You can't deem Stoplight a hoax or nonsense by virtue of his accomplishments simply because the entire idea is that they have been staged, worked, or somehow otherwise choreographed. Thus, I think the entire premise of this AfD debate is faulty to begin with. I will certainly volunteer to rewrite this article in order to better fit the Wikipedia standard, but to delete it completely is showing ignorance and intolerance of other, less mainstream cultures. StreetballazCrunk 11:44, 28 June 2007 (UTC)StreetballazCrunk[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 16:05, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Anas ^talk? 22:25, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Mulligan

Possible hoax. I'm unable to verify anything in this article and since no sources are given to establish notability it also fails WP:BIO. MartinDK 17:03, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, nothing corroborating claims found in Google News Archive or Google Books. --Dhartung | Talk 22:30, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. Obvious hoax.--Mantanmoreland 14:35, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 16:06, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 01:51, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Certified Vulnerability Assessor

Appears non-notable and is advertising and spammy in nature. Falls far short of the notability guideline. GDonato (talk) 17:00, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable; created by a single purpose account with a probable COI. Shalom ^Hello 20:56, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 16:07, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fuhghettaboutit 03:53, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, a very brief article entirely free from context. The title would appear to describe a person holding an office or credential; the article itself purports to be about a training program. The "vulnerability" that people here are being certified to assess is "IT vulnerability", suggesting to my mind that this is some newfangled neologism invented by someone selling a consultancy. Quære: what does this have to do with Norway? - Smerdis of Tlön 14:17, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As Smerdis of Tlön stated, the title of the article would suggest a possible conflict of interest in the article, the lack of context and references is too small even to be considered a stub. The Sunshine Man is now Qst 15:08, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete - Gnan garra 14:58, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Culpepper

Someone who was successfully sued for libel. Only one local news story as source. Doesn't meet WP:BIO. NawlinWiki 16:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Rarely do I disagree with NawlinWiki, but this was the defendant in a pretty major, well-publicized case in Alabama. I added a link from USA Today. He isn't exactly a huge figure, but I think he passes WP:NOTE. I won't complain too much either way this ends up, though. Realkyhick 18:49, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A lot of people have been in the newspaper, but they aren't all notable. I don't see links for the two he defamed. Reywas92^Talk 19:24, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Newsworthy is not noteworthy. Also, WP:BLP1E. Resolute 03:43, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 16:08, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus. ChrisO 21:39, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel G. Birmingham

Subject is the chairman of a county legislature, which appears to fail WP:BIO. Prod was contested, so I'm sending it over here. RedRollerskate 16:33, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. Local politicians are not able. --Bill.matthews 16:48, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep One of the criteria of WP:BIO is "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage." Being the chairman of the county legislature qualifies him as a "major local politican" and as such his press coverage is pretty constant. By the way, Wikipedia has articles on just about everything, Some on topics far less notable than this. I think it is useful for pepole to find out about their local politician in a place such as this.EMT1871 20:21, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you update the article with reliable sources of the significant press coverage? Being a chairman of a county legislature alone would not in my opinion make him a major local politician. Specifically the guideline states: A politician who has received "significant press coverage" has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists. --Bill.matthews 21:22, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletions. —Jacek Kendysz 21:11, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletions. -- Jacek Kendysz 21:11, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:BIO on its face, no sources are provided asserting WP:N. Putnam County is north of Westchester and has no cities within the county limits. It's unlikely there is coverage much beyond the local area. --Dhartung | Talk 22:33, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've added one source and a link to Birmingham's page at the county Web site. The county is covered by at least the Journal-News daily, based in White Plains to the south (in Westchester County) and the Putnam County News and Record. I found no adequate articles on the online archives of the Journal-News, but I'm sure they exist. The head of the county legislature is going to have articles written solely about him, both at election time and at other times. I see no sense in deleting what's already here since it seems obvious to me that adequate sources will be found to establish notability under WP:N. Noroton 19:22, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added more information from The Putnam County Courier. Noroton 19:41, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and I can't belive I just wrote that! While I don't agree with his politics, he is notable. He is the equivalent of County Judge or County Commissioner in other states. Bearian 18:38, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

F.Y.I. He is no where near the equivalent of a county judge, or any other member of the judicial branch of government. EMT1871 21:15, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. J.R. Hercules 18:22, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless much more significant coverage can be found. None of the sources cited constitute significant or in-depth coverage. The first is three sentances on the subject, the second two sentances, both giving basic factual reprots of the election. The third devotes four paragaphs to the subject, giving basic biographical info, plus a paragrpah of praise from a political associate who is also his former boss. I have seen far more extensive coverage of losing township council candidates, and they aren't notable either. These sources are enough to verify the facts, but not to establish notability, IMO. DES ^(talk) 18:36, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:59, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Caroline Clifford

Subject doesn't appear to meet notability guidelines 16:02, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 16:26, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:N. TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 18:19, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable fails WP:N.--Sandahl 04:15, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 16:11, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Back_ache (talk · contribs) has been notified of this Afd. -- John Vandenberg 04:53, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus. ChrisO 21:42, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First Lady of Iceland

This is not an official post nor an especially high-profile position in Iceland. Nobody seriously groups the spouses of Icelandic presidents like that. Bjarki 02:41, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This list is redundant to Spouses of heads of states and governments. Further, would you mind bundling in (or allowing me to bundle in) many of the individual articles listed at Spouses of heads of states and governments? I wouldn't normally suggest this, but a great many of them make no assertion of notability other than being the spouse of someone notable, and notability doesn't pass by association like that. Someguy1221 03:18, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research unless someone can show a suitable source where this title has been applied to the wives of Icelandic presidents. Also delete Dóra Þórhallsdóttir, Georgia Björnsson and Halldóra Eldjárn as these articles currently say nothing about them except that they held this 'post' (which was apparently vacant for 16 years without any trouble). Haukur 11:40, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 16:26, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The term is the one used for the category of First Ladies, so it's reasonable to use it here. used in other articles--it will do here. There seems be a good case for merging some of t he specific articles into here, not removing this one. We accept spouse of Head of State as notable, and I at least would extend to for head of government, Probably further expandable from sources in Iceland, DGG 17:20, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KeepSeems to belong in Category:Spouses_of_national_leaders. TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 18:24, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep An extension of the link above because this has been expanded with a photo and better dates. Reywas92^Talk 19:36, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iceland-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 16:11, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 16:11, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems to be a useful, encyclopedic subject for a list. (You mean they're not called Ice Queen??) Noroton 18:54, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete First lady of any state per notability, as well as per Someguy1221. Dan Gluck 13:53, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
NDelete Bjork already has an article.--Perceive 02:44, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy redirect to Get This per WP:IAR and WP:UCS. Shalom ^Hello 21:00, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Get this

Delete - This article serves no purpose as there is a Get This article already and this was used a "suspect" redirect to Assembly of Albania which is has no relation or relevance to the term "Get this". --Mikecraig 01:25, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Agree with MikeCraig. This article causes confusion. --Ninevah 02:50, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to Get This, as this might be a common misspelling for that title. E.G. 10:43, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 16:26, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redir per E.G.--SarekOfVulcan 16:40, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per E.G. — Wen li ^(contribs) 20:34, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was SPEEDY CLOSE per probable sock puppet nom. The nom has no other contribs other than tagging the article for AfD, and making the page. If anyone wants to reopen, go ahead. Kwsn^(Ni!) 22:57, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jill Neimark

This "article" is a self-promotional piece, created and is maintained by Jill Neimark -- the subject of the article -- in violation of the policy I'm looking at right above the box in which I'm currently typing:

"Wikipedia is not an advertising service. Promotional articles about yourself, your friends, your company or products, or articles created as part of a marketing or promotional campaign, will be deleted in accordance with our deletion policies."

Keep, I say. I don't see the problem - she's a published author with works translated into Multiple languages, and articles in the NY Times. There are almost certainly authors with fewer writing credits that have pages for themselves. In terms of sheer output, she bests JD Salinger... Matthewdkaufman 06:24, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now, probably review later. Subject is making a good-faith effort to start a factual encyclopedia article. The guideline quoted above says that promotional articles will be deleted; the autobiography guideline says they are "strongly discouraged" but "not strictly forbidden". — Demong _talk 22:20, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, while I disagree with everything you guys have said -- Jill's entry is about as close to a good-faith effort to start a factual encyclopedia article as a Ford commercial is to present an objective evaluation of the vehicle; and if number of words in print were a rational way of evaluating an author's body of work, there are some writers of sleazy trash who have JD, Jill, and even Charles Dickens beat by a factor of 10 -- I'm giving in.

Now excuse me while I go off and write my own Wikipedia page: I've got more publications than Salinger, too, and if that's the standard, why shouldn't I cash in the way Jill has? And don't let me see any of you marking my page for deletion: I've got this whole conversation on tape. {{japastor [sorry, I had in fact logged in and am not sure why I got logged out], June 24, 2007}}

Keep - I don't see how this violates the quoted policy. It's a simple article without any fluff. All claims are sourced. This nomination seems like a personal attack rather than good-faith. It's suspicious on multiple levels. LaraLove ^T/_C 04:40, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 16:26, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per discussion above. Well-referenced, NPOV.--SarekOfVulcan 16:38, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per above users. This article is well-referenced and has a neutral point of view. It may be stubby, but that's a reason for expansion, not deletion. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 17:01, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep No , the article is not well-referenced: 1 is a very minor notice of her first novel on a web site; 2 talks only about her co-author, clearly the principle author, 3 & 4 are also about her coauthor, not her. 5 is a patient's support group, 6 is her one real published article, in Discover. 6 is the Autism Society of America's award to the Discover article, 7 is a blog, 8 is a patient support group. Nor are all claims sourced. The NYT articles are not sourced, though at least one can be; the translations are not sourced; the BOMC selection is not sourced; the poetry is not sourced; calling herself a co-author when the articles about the book don't mention her--that's sourcing all right, deceptive sourcing.

There are about a dozen substantial articles. Notability? One BOMC selection; 1 or 2 interviews in the NYT; one minor award. Perhaps together they make for weak notability. DGG 18:13, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am in the process of finding sources. I did some of this yesterday. I have gone just now, after reading the above comment "weak keep", and found references for reviews of my novel in the Los Angeles Times, Houston Chronicle, Chicago Tribune, and Washington Post, as well as a look at my and 4 other novels in The Southern Review. Should I list these? I can substitute that for EW online. Will someone kindly advise? 5 was published in a magazine called Spirituality & Health and reprinted on the website ImmuneSupport so I will use that better source instead, I have published many many dozens of articles but simply referenced this one on autism. Should I reference others? At some point I fear it becomes a bit self-inflating? I really need advice about how many articles to reference--. This autism cover story I picked because I literally received hundreds of letters about it and autism is a big issue at the moment. The articles about the new book do mention me. I chose to list JTF foundation's interview with Stephen Post because I think it reflects the work well. Please advise here but I am in the process of obtaining sources for the first time and I have some other deadlines so I haven't done it perfectly yet. This was just yesterday's work. I will keep working on this the rest of the week. Thanks for everybody's thoughts. I hope it is appropriate that I responded here and I would appreciate further advice from anyone wishing to give it. Thanks.* jenbooks13 19:43, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I had actually given up, decided that this wasn't worth wasting any more time on... and then I decided to write an article of my own -- not about myself, but about a third party who I think is more notable than I am (or, for that matter, than is the subject of the article I marked for deletion).

Since I've never written a Wikipedia article before, I looked for help, and I found myself on the "Wikipedia:Your first article" page, where there are four guidelines right up at the top; guess what the third one is?

"Please don't create pages about yourself or your friends, pages that advertise, or personal essays."

To the "closing admin" for this discussion: Please either adjudicate in accordance with the guidelines for first articles, or arrange for that particular guideline to be stricken -- or at least modified. As it stands, it's neither ambiguous nor subject to interpretation: "Please don't" is as close to a law as one can have in an open community like Wikipedia, and should have the same force as "Thou shalt not" in a moral code.

If you adjudicate in favor of this article, then I will consider myself (as should everyone else on the Internet) licensed to write about myself, my family, my friends, and my pets -- and to advertise my own wares (indirectly and discreetly, of course).

Personally, I will still regard it as ethically questionable, but I am not the arbiter of what's legal or ethical on Wikipedia, and if this kind of behavior is adjudged to be acceptable, I'd be a fool not to take advantage of an opportunity like this. Japastor 21:46, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete, unverifiable, likely hoax or OR, in any case wikipedia not a dictionary of other-language terms.--cjllw ʘ TALK 04:45, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rustic kofos

This article appears to be fraudulant. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sewan mnana; both this and the Sewan mnana articles were originally written by the same user.

Assuming the supposed Ojibwe was translated correctly into English as "dream-like state", then this article's title should have reflected that in Polish, as claimed by the article, but this article does not reflect the Polish.
Majority of the article was taken up by the infobox (which was subsequently commented out), but the supposed term creator mentioned in the article did not write on this matter.

CJLippert 16:36, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 16:26, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 16:12, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect into Sewan mnana, no Polish words known to spell "rustic" or "kofos", maybe in "polished" English? greg park avenue 16:56, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect. As Greg sais, this has no Poland connection whatsoever (the article claimed it was a Polish translation... false).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 17:39, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. It isn't Polish-ed English; it isn't Ojibwe with syncope. CJLippert 15:01, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect per above. Bearian 18:42, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It could be Yugoslavian instead of Polish, something like "Relic from Kofos (Porto Koufo?)". Then it would make sense. I posted a request for translation on Yugoslavian to English. It may take time to get the reply. Just in case - re-list. greg park avenue 22:52, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Macedonia-related deletions. greg park avenue 16:47, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Sewan mnana

The result was Delete, as unverifable, likely hoax or OR. --cjllw ʘ TALK 04:42, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article appears to be fraudulant. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rustic kofos; both this and the Rustic kofos articles were originally written by the same user.

the article lists one source, but when you go to the source it does not discuss this article topic (it is about importance of dreams, and not about the "supernatural death syndrome")
the article claims the name is from Ojibwe, yet even with vowel syncope as consideration and "sounds like" search in the master Freelang Ojibwe Dictionary file, to which the daughter product is made available at the Freelang site, no such word or phrase appear in the master list.

CJLippert 16:24, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined to agree. I was the one who cleaned up the article to meet Wiki standards (simple editing and organisation), but after further research, I found absolutely no external references that could verify the existence of this legend. This is why I flagged it for citation.
If no one speaks up, delete it.

69.254.127.99 16:47, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 16:26, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It looks like a hoax to me. The only non-Wikipedia ghit was someone who was referencing the Wikipedia article. Let's kill this before it gets any farther. Brianyoumans 16:36, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Just to make sure, I checked out all Dakota, Lakota, Iroquois, Oneida, Mohawk and Wendat resources I have and have not come across these words either. CJLippert 15:06, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What about Navajo? It's supposedly harder to break than Enigma. greg park avenue 15:34, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have access to Navajo language materials. However, the article claims the "Sewan mnana" originated in New York, and the Navajos were not there in the past 2000 years -- even in their oral history. CJLippert 17:37, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sewan means 'wampum' - go to [11] and click Columbia Encyclopedia. Mnana is definitely a Spanish word, probably shortcut from 'mañana' meaning tomorrow or morning just like English 'morrow' or 'morn', I guess. Ojibwe could adapt a foreign word just like the other nations and tribes do. Still a reference from the author of this article, from where he got this idiom, is absolutely necessary. greg park avenue 21:29, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete, fails notability. ChrisO 21:45, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Airfoil Public Relations

This company doesn't seem notable enough; see WP:CORP. NawlinWiki 16:22, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Completely non-notable IMHO. aJCfreak yAk 16:54, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep You need to explain how it is not notable (that word can get old after awhile) if you're going to nominate a page for deletion. That being said, this page does appear to be a vanity page for a company but the company may be notable considering it grossed $6 million dollars in 2006 and has two branches; one in Detroit and one on the West coast. The "notable" Starbucks uses them as a public relations firm for several of their central U.S. branches. ^{Press Release}. There are also over 20k results on Google for this company. The article needs tweaking more than deletion. --David Andreas 17:08, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 54 employees is not notable. $6 million revenue is not notable. Starbucks using them for only "a few branches" is not notable. DGG 18:36, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Notability can be very subjective. What is considered a notable revenue? --David Andreas 18:58, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Per the references, in the PR industry in the US, $6 million puts you in the top 50 for independent agencies (as opposed to divisions of big ad/marketing agencies). See: 2006 rankings. I'd argue that notability needs to be determined within the context of the industry in which the subject does business, as a "notable" company in a heavily fragmented industry may be smaller than a non-notable company in a consolidated industry with a few large companies and some small bottom-feeders (for instance, the #50 law firm in the US has $250 million in billings and a Wikipedia entry: Proskauer Rose). Whether "top 50" in any national industry is notable enough for a stub (or "top 10" in a specialized category, such as technology PR firms), I think so, but I leave for the community to decide. (I know that "notability" is a bit of a moving target in many debates here...) Jmozena 20:37, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The "notable" Starbucks uses the company I work for to manufacture kitchen furnishings almost to exclusivity in the western US, but I'd not dream of making an article for it. Notability must be earned independently, not as a "contractor of someone else notable". There is no evidence of independent notability for this company. Arkyan  ^(talk) 19:27, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response I think there's a difference between a furnishings manufacturer and a public relations firm, given that a PR firm is actually speaking to audiences on behalf of the "someone else notable" and is intrinsically associated with that other, more-notable organization or company far more so than, say, a furnishings company or some other supplier of materials or internal services. Your furnishings company sells to its customers, it doesn't represent them. There's a reason that within the industry, agency rankings or listings virtually always include agency clients. Jmozena 20:37, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The "differences" you cite seem utterly meaningless, perhaps pointless, and seemingly plucked out of thin air in that they don't in any way, shape, or form actual issues with the analogy given. The main point -- notability isn't purely by association -- still stands, regardless of the handwaving. --Calton | Talk 02:56, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not even close, and man, some of the claims are truly straining for effect. --Calton | Talk 20:32, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm the original author. While I'm a former employee of the company, I haven't been associated with them for almost five years and I've got no stake in their success or failure, so this isn't wikiadvertising by the subject. I am familiar with WP:CORP, and in my estimation, the policy "A company, corporation, organization, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of secondary sources" is met by such sources as the being named a "small business of the year" in a major metropolitan area by that area's primary business publication, as well as the industry-specific recognitions such as the top-50 independent PR firms and top-10 technology PR firms listings from O'Dwyers, which is a publication of record in the PR industry. I specifically didn't include a client list as I thought that would look too much like advertising, but it does include clients such as Microsoft's Automotive Business Unit, eBay Motors, Best Buy's B2B business and PayPal, among other "notable" companies. Also, before posting, I did a WP:CORP sanity check and found that Airfoil's direct competitors tend to have Wikipedia entries, such as Text 100 and Kaplow. Jmozena 20:37, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1) If you draw the boundary lines finely enough, you can claim pretty much any kind of superlative, but even given that the claims are extremely weak : Top 50? Among "independent" agencies? 2) As for the direct competitors: WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. If their presence bothers you, give me the list and I'll see what I can do. --Calton | Talk 02:56, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 16:14, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would accept notability based on who the clients are in some cases. i think the major PR firm that handles the bulk of a large company's business might well be notable, just as if they have a major coffee importer, they might be too, both being important segments of their business. But, as Carlton says, this does not apply to subdivisions. Best marathon runner in the country is notable, best in the town is not, best one in the country with red hair is not. DGG 05:05, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Calton is right and this fails WP:CORP. Eusebeus 18:14, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:01, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Great Gazoo Manning

Not notable. The show is not notable, off the air, and he was an intern. Bill.matthews 16:09, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --David Andreas 17:11, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Some interns, like Stuttering John deserve their own articles. This one doesn't.--Ispy1981 17:16, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Too short, non-notable, and it doesn't give enough context to the reader. — Wen li ^(contribs) 20:35, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 16:14, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP Like I have stated before WIKIPEDIA should be inclusive not exclusive. All this needs is more references and information but the article should remain. Callelinea 18:46, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:02, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Peace villages

"A unique idea in the NGO world". Text is rather spammy and there are no references. Are they notable? -- RHaworth 16:01, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete - few Google refs, no external cites given.--SarekOfVulcan 16:10, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unreferenced, which is a problem given the scope of the article. Author probably has a conflict of interest. Shalom ^Hello 21:02, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:02, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Prismtel

No independent sources or other indications of notability. No hard facts (like where the company resides exactlly, when it was founded, who owns it, numbers on revenue, profits, employees). Only fuzzy marketing talk about what it actually does. High on a tree 15:29, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete The company exists (129 ghits), but I'd be hard-pressed to find any substantial third party info on them.--Ispy1981 15:44, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete, advertising.--SarekOfVulcan 16:11, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 16:16, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Wikipedia is not a directory. ChrisO 21:48, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mariners radio network

This article is just a collection of the radio networks that Mariners' games are broadcast on, nothing more. Just a list. --Ksy92003(talk) 15:12, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reason for deletion: I want to add that, true this article is more than a list, but there isn't any true encyclopedic content aside from the list. The "Notable Moments" section, mostly the quote itself is questionable, as who is to say that quote is the most memorable in franchise history? Second, this article lacks the one thing that facilitates an article: any sort of history on the subject. There isn't any history anywhere in the article, which is the one primary criteria for an article. --Ksy92003(talk) 16:35, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The author speaks up: First, let me say that I haven't had time to do as much research on this topic as I would like. I would love to put together a history of the network, but am not sure where to start, other than perhaps writing Dave Niehaus to see if he has any suggestions on researching the network's history. Second, if you were a baseball fan in Seattle there would be no question that Edgar's double is the most notable moment in Mariners broadcast history. When the Kingdome was imploded, for instance, The Double was voted a runaway favorite for favorite Kingdome moment by the readers of the Seattle P-I. We don't have a lot of great moments to choose from -- any one of Ichiro's 200-hit seasons, Griffey's eight-game homer streak, Buhner or Rodriguez hitting for the cycle, Chris Bosio's no-hitter, Leny Randle blowing the ball across the foul line -- unlike say the Red Sox or Dodgers, so the choice is pretty clear, especially since The Double kept the Mariners in Seattle. Scriptwriter 03:26, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: All you have done in that last comment was give a list of good plays in Mariners history. But how does that even relate to the different radio stations that they have their games broadcast them all? --Ksy92003(talk) 04:10, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: You asked a question: The "Notable Moments" section, mostly the quote itself is questionable, as who is to say that quote is the most memorable in franchise history? I answered your question and explained why it is in fact the most memorable, and who is to say so (the fans of the team, as surveyed by the local sports media). As for how they relate, all of the items I cited were broadcast via the Mariners Radio Network and relate to their broadcasters, and were not broadcast on TV. For instance all of the TV stations covering Game 5 of the Mariners-Yankees ALDS used the ESPN feed (including in the Seattle market, IIRC) and heard Tim McCarver call The Double. Niehaus' call was only heard on radio.

That said, I am thinking maybe the best thing to do is to move this to the Seattle Mariners page -- at which time I'll take out the notable moments (and hopefully I can track down the names of the Spanish broadcast crew). Scriptwriter 05:57, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep: it's hardly just a list, but I'm not sure it's encyclopedic.--SarekOfVulcan 16:13, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Do we have an article for the Red Sox radio network or the Yankees radio network? I think this fails WP:NOT#DIR. Shalom ^Hello 21:06, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think there should be articles, or at least sections in the relevant teams' pages, for every team's braodcast network. It's the sort of thing people turn to encyclopedias for. Scriptwriter 03:26, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Seattle Mariners. Piperdown 01:18, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think this might be the best solution until I can put together a more "encyclopedic" article. Scriptwriter 03:26, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I have gone ahead and merged the station table in with the main article on the Mariners. That should put an end to any controversy. Please go ahead and delete "Mariners Radio Network" and the references to it on the Radio Networks In The USA and Seattle Mariners 2007 season pages. Thank you. Scriptwriter 06:36, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 16:17, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 16:20, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus in favour of this. Non admin closure. The Sunshine Man 15:38, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Boogie Woogie (TV show)

A non notable TV show. Search engine results mainly talk about dance steps and even a 1945 film, but has no mention of this show. Hence it lacks reliable sources. At the same time, it is written like an advertisement. Kylohk 15:00, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:03, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless reliable sources show up. The one link in the article seems to be dead. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've added another link to the article, which states that this was "India's first dance format show". I will try to get other sources, but, IMO, being the first of its kind in any country is notable.--Ispy1981 16:12, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete per nom and Starblind, but willing to be convinced otherwise.--SarekOfVulcan 16:14, 25 June 2007 (UTC)~~weak~~ keep now: new sources give evidence of notability.--SarekOfVulcan 12:40, 26 June 2007 (UTC) Struck out "weak" per Utcursch's info below.--SarekOfVulcan 12:14, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment More links and info added by me. I think this is the only contribution I can make to this article. I'll fall on the sword if it's deleted.--Ispy1981 17:19, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or make an Indian Wikipedia. I recommend that the creator reads WP:N and puts it somewhere were it is notable.Jonjonbt96 18:17, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. John Vandenberg 16:31, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. India's longest running dance show on television, trendsetter in the 90s, subject of multiple, independent published stories. [12][13]. Needs a re-write, though. utcursch | talk 06:11, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP Like I have stated before WIKIPEDIA should be inclusive not exclusive. All this needs is more references but the article should remain. Callelinea 18:44, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's notable. Even it was very famous in Sri Lanka. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{walkie-talkie} 10:22, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Extremely popular show in India and among Indian diaspora.Baka man 00:58, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - quite popular in South Asia. --Ragib 02:46, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Googoosh. The Sunshine Man 15:35, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mahmoud Ghorbani

Could find no google hits for Caberet Miami and nothing meaningful for Mahmoud Ghobani---what I did find was not in reference to his owning a Caberet or being an influencial person in Iranian showbiz. Balloonman 14:47, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As NOM I agree, redirect sounds like the correct response, unless notability can be demonstrated.Balloonman 21:10, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Googoosh. He does seem to have some borderline notability, but practically everything I can find about him on the internet is in reference to his having been married to Googoosh and essentially nothing establishing notability of his own. If sources can be dug up to show he's independently notable then I'd change to keep, but as far as I can tell the notability belongs to his former wife. Arkyan  ^(talk) 15:00, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's basically all I could find on him as well... like you, I am more than willing to reconsider my nomination, if contrary evidence can be produced.Balloonman 15:05, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:03, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redir per Arkyan. Nothing in here that isn't already in Googoosh.--SarekOfVulcan 16:16, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect seems like the clear choice. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:35, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Googoosh, mostly known for his former marriage. Jacek Kendysz 21:16, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just started his article, and I am not finished with it! since I am a main contributor in Persian and Hebrew Wikipedia, I didn't make enough time to extend that article and to provide links to such sites like BBC (Persian edition etc.) This individual is very well known among the Iranian showbiz. He was involved in Nojeh Coup and was married to the most famous Persian singer Googoosh. if you search his name in Persian it would come with many hits. As I said give me couple days to complete this article if you may. Best Regards: --Kaaveh 05:57, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kaav, could you give us some more information on what makes him notable? The article on Nojeh Coup doesn't mention him---and even if he was involved with it, was he a central figure? If not, then what makes him notable? I do recognize that English sources might be limited on him, but I need something more to hang my hat on to keep this...Balloonman 06:35, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Balloonman, In a recent interview broadcast on a Los Angeles-based Iranian satellite TV station. He stated that he was a part in the coop which was in favor of Dr. Shapour Bakhtiar. His duties in the coop base on what he claims were to distrbute money and weapons in the Southern District of Tehran. He was also in the 100 most wanted list, upon the victory of the Islamic Revolution. Revolutionaries were ordered to get those 100 people (who were notable symbols of monarch and somehoe related to the system) dead or alive. So I believe he deserves to have an article here. Best Regards --Kaaveh 13:41, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My gut feeling is that you might be able to get this to the point where it is keepable... my suggestion is that we redirect for now while you establish his independent notability. I would suggest writing the article in a sandbox and then moving it here when it is ready. Right now, there is nothing that is verifiable to support it... which makes it impossible for me to vote to keep. But, I it is difficult to vote to delist, because he may be notable just not verifiable... work on that verifiability aspect.Balloonman 15:48, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Stubbify and start over. I'm open to arguments that the subject is noteworthy, but the existing content is plainly unsatisfactory and spammy. I've stubbified it; I suggest that the editors start over per johndburger's comments. If that doesn't work out, bring it back here to AfD. ChrisO 21:53, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Language technology

AfDs for this article:

Highly unencyclopedic essay focused on arguing the historical importance of the topic, with a strong conflict of interest (see comment below). Much of the material is duplicated, with the same slant, at Human language technology and Weidner Communications Inc.. A deal of it is taken near-verbatim from the user agreement at www.fastfluency.org.

New info: see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bruce Wydner Gordonofcartoon 18:53, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: see also WP:COI/N#Bruce Wydner. This appears to be one of a number of articles and edits by Dbp653 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) focused on writing Bruce Wydner into a pivotal role in machine translation history, with sourcing coming largely from Wydner himself. See comment here. Gordonofcartoon 15:09, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unable to find any significant information about this subject other than wikipedia mirrors. Wydner published an article in a journal in 95, and his software is listed for sale in a directory produced by the British Computer Society, but other than that I can find no references that determine his work is in the slightest notable. He appears to be better known for a method of teaching people to speak Spanish than for his machine translation work. JulesH 15:48, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is very good spam, but it remains spam; its ultimate goal is to coöpt Wikipedia to improve the visibility of a commercial product. As such, it is vague and buzzwordy (Language technology is often called Human Language Technology (HLT) or Natural Language Processing (NLP) and consists of computational linguistics (or CL) and speech technology as its core but includes also many application oriented aspects of them) and ultimately unconvincing. - Smerdis of Tlön 16:17, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Under a good-faith reading of both the article content and the rationale for its inclusion (provided on the talk page) it is reasonable to conclude that the content violates all three of the general proscriptions enumerated under WP:SOAP. This is clearly a promotional piece for the primary benefit of Bruce Wydner.

The supporting rationale states in relevant part:

   "As with many amazing events and discoveries it is often with hindsight 
    and after a period of disbelief and rejection, that acceptance is finally 
    achieved"

It is fundamentally a misuse of WP to attempt to "shorten" or counteract the "period of disbelief and rejection" faced by an individual inventor, regardless of the intrinsic merit or novelty of his or her ideas. That is the very definition of advocacy. There are numerous other problems with the content as well, some already discussed above, but on this basis alone, the content seems entirely inappropriate. dr.ef.tymac 18:23, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Restore to last balanced NPOV version of 21:59, October 30, 2006 by Academic Challenger before the bout of blatant spamming started. --Lambiam ^Talk 21:14, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (and Restore) as per Lambiam. Mandsford 23:05, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Restore. We shouldn't throw the baby away with the bathwater. --Silvonen 05:13, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I see no value in keeping the version of the article Lambiam suggests. It is a short stub that does not explain how its topic is distinct from those of natural language processing, computational linguistics or machine translation. JulesH 07:55, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Concurring with JulesH, it seems like a detriment to keep and restore, because there is evidence to suggest this "distinction without a difference" is a root of potential confusion for some contributors. Disambiguation? Remote chance. Redirect? Possibly. Restore? The bathwater is filthy and it seems there was no baby to start with. dr.ef.tymac 16:51, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  Language technology (also called Natural Language Technology or Human Language Technology) is a term that has considerable coinage and that is used as a collective and generic name for an area comprising several more specialized language technologies, both for spoken and for written language, such as speech production, speech recognition, natural language parsing and understanding, natural-language query-and-answer systems, and machine translation. In this sense it is similar to designations like robotics or information and communication technology, which are also broad collective names for varied collections of technologies. The term is used, for example, by the Language Technologies Institute at Carnegie Mellon University, the Edinburgh Language Technology Group at the University of Edinburgh, the Natural Language Technology Group at the University of Brighton, the Centre for Language Technology at Macquarie University, the Graduate School of Language Technology in Sweden, the Human Language Technology Center at the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, and so on and so on. --Lambiam ^Talk 20:05, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  
  Recommendation: if the restore option is deemed appropriate, I'd like to strongly recommend that this article be strictly designated as either: a disambiguation page (liberal option); or alternatively designated as a redirect (conservative option). Rationale: Lambiam has fairly demonstrated usage, however there is still ambiguity in the matter of distinction. Consider for example the following "rough taxonomy":
  - speech production -> subset of computational linguistics [tech], linguistics, physiology so forth ... [non-tech]
  - speech recognition -> subset of computational linguistics [tech], linguistics, physiology so forth ... [non-tech]
  - "Natural language" query systems -> similar to above
  - NLP -> similar to above
  - MT -> similar to above
  - parsing -> subset of computational linguistics, formal language theory, linguistics ... so forth

Disambiguation would be useful here, because of the apparent subtle differences in overlapping terminology. An independent article, in contrast, seems duplicative -- and likely to perpetuate confusion among General Audience readers and contributors. dr.ef.tymac 15:04, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Any thoughts on whether Weidner Communications Inc. should be AFD'd too. Same problems apply, but with the proviso that there's a grain of truth: Weidner was/is a player in the MT market. However, I don't have much faith in the neutrality of the selection of sources. I've become even more suspicious of a promotional angle on seeing that a Darren Perkins also gave the single (positive) review to Wynder's book on Amazon [14], and that the [[:Image:Bruce Wydner.jpg|Bruce Wydner image] here is the same as that on the fastfluency.org website. Gordonofcartoon 13:43, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That article is extremely unencyclopedic. It is blatant advertising too. Whether anything can be salvaged there depends on what reliable sources can be found, but I'd say in the best case it should be pared down to a few factual paragraphs. But who is going to do that? The easiest is to delete it and start over. If the company is notable (something I don't know), sooner or later someone may create a neutral, encyclopedic article on it. However, here is not the spot to have that discussion. You can prod the article for non-notability, use the article's talk page to challenge notability and demand evidence of coverage by independent sources, and if that does not produce satisfactory results, take it to AfD. --Lambiam ^Talk 20:20, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment—The phrase (Human) Language Technology is usually taken in the field to include speech processing, and possibly Information Retrieval, while the phrase Natural Language Processing does not typically include these. There is a great deal of overlap, and I agree that there is some potential confusion, but (H)LT is not exactly synonymous with NLP. (And Machine Translation is definitely a sub-field within NLP.) If we revert to the stub, I will flesh it out a bit, and add some historical perspective as to when DARPA (I believe) began using the term HLT in the 1980s. If it gets deleted, I will probably re-introduce it anyway (unless of course that is blocked for some reason), with such content. —johndburger 13:37, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This sounds like the best proposal so far, provided the stub is clarified as indicated. dr.ef.tymac 13:47, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Agreed. Looks good. Gordonofcartoon 14:57, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted per CSD A7. --Slowking Man 16:39, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mohamed Warsama

Although there is a claim to notability, I cannot find any sources to verify the claim. In addition, this article has pretty clearly an autobiography. FisherQueen (Talk) 14:32, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:05, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He found oil and "dag" day and night? And he's only 18? No notability and clearly an autobiography written in poor English - likely greatly exaggerated. --David Andreas 15:14, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pretty obviously a non-notable autobiography, still I tried to a Google search and came up empty handed. No need to userfy since he wrote the article there before he did so in Mainspace. As a side note, this would technically not be a re-creation of Mohamed Warsame because he actually created this article before the other one was deleted— I don't think he was aware of the spelling difference.—Elipongo (Talk contribs) 15:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a non-notable autobiography. —Restré (talk) 16:16, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. ChrisO 22:10, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John Hertz (fan)

Delete - fails WP:BIO. Claims to fame are being a Hugo nominated fan writer (had he won that would establish notability, but not a nomination) and Regency dance enthusiast. His book on the dance is self-published and his fanwriting anthologies are also self-published. Otto4711 14:30, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:06, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral-- I'm not trying to nit-pick, but fans play a far more crucial rôle in science-fiction than in most other genres. Is this the case here? Rhinoracer 15:28, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm inclined to say that fanfiction is pretty much non-notable by definition. I'm not seeing reliable sources to support such an article either. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:38, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Fan writing is not fanfiction, the two are completely distinct concepts. As Rhinoracer suggests, fan writing is considered a very important activity in science fiction fandom, see Hugo Award for Best Fan Writer for more background. Being nominated for the award is more than adequate accolade (in fact, expecting him to have received it would be setting the bar extremely high -- the award has not been won by anyone other than David Langford since 1988) to merit this article, and he has been nominated twice. He has also won a less well-known award, and has been fan guest of honour at major science fiction conventions. Reliable sources are [15] [16] (yes, these are SF con sources, but for information about SF personalities I believe they should be considered reliable). JulesH 16:33, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are there sources that consist of something more than biographical blurbs written for convention programs, that for all we know are based on information that Hertz himself gave them? One of the sources isn't even the final draft of the program. I am not, by the way, questioning the factual accuracy of anything in the article. I am questioning his notability under WP:BIO. Otto4711 19:06, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In order to write a biography, what more sources do we need than biographical ones? And it's generally true that biographies are based on information supplied by the subject in most cases. The con programmers would likely edit out anything in the submitted bio they saw as self-aggrandisement, so I think we can view these as reliable sources. As for notability per WP:BIO, I would suggest he should be kept under "the person has received significant recognized awards or honors." Being nominated for a Hugo is a significant honour, as is being invited to a major convention as a guest of honour. JulesH 08:13, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Winning a Hugo is a significant honor. As for being guest of honor at a convention, I question that this would meet WP:BIO. If a source is based entirely on information that's provided by the subject of the source it is not independent. Otto4711 12:10, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Winning a Hugo is an extremely high honour. The shortlists normally only run to 4 or 5 candidates (as was the case for this category in both of the years Hertz was nominated). There are only two people who have won this particular award in the last twenty years. Therefore I think being nominated for it is more than adequate. This is not to mention his other award, the 2003 Forrest Ackerman Big Heart award - a lesser award, surely, but still worth mentioning. JulesH 15:00, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not really seeing any reliable sources attesting to the notability of that award either. Otto4711 15:19, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's included by Locus Magazine in their listing of SF awards. It's not a particularly important one, but it still means something, as an award given by a man who is considered by many to have been one of the most important figures in the science fiction fan community for a very long time. The biggest problem with finding sources concerning it are that there are other awards that share the same name. JulesH 18:49, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So he's been nominated for a fan level category of an important award but didn't win and has won an award that you characterize as "not particularly important." I don't see how this gets him over the notability threshhold. Again, I'm not disputing the factual accuracy of anything in the article. Otto4711 13:27, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but add a picture. --24.154.173.243 18:18, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment if kept, move to John Hertz - it's a two entry disambig page. Could just as easily link to John D. Hertz with otheruses, negating the need for the nearly empty disambig. MrZaius^talk 14:05, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly notable in SF alone. The Hugo nominatiosn (both effectivly saying that he is one of the 5 best fan writers in the world that year) alone establish that. Here are some examples:
- He has written regularly for Science Fiction Chronicle [17] and [18];
- He is listed as a reviwwer for Emerald City [19];
- Other fans started a fuind to pay his expendes to the 2007 WorldCon in Japan [20];
- He wrote the program for the 42nd WorldCon (1984) [21]
- He writes regular reviews for Collecting Science Fiction Books [22];
- He was nominated for the 2007 Hugo for Best fan writer. The Official statement [23] notes that "The Hugo Awards are science fiction's highest honor for professional and fan work." There are only 5 nominees.
- His regular colum in Chronicle (formerly The Science fiction Chronicle) is noted in Locus, [24] which calls this a "Trade Journal", not a "fanzine".
- Locus considers his nomination for the 2005 fan writer Hugo worth mentioning [25].
- Nomination for 2005 Hugo covered by Geek monthly.com [26]
- His cataloging work on SF for the University of CValifornia is reported on by Fiat Lux, a University publication [27]
- A Google search on "John Hertz Science fiction -Wikipedia" gets 164,000 hits [28]

I trust the above will be sufficient. DES ^(talk) 18:07, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.--Fuhghettaboutit 03:15, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Scottish footballers

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of English footballers. Moreover, this one is an abandoned expansion project with little hope of completion. Punkmorten 14:30, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude 14:39, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:06, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Apart from the abandoned table, there's nothing here a category doesn't accomplish. Lurker 16:49, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Better with a category.--Sandy Donald 22:44, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is trying to be an encyclopedia, not a book of lists. If the listees are notable, then give them their own articles and a cat for nationality. Piperdown 01:21, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Every player on the list already has an article and the category in question already exists.... ChrisTheDude 06:56, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Impossible to manage and maintain a list this size, the category serves the purpose. Dave101→talk 12:05, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep With proper maintenance this page could be used for a list of Scottish players currently playing, or involved (ie. coaching) in football who are notable. That would reduce the size of the list to a manageable size. Dreamweaverjack 14:39, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete More suitable as a cat. Robotforaday 00:36, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete Gnan garra 11:34, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lenny Loosejocks

Fails WP:N. Article was flagged with notability concerns six months ago, and still has no sources. McGeddon 14:01, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am adding Pullyapantsup, Australia to this nomination. It's the town Lenny Loosejocks "lives" in. Punkmorten 14:37, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:07, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. --Bill.matthews 16:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom, also comment that it seems to be a particularly blatant example of [[WP:CRUFT|fancruft], if not outright advertising.--Yeti Hunter 23:24, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Believe it or not, this does get some hits on Google News Archives. [29] The question is whether it can be rewritten in an encyclopedic article using those sources. Capitalistroadster 03:24, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Pullyapantsup, Australia to Lenny Loosejocks or Ezone. Remove / delete gallery of fair use images.Ga rr ie 05:01, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the game doesn't appear to have any notability. Orderinchaos 10:48, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or at least Merge/rmv gallery per Garrie Kc4 19:04, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep considering that Lenny is a lot more notable then other things on Wikipedia. Comrade Graham 19:47, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not other, less notable articles haven't yet been deleted should not be a consideration in a deletion discussion. (WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS) --McGeddon 20:54, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If this article is deleted and you feel it justifies a deletion crusade, by all accounts I am prepared to cast my opinion on any article you bring forward to discuss.Ga rr ie 23:46, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Lenny is in popular Flash Games and Cartoons Comrade Hamish Wilson 19:50, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a look at the original concerns. To establish notability you have to use reliable sources...not just say that he is popular. You need to cite sources in the article, which has never been done. --Bill.matthews 20:26, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - There is now a source in the article. Kc4 03:27, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable logo. Needs decent third-party references/sources. Lankiveil 10:25, 29 June 2007 (UTC).[reply]

The article is hardly about Lenny as a logo and more as Lenny the character. Kc4 05:30, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both as non-notable and borderline advertising.--cj | talk 06:02, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was snow and speedy keep. Expansion concerns should be noted however. Non-admin closure Kwsn^(Ni!) 22:52, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Michelle Ruff

Biography of non-notable voice-actress is just a listing of her previous job. Wikipedia is not imdb. Abu badali ^(talk) 13:57, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Non-notable? Farm from it. The list of very notable things that she has done from the list on the article is amazing. Just Akira by itself makes her notable, but she's done .hack and Dynasty Warriors as well. Sure, the article can be expanded/improved, but she is DEFINITELY notable. --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 14:21, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but add more actual content. She is the lead voice actress in a number of very notable shows. Shimaspawn 15:26, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:08, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:09, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:BIO ("actors, comedians, opinion makers, models, and television personalities with significant roles in notable films, television, stage performances, and other productions"). JulesH 15:36, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Even one or two such roles would be adequate, the article lists dozens of them. How this could be "non-notable" by any reasonable definition is baffling. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:01, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Is there any source from where we could expect to find biographical information on this person (beyond the trivial name/age/etc.)? --Abu badali ^(talk) 16:20, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Why do you think it's necessary for a biography written about this person. True it's one of the criteria per WP:BIO, however it's not the only criteria --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 16:26, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Because without any such source, the article will always be a job-listing/curriculum-vitate, or have to rely on unreliable sources, or just use original research. As anencyclopedia, we can't write about something that nobody ever wrote about. --Abu badali ^(talk) 17:13, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Anime magazines would probably be one's best bet. There are also some interviews online as well. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:28, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
These interviews seem to contain good information. If these sites are considered reliable sources, this information should be added to the article. I would be happy to withdraw the nomination in this case. --Abu badali ^(talk) 17:15, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep, she's got a long list of notable credits to her name; I have no doubt whatsoever that she's notable, and I don't even watch anime. This article could use some biographical information and a few references, but by no means should it be deleted. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 17:04, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per TenPoundHammer. JuJube 19:08, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep — Caknuck 16:36, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Terrence Stone

Biography of non-notable voice-actor is just a listing of his previous job. Wikipedia is not imdb Abu badali ^(talk) 13:55, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As I said on Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Michelle_Ruff, I believe this person is notable as he has done voice acting for very notable franchaises. Specifically the Everquest franchise, Scooby-Doo, and Power Rangers. Sure, the article can be expanded/improved, but there is no reason to delete this --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 14:26, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:08, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:10, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:BIO ("actors, comedians, opinion makers, models, and television personalities with significant roles in notable films, television, stage performances, and other productions.") Just because you can't see him doesn't make his role non-significant. JulesH 15:34, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Where are we going to find published biographical information on this person (beyond the trivial age/sex/etc.?) Is there any secondary source from which we could get the info? --Abu badali ^(talk) 16:24, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd suggest that the documentary film Adventures in Voice Acting listed on his filmography would probably be a good place to start. JulesH 07:49, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, he obviously meets WP:BIO for having worked in several notable series. Page just needs biographical info. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 17:05, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per TenPoundHammer. JuJube 19:08, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep The person is notable and meets WP:BIO, but the article is not well-written. — Wen li ^(contribs) 20:37, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep At the moment, it's but an unsourced directory entry, so these need to be addressed. Often, reeling off lists is not the best way to assert someones notability. Ohconfucius 07:34, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:03, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shinook Nohara

plus redirects

This appears to be a hoax. There are no search results (expect for the Wikipedia article) for Shinook Nohara, 野原しヌーク, or Why do you live in Valetta?. Also nominating the related article Why do you live in Valetta?. Leebo ^T/C 13:24, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete: as definite hoax. The article asserts that this purported diplomat working as an ambassadorial-grade Japanese envoy was fired in 2004 and went right into the executive of the Boston engineering contractors working the Big Dig tunnels. Beyond that, it incorrectly describes her non-descript boyfriend as CEO of Teradyne. RGTraynor 13:52, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Can't find anything about this person. Blaise Joshua 14:26, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy; the books dont appear in worldcat.org. John Vandenberg 15:12, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's no speedy criterion for hoaxes. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 17:06, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete, obvious hoax, with search results totalling one goose egg. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 17:06, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Hoaxes both. -- RHaworth 18:45, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. — Wen li ^(contribs) 20:36, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both as hoaxes. Kevin 21:49, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Neier 05:46, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.--Fuhghettaboutit 03:13, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ebola inspired entertainment

Delete - Wikipedia is not a directory of loosely-associated topics. Article seeks to capture every instance of Ebola or a virus that an editor through original research has decided is "Ebola-like" from any genre or medium. Although I have to admit I love the article title. Otto4711 13:17, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is your standard "trivia/in popular culture" content fork. Please delete. Shalom ^Hello 14:05, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Some instances could be interesting, but I can't see why it can't be covered on the Ebola page, in a "In popular media" section or something similar. Blaise Joshua 14:28, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Ebola inspired entertainment? What a bizarre concept. Nonetheless, this really is nothing more than a run of the mill trivia article, and should be deleted. Arkyan  ^(talk) 15:01, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge somewhere. Other than weird title, which presupposes that an organ-liquefying infectious disease is "entertaining" (the alternative would be that it is "popular", I guess), it's an analysis of Western world artists' approach to a relatively new illness. I liken this to a description of the creative response to the Ethiopian famine in '84 and '85-- We Are the World, Live Aid, etc. Ebola is one of those things (Darfur will be next) that the media highlights for awhile, then abandons because it's too far away and no longer current... That title has got to go, however. Mandsford 23:16, 25 June 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletions.

-- John Vandenberg 15:14, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article is just a directory of loosely associated terms, violates WP:NOT#DIR Jay32183 19:57, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:06, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brown Prophecy

Neologism. While the statements may well have been made, there's no verification that they have been called the Brown Prophecy, or Wydner's work taken as fulfilling it, anywhere outside this article. Gordonofcartoon 13:14, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: see also WP:COI/N#Bruce Wydner. This appears to be one of a number of articles and edits by Dbp653 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) focused on writing Bruce Wydner into a pivotal role in machine translation history, with sourcing coming largely from Wydner himself. See comment here. Gordonofcartoon 13:27, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Borders on consipiracy with its conjectures - especially when it starts talking about top secret military transfers. One can not backup such claims with verifiable proof unless it has been declassified - which is unlikely. The rest of the article attempts to take the advent of the Internet and language translation software as a fulfillment of a rogue mormon prophecy. Wikipedia is not the place for this. --David Andreas 15:10, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

none of the arguments just above seem reasons for deletion. (not commenting yet on whether I'd want to keep the article)DGG 15:57, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:15, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have added references that cover statements made and quoted, from 3rd party sources, please advise or edit if this article needs help. dbp653

Delete per WP:NOTE, WP:VERIFY and WP:OR. I can't find other references to this "Brown Prophecy", the article is self-referential, and is chock-full of speculation and original research (how does one prove a prophecy has come true?). EyeSerene^TALK 13:25, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per EyeSerene's arguments as well as WP:NOP and WP:neologism. Dan Gluck 13:04, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus. I suggest improving the article a bit (particularly the grammar - ask a native English speaker to review it) and expanding the sourcing. If it still isn't satisfactory, bring it back here for a second review. ChrisO 22:14, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bilo jednom...

Sorry, non-notable film, as much as I sypathize with the theme and resentiment of the film. The author of the article Jdjerich (talk · contribs) is likely the author of the film, thus WP:COI comes to play. No significant independent reviews, no indications of its popularity or even the cult status status. Heck, no hits even on Dnevnik, the local newspaper with thorough coverage of local events. No other WP:RS that I can find either [30]. Duja► 13:03, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and maybe redirect to Bilo jednom u Hrvatskoj. The google hits for Bilo jednom are unrelated (it's a common phrase), so I don't think the film is notable. Shalom ^Hello 14:08, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment official site of the film is the first result on Google [31].--Jdjerich 21:07, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment search conditions listed I find as a bad guess (too specific) - "Bilo+jednom" punk novi sad - a two-word phrase plus 3 words?! That's not the way you should use a search engine (if you want to find something). Even so, right after wikipedia, second result is films' presentation on mySpace of the Production company that made the film, and next one is the official site of the film.--Jdjerich 21:07, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, a redirect to Bilo jednom u Hrvatskoj is not appropriate. "Bilo jednom..." translates to "Once upon a time...". For the same reason it should not redirect to Once Upon a Time in the West, Once Upon a Time in America, Once Upon a Time ... The Revolution or Once Upon a Time in Mexico. In any case hopefully we find something on the notability of this film per Wikipedia:Notability (films). // laughing man 15:46, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid that WYSIWYG applies, i.e. the references already provided in the article are the only ones. At least, that's what I managed to find out independently. According to the snippet from [32] (the author gave an interview to local "Radio In"), he's (still?) a student of Novi Sad Academy of Arts ("Jovan Đerić" is also a frequent name+surname combination, I think I found at least 4 different men by googling). Personally, I wish I'd seen the movie, but WP:ILIKEIT doesn't trump WP:N and WP:V. Duja► 08:09, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sorry for being impolite, but you should check "press" page on official web-site of the movie [33], there you can find articles from newspapers (two or three from "Dnevnik" - their site-archive search is so nasty I was not able to find those articles neither). As well, if you are really trying to clean-up Wikipedia from spam-articles, you should also check some links on the google-search page you provided. Other mentions of the movie you can find there. How comes that nobody of you guys checked www.bilojednom.info and contents of that site? Photos from the premiere, web-trailer and else can be found there.--Jdjerich 08:19, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, I missed that. I don't think anyone used word "spam" on this page (although my statement of conflict of interest still holds.) So, we do have 3 independent newsarticles on the film, confined to the local press. Unfortunately, I still feel that none of WP:NF#General principles is satisfied. WP≠IMDB. Duja► 13:05, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just wanted to enrich Wikipedia with this contribution (trully, I was notified by google-robot that film is notified on Zbogom Brus Li wiki-pages, so I checked it and than decided to make its' own page).

WP:NF#General principles"A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" condition is by my oppinion fulfiled by those articles, as well as with those which I don't posses (from "Blic", "Politika", "Vecernje novosti" and "Danas" news-papers, TV coverage by "Radio-television of Vojvodina", "TV Apolo", "TV Kanal 9", "Multi radio", "Radio 021", "Radio Sajam" and maybe some others I forgot). I don't understand what other coverage you are expecting?

Film will also be shown during 2007 "Motovun film festival" in Croatia as part of presentation of film production in Vojvodina (programe segment titled MADE IN VOJVODINA).

However, I don't feel like I made a mistake, the blame is always to those whose drive is to ruin, not to those who are creating. Everything writen on the page is true, and contributed with best intention. I was not aware that it will be problem to some people if I contribute something I know all the details about.

Take a look of other films in "Category: Serbian films", please pay attention how do they fulfil WP:NF#General principles.--Jdjerich 01:17, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, no one is questioning your good faith. I do understand your desire to contribute about something you know about, but writing about one's own work of borderline notability is seldom a good idea. As for the conflict of interest, I (try to) practice what I preach. Wikipedia's attempt is not to become another Internet i.e. an indiscriminate collection of information.

Re the WP:NF#General principles: the sentence you quoted says presumed, i.e. sources are a necessary but not the sufficient criterion for inclusion; other criteria are listed below.

Finally, as for WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS: that's fixable as well [34]. Is there any other? Duja► 07:47, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:21, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:21, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have no opinion on this, but if it's closed as Delete, the closing admin should also be aware to revert User:Jdjerich's additions to various articles where he adds links to this page. Oh, and the snarky "drive to ruin" remark isn't appreciated, either. JuJube 01:56, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

JuJube, Please do not bite the newcomers. Thank you. // laughing man 02:00, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Those are articles of bands whose members apear in the film, and articles whose topic is related to films' topic.--Jdjerich 21:13, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A well written article. We don't have sufficient articles on Yugoslavian rock music of the 90s. - Francis Tyers · 08:08, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If the licensing issues for the images are not fixed, I may change my mind. - Francis Tyers · 08:13, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Fixed licensing issues it took some time for me to figure it out. Sorry for inconvinience :) - --Jdjerich 12:30, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but add more text. Otherwise, good pictures! --24.154.173.243 18:35, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:03, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Red tailed black squirrel

Page does not refer to a species or subspecies of squirrel as no such taxon exists. No scientific name provided, so 100% verification of this is not really possible. This appears to be a page about a personal observation of melanistic Eastern Gray Squirrels with some reddish color on their tails if not an attempt at gibberish. Aranae 12:57, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as nonsense, or at least a blatant violation of WP:NOR. Shalom ^Hello 14:09, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as OR. Doesn't seem to be pure nonsense, possibly something made up in school one day - but more likely just someone's personal observations. Arkyan  ^(talk) 15:03, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:22, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it's original research. It wouldn't surprise me if it was nonsense. Acalamari 18:27, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nonsense/OR. Jacek Kendysz 21:33, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete "This is the result of being fed peanuts?" Sounds like patent nonsense, or original research at best.--Kylohk 21:40, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
strong delete misleading hoax as best I can tell. Debivort 06:09, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. WP:NOT#DIR. ChrisO 22:25, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Photo sharing sites

Originally placed for Speedy, but does not quite make the cut. Page is covered only in external links. Jimmi Hugh 12:46, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep only the items with Wikipedia articles on the list; no spam, please. Regarding the relevance of the article topic, it's about the same as List of social networking sites, a high-profile article on the wiki. Shalom ^Hello 14:11, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Wikipedia is not a web directory. If an article can be written on the topic of photo sharing sites, this is not it. Arkyan  ^(talk) 15:04, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:22, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rewrite for tone. (e.g. change X lets you.... to more encyclopedic wording ) Limit to ones with WP pages--a few more of them could probably justify such pages by now. Then would be as encyclopedic as many other lists. DGG 16:01, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a directory. This is essentially an index, and is more than appropriate for a category. Agent 86 18:05, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Reads like an ad. The creator needs to read WP:ADVERT! Jonjonbt96 18:24, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and make it to a table like here. Limit to sites with articles. Jacek Kendysz 21:30, 25 June 2007 (UTC)*[reply]
Delete. WP:NOT Wikipedia is not a directory. Could be changed, however would need restructuring, moving to List of Photo Sharing Sites, and limiting to sites with articles. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 23:01, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Spam. Piperdown 01:22, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, if the tone of the piece is unacceptable, it can be changed (you can do that with a wiki). The site descriptions came directly from each link's parent site. The point behind Wikipedia is to provide a medium for the free exchange of information, proving readers a means through which to become aware of new content is vital to that goal and why lists are appropriate in certain instances (such as this one). There are a number of other entries which also assume list format. If this one is removed than they should be too.Rick Kenney 01:42, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Link farm, spam, directory. All things that Wikipedia is not. Resolute 03:47, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable entries, making it to a useful comparison table. --A3 nm 11:45, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notable sites with Wikipedia articles can be organized by a category. A list of external links is not a suitable encyclopedia article. PCock 20:03, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or dramatically cut and rewrite - Wouldn't hurt to have a comparison article like those found in Category:Software comparisons or Photo gallery comparison, but the current linkfarm reads like something you'd see on dmoz. MrZaius^talk 19:38, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per NOT a directory in WP:NOT This would just lead to massive spammage as people try to promote their sites. We'd have to be subjective on what criteria for inclusion be since this cant be an endless/unmaintable list Corpx 06:16, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT a directory. {{empty}} allows the speedy d of articles consisting only of links elsewhere (CSD A3). --Evb-wiki 12:43, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 02:49, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jeevanvidya

Article is about a random philosophy of life. Seems to be a self-promotion and has many errors. It is unsourced and has zero WP links to it. The article is also unsourced and not notable, having few g-hits. Reywas92^Talk 12:36, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - apparent conflict of interest by User:Nikhilpai. Shalom ^Hello 14:13, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:23, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable unless sourced--and then a good deal of editing would still be needed. DGG 16:02, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete extremely unencyclopedic and POV, as well as poorly sourced. VanTucky 20:34, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article isn't notable and doesn't cite any sources. — Wen li ^(contribs) 20:38, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SOAP, WP:NPOV, WP:COI, and WP:OR. Bearian 18:40, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:05, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of hip hop collaborations

I'm a little concerned about having this list. A list such as this would be nearly impossible to maintain, the previous AfD here was no consensus, and I dont see the value of having a list of every single collaboration. The fact that a cleanup tag's been on it forever, it's not really referenced or verifiable, and the fat that it has little encyclopedia value doesn't help either. Wizardman 12:34, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Isn't it rarer to find a hip-hop song that doesn't have guest rappers on it....? ChrisTheDude 12:36, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A list of this kind is not encyclopedic. Reywas92^Talk 12:38, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Not encyclopedic, not verifiable, original research, and utterly impossible to maintain. A quick regex on my library reveals over 13,000 collabos. east.718 13:07, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:23, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:24, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This list is bound to run to hundreds if not thousands of items every year. Notable artists can have their collaborations listed in their individual articles. This is not a suitable Wikipedia article. Clconway 16:37, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but trim and improve. The points made in the nomination are good, but can be dealt with if we keep the list to a reasonable size and don't include every single collaboration. How? Cut back to only songs that are notable enough to have their own Wikipedia articles, and that are particularly notable because they are collaborations. Λυδαcιτγ 03:21, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To give all those who have voted Delete an idea of what the size of this list should be, I've trimmed the # and A sections down to only those songs with their own articles, leaving 5 entries. Almost all of the songs which are currently redlinked would be removed, along with many of the bluelinks that link to articles not about those songs. I'd estimate the list will be cut in four when this process is finished. Really, this is not an unmaintainable size. Λυδαcιτγ 02:19, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete agree. Today, everything in hip-hop is a collaboration. Bulldog123 07:31, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The songs have nothing in common except the fact that several artists worked together on them, making the article a list of loosely associated topics. Also impossible to maintain and of no encyclopedic use. Pax:Vobiscum 08:23, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Notable per Gassyguy. Article still needs expansion and cleanup. ChrisO 22:42, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Quatro

Cleanup tag since October 2005, fails to establish notability to me, notability question tag was up at well. Lacks sources to prove notability as well. Wizardman 12:20, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Zero notability asserted. Reywas92^Talk 12:39, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:24, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nonnotable, fails notability criteria, music or otherwise, 100%. Cricket02 01:09, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is the notability not that he is the brother of Suzi Quatro? It may interest a lot of people that Suzi had a not-as-musically-successful sibling. Thejerseybean 10:29, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have attempted to expand the coverage on this to show that Quatro was indeed notable. It still needs cleanup but he does pass WP:MUSIC if for nothing else than his two United Artists album releases. GassyGuy 10:39, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:06, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jean-Pierre Reux-Tout

There are too many things in here that strike me as a hoax - Irish clergy born in France to a really old Norwegian nun; lobsters were not usually eaten in his era yet he choked on one. There are no google hits for this guy that aren't wiki related. I am nominating this just as a way of checking with others to see if this article is really a hoax or not and if it should stay or go. Postcard Cathy 12:33, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - looks like a hoax to me, either way, no sources and I couldn't find any. Ryan Postlethwaite 12:40, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - can't verify, comes from an IP address with bad edit history, and repeats material from the defunct Saint-André, Gers that was deleted as patent nonsense. Gordonofcartoon 14:33, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:25, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete among all the rest, there does not seem to have been any "big war of 1245" in Norway.DGG 16:05, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:06, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Derringer NO

Non notable band, fails WP:MUSIC, no reliable g-hits Ryan Postlethwaite 12:21, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable, not verifiable, no independent reliable sources.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 12:29, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:26, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:26, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails WP:Music Cricket02 01:07, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Note that I think the noms ghits URL is incorrect; the group appears to be called "Derringer". The article was written by Olers (talk · contribs), who has made no other contributions. My searching has failed to show anything worthy of note. John Vandenberg 01:47, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:07, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Practical Alternatives to Congestion Pricing

The article appears to be a personal theory that is a response to New York congestion pricing. Without reliable sources, the article can't stand. Tinlinkin 11:47, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete essay, POV, no WP:V, no WP:RS, does not merit encyclopedia article.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 12:33, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge This definitely is a piece of indiscriminate information. It would be better had it's merged into the article on toll roads, or something.--Kylohk 14:54, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Ambitious oung lawyer has been inserting this ad in various articles; let him continue the struggle there. Jim.henderson 15:08, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:27, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.
Comment How come it's still here? New York congestion pricing covers the matter more than adequately. Jim.henderson 15:22, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:07, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Marlena Hall (Troncoso)

AfDs for this article:

This person fails WP:BIO. Previous nomination resulted in "speedy delete" (July 9, 2006); apparently re-created some days later by an WP:SPA. -- Sent here as part of the Notability wikiproject. --B. Wolterding 11:47, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - no ascertation of notabiliy - A7. Ryan Postlethwaite 12:24, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Just short of being a speedy candidate (but only just). Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:36, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:27, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete The article is badly written, not notable, and does not cite any references. — Wen li ^(contribs) 20:39, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep — Caknuck 16:31, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

theAUDITION

Fails notability per WP:MUSIC, almost all GHits are either blogs or SPSs. soum ^talk 11:38, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion was initally not listed because of a now corrected spelling error -- Tikiwont 12:09, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - Press outlets usually spell the band's name as "The Audition", so that's how their Ghits will come up. The band has toured numerous times nationally, as well as internationally in Canada (and in New Zealand; working on getting a press source for that). Article now well sourced with refs for national and international tours. Chubbles 14:39, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Seems notable enough. Multiple tours of various regions of the country. As long as someone keeps the article fixed up and sourced. Ghits arn't a reliable indicator. My own name comes up with many, and they're all me, and I am not notable at all. Rocksanddirt 21:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:28, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:28, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Good sources/references added today it looks like. But in all sources the band is called "The Audition". Propose moving to this namespace. Cricket02 01:03, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:BAND due to international tour. I've moved the article to The Audition (band). John Vandenberg 01:26, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Notability has not satisfactorily been established. ChrisO 22:45, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Project Reach

Uncited article by single-purpose account showing clear conflict of interest. May be salvageable. But probably not. Guy (Help!) 10:24, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete At this time it appears unsalvageable to me. It is poorly written, unencyclopedic, and unsourced; it fails to establish notability. A search on "Project Reach" + New York yields over 33,500 hits, few, if any, of which are independent sources. This appears to be a local project with little national relevance. --Nonstopdrivel 13:56, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable Corpx 15:11, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This non-profit group works with marginalized minorities and has had an open-door approach welcoming gang-members, LGBT people, immigrants and street people since it's inception 35 years ago which, it itself, is surprising. The culture in which the group operates does not encourage self-promotion but collaboration and networking which they do seem to do. Thier clients are poor kids, immigrants and at-risk youth, none of who are likely to garner headlines but their work is recognized. If you modify your search terms to "project reach" + "new york" + "chinatown" you will narrow down rather quickly including about a dozen grants from foundations who believe in the work they do enough to give them money. They are also referenced in at least two books and with some digging I imagine more in depth articles will surface as well. Article certainly needs work but the material is there. I'll admit being newer to WP but I was a little surprised about the nomination for deletion rather than proding for notability. Isn't the article less than 2 weeks old? If article's creator is a newer user they might be encouraged more with a more with a less aggressive approach. Benjiboi 12:40, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, if brought to encyclopedic standards. That it has continued for 35 years *is* notable, but how many has it helped? Approximately how many are now involved in the project? The project website does seem to indicate that the numbers are not insignificant as a local organization and that it has some substantial partners and events. Evolauxia 15:22, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KrakatoaKatie 11:40, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Meh, weak delete. I was going to suggest a weak keep here, but I am having a hard time dredging up independent sources to establish any notability. A websearch is compounded by the fact that there appear to be dozens of groups/organizations/projects called "Project Reach". That any one of them are notable is questionable. If some reliable sources can be found prior to the end of this discussion I'll happily change my mind, but for now I must recommend deletion. Arkyan  ^(talk) 15:10, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:29, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Move and expand. Searching together with the sponsor, it appears that "Project Reach. Youth Division of Chinese-American Planning Council" [35]. The main organisation has 17,000 ghits, & some seem usable NY Times [36] PBS [37] & [38].DGG 16:15, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Benjiboi. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 08:41, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:08, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

El Khot

Unverifiable. I would have given a second thought if the article had a non-English wiki counterpart, but it has none. BorgQueen 11:39, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of reliable sources. I only found Wikipedia mirrors. --Tikiwont 12:19, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Not notable either. Reywas92^Talk 12:42, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:30, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. — Wen li ^(contribs) 20:40, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE. WP:NOT#CBALL. ChrisO 22:46, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

UFC 76

AfDs for this article:

I recently performed cleanup on this article and it's left with essentially nothing. The event is a long way off and WP:NOT#CBALL applies here. This event deserves an article, just not now. east.718 11:17, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Yes the article as of now is a stub, however, there is verifiable information about this upcoming events, especially with the news source given in the article. I know WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, however we do have articles for other upcoming events see Wrestlemania 24 for example, and if this article was to be deleted now, honestly it would be recreated shortly thereafter. Wildthing61476 14:34, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The news source simply states that UFC 76 will happen. It is also a given that a UFC 80 and 90 will occur, but those don't deserve articles. east.718 17:48, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Note my above comment about Wrestlemania 24. Again I know WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but I find it odd that there is about as much information for both events, yet one would never be considered for deletion. My other point is this isn't truly crystal balling as there is a date and a venue set for the event. Wildthing61476 17:57, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:30, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:31, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment the ref. given says "UFC 76 in Anaheim has not yet finalized its main event" DGG 16:17, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ for now per nom. hateless 18:19, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete. News is actually starting to trickle out, ie, the Oregonian reported the date of the event and one participant but not the name, LA Times reported the place and month and not much else, etc. Rumor sites below the threshold of WP:RS has the complete info save confirmed matchups. I don't doubt the date and location is correct but strictly operating under WP's policies, they should not be here as it stands currently. hateless 20:59, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, because barring some unexpected WTH like the UFC folds, UFC 76, the 76th event of arguably the most prominent mixed martial arts organization in the world, will happen. And as the event nears, the article will only become more referenced and fleshed in, so simply too early to delete an article that will only improve and will only increase in justification for its existence. --164.107.222.23 20:50, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The policies of WP, especially WP:NOT#CBALL, expressly state that the standards of inclusion is above simply being inevitable. The reason we don't tolerate articles like UFC 80 is because they'll have no content other than pure speculation. hateless 21:01, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Can I ask what the difference between this event and a future WWE pay per view or other future sporting event is? I'm a deletionist by nature, but I just find it odd that an event such as UFC, with verifiable date and location information is not considered worthy of an article, yet you look at future Wrestlemanias or Royal Rumbles, with NO information other than where it's being held and what day it is (obviously matches for these shows wont be done until next year) are kept. In the case of the '08 Rumble, all that is there is a date at this time. I'd just like to know what the reasoning is that's all. One last thing to add, according to WP:NOT#CBALL "Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place." I'm thinking that this easily meets both since UFC is notable, and also as stated above, unless something extremely odd occurs in the next 2-3 months, this event WILL happen. Wildthing61476 21:03, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - The key phrase I'm looking at is this: "Individual items from a predetermined list or a systematic pattern of names, preassigned to future events or discoveries, are not suitable article topics, if only generic information is known about the item" (my bold). For UFC events, I would think there should be at the least be a confirmed location, date and time, confirmed by the UFC themselves or at the least strongly asserted by a reliable source. The difference between the UFC and WWE is that there is plenty of lead time between announcement and the event itself, ie, they will announce the place and date of the next Wrestlemania right after they held the last one, whereas the UFC just announced UFC 74 today, which will happen in 2 months. They also announced UFC 75 a week or two before they announced UFC 74, so their event booking staff isn't the smoothest ship in the ocean apparently. Personally, I think all the WWE events that don't have a place and time should be sent to prod or afd. hateless 21:24, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - I agree on all points. east.718 13:37, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete crystal ball Thesaddestday 01:03, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
bundling an article I know it's late in the game, but the same reasoning applies. I'm bundling in UFC 77.--Chaser - T 07:11, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That article was deleted just three days ago because of crystal balling. The current version is a hoax. east.718 11:50, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No real reasons to keep posted in over 2 weeks. Wizardman 14:18, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abashera

Article gives no indication of notability with multiple independent reliable sources. Whispe ring 11:12, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:32, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep. The game is still available for download (freeware) and it's annoying when searching for older games and there's no info to find on them.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.226.87.68 (talk • contribs)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fuhghettaboutit 03:53, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The IP's "keep" argument is similar to WP:USEFUL. Shalom ^Hello 07:10, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is currently no valid argument for deletion. The article is accurate, properly-categorized & size-appropriate for its popularity. -75.130.90.56 15:44, 8 July 2007 (UTC)-[reply]
- Comment Huh? The article doesn't have any reviews, commentary or any sort of source noting how it is notable in anyway. Per Wikipedia policy that is plenty of reason to delete the article. Whispe ring 16:39, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Evil Spartan 23:28, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article cites no reliable secondary sources, and does not even assert especial notability within the category of games like this. ≈≈Carolfrog≈≈♦тос♦ 23:51, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:08, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of popular business books

More listcruft. Original research with no valid criteria other than the editors own POV. Potentially endless list depending on your own POV and so indiscriminate information. No better than List of pretty colors. MartinDK 10:57, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. "Popular" is a subjective criterion that's vaguely defined. Perhaps something like List of business books with more than 1,000,000 copies sold or something similar would be a more appropriate list. JulesH 11:32, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:32, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As is, there are no criteria beyond the title of the article. I'm certain that some sort of list, such as what JulesH suggests above, might be viable, but it would probably have to be built from scratch. -Chunky Rice 17:06, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. per nom. Piperdown 01:23, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete.I put the {{TotallyDisputed}} and {{Original research}} tags there. Now I think it's FUBAR. Popular is a very vague and POV word, and most of those books don't even have Wikipedia articles. If anybody finds reliable sources, there could be a list of best selling business books or something.--Svetovid 09:24, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete too subjective--Sefringle^Talk 22:54, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. and all.--JayJasper 17:38, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above, listcruft. Bearian 18:44, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:08, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of gentrified neighborhoods

Unsourced original research and listcruft of the worst kind. MartinDK 10:48, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, original research and biased. Punkmorten 14:35, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete, no lead paragraph, no attempt to explain what a "gentrified neighborhood" is, no inclusion criteria listed whatsoever - this all adds up to no article. Arkyan  ^(talk) 15:12, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:33, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete, per nom --Bill.matthews 16:16, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete absurdly short and incomplete list; a good one might work if there were some sources, but better to start over. (& "Gentrified neighborhoods" might be a usable category) DGG 16:19, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Regular-strength delete (no extra strength needed for this one). Gentrification covers this topic with better sources. The list doesn't explain how or why those neighborhoods were gentrified, and there's no inclusion criteria listed either. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 16:25, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no context, list is incomplete and US-centric article.--JForget 00:34, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete list would be endless--Sefringle^Talk 22:53, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. ChrisO 22:49, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Most FM

deprodded by editor saying "Wikipedia does not prod any radio stations, campus or otherwise, that are properly licensed by the appropriate broadcast regulator." However, I contend that it is still not notable, as a student radio station. The article is unsourced. In any event, there appears to be no mention of any licenses granted. Stub since January 2006. Ohconfucius 10:23, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep. Some evidences of notability in sources [39][40] and [41]. JulesH 12:07, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"weak" is definitely the word: 1] and 3] are trivial mentions, and I believe 2] is a directory entry from a dependent source, thus none would qualify as valid criteria under WP:N. Ohconfucius 06:21, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete student activity at a single school. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:02, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence it is a licensed broadcast station. Some countries allow unlicensed low powered FM stations, which are about as non-notable as things get. One of the references by JulesH says it gets out 5 km, which isn't very far, and another says they broadcast part-time until recent years, which also sounds like a hobby station, a vanity station, or a training operation for radio students at the school. Edison 14:04, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I live less than 1km from my local university campus, but I can't receive their radio station here. On the scale of things, 5km is quite a range for a university station. JulesH 14:33, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:33, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. But expand. Kripto 22:35, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Per our practice on radio stations, our sole criterion for determining the notability of a radio station is "licensed by the appropriate broadcast regulator and originates at least a portion of its broadcast schedule in its own studios". We don't apply any additional criteria beyond that; if a radio station meets those two conditions, it's in. Keep. Bearcat 22:20, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. According to RadioStationWorld, the station broadcasts with 1 kW of power. In the U.S. this would enough to require an FCC license. Two college radio stations in the Los Angeles area, KCSN and KPCC, broadcast with less power (370 watts and 600 watts respectively), and they are definitely notable and can be heard throughout most of the Los Angeles area. For evidence that it is a licensed broadcast station in New Zealand, see here DHowell 21:20, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:09, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dionne Walters

third runner-up in reality TV show. Wanabee with few professional accomplishments, and nothing else of note. Ohconfucius 10:13, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Reality show contestants must be better than fourth to be notable. Reywas92^Talk 12:44, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment while I am abstaining from an actual vote, I disagree with the contestants must be better than fourth to be notable. It's been a while since I've watched it, but I can bet my bottom dollar that quite a few The Apprentice contestants became famous after being on the show even though they were fired before making it to the semi-finals --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 14:32, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:34, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Omarosa is a prime example.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 18:30, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The notoriety claim of the confusing name does not cut it for me. --TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 18:30, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The general formula for this show was the winner and runner-up got articles then the rest were just listed in the list of contestants and since this person wasn't the winner or runner-up and has had no real accomplishments since the show the article definitely needs to be deleted. Xtreme racer 18:36, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:10, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dreadful

Article about a special usage of the word in railfan jargon. Transwiking an prodding have already ben tried. Given that there are no external sources and there exists already List of UK railfan jargon, I see no reason to have this article. Tikiwont 09:49, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's an external link on the article; http://www.dreadful.org.uk/jargon.htm (You'll have to scroll down, as the Javascript on the Letters doesent appear to work for me), and another at http://www.rodge.force9.co.uk/faq/basher.html .

Quotes from http://www.dreadful.org.uk/memories_of_the_westerns_by_paul.htm , showing the context;

By now Wellington was in a hell of a state. Quite what the returning Saturday shoppers on the train thought of the bellowing - well judge for yourself. Wellington's frequent renditions of 'Keep right on to the end of the road' could be heard throughout the train, although that line didn't quite apply to us as we had to bale out at Neath for 1A07. When it appeared round the curve, Wellington screamed from the station footbridge 'my lords it's dreadful' at such a pitch that they heard it in Newtown, Newport and all points between.

Wellington was in his usual dreadful state, bellowing out of the window 'my lords- that's it, that's it' when a couple of Nuns interrupted him to ask ' ha, what is it, what is it?'

If it's not suitable, fine, I apologise, but 'dreadful' is a fairly well known term, and one that I've used myself (although when enjoying Brush, rather than Maybach thrash - oh the pain of being born about 15 years too late ;) )

Just my tuppence-worth anyway :) Muchclag 11:35, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 10:05, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Even if this were a well-known and well-referenced term (IMHO it's not), it would still fall under WP:NOT a dictionary. And certainly not a dictionary of slang used by a particular type of fan group in one region. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:44, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We have references (though not ones satisfying WP:A which claim that railfans in a given country yell "My lordz its dreadful" (or at least that one called Wellington (apparently not Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington) did so once) when they are enjoying looking at a train. First, Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Second Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day seems to apply here, although the fans are not identified as schoolboys. A small group made up a word or word usage which lacks currency in general use. Same thing. Last, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Edison 14:17, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak DeleteOK, I see your point. It's a little hard trying to find written sources for terms such as this IMHO, as it is very much a vocal expression. Although I've been unable to find other, contextual, sources, putting 'dreadful' into Google brings up, as the first result, the website I've linked to in this discussion. Muchclag 18:14, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - coverage in an article on railway slang is probably sufficient. Wiktionary might be interested in this as an alternate use for the word, with sources or whatever they want there. I'm saying all this as a pretty intense fan of all things on rails, too. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 18:57, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~RA to Vic Berry's~~.. er sorry, Delete - can only be a dicdef of a slang term in use by a small group of people, and a reference already exists at List of UK railfan jargon - it could be expanded upon in that article. EliminatorJR ^Talk 23:24, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as utterly NN neologism specific to a small group of enthusiasts. --Dhartung | Talk 08:09, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Already redirected to Young Snipe. ChrisO 22:50, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Frank:The Mixtape

This isn't an original work, but a mix tape of other artists' music. Non-notable. Also AFDing the artist, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Undaground Rap Mixtape Vol.1 eaolson 20:50, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 00:22, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 00:22, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Young Snipe. John Vandenberg 02:57, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - If it can be established that Young Snipe was involved in the creation of the album, as implied by the infobox in this LEAD-less article, then it plainly meets the notability guideline, ~~assuming~~ Young Snipe does. According to WP:MUSIC, any album from a notable artist warrants coverage here, but this mixtape is kind of borderline - Does a mixtape by released by the artist's own non-notable label count as an album? That said, if no additional context can be provided, I'd say delete - An article should plainly be more than a track listing. MrZaius^talk 02:57, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 09:31, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete DJs and mixtape hosts are not usually involved in the production of a mixtape, especially a compilation like this one. However, the article doesn't assess this. east.718 11:21, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep as notability established. Please note this is a non-administrator close. The Evil Spartan 22:58, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Christmas Schooner

NN musical. Only holiday productions. Article is mostly advert-type review quotes. — Music Maker 20:57, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 08:57, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 08:57, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KrakatoaKatie 09:01, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete trivial notability--Sefringle^Talk 22:57, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fuhghettaboutit 03:53, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep based on the awards it received. They give small sign of notability Corpx 04:14, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This musical has received productions in various cities and even internationally and has been reviewed and discussed in mainstream media sources. See [42], [43], and[44] for examples. The fact that a Christmas-themed musical only gets produced around Christmastime does not affect its notability. --Metropolitan90 04:15, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, seems to satisfy WP:N, and having traveled overseas seems to rate some importance. --Dhartung | Talk 10:54, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus, defaulting to Keep. NawlinWiki 00:38, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Imagine Tap

NN musical. — Music Maker 21:08, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - I think it need to be tagged {{expert-subject}}, but it does meet WP:MUSIC. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (ταlκ) 21:14, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 08:52, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KrakatoaKatie 09:00, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 16:39, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fuhghettaboutit 03:53, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. How can this article pass WP:MUSIC if it doesn't pass WP:ATT? The sources don't look good enough to me. ≈≈Carolfrog≈≈♦тос♦ 04:29, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Like Carolfrog said, how can it pass WP:MUSIC with no WP:RS (or any references, for that matter)? Precious Roy 07:35, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, two credible independent sources on the first page of google results [45][46] and a number of google news archive results. John Vandenberg 07:51, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as John says, plenty of sources available through Google. Paxse 14:13, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:11, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brixton Overcoat

Original research/neologism. Doesn't quite fit speedy. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 21:29, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There's almost no content and what there is is rubbish. Questions of race relations in the UK are dealt with properly elsewhere. The term could be added to such an article as an example of slang if good sources exist. Nick mallory 02:45, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. No content, just POV in a philosophical/social debate. --SquidSK ^(1MC^•^log) 09:16, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I am black, and have lived in Brixton for 22 years, and have never heard this expression. --User:80.254.147.20 14:09, 29 June 2007

_Major Revision of Brixton Overcoat entry. 20:08, 21 June 2007 (GMT)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KrakatoaKatie 09:00, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 10:06, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Term apparently never used aside from the title of one obscure book, which this may well be stealth spam for. Also appears on wikitionary's "List of protologisms". Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:14, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:11, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disco Inferno (musical)

NN musical with NN creators. — Music Maker 21:28, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 08:47, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Iknowyourider (t c) 01:27, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KrakatoaKatie 08:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete seems to be amateur production with non-original score compiled from period hits. Article seems copyvio of ext link text. Johnbod 17:08, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete - Crap at all. --Attilios 17:14, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 22:18, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The playground live

NN musical. — Music Maker 21:20, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 08:49, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 08:50, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KrakatoaKatie 08:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not meet any WP:MUSIC guidelines. --SquidSK ^(1MC^•^log) 09:17, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fuhghettaboutit 03:53, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No references verifying notability. Propaniac 18:48, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No assertion of notability. Johnbod 14:25, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No assertion of notability. --Attilios 16:20, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Notability not satisfactorily established. ChrisO 22:52, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'Twas the Night (musical)

NN musical. Only production is annual in a mid-sized Washingtown town. — Music Maker 20:52, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Rackabello 21:02, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 08:55, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 08:55, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KrakatoaKatie 09:01, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It apparently has been performed in several cities, not that otherwise should be deletion criteria. I'll give you that the article needs a good cleanup, however. -- Bigwyrm 02:59, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not very notable. No reliable sources--Sefringle^Talk 22:58, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Several commentators have opined that this article is now a mess but has potential to be encyclopedic, but significantly, there was only one support for "keep". Even taking into account the two neutrals, there seems to be consensus to delete. One commentator suggested that the songs could be integrated into the articles about the politicians. So they could, subject to due weight. But as we're talking only about names of songs, and not any material that would come under the GFDL, this doesn't require that the article be kept. Anyone who wants a copy of this list can ask for David Gerard or some other admin to send a copy in email. --Tony Sidaway 21:26, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs about politicians

AfDs for this article:

List is pure orignal research. On quick look almost every song I know is no about any president at all let alone the one its listed under. For example read the lyrics to the song "It's A Hit" ^[1]. Yes it mentions someone running for office and deploying troops. But it really makes no mention of anyone in office or any office in particular. Another example Yes the song "Ohio" mentions Nixon, but it's about the Kent State shootings not Nixon. List seems doomed to unsourced orignal research. Seems like any song written on a political topic will automatically be about the person in office at the time. Ridernyc 12:32, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral. This could be made encyclopedic but it'd be a lot shorter than it is now. Powers ^T 15:13, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral This is definetely a potential very encyclopedic article, with songs like fr:Ah ! ça ira. But now it's only listcruft.--victor falk 17:05, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no objective criteria for what constitutes being "about" a politician. Does it need to be about a specific politician or is any mention of the word "politician" or similar in the lyrics enough? Is a single reference or mention sufficient? A single verse? The arguments put forth in the first AFD were tragic. "Interesting," "not that bad" and the like are not good arguments in favor of keeping. Otto4711 17:58, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Integrate it into other articles I think it's an interesting list. It doesn't deserve being an article though. That goes against the rules of wikipedia. However the lists of songs could be integrated into the articles about the politcians they are about. I think that would be a resonable solution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.187.237.12 (talk) 23:13, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Wow, the previous AfD was a snowball of keep votes. However, none of these songs were actually notable. Ohio does mention Nixon by name. End of the Innocence does refer to the "tired old man we elected king", a good description of Reagan. But it's a stretch to describe Bad Moon Rising as a wry comment about GOP politics. Harry Truman was actually the B-side of a Chicago hit single (Wishin' You Were Here maybe?). As for the rest of these, I doubt that Al Stewart ever performed Warren Harding in concert. Mandsford 23:52, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Articles titled "List of songs..." should be deleted ipso facto. Jack^(Lumber) 01:00, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per Otto4711. Criteria aren't quite rigid enough to merit inclusion in an encyclopedia (beyond Otto's "about" question, I'd like to add that most people who went through public high school can be considered politicians :)). The only way I can fathom this list passing WP:V would be if it were limited solely to songs where the composer flat-out states that they are about a politician (and hence the article becomes rather pointless). Unless List of Songs Suspected by Somebody, Somewhere, at Some Point in Time, to be Written About a Political Figure sounds like a good idea for an article (it sure doesn't to me). And how dare this article exclude You're So Vain? :D --Action Jackson IV 01:14, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; WP:NOT#IINFO, and trivia. Masaruemoto 02:34, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#INFO. Doctorfluffy 17:27, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I believe this is being voted for deletion on the basis that about a dozen of the several hundred items listed do not really qualify. That is not enough of reason to do any more than edit them out of the article. It would probably be reasonable to expect that t he key line be added to justify the inclusion of the items, but that some of the content is wrong is not evidence that the article is impossible--even erven a few are aboutthe subjects stated, it would be justified to have those few. 02:45, 4 November 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 Delete. On weight of numbers, this is 5:2 for deletion. On weight of arguments, those favoring deletion correctly cite the "indiscriminate collection" section of WP:NOT, and (although not by name) WP:NOR and WP:RS. Lots of the reasons for including particular songs depend on the kind of interpretation that we shouldn't do, unless we can source where someone else has done it. No sources are cited at all. While sources may not be need for the lyrics, and thus not for cases where the lyrics explicitly refer to a specific mental illness, when described actions are interpreted as "compulsive" or the like, that needs sourcing. I am willing to place a copy of this (with history) in the userspace of anyone who asks with an intent to work on it, but please understand that the kind of edits done during the AfD won't be enough, reasons must require no interpretation, or be sourced, IMO. DES ^(talk) 03:16, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs about mental illness

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/List of songs about mental illness (2nd nomination)

Articles for deletion/List of songs about bipolar disorder

Despite making it through an afd a while back, I truly don't see how this list is much different than the numerous deletion and relistings from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs about weather, so I think a renomination is warranted. Bulldog123 08:23, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- Pax:Vobiscum 09:05, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. With annotation and split up by the conditions depicted (like List of songs about drugs, except better), this list might serve as a useful reference to how mental illness has been depicted in song. However, the current list only has annotations for a select few songs, and many of these annotations suggest that the listings are significantly subjective. For example:
"Good for You" by Third Eye Blind
This song describes an obsessive relationship ("Cause I've been without, I go wild with doubt / I grab at you, I can't stop grabbing at you") and poorly concealed desperation, as in the lines, "Everything is fine, I'm lonely all the time" and "There's nothing wrong, just don't take too long."
That's a lot of interpretation there, and I'm still not sure it counts as "mental illness". I'm also concerned that the list may end up being kind of endless - songs about depression, for example, are entirely too common for a list to be useful - heck, there's an entire genre devoted to it. Zetawoof_(ζ) 10:11, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment That was a cheap shot. Kwsn^(Ni!) 22:47, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an indiscriminate collection of loosely related info. Useight 16:35, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT. Enough with the music lists! Kwsn^(Ni!) 22:47, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Take down and Retool I agree with Zeta that this list could be split up into specific illnesses, rather than the lame "0-9ABC" that exists now. This appears to be a work in progress, with some of the songs annotated. One does have to be careful in distinguishing "sad songs", "suicide songs" and "drug songs" from songs that are actually about a specific mental illness. You're familiar with all these recordings, clearly, so perhaps you need to ask yourself the question-- which of these would be something that a mental health professional could properly use as therapy? I can see where this could be useful in the profession. The list is going to get deleted, so save it now, and bring it back in another form. Mandsford 23:41, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm confused. Is someone volunteering to work on this? If so they should ask for it to be userfied (with the history). I do see potential in this one, but I've already got quite a collection of these to work on. -MrFizyx 18:33, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, a comment for my benefit, perhaps? I like your approach, Mr. Mxyzptlk-- you try to fix articles rather than dropping a cinderblock on their head. My only hesitation about volunteering, besides the obvious excuse of "I don't got time" is working on the article and then it gets deleted anyway. As you've seen, the general response to "List of songs about..." is NO NO NOT AGAIN NO NO OH GOD NO!!! So what do you do-- do you save the article, fix it up, then bring it back at a later time? I fancy myself to be an armchair expert on both music and mental illness, so I'd be willing to do the fixup. Mandsford 22:54, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've started the editing process suggested by Mr. Fixyz. Turns out that quite a few of the songs were blue-links, nearly all of the bands are, of course. I removed some that weren't actually about mental illness. Editing only went to the "D's", since there's no point in doing more than that if it's going to get deleted anyway. I hope that we can give this one (which survived its 1st nomination) more improvement. Mandsford 02:44, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and allow Mandsford to continue the editing process. I'm convinced that we can also find some sources that discuss this subject. If will be a while until i can help though. I'm guessing that Mandsford is now changing from delete to keep--perhaps he can make that explicit? -MrFizyx 20:31, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The nomination has no rationale for deletion other than comparing it with another AFD. That is not a good reason to delete a page with a 4 year history. I don't see a problem with keeping this list. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 03:03, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No Consensus The only significant argument for deletion is the "loosely associated topics" section of WP:NOT, there is no WP:NOR issue here. Given the significant number of reliable secondary soures now cited, that make it claer that this topic is a subject of general published comment, that argumetn cannot prevail. But the weight of numbers is IMO too strong to close this as a consensus for keep. DES ^(talk) 03:31, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs about school

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/List of songs about school (2nd nomination)

Relisting per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs about weather Bulldog123 08:20, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- Pax:Vobiscum 09:06, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOT#DIR, "Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics". See also WP:LC: "Song about school" does not seem to be an encyclopedic topic, so a "List of..." is not warranted. --B. Wolterding 10:14, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as loosely related info. These "List of songs about" are getting more obnoxious than "My Garage Band" Useight 16:36, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is just another useless list which is unsourced and filled with original research. Acalamari 18:23, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I'd change the title to Songs about Education, however, and look for more blue-links. Many artists have sung of their school experiences, and there is a cultural significance in the diverse comments that they make about education. Compare the Beach Boys' Be True to Your School with Pink Floyd's Another Brick in the Wall, or To Sir With Love vs. Don't Stand So Close to Me. Many of these have been anthems during the height of their popularity. Mandsford 23:51, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dictionary.com defines education as "the act or process of imparting or acquiring general knowledge". I highly doubt these songs are about the process of acquiring knowledge. Most of these songs reference events that happened during school/college life, but primarily about education or school. Corpx 08:48, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I consider songs about school to be an encyclopedic topic. Here are a few sources that I was able to easily dig up:
- Dorian Lynskey, "Readers recommend: songs about school", The Guardian, Sept 23, 2005
- Robert Fontenot, "Top 10 Oldies Songs About School", oldies.about.com
- Richard Aquila, That Old Time Rock and Roll: A Chronicle of an Era, 1954-1963 (contains a list of 75(?) songs about school within the chapter titled, "Songs About the Youth Culture")

The article does need work, however, listings should at minimum include year of the song's release and where possible a link to a song/album article or other reference. I'd also like to see a brief well-written (and sourced) introduction to the topic. -MrFizyx 19:12, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned, WP:NOT specifically mentions against Lists of loosely assosiated topics. As your links prove, content like this is fine and suitable for other sites/articles/editorials. Corpx 08:50, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You forgot books. "Loosely associated" is a debatable definition. -MrFizyx 20:45, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have significantly edited the article, but more work needs to be done. I hope that I have started to address some of the concerns above. -MrFizyx 06:43, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- With respect to the sources you added: They are a splendid example of how arbitrary this list is. Several sources collected a list of "top / recommended songs about school"; and in most cases they disagree. Of course they do! The selection of such songs is highly subjectice. That doesn't matter for a radio station or music magazine; but for an encyclopedia, one would like content that is verifiable, objectively. Collecting "top school song charts" from several sources does not make an encyclopedia entry, just as a list of "songs that have been named top hits by someone" would not fit. See also Wikipedia:Lists in Wikipedia#List membership criteria. --B. Wolterding 17:06, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - We don't claim that this list is a "best of" therefore we are not being subjective. The sources above (1) help improve the list's completeness by filling in major omissions, (2) verify the relevance of a significant fraction of the list and (3) demonstrate the notability of the concept. They are not being used to introduce subjectivity, because we are not highlighting anyone's favorites.
  What I think would be better is to present this as an article titled "Songs about school" that would include both an article and a dynamic list of examples. The text would discuss the role of school songs in culture--I was planning to start a short intorduction to the topic based largely on the following:
  - - Kevin J. Brehony, "'I Used to Get Mad at My School': Representations of Schooling in Rock and Pop Music", British Journal of Sociology of Education", 19:1, March 1998, pp.113-134
    - B. Lee Cooper, (Intro to) "Popular Music Reflects Teens' Attitudes About School" from American Teenagers (?)
  I think you are plain wrong to assume that none of these lists can be given context within an encyclopedia. Please consider the possibility. The Encyclopaedia Britannica article on "Rock and youth culture" is not too far afield from what I'm suggesting here. -MrFizyx 17:43, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on the inclusion criteria. If the list is then reduced to a hand-selected set of examples which fit your introduction well - fine. If however your introduction serves as an alibi for the current list, where everybody adds any song that would contain the word "school" in title or lyrics, then the list will be still listcruft. In any case, it would perhaps best be to prepare this radically changed article in user space. --B. Wolterding 17:58, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There should be criteria, but it should remain an article that "anyone can edit" (in mainspace!). Content disputes should be handled as they are everywhere on wikipedia (not "hand-selected" by one or few). My impression is that this list requires a bit less cleanup than most "List of songs..." articles. And as essays go, the current draft of WP:LC doesn't impress much. -MrFizyx 19:56, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Another list that's unmaintable, considering the number of songs out there and the number of schools. After reading some of the songs with articles, I've come to the conclusion that most of these songs are not primarily about schools. Schools are used as metaphors for some societal situations etc. This weakens & loosens the inclusion criteria even more, based on WP:NOT. Corpx 08:46, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There are about 130 songs currently listed. References have already been provided for >25%. The list is certianly not unmaintainable. Some are indeed likely to be removed if they do not explicitly discuss schooling related issues or extensively use "school" imagery. Many wikipedia articles have issues regarding what is or is not to be included. These problems should not be hard for interested editors to resolve. Perhaps you could clarify your concerns regarding WP:NOT? As I recall, that policy begins with something like "Wikipedia is not paper..." -MrFizyx 18:35, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I Dont think the references are valid. Notdarkyet.com is somebody's personal webpage and should not be used as a reference. The other 2 links cite somebody's opinion on what the song is about. This is again open to interpretation and cant be settled unless the artist himself/herself voices the definite opinion about the song. Corpx 18:45, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - References should be considered valid if they pass WP:RS. I have added a link to the official playlist for Dylan's XMRadio show, I've left the one to the fansite since they appear to have corrected some of the typos and added some relevant info--I only grabbed the fansite because it was being used in the Theme Time Radio Hour article. If the collective readership of The Guardian, a writer paid to be an "oldies" expert, or for that matter, Bob Dylan decide that a song is a significant song about school or has a school related theme, that should be good enough (unless it is an unusually controversial choice for some reason). Sometimes an artist doesn't know herself what her own song is about... Art must be experienced and interpreted by somebody or else it aint art. This notion that nobody can ever know what a song is about without the "definite opinion" is not logical. (Is this what has kept "Bitch School" off the list all this time?!?!) -MrFizyx 22:33, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I referenced WP:NOT because I think this is a list of loosely associated topics. A list like this is no different than making one about "List of songs about childhood" or "List of songs about work", since these are all activities/phases everyone goes through. Corpx 18:47, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I think it depends on how the matter is framed. "List of songs about work" probably is a tad broad and sounds unencyclopedic. "List of Labor songs" hmmm... maybe. If someone were to write an article, "Songs of the Labor Movement" and include a list it would be clearly not trivial and not indiscriminate. I think "songs about school" have a socio-cultural niche and that this list can be given context. -MrFizyx 22:33, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Further improvements have been made: I've added additional songs, sources, and a short introduction. If the article is not deleted I will try to improve the article in a manner that will reduce the likelihood of a future AfD. I feel the ususal criticims that similar articles are "full of original research" or represent a "trivial intersection" have been addressed for this case. I think I may have reached the limit of work that I'm willing to put in without knowing the outcome of this debate. (I don't think the current intro is very good, but the book named above actually involves going to a library, and the lengthly journal article will take some time to digest). -MrFizyx 17:33, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Methinks this is a different article than when this debate began. -MrFizyx 20:45, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The core of the issue is that this is a list of loosely assosated items. I apprecate your work on the article, but it is in clear violation of WP:NOT. Corpx 01:19, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- "Loosely associated" is certianly open to interpretation. There are now sufficient sources for this topic to easily pass notability criteria such as WP:N. I think that suggests that perhaps these are not loosely associated. This is a fair point to debate though. This will be my last post to the 'pedia for a little while. Good luck. -MrFizyx 05:05, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. ChrisO 22:57, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Airbus orders and deliveries

Appears to be listcruft. Bl a st ^{[improve me]} 23.06.07 2014 (UTC)

Delete not only a textbook case of indiscriminate list, there really is no context behind this list. Maybe merge one or two charts into Airbus though, as an example of how the company has grown. Resolute 22:11, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as listcruft per nom. --Bren ^talk 04:45, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 05:29, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This appears to be a statistical appedix to the Airbus article. It might have some merit, but I suspect these statistics are copied wholesale froma company website; if so, it will be much better for the Airbus article to cite that website as its source, leaving readers to follow the link. I would suggest that this is thus a weak delete. Peterkingiron 13:06, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note. You did not tag the article in question with a {{afd}} notice, and that is very important so that the people who have worked on the article are alerted that the age is up for deletion. I have tagged the article, and will move this nomination from June 23 to June 25 so that it can get a full and proper discussion, not only from AFD regulars, but also from people who visit the article. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:38, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies. Thanks for fixing! (: Oc t ane ^{[improve me]} 25.06.07 1834 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- Pax:Vobiscum 09:06, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unnecessary list; Wikipedia would be better-served by a link to this information as a source for the Airbus article. --SquidSK ^(1MC^•^log) 09:20, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Indiscriminate collection, indeed. Fails WP:NOT#INFO in a bad way. Arkyan  ^(talk) 15:15, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — Leaning against the trend here because this list is limited, well defined, and the data is notable. But I do think the List of Boeing 737 orders and List of Boeing 787 orders pages present comparable information in a much better format. — RJH (talk)

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 02:54, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nightwalking

Prod removed with out comment, no proof of notability offered. Kwsn^(Ni!) 06:36, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 07:57, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No notability argument offered, does not meet film notability guidelines. --SquidSK ^(1MC^•^log) 09:22, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lacks media coverage Addhoc 12:25, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete - Notability and violates WP:NOT -- Rehnn83 ^Talk 17:12, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. (See also 4 items below.) — Athaenara ✉ 08:58, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete, clearly fails notability. ChrisO 22:59, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Amelia and Michael

Prod removed, but with comment: "This film has been widely reviewed, played at notable festivals and features Anthony Head. It is not non-notable. (If it is non-notable, please show me a short film that is notable!)". However, one source is a defunct magazine, another is a blog. Just because a famous actor has appeared in it does not mean it's notable. Kwsn^(Ni!) 06:34, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 07:57, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lacks news coverage Addhoc 11:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - shortlisted for a reasonably prestigious award for short films. And including a famous actor certainly helps notability. JulesH 15:53, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Claims to be shortlisted, with no outside proof of it. Kwsn^(Ni!) 14:57, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. To answer the points above:

1/ Hotdog is defunct but is still notable because it was a UK-nationwide monthly film publication, widely circulated

2/ Shooting People [47] is a notable organisation with 30,000 members in the UK and the US and it only has one Blog, run by the programmer of the Mobile Cinema, Ben Blaine.

3/ My google search shows up a great many hits [48] and so I'm baffled as to how Adhoc came up with this search result.

4/ The Akira Kurosawa Prize nomination is substantiated in several reptuable and editorially-controlled sites: Channel 4 [49] Film Centre [50] the London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham press page [51] IMDB [52]

This film has is notable for numerous reasons:

1/ Features cult actor Anthony Head

2/ Funded by a notable body, the David Lean Foundation [53]

3/ Shortlisted for a notable prize, the Akira Kurosawa Memorial Short Film Prize

4/ Premiere at major festival - the Montreal World Film Festival, one of only a few Oscar-nominating festivals which is also accredited to the international federation of film producers FIAPF and the international federation of film critics FIPRESCI

5/ Extensive press and critical coverage as evidenced on the IMDB page, including coverage in: the BECTU trade journal Stage Screen and Radio (May 2007, p. 16-17), the BAFTA magazine Academy (June 2007, Vol. 2, Iss. 15, pg. 7, "A Fine Legacy"), Hotdog Issue 83 where it is reviewed on p. 118 and Anthony Head is interviewed about the film on p. 120, the Cinema and Television Benevolent Fund newsletter Issue Spring 2006, pg. 1 and 7, the Cinema and Television Benevolent Fund Sixtieth Royal Film Performance Casino Royale Brochure p. 11 and New Producer, the newsletter of the New Producers Alliance, December / January 2005-6, Iss. 111 p.12 — 87.80.29.32 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 16:53, 26 June 2007 (UTC).[reply]

And Finally, the film is listed in the British Films Catalogue, published by the British Council which lists every British feature film on theatrical release, but only notable short films [54] — 87.80.29.32 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 18:01, June 26, 2007 (UTC).

Comment First off Addhoc searched google news. You searched just google, getting a very weak result (less than 200). As with A Fitting Tribute, I'm checking this against Wikipedia:Notability (films) (again with pass/fail by each and reasoning):

1. The film is widely distributed and has received full length reviews by two or more nationally known critics. - Failed, one review given, notability of the reviewer is very questionable, and the British Films Catalogue page is not a review.
2. The film is historically notable, as evidenced by one or more of the following:
  - Publication of at least two non-trivial articles, at least five years after the film's initial release. - Failed, less than 5 years old
  - The film was deemed notable by a broad survey of film critics, academics, or movie professionals, when such a poll was conducted at least five years after the film's release. -Failed, less than 5 years old
  - The film was given a commercial re-release, or screened in a festival, at least five years after initial release. - failed, less than 5 years old
  - The film was featured as part of a documentary, program, or retrospective on the history of cinema. - failed, no proof given
3. The film has received a major award for excellence in some aspect of filmmaking. - failed, was SHORTLISTED, did not get it
4. The film was selected for preservation in a national archive. - failed, the British Films Catalogue is not the national archive.
5. The film is "taught" as a subject at an accredited university or college with a notable film program. - failed, again, nothing showing it is

IMDB is not a source of notability, since any film can be there. Kwsn^(Ni!) 21:10, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And another thing, the date of the Hotdog Magazine article is given to be in 2007. However, it appears the magazine stopped being published in November of 2006. How is that possible? Kwsn^(Ni!) 21:14, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. The film is widely distributed and has received full length reviews by two or more nationally known critics. - PASSED - Reviewed in Hotdog (in the final Issue 83, Christmas 2006, which would still have been in newsagents in 2007). The ISSN has been supplied and Issue No. has been supplied. Please don't try and undermine the veracity of this review, without actually getting hold of it from your local library and checking first. The film has also been reviewed on Shooting People, which is International (being web-based, but also it has memebers in both the UK and the US). Patrons of Shooting People include Morgan Spurlock, Cara Mertes, Mike Figgis, Kevin Macdonald, Albert Maysles, Sally Potter and Christine Vachon. You wilfully chose to ignore this, without giving a reason.

4. The film was selected for preservation in a national archive. - PASSED the film will be available at the videotheque and thereafter will be in the archive of the Edinburgh International Film Festival. — 87.80.29.32 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 06:40 + 06:41, 28 June 2007 (UTC) and 18:57, 2 July 2007 (UTC).[reply]

These points are made for consideration in addition to the points made above. As the Notability section on films says:

This page gives some rough guidelines intended to be used by Wikipedia editors to decide whether a film should or should not have an article on Wikipedia. While satisfying these notability guidelines generally indicates a film warrants an article, failing to satisfy them is not a criterion for speedy deletion.

My bold and italics. — 87.80.29.32 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 06:48, 28 June 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Delete. (See also 4 items below.) — Athaenara ✉ 09:04, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Surely each case should be judged on its own merits. Limited range of interest from these editors is not conclusive proof of Conflict of Interest. — 85.189.236.26 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 16:21, 1 July 2007 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. ChrisO 23:01, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Macy Erwin

Seemingly non-notable local beauty pageant winner. Notability completely hinges on her future participation in the national pageant, and all sources are just local. --fuzzy510 06:23, 25 June 2007 (UTC) fuzzy510 06:23, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 08:21, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable based on past and current activities, future prospects cannot be used to satisfy WP:BIO because Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. --SquidSK ^(1MC^•^log) 09:25, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Miss Teen USA 2007. This state winner will compete in the national contest. These AFD nominations are deceitful in that they characterize the winner of a state contest as being winner of a local contest, misleading those who !vote to delete on that basis. Many U.S. state are larger geographically and demographically and in their economies than many countries in the world, and should not be dismissed as "local", so I request the nominator to rephrase these noms as "state" rather than local, to avoid the possibiility of any deletions being taken to review. Edison 14:25, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These nominations are completely accurate in characterizing them as winners of local contests since, you know, they are. Note especially none of the ones I've looked at -- not a single one -- has any 3rd-party sources other than the most local of media, namely the girls' hometown newspaper/TV station saying hey, this local girl won this here beauty pageant. And half don't even have THAT figleaf of a "reliable source" buttressing their claims to fame. --Calton | Talk 20:28, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete agree about calling them state, disagree about redirecting--not necessary, as there wont be any information there. Google will suffice.DGG 16:23, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am a supporter of state Beauty Queens. TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 18:35, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And I am a supporter of my local dry cleaners, but it doesn't make them in the least encyclopedic. --Calton | Talk 20:28, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Straight-up failure of WP:BIO, WP:ATTRIBUTION, etc. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Annilie Hastey, Articles for deletion/Sommer Isdale, et al, and and their deletion reviews. Been there, done that. --Calton | Talk 20:28, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Per Edison's request, I apologize if my nomination was considered as being "deceitful". However, since proper consideration of the issue would require both reviewing the article and prior arguments, and since it is abundantly clear which pageant the subject won, I will not be changing my initial rationale. fuzzy510 22:10, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIO. >Radiant< 11:45, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:12, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kelsey Brigel

Seemingly non-notable local beauty pageant winner. Notability completely hinges on her future participation in the national pageant, and all sources are just local. --fuzzy510 06:21, 25 June 2007 (UTC) fuzzy510 06:21, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 08:28, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable based on past and current activities, future prospects cannot be used to satisfy WP:BIO because Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. --SquidSK ^(1MC^•^log) 09:26, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Miss Teen USA 2007. There is nothing "crystal ball" about their scheduled participation in a national pageant next month. Their names are already listed in that article. This state winner will compete in the national contest. These AFD nominations are deceitful in that they characterize the winner of a state contest as being winner of a local contest, misleading those who !vote to delete on that basis. Many U.S. state are larger geographically and demographically and in their economies than many countries in the world, and should not be dismissed as "local", so I request the nominator to rephrase these noms as "state" rather than local, to avoid the possibiility of any deletions being taken to review.Edison 14:39, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These nominations are completely accurate in characterizing them as winners of local contests since, you know, they are. Note especially none of the ones I've looked at -- not a single one -- has any 3rd-party sources other than the most local of media, namely the girls' hometown newspaper/TV station saying hey, this local girl won this here beauty pageant. And half don't even have THAT figleaf of a "reliable source" buttressing their claims to fame.
"Deceitful", by the way, might be better applied to the use of pejorative terms like "deceitful" in order to spin the issue and cast doubt on the motives of the nominator.
And being one of 51 contestants on a single televised contest means bupkis as far as actual notability goes. --Calton | Talk 20:38, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Straight-up failure of WP:BIO, WP:ATTRIBUTION, etc. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Annilie Hastey, Articles for deletion/Sommer Isdale, et al, and and their deletion reviews. Been there, done that. --Calton | Talk 20:38, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. as per Calton. --Fredrick day 09:29, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted by admin Jersey Devil. Non admin close. Whispe ring 11:17, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Courtoreille

Relatively unknown (87 ghits) musical artist. OverlordQ 06:20, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - Tagged as such. Self-described amateur musician, no assertion of notability, and all of his albums are self-released. Half of the article is a description of what he's currently wearing. --Bongwarrior 06:29, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. ChrisO 23:03, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Morgan Woolard

Non-notable beauty pageant contestant. Outside of a top 15 finish in the 2006 competition, nothing here of substance. --fuzzy510 06:19, 25 June 2007 (UTC) fuzzy510 06:19, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 08:43, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable based on past and current activities, future prospects cannot be used to satisfy WP:BIO because Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SquidSK (talk • contribs) 09:26, 25 June 2007

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

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

The result was Delete. Clearly fails notability criteria. ChrisO 23:10, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A Fitting Tribute

Prod removed without comment, funded by a non-notable award, non-notable over all Kwsn^(Ni!) 06:11, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Add on [55] the talk page says it was completely funded by the UK Film Council, but that revision says no. What's true as well? Kwsn^(Ni!) 06:30, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Film is playing at the 61st Edinburgh International Film Festival, co-funded by the UK Film Council and features well-known actor from The Office and Green Wing, Sally Bretton. It is not non-notable.

You claim I removed without comment, but you barely gave me a minute to make a comment!

The page says it was *completion* funded by the UK Film Council. Since you said the other co-funder was non-notable, I removed it.

Details of the UK Film Council completion fund can be found here: http://www.mayavisionint.com/Funding/The_Short_Film_Completion_Fund/index.html and here: http://www.ukfilmcouncil.org.uk/filmmaking/shorts/completionfund/ — Tweetermonkeyman (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 06:58, 25 June 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 08:46, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I can't find any trace of a film existing with this description under the title "A Fitting Tribute", but a film with the title "Are You Strong?" with the same director, production company, cast and debut screening details is listed in numerous places. The IMDB link on the article also goes to a page about this film. Has it been retitled? And if so, can somebody confirm what the correct title is? If these are the same film, then keep due to sources like [56]. If the film is determined not to be notable, then merge to a new article on the director, who definitely does appear to be notable. JulesH 12:25, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment that's just a page on the work the guy has done, no real article. Kwsn^(Ni!) 21:35, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ - non notable director and film company, film not released, apparently no media coverage. Addhoc 14:19, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm pretty confident the director and company are notable: their previous film, Amelia and Michael, was shortlisted for a reasonably well known award. JulesH 15:07, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was basing my comments on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Cormack. Addhoc 15:16, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I note that that ocurred nearly a year ago. It seems he has achieved quite a bit in the last year. JulesH 07:45, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. To answer the points made above: 1/ The title has changed and this is reflected on the film's IMDB.com page [57] and on the BBC Film Network [58]. 2/ Notable points about this film:

i) Actress Sally Bretton from The Office and Green Wing
ii) Premiere screening at the Edinburgh International Film Festival
iii) Funded by the UK Film Council (contrary to Kwsn, this would count as a notable funding award).
iv) Press Coverage including a double page spread in the BECTU journal Stage Screen and Radio, May 2007, p. 16-17 as per [59] and the Channel 4 link cited by JulesH above. (I will update the page shortly) — 87.80.29.32 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 16:15, 26 June 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks for explaining. Addhoc 20:32, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Wikipedia:Notability (films) states that in order for a film to be notable it must (with pass/fail by each and reasoning):

1. The film is widely distributed and has received full length reviews by two or more nationally known critics. - Failed, no reviews given
2. The film is historically notable, as evidenced by one or more of the following:
  - Publication of at least two non-trivial articles, at least five years after the film's initial release. - Failed, less than 5 years old
  - The film was deemed notable by a broad survey of film critics, academics, or movie professionals, when such a poll was conducted at least five years after the film's release. -failed, less than 5 years old
  - The film was given a commercial re-release, or screened in a festival, at least five years after initial release. - failed, less than 5 years old
  - The film was featured as part of a documentary, program, or retrospective on the history of cinema. - failed, no proof given
3. The film has received a major award for excellence in some aspect of filmmaking. - failed, got an award to be FUNDED
4. The film was selected for preservation in a national archive. - failed, nothing shown that is has been
5. The film is "taught" as a subject at an accredited university or college with a notable film program. - failed, again, nothing showing it is

Nothing given by the keep votes has proven it passes any of those. The channel 4 link is just a list of the films the guy has done, nothing more. Kwsn^(Ni!) 20:58, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the production company itself was deleted twice, first by Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Actaeon Films, then as "G4, possibel WP:COI problems". Kwsn^(Ni!) 21:01, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. The film has received a major award for excellence in some aspect of filmmaking. - PASSED - The funding was awarded by the UK Film Council on the basis of a rough cut as part of a national completion fund scheme, hence this major award was based on excellence.
2. The film was selected for preservation in a national archive. - PASSED - The film will be available to view in the Edinburgh International Film Festival videotheque and then - after the festival - will be invluded in its archives.

These points are made for consideration in addition to the points made above. As the Notability section on films says:

This page gives some rough guidelines intended to be used by Wikipedia editors to decide whether a film should or should not have an article on Wikipedia. While satisfying these notability guidelines generally indicates a film warrants an article, failing to satisfy them is not a criterion for speedy deletion.

My bold and italics.

On a peripheral note, I wish KWSN would be careful not to be so misleading. As a clarification on some of his points, I would like to note:

1/ I never said that the film was "completely funded" and so it's rather unfair to jump to the conclusion and imply I was lying by saying: What's true as well?

2/ You say "The channel 4 link is just a list of the films the guy has done, nothing more" but this is mis-representation of the site. As well as the editorial comment on the page which is more than just a list, you should note the context, ie. it is an editorially controlled site which offers a Directory of "Handpicked practitioners from in front and behind the camera." [60] As well as fact verification, this page serves to underline the importance of the film in the context of much wider press coverage.

3/ As I noted above, the five tests set out on the Wikipedia page on Film Notability are rough guidelines only. Any film that is less than five years old will automatically fail all of point 2.

I also note that original grounds for speedy deletion were:

1/ Prod removed without comment - Untrue, comment was added shortly after removal

2/ funded by a non-notable award - Disproved

3/ non-notable over all - Four points of notability offered, the only point which has been addressed is KWSN remrk on the Channel 4 site, which is a misrepresentation. — 87.80.29.32 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 09:07, 28 June 2007 (UTC).[reply]

→ See also:

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.--Fuhghettaboutit 03:07, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Kranz

Seemingly non-notable local beauty pageant winner. Notability completely hinges on her future participation in the national pageant, and all sources are just local. --fuzzy510 06:16, 25 June 2007 (UTC) fuzzy510 06:16, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Mexico-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 08:47, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable based on past and current activities, future prospects cannot be used to satisfy WP:BIO because Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. --SquidSK ^(1MC^•^log) 09:27, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the 2007 national pageant. Also the nomination is deceptive in describing a state winner as a local winner, and the article includes 4 references in reliable independent publications. Edison 16:37, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One could argue that you're being deceptive in using "state winner" as if it had the slightest weight or meaning. --Calton | Talk 20:41, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the "4 references in reliable independent publications" are actually 3 sources, two of them from her hometown (and one of them dead) and one from the town where the pageant was held, all saying, hey, this here girl won this here beauty pageant. --Calton | Talk 08:03, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Straight-up failure of WP:BIO, WP:ATTRIBUTION, etc. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Annilie Hastey, Articles for deletion/Sommer Isdale, et al, and and their deletion reviews. Been there, done that. --Calton | Talk 20:41, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 03:10, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BlameBush!

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/BlameBush!

Non-notable blog fails WP:WEB. Moon of the Child 06:06, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

speedy delete under A7, tagging in a moment. Kwsn^(Ni!) 06:37, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I proded this but it was contested. At any event, delete, speedy if possible as unnotable blog that fails WP:WEB. Eusebeus 09:27, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not even attempt to meet WP:WEB. --SquidSK ^(1MC^•^log) 09:28, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is it non-notable if it has received attention in the "Best of the Web" article on OpinionJournal, which is published by a newspaper journalist who is notable enough for his own Wiki article? If not, where would I have to find a reference to it? --Pellucid 17:02, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete You're apparently referring to James Taranto's "Best of the Web Today" column, which is published five times a week and links to about a dozen different sites each day. No, I don't believe that being among the hundreds of sites mentioned in that column makes it notable. --Highwired Huey 18:51, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:WEB.--JForget 00:39, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per nom. Q ^{T C} 00:43, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete, no charted hits, no notable band member. Sr 13 03:14, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Too Hip For The Room

Non-notable band per WP:MUSIC. Videmus Omnia 06:05, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The notability of a band is inversely proportional to that band's primary reliance on myspace to get published. Shalom ^Hello 06:19, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 08:54, 25 June 2007 (UTC)*[reply]
Delete. Does not meet any WP:MUSIC criteria. --SquidSK ^(1MC^•^log) 09:30, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Cricket02 01:11, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability not established by the article per WP:BAND, WP:NOTE etc EyeSerene^TALK 11:03, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep The topic indeed meets a couple of the WP:MUSIC criteria. (2,6) I could understand deletion in a situation concerning an unestablished band.. but the band has 5+ studio releases JeremiahClayton 08:42, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sr 13 03:17, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heritage Christian School (Indianapolis)

Article about non-notable high school; originally proposed for deletion in February 2007 but no action was taken. No substantial improvements have been made since then; article remains unsourced except to school's own web page. --Nonstopdrivel 05:36, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 08:56, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 08:56, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's a 1,500-student school covering all grades. I see nothing so wrong with it that it should go, and, as (in part) a high school, it's inherently notable, as I argue here. Noroton 18:03, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The size and scope of the school, together with the multiple sports championships establish notability. Alansohn 19:56, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable private school. With all 12 grades (like many religious schools) it has only about 1500 kids. Most highschools are over a thousand and that only 3 or 4 grades. Being a 2A school with a couple good teams and coverage in a local paper is not substantial. Every high school sports program gets local news coverage. There is nothing notable to distinguish this school from any other of the tens of thousands of highschools in America. NeoFreak 04:03, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per state championships (basketball in Indiana, no less) . Neier 06:04, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sports program and state championships have received significant coverage by multiple independent reliable sources, so WP:N and WP:V are satisfied. --Butseriouslyfolks 05:26, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:13, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Joanna Candelaria

Minor state-level beauty-pageant winner. No other actual accomplishments, only a few local media references. Four from this group have already been considered by AFD (Holly Shively, Annilie Hastey, Sommer Isdale, and Kari Schull) and their deletions upheld at deletion review. PROD tag added, but removed by the article creator User:PageantUpdater with the comment remove prod by an imbecile trying to prove a WP:POINT, so here we are. Calton | Talk 05:26, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, This article has a number of references, so obviously the subject is notable. The article should be considered on its own terms, not in light of other afd discussions relating to articles with fewer references. See also my comments on the talk page. The fact that there are a number of local references doesn't remove the fact that the article meets WP:BIO. PageantUpdater 05:30, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And I have a feeling I'm going to have to reiterate this point: please, please be objective when considering this and don't let any prejudicial thoughts against beauty pageants or your ignorance about the relevance of beauty pageants to cloud your judgment on this one. Candelaria won the most important Teen beauty pageant title in Florida and reigned as Miss Florida Teen USA for one year, making appearances throughout the state. Part of this included representing her state at the nationally televised Miss Teen USA pageant broadcast throughout the United States. I know Calton will claim that I'm claiming to own the article, but I myself am trying to be objective: many of the other articles were either poorly sourced or had no sources and though I argued to keep them, I now agree that policy wise they didn't meet the requirements of WP:BIO. This article, however, does cite numerous sources and I hope people take this into account. PageantUpdater 05:36, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...numerous sources - yeah, all local media sources -- in fact, the SAME local media source, namely the Sarasota Herald-Tribune. Not exactly "multiple" under an reasonable interpretation.
The article should be considered on its own terms... - which would be what, exactly? The only thing you've raised is "has a number of references".
Even granting that, "has a number of references" =/= "notable". --Calton | Talk 05:41, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as notability is not inherited and per WP:BLP, which states that people do not become notable for a single event. --Nonstopdrivel 05:40, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment excuse me for my ignorance but can you please point me towards the section in BLP which backs up your statement? I could not find it but might not have been looking hard enough. PageantUpdater 05:42, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply: The relevant shortcut is WP:BLP1E, from which I will quote for your convenience:
    If reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted. Marginal biographies on people with no independent notability can give undue weight to the events in the context of the individual, create redundancy and additional maintenance overhead, and cause problems for our neutral point of view policy. In such cases, a redirect is usually the better option. Cover the event, not the person.
    --Nonstopdrivel 05:48, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the wording is apparently intentionally set to be flexible. Please don't re-prhrase it in such a way as to indicate that it is prescriptive. Just a comment.DGG 16:31, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- - - Comment exactly - this article covers the person in some detail, although it clearly could be expanded. Note the use of the word can. PageantUpdater 06:51, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - What "detail" is covered is almost all personal trivia, which doesn't address the claims of individual notability. --Calton | Talk 07:01, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 09:13, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per arguments above. --SquidSK ^(1MC^•^log) 09:33, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, insufficiently notable. NawlinWiki 20:53, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, insufficiently notable at this point in time. KP Botany 04:50, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was still no consensus to delete the article. AfD is and has shown not to be the solution - please find other editorial avenues (merge, rename, rewrite, cleanup, etc.) to sort out this mess. - Mailer Diablo 02:20, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

State terrorism by the United States

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/American terrorism

Articles for deletion/State terrorism by the United States (sixth nomination)

This page inherently violates WP:NPOV. Additionally, it has original research problems. The arguments made on the page rely heavily on the opinions of Noam Chomsky, who is not an expert in this field. Pablo Talk | Contributions 05:16, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin Keep a look out for socks. Thank you. Kwsn^(Ni!) 20:16, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed... Beware of Socks I did a quick look at a few people who are involved, and found a few who have less than a handful of non-AFD anti-US debate edits... they definately appear to have been created specifically to participate in these debates. I'm not going to point fingers, but I have suspicions.Balloonman 05:58, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further Agreed ... Those who spent more time on here should have their opinions weighed greater then all others, I mean what else are we spending time on here if its not to have our arguments, points and ideas held above all others, right? I think the closing admin will look at the points raised and make their decision based on that alone, this is not a vote, a million socks with no valid point will not trump good reasoning. Much like a million votes citing policy with no explanation, will not trump those who expand and explain. Anti-US debates? I guess it is more "patriotic" not to question your government? Damn those civil rights marchers questioning the law stating they are less then the white man, or those foolish abolitionists, those damn tea wasters throwing valuable tea into the ocean ... --SixOfDiamonds 16:02, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting that you agree... your first post was on the 12th... and prior to this post over 2/3rds of your edits were on these AFD's.Balloonman 02:47, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am agreeing because you as someone with a larger edit pool is clearly more important then myself. Your views, opinions, and participation here is greater then everyone with a smaller edit pool. I do not even know why we have these AfD's when the person with the largest edit pool should just decide what is to be of the article, right? Since this is a discussion, as I stated above, I believe the admin will consider the points by arguement, not user edit pool. I would also love for this AfD to end so I can find something else to dedicate some time to on here, such as more warez articles. --74.73.16.230 03:05, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Section 1

Keep: The article doesn't seem to be POV. Additionally, there hasn't been much relevant change at all since deletion nomination #5, which was a keep. I also don't think the part about Noam Chomsky is a reason to delete. .V. _[_Talk|Email] 05:49, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I made the mistake of moving the article to a more neutral title (and I will defend to my dying day that "allegations" is more neutral and is consistent with precedent on Wikipedia). It was a mistake because then had to trawl through a baker's dozen of double redirects and retarget them. This is a HUGE topic. We can't just blow it away because we don't want to think about it. Shalom ^Hello 06:29, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Total bollocks. How can an article called 'State Terrorism by the USA' be NPOV? Nick mallory 07:27, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment' The same way an article called "State terrorism by Iran" or "State Terrorism by Libya" could be NPOV: by providing reliable sources. That is not to say that the authors succeeded. Edison 16:41, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- In case anyone else was curious: State terrorism by Iran, State Terrorism by Libya, State Terrorism by Iran, State terrorism by Libya. anthony 01:06, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
- Also Allegations of state terrorism in Sri Lanka anthony 01:14, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
- I think anthony makes a good (implied) point. The closest thing I can find to what Edison mentions is Terrorism in Iran. I'm not arguing for keep or delete, but I have to say that definitely smells quite a bit like POV to me. Benhocking 19:53, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems to be well sourced and is a legitimate topic. But fix the spelling ("Alegations"?). Clarityfiend 07:31, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment User:Shalom recently moved it. I left a message on his/her talk page asking him to move it to the correct spelling and to fix all of the redirects. Pablo Talk | Contributions 07:34, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry about that. I think someone else fixed it already. Shalom ^Hello 13:56, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete after moving any non-duplicated content to Noam Chomsky, etc. No matter what the title, this article attracts POV and OR like a dead sheep attracts maggots. Article is currently rotten with unsourced claims, statements cited to nobodies, etc, and always will be.
Second choice: move to "Allegations by Noam Chomksy of U.S. State Terrorism" and remove the non-Chomsky stuff.
CWC 08:00, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Completely untrue. Care to support your claims with something specific? I've asked this and have yet to see a valid instance of it that was not fixed right away. And, yes it does attract POV pushing, as evidenced by this attempt to delete this valid article.Giovanni33 09:13, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Update: article is now rotten with shabbily-sourced claims, statements cited to nobodies, etc. Giovanni33, repeating your assertions about this article a zillion times does not make them true. CWC 17:15, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that the article is simply a dumping ground for various allegations against the US that anonymous Wikipedia editors themselves think are "state terrorism". Most of the sources do not mention "state terrorism" Those few that do, like the claims by Chomsky and Cuba's government, should be moved to List of acts labelled as state terrorism sorted by state.Ultramarine 09:37, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Obviously very POV pushing article. Why should there be Allegations of state terrorism by the United States when there is no Allegations of Iranian state terrorism?--Sefringle^Talk 08:00, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Commment. Invalid line of reasoning. If there are notable Allegations of Iranian state terrorism, and you have reliable sources, then create the article. Saying it does not exist and therefore this one that does stand up to this criteria should go, is nonsense. And, we already do have articles about allegations of state terrorism for other states. Regarding your comment about POV pushing, with that logic, we would end up deleting most of WP's articles. If something is not being reported with nuetral language and proper attribution, using reliable sources, then point it out.Giovanni33 09:10, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, the problem is that very few of the sources mention "state terrorism", those few that do, like the claims by Chomsky and Cuba's government, should be moved to List of acts labelled as state terrorism sorted by state.Ultramarine 09:39, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletions. -- Sefringle^Talk 08:11, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong and Speedy Keep There are no less than 93 references in this legitimate and important article. Even if we have a single reliable source which says that the U.S. has been accused of state terrorism, or has committed state terrorism--let alone having many reliable sources--then the article can not be thrown out. In fact, this is one of the better sourced articles I've seen; almost every statement is being sourced with a fine comb, due to POV warriors hating what it talks about, and wanting it deleted. But, I thank them since its improving the article. All the loud claims of OR have been proven to be false, no matter how much they are repeated. I ask again, name it. If it OR, then lets see an example. If its true, then lets fix it. So far all such claims have proven false. They just don't like the POV this article reports on, however neutral it does it. But, its our duty to see that important articles about notable subjects being talked about all over the world, gets reported on. WP credibility is at stake here.

Strong Keep I suppose some nationalists in Sri Lankan's would love to delete State terrorism in Sri Lanka. Fortunately, policies does not allow it. The U.S. Federal Government deserves no special treatment in this regard, either--esp not with plenty of reliable secondary sources to back up these allegations. Face it: Like it or not, the US has planned and/or committed many acts that some people consider to be state terrorism. These "allegations" are borne out by numerous verifiable sources, (CNN, NYTimes, BBC etc), admitted to by the perpetrators many times and regarded as fact by commentators and experts on the matter--not just Chomsky. There is just no legitimate basis that this article can even seriously be considered for deletion. To do so would be a an extreme violation of NPOV, by means of the suppression of a wealth of information on this very important and notable topic.Giovanni33 08:58, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and merge Most of the article is simply a dumping ground for various allegations against the US that anonymous Wikipedia editors themselves think are "state terrorism". Most of the sources do not mention "state terrorism" Those few that do, like the claims by Chomsky and Cuba's government, should be moved to List of acts labelled as state terrorism sorted by state.Ultramarine 09:35, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To claim that the majority of this article was created by anonymous Wikipedian editors is absurd, and even if it was true (which it isn't), anonymous editors can make valid contributions to wikipedia too. 69.150.51.11 18:22, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An obvious keep. Notable subject and well referenced article. The alleged problems can be fixed if so needed. No point in deleting the article. As Wikipedia:Articles for deletion says "For problems that do not require deletion, including duplicate articles, articles needing improvement, or POV problems, be bold and fix the problem or tag the article appropriately." // Liftarn
Comment It is truly depressing to see so many people who can sit at their computers and blithely accuse the USA of state terrorism. You guys are just idiots and I don't care if you think that's civil or not. Nick mallory 10:34, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Have you actually bothered to look at the article? It does not categorically accuse the US of terrorism. It details the accusations. There is a difference. Clarityfiend 12:01, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm talking about the attitudes expressed by some commenters on this AfD. I repeat my contention that they're idiots. Nick mallory 02:53, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Violates wikipedia is not a soapbox...this article is a synthesis of opinions not agreed to by the UN or any other legislative body on an international scale. Violates WP:SYNTH Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position--MONGO 10:38, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am not understanding the link to WP:SYNTH. It states taking an item from source A, and combining it with an item from source B to make a new claim of C is not allowed. However Chomsky stating country A commited B in country C, would not be an issue from WP:SYNTH, as it all originates in one article. Other sources are then given to support that Chomsky did not make up anything out of thin air. For instance a source is given to prove country A had soldiers in country C, another source states country C felt the actions of country A were terrorism, another states thats B is often terrorism. However the additional sources are not making an original claim, they are supporting the claim in the very first source. I think people need to be careful when citing WP:SYNTH, as a precursor to doing so requires all sources be read, and possibly consulting with others as to why certain sources are given so there is no misunderstanding, not that I am stating you did not, just general advice. --SixOfDiamonds 17:33, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is the American wikipedia, even though the contents of this article are probably true, many Americans are offended by this article. Why continue deliberately offending the main contributors ? Even User:MONGO doesn't like it, and he has more contribs than everyone else on this page put together probably. I'm not saying this article is false or anything but it serves no purpose, of course we know the USA sponsors terrorism, it's hardly new, but why keep shoving it in the face of the wikipedians here ? Jackaranga 10:49, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The CIA is releasing secret information in the next few weeks. Jackaranga 10:49, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This is NOT the 'American wikipedia'. It's Wikpedia in the English language. Sources and articles that are critical of America (or any other country), if they are credible, have a place here. Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 11:20, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Since when has offending people been a reason to delete an article? If it were, Wikipedia would be a whole lot smaller. Let's get rid of Christianity because it offends Muslims, evolution because many Christians don't like it, etc. And just how does one article in a million "keep shoving it in the face of the wikipedians"? Clarityfiend 12:01, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "This is the American wikipedia"? I think not. EliminatorJR ^Talk 18:14, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a substantial, well-documented, widely discussed, historically significant topic. Gronky 11:11, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename to State terrorism by the United States. --- A. L. M. 12:56, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Curious coming from an account currently trying to claim that suicide bombings are not terrorist acts. [[61]] Dman727 20:11, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- That was its name at the start of the AFD, and I changed it. Compare the name with Apollo Moon Landing hoax accusations or Controlled demolition hypothesis for the collapse of the World Trade Center. Allegations, accusations, hypothesis - either way, we're dealing with a prominent fringe theory that has not gained wide acceptance. The caveat in the title is consistent with the "undue weight" clause of WP:NPOV. Shalom ^Hello 14:03, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: USA is the only country that has actually been found guilty of state terrorism, but then there are also allegations. // Liftarn
Speedy Keep - /sigh, yet another bad-faith nomination of an article that some, like others, are desperately trying to destroy. The subject is notable, most of the sources are reliable and verifiable. Tarc 13:26, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Article is well-referenced and is not just about Chomsky's writing. Article may well need work and/or a rename (it seems to move a lot!). Anyone who's read Chomsky knows that he includes extensive references. --Jack Merridew 13:45, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete- ~~Article would be offensive to many and it atracts POV~~ ChrisLamb 14:22, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: This is not a popularity contest and those are not arguments for deletion.
  - Comment-True, that was my personal opinion that got the best of me and I withdraw it,but I stand by the delete because Allegations have no place in an encyclopedia only verifiable facts do. ChrisLamb 14:34, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment: So basicly your vote is a WP:IDONTLIKEIT (or rather a WP:NOREASON)? // Liftarn
      - Comment- No I am voting to delete because it is because as the articles name states these are simply allegations and not proven facts and it is facts alone that belong in an encyclopedia, if any of these allegations could be proven I would vote to keep them, but as it stands now they are simply allegations. ChrisLamb 15:08, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Comment: I believe the popular statement around here is that Wikipedia is for verifiable information, not factual information. Sounds odd, but I guess this is what they had in mind. Also as for as proving some of the items in the article, it has already been proven by a court that convicted Posada of terrorism, by Posada himself that he was trained in explosives by the CIA etc. The Nicaragua sources go back to the court case, so again that has been proven. I am not sure what you are finding to not be factual. But please expand so other can understand. Thank you. --SixOfDiamonds 17:25, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A neutral article cataloging allegations could in theory exist, and has briefly in the past, but will not again be stable under this or another title. The article is a magnet for editors who think the US is guilty of numerous acts of state terrorism, and are determined to record that Greater Truth, verifiable sources be damned. The name was changed from Allegations of ... to State terrorism by the United States without consensus, and is another example of the soap-box that this article will always be, under whatever title. I have voted keep in previous AfD. At this time the best thing is to delete the article and all redirects and start over with a section in some other actively-followed article. That section can be spun off if it grows, under a suitable title. The next best thing is to let people post their screeds without interference, stay off the talk page, and otherwise ignore it. At least that way the slant will be obvious to the reader. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:51, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If you voted keep in a previous AfD I did not see it. You did vote delete in this AfD and also this one as anyone can see. You apparently did not care for this article in August and December of 2006 either. Not that it matters, but I thought I would clarify that you were apparently not on the keep side in past debates (correct me if I'm wrong).--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:58, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, you're wrong. MortonDevonshire Yo · 06:36, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I stand corrected--kinda. I did not see that Tom Harrison had voted to keep this in late 2005. However the article was apparently completely different then, and was simply called "American Terrorism" (TH seemed to believe it should refer to domestic terrorism and hoped it would include "...Oklahoma City, the Klan, the abolitionists, maybe tar-and-feathering loyalists during the Revolution" and "native American raiding parties"--in other words he essentially voted to keep a completely different article). Harrison had voted to delete this article in its current (state terror) form twice in 2006, so I think my original point is still quite valid (albeit fairly trivial), but thanks for pointing out the earlier keep vote.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 16:32, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong and speedy keep. This is the sixth AfD nomination for goodness sake - it kind of begs the classic lightbulb question: "how many AfD nominations must an article endure before allegations of point making are clear?" I would normally say 3 or 4 at the most. Is this really going to be wheeled out to AfD every two months or so for this monumentally disruptive waste of time? Enough already, drop it and get on with collaboratively working to fix the elements of the article where you perceive the problems to be. I urge the closing Admin to speedyily close this as keep by virtue of WP:POINT and being a disruptive waste of time.

There are only two fundamental questions to be answered here:

Is the article topic sufficiently encyclopaedic to warrant coverage in an encyclopaedia?
Is the particular subject matter of this topic sufficiently notable to warrant its own separate encyclopaedia article?

Firstly, the topic is state terrorism; secondly, the subject matter of this article concerns allegations made that the USA, the dominant world superpower, has engaged in such activities in Latin America, the Middle East and Western Europe. I think even the most ardent deletionist would have to concede yes on both counts, and this article is clearly fundamentally encyclopaedic.

Sorry to say this, but all that the more rational deletion suporters can argue is that there are WP:POV, WP:OR or WP:SYNTH problems, or raise quibbles about the quality of the sources. This has long been accepted as inadequate reason for deletion if the topic and subject of the article are worthy of merit for inclusion in an encyclopaedia. I really do urge everybody to read the deletion policy more regularly, particularly if you're an AfD regular. As the policy nutshell states: "Pages that can be improved should be edited or tagged, not nominated for deletion". Hence {{sofixit}}.

Most of the other deletion arguments are really nothing more than huff, puff, bluster, hot air and anguished or irate cries of "IDONTLIKEIT" or "it's anti American". Sorry, that will not do as a deletion argument. And full marks to Jackaranga for quote of the week - gave me quite a Victor Meldrew moment :) There are plenty of activities that my particular government have engaged in in our recent (and distant) colonial past, and more recently in conflicts closer to home that cause me great discomfort, that I'm less than proud of. But I will fight to the death for their inclusion because, well, it's encyclopaedic content - that's what we're here for after all.

Jimbo went a bit overboard when he waxed lyrical about "the sum of all human knowledge" (hence we get to know what each Pokemon character eats for lunch, FFS), but this IS human knowledge which is unquestionably important, and will remain in the encyclopaedia. SO, let's stop the deletion nonsense forthwith, close this now and get on with work. --Cactus.man ✍ 15:24, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as it is significant and very notable and well referenced (probably the most referenced Afd nominated article I've seen so far), I don't think WP:NPOV violation is enough to throw this in an Afd.--JForget 00:43, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Zache 20:42, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - well referenced. If there are valid references naming the US as a state terrorist, what else is there to say? To negate what these sources say, however, would be OR and POV-pushing. Sfacets 05:27, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - from the article, "the definition of terrorism and state terrorism remains controversial." Great then at most we need an article on state terrorism, but certainly not an article on "State terrorism by...". Cedars 02:37, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename/Rewrite or Delete This article isn't presenting a case that US terrorism existed/exists, but the section about how the US may have violated its own definitions seems useful Keep I somehow missed this was a full AfD. This article needs a rewrite but it's valid. CredoFromStart ^talk 17:56, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. MalikCarr 20:39, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. Wikipedia is not meant to be a soapbox for such blatantly POV material. An article called State terrorism would be encyclopaedic and could draw from material from different countries around the globe. This article is clearly OR and strays far from its sources. It's articles such as this that make wikipedia a laughingstock in some quarters. Let's get on a higher ground people. Anlace 01:12, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom, and above comments by Anlace. This whole thing is just absurd. C'mon, get real -- it would be much better to simply write solid, well-researched articles on topics that bear on reality. Turgidson 18:26, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Section 2

Keep and 24 hour block User:Pablothegreat85 for WP:POINT. ... Kafkaesque Seabhcan 15:49, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Whoa. People don't get blocked for POINTful AfD nominations - unless it's persistent and disruptive. I fail to see how this particular incident qualifies, unless I see half a day's log full of these, or something. Besides, I'm not so sure how a 24h punitive block solves absolutely anything. (To keep things fair, should we hand out permabans for people who even dare to mention Those Few Famous Deleted Articles? =) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 20:20, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per User:Gronky Taprobanus 16:32, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete as this article violates WP:SYN and is only a soapbox for leftist propaganda copied from propaganda departments (albeit cited) of dictatorships (Cuba, et al). This article only demeans the value of Wikipedia, reducing its acceptance by schools, and undoubtedly causing many schools even to install blocks for Wikipedia. The sooner this propaganda is deleted, the better. Yaf 16:47, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And it also makes baby Jesus cry, I assume. ... Kafkaesque Seabhcan 16:58, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I love you Seabhcan. LOL. Seabhcan for president! 69.150.51.11 18:26, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Really? I thought that was a really mean spirited comment. But I'm not surprised. MoodyGroove 01:23, 1 July 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove[reply]

Strong keep. I doubt that this article will ever stop being a flashpoint for those with strong views on the subject, but the endless string of deletion nominations is absurd. I don't think the community should entertain another WP:AfD debate unless a concerted effort to improve the article towards a consensus position fails. Those who think this article could never possible achieve WP:NPOV should examine their own neutrality. Clconway 17:05, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Don't be stupid. - David Gerard 17:09, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please observe WP:NPA and avoid terms like "stupid" in AFD debates. Please read WP:AFD and see what constitutes valid arguments for keeping or deleting an article. Edison 16:00, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cactus. Needs some editing of opinions, soapboxing or OR. But there are numerous instances of substantial coverage in reliable sources where the authors, (many besides Chomsky) characterized US efforts to maintain stability by support of repressive regimes, or to overthrow anti-US regimes by funding insurgents, as "state terrorism." A Proquest search for "state terrorism and United States" disclosed several sources not yet in the article, such as "'Iron Fists in Iron Gloves': The Political Economy of US Terrorocracy Promotion in Colombia" Doug Stokes. British Journal of Politics & International Relations. Oxford: Aug 2006. Vol.8, Iss. 3; pg. 368 which says "the US continues to back Colombian counter-insurgency efforts which essentially amount to a strategy of state terrorism under a democratic facade (terrorocracy)." There is "Review of Gareau, State Terrorism and the United States" by Donald K Gutierrez. Social Justice. San Francisco: 2006. Vol.33, Iss. 1; pg. 138, 9 pgs, which quotes Gareau classifying US government policy as state terrorism. The New York Times "Enter, Stage Left" by Zachary Pincus-Roth. Dec 18, 2005. pg. 2.4 quotes playwright Harold Pinter as saying when he accepted a Nobvel Prize that the US was engaged in state terrorism. "War and State Terrorism: The United States, Japan, and the Asia-Pacific in the Long Twentieth Century. Edited by MARK SELDEN and ALVIN Y. So. Lanham, Md.: Rowman and Littlefield, 2004 calls the actions of the US and Japan "state terrorism" and extends the criticism to the post 9/11 period as well as back to US actions agains civilians in the Phillipines from 1898 through the suppression of the insurgency there. The book was reviewed favorably by David Arase in The Journal of Asian Studies. Ann Arbor: May 2005. Vol.64, Iss. 2; pg. 476, 2 pgs and by Mark Wisniewski in Pacific Affairs. Vancouver: Winter 2004/2005. Vol.77, Iss. 4; pg. 718, 2 pgs. The term "state terrorism" rightly or wrongly has been applied to US policies at least back to the Reagan era, per "EX-C.I.A. MAN, CENSURED IN '79, RETURNS TO U.S." by Marvine Howe, New York Times. Jun 15, 1987. pg. B.7, in which ex-CIA man Philip Agee described the Reagan Administration's policies in Central America and Nicaragua as "state terrorism." Thus there are sufficient sources to have such an article, and it is up to editors to police the point of view or soapboxing, and to put balancing sources in the article. There are far better sources than Cuba, Saddam's Iraq, Iran, Libya etc and the lefty sources. Support rename to "Allegations.." Edison 17:13, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per David Gerard. Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 17:24, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong and speedy keep; bad-faith nom and WP:POINT use of process to disrupt. Per User:Cactus.man above, the more attempts are made to delete this, the more I will fight for its retention. --John 17:25, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is well documented with what appear to be major news articles and sources. The proper rehash should be that Noam Chomsky does not hold a degree in the field, however neither does Bill Gates in relation to computing, however I would not argue the basics of computing against him. The nominator also seems to ignore that Chomsky is not the only one quoted in the article. --SixOfDiamonds 17:28, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious Delete. Violates WP:NPOV, WP:SYNTH, WP:NOR, WP:Verify, andWP:NPOV#Undue weight. Wikipedia is not a soapbox for linguist Noam Chomsky's opinions about whether or not the US committed acts of state terrorism -- that's for WP:RS sources to decide, which don't seem to be present here unless you violate our rules against synthesis. MortonDevonshire Yo · 17:35, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unsubstanciated claims, which I call out as false. Since you are making the claims, its up to you to support them.Giovanni33 01:52, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please be specific. Per WP:JUSTAPOLICY#Just_a_policy_or_guideline - "Only slightly better than just a vote, this also does not provide other editors with specific reasoning why the article should be deleted. Although the article might be in violation of the policy or guideline referred to, no explanation is supplied on why the article violates that particular policy." The more specific you are, the more it helps others understand your side. Thank you. --SixOfDiamonds 17:56, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty sophisticated talk for an editor with 10 edits to this username. MortonDevonshire Yo · 19:30, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Followed by a pretty clever dodge of a very legitimate question (which remains unanswered). Incidentally, it doesn't take a rocket scientist or a seasoned editor to quote wiki-policy--lots of editors (myself included) actually read through some of the policies of Wikipedia before or soon after they begin editing. That's actually a good thing, and not necessarily evidence of an SPA.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:08, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Such an article is always going to attract cries of WP:NPOV, which is why it needs to be scrupulously sourced. And it is. The fact that Chomsky is referenced is certainly not a supportable reason for delete, he is only one of many, even if that was a reason in the first place. WP:IDONTLIKEIT, which most of the delete votes appear to be, can't trump verifiability and notability. EliminatorJR ^Talk 18:14, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I received an email asking me to offer my opinion here ... so I'll offer it. Canvassing isn't the way we do business. To any parties doing it, please stop. --BigDT 18:22, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment about Canvassing. There appears to be a problem with WP:CANVASS on this and similar AfD's (i.e. attempts to delete articles which are somehow critical of the US government, particularly ones relating to 9/11 conspiracies), and I think people sending out e-mails to solicit "votes" on these things (a clear violation of the votestacking section of WP:CANVASS) need to be outed and cautioned about doing so in the future. It's a clever way to get around spamming talk pages of like-minded folks, but I think it is completely unacceptable. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scholars for 9/11 Truth (5th nomination) and the comment by User:Stifle about receiving an e-mail from a particular user (who has also commented here) asking him to comment on that AfD. If editors participating in this AfD have been similarly canvassed via e-mail, I would hope they would acknowledge it as Stifle and BigDT have. If the e-mails were sent to everyone interested in this article, and not just those who have argued for deletion, then of course there is no problem.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 18:56, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. The repeated attempted AfD's of this thing are beyond ridiculous in my opinion--I hope this is the last one for a long time. State (or establishment) terrorism is a widely discussed concept--it is not only Chomsky who discusses this as anyone with an ounce of familiarity with the concept would know. Incidentally, Chomsky clearly does qualify as an expert in this field, even if some editors think he is an idiot and should only be cited on linguistic questions. I study the history of US foreign policy, and though diplomatic historians generally have little love for Chomsky's work (even those on the left) he is often referenced by them and therefore expert enough for our purposes (albeit a controversial expert). It would be very, very easy to provide even more sources for this article (thousands more really) but of course there are already more than enough. This type of virtual book-burning is unconscionable in my opinion, and will make Wikipedia look ridiculous. We need more, not less, articles along these lines. I would fully support having similar articles about France, Iran, and any number of other states who have engaged in state terrorism (which is basically all of them). Ideally it would be part of a full series. Finally, I support re-changing the title to "allegations" rather than its current form.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 18:42, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The facts and allegations are well-sourced. If the article relies too heavily on opinions by Chomsky, as the nominator claims, then the solution is to remove material based on those opinions, not to delete the article. I suspect, however, that the nominator may be confusing the results of Chomsky's factual research with the opinions he draws from that research. Many people cite Chomsky for the facts he has reported, not for his opinions. —Psychonaut 19:17, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this AfD immediately and Merge into the next shameless WP:POINT AfD. ... Kafkaesque Seabhcan 19:31, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Wikipedia is not censored. The nomination and support for it seem to be motivated by political considerations, not by the the facts or references. I propose the name with "Allegations", as it may help make Wikipedia more NPOV. -- Petri Krohn 19:35, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or at least rename. "State terrorism" is a painfully POV tag for this anyway (and yes, I think State Terrorism in Sri Lanka is a problem article name too). Lots of original research going on too, which explains why it is cited out the wazoo. Mangoe 19:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think it's clear that the article is "cited out the wazoo" to defend against charges of WP:NPOV, WP:VERIFY, and WP:RS violations. Clconway 20:11, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/Question. Why is "state terrorism" POV? Is it less neutral than Christian terrorism, Communist terrorism, Eco-terrorism, or Islamist terrorism? If so, how? I'm sure there are many who would have some problem with one or more of the four varieties of terrorism just listed, but clearly we should discuss them. I think some editors here believe "state terrorism" is some loony left concept, and while it is often utilized by the left it is not a term which only leftists employ. For example look on the White House web page here where Dick Cheney says "Iran has been one of the foremost sponsors of state terrorism in recent years for a very long time." Instead of deleting this article, let's create articles on Iran and other countries as state terrorism is a widely discussed phenomenon that deserves coverage on Wikipedia. Again, this article should be part of a series (after being renamed), and I think concerns about NPOV would probably be addressed if that were the case.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:25, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to something less assumptive. This is not a mainstream theory, and it should be treated as others. --Merovingian (T, C, E) 20:08, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong DeleteChomsky is entitled to his opinions but that alone does not make the USA a terrorist state.Further Please do not make this forum for Communist or leftist no nation has accused the USA of being a Terrorist and almost all countries have normal economic ,diplomatic and political relations with the USA.Millions all over the want to go to USA for its freedom,Democracy ,Human Rights which even the worst is well reply is much better than most countries certainly Cuba,Iran and the Rule of Chavez.USA has a rule of law with a judical system hence to say USA is a Terrorist state is far fetched and is a full fledged democracy with the Army and CIA being accountable to the People through the Senate and House of Rep both controlled by the Democrats unlike other countries accused of terrorism.Harlowraman 20:13, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the Cuban government has in relation to Posada and more recently the Venezuelan president, Hugo Chavez. To be specific, the Cuban government has accused the U.S. of harboring a terrorist. --SixOfDiamonds 20:33, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - This article is an insult to Wikipedia. This article is nothing more than a POV'ist playground and the article a massive exercise in WP:SYN. Dman727 20:15, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unsubstanciated claims, which I call out as false. Since you are making the claims you have the burden to specifically make your case. So far no one has been able to demonstrate where exactly this alleged SYN violation is (so we can fix it!). Censoring this subject is the real insult to Wikipedia.Giovanni33 01:52, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They are quite substantiated repeatedly on the talk page. There is no need to copy 20 pages of text here to my opinion here (nor yours for that matter). Go ahead and call it false if you wish(lol). As for the burden, the burden is on you to justify your content. While I agree with fixing the article though, however that is generally hopeless as anytime someoe makes a fix, point-of-view artist decend to defend the undefendable. Dman727 02:25, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the one proposing the deletion, and those agreeing are suppose to state why. Again stating something specific here for the admin to read and understand would be more helpful then just posting random policy. I keep seeing WP:SYNTH, yet being someone who has read the article and the sources, I am not seeing it, and would like some examples posted so I can get to fixing them, and so the admin can see more then just policy articles, care to post some? --SixOfDiamonds 17:40, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious keep. - Individual editors may not like it but the article clearly demarcates and dispassionately discusses a real issue. --The Cunctator 20:29, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KeepThis article may need a complete rewrite, but its quality is not a sufficient reason for deletion. It is absolutely a notable topic in leftist political thought and discussion. VanTucky 20:39, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If atrociously POV conservative ideological pet-projects such as the Marriage gap article are allowed to exist, this article is not a problem in the least. It at least acknowledges that there is significant and notable opposition to any accusations of state terror by the U.S. VanTucky 21:17, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If this weak article is going to be kept move it to Allegations of state terrorism by the United States. --MichaelLinnear 21:47, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge 1st choice, Rename to "Allegations..." 2nd choice. This was the old name for the longest period of time, and was only moved recently after a sockpuppet inspired a move-war and the article was protected. Plus a poll on the article's talk page is overwhelmingly in favor of the "Allegations..." name. It is certainly a more appropriate name because of the partisan and controversial nature of the allegations being made. - Merzbow 21:50, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support Rename much more NPOV. VanTucky 22:01, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've now added Merge as my first choice because the sources used remain highly partisan and fringe, and thus collecting them all into an article under any name similar to this is undue weight and soapboxing. - Merzbow 06:41, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 21:53, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note that no reason is given. This, I claim, is evidence that no VALID reason exsits per policy, and its a case of being politically driven desire to censor uncomfortable truths. This is not the Wiki way.Giovanni33 01:56, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe he could have used David Gerard's reasoning above. Tom Harrison ^Talk 02:08, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, between that insight comment and Gamaliel's agreement with it, there is definitely no reason to delete this article.--MONGO 04:22, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Rename to Allegations: Absolutely POV title Alex Bakharev 22:03, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Title sucks too. - Crockspot 22:08, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a vote, you need to discuss the topic and the reasons it was nominated. Not just say, "per nom". VanTucky 22:13, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They can't discuss it because they have no valid reasons, except saying there are unspecified OR, SYN, to per someoen who says that--which while all untrue, are also not a valid reason PER POLICY for an AfD. This is just an attempt at book burning for uncomfortable truths.Giovanni33 22:15, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Having an article on this elevates it to a legitimacy that it does not hold in reality. CJK 22:19, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the victims of state terrorism, it certainly is quite a reality. Maybe you should do more traveling and learning about these realities. If you disagree about what these realities are, then you can't disagree with the fact that many reputable sources claim its real. And, that is all this article documents--those claims. Hence, no valid reason to suppress them yet has been argued.Giovanni33 01:58, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep and protect against a seventh nomination for deletion. Article is well sourced, notable, and of good quality. Six nominations for deletion is ridiculous and this sort of disruptive behavior on behalf of the current nominator should not be permitted. Badagnani 22:27, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with some modifications. Regarding the whole article, I say keep as per other butchered points above: well referenced and a notable topic. It just needs to be worked a bit so it doesnt rely so much on Noam Chomsky's statements. I don't see why moving it back to Allegations of State terrorism by the United States is such a big deal either, the current title is pretty fucking POV if you ask me. Besides that, I also agree with Badagnani in the fact that six nominations for deletion is ridiculous. It seems to me that this nomination is just another try at stirring shit when a sixth nomination is likely to, yet again, result in a keep or a no consensus at the least. The nominator appears to be big on deleting articles that conspire and accuse the USA of wrong-doing, although I won't go as far as accusing them of violationg WP:POINT. Just something to take into consideration. Just like some believe that anti-Americanism creates and fuels this article, I believe American patriotism creates and fuels it's AfD nominations. It's a hell of a delicate balance, with such a touchy subject. But all measures must be taken to make this article as NPOV as possible, to prevent original research and unverified claims from making residence, and to prevent valid claims from going MIA. It needs work, not deletion. -- Reaper X 07:13, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Move and redirect to a list page or SS~~ Keep article but move this section This section is long and redundant. WP:SS or a seperate page should be used. CredoFromStart ^talk 16:26, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Section 3

comment, while remaining neutral adding in sections. Articles like this tend to have a air of a negative POV. just a side effect of the subject matter. Kwsn^(Ni!) 22:39, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete This article violates multiple Wikipedia policies such as neutral point of view, no original research, and more specific: Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position. It has been updated with links such as Overseas expansion of the United States [62], the bombing of Hiroshima [63], etc, etc. Are we allowed at Wikipedia to interpret and write history for our own view? It is non-neutral and appears as non-encyclopedia material as it reads now - much like an essay to advance a thesis. The reason why it is well sourced, it combines other articles to do it. Can we write Alleged State terrorism by France as I have shown here? As AFD is not a vote, strength of discussion shall be watched on this one. JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 22:41, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It's well sourced in that it has no less than 93 external references. It's easy to blithely throw around WP:NOR and WP:SYN given that fact. EliminatorJR ^Talk 23:31, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I guess by your input here, I can go ahead and write State terrorism by France then. Believe me, it would have references: [64][65][66]. JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 00:22, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Flase analogy since you cite events that happened in the context of WW2--wheras all the examples listed in this article avoid any war time acts. I actually advocate adding in some acts that occured in the context of war, which clearly are terroristic in nature, i.e. its effect, its argued, was not military targets for military purposes, but civilians for political reasons and to inflict terror (the US dropping of the Atomic bomb, for example)--however this was opposed because it still occured in the context of WW2. So your French analogy does not stand up. Now if you have real allegations of state-terrorism as we have for the article on the US, then by all means, there should be an article on it. However, as it stands France doesn't compare to the US for these crimes--not that it is not without them. See, for example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_acts_labelled_as_state_terrorism_sorted_by_state#France If France were to become a super power and start acting like the US does with it foreign policy practices, then we'd better have a large article to report it. As it turns out its the US that fits the bill--like it or not! WP needs more articles like this, and will win it praise in the halls of academia, and around the world, which often discuss this important subject.Giovanni33 01:42, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not want to write State terrorism by France as it would be POV pushing, violating WP:OR, etc. That is the problem we have here, and I have shown that you can take any material relating to a country and push your own view. Also, I guess that since there are nations and people that hate Americans in general, I guess Wikipedia would win praise for keeping such POV material over time. JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 01:51, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't think you would want to write an article on state terrorism. Apparently, you think the subject can't be discussed and reported on, no matter how true, no matter how well sourced and documented the article would be. But, it does not violate OR. OR means a NEW, ORIGINAL claim, doing our OWN research from primary sources, or personal eye witness, etc, and then publishing it here. That is OR. That is NOT what this article, or the section on Terrorism by France, entails. Either cite the policy on OR that shows I have a wrong understanding, or retract your claim. When we use published reliable sources that advances the claim, and report that, its not OR. Its what WP is supposed to do. All you've shown is that you can take any material and do your own OR, or SYN. That is very nice, but not very interesting. However, it has no connection to this article. For your argument to be valid, you must show how this article does that. It doesn't. Hating or not hating America is irrelevant. Clearly you seem to be rather sensitive about perceptions of who "hates Americans" but this has nothign to do with this article. I do think people hate the policies of the US govt, as I do--but this has nothign to do with hating Americans. Lets not confuse the two. In anycase, this issue has nothign to do with the merits of this article, even if it seems to be greatly clouding your reasoning on the matter of WP policy and your stance wanting it deleting. Thanks for at least explaining your reasoning, as it makes it clear its not a valid line of reasoning that can be used to support deletion. Therefore, we must default to KEEP, as to delete would be POV pushing, and your own OR.Giovanni33 02:36, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I can write State terrorism by Saudi Arabia then [67], since 9/11 was a product of that nation (for the most part anyway). JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 02:48, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, unless you have sources that tie those private, individual actors to the govt. of Saudia Arabia, and you have lots of notable, published sources that use that example to advance an argument that its constitutes State Terrorism by Saudi Arabia. Even better if you have close to a hundred references as this article does.Giovanni33 02:53, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I could generate about 300 [68] references with no problems. Perhaps more if I use special wording. JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 03:02, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

France has committed state terrorism (see the Sétif massacre for just one example). Writing an article about that would not be POV pushing, it would be improving the quality of the encyclopedia. To stay neutral it could be titled "Allegations of state terrorism by France" and of course include the views of the French government and others sympathetic to their views. The same applies to this article. This really isn't that complicated, and the idea that Wikipedia can never write any article (never!) about nation states committing terrorist acts is one of the most ludicrous things I have seen in my time here. Unless delete voters believe that wikipedia should delete its articles on Islamist terrorism, Eco-terrorism, et. al. as hopelessly POV, then in my opinion they reveal a strong American/Western bias in assuming that the concept of "state terrorism" is weird and illegitimate while Islamist terrorism is a simple, non-controversial term. NPOV is extremely important, but I think it's the delete voters who are having trouble with it. Try to put yourself in the shoes of a 12 year old kid in Gaza, or Iraq, or Chechyna, or Darfur who watched family members killed by the armed forces of the Israeli, Iraqi, Russian, or Sudanese state and you might get more of a sense of why specific articles about state terrorism are worthwhile--even if (shock and horror!) there would be constant difficulties keeping the articles NPOV.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 02:13, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Allowing users to combine text from other articles and create their own thesis or essays is a bad idea. It becomes original research and Wikipedia becomes a place where users can rant against anything they want. Since anyone can edit here, they do edit and put in what they feel is appropriate (compliance with rules or not). That is why WP:SYNTH must be enforced. JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 02:30, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, WP:SYNTH must be enforced. But if one can cite reliable third party source that accuse France (or the U.S.) of state terrorism then there is no synthesis going on. I'm fairly confident that one could do that for France (though one might have to look more to French sources) and it's obvious that one can do that for the United States, as there are numerous works describing certain actions of the U.S. as state terrorism (or accusing the U.S. of committing terrorist acts, or similar related wordings). Thus I don't think WP:SYNTH applies here--at least not to the whole article, though perhaps it does to certain sections but we can deal with that once this AfD is over.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 13:34, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please, do make the article about Allegations of State Terrorism by France. It would be a good complement to this article. There are few better examples of state terrorism than France's behavior during the Algerian War of Independence, and its conduct in Indochina would almost certainly qualify as well. If you start that article, I'll try to make some contributions from the little bit I know. An article on France along these lines would be completely legitimate, though the debate about content would obviously be heated, and the same applies to this article.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 02:11, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- - I say go ahead and write all of the 'allegations of superpower state terrorism.' It would make for a more complete encyclopedia. And if the evidence and references only show it in the past, great! if they show it ongoing, then people will know where to put their political will, and maybe take a bit of the pressure off here. Rocksanddirt 01:02, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, go ahead and write it. If it's well sourced and written, then all the better. I'm not sure why it's relevant to whether this article should be kept, though. EliminatorJR ^Talk 07:33, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a bunch of allegations synthesized by cold warriors who are now turning WP into a battleground. JungleCat, well put! ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 23:37, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete OR and NPOV --rogerd 00:03, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I wonder how those who argue to delete feel about lists of terrorist incidents? Is an article about 9/11 or 3/11 or 7/7 POV? We're upset, and rightfully so, about the deaths and maiming in the World Trade Center and the Pentagon... on the other hand, do we know or care about who got hurt in the dropping of bombs on Iraq, Vietnam, Serbia? Compare Pan Am Flight 103 to Iran Air Flight 655, both in 1988. Which one bothered you more, the terrorist bomb in the suitcase, or the Navy shooting down what it thought was a military plane? Was one less tragic than the other, and if so, why? Well sourced, survived six deletion attempts so far, and another one will happen again soon, I'm sure. It's important to see the other side of the coin, whether you like the tone of the article or not. Mandsford 00:16, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. OR, badly sourced, violation of WP:NOT. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:21, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete My only caveat might be if there was a place to archive this article as a classic example of what Wikipedia isn't. (Not a soapbox, for those playing at home.) IronDuke 00:46, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Even if it wasn't complete original research it would still be a complete violation of WP:pov.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 01:08, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but Retitle - "Allegations of state sponsored terrorism by the United States" or some similar title. Possibly not only for this article, but all similarly named articles. John Carter 01:33, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Blatant WP:NPOV violation. Xihr 01:48, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Explain the POV violation. So far I only see unsubstanciated claims that lack any support. The blatant POV violation is the deletion of sourced material through the deletion of this article, which amounts to vandalism. But, if you have any valid claims, then please support them so we can address your argument.Giovanni33 02:02, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- What is there to explain? The whole article is nothing but a laundry list of quotations from people who think that the US is a terrorist country. If I wrote an article about the Clinton presidency and my only sources were Rush Limbaugh and Newt Gingrich, even if I phrased everything in a matter-of-fact way, it would still be a horrible POV piece. --BigDT 04:41, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete NPOV violation that is a magnet for POV pushers that makes it impossible to fix. It attracts every anti-American conspiracy theorist on the internet and invites them to add whatever they feel this article should say without regard to NPOV or RS. Hopelessly irrecoverable. --Tbeatty 04:15, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I've taken a look at the arguments here and I'm convinced by the delete reasoning. We are here to write an encyclopedia and this article doesn't belong. We are not here to be a sounding board for conspiracy theorists or for people with an ax to grind. This article is more like a term paper than an encyclopedia article. It starts out with a definition of terrorism and then sets out to prove its case that the US fits the definition. It doesn't belong here. If we want to be an encyclopedia, we need to start cleaning up these POV forks. Get rid of the Allegations of claims of ideas of state sponsored apartheid in Lower Outer Southeastern Michigan articles. --BigDT 04:27, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conspiracy theorists? oh please! Accusations of state terrorism by the US government are so widespread in every major university in the US as to be practically clishe. Major figures such as Zinn and Chomsky are not be discredited as legitimizers of notability when in almost every book they allege state terror by the US, and Chomsky is one of the ten most-cited sources in all of academia. However much review for NPOV this article may need, it is simple willfull ignorance to say it is a fringe idea by leftist conspiracy theorists. VanTucky 04:37, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: To continue this point I would like people to read the sources in the article, not just the article, since it seems many calling for deletion are attacking them. The sources presented are citing terrorism, the definition in the beginning is to introduce the reader to the idea of state terrorism. I ask you review the items and the sources presented, you will see the sources are stating terrorism took place, not that person X was killed, and the intro supports that as terrorism. --SixOfDiamonds 15:51, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, and merge well researched material into the different articles on the subject. As it stands, the content may be sourced, but collected in such an article fails WP:OR. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:30, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per Cactus.man above. Hobomojo 05:35, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Could we please not have "keep" comments asking that the page not be nominated for deletion in the future? consensus can change, as the Daniel Brandt and GNAA perennial AFDs have shown. I think this article might become the next perennial AFD, but that's a systemic flaw that really can't be fixed while standing on one foot. Shalom ^Hello 05:59, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The numerous accusations of bad faith made against me and my nomination are absurd. After I nominated the article, I made sure that all prior AfDs were listed at the top of the page (something an editor acting in bad faith certainly wouldn't do). As for the bogus accusations of my nomination violating WP:POINT, no one has provided any evidence suggesting that I am trying to make any such point (and I am not making any such point). My conclusion is that many of these people are making ad hominem arguments in order to avoid providing any valid reason to keep the article, because they know deep down that there is not a valid reason to keep the article. Pablo Talk | Contributions 06:57, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Well, you didn't give a proper reason for why you think it should be deleted (rather than improved). Is it a violation of copyright? No. Is it content that does not belong in an encyclopedia? Certanly not. Is the content not verifiable in a reliable source? No. Since it's not a biography of a living person that doesn't apply either. Please read Wikipedia:Deletion policy and see if I missed anything. // Liftarn
  - You missed something. I argue that the article is inherently POV. Unfortunately, you did not make the connection that this means the article does not belong on an encyclopedia. Pablo Talk | Contributions 07:15, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment: That is an argument for fixing, not for deletion. // Liftarn
      - Reply No, the article violates NPOV and always will violate NPOV. Pablo Talk | Contributions 15:34, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If that even qualifies as an argument, it certainly isn't a rational one. ... Kafkaesque Seabhcan 15:37, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Alone, the connotation given off by the title is POV. per nom Bulldog123 07:20, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, possibly retitle as "allegations of state terrorism by the United States". Everyking 07:34, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That would be a good rename if it was kept. Bulldog123 07:50, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletions. —A. L. M. 08:51, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article is well referenced, verifiable by reliable sources and fundamentally encyclopaedic. Remember that "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth". And it has survived 5 AfDs so far - I see no new arguments since the last debates. Henrik 10:07, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If you say an article is POV, you shouldn't delete it. Just improve on it until it's neutral. You might as well say the article on George W. Bush should be deleted because of all the biased edits it recieves. If you see a poorly constructed building, don't demolish it; fix it. That is, of course, assuming this article is POV, which it could very well not be. VolatileChemical 10:18, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "Allegations" (in the original page title) is an inherent NPOV OR (and possibly BLP) landmine Will ^(talk) 12:33, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The United States is not a living person. ... Kafkaesque Seabhcan 12:36, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, but the people being called terrorists are. --BigDT 12:43, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who? Luis Posada Carriles was convicted in court of being a terrorist. There is no room for dispute and BLP doesn't apply. The only question was whether he did this terrorism on behalf of his employer, the CIA, or in his free time. However, the man is a terrorist. ... Kafkaesque Seabhcan 12:47, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even if not by name ... alleged terrorist acts usually don't commit themselves. The "United States" as a political entity didn't allegedly commit terrorism - one or more people did. --BigDT 13:00, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anything in BLP about it applying to unnamed people. The whole point of that policy is that it applies to named living people. ... Kafkaesque Seabhcan 13:07, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Politically speaking that is not correct. Agents of the government, if he was one, are seen to act on behalf of it internationally. A CIA agent taking part in the bombing of a plane, would be seen as doing it on behalf of the U.S. That seems to be the question however, was he working for the CIA. Cuba has claimed he was, so at least "allegations" would be the correct terminology. This really is arguing over the specifics of the content and not appropriate for this page. As for BLP, he has been cited by many sources including in the article as a terrorist, and convicted of such. Removing the article, because a convicted terrorist is being labeled a terrorist, does not make much sense. I believe that would be on par with removing "convicted killer" or "convicted murder" from a series of serial killer articles. --SixOfDiamonds 13:09, 26 June 2007 (UTC)— SixOfDiamonds (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep This isn't Conservopedia. Catchpole 14:01, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think it's odd the way so many people here suggest that changing the name will somehow increase the quality of this article, or make it "more encyclopedic". The article as it now stands is a catalog of uncontested, uncontroversial historical events. It describes -- using equally dispassionate, easily verified facts -- the United States' relationship to those events. The reason the name is "State Terrorism by the United States" is for the simple reason that there are a very great many allegations of terrorist actions sponsored by the United States. We could start with Libya, go on to the Congo, there's also Rwanda, Syria, Uzbekistan, and a great many others. These are all rather silly allegations, and they don't have much point. Similarly, there are allegations against the United States made by political parties and private organizations.

It doesn't make much sense to think that changing the name from "State terrorism" to "Allegations of state terrorism" will in any way tighten the page up; changing the title opens up a veritable can of worms in terms of content and valid sourcing, and in fact increases the likelihood that this page will become an even greater point of contention than it already is.

As things are, the events recounted in the article are clearly admitted to by the U.S, widely understood because of extensive reportage, and clearly considered terrorist acts by at least some reliable authorities. Thus, i can imagine no justification to support the change of title to "allegations" -- unless, that is, some folks here would prefer to see the article turn into a jumbled, chaotic mess of unverifiable accusations and allegations. Stone put to sky 14:10, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we could have two articles, one Allegations of state terrorism by the United States and one Verified state terrorism by the United States... Well, perhaps not. // Liftarn

Keep. This is not original research, by synthesis or otherwise. There are about 90 sources, each attributing a specific fact or sentence in the article, and they have not been used to promote new positions. Using multiple sources to make an article is good old research, not original research, and is the common, even encouraged practice for making articles. Although there are some {{fact}} tags lying around, the sourcing status is not so dire as to requiring deletion of the entire article. The fact that the US is frequently accused of terrorism is clear, given all the sources. That these allegations are significant in international foreign relations is illustrated by Hugo Chavez, the president of Venezuela making such accusations at a UN assembly. In my opinion, allegations like this are usually overblown, inaccurate, blantantly false, or a result of extreme left-oriented propaganda (perhaps all of the above), but keeping or deleting this article has nothing to do with whether the allegations are true. The fact that they are prevalent makes them notable, and a valid subject for an encyclopedia article. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:30, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Professor Noam Chomsky's is an expert in multiple fields and he is a political activist, he doesn't have to be an expert in the field of terrorism to comment on what is common knowledge (links to an essay). He being a notable political activist qualifies him to comment on political activities of United States government. The article doesn't violate WP:NPOV, as all the claims have been cited. And violation of WP:NPOV alone is not a criteria for deletion. There is not a single exceptional claim that is not referenced! Then how would it fit the criteria of Original Research? NëŧΜǒńğer^{Peace Talks} 14:31, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism of Noam Chomsky is extensive, so none of his opinions should be considered common knowledge. In this case, it is his particular interpretation of events clearly represent his opinion. I think it would be hard to find any kind of expert consensus on characterizing any element of US military and foreign policy as "terrorist." --Leifern 15:12, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly not if the expert in question wants to keep their job in a US university. However, such expert opinions are very common outside the US. ... Kafkaesque Seabhcan 15:23, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely false and libelous. There are countless academics in the U.S., many without tenure, who express radical views. There are several whose jobs are threatened because their academic work is crappy, and that's another matter. --Leifern 12:17, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Libel against whom? ... Kafkaesque Seabhcan 12:46, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll agree it's not libelous, but it's not true, either. In a typical academic situation, you're more likely to be fired for supporting the U.S. government than for challenging them (although neither is going to happen). However, there are a lot of professors whose jobs are threatened who don't do "crappy" academic work. I've known several who didn't get tenure despite doing excellent work. From what I can tell, the reason they didn't get tenure is because their work wasn't quite "excellent" enough in the ways that mattered to the committee making those decisions. In no way does that make their work "crappy", however. Benhocking 12:54, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - aside from the blatant, albeit implicit hypocricy of carefully avoiding the term "terrorist" for groups that blow up school buses while applying the term to the United States, there are many problems with this article:
- It's about rhetoric, not reality. In other words, the term "terrorism" relies on a particular interpretation of events that one may or may not agree with, but that in any event can not find resolution by examination of facts. As a result, the title itself, even when prefaced with "allegations of..." begs the question and thereby commits a basic fallacy.
- Further, it dilutes facts that should be highlighted by discrediting their context. Accusations against the US (or any other country) of war crimes, etc., should be taken seriously, but shrill denunciations about the motivation of such acts only drowns the gravity in a lot of noise.
- Tying "terrorism" and states together is done unevenly in Wikipedia. Sometimes it's about terrorism in the countries, sometimes by the regimes, sometimes both. I actually think the same principle applies to all of them - if we're going to use the term "terroris*" for some people and organizations, we have to apply them consistently. --Leifern 14:57, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment So basically, WP:IDONTLIKEIT then? --John 15:40, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Let's see - the very way the topic is articulated commits a rhetorical fallacy, embellishes important facts, and is inconsistent with other articles. I don't like it because it is a blatant violation of everything Wikipedia is trying to accomplish. --Leifern 00:27, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment The issues you bring up regarding the term terrorism are valid, however the article does not apply its own definition, but uses that of the references. If the reference considers it terrorism, seems to be the deciding factor, not if the authors do. --SixOfDiamonds 15:45, 26 June 2007 (UTC)— SixOfDiamonds (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep Not bad. Even if I think they people quoted are wrong CredoFromStart ^talk 16:27, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Section 4

Keep and rework An encyclopaedia should contain articles about sytematic allegations made against superpowers. However it should also contain discussions of responses made to those allegations. At present the article seems largely to consist of the allegations. The criticisms re NPOV should be addressed by working on the article to include references to other POVs and the cycle of responses and counter-responses to the allegations made by Chomsky, not by removing the article altogether and pretending that no such criticisms have been made. --Peter cohen 17:10, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Except when the criticisms are so fringe and absurd that reliable sources haven't even bothered to respond to many of them, in which case it's undue weight to present them. - Merzbow 17:26, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I note that the New York Times and the International Court of Justice are among the cited sources of those "fringe and absurd" criticisms. --Peter cohen 17:41, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No international court has sentenced the US for terrorism or "state terrorism" That is an OR statement, as most of the rest of the article. Most of the sources do not mention "state terrorism" and usually not terrorism.Ultramarine 17:56, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What Ultramarine said. These sources never accuse the United States of "state terrorism", only "unlawful acts" or the like. Part of the dispute is with tendentious editors who insist that this actually means "terrorism" when only fringe elements like Chomsky say so. This is WP:SYN and WP:OR. - Merzbow 17:58, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would you then support a renaming to "Unlawful Acts by the United States"? It seems that would cover your worries and possibly that of others. --SixOfDiamonds 18:11, 26 June 2007 (UTC) — SixOfDiamonds (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete per violation of WP:OR. The article doesn't even give the definition of state terrorism and most sources used for this article are online sources of dubious reliability. -- Vision Thing -- 17:57, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It leads directly to the article on state terrorism in its section State_terrorism_by_the_United_States#Definition_of_the_term_state_terrorism. As for dubious reliability, we have sources from CNN, New York Times, Znet, Washington Post, Christian Science Monitor, Granma, ABC News, The Guardian, BBC, ICJ, Intelligence Oversight Board, NSA Archive as well numerous books by influential people in the field of world politics such as Chomsky and Ganser. --SixOfDiamonds 18:16, 26 June 2007 (UTC) — SixOfDiamonds (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Yes, and that article also doesn't give any sourced definition. Also, majority, if not most (I didn't checked them all), used sources don't talk about state terrorism but about something else and editors who had added them simply interpreted them in their own way. -- Vision Thing -- 18:22, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I explained this above. Many of the sources given are supporting something a few article stated. Such as articles stating that it was an act of terrorism that brought down the Cuban flight, stating that Posada was arrested, stating that the US arrested him and harbors him etc. These all then link back to one or two articles that are specifically calling the acts, that of state terrorism. So we have a few that make the allegation, and others that support the events. For instance, if you had an article that said the sun exploded, then had articles that provided context and support by stating the sun's max temperature, position, etc. They are not all supporting the complete idea, just supporting the facts that are being presented. A more relevant example is the branding of the US backing of Posada as state terrorism, then an article supporting he worked for the CIA, an article with his admission the CIA trained him, an article of the US letting him off on the charges, an article with Hugo Chavez stating the US is harboring a terrorist etc. Only the original articles presented need to directly state that, state terrorism took place, the rest are to support the facts of the situation and provide greater reading and context. --SixOfDiamonds 18:28, 26 June 2007 (UTC) — SixOfDiamonds (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Which sources are branding US backing of Posada as state terrorism? -- Vision Thing -- 18:44, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agence France-Presse "At a press conference after his speech, Chavez said that the United States was a "terrorist state" because of its actions in Iraq, Robertson's assassination call and for harboring Luis Posada Carriles, who is wanted for the bombing of a Cuban airliner. "It is a terrorist state. It is a government that violates all rules and behaves shamelessly," he said. "The United States is the champion of double standards. The United States' government defends terrorism. They talk of the fight against the terrorism, but they commit terrorism, state terrorism," said Chavez.

Not sure if this what you were looking for. --SixOfDiamonds 13:21, 27 June 2007 (UTC) — SixOfDiamonds (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Found another:[69]

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez on Friday also paid tribute to the bombing victims, who he said were "martyrs of the Cuban revolution" killed by "state terrorism" perpetuated by the United States. He demanded the U.S. government "comply with its own laws, comply with international accords" and extradite Posada.

Hope that ends the hunt for the mysterious allegation. --SixOfDiamonds 14:19, 27 June 2007 (UTC) — SixOfDiamonds (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I'm not sure what you are looking for (e.g. if you want to see the phrase "this constituted state terrorism"), but I think Robert Scheer's comment that the U.S. was terrorizing Cuba, not the other way around, is a strong implicit accusation of state terrorism (see footnote 57). Ditto for the Cuban VP's comment about those that harbor terrorists (the U.S. in this case) being the same as the terrorists themselves.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 18:59, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Based on this kind of argumentation, which permeate the whole article, we should include a section on abortion, which has recently been condemned by the Vatican as terrorism.Ultramarine 19:38, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I don't follow your (odd) analogy. Why does the fact that the Vatican has labeled abortion terrorism warrant inclusion in this article on state terrorism committed by the U.S.? Maybe you could put it in the Definition of terrorism article, but obviously it would not be relevant here, whereas a prominent columnist like Scheer saying the U.S. terrorized Cuba clearly is worthy of inclusion in this article. You might try making your point in a less opaque fashion.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:53, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Using the logic of this article, I will quote "Parliaments of so-called civilised nations where laws contrary to the nature of the human being are being promulgated" as criticisms of United States policy regarding abortion, which he calls terrorism. I am sure I can find numerous pro-life sources arguing the same. How is the Vatican less important than a newspaper columnist? Ultramarine 20:00, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then, of course, we must add the allegations of various far right and far left groups who feel threatened by the US government. I am sure they claim they are subjected to terrorism.Ultramarine 20:05, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the United States government had an official policy about aborting babies in the womb, and if agents of the federal government went out and performed abortions and/or hired people to help them do that, then maybe the Vatican information should be here. Of course abortions in the United States are conducted by private doctors, not the CIA or FBI, so I still don't see the point of the analogy. And we would only include allegations about state terrorism by far right or far left political groups in the U.S. if there was evidence that such allegations were true. It is obvious that Luis Posada is a terrorist and there is strong evidence that the U.S. government supported his activities. Journalist Scheer labeling that support a form of terrorism is thus significant because it is not some wild accusation, but rather merely applying a term to an event or state of affairs which is well documented. So I think the distinctions between the examples you provide and the discussion of Posada and the U.S. in this article are fairly obvious.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:20, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I could equally well argue that the US allowing abortions to take place is obviously support for abortions. Regarding "truth", that is in the eye of the beholder, Wikipedia uses verifiability. Posada would certainly not agree that he is terrorist and could maybe cause legal problems for Wikipedia if it was added without qualifier to the page about him. The Vatican is a far more important source than a columnist. This is the problem with the OR on this page. Anyone can find some source describing some act labelled terrorism by someone and or not even that, as is true for most of the sources in this article, and claim that this is "state terrorism".Ultramarine 21:36, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is your point then that if there are 30 sources that call someone a killer, we cannot say they are a murderer, since of course the 30 sources say killer, not murderer? Saying the US is terrorizing another country is state terrorism, when a state (entity) The United States, uses acts of terrorism on another country, hence terrorizing it. I think this shallow word play goes to show the lack of a deletion argument. --SixOfDiamonds 12:45, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neither terrorism or state terrorism have any agreed on definitions. Thus, anyone can claim that something bad is terrorism. An article such as this one therefore becomes a dumping ground for every anonynmous editor who personally thinks that something bad is "state terrorism" or terrorism. This article could as well be called Very evil things done by the United States. Wikipedia should avoid articles with very unclear and inherently POV words.Ultramarine 18:49, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately here we are reporting what others have said, not what you believe is perfectly defined. God is not defined entirely, yet we do not remove articles containing the word God. Your argument that the lack of definition allows dumping is not based on the article, but your own misconceptions of the article and its sources. The sources permitted ni the article have to allege terrorism, which they do. You have already argued over those sources calling South American presidents and UN speeches to be "fringe sources". However the fact of the matter is those allegations do exist, Presidents of nations are not "fringe" sources of informations, nor are their embassy's or speeches given by them in the UN, nor are countries the US does not like. Your tangent of "evil things done ..." does not make any sense as the sources themselves state terrorism, not "bad bad naughty things" It may do you well to read the sources before continuing this debate as I have already provided two sources and a third on the talk page that cites Hugo Chavez and his embassy as citing the US for 'state terrorism' and others have provided additional sources. --SixOfDiamonds 20:13, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately the article cites numerous sources not mentioning terrorism because some anonynmous editor personally think this is terrorism. (You confuse me with someone else, I have not made any of the claims you make.) Thus the article includes a flat-earth class conspiracy theory that the US was involved in the Algiers putsch and that this is U.S. state terrorism, citing some strange French source. A private attempt by exile Cubans to assassinate Castro in 2006, an attempt that the US stopped, is listed as state terrorism by the US. A long graphic description of a rape has been added because one the persons involved spoke American English, which is obviously strong evidence of State terrorism by the US. So, yes, a better name would be Very evil things maybe done by the United States.Ultramarine 21:05, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm I can expand that section and will. What happened in the situation of La Esperanza as expressed by the sources, is the group (CANF) which was created by Reagan and supported by the government was attempting to plan an attack to assassinate Fidel Castro, their words not mine, yes they admitted it. On board the boat was a known CIA agent and the president of CANF as well as 2 others. Cuba deamed this act, that of terrorism [70]. Thank you for bringing this up, it makes a good source that I found it, and negates one of your points. --74.73.16.230 23:55, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Material from the Cuban government is not a reliable source.Ultramarine 20:56, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Every controversial article on Wikipedia is potentially a dumping ground for anonymous editors to put crap in, and we have numerous articles about subjects which lack precise or uncontested definitions as you well know. That does not mean we delete them. In order for something to be included in this article, reliable sources need to refer to a given act by the U.S. government (and/or their direct proxies) as "state terrorism" (or language along those lines). If an anon editor adds in some nonsense about how the U.S. committed state terrorism against the moon by sending Neil Armstrong to walk around up there, then we would do what we always do when crap creeps in--delete it. The scope of this article can and should be quite specific, and does not refer generally to "very evil things done by the U.S." as you suggest. The article could absolutely be improved and I think more objections to the classifications of these acts as state terrorism could and should be included. Finally, Wikipedia will inevitably have article titles with unclear and POV words. Here's an example well removed from contemporary politics. Although you would not know it to look at the Wikipedia article, the Second Great Awakening is an extremely controversial term among historians. Many historians think grouping early 19th century religious revivals under one neat "Second Awakening" framework is a terrible idea and that the term should therefore be discarded, while others think it is fine to use it. The solution is to keep the article and discuss the controversy, which I think also applies here. If the "U.S. has committed state terrorism" side is overly represented here, lets bring in more sources who advocate a different view.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:38, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As much as I hate the subject, I have to support a SPEEDY KEEP. This nomination reaks with WP:POINT... and while I may not like the subject, it is a valid one of contention. People who are offended by this page are probably like me, proud Americans. But the reason behind our country's bill of rights is to protect the voices of people we disagree with. I do support renaming it to include "Alleged" or "Allegations" as that would be more NPOV.Balloonman 18:33, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is private; the Bill of Rights does not apply. Pablo Talk | Contributions 18:37, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Being private does not equate to being fascist. Democratic principals are inherent in this probject's many policies.Giovanni33 19:21, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The CIA is admitting to some of the allegations on their website now. ( Just started today. )Jackaranga 18:38, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The bill of rights is not required, but the people who are oppsing this do so because they are offended by the idea. They don't like the idea of people being critical of the U.S. in such manner---heck I don't (you only have to check my contributions to see that I am pro-America.) But part of being pro-America is that we defend the right of people we disagree with to be able to share their position regardless of how offensive we find the position. People who want to shut down this discussion, should remember this... it's part of the American Heritage...Balloonman 05:52, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, those are now relevations in documents are have been released today by the CIA. This is to be expected, and why this article will only get more information, becoming even more substanciated. Establishment terrorism (state and state-sponsored terrorism) is quite common but difficult to establish mainly because the state's support is always clandestine. It takes some time for the facts to come out, which is why most of the facts we have stem from the Cold War era, although allegations by academics and experts in the subject also contain more recent practices.Giovanni33 19:26, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you referring to this press release? VanTucky 19:25, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Also I believe the USA did sponsor terrorism, wether the CIA admits to it or not, but still think this article should be deleted, as it offends many here. Jackaranga 20:37, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the title is inherently POV and attempts to draw conclusions before actually getting into the material of the article. Since it is comprised entirely of allegations and various peoples opinions, salvage useful facts only to Foreign relations of the United States and related articles.--snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 19:02, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:POV, WP:OR, WP:SYNT. This sort of article gives WP a black eye for its unobjectivity. Carlossuarez46 19:28, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename to something like "Allegations of..." or "Accusations of ...". Despite the obvious bias and original research, I think the article should be kept and balanced. The allegations are noteworthy. If the article is going to be deleted, merging some content into Anti-Americanism and Noam Chomsky would seem reasonable. PCock 20:00, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong KEEP - Articles like this are essential to exposing the evil empire that Bush evil empire has created. Not just GWB of course, but his entire clan going back to the days of Prescott Bush and his support of Adolf Hitler. The more we can expose the naked aggression, empire building, world dominance and oppression of people worldwide by the United States and the Bush family evil empire, the more credibility Wiki will have. This article is a credit to wiki and deserves front page coverage, not deleted by facist Republicans. 70.220.23.63 20:01, 26 June 2007 (UTC) — 70.220.23.63 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Strong Speedy Keep not as evil as the above comment states bush is, but I think this article should stay.--trey 20:14, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: For those interested the CIA has released a document titled "Family Jewels" in which they highlight an attempt to use the Mafia to assassinate Fidel Castro. If there is even a consideration to delete, I ask it be postponed shortly, as apparently much content is coming to light due to the FOIA CIA page. --SixOfDiamonds 20:31, 26 June 2007 (UTC) — SixOfDiamonds (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

There is no serious argument that its valid for deleting this well established topic, so I would not worry. Its more than anything just a means to vent by some who don't like it what it exposes. I guess some people feel they have a stake in imperialism and its crimes. Regarding the latest revelations/released documents, they also list illegal behavior modification experiments, including druging of "unwitting" U.S. citizens. Also, assassination plots against Castro, Lumumba, and Trujillo, and kidnapping. But, in order to report on this, we have to have a reputable source that makes the argument that these actions constitute incidents of state terrorism (like the rest of article documents). There is no OR or SYN in this article. All claims are backed up by sources that makes these allegations, and then additional sources can be added as filler to describe the incidents in question. This is, despite repeating it like a broken records, are not OR or Syn violations--which is why they can't support their argument and show otherwise.Giovanni33 21:24, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CommentI don't think there is any discussion as to the truth of this article, but I just think that the US is not ready for this kind of article yet. Maybe in 50 years or so. I think freedom of speech ends when you start to offend so many of the readers, no point shoving their errors in their faces all the time. Nobody is perfect. We can just keep the individual articles, no need for a general "America suck because ..." kind of thing. Jackaranga 20:44, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am American (Berkeley/San Francisco), and what is most offensive are the attempts to supress this information, so that people can remain ignorant. WP is not "American" and should not have a pro-US govt. political/ideological bias. Infact since most editors here are English speaking, we have to specifically counter any such systematic bias.Giovanni33 21:23, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: WP:IDONTLIKEIT Is not a valid reason to delete an article. --SixOfDiamonds 20:50, 26 June 2007 (UTC) — SixOfDiamonds (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletions. —Sefringle^Talk 22:22, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Inherently POV, inherently original research. If Wikipedia cannot muster the common sense to save itself from this embarrassment of an article, then at least the title needs to be changed, preferably to "Allegations of...". Jayjg ^(talk) 22:08, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I think WP:NOR means the article is unsourced, but simply made up from one's own experience. This article is clearly well sourced. I have the feeling that a number of those presenting their opinions here haven't read straight through it before, because neither the sources nor the actual content of the article is ever mentioned. Badagnani 22:14, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, WP:NOR does not mean the article is unsourced. Original research is often quite extensively sourced. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:20, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Really? The policy has "Original research (OR) is a term used in Wikipedia to refer to unpublished facts, arguments, concepts, statements, or theories. The term also applies to any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position — or, in the words of Wikipedia's co-founder Jimmy Wales, would amount to a "novel narrative or historical interpretation."" --John 22:24, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, really. People take all sorts of source material, sourced up the wazoo, and put it together in an original synthesis. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:45, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, like people do in the article New antisemitism all the time and that you fully support? // Liftarn

CommentThis is not original research in way shape or form. Detailed accusations of illegal uses of force semantically called state terror are a primary subject of such notable authors as Howard Zinn and Noam Chomsky, among others. Just because you haven't read the associated literature on the subject doesn't make it an unpublished idea. VanTucky 22:41, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your opinion on this matter is noted; how could it not be, considering how many times you have stated it? Nevertheless it is wrong, despite being vehemently repeated in multiple places. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:45, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is not wrong, but you are. OR refers to an original claim, a new argument, which is not present in published reliable sources. This article's claims are supported by reliable source that establish that this claim is not original, nor are we using different sources to synthesize a new claim. On the contrary, the article cites those authors who argue the points presented. Its their claims we report on. There are no original claims invented by any editor here. We are only reporting the claims of various scholars who make these arguments. True, not every source says "state terrorism" but this is not OR because these sources are used only for background info on the topics---NOT to create any new claims relevant to allegations of state terrorism. In order for it to be listed, the claim is already established by a reliable source, and new sources are added to verify the facts of the background information that is needed (as requested by other editors). This is common practice. Therefore, since no new or original claims are being synthesized or established, there is by definition no OR or SYN violations in this article. If there are, please point it out, so it can be fixed. If there is not a good source that has been cited stating the incident in question is state terrorism, it is not in this article. I've challenged everyone who has made this false claim to back up what they say, and all have failed. That should say a lot about the merits of this unsubstanciated claim. Often, what I find out is that they have not even bothered to read the article and are very ignorant of the subject matter. These allegations are well founded by reliable sources.Giovanni33 22:57, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Giovanni33, do you think that if you argue with every single person who disagrees with you, insist they are wrong, and imply they haven't read the article, it will somehow enhance your case? Because that's what you seem to be trying to do. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:00, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't think that, because that is only part of what I am doing. I am proving that the claims being made, lack substance. To show this I challenge those who make the claim to back it up with some kind of argument that proves that what they are saying has a basis in fact. So far, no one is wiling or able to (I think the latter). This is noteworthy. If only one side presents arugments, and the other only side only shouts the same claims over and over (its POV, its OR, its Syn)--and ignores the many requests to explain by exmaples, leaving their claims are unsubstanciated--despite being challenged and questioned to support them--then I think a reasonable person can conclude that the reason why this is so, is because the claims they are making lack merit, and should therefore be dismissed. Let the veractiy of a claim stand or fall on the strenghs of the arguments presented.Giovanni33 23:13, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow Jayjg, I'd have thought someone who'd been on ArbCom would know better than to get personal, and that attacking users for actually discussing AFD's instead of just voting on them was in poor taste. But as to issue, youre saying that this ENORMOUS ref list with just over 100 citations equals Original research? Seems a little self-defeating to me... VanTucky 22:53, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't gotten personal; I said your opinion was incorrect. I'm sure you're a wonderful person. Regarding your point about references, I've already addressed that; original research can be filled with references. In a university setting original research filled with references is strongly encouraged. Here, however, it is forbidden. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:58, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your point (and agree) that large amounts of "references" don't mean anything unless they are checked to acutally, literally refer to the accusation at hand (the extralegal use of force against foreign nations and their citizens). But that is exactly what the sources from the following references literally do: Reuters, Aljazeera, The NY Times, LA Times, Miami Herald, Democracy Now!, Chomsky, William Blum, Cornell Law, BBC, Robert Parry, George Washington University, CNN, ABC, and declassified Army and CIA records. All those sources used in the reference section of the article directly make reference to the illegal use of force against nations and citizens for political, ideological, or economic reasons by the U.S. government. They aren't combined to create a case for US state terror, they actually speak of it in their own content. VanTucky 23:18, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, why his statement is false. His line of reasoning is correct, ofcourse. That is policy. However, the claim he is making in relation to this article is false. Those sources establish the claims and hence there is no OR or SYN. Since has failed to give exmples of even ONE single violation of this, then I have to assume he has not bothered to look at article closely, at the references.Giovanni33 23:23, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. Aside from the fringe sources like Chomsky, these sources do not accuse the US of terrorism. It is original research to call something terrorism when the source does not do so. This is perhaps the twentieth time me and others have made this very simple point. You cannot take a NY Times article that says something different and leap to your own conclusions, despite how evil you think the U.S. is. - Merzbow 23:26, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Or, you shouldn't use Wikipedia as your soapbox when you do. Here's a quote from the first non-Chomsky reference, "But individual terrorist acts by people living in hopeless despair cannot be compared to the State terrorism of the Israeli government, which has recently slaughtered hundreds of Palestinians." If the sources are biased, and you pick and chose only biased sources, and you write what you want from the sources, then the article winds up biased. I suspect a check through the list of sources will all be the same, they don't say what is claimed in the article, or the sources is so biased itself that it must be directly sourced as to its own suitability. Please, these are sources designed to designate "state terrorism" by the US and Israel, so they do what they intend. The topic could be written responsibly, but if you have no intention of doing so this article should be deleted. KP Botany 23:30, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, let me give some literal examples from the ref list here: Blum, William (2003). Killing Hope: US Military and CIA Interventions since World War II. Noida, India: Zed Books, 290. ISBN 1-84277-369-0. Terrorism Debacles in the Reagan Administration. The Future of Freedom Foundation. Retrieved on July 30, 2006. Michael Ratner. Civil Remedies for Gross Human Rights Violations Gareau, Frederick H. (2004). State Terrorism and the United States. London: Zed Books, pp22-25 and pp61-63. ISBN 1-84277-535-9. ^ "50 Years After the CIA’s First Overthrow of a Democratically Elected Foreign Government We Take a Look at the 1953 US Backed Coup in Iran", Democracy Now!, 08-25-2003. Shahrooz, Kaveh. "All The Shah’s Men: An American Coup and the Roots of Middle East Terror" (Stephen Kinzer), Harvard Human Rights Journal, 08-01-2005. (June 24 2000) "US 'supported anti-left terror in Italy'". The Guardian. (February 14 2005) "Chavez: US is a terrorist state". Aljazeera. (September 3 2003) "Indonesian VP: United States Is 'Terrorist King'". Reuters. (and BTW: Chomsky isn't a "fringe" source. He's one of the most cited academic sources in the country. Being an anarchist in personal political philosophy doesn't automatically make a figure "fringe") Once again, these all literlly reference either the exact phrase terrorism or it's equal. VanTucky 23:36, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now we're getting somewhere. I see the most reliable sources like the NYTimes, CNN, ABC, and so on have all dropped off your now much-truncated list. We are left with Chomsky (a linguistics professor), an Indonesian VP, Hugo Chavez, a book published by an Indian press authored by a socialist activist with no academic credentials (Blum), and a couple remaining cites which you still haven't shown actually accuse the U.S. of state terror. Next? - Merzbow 23:59, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um, you seem to forget that the truth of what these people say is not on trial here, and that it is a reliable reference to the notability of the topic when Reuters, Democracy Now!, published authors and many others report that the US is being accused of state terror. Furthermore, for you to just dismiss Chavez, an Indian press and a major Indonesian politician is xenophobia of foreign sources. It doesn't matter who said it, it matters that respected news organizations and book publishers (like Reuters) acutally found it notable enough to publish that people accuse the US of terror. And once again, Chomsky is not just a linguistics prof. He's published more books on US foriegn policy in the last ten years than anything else, and his assertions (though without a doubt controversial) are heard widely. No one just dismisses him and says, "oh that Chomksy, who cares what he says about the country cause, you know, he's just an MIT linguistics professor." VanTucky 00:15, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your remaining sources are either fringe publications, or are reporting on the opinions of fringe or barely notable individuals. Some of the views are notable enough to be presented in the context of another article, certainly, but per policy we do not provide a soapbox for fringe views, for it would be undue weight. An entire article of this name is indeed a soapbox. - Merzbow 00:48, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now you switched your argument, to one of "the sources dont say that, its OR!" to, "Its fringe!" Interesting. I think you should make up yoru mind which argument you want to use. If these allegations are not notable but only fringe, why would a fringe subject be taught and discussed in major universities? I've taken classes where this was assigned reading material. I also notice that you are not telling the truth, above, when you cherry pick and select only some sources to dismiss (which you have no basis to dismiss--are only "American" sources allowed? Who says? They are reliable). For instance, you ignore Dr. Frederick H. Gareau who holds a Ph.D. in international relations and organizations from American University, Washington, DC, as well as in political science from the University of Geneva. He is full professor at Florida State University and author of The United Nations and Other International Insitutions: A Critical Analysis as well as an extensive number of articles and conference reports. The book in particular that makes these claims supporting the Chomsky POV is entitled "STATE TERRORISM and the UNITED STATES".Is this OR, still? Oh, wait...new argument: Its Fringe! lol! An abstract of this book can be found here: [71]. Some other writers expressing this POV for example: [72], entitled, Should the United States Renounce Terrorism? See: http://academic.evergreen.edu/g/grossmaz/interventions.html; FROM WOUNDED KNEE TO IRAQ: A CENTURY OF U.S. MILITARY INTERVENTIONS, and http://www3.sympatico.ca/sr.gowans/foreign.html: Terrorism as Foreign Policy. Ignore all you like. The facts speak for themselves.Giovanni33 01:01, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Here is another "fringe, unreliable source," for you--ABC NEWS. But, wait its a US news source! I think that makes it better for you, no? Let me quote it, to make it clear. [73] David Ruppe, writes for ABC, on May 1st, 2001: "In the early 1960s, America's top military leaders reportedly drafted plans to kill innocent people and commit acts of terrorism in U.S. cities to create public support for a war against Cuba. Code named Operation Northwoods, the plans reportedly included the possible assassination of Cuban émigrés, sinking boats of Cuban refugees on the high seas, hijacking planes, blowing up a U.S. ship, and even orchestrating violent terrorism in U.S. cities."Disagree all you want, but you can't deny what is the allegations staring you, in front of your eyes.Giovanni33 01:20, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Yawn. My argument stands. No reliable, non-fringe source alleges that the US committed state terrorism, in those words. Allegations that some leaders once had some plans to do something does not "State terrorism by the United States" make. Go create "Allegations that the U.S. planned to commit state terrorism" and we'll talk about it in that AfD. - Merzbow 02:24, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Those plans are not allegations of plans, if you bothered to read the source--they are aditted to by the planners, which was approved by the higest leves of the Pentagon, the joint cheifs of staff, and only rejected by Kennedy. But, I see you ignore the many sources above which clearly articulate the POV of these academics who do indeed say it in that exact way: that the US has committed acts of state terrorism. I suggest you go back and read those sources. Professor Gareau recommends in his book that "a truth commission be established to investigate and to advertise Washington’s support for state terrorism so that the American public will know what has been done in its name."Its hard to see how you can deny the POV, and insist its all being made up by us editors. Talk about denial!Giovanni33 03:19, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unindent--Hey, ya'll, don't be quite so harsh, you might not know this, but Blum is one of Chomsky's hero, and Chomsky does have academic credentials:) KP Botany 03:40, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Poorly written, biased, unsalvagable. However, the subject could be written by a less biased party with some fairly neutral resources. It is a possible, even probable topic of an article. However, as written with the intention of gathering only sources on one side, and predominantly a single source, it simply doesn't cut it, or anywhere near it. KP Botany 22:33, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then please, start already to work on your proposed article by, of course, adding neutral sources to this article. SalvNaut 22:37, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, not interested. But, I'll be glad to add opposing sources to articles I do write. And, when I put up articles about controversial subjects--I'm writing one now--I will spend time researching the opposition viewpoints. The latter I am doing right now--it's a lot of work, but it's the responsible way to add a credible and useful article on a controversial subject to Wikipedia. Throwing up only one side is not. KP Botany 22:44, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I don't exactly follow the main reason for deleting this article: is it about semantic, or reported facts not allegedly being facts, or NPOV, or...? NPOV issues can be solved by adding opposing relevant views, some of which are already in the article. The title of this article is of secondary concern. The sourced content stands for itself - there is the strong common denominator for all of the content, i.e. "unlawful use of force" (or "state terrorism" as others prefer to call it, but again it's just semantics). This looks to me like "I don't like it, so I delete it" type of nomination. SalvNaut 22:37, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Hence the seventh (or is it the eighth?) nomination. "If we didn't get rid of it next time, it's just a matter of time; round up the posse and we'll outvote them next time." The thing is, it's not a vote and if what you say is correct, that the article is factual and well sourced, this article will again survive the "delete" votes (all of which continue to avoid discussing the actual sourced facts of the article in their comments) of those who simply don't like the content of the article. That is, if the closing admin actually reads the article straight through, unlike so many of those commenting here. Badagnani 23:10, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -Why don't the rightwingers go to Conservapedia if they don't like the articles here? I've read all the comments of the people who are in favor of deletion, and I haven't seen a single valid reason to delete this article. Some of the people who voted to delete in this case have voted to keep similar articles if the subject was alledged terrorism by some other groups. Arguments for deletion of the same type were dismissed by them. Count Iblis 00:51, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed the same thing, which I find very disturbing as its antithetical to the goals of WP. I think all editors who behaving this way, need to be seriously looked at, as this major breach of a core WP value, going to the heart of what WP is about, calls into serious question their role in it.Giovanni33 01:39, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Interesting that neither of you are able to see how your analysis applies equally to the Keep votes or your own behaviour. Do you seriously believe that all the Delete votes are rightwingers? Do you seriously believe that your own personal viewpoint is representative of the entire goals of Wikipedia? If you do, then I would propose you don't understand even the vaguest sense of WP core values. Your disagreement with the reasoning doesn't make the points invalid and your comments illustrate that fundamental ignorance of what Wikipedia is. --Tbeatty 05:49, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Comment Articles are never deleted because of content dispute, NPOV problems or allegations that some parts are OR. Only in extreme cases where, say, someone writes up his personal theory of everything here on wikipedia do we delete articles. The people who have argued in favor of deletion of this article did not demonstrate that the wiki rules don't allow for this article to be kept. Instead they argued that because in their opinion the article has some problems the article should be deleted.

This is very much a "right wing" attitude, similar to the recent Supreme Court ruling in the Morse v. Frederick case. In that case the conservative judges basically said that despite the First Amendment, if a school doesn't like what a student says outside the school, the school may punish the student (this case was about drugs, but the next case may wel be about sex or some other issue the conservatives feel strongly about).

What is typical about these "right wing" opinions here on Wikipedia or in the real world is that they are inconsistent. In other similar cases you may have a different opinion and then you'll twist the rules in a way to argue the opposite point of view. This attitude is not consistent with the spirit of Wikipedia. Conservapedia may be more suitable for people with this attiude.

The wikipedia NPOV rules can only work if the editors have a NPOV attitude themselves. This can mean e.g. that you have to argue why an article you don't like at all (and has a lot of problems in your opinion) should be kept. This is exactly what I did in case of the first VFD for the pseudoscientific wiki article Heim Theory. That aricle was horrible, completely written from the perspective of the supporters of this theory who clearly don't understand much about fundamental physics. However, this theory is mentioned from time to time in the real world, so there is a place the article in wikipedia. After the article was kept, I put in some effort to correct some problems, but more work needs to be done.

The effect the right wing editors are having on wikipedia is very clear: Wikipedia articles on political topics are often used by people as an example to demonstrate that wikipedia is a biased source for information. Contrast this with Wikipedia articles on scientific topics. These are often used as reference by scientists :) Count Iblis 17:33, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We're getting into a general discussion here. Let's stick to discussing the deletion of the article please. VanTucky 19:07, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment To me, most of those in favor of deletion are arguing mostly about how accusations of state terror are patently false. The issue is that the subject is a notable one, not just in fringe liberal academic circles, but in major news and publications detailing the statements of not only published works but foreign heads of state and politicians. There are all kinds of articles about viewpoints that are not only dubious, but have been proven wrong. But it is the job of Wikipedia to give an account of what the published views on the subject are to provide a comprehensive encyclopedic resource. We keep articles on Holocaust denial to inform readers about what those who comment on the subject say in published sources. And yes, I absolutely equate the notability of accusations of US state terror with the amount of Holocaust denial in contemporary published sources. Sick and false as it all is. VanTucky 01:33, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comparisons to "Holocaust denial" by editors such as this one demonstrate what we have to deal with here. This editor in particular has been shown unable to produce a reliable, non-fringe source that makes accusations of U.S. state terrorism (see above discussion). Or even one that seriously discusses the phenomenon of "accusations of U.S. state terrorism". Comparing this to Holocaust denial is ludicrous, given the dozens of books written on that. I sense a desperation to construct notability out of whole cloth here. - Merzbow 02:27, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merzbow, myself and several other editors have discussed at length every new criticism of the article you bring up. We have not simply dismissed your points as you seem so prone to do to anyone else's, we argue them. First, the sources are all OR. Then even the ones directly referencing state terror by the US (even sources such as notable published books included as sources, well-known academics, and news articles) are simply not good enough for you. You seem not to care for actually creating consensus (and I don't mean you changing your mind, I mean working towards creating a real, working consensus among differing viewpoints), only to sticking to your ambiguous and constantly shifting objection to any encyclopedic discussion of this topic in mainspace. You continue to assert that major published authors and internationally respected news organizations that comprise just a part of the large amount of sourcing (that, up until your tirade, went unchallenged even by critics of the article) are "fringe sources". That is ludicrous, not a comparison to what is most definitely a fringe view on the Holocaust in every developed nation the world over. VanTucky 06:13, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I believe the "tirade" is on the part of those who would compare any element of this subject, pro or con, to "Holocaust denial". I'll let the act of comparing any element of this subject, pro or con, to the Holocaust speak to the motives of those who would bring it up in connection with this article. There's nothing more I will say here, you've just said it all. - Merzbow 06:36, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A two-sentence comparison is not a tirade by its very definition (try Websters), but that's beside the point. VanTucky 16:03, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The leader of a nation, speaking at the United Nations on behalf of his country, is a fringe source? The embassy of a government is a fringe source? I do not get this at all, is a fringe source anyone that does not agree with the US? Since when are South American leaders fringe sources for information? I am almost disgusted at this xenophobia being displayed. --SixOfDiamonds 16:07, 27 June 2007 (UTC) — SixOfDiamonds (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep There is no such thing as truth on wikipedia. There is only what others have said. Claiming that the commentators are "non-experts" is just like claiming that this reporter [74] doesn't know what they are talking about because they are not employed by the US government. Chomsky as a case in point may be technically best known for being a linguist but in reality he has shown himself to be a good political commentator through his extensive research for his books in the area. Wikipedia really is politicised if the comments that make up this debate count for anything. Quite a nice article btw, I may take a copy just to read the 108 references which wikipedians can't vote to destroy! Sounds like US government employees who have been caught out "reclassifying" publically available documents even though they have absolutely no conceivable security impact. [75] Ansell 01:40, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Keep and Rename. I agree the name is POV. It really says "The United States engages in terrorism; details below". So let's change the name back to "Allegations of state terrorism by the United States". Then the reliable sources pro and con these allegations can be summarized in a fair and NPOV manner. Remove anything that's not properly sourced and any synthesis. I see at least one Christian Science Monitor article, a couple from the Guardian, a Reuters. If they are reporting that people allege the US engages in terror, then it's sufficiently notable for an article on the allegations, whether or not they are true. My 2 cents have been deposited. --Butseriouslyfolks 03:25, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The title doesn't assert the existence of terrorism anymore than adding "allegations" denies the existence. The most neutral title is to just state the topic of the article. We don't have articles like Allegations of Bigfoot or Alleged ghosts. — Omegatron 06:02, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Section 5

Keep. "Many of us believe that the fact that some text is biased is not enough, in itself, to delete it". If there are published counter-arguments and additional points of view, cite them. --JWSchmidt 04:21, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Topic is notable. AfD is not for articles which should exist, but are not yet neutral. Fix the article, don't delete it. — Omegatron 05:59, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: For those who would argue that there are no allegations of state terrorism against the US, here's an article from the Iranian press today [76]. Quote: "The US-funded terrorist rings have launched tremendous attacks against Iran, including the assassination of Iranian officials on early days after the victory of the Islamic Revolution." ... Kafkaesque Seabhcan 08:35, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- PS: Here's another one, also from today [77] "US 'behind Baghdad hotel blast'" - "Because the gathering [in the hotel] was supposed to be a step toward establishing national unity among Iraqi tribes, the US, through its terrorist operatives, tried to thwart the move. The Iraqi official said that Washington knows full well that if security and stability come into Iraq from one door, its troops have to leave from the other and have no more pretext to prolong their stay." These views are widespread outside of the western world. They may not be true, but the beliefs exist. If wikipedia censors them from its pages it only makes itself less credible. Better to meet them head on and deal with them. ... Kafkaesque Seabhcan 09:21, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per David Bryant - Don't be stupid. --Servant Saber 11:14, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- In a long discussion, it is easy to lose track. I think you meant David Gerard. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:15, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please read WP:AFD under the section about giving reasons, and not just attacking those who have a different opinion. Even though I agree with keeping the article, as I said above. Edison 16:07, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep after 5 attempts to delete, you think people would get the point. Duh. 69.150.209.15 16:13, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Since the heart of the objection to this article seems to revolve around the use of the word terrorism, and the subsequent semantic debate surrounding such a loaded and ambiguous term, would it be possibly satisfying to both parties if we renamed the article to something along the lines of "Allegations of the illegal use of force by the United States government"? Or maybe even something more concrete, such as "Allegations of breaches of international law by the United States" (applying primarily to laws which the US is a willing party to, but including mentions of say, the ICC). This move would of course be accompanied by a removal of language discussing terrorism in specific, basically a complete rewrite utilizing many of (but not all) of the sources and subjects of the present article. The subsequent widening of content and clarification in terms might allow an expansion of opposing source material to make the article more balanced. VanTucky 16:14, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent suggestion. I would suport your change, as it removes the synthesis and WP:NOR issues, which seem to be the heart of the objections. MortonDevonshire Yo · 17:23, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Awful suggestion for two reasons. 1 Without a doubt in 2 weeks we are back here on account of "breaches of international law." Clearly somebody is going to cry that we need some court ruling otherwise it is OR. 2 What is wrong with calling acts we see as terrorism when committed by Hamas also terrorism when committed by the US? I know the infamous OR dodge. Well it is becoming silly, pathetic and desperate to invoke OR for situations that clearly are terrorism.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 21:44, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Both of those naming options have problems of their own, aside from how unwieldly they are (for example international law has developed slowly over the years, so an action taken in the 1920s, for example, may not have been illegal at that time and thus could not be included, whereas it could be included under the "state terrorism" formulation), but I would certainly support a name change along these lines if it was a choice between that and deleting the artice. The title is going to be awkward no matter what, though I still think "Allegations of State Terrorism by the United States" is a good option and that other articles along the lines of this one should be written for other countries since the "state terrorism" concept has far, far more legitimacy than many editors seem to think. If consensus develops for a name change along the lines suggested by VanTucky, however, I would go along with that (obviously I have been an outspoken "keep" voter, just to make that clear).--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 17:37, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to hear from people, especially Jayjg and Merzbow, which sources they would be okay with including in the proposed article, keeping in mind that they would not have mention allegations of state terror explicitly. VanTucky 17:47, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per Snowolfd4 --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{walkie-talkie} 17:16, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I am sure I gave other reasons in one or more of the FIVE previous AfDs. This time, I'll stick to: AfD is not a carousel where you take another ride after it is finished. FIVE AfDs closed as a keep. If you don't like it, go edit another article, but don't try AfD until you got the result you want. A disgraceful waste of other editors time. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 19:18, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep: Ombudsman 19:35, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
CommentKeeping in mind that this isn't a vote, I see 55 users in favor of keep (with counting one plain Rename to Allegations as a keep) and 39 voices in favor of deletion (counting those who said Delete or Rename). VanTucky 20:06, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
IMPORTANT COMMENT 69.150.51.11 has been posting on several talk pages to get people to vote. Dunno if this counts as canvasing, but it's very odd. Kwsn^(Ni!) 20:41, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- ALSO ~~Stone put to sky has been canvasing as well, rather blatantly.~~ Scratch that, was from the June 5th AfD, not this one. Kwsn^(Ni!) 20:44, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't take my count above the wrong way, the decision is in no way decided by a vote. People stopping by to just say Keep/Delete and nothing else aren't going to be really acknowledged. VanTucky 20:46, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Here is another one by User:Ultramarine: [78] From my understanding of wikipolicy this is okay, as long as the user does not solicit the other wikiuser how to "vote". 69.152.139.102 23:35, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Although somebody informed me I think that is less of a problem than the pointy nomination every week. Also I propose a permaban for every editor that starts another AfD within twelve months. As to the rationale, clearly a sourced article should not be deleted on account of the we-won't-have-any-criticism-of-the-US-crowd on WP.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 21:44, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Well sourced article. No need to delete the article.Oh and the nomination is faulty. If it fails WP:NPOV then you should fix it and not try to delete it. For the comment about being "heavily" depending on a single person is a false alligation. If it did then it would have only one source. However, this article is well cited. On a side note: It's been nominated lots before and it has stayed put. Says a lot about how the article is. Watchdogb 22:58, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep and cleanup this decently-referenced piece to comply with WP:NPOV per Watchdogb and others. This is a WP:POINT-driven nomination made by someone with a "don't smack Uncle Sam" mentality that thinks it O.K. for the stars and stripes to be above the law. Though unlikely, this nomination could likely also violate WP:COI if it was made by someone employed by the U.S. government. The bottom line is that contrary to the nominator's beliefs, no government is perfect. OTOH, it would be more appropriate to move/rename this article to Accusations of state terrorism against the United States which would be far less POV than the current title... Ranma9617 03:28, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply I work for a software company. As for my "mentality," you don't know what in the hell you're talking about. This is the most egregious example of an editor attacking the motives behind my nomination and, even worse, my character, without really addressing any content issues. Pablo Talk | Contributions 04:23, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, hey -- cool down, now. There's no reason for personal attacks and incivility. We're all supposed to assume good faith, remember? Stone put to sky 08:07, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment According to UN resolution 1267, only al-Qaeda and the Taliban are considered to be terrorist groups. Therefore, calling actions made by the U.S. terroristic is neither in keeping with the proposed defintions of terrorism as posted by the UN, nor of their own agreed to definition that only al-Qaeda and the Taliban are considered to be the only terroristic groups.[79]. The rest of this article is just a load of bias, opinion and misinformation.--MONGO 09:42, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Interesting. I didn't know you were such a fan of the UN, Mongo. There are other lists of groups, (random example) and the UN is not the only available source on these matters. ... Kafkaesque Seabhcan 09:46, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It would be hard to use U.S. created lists since they are not internationally recognized.--MONGO 09:51, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How about the European Union then? (another list). That is currently an international organisation (although many think that the new treaty will make it a federal state) ... Kafkaesque Seabhcan 09:59, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The UN has not posted a definition of terrorism. Also to correct the statement "nor of their own agreed to definition that only al-Qaeda and the Taliban are considered to be the only terroristic groups." The document you are reading is only looking at the Taliban and Al'Qeada, not terrorism as a whole. Please read sources before commenting on them. Thank you. --74.73.16.230 10:22, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The UN has posted four proposals for a definition of terrorism and yes, al-Qaeda and the Taliban are the only two groups the UN has declared to be terrorists. Thank you IP.--MONGO 10:30, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does your argument mean that any group that is not "al-Qaeda and the Taliban" is therefor not e terrorist organisation? Cool, I bet the IRA, ETA anf Hamas are happy to hear that.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 10:46, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't blame me, blame the UN. Is there a UN sponsored list in which the U.S. is shown to be a terrorist state, to have engaed in state sponsored terrorism...does the EU have the U.S. listed then? How about other groups, aside from the opinions of the radical left folks like Chavez, Castro etc. When you find that list which lists the U.S., do please let me know.--MONGO 10:59, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are invoking the UN so it is your argument. Again is your position the IRA is not a terrorist organisation? It is very simple. If you say it is not because of the UN you have a problem. If you say it is in spite of the UN you have a problem. In other words your argument is flawed. Of course the IRA, RAF, ETA, FARC, Tamil Tigers, PLO, Hamas, et cetera are terrorist organisations and we do not say differently because of any UN resolution not naming them. Further, you must have heard of the term politics. This might explain why no UN resolution or court ruling exists. For details I refer you to Belgium which was about to start legal proceedings against "innocent" political leaders around the world for war crimes but found out the hard way such actions are a big no-no in international politics.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 12:14, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My argument is flawed? I see no argument to support your case, aside from the opinions in books by nonprofessionals and by folks like Chomsky, Chavez and Castro that the U.S. has ever engaged in terrorism. I am still waiting for anyone to demonstrate where a neutral authority with international recognition has ever listed the U.S. as either being a terroristic state or has engaged in state sponsored terrorism. Thanks for admitting that no court ruling exists. I guess we can throw out the oft misinterpreted decision by the ICJ, which was retracted when Ortega left power anyway. Chomsky says the ruling was equivalent to calling the U.S. actions terrorism, yet the USSR and Cuba did no better when they supported the Sandanistas.--MONGO 12:31, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So terrorism is ok so long as your enemies do it first? ... Kafkaesque Seabhcan 12:38, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Odd, aside from Chomsky and others with similar OPINIONS, no neutral authority of international recognition has ever declared that the U.S. has ever engaged in terrorism or supported the terrorism actions of other groups. Let me know when you find the list in which a neutral authority of international recognition has the U.S. on it as a terrorist nation. Otherwise, all we have in this article is POV pushing, violations of WP:SYNTH and soapboxing to advance opinions.--MONGO 12:51, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral, eh? So countries who've been attacked wouldn't be valid sources? Does that mean, by your logic, that the US isn't a valid source when declaring Al Qaide to be a terrorist group. You say they are a biased source? ... Kafkaesque Seabhcan 12:55, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Was the Soviet Union ever on a UN list during the years the US accused it of terrorism? Might the veto in the security council have anything to do with that? ... Kafkaesque Seabhcan 11:01, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You evaded my question. Where is the list that has the U.S. on it? Please don't provide us with another link to the state run media of Iran, or of Chavez or Castro and expect that to suffice.--MONGO 11:12, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We are not here to report what the UN says. We are here to report what reliable sources state. Furthermore your xenophobia is showing. --74.73.16.230 11:33, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but you are wrong. Here let me give you a quote and source to prove it: 'The only terrorist list the UN maintains was brought about by UN resolution 1267, and is devoted solely to individuals and organisations believed by the UN to be connected to al-Qaeda and the Taliban. If Hamas, Hezbollah, and Islamic Jihad are not listed by the UN, it isn't because they aren't terrorist groups; it's because the UN doesn't see sufficient linkage between them and terrorism's Big Two." [80] --74.73.16.230 11:00, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore we are not here to report solely what the UN reports. We are here to report what reliable sources state. They state the US has participated in State Terrorism. Wikipedia is not a mouth piece for the UN. --74.73.16.230 11:03, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reliable sources? Thats a funny one...you mean from state run media such as that of Cuba and Venezuela or the notions of nonprofessionals such as Chomsky, who is self taught in international politics? I have to stop now...this is getting to be too funny.--MONGO 11:14, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes those silly South Americans thinking they are equal to Americans lol. What are they thinking? Venezuela, who cares if they have a seat in the UN, we all know it was a pitty seat, South American leaders cant be taken seriously right? Did you know fo rthe last 10 years or so the UN has voted that the US must end the embargo against Cuba because its illegal? In the worlds eyes, its not Cuba that is being laughed at. --74.73.16.230 11:23, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And sorry to inform you, but the source proving you wrong is a major Australian publication. haha ... wasn't time to laugh? --74.73.16.230 11:24, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
MONGO, if any thing is funny here it is your points. The argument that since the UN has not accused the U.S. (or Hamas, or anyone except AQ and the Taliban) of terrorism we cannot even discuss it here on Wikipedia is unbelievablly specious. This encyclopedia is not beholden to the dictates of the UN or anyone else, which is why the article on Hamas says that "Hamas is listed as a terrorist organization by Canada, the European Union, Israel, Japan, and the United States, and is banned in Jordan" (ah the Jordanian government--an exemplar of fairness and objectivity). As we strive for NPOV here, nothing makes Canada or the EU's characterization of Hamas as terroristic more legitimate than Iran or Cuba or Venezuela's characterization of the U.S. as terroristic. Obviously most of us find Canada and the EU much more appealing than the government of Iran or Cuba, but that's irrelevant. Accusations of terrorism about Hamas and the US can both be discussed and the opposing views presented--that's how things work here. You obviously only have a problem with the latter which is a very POV position--censoring the views of governments of which many US citizens do not approve (for good reasons I might add) will turn this into Jingoismpedia which is not our goal here. The Canadian and American governments have no doubt lied as much as the Iranian and Cuban ones, so either we can use all of them as sources or none of them. Also, you cannot cite any policy on wikipedia that says this article must be sourced with accusations from "a neutral authority of international recognition" (furthermore I doubt you can even tell anyone what that means) so your argument here is similarly specious. You may not consider Noam Chomsky and other scholars who accuse the U.S. of state terrorism to be "experts," but that is your opinion and many disagree with you. Sources I see in the article who accuse the US of some form of terrorism include Chomsky, Swiss academic Daniele Ganser, Peter Kornbluh of the National Security Archive, LA Times columnist Robert Scheer, the Guatemalan Truth Commission, Frederick Gareau, and the Italian Democratic Party of the Left (I may have missed some). I know you don't like those sources (though the Guatemalan Truth Commission may even count as "a neutral authority of international recognition") and think they are wrong, biased, leftist, whatever, but that is neither here nor there.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 17:03, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing out that only radical left wing ideologues have concluded with your predisposed opinion, Bigtimepeace. Bye.--MONGO 19:53, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Peter Kornbluh is quite respected (regularly cited and discussed in very mainstream journals about U.S. foreign affairs--he and Mark Falcoff had a well covered argument about the 1973 coup in Chile), and obviously the Guatemalan Truth Commission was not left wing (unless you think the military juntas in that place should have been absolved, but I'm fairly certain that you don't think that). I know absolutely nothing about Ganser and Gareau (other than that they are academics with teaching positions and published books in their field, and therefore "experts" for our purposes), I was just listing out sources as you asked folks to do above. You did not address any of the issues I raised, and responded precisely as I predicted--basically you don't like these sources because you think they are "left wing" and "ideologues" and therefore they don't belong here. I think Paul Wolfowitz and George W. Bush and Bill Kristol and many others are right wing ideologues, but things that they say and arguments they make certainly warrant inclusion in any number of articles that we have. If no source which you think is "left" and which I think is "right" were allowed into this encyclopedia then it would be pretty difficult to write an encyclopedia. Maybe you're not really arguing that all sources that have a leftist bent (whatever that means exactly, since one man's leftist is another man's centrist) are invalid, but it sort of sounds like it.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:08, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. I'm arguing that no neutral authority of international recognition has ever decreed that the U.S. is a terrorist state or has engaged in state sponsored terrorism. Tossing a few names of a few people that have this opinion is no different that citing people who claim they have been abducted by aliens. The opinions of these few persons you mention are just that, opinions, and in the case of Chomsky at least, self taught opinions, with no earned degrees or academic credentials related to their opinions on the matter.--MONGO 20:35, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain exactly what a "neutral authority of international recognition" is and why that is the only kind of source you will accept? What part of WP:RS are you relying on here? Because I just don't see what Wiki policy you are invoking, or what would even constitute a "neutral authority of international recognition" as you see it (certainly not the UN, which many countries perceive to be non-neutral on many issues, including the U.S). Though Chomsky is arguably "self-taught" in this issue, he has published on it widely for decades and has been cited thousands and thousands of times (even by those who disagree with him). Thomas Friedman went to graduate school to study the Middle East, not globalization, but by virtue of work he has done since and books he has published he has clearly become a reliable source on the latter topic even though many passionately disagree with him. I think the situation with Chomsky and Friedman, from our perspective, is quite analogous and the refusal to accept that Chomsky is a valid (albeit highly controversial) source quite frankly mystifies me. Anyway there are many other sources here besides Chomsky as has been pointed out repeatedly.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:46, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chomsky claims the ICJ findings were akin to a finding of terrorism, yet that is NOT at all what the ICJ stated, not in the least. He equates it with a finding of terrorism...it is his opinion, not shared by the UN or other entities of a neutral authority of international recognition. I guess if the UN or EU did declare the U.S. was a terrorist state, that would be the main source to cite by those who want to use Wikipedia as a place to prove their a priori premises. The fact that none of these neutral authorirties have, all we can state is the opinions of others, most of which are not experts in their fields, but instead people who have some really radical opinions on such matters. I see the same radical opinions on pages related to 9/11, where people wish to POV push an unproven conspiracy theory based on their a priori premises.--MONGO 21:03, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Except the 9/11 conspiracy stuff is BS whereas there is pretty good evidence that the US has committed actions that constitute "state terrorism" (as has, I hasten to add, just about every nation in the world). But let's drop this since we're not getting anywhere. Just a quick question though--would you be more okay with this article if we went back to the "Allegations of State terrorism by the United States" title? I know myself and a number of other of keep voters are in favor of this, and I would think it would address some of your concerns about sources and show immediately that Chomsky et. al. are making allegations with which many others disagree. This is the only possible path which I can see us getting close to a consensus on so I'm wondering if you and other delete voters would be okay with this (I agree it should never have been moved to this title in the first place).--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:13, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see a consensus to delete this article, not rename it. The reasons stated for keeping it are the same as I Like It. I have yet to read any keep vote that has stated that this article can ever conform with our policies which ensure we don't violate synthesis of sources to promote a position and Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Instead, what we have are keep votes that state that Chomsky's opinions matter over the those that have never been decreed by any international body: that the U.S. is a state sponsor of terrorism. Has the U.S. committed questionable acts...of course they have...but none as capricious as what would, in the normal scheme of things, constitute terrorism. A name change to Allegations is worse because then it is an open door to cite every Tom, Dick and Harry with an allegation. If the article is kept, it is likely to continue to have a NPOV tag as well as other tags on the top of it, forever, and that is a bad way for Wikipedia to go.--MONGO 21:49, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We must be seeing radically different pictures. I see a consensus to keep, esp. given that most of the deletes simply faile to provide justifiable rationale; most are with no argument at all, and just throw up claims of OR, POV, SYN, that have been refuted, and thus shown to be false. They have failed to answer why this means the article should be deleted, too. According to policy this is NOT a valid readon to delete. Its clear they just don't like Chomsky or the many other scholars who express this quite valid POV, which this article documents very well. It seems they have confused their own POV about the merits of the reports with the reality of the reports itself. Because you don't agree with their arguments does not mean they don't exist, or that we WP editors are committed OR by citing them. Its a very notible POV, based up by volumes of published facts, and over a hundred references documenting the claims the article reports on (i.e. doesnt make up).I also point out that the arguments to keep have been explained, thus it does not amount to "I like it." Per WP policies on deletion, the side that wants to delete the article must prove the case, i.e. VALID reasons why the article must be deleted. No one has done this, and only expressed claims (that even if true), could be fixed in the article. Thus, the stance to delete has been shown to be false. Consensus is to keep--like before.Giovanni33 02:05, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Giovanni33, this article will forever have a NPOV tag on it since edit warriors like yourself will never allow it to be anything other than a depository for every single weak and ridiculous comment made by every radical crackpot who "thinks" the U.S. has acted in a terroistic manner. They take a few incidents and extrpolate them as a form of terrorism. This article will never be able to present a neutral treatise on this subject. I have yet to see a single person demonstrate that the U.S. is on any list designating it as a terrorist state. When you can do that, let us know. The fact that this article needs 100 sources is clear demostration that it is a weak article, full of POV and hopelessly mired in its own cesspool of POVism. The only way this article could be kept is if the closing editor looks at just the number of keep votes and fails to examine the overt violations of SYNTH and NPOV. The arguments to keep have not been explained, with no less than three editors chiming in with such comments as "Don't be stupid". I see maybe three or four rationales to keep that have a small measure of merit, yet fail to address the policy violations this page represents.--MONGO 06:05, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument is very weak on a number of levels. First it consists of name calling: "POV warrior," and "radical crackpock." The claim itself by the name calling unsupported. Its just your unsubstanciated POV. But, besides it being an ad-hominin fallacy, these claims are easily dismissed as false when these so-called "crackpots" turn out to be in reality highly respected and internationally recognized scholars, who do a very throughough job at documenting an abundance of established facts which show that US has been been involved in state terrorism to varying degrees. And in many cases the perpetrators have admitted it. Many of the claims are supported by the US govts own documents which have been released. What your name calling really amounts to is: "I don't like what Chomsky says, so I'm going to call him a 'crackpot." Like I said, very weak.

But there's more. You claim that any alleged POV problems will never be fixed because I won't allow it? Wow, I never knew I had so much power! hehe By that logic, all of WP is doomed, since, by extension, I could very well "not allow" anything to be what you want it to be, and thus, by extension, everything is to be deleted? As you can see by my reducio ad absurdem, your argument is the real ridiculous thing being said here--not the claims that the US has been accused of state terrorism, nor that these accusations are notable.

The fact is that you disagree with consensus, and want the whole thing deleted, even though its well sourced. And, its really the WP community is not allowing you. Not just me. Its the WP policies that are not allowing you to make the changes you want. Welcome to the club! Now, if you have a real issue that needs to be fixed, then make your case on the talk page. Point out specifically what the problem is with reference to WP policies. Calling reputable scholars like Chomsky "crackpots" won't work. But, any reasonable objections, and real policy violations will be taken seriously, and will be addressed and fixed. I, like the other editors, agree and abide by WP policies of NPOV, V, and the rest. And, that is why this article can not be deleted. Again, address the particular problem, and prove your case. If you are right, you will win consensus. If you are wrong, and your arguments are just very weak and invalid (as your argument to delete is), then I can only say that you must respect consensus, must abide by WP policy, and that you may be too ideologically attached to accept the nuetrality and factual veracity of this articles claims, and therefore, unable to see that it violates no policies by reporting on these claims.Giovanni33 01:08, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks for clarifying your view on that, I guess I see this heading more for a "no consensus" but we'll see.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:54, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I note that many of the keep votes are attacking people who vote delete, let's try to keep it civil here, people.

Having looked at some of the 'sources' of the article, I find the nom's reasoning compelling. I would also ask an admin to go through this and remove the arguing that has nothing to do with the deletion nomination, such as users sniping at each other and so forth. Jtrainor 12:56, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete violates WP:NOR, particularly WP:SYN. --Aude (talk) 15:16, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep I almost feel like making this a "per David Gerard" because it is a ridiculous nomination. Do the deleters deny there has been state sponsored terrorism by the US? I mean, what? You can find this stuff in textbooks - in fact, there are textbooks on this subject specifically. SchmuckyTheCat
Indeed there are, and Lo and Behold... They are referenced in the article! These people would list gravity on AfD if Bush told them to. ... Kafkaesque Seabhcan 15:36, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not American, in fact I protested against the war in Iraq like many other people in Frace, I don't believe in the "Axis of evil" and yet I feel this article should be deleted, because it does not adress specific issues, and seems rather like a collection of misdeeds, sure they are true, but why keep this general blaming page. It's obvious many are offended, there is no denying that, why continue offending them. It's just easier to keep the individual articles. Everyone outside the US knows the USA has sponsered terrorism, maybe we should delete this page and make a category instead "Category:Terrorism by the USA", and put the individual articles in it. Is there an article called "Acts of racism by Germany" ? no, and yet you could write a whole book about them there are so many (and they are referenced in individual articles). Jackaranga 16:09, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Section 6

Comment: In an ideal world, Wikipedia could bring together a group of editors to calmly and dispassionately create and maintain an article about allegations people have made that the U.S. is a "terrorist state".

In the real world ... we're never going to get close to that ideal. Not even in the same Solar System.

Here's a few quotes from this AfD:

"no legitimate basis that this article can even seriously be considered for deletion. To do so would be a an extreme violation of NPOV ..."
"yet another bad-faith nomination"
"Keep and 24 hour block User:Pablothegreat85 for WP:POINT"
"Keep. Don't be stupid."
"this sort of disruptive behavior [by the] nominator should not be permitted"
"If that even qualifies as an argument, it certainly isn't a rational one."
"Articles like this are essential to exposing the evil empire that Bush evil empire has created ... [should not be] deleted by facist Republicans"
"Why don't the rightwingers go to Conservapedia if they don't like the articles here?"
"I absolutely equate the notability of accusations of US state terror with ... Holocaust denial"
"I propose a permaban for every editor that starts another AfD within twelve months"

With attitudes like this, it's very hard to believe Wikipedia will ever get acceptably close to NPOV in an article on this topic. Worse still, even if we did achieve NPOV, NOR, etc, it wouldn't last a day.

Wikipedia should report accusations about the US by Noam Chomsky, Persian Kleptocrats, Latin American dictators etc ... but only in the articles about Anti-americanism, Noam Chomsky, the Khomenite regime, the Latin American dictators etc. Retaining this article guarantees (1) having a bad article and (2) a waste of lots of editors time on that article.

Oh, and to save all those POV-warriors an edit: I am neither an American nor an admirer of the U.S. government. (Also, I !voted in #Section 1.) Regards, CWC 17:38, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I fully agree, a lot of silly and nasty invective has been thrown around here, and although I have not looked through the whole AfD I would not be surprised if more of it came from the keep side which I support. But this AfD will not be judged based upon the rhetoric of those accusing deleted voters of being "facist (sic) Republicans", but rather by the reasonable issues/concerns that have been brought up by both sides. The admin closer will obviously know to ignore comments like those you've pulled out above, or comments from the other side calling the keep side "idiots." I don't see why rehashing over-the-top-rhetoric really helps us. Both sides need to turn down the rhetoric, but the AfD will be judged on the rational arguments presented by both sides--not on which side was more "calm" or "dispassionate."--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 18:59, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the reason for those comments was because it appears that this will be the sort of article that's nominated for deletion over and over, with the hopes that the audience will be more receptive to deletion each time. .V. _[_Talk|Email] 22:45, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well said!Kukini ^{hablame aqui} 22:47, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, that's not the point I was trying to make. I'll see if I can do better:

The tone of this AfD discussion shows that lots of people have extremely strong feelings about this article.
So lots of people with strong beliefs are going to edit the article to reflect those beliefs.
Those strong feelings will almost certainly result in a cruddy article.
That will suck up lots of time and energy that could be better used elsewhere at the project.
The solution is to not have the article. Instead, we should cover this topic in Anti-americanism and the articles about those calling the US a terrorist state. (Maybe have a category named (say) "Allegations of US State Terrorism"?)

Cheers, CWC 17:46, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Except that the fact that an article is controversial and will always be edited by folks with strong points of view is simply not a reason to delete it--we have many articles like this, and with highly politicized topics it is often unavoidable. Sticking this in "anti-Americanism" is a really bad idea, and would provoke far greater POV problems than this article does. Criticizing U.S. foreign policy does not make one "anti-American." I have very large problems with much of US foreign policy over the 20th century and down to the present (including but not limited to some of the points mentioned in this article), but this does not make me "anti-American" as there are many other aspects of the U.S (where I live) which I think are great (see, for example, the Wu-Tang Clan). Anyhow constant POV disputes are not a reason for deletion, and this article does not fall under the category "anti-Americanism."--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:10, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I believe the marginal notability of this allegation (or what's left of it disregarding the parts that are OR) is outweighed by the POV nature of the subject. If it is not deleted, rename to the "Allegations of..." 6SJ7 21:12, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. If not deleted, it needs to be "allegations of..."--Sefringle^Talk 21:39, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If there's any possibility of consensus here, I think it only lies with changing the title to "allegations of..." That seems to be the first choice of many keep voters and the second choice of many delete editors.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:51, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree with this proposed name change. All it would achieve is the insertion of weasel words into the title. The current title is fine, notwithstanding all the anguish it seems to cause some patriotic American editors. --John 13:56, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you say, Red herring? Take the Euro-blinders off for a moment, and consult WP:SYNTH. MortonDevonshire Yo · 17:35, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know it's your favourite policy, and I know it almost by heart. Can you give an example of where the article currently breaches the policy, in your view? In my view WP:WEASEL is pretty important too; as others have said, we don't have Allegations of the existence of the Loch Ness Monster. Our readers are pretty smart and they don't, in my opinion, need to be spoon-fed (in the title!) your or my opinion on whether the subject of the article is in some sense "true" or not. --John 18:05, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and cleanup. I find it sad that we can leave so many articles that shine light in a negative fashion on other countries, but when one is shined on the US, people freak out and want it deleted. Kukini ^{hablame aqui} 22:05, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, that's not correct, I want it written correctly. And if you find any as crappy and one-sided as this written about any other country, please nominate it for deletion, too. KP Botany 22:10, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry...then add to it...demonstrating a verifiable different perspective. Deleting something that you disagree with is not within wikipedia culture and standards. Kukini ^{hablame aqui} 22:12, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, I don't see any article titled "State terrorism by Iran", "State terrorism by Libya". In fact, I'm not aware of any other "State terrorism" article, so I think Kukini's argument is more against the article than for it. Personally, I think "Alleged" makes more sense. I'm not really keen on having it deleted, either, because there is a lot of interesting information here. Benhocking 22:18, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To increase your awareness...take a look at this article: State-sponsored terrorism. All articles like this need to go if this one goes, no? Kukini ^{hablame aqui} 22:19, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First, thanks for the link. Now, why do you think the US merits an entire article of its own, but those other nations do not? Note that the US is also already mentioned in that list. Also, this article seems to have accumulated a lot of cruft that is arguably not terrorism (as in it does not seem to inspire terror). Benhocking 22:24, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I could see an article for each and every nation with verifiable sources, including the US. Likely the US should be removed from that list, with only a reference to the article y'all are trying to delete? Kukini ^{hablame aqui} 22:26, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose we're defining "article" differently, then. (Either that, or I'm missing seeing something again that actually is there - a real possibility.) When I say "article", I mean a page of its own, like the one we're talking about here. All I see for those other nations are "subarticles" that are short blurbs on the same page as the original "superarticle" (forgive me for using math-like terminology). Also, I am not trying to delete it. I'm merely pointing out the inconsistency that I see. I think there's a lot of good information here. However, I do question to what degree some of it qualifies as NPOV and I also question to what degree some of it qualifies as "terrorism". Benhocking 22:35, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly, people have put much more time into the US article than the other subarticles. I see no reason to delete one article and leave all the subarticles using the same language regarding other countries standing. As for terrorism, if you look over that article, you will learn of many definitions that exist. I recall a leader referring to 9/11 as the "first terrorism on US soil" shortly after it happened, despite the fact that terrorism has occurred on US soil for a LONG time (note the Murrah Building, for a widely agreed-upon example). I feel that this article should stand or all articles that mention ANY form of "state terrorism" by any state should be deleted along with it. Kukini ^{hablame aqui} 22:42, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I suppose one answer would be for people who feel this is an injustice to put effort into those other subarticles, perhaps expanding them into full-fledged articles. As for using Bush's definitions of "terrorism"... let's just say I'd rather stick with more traditional definitions. To that end, places where we've staged coups and no terror was intended would not seem to qualify as such. I would think they would belong in their own article. Benhocking 22:53, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As pointed out above, see Allegations of state terrorism in Sri Lanka in particular but also Terrorism in Syria. There also apparently used to be an article on State terrorism by Guatemala which got redirected (I don't know the history of that). It's unsurprising to me that the biggest article along these lines is for the U.S., there's generally better coverage of U.S. (and British) concerns on the English wiki, even when it's about something negative.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 23:01, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reading the above arguments, my leaning is for a the term "allegations" to be in front of all articles about state terrorism. The retitling should clean up some of this problem. Kukini ^{hablame aqui} 23:04, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Renaming the article "allegations" will not change anything. Look at the 5 other votes for deletion, many of those were when the article had "allegations" in the article. (3 of the 6) Also look at the history of this article in the archives. The same massive deletions and edit wars were also there when the article was called "allegations". There was recently a straw poll about changing the title to "allegations", and there was no real consensus either way.

The bottom line is that a group of Americans and pro-American wikipedians will fight for this article to be removed--regardless of how many sources it provides and how encyclopedic the article is. If you look at the AfD history and edit history of many of the above wikipedians, a person can see a clear POV bias, which two words "allegations of" will never satisfy.

My God, the article has 117 sources right now, how many wikipedia articles have this many sources? I can't think of a single Wikipedia article with this many sources. 68.90.165.237 00:27, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not it will "change anything", renaming the article to "allegations" might be the right thing to do. How can such a change not be seen as more neutral, and if we're striving for NPOV, then it sounds like a good idea. Also, as Kukini has pointed out, it would be a step towards providing consistency across articles of a similar nature. Benhocking 00:56, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I believe Arbcom has stated this quite well: while Wikipedia does look to include all points of view, we are an encyclopedia, and we're more interested in fact than POV-pushing by fringe groups (sorry, I can't find the case, but it had to do with 9-11 conspiracy theories). Seriously, this is ridiculous - we're out to write an encyclopedia. And if we're going to keep this horsehockey, then at least rename it to allegations of. The Evil Spartan 00:41, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem here is that these allegations are very notable and in no way fringe. Nor are the many, over 100 sources, used to document these very well known facts, and the quite solid pov that the US has engaged in State Terrorism. Notice I said FACT. Yes, these facts speak for themselves and are the basis for the POV the article reports on. 9/11 conspiracy theories are fringe, but these allegations are of a completely different league.Giovanni33 02:11, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As said above, this violated WP:NPOV, WP:SYNT, and WP:NOR. The allegations are not notable; this is a constructed article. Anything encyclopedic can be covered under something like Foreign relations of the United States.--Cúchullain ^t/c 06:51, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The allegations are clearly notable--I think you are the first to raise the problem of notability here, and I think most would disagree with you. Also there is far too much material to merge to Foreign relations of the United States. The notability of this topic means that it obviously warrants its own article.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:34, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The allegations are not notable in and of themselves as the topic of a dedicated article; this article synthesizes published material to make it look like they are. Any useful material can be merged.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:22, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this OR synthesis - including citations to Chomsky et al does not actually make this conform to the pillars of WP. Tewfik^Talk 08:18, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: First, there have been a gazillion demands using WP:OR WP:SYN and WP:NPOV as justification, but so far not a single bit of evidence to support the accusations. I find it unsurprising that yet another Me too! Delete, big poppa Wiki-Jesus! Delete because IDON'TLIKEIT! is sprouting up again. Lacking actual evidence or proof, these weak excuses -- which wikipolicy clearly states as inadequate for deletion -- seem to be the only thing these folks can resort to.

That said, i'd like to point out that the very furor over this article demonstrates beyond any reasonable doubt that this particular phrase -- "State Terrorism by the United States" -- is a hotly contested, passionately argued international issue of some fame and vigour.

Do we need anything else to demonstrate that an article by that name needs to exist? Of course not. The proof is already here, on this very AfD; people throwing words like "fascist", "idiot", "leftist" and "communist" at each other are not arguing over whether or not an issue is notable enough to be included, nor whether an issue has any basis in real-life events, but instead over the political and moral implications of those actions and events.

This page deals with the perceived moral standing of the United States in its war on terrorism; it speaks to the very heart of U.S. policy abroad, and consequently has become a sounding board for all who would like to propagandize and whitewash their favorite version of history, whether capitalist, socialist, rightist, leftist, fascist, communist or anarchist.

I have been a regular, contributing editor to this page, now, for some two or three years; for my part, i have worked to guarantee that actual ideological excesses -- from either side -- and silly radical diatribes -- from either side -- do not find a place there. That is in contrast to many of those who have voted here, who regularly appear on the page and have done nothing -- quite literally, nothing -- except delete material based upon petulant demands for sources.

It is they who have most shaped the evolution of this page, not me. I would be very happy for the page to appear "more encyclopedic", but the constraints and roadblocks that have been put in the contributors' ways have forced us into the current format, which is nothing more than a list of clearly enunciated cases where the United States is popularly condemned as having participated in acts of State Terrorism.

Perhaps the page could take a different direction; perhaps we could make it "more encyclopedic" if the artificial constraints on sources and rhetoric were lifted. I really don't know. I can testify, however, that changing the name will in no way alleviate these problems. I can further testify that the original name change -- from "State terrorism..." to "Allegations of..." -- was never a consensual agreement, and in fact was undertaken despite the loud and vocal opposition by close to half of the contributing editors of that time.

Changing it "Allegations...." did nothing to stop the AfDs or outcry against the page; the only thing it did achieve, in fact, was to introduce weasel-words into the title of the topic. As has been pointed out above: Wikipedia does not have an "Allegations of Bigfoot"; nor does it have "Allegations of Islamist Terrorism" or "Allegations of Armenian Genocide", and both of these pages could, in the correct company, provoke precisely the sort of indignation and outrage that the "State Terrorism by the United States" page currently does.

Instead, on pages like "Armenian Genocide" and "Islamist Terrorism", competing viewpoints are introduced in the body of the article to balance the rhetoric. The title is taken as nothing more than the statement of a topic, and any controversy surrounding it is presented within the article's content. That is as it should be here, too.

Please believe me that i would be very happy, as a contributing editor, to allow such competing viewpoints to be included. Unfortunately, the page has currently reached an impasse: editors on the page who wish to expand the scope of the page to be more congenial to the U.S. are holding those who present evidence of US crimes to one set of standards while attempting to establish new rules for themselves.

I admit that the page would do well with a bit of re-working; however, after having been present on it for some two or more years, i can assure the wikipedia staff that such superficial alterations as changing the name will do little -- in fact, nothing -- to improve its quality or assuage the attacks against it.

The only effective remedy i can imagine would be if those who would like to see more balance to the page were to recruit spokespeople who were able to actually contribute, people who are more astute, familiar with standard research practices, and able in their grammar and writing than those who are currently working the page. As things stand, those editors on the page who would like to push for its deletion -- or for "more balance" as they would like to see it -- have only succeeded in painting themselves into a rhetorical corner: sources cannot be introduced unless they specifically mention "State Terrorism by the United States" or work to demonstrate evidence that is referenced in such a statement; only such citations as speak directly, specifically to such sources are allowed; and no extrapolation from events to established definitions -- no matter how widespread and mundane those definitions might be -- are allowed.

Obviously, if these standards are forced upon some contributors then they must be held strict for all. This consensus -- regardless of how messy it might seem -- has now been established there for at least a full year. Any attempt to deviate from it has been met with mass deletions by a small group of editors, each one of whom appears on this AfD with a vote to "delete".

From the very beginning of my presence on this "State Terrorism" page i have pushed for a re-examination of the standards used to guage material for inclusion and commentary; i have been repeatedly and unremittingly denied even a discussion, much less reform. For the moment, my suggestion to the Wikipedia community is simply: let it be; and for those of you who feel like the page would do with a bit of elbow-grease and know-how, i would urge you to please come and contribute. Stone put to sky 08:26, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As has been said many times, WP rests on verification, not facts. The article does not fail WP:VERIFY - to take one example, Chomsky:

Can it be proved that he has accused the US of terrorism? Yes.
Is he correct? Depends on your personal bias and definition of "terrorism".
Is he reliable? As a barometer of opinion of the political left, probably.
Does he have his own agenda? Hell, yes.

Rightly or wrongly, WP places most emphasis on (1) above. The article might benefit from a more in-depth analysis of motives for accusing the US of terrorism, but at worst that's a POV or COPYEDIT tag, not grounds for deletion. EyeSerene^TALK 11:21, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete An essay that violates NPOV in spades.--Mantanmoreland 18:05, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment An essay? NPOV problems? Neither is listed on Wikipedia:Deletion policy as reason to delete. --John 18:10, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stop the wikilawyering. POV essays are covered by WP:SOAP.--Mantanmoreland 18:32, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Many of the most vociferous keepers here argue that our attribution policies are not being violated here. Well, here are some of the sources they have been edit-warring to include in the lead:

http://www.globalresearch.ca - A personal site run by 9/11 conspiracy theorist Michel Chossudovsky.

Ridiculous. GlobalResearch is not a "personal site" by any means; it has a full staff of editors and web-admins. It is read on three different continents (Africa, Western Europe, and North America); among its contributors it counts former state department and CIA personnel; tenured professors of wide repute; published historians and political scientists; and widely regarded grassroots political activists. Stone put to sky 04:08, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Its proprietor peddles numerous 9/11 conspiracy articles prominently on the site. Wikipedia is not a soapbox for conspiracy nuts, which is why Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Lyndon_LaRouche was decided the way it was. Which mainstream news organizations have recognized this site for its accuracy and fact-checking, as WP:V requires? - Merzbow 23:59, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He has been published so this isnt up for debate.

Self-published material may be acceptable when produced by a well-known, professional researcher in a relevant field. These may be acceptable so long as their work has been previously published by reliable third-party publications. However, exercise caution: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so.

And here is your list:

Zed Books
Columbia University School of International Public Affairs
Institute for International Co-operation, University of Ottawa
University of Ottawa Press
Faculty of Social Sciences, Dept. of Economics, University of Ottawa
Universidad Catolica de Chile, Instituto de Economia
Madhyam Books
Palgrave Macmillan

All on international politics and economics. Further he is quoted in over 100+ other books by a variety of authors in a variety of languages on international politics and economics.[81] Basic research would have showed you this.--74.73.16.230 00:16, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An economics professor with a side job as a 9/11 conspiracy peddler. Notice that none of his work related to the subject of this article has been published in any major publication or by any major press. In fact, his new book, "America's "War on Terrorism"", appears to be completely self-published. This is the definition of a crank and the epitome of the type of junk we need to keep out of articles. - Merzbow 02:07, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://www3.sympatico.ca/sr.gowans - A non-notable political blog called "What's Left".

Gowans is a professional political journalist and published in several national publications. Blogs by professionals writing in their field of expertise are allowed. Stone put to sky 04:17, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. Sorry, that clause is interpreted very strictly, usually only for prominent academic researchers writing about their work. By your standard, every post by Markos Moulitsas Zúniga on the Daily Kos is reliable for inclusion anywhere. Why stop there? Let's include every post by Rush Limbaugh from his blog. They are all professional political journalists. - Merzbow 23:59, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

None of those are academics. You just wrote "usually only for prominent academic researchers writing about their work." Then you go and ignore the basis of what you wrote. Your love of tangents is amazing. However more rational arguments would be welcome, perhaps like those that actually adress you own points. --74.73.16.230 00:41, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, I was illustrating the wrongness of Stone's argument by simply applying it to other bloggers aside from the one he's picked to support his side. Gowans is a "Canadian writer and political activist based in Ottawa" as far as I can find, which makes him as much of an academic as Rush and Markos. - Merzbow 02:07, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

\# http://academic.evergreen.edu/g/grossmaz/interventions.html - Personal website of a geography and Native American Studies professor nobody's ever heard of.

Once again: nonsense. The page has been published in a major publication (ZMag.org), translated into 10 different languages, lists its sources, and is compiled by a professional researcher in a related discipline. Stone put to sky 04:14, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Geography and Native American Studies. Sorry. And "Z Mag" is an amateur activist magazine subtitled "The Spirit of Resistance Lives". Nope. - Merzbow 23:59, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The depth of people quoting Zmag for published works seems to disagree with your understanding of how well known they are. [82] Again basic research would have shown you that articles published in Zmag are accepted on a variety of subjects by a wealth of sources, apparently over 100 authors. It is becoming tiring disputing everything you do not like or never heard of especially when it comes to things, you seem to not even research. Can you even name 10 organizations attached to the UN for their work? --74.73.16.230 00:46, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because every book on Amazon is a reliable source. Can I start quoting from Sean Hannity's books then? - Merzbow 02:07, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.cetim.ch/fr/interventions_details.php?iid=207 - Website of a French activist group nobody's ever heard of.

Once again, utter nonsense. Stone put to sky 04:14, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. At least we agree on something. - Merzbow 23:59, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Name 10 other French groups of this kind you have heard of and 3 pieces of work they have done. I mean, since you have not heard of it seems to be your rationaliztion, you must have a large knowledge of French activist groups that are attached to the United Nations. Please proceed with showing why groups you never heard of is valid. --74.73.16.230 00:38, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

French activist groups are not reliable sources for academic political analysis. Are you trying to get this article killed? On second thought, please proceed... - Merzbow 02:07, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you vote keep on this article and it is kept (which it shouldn't be, the legit sources are few and far between, and as I voted above a merge is better), then you should feel an obligation to help those editors attempting to make the sourcing conform to policy, and help keep stuff from 9/11 conspiracy-pushers like Chossudovsky out. - Merzbow 18:38, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Guardian, Reuters, Al Jazeera, BBC Radio, BBC, Granma International, The Moscow Times, George Washington University NSA Archives, Intelligence Oversight Board, ICJ-CJJ.Org (International Court of Justice), Miami Herald, CNN, New York Times, The Nation, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, United States Department of State, Znet.

Not to mention that for some sections, such as that of Cuba, the perpetrators admitted to committing the crimes. The arguement that the country attacked cannot cite it as terrorism, not their allies, leaves who to cite it as terrorism? The US Government? Its allies? Luckily according WP:RS and WP:V we respect other governments to not shut out their voices. --74.73.16.230 00:53, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete First, I don't think I have voted in this yet, and glancing through it I don't see my name, but if I have please strike this. Too much OR and SYN. Merge into the state terrorism article at the very least. Arkon 19:07, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to poitn out, again, the characteristic "delete" vote comes down to the same thing: "too much OR and SYN." I note these--even if true--are not substancial reasons that would validate per WP policy, the deletion of this article. Of lesser import, but equally noteworthy, is the fact that these claims remain unsubstanciated, as well. The person making this claim has the burden of proof to support the claim. All such attempt to make such arguments have been shown to be false, and refuted. But, again, its moot because even IF true, they would not validate the deletion of this article per WP policies. This is a clear KEEP.Giovanni33 21:06, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Giovanni33, how many times are you going to vote here? Stop bolding your keep comments in some effort to filibuster this Afd.--MONGO 21:14, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thats is not duplicate vote, as that is part of my commentaries that this Afd is a clear KEEP, per the explantion above. The bold's purpose is legitimate and not placed in front with a #. But, you should know this is not about voting. This Afd is not a vote and its not decided that way. Its about the arguments. Thats why its a clear, very clear KEEP.Giovanni33 21:20, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Giovanni33 - If you are so certain this article will be kept, then why badger people here? Is it because the article violates policy and you feel that your "keep" !vote comments will help the I like it! cause? At AfD, articles that are violators of policy typically get deleted. Therefore, it is very clear that the result will be an obvious DELETE. JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 22:49, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not attempt to silence the discussion, this is not a vote, its a discussion on the article. Asking someone to not discuss it is against the very point of this page. And please, stop the WP:XYZ stuff if you cannot even give an example, its old, the admins are not fools. --74.73.16.230 00:55, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong and Speedy Keep We have many articles with the word "terrorism" in the title. When reliable sources call an action terrorism then it is fair for Wikipedia to say that the action has been called terrorism. Threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. --Flamgirlant 22:19, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note - this account was created ten days ago. - Merzbow 16:11, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stop trying to discount this voice. If you look at her contributions, it is most definitiely not a SPA and thus her new user status has no bearing, especially considering she is using thoughtful arguments relating to policy and not just rambling on semantics like most newbies. VanTucky 18:31, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

weak delete - i wish to note that (1) it seems like an extremely long article with comparisment to the State terror one. (2) i have a hard time to believe that there is simply no similar article made on any Islamist country (see: Template:State terrorism .. at the very least six should be there, ever heard the term Fedayeen?). (3) i'm confused where it's prohibited to call terrorists by that name here on wiki, but now it's ok to do so to a country. *scratches head* (see linguist gymnatics done on Samir Kuntar so not to call him a terrorist) (4) i'm not sure that when a state supports a terrorist group to combat it's neighbours constitutes as "state terrorism".. more like shady politics if you ask me. (6) i'm keeping this "vote" on weak, because i think there is room for an article about allegations, but i'm puzzled on how this is supposed to be NPOV and not come out a soapbox libeleous piece while so many other known terrorist supporting countries are not on the radar and terrorists are not allowed to be dubbed terrorists. Jaakobou 22:41, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong and Speedy Keep Per User:Flamigrant. Wikipedia's place is to report on the world, to write about what other reliable sources say, not to decide true or false, or right or wrong. Vert et Noir^talk 03:47, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -Specific problems aside, it's simply too well-sourced to claim it's OR. My suggestion would be to challenge individual sources first. Try to establish consensus either way on those. If you can successfully eliminate numerous sources that you don't feel are appropriate, then it may be possible to return to the topic of AfD. Bladestorm 04:16, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, with rename to Allegations... The idea is out there, and needs to be described as such. I put this in the same category as this article - Is it true? more than likely not; but we need to report on it anyway. That said, the title of the article is POV, and seems to contradict the manual of style. - — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dchall1 (talk • contribs)

Comment (entire article) - I think that the mere existence of this book, written by Prof. Dr. Frederick H. Gareau, who is clearly an expert in this topic, justifies keeping this article. In case of wiki science articles, we use more much more strict criteria than wiki politics articles. But even in these cases, we do not delete articles on controversial or disputed topics provided they are notable. If the topic is notable, then the way the material can be presented depends on the expertise of the people who have published on it.

Clearly it matters if we are talking about a notable topic that has no support whatsoever in the scientific community, or if there is some support or if there is a lot of support. A legitimate objection to this article could be that it is presented in a way that suggests that some conclusions have wide support while in fact it has not. But that's certainly not a ground on which one can delete this article.

We have wiki aticles on Homeopathy and Astrology. Climate science skeptics come here to write articles on the "great global warming swindle" documentary. We don't delete these articles just because they are 100% proven nonsense, so why would we delete articles on notable topics that are clearly not 100% nonsense? Count Iblis 15:42, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - Well cited article. In fact it is better cited and more NPOV than many of the more controversial articles. From what I've read of the discussions in Talk I feel it comes down to whether WP wants to be an American Encyclopedia or a World Encyclopedia. If the former then delete would be more appropriate. Wayne 18:19, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, a NPOV article title is not reason to delete; there are plenty of well sourced credible opinions and undeniable facts in this article. It is not so full of NPOV that the article needs to be removed. It is very appropriate that there is an article dedicated to the U.S.A., as they receive a lot of focus at the moment (and Wikipedia isnt a censored "American" encyclopedia). However there is a lot of room for state terrorism in other countries to be covered. List of acts labelled as state terrorism sorted by state needs expansion, and {{State terrorism‎}} is currently misleading due to omission (France's only case of state terrorism is Reign of Terror??) John Vandenberg 01:00, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - New low and hopeless violation of WP:NPOV WP:SYN WP:SOAP. MoodyGroove 01:20, 1 July 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 into Israel's unilateral disengagement plan. Note that "Merge and Delete" is a contradiction in terms: Merge is a form of keep. The redirect and the history behind it are retained for GFDL purposes, and later edits may split out the content again, if there is consensus to do so on the relevant talk page. DES ^(talk) 03:42, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Yad La'ahim

Really this should be merged into the article about the Israeli disengagement plan from Gaza, because it's mentioned there only as a minor footnote, i.e. a "see also" link. However, because of it's minor status in the story, and the "unref" tag, I could countenance outright deletion. The one thing I don't want to do is to put a "merge" tag on the article and hope someone will notice within the next ten years. (Pardon my cynicism.) Shalom ^Hello 04:42, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 09:16, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 09:17, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not appear to be of sufficient scope to merit a separate article. --SquidSK ^(1MC^•^log) 09:34, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge We can just dump this one into disengagement plan. It's relevant and deserves to be there. The Hebrew Wikipedia article has some more info and sources: he:מבצע יד לאחים nadav (talk) 04:33, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into 'disengagement' article and Delete. --Shuki 20:02, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Delete Ealdgyth | Talk 14:09, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete, the references found are vapid and probably not reliable. Sr 13 03:23, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

William Willinghton

Only sources are the subject's own catalogue and web site. These are not considered reliable. Without sources, there's nothing to establish notability. Note that User:Wiwi788 has been pushing this stuff hard at Spoon River Anthology and elsewhere. Wikipedia is not for advertising your works. Chick Bowen 04:40, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 09:18, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 09:18, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Citing self-made sources is not acceptable proof of notability. --SquidSK ^(1MC^•^log) 09:38, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Blatant self-promotion. Freshacconci 10:49, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are plenty of important awards that can be used to establish notability for press photographers. He appears to have none of them. And the comparisons to Cartier-Bresson and Capa are unlikely and come off as blatant hyperbole. —David Eppstein 11:07, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment there are apparently reviews, --can someone check? DGG 16:58, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Google News archives lists a few small notices and a review of a related gallery show, but all are in Italian. Chick Bowen 17:23, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: there are at least four independent reviews of the show, of which one comments directly on the photographs of William Willinghton. The depth of coverage is not that substantial but the breadth is--the texts seem to have been written independently of each other and not just reworkings of press release. From what I've seen, this show alone does not meet the Wikipedia notability guidelines for artists, but I've always sort of felt that they are rather high compared to other notability guidelines. So on balance, I'll stay out of the discussion. So-so translations from the Italian available on request, but the articles are pretty vapid. ("The texts of Fernanda Pivano, which testify to his great love of peace, live together with the black and white images of William Willinghton which celebrate the dream of love 'with a kiss'.") -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 17:50, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 03:28, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:59, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sutherland Hall

Prod removed without comment. It's a residence hall, with no real notability given. Kwsn^(Ni!) 04:06, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First off, its a stub. Second, your nomination to delete it, literally within the first minute it was posted, would not give enough time to carefully evaluate any article...and it was completely uncool. Third, the significance of the building is that 1) historically for the university there had been an intention to build a hillside campus for at least 50 years that continued to be delayed for finances and engineering problems with building on the hillside (structural support of the hill and an underground coal fire). The building of a residence hall in the upper campus became especially critical because of the switch from private to state-related status of the school in 1966, there had been an doubling of the campus population which caused enormous strain on the university's neighborhood. The fruit of the lack of this building, which I believe was one of only two buildings built in the 1990s (and the first residence hall built in 20-30 years), was increased tension with the university's neighborhood community where students were crowded into. The completion of this building signified, at least to the surrounding community, an increased willingness of the university to listen to their concerns. The other significance of the building is that it is the only structure in the world that is named for the most famous and winningest Pitt football coach in history (and one of the NCAA's all-time great coaches), Jock Sutherland. Sutherland, a revered legend in Pittsburgh, coached in the 20s and 30s and won multiple national championships at Pitt in the former Pitt Stadium which sat right across the street from Sutherland Hall. In addition to this, I would like to add information on the construction and architecture of the building. Of course, because you marked it for deletion so quickly, I didn't have time to research the sources for this information, and I am not going to write it without proper references, and I'm sure not going to do all that work with the chance it may be deleted.cp101p 04:58, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You as the article creator should check whether the topic has multiple instances of non-trivial coverage in reliable sources before starting the article, not afterwards. If you can't find any, then the topic is probably not appropriate for inclusion in an encyclopedia. cab 09:12, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 09:21, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
how do you think I know what I posted above? Of course there are sources. Albert's 1987 book Pitt: History of the University of Pittsburgh for one. Plenty of University documents and Pittsburgh newspaper articles. I'm just not going to spend hours searching for and filling in information that will end up deleted. Again, stub in the middle of writing the thing and person above tagged it.cp101p 09:27, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Those are all sources by the University of Pittsburgh (owner of the building) or people associated with it. For a topic to be considered notable, we generally require that it have at least some coverage from sources which are independent of the topic in question. cab 09:47, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Completely independent sources: the hillside dorm problem and Sutherland Hall are documented and published by the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy[[83]]. The notability of it being named after Jock Sutherland is noted on the Visit PA website[84]. Pittsburgh Post Gazette Articles[85][86] Unfortunately, the really pertinent articles on Sutherland Hall from the Post-Gazette, Trib, or other local papers predate their free on-line archive retrieval, but among others, include: "Spacious Sutherland Hall is 1st Dorm built at Pitt in 28 Years, Sept. 16, 1992, page A9, 513 words and Pitt's Space Plan Showing Gapping Holes, Setember 26, 1994, page B-11, word count: 522.cp101p 02:10, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, from what I can tell the creator of this article goes to U of Pittsburgh, and seems intent on supplementing the very well made main article about that university with a series of poorly sourced and, in some cases, poorly written articles [87], [88], [89], [90], [91], [92]. I'm not saying he is the creator of all theses articles but his contributions to Wikipedia have rarely strayed outside these and related articles, which is not bad in itself, except that he is on the verge of creating a walled garden. I'm sure his intents were good but these pages and this one need to be link to the main U of P pages or deleted as they are not notable by themselves. Darrenhusted 10:13, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment There is no requirement to source articles in one go. It remains permissible to write an article on wiki. But what the author should have done, is left the prod on for a day or two while he sourced the article, that's what the built in 5 days delay in prod is for. DGG 17:03, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the problem with the 5 day delay prod is that I've seen several adminstrators ignoring the 5 day delay recently (perhaps not this one), and frankly, who is going to put more source work into material that may be deleted. It makes no sense. Tagging something with its first 60 seconds of its existence basically says quit wasting your time. Waiting sometime to see if the content was flushed out, followed by a merge request OR delete discussion would have made a lot more sense in my opinion, nor did it take into account the recent activity in building of U of Pitt content.

BTW, I do not go to the University of Pittsburgh and I haven't lived in Pittsburgh since '99, at which point I began attended the University of Miami, FL. Currently, I actually work at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia. If I was in Pittsburgh, I'd be able to fill in these pages much faster and have better image content, instead of being confined to internet research (which obviously comes mostly from U of Pitt digital archives and similar sources). There are plenty of "non-university" sources for these buildings and those include Tokers Pittsburgh: an Urban Portrait (I do not have access to a copy), archives of the Western PA Historical Society and Philadelphia Architectural society, Pittsburgh cultural management resources (which I online referenced where I could), biographies of Carnegie and Mellons (which I do not have) and of course Pittsburgh-Post Gazette and other newspapers.
That said, I started only two of the 6 articles listed above as "poor", and one is because I merged together multiple separate buildings into the CLC complex page. Thus my contributions for five of these six pages, some of which had languished with with even less content for over two years, was to expand the content as much as possible with internet research. Most of the "well-made main article" is due to work by myself and others over the last couple weeks. When I started on it, I don't think you'd find anyone that would disagree that it was severely lacking content and, well, a mess, which was unbelievable to me considering the stature and historic significance of U of Pitt to the city and region. Go back a month or so and look. Now that I and some others have somewhat flushed that out, I'm filling in content that was requested for articles on the main U of Pitt web page or existed as even more skeletal articles prior to my engagement with that project, tagging them as stubs, and hoping some people at Pitt (with access to buildings, better records, and other publications) will help fill out the details. Obviously, an originator of the main Pitt article had in mind a comprehensive review of the campus and its buildings...and many of these buildings are hisoric landmarks that were designed by notable architects Charles Klauder, Benno Janssen, Henry Hornbostel, among others. If nothing else, the growth of the campus as told through the story of its buildings reflects both the story of the univeristy and the Oakland section (cultural district) of Pittsburgh which is designated a National Historic District...a history involving many national figures and full of both achievement and failure. BTW, I would really like someone in Pittsburgh to do a page on the Schenley Farms Naitonal Historic District (where many of these buildings could be linked to). That said, I disagree this is becoming a walled garden because these building pages are obviously forked off of the main U of Pitt site and members of the University of Pittsburgh Building category, which brings me to the link issue mentioned with links above.

To address the linking issue (is there some way to tag or link these building pages more directly to the main U of Pitt article?), I'm not sure where that comment comes from because all of those pages are linked to back and forth from 1)both the University of Pittsburgh main article, 2) they all belong to the University of Pittsburgh buildings category, and 3) where appropriate they are or will be linked from subsiderary Pitt articles...though I haven't yet gotten to fill in all the details yet (school/department locations and Pitt chancellor pages should be linked to them where appropriate). I also foresee a possible campus building timeline with a succession box. Admittedly, some of these building groups will be merged (perhaps like the above mentioned Forbes Hall), and I to this end I have also merged Clapp Hall, Langley Hall, Crawford Hall (previously separate buildings) into the Clapp/Langley/Crawford Complex and I merged Bruce, Amos, Holland, and McCormick Halls into Schenley Quadrangle.

Thanks for everyone's comments above. Obviously, I have a problem with what I still consider premature tagging, but I'd be grateful for suggestions and comments on the direction of the Pitt content as outlined in above my comments.cp101p 00:13, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. (edit conflict) A lot of the news about the hall is from the student run newspaper "The Pitt News" or other sources close to the university. These should not be discarded entirely, as they are authoratitive and trustworthy sources that are useful for verification purposes. The establishment details were recorded in a local newspaper North Hills News Record. There are a few other halls of this name, complicating searching for evidence of wider notability; a narrow search turns up 150 odd google results, including this. I presume the book referred to above is this: ISBN 0822911507 [93]. John Vandenberg 01:17, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your sources. Yes, that is the book. There was also a academic article on urban university growth that specifically documented the hillside dorm problem and resolution[94] published by the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy. The notability of it being named after Jock Sutherland is noted on the Visit PA website[95].cp101p 01:39, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep for now as the author makes a convincing case that there is something interesting to be written about this building, and is only asking for time to do so. — brighterorange (talk) 01:35, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment Another comment, and sorry for the length of my comments, but Litchfield Towers are a group of residence halls at Pitt that have been rated mid-importance in the Pittsburgh Project and achieved GA status. Obviously, the administrator's notion that Sutherland Hall is not notable because it is "a residence hall" contradicts previous examples. At worst it is low-importance and more than fits this criteria:[96] — Preceding unsigned comment added by crazypaco (talk • contribs)
- Comment I'm not an admin though. Kwsn^(Ni!) 21:01, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - And let it grow. The article got prodded WITHIN ONE MINUTE of it's creation [97]. What's with that? --Oakshade 03:10, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was KEEP with addition of references called for. Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 09:17, 5 July 2007 (UTC) (NB: Not an administrator)[reply]

Roma Victor

AfDs for this article:

Don't see how the game is notable, reads like an ad at points, and others like a guide Kwsn^(Ni!) 04:03, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 09:22, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and cleanup. Definitely notable: see sources [98] [99] [100] [101] [102] etc. JulesH 12:32, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong cleanup. The article is mostly based in text from RedBedlam's website

KEEP. I have edited the page to remove the factual problems (IE: The pro-Roma Victor lies that riddled the original article)

Delete - Wikipedia should only have game articles for games that are in some way notable. I don't think this one qualifies. -- Hux 12:20, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The only two things that would be reason for deleting (advertisement and notability) are invalid. There is plenty of negative commentary in this article and when more player see this, there will likely be more. For notability, look at the links provided above, there are dozens of interviews of KFR (head developer) and the game on the net. This game has even been in several newspapers (the crucification), that's more than most games. 213.219.173.4 17:04, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Deleted per previous AFDs and CSD G11. Naconkantari 03:41, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spyware Terminator .

This will be a painful one but best to do it here rather than speedy it away. Author's request to keep it. Deletion log 1, Deletion log 2 Previous afd1, Previous afd2, and the redirect, too. 650l2520 03:39, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per CSD G11. Naconkantari 03:39, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- How do you type so fast! 650l2520 03:42, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Strange this hasn't been closed earlier. Sr 13 03:30, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SmallBall

Appears to fail WP:SOFTWARE. No sources, reads like an advertisement, and no evidence of external coverage or notability. Crystallina 03:37, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete A7. Shalom ^Hello 03:43, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 09:22, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete in accordance with WP:CSD#A7. Acalamari 18:21, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy speedy delete on grounds of WP:SPAM per Crystallina. --Gavin Collins 19:57, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 10:34, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AFD is decided by reference to policy. Most of the points put forward to "keep" are not in fact evidenced as being relevant. 1. AFD is decided on its own merits, not by reference to what has happened on other articles (deletion policy). 2. If KUBE is notable, there will be verifiable reliable sources to that effect, for example reviews, critical acclaim, etc, and these could have been cited. 3. Editor's own opinions and impressions are not "evidence", and active involvement and progress, or anticipated success, or that it is stable, in receipt of student funding and buying a new studio, are not claims to notability at present. 4. In this AFD, nobody has evidenced any reason why Keele's student radio is notable amongst the thousands of other student radios, and there is no generic guideline that suggests all student radio stations are automatically to be considered notable. I'm not sure that a sole nomination alone for a festival is grounds for "notability". It's not clear that being nominated (without other evidence that others have also taken note of KUBE) can alone be taken as a statement that it ranks above (or is notable amongst) other student radio stations. Does KUBE have a history of actual credible awards in the student radio world, critical acclaim from credible third party commentators, or an unusually large or wide range of listeners compared to other college radio stations, for example? Or just the above nomination?

I concur with the nominator and user:Coren that reliable third party evidence of notability, and WP:NOT, are the appropriate policy based concerns here. At present, there is little to no reliable evidence of KUBE being considered notable established in this AFD. If and when that changes, and KUBE is verifiably notable as a student radio station, that's when an article would be appropriate.

Kube Radio

Unsourced article on student radio station broadcasting only on the University intranet. If this had not been nominated by the NY Festivals, it would be a WP:HOLE. Hardly notable, this underfunded and unstable organisation is like a school project. Ohconfucius 03:11, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 09:23, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I think it's WP:HOLE anyway. Shalom ^Hello 05:51, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We have lots of article on "student radio station broadcasting only on the University intranet" - ie are you proposing we delete every student radio station?. Secondly KUBE also gets one or two of those short term radio licences (the 30 days on FM/AM) per year, thus are all radio station with short term license suddenly non notable. Thirdly i think it also now broadcasts on the internet. Fourthly since it has been nominated for whatever the "NY Festivals" is, it surly must be notable. Fifthly "this underfunded and unstable organisation is like a school project" its been going for some time, (longer than the 4 years I've been a Keele), it get a sizable regular budget from the Student's Union, it has its own studio (with expensive equipment) and its getting a new studio - sure it hasn't got the budget of the BBC, but it is stable beyond each academic year and has stable funding. Finally I would note that WP:HOLE is not policy. Pickle 12:35, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, if you give me a list of "student radio station broadcasting only on the University intranet" that are also not notable, I'll gladly do the work to AfD them. — Coren ^(talk) 23:36, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, entirely non-notable. WP:HOLE isn't policy, but WP:NOT is. Wikipedia is not a directory of student clubs or associations, which a student radio without a (permanent) broadcast license is. — Coren ^(talk) 23:36, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Remove cruft, merge to game article(s), and delete. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 13:12, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article has been listed for AFD once before, in January 2007. There are several proposed arguments concerning what policy does and doesn't say, to review up-front:

"Imagine if every popular series had articles to eliminate lists" (per nom).
AFD is not here to affect policy. An article's AFD is decided on its own merits and current standards, not by reference to other articles (WP:DP) or "what-if"s.
The nominator comments on reliable sources, and "Livejournal and geocities". The relevant policy is verifiability, "self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources." Without judging whether this is right or wrong (policy such as WP:OR states fairly firmly it is wrong) more leeway has historically been granted by the community on what is considered a reliable source for popular culture matters, than in (for example) science or more academically supported subjects. The "threshold for inclusion" on Wikipedia is verifiability (WP:V), so a statement that is plainly verifiable by anyone referencing the media itself, and does not breach WP:OR (synthesis, novel position, etc) in doing so, may meet this requirement.
"There is no way to save this one because an encyclopedic treatment is impossible" (user:Jay32183). Disagree - I see no reason that in principle trivia could not be encyclopedic. it's just a bit more difficult, and especially as a separate article (which has to justify its independent existance). WP:TRIVIA does not support this argument, nor does any other policy I can find.
Weak articles that are capable of meeting inclusion criteria should usually be salvaged and cleaned up, not AFD'ed (user:Wikidemo). I concur.
"There was already an AFD consensus reached five months ago ... we shouldn't be opening up the same debate again a second time hoping for a new result" (user:Wikidemo) Disagree. More than enough time has passed for repeat AFD to be a fair reconsideration if editors still have concerns. WP:DP does not have an objection to relisting over legitimate (rather than tendentious) concerns.
It's worth finally, summarizing what WP:TRIVIA ("Avoid trivia sections") is about. It does not say trivia sections should not exist; rather it advises that the facts they contain are often better presented as prose within a structure, should not stray excessively from the main article, and that the existance of a trivia section may encourage the addition of excessive 'cruft (see also: WP:NOT: "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information"). It also notes that "Wikipedia is not supposed to be a dumping ground for speculation, rumor, invented 'facts'..." and directs that Wikipedia:Original research and Wikipedia:Cite your sources apply equally to trivia sections.

With that as background, examining the points made in this discussion, the main keep reasons are

Notability of influences and features (user:Wikidemo)
No evidence provided to this AFD that a long trivia list is necessary to cover these. Influences and features can be captured in a few short paragraphs, with trivia being used as examples or footnote references, for example. If the trivia were in and of themselves notable, then we would have more verifiable reliable sources cited in this AFD (or indeed in the article) and much lower reliance upon self-published sources.
AFD views would be different if the article were named differently and not "trivia", etc (user:Richard Cane)
I don't buy this. I don't see editors "recoiling in horror". The points in any AFD decision are intended to be all about policy, and the closing editor of an AFD debate looks for policy related points and evidence, even if the contributors don't. If the article had been given an academic name and still mostly contained uncited editor's views, there is no reason to believe the views of others would be any different than we see. Also, five months between first and second AFD is fairly good evidence that editors allowed the first AFD to follow through, and adopted an extremely patient outlook before renominating due to unresolved concerns. Assume good faith applies - and seems fully justified by the evidence.
That the article is "one giant fair use gallery" (per nom)
Disagree. Images have clearly been selected to illustrate the article text. Perhaps there are too many, especially considering they are fair use only, but that's not an AFD issue.
"A list of in-jokes and references to other things incorporated into a video game series? No. These things are not notable" (user:Otto4711). I concur. This fairly characterizes much of the trivia. Examples of excessive trivia: "In Old Silent Hill there is a store on the edge of a ravine that is called the "Mark Twain Book & Gift Shop". A shop shutter has a Jack Daniels logo. No evidence is provided to this AFD, to support that these are notable and not just random triviacruft.
The trivia "helps [readers to] understand its convoluted storyline" (user:thaddius) Not an argument ("we should list trivia because there isn't a clear high quality explanation of the storyline in the storyline section on the game's own article" ??) Much of the trivia is completely irrelevant to an understanding of the game's storyline, too.
"[The trivia section shows the effort] that developers put into the game to show their influences in the story, and it shows a great connection between the writers and art direction teams." (user:Thaddius). Concur, a good point, and encyclopedically valid. Note that this could be covered equally well by a short paragraph in the main article, and some examples, which would be more in line with the spirit of WP:TRIVIA and WP:NOT.

Ultimately I concur with the view expressed by several editors: "If it was stripped down to what can be adequately referenced, the content would be small enough to merge into the main article." (user:Marasmusine) ... "Indiscriminate information" (user:DarkSaber2k) ... "Perhaps merge what little material there is merging but delete the rest as per DarkSaber2k" (user:WarthogDemon).

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection (WP:NOT). There is a need to select which facts are to be represented, rather than necessarily presenting all of them. Some items are valuable cites to support encyclopedic statements about the game, its design, and its creators motives and work, but much is non-notable 'cruft (WP:NOT applies). I'm also noting the claim (no evidence provided at AFD) that trivia has been moved around because of "better there than here" or specifically to preserve it from pruning or removal; neither of these would be appropriate, and forking for that reason wouldn't be appropriate either.

Trivia sections are in general discouraged to prevent exactly the kind of excessive indiscriminate notes that this article contains. Some content is valuable and probably deserves a place on the main article, but the bottom line on this AFD is that, having considered carefully the arguments proposed in this AFD, and the contents of the trivia page, no good policy-based case has yet been made on this AFD either 1/ for trivia to have its own article, or 2/ of notability for much of the trivia list in general, or 3/ that there is so much notable trivia that Wikipedia:Summary style is appropriate to fork it as a new article. The delete/merge view seems much more supported by policy, and is also the view of a large number of editors expressing their views.

Silent Hill influences and trivia

AfDs for this article:

Where to begin with this one. It's one giant fair use gallery (including many images linked from text). The entire article is a trivia section. It contains original research. The cited sources are Livejournal and Geocities. I appreciate people may have worked hard on it but Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. -N 03:10, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep. Whatever I might think there was already an AFD consensus reached five months ago to keep the article. Under the "asking the other parent" rulre we shouldn't be opening up the same debate again a second time hoping for a new result. Silent Hill is an important, influential game with wide interest. The subject of its influences and features is notable, and there is notable material in the article. There may indeed be problems with unsourced material, original reserach, trivia sections within the article, and other things, but the proper course to a weak article is to clean it up, not delete it.Wikidemo 03:42, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article is desinged to be trivia and original research. There is no way to save this one because an encyclopedic treatment is impossible. The keeps in the last debate did not raise one valid point, the closing was definitely in error. Jay32183 04:35, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I've held off from nominating this again in the past because I've felt that it could somehow be salvaged. But then if it was stripped down to what can be adequately referenced, the content would be small enough to merge into the main article. Marasmusine 07:38, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Marasmusine 07:39, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Agreed with everything said above. This is a collection of trivia collected through original research, and easily belongs on E-Gamia rather than Wikipedia. --Scottie_theNerd 08:51, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - To me, this article is just as erroneous as the Seven Hour War, yet no one contests it. I'm sure there are many other articles like this that escape scrutiny. Ah well. --Thaddius 15:11, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - I hope that isn't meant as the other stuff exists argument. DarkSaber2k 15:14, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 09:24, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:AVTRIV and WP:OR. A list of in-jokes and references to other things incorporated into a video game series? No. These things are not notable. The word "trivia" right in its name is always a bad sign. A previous AFD may have said to keep but consensus can change and consensus against these sorts of articles is pretty clear. Otto4711 12:10, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The article was created when trivia lists from the four Silent Hill were the subject of an editing war; some users refused to keep them on the main page and no one made an effort to integrate them into the main article. The person who created this article did so with the intention of creating prose to be reinserted back into the individual SH articles. Oh, and it's only the first game that has a list of in-jokes, the rest is general trivia. --Thaddius 13:58, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think the only bit worth integrating is a handful of the referenced sentences from the opening paragraphs on infulences. Marasmusine 14:28, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - That's certainly your prerogative, but others may not agree. One problem is that one of the sourced points you're referring to is from a fan translation of a Japanese-only book, which is apparently unverifiable. --Thaddius 14:32, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - People often frown upon video games for simply being video games; left with a stigma of being 'for kids' and therefore insignificant. Because of that, people ignore the medium's potential as an art form. I'm not pretentious enough to claim Silent Hill as a work of art, but it cannot be argued that it is a postmodern pastiche, and this article is a guide to understanding its unique and convoluted storyline. While fancruft to some, the article is, currently, a list of purposeful references that developers put into the game to show their influences in the story, and it shows a great connection between the writers and art direction teams. Frankly I'm tired of defending this article, and I'm not up to bringing it up to scratch, but hopefully, if the article survives, this whole deletion thing might start some editors into action. If not, I assure you others will move this information back onto the individual game articles and this will start all over again. --Thaddius 14:32, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Then we will go through the same process and point out that the E-Gamia wiki is perfect for this material. --Scottie_theNerd 08:35, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Trivia is not encyclopedic, see WP:TRIV. Influences are very poorly sourced. hbdragon88 05:05, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per WP:AVTRIV, Unverifiable, original research, seemingly unreliable sources (LiveJournal and Geocities? Give us a break!) and Indiscriminate information. DarkSaber2k 09:39, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete As per the reasons above. Perhaps merge what little material there is merging but delete the rest as per DarkSaber2k. -WarthogDemon 16:13, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with the main article. Carlossuarez46 19:29, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with main article or individual game articles. Ubersuntzu 07:46, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- With no reliable sources, merging is a very bad idea. Jay32183 17:02, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Indeed. That's why it was made into its own article to begin with. --Thaddius 21:07, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I hope that isn't meant as the better here than there argument. Jay32183 21:28, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - It's meant as a 'this has been moved around a lot by people who want to preserve it' thing. --Thaddius 17:26, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Moving around information you don't want deleted to avoid it's deletion is not an action that is easy to assume good faith over. DarkSaber2k 15:15, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Who said I moved anything? I did not create the article in question, a quick check of the history can verify that, and I personally don't care about what happens to the article. I will not be moving this info around to preserve it but I know that others will. I was not making a threat, I was stating a fact. In future please avoid making baseless accusations. --Thaddius 01:24, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pure junk page, per others. Dannycali 03:35, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article is not shrinking as other pages are expanded, and indeed the Silent Hill 2 section has been turned into little more than a listified version of information contained on the main article. All the information here could still be found in the histories of their source articles as well. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 17:51, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Quit being mean to Pyramid Head!--Perceive 03:06, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And what does 'being mean to Pyramid Head' have to do with Wikipedias policies and guidelines? DarkSaber2k 08:02, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think everyone is just recoiling in horror at the word "trivia". If this was called "An in-depth analysis of Silent Hill's cultural references" instead everyone wouldn't be so violently opposed to it being here. Richard Cane 13:11, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but that's bogus. If everyone's only problem was with the name of the article, they would have all said 'keep and rename'. What about the multiple policies and guidelines that have been cited as reason to delete? Nothing to do with the name. DarkSaber2k 13:13, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The main complaint of the person who nominated this for deletion is that the entire article is a "trivia section". I doubt he'd be complaining if it was a "cultural reference" section. Richard Cane 13:18, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
More than just the nominator have given reasons for this article being deleted you know. And most of those reasons are based on actual policies and guidelines, instead of 'I like it' and 'It's not doing any harm'. The nominator ALSO said that the article was mostly original research and that the provided sources were not reliable. Again, nothing to do with the title of the article, but everything to do with wikipedias core policies and guidelines for suitable articles. DarkSaber2k 13:21, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about this. What if this article was about a book written in the 19th century and it gave all the people, places, and cultural references of that time period which could better help anyone reading it have a frame of reference to the events alluded to in that novel. Would there be any objection to it being on Wikipedia? I think this being a video game in a modern era heavily influences your and other's perceptions regarding the validity of this article being here. Richard Cane 13:32, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't possibly elaborate on what would or wouldn't be acceptable in an article about a 19th century book since we are not discussing an article about a 19th century book. What we ARE discussing is an article containing indiscriminate original research that is unverifible due to unreliable sources. The time period has nothing to do with this, it is about how the wikipedia policies apply to the article. Being about a game has nothing to do with it in the grand scheme of things. If that theoretical article about that book was written exactly the same way as this, right down to the choice of sources, I think you would find people would be just as happy to say 'delete it' as they are here. Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but your last sentence is saying I'm biased against this article because it's related to video games? That could not be further from the truth, and I would thank you not to make such generalisations based on absolutely zero knowledge of me. DarkSaber2k 13:38, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If Moby-Dick in popular culture is allowed on here than I think this should be too. That's just what I believe. Richard Cane 13:51, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is what wikipedia believes about what you believe. We aren't discussing moby dick in popular culture. Feel free to nominate that for deletion if you have a problem with it. And besides, this article is about references to popular culture within the game series, not mentions of the game in popular culture.DarkSaber2k 13:52, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 03:32, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Mountain Center of Meditation

I prodded this article, but the author asked me to reconsider. For the sake of WP:NOOB, I'm going to consider this a procedural listing. Yechiel Man 16:46, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Scientizzle 02:58, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 09:24, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 09:25, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable, no sources. Reywas92^Talk 12:51, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- not notable ChrisLamb 14:16, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete origional research--Sefringle^Talk 22:48, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 03:33, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ed Kilgore

This person is not notable and there are no sources cited.NYYankee2684 23:47, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete well-known in Buffalo area but otherwise nn. JJL 03:14, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, hard to say how a sports director for a medium-sized TV market is notable. Nothing cited indicating such. --Dhartung | Talk 03:54, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Not well-known even in other parts of the state and certainly not notable. Kedster 06:14, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 09:26, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 09:26, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I thought this would be about the somewhat notable Democratic strategist and blogger. The article itself does nothing to convince me the subject is notable. Clconway 16:48, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Although I do know who he is (from receiving Buffalo TV in Toronto), he's still not notable. Flyguy649^talk_contribs 20:20, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Content that is enough to put it only in the TV station's article.--JForget 00:44, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. NawlinWiki 21:00, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Frequency 1350

Unsourced, previously deleted. article on non-notable and probably neglected student radio station broadcasting with a 5 mile radius on a low-powered AM license. Little known outside the university. Scores 82 unique Ghits Ohconfucius 02:53, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Quoting from the article: "Frequency 1350 is quite possibly the only radio station (ever) that has no website." Don't worry, college radio nerds: Wikipedia can be our "website"! Um, yeah... Shalom ^Hello 05:49, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The AfD link from the article was done incorrectly, so, in the interest of allowing more time for relevant contributors to weigh in:

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Scientizzle 19:53, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Apparently an unlicensed low power hobby station of little notability. The fact that they go off the air at holidays is consistent with this view. Given that, their claimed 5 mile radius may be optimistic. Edison 20:25, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge boil it down to a paragraph and merge into University of Central Lancashire. Capmango 22:54, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge and redirect to University of Bristol Union. Walton^One 18:38, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BURST

Unsourced article on non-notable student radio station broadcasting on a temporary RSL. Not known at all outside the university. Scores all of 31 unique Ghits Ohconfucius 02:43, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If I'm told in five days that this article has been kept, I absolutely promise to write an article about WYUR, my alma mater's student radio station. Such media are not notable by their very nature. Shalom ^Hello 06:31, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Uh oh, I didn't really mean that... :( Shalom ^Hello 17:00, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'm referencing it so that can't be used as a reason for deletion. As for unique G hits - well if google was the sum of human knowledghe we might as well not bother with the wikipedia project. All the articles created under the scope of wikiproject systemic bias have little or no hits in googleFrancium12 21:09, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Does not meet WP:ORG. Gasheadsteve 07:18, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - What about a merge with University of Bristol Union considering its broadcast from there? Francium12 07:20, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Now sufficently referenced Wikiball18 09:59, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Morgan Wick 07:58, 4 July 2007 (UTC) - Note: This user is not an admin.[reply]

Merge-I've withdrawn my delete vote above. Given the improvements in referencing I now vote to merge into University of Bristol Union, per Francium12's suggestion above. Perhaps drop the list of committee members though, since none of them are notable and they change annually. Gasheadsteve 08:36, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep BBC article makes the subject sort of notable but more 3rd party sources would help. --_Hdt83 ^Chat 08:39, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with University of Bristol Union. The sole external reference is a very minor article on a local BBC website and barely establishes notability. Agree with Gasheadsteve re list of committee members - reads like vanity on their part. Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 09:28, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete or merge to somewhere appropriate. The references are self-published and/or of questionable reliability with the exception of the BBC one - doesn't have multiple non-trivial published third party sources shown to be about it.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 09:38, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is sufficient references to this article now. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 10:10, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or delete. It's still a student group with no notability outside its school, and all the "references" to its own website aren't going to change that. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:37, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge All the additions have failed to convince me it that it merits a standalone article. Canuckle 16:15, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep - nomination withdrawn. TerriersFan 03:24, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OSCAR Radio

Not notable secondary school student radio broadcasting on a RSL. stripped of school related weblinks, the subject scores 148 Ghits, most of which bear no relationship to the subject at all. Ohconfucius 02:32, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 09:29, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If RSLs are part of the standard regulatory scheme for broadcasting in the United Kingdom, then radio stations which operate under RSLs meet the criterion of being duly licensed by the appropriate regulatory authority...especially if it's an RSL that's renewed on a regular basis. A station that got one RSL to broadcast for one isolated period might not necessarily meet our standard, but an RSL that's renewed as often as legally permissible is effectively as close as such a station can get to being a permanent operation. So keep. Bearcat 22:25, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fuhghettaboutit 03:52, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: From this link posted as a reference to the article, clearly the station falls into a different category than is suggested by the above assertion "an RSL that's renewed as often as legally permissible is effectively as close as such a station can get to being a permanent operation". True that the subject does appear to be continuous, but the school has a short term RSL, whilst there is the category of the long term RSL, which several schools have. I am not suggesting that the possession of such a renewed temporary license would be a bar in becoming notable, but the reasons why it does not have a long-term license may be relevant, and could, I believe, be further explained in the talk page Ohconfucius 02:49, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As the creator of the page and also the person who set the station up and currently runs it I want to assure you that this is a factual description of the radio station. As Bearcat states, OSCAR Radio is a regular broadcaster, it also happens to be seen as one of the best stations of its kind in the UK. In the world of UK school radio stations it was deemed the best one by the BBC when they did a trawl of school radio station in 2004, it is certainly the largest, with studios that most university stations would love to have. It has a good presence in the local community and plenty of people listen either on the internet or locally on the FM transmission. OSCAR Radio is seen as a good model for other schools to view and we get plenty of visits from schools interested in putting together their own radio stations. So keep Dfcf 20:11, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Many articles on wikipedia have been deleted because the subject does not possess sufficiently notability even though they are completely factual. The fact that there are many people involved either in the creation of the article or the subject is completely irrelevant argument to avoid deletion. Although it is a fairly well-written article, it was put up for deletion mainly because I did not find insufficient independent and reliable sources which support the assertions of notability within the article. Being "best", or having a "good presence" can be quite subjective if not properly benchmarked with an important award, audited audience figures or press commentary. Dfcf cites a number of things which could be indicators of a greater level of notability than is suggested in the article, and it would be of considerable help if, for example, the BBC mention was sourced within the article. Ohconfucius 02:49, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a little searching found a couple good links, which I have added, and indicates that the station does get some attention (as a Sony Music CEO came to open their new studio). The article needed some cleaning up, with the frequency and range it has, it's certainly of note, even if it only runs part of the year. --Thespian 07:32, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I would agree that the station has the potential to be notable, but I remain not totally convinced that it is. I would point out that the links are not independent - one was issued by a PR agency on behalf of the school, and the other clearly names the school as the source of the story. Ohconfucius 13:06, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If you agree that it has the potential to be notable, then this nomination should be withdrawn at this point, especially considering the only comments on it have been your nom and Bearcat and I saying 'Keep' (that's aside from the obvious keep of the page creator). And yeah, it does name the school as the source of the story - but not in terms of 'the school handed this to us and we ran it'. All secondary sources have to have a primary source *somewhere*, so while the first one, I'll concede, is not completely independent (though all I cite out of it is the 'only station operated by under 18s', which is in other articles, too), the second one is a perfectly good source from a local newspaper, and I spent about 10m on this. More could be done, though one needs to convince Dfcf (to whom it is obviously central, though he did a fairly good job of avoiding COI, some of which I fixed) that more work is needed in this direction. Give it a month and renom in August if we still haven't fixed? I'll work with him. --Thespian 22:02, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: OSCAR Radio is a radio station that is part of the fourth largest public school in England. The fact that the Music CEO of Sony, Sir Howard Stringer helped fund lots of development in the station. The fact that Sir Howard Stringer is now the CEO of Sony. Isn't this enough for OSCAR to be notable?. A few years ago a number of OSCAR presenters visited the BBC radio studios. I don't know the full story but my understanding is that they appeared on a show there, they also received awards from the BBC. OSCAR broadcasts on FM to Oundle and the wide surrounding area reaching a little into Peterborough. It broadcasts to entire world via a SHOUTcast stream. I know the RSL licence for OSCAR is a short term licence, but the station has been running since 1998, nine years! Over this time the station has grown massively, with the new studios. A main studio and a news studio with a satellite link to IRN. I am in full belief that OSCAR will continue and the reason that it only has a short term RSL licence is because of an administration issue, or maybe it is easier for the school to buy a short-term licence. It doesn't matter. I know that OSCAR will be continuing in to the near and far future. Some of what I have said is fact and some is views but I believe in it's entirety and think it is petty to try and remove an article to not being notable enough. Maybe it is a rule but I think people might want to know about OSCAR and removing maybe the second port of call after the OSCAR website (which I do admit needs a bit of work) is annoying for people searching Wikipedia and not finding the information they want. I came to this discussion with a favourable idea of saying keep but with the evidence that Dfcf has written and the opinion of Thespian I am now in full belief that OSCAR is notable enough for a Wikipedia article. So in full entirety my belief is keep. Pimms 23:55, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination withdrawn. In light of Thespian's arguments, I will withdraw my nom, pending further work on the article. However, I would point out that Stringer is an old boy at the school, so that the visit from this industry luminary is not entirely coincidentiial or without connection! Ohconfucius 01:19, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:09, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 03:35, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rhema Bible Church

Non-notable church. No claims of notability. Corvus cornix 02:19, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Almost reads like an advertising blurb about the church itself. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 02:26, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 09:29, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 09:30, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:Notability. VanTucky 20:41, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete origional research--Sefringle^Talk 22:49, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The Sunshine Man 15:31, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Air Culebra

Non-notable airline. No sources other than the company's official site. E ddie 02:13, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Somehow I feel that airlines are like schools - they're notable just because, even if they're not really notable. Maybe not. Shalom ^Hello 06:35, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 09:30, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 09:31, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Even small airlines make up part of a region's transportation system which is about as significant as that of small railway lines, or highways to small places. In this case, this airline appears to be one of only a few which provide passenger service to airports like Vieques and Culebra, and is therefore of some significance, at least on a local scale. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:35, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I am unconvinced that this "airline" even exists anymore. All of the reviews I can find that mention their service are from 2005 or earlier. Their "official" homepage redirects to a homepage for Air America Carribean, who do offer service to Vieques and Culebra among others. I can't find anything to indicate that Culebra Air was purchased by this one, or maybe they just took over flight operations, or what - I cannot find any information suggesting this airline still operates or ever was notable. Arkyan  ^(talk) 15:32, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and then "tag" as "stub". Tony the Marine 01:00, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because this airline did exist and was notable for a period of time. If not, we'd have to erase a good portion of wikipedia's articles. I will tag it as a stub shall it be voted to be kept. Antonio Woody Man Martin 2:10, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Keep and expand, google books and news can be used to add sources. John Vandenberg 01:40, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have been thinking, we have a lot of these stuby articles about minor airlines in Puerto Rico so why don't we create a page on List of minor airlines in Puerto Rico and merge them all there, that way with some good references it can reach Featured List status. -凶 02:42, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I like that idea. It is preferable to having a slew of eternal stub articles. Arkyan  ^(talk) 14:50, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would think a slew of stub articles of notable topics is much better than no articles and simply a list of those topics. After all, stubs, like this one, contain useful and valuable information too. --Oakshade 17:11, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's certainly nothing wrong with stub articles. Ones that are likely to remain stubs indefinitely on the other hand .. I feel that sort of information is better handled by logically grouping them together in a larger list article rather than spread out over smaller stubs with little content. In the end though, having the information here or there is an editorial decision, not an AfD decision. Arkyan  ^(talk) 18:47, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Transportation in Puerto Rico#Airlines Based in Puerto Rico has a list, and all but one have an article at present. I worry about putting useful information in "List of ..." articles, as they have a tendency of being disappeared, so I think it would be better to start an article "Aviation in Puerto Rico", and use it as a main article for Category:Aviation in Puerto Rico. John Vandenberg 19:23, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 03:42, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Air America_Inc

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Air America Inc

Non-notable airline. No sources other than the company's official website. No real content other than where it's located. E ddie 02:07, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, it's a charter airline with no evidence of scheduled commercial service. Google News Archive skim turned up no reliable sources discussing the company, so fails WP:CORP. --Dhartung | Talk 07:37, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 09:32, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 09:32, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment if deleted, it should redirect to Air America 132.205.44.5 01:39, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sources to support the article. Do not redirect since Air America is a different airline. Vegaswikian 02:49, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete all. Sr 13 03:45, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Baby sawyer

Hoax. Nothing on Google about "Baby Sawyer" and "Cartoon Network", the "official website" is a freenodes site, wouldn't there be some mention of it on Cartoon Network? Corvus cornix 01:51, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Add List of Baby Sawyer episodes to this AfD. Corvus cornix 01:54, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Add List of Baby Sawyer characters FMF|contact 18:18, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both. Even if this, by some chance, isn't a hoax, it's sheer crystalballery. The "Other Cartoons" section at the bottom seems a smokescreen intended to lend credibility to the article. Deor 01:58, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The "official website" says "copyright Logan Ingham". A google search comes up with this page, where "Logan Ingham" uses the user name of iabci, which is the same name as the User who created these pages here on Wikipedia. Hard to believe that this person who posts to "Happy Tree Friends" forums would be an employee of the Cartoon Network and maintainer of their official website. Corvus cornix 02:06, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A hoax, and a really poorly executed one at that. I would consider it to be vandalism, but that's just me. User has done nothing but contribute to this stuff with minor insertia about other crystalballery - which has been reverted back itself. (Check his contribs.) --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 02:25, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hoaxalicious. JuJube 09:14, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 09:32, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete For a TV show and only 2000 Ghits with Cartoon Network not at the top, it must be hoax. Also per Geogre's Law. Reywas92^Talk 12:55, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the page is on Freewebs, a free web host, and has no information whatsoever other than what's on Wikipedia. A link from the page comes back here. I really wish we could find a reason to speedy this. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 01:18, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's conceivable the creator at one point was in discussions with Cartoon Network, which declined to air it. The intro paragraph seems to imply that may be the case. But if that's the situation, the article is unverified by reliable outside sources. --Ginkgo100^talk 03:03, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That would not explain all of the supposed air dates on the list of episodes page. Corvus cornix 17:29, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Either way, delete delete delete! --Ginkgo100^talk 03:09, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have a strong suspicion that this is the work of another sockpuppet of serial hoaxster StealBoy (talk · contribs). Pascal.Tesson 04:16, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedied as spam.

Midwest Transit

Fails WP:CORP and is advertising Corpx 01:49, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete spam (g11). So tagged. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 02:27, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus, defaults to Keep. NawlinWiki 18:13, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Piercey

Just a local radio presenter. Article doesn't show how he's notable. No references/links. Reads like a CV. Aillema 01:45, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 09:33, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. Reywas92^Talk 12:56, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fuhghettaboutit 03:52, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No secondary coverage given; hence fails WP:BIO. --B. Wolterding 16:23, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Appears notable due to various involvements with BBC. -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 20:52, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:08, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment And I worked for PBS for two years does that make me notable? No. Whispe ring 16:36, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable sources indicating notability. Fails WP:BIO. Whispe ring 16:36, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I have a feeling this DJ may pass WP:BIO, given his appearances on a number of major local radio stations. And after all (as they say), if you promote a person enough, eventually they become famous. I think this guy might be just about. Sources would help though. DWaterson 23:16, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - just. Google news archive turns up some sources [103], [104], [105], [106]. Helping the Children's hospital, sponsored by Elton John to run the London Marathon etc. I'd say there's enough non trivial mentions for WP:BIO - but he's kept it very local in a long career in radio. Cheers, Paxse 14:09, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 03:51, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Starfire Assistant

Vanity article on a freeware application that assists in game play of Starfire. Unapproved of by game makers Starfire Design Studio. David Andreas 01:20, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article demonstrates no notability: no links to independent reviews, etc. No secondary sources. No particular claim to notability, either. —C.Fred (talk) 01:32, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no references to support notability --Haemo 02:51, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 09:33, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no notability established. Acalamari 18:18, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 22:02, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Configuramming

No sources provided whatsoever. Google turns up nothing at all. Seems to be a word made up by the initial contributor. Only other edits to article are by a bot and someone adding a no sources template. Elbowdrop 01:14, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Most likly a school kid making up a word and posting it on wikipedia ChrisLamb 01:19, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete So all this is basically saying is that if it's not complex it's not programming but if it's a significant change it's not exactly configuration. Hence, configuramming??? The isolated lingo of a bored and confusing programmer... --David Andreas 01:29, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We are not for the introduction of non-notable computer jargon - let alone dicdefs. If you want Urban Dictionary, you know where to find it. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 02:22, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per neologism guidelines. --Haemo 02:50, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; only ghits are to Wikipedia. John Vandenberg 09:35, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't even come off as non-notable computer jargon, clearly a neologism, and a terrible one at that. -- Jimmi Hugh 12:57, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete looks like a joke neologism. Acalamari 18:17, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Debivort 06:06, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete G4 by User:Kubigula, see the logs for details. Non admin closure. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 21:14, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Spider-Man films cast members

Speedy delete recreation of deleted content. This article's creator has only made a few edits so far, but it is so obviously yet another sockpuppet for the permanently banned User:Creepy Crawler/User:EJBanks/User:TheJediCouncil, etc. I am so tired of how many, many articles and categories this guy creates in violation of policy, previous consensus, grammar, or sense. I can't be the one to report the sockpuppet this time because it will come across as me persecuting him. Doczilla 00:52, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Addenudum. Here's what it recreated: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Spider-Man_actors_in_live_action. Finding the previous name took me a bit. The original did not just list people who played Spider-Man. It was full of cast lists. Doczilla 23:21, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete G4. So tagged. For what it's worth, Doczilla, you can always place a {{db-repost}} tag on the page without going through AFD. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 01:42, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- db-repost says "It was previously deleted as a result of an articles for deletion (or another XfD) discussion.". Corvus cornix 02:00, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 09:37, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 09:37, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Where's the original deletion discussion for this article if it is recreated? It doesn't appear to have the same name. Leebo ^T/C 13:14, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: We have a cast list at Spider-Man film series. Alientraveller 18:16, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because it is already covered at Spider-Man film series in a less redundant fashion. Not to mention that the possible casting for Spider-Man 4 is completely false. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:49, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Erik. Note that this is not a G4 situation as the page does not appear to have gone through AFD already. Stifle (talk) 20:40, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed. I'll concede the speedy then and just stick with a delete. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:52, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Please see addendum above. I found the previous title. Doczilla 23:21, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - ...and thusly I have replaced the G4, with a reference this time. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 01:16, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete.

Justin White (2nd nomination)

Page has already undergone an AfD, and then been recreated, and this version still does not meet notability. Darrenhusted 00:36, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- The first deletion appears to be about a comic. This page appears to be about a wrestler. -wizzard2k ^(C-T-D) 01:30, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I need to get the article renamed then AfD it. Darrenhusted 01:36, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I removed the link to the other afd since it doesn't pertain to this subject. It doesn't matter what the name of this article is, if it needs to be deleted. If it ends up being kept, I'd recommend it be renamed, but no need to rename it before deleting. I just wanted to point out for the discussion that this is the first for this topic. -wizzard2k ^(C-T-D) 05:47, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 09:38, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 09:38, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, whether it is the first, second, or fifty-third AfD, this article still is about a wrestler who isn't notable. Nikki311 04:15, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 03:56, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mario Galvan Jaramillo

PROD removed, non-notable wrestler, fails WP:V, WP:A and WP:BLP. Darrenhusted 00:28, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom and my original vote. Nikki311 00:41, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. Nenog 03:39, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, Oyster Guitarst 04:51, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 09:38, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 09:39, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. --SquidSK ^(1MC^•^log) 09:40, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. MPJ-DK 11:34, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete, may be a bit immature (as in "yet to reach notability but maybe in the future") right now. Sr 13 04:02, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vanessa Kraven

PROD removed, non-notable wrestler, fails WP:V, WP:A and WP:BLP. Darrenhusted 00:29, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom and my original vote. Nikki311 00:37, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable professional wrestler and links in article attest to that. It seems the nom is just throwing WP policies up at random and putting the word "fails" in front of them. --Oakshade 00:57, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the main feds she's worked for are redlinks, and the bottom half of the article is just a list, if you want it to stay (which you must do because you removed the PROD) then improve the article (Is "She also has aspirations to one day work for World Wrestling Entertainment (WWE)" really needed, for example). Darrenhusted 01:01, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is no "must do" for prod removers if they feel the prod is unjustified anywhere in WP:PROD. This is another example of the nom not understanding (or attempting to make up) WP plicies. --Oakshade 01:08, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Know what, I'm not going to get in to this. There were near fifty article PROD-ed, so far 16 have been unPROD-ed, I am trying to get editors who feel they have a vested interest in certain articles to improve them, if you cannot improve the article then it will be deleted, because as it stands this person fails WP:V, WP:A and WP:BLP. Also she is (from this article alone) not notable. If you want I'll gut the article so you can start from the ground up, but find some sources that back up the claims, otherwise the AfD will go towards delete. Darrenhusted 01:15, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CONSENSUS desides if an article gets deleted, not you. --Oakshade 01:49, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, this article didn't change in the six months between the PRODs. Darrenhusted 02:16, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, fails WP:BIO, fails WP:RS, no notability, no claims of notability. Corvus cornix 02:21, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The nom almost completely deleted the article which included the claims of notablity.[107]--Oakshade 02:23, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- So put it back. There is still no notability there. Corvus cornix 02:31, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment and Note to Closing Administrator - After this AfD began, the nom erased almost the entire article [108]. The user did this immediately after the exchange above in apparent retaliation to the discussion. This is a bad faith effort if there ever was one.
Here is the pre-erased article. --Oakshade 02:23, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, there is no bad faith, the history is there for all to see, look on the talk page, the references went to Japanese sites, French sites and a shop site. The two remaning refs went to front pages of wrestling sites, I have found the bios on those pages for Vanessa Kraven and used them to reference the information in the page, which in those two sources is not even a DOB. I have already stated that if sources can be found then the information can be added back in. Darrenhusted 02:27, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non notable independent wrestler who performed in several non notable promotions (one of which sounds like an e fed) and about 1 or 2 notable ones. Nenog 03:46, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Corvus cornix. Oyster Guitarst 04:49, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 09:38, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 09:39, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom, fails WP:BIO. Google returns only 63 unique hits [109], the bulk of them from fan forums. Not a single hit is even so much as a credible writeup on one of the leading wrestling websites. Hey, there's a site where she got Wrestling Babe of the Day, but given the finite number of woman wrestlers, they probably cite Mae Young, Nicole Bass and Luna Vachon too. RGTraynor 17:02, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I've actually seen her wrestle in a Japanese women's promotion and she has some promise as a gaijin monster heel there. However, if she quit wrestling tomorrow, she wouldn't warrant an entry. So, I'd say this article is premature-she might be notable enough to not be argued about in a few years. Pure Josh 04:43, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result wasKeep Gnan garra 13:08, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tamie Sheffield

PROD removed, non-notable wrestler, fails WP:V, WP:A and WP:BLP. Darrenhusted 00:29, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets WP:V, WP:A, and WP:BLP. Sources and notability given in article. -- JHunterJ 00:34, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note -- first prod was removed in December by a different editor who also felt subject met WP:BIO. [110]
Delete, just not notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Nikki311 00:39, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment she was one of a series of thirty or so PRODs by WP:PW, and her claim to notability is dubious at best, two links and participation in a TV show four years ago do not make for notability. This article should have been AfD-ed in December. Darrenhusted 00:40, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If it were only the wrestling career (as apparently considered by WP:PW), I'd agree. But she's also a small-part actress, model, and a reality TV show winner (hmm, I just noticed that the article doesn't indicate that she won her Fear Factor appearance -- I'll update that part, at least). Two links and two other sources. -- JHunterJ 00:44, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notable professional wrestler, actress in numerous widely distrubuted films and Fear Factor winner. Like with other AfDs, the nom is incorrectly taking a bunch of WP polices and placing the word "fails" in front of them. --Oakshade 01:03, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep-Per above ChrisLamb 01:08, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment are we looking at the same article? It has two refs that reference one sentence, and of her two wrestling trainers one is a redlink, and where is the notability? Winning a TV series does not bring notability. Darrenhusted 01:25, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notablity established per winning Fear Factor, in addition to her other accomplishments as wrestler and actress. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 02:26, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non notable as a wrestler, non notable as an actress, and does winning an episode of Fear Factor really make you notable for Wikipedia? Nenog 03:49, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable as either wrestler or actress. Oyster Guitarst 04:45, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletions. —John Vandenberg 09:53, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 09:58, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn. Reywas92^Talk 12:58, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn.Dannycali 00:32, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Would the "nn" opiners explain why the subject is non-notable? WP:JNN -- JHunterJ
Comment, the burden of proof lies with you to tell us why she is notable, not the other way around. Darrenhusted 12:15, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are mistaken (please see WP:JNN), and in any event the article makes its claim for the subject's notability. -- JHunterJ 12:18, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"The mirror of "Just not notable" is the assertion that something is notable, but fails to provide an explanation or source for the claim notability. Notability requires an explanation so that other editors may be able to verify the claim as well as seek sources. An explanation is also helpful in deciding whether or not the subject of an article meets existing policies and guidelines that may cover the subject" and you should read this [111].
Keep. Passes based not on wrestling career, but on winning Fear Factor, Lingerie Bowl, appearance on Jay Leno, 30K Ghits. --Groggy Dice T | C 22:27, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep thin article but passes WP:BIO via IMDB.com link in external links. Govvy 00:02, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The very definition of non-notable, the IMDB.com link is meaningless anyone can pay for one. Burntsauce 18:15, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You need to pass a certain set criteria to have an imdb account, the imdb isn't meaningless. It is a very good source of information and is a third party source citation per WP:BIO rules. Govvy 21:00, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone can pay for a resume listing on IMDB. The listing linked is not the for-pay version, and is valid for WP:BIO. Why is this the very defintion of non-notable? -- JHunterJ 19:14, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment if IMdb were a claim of notability then there would never be a problem deleting Porn Stars. IMdb works from info submitted, and anyone can submit, go to a big film with a large cast and under complete cast and crew you will find a ton of extras none of who would deserve an entry on Wikipedia. Darrenhusted 12:29, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody said anyone with an IMDB listing should be in Wikipedia. IMDB, however, can be used to vet a claimed notability, as in this case. -- JHunterJ 12:35, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well then her IMdb entry doesn't give her year of birth, and in her bio her two biggest claims seem to be not appearing in The Wedding Crashers and being the 96th hottest person according to Maxim four years ago. Darrenhusted 12:39, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
None of which are involved in the notability claims in the article that we're talking about. Most notable people have also done non-notable things. -- JHunterJ 12:47, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She's borderline as a pro-wrestler admittedly. However, Wow was nationally syndicated in the US, so she's essentially an actress with a regular part on a 1-2 season long tv show, followed by a dozen low budget movies. Borderline as an actress. She would probably qualify as notable just based on the combination of lingerie bowls, Maxim #100 listing, Fear Factor, hosting "On The Red Carpet", appearing in Playboy, and guesting on the Tonight Show. Sum all of the above and she's definitely notable.Horrorshowj 18:16, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 04:07, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Krysta Lynn Scott

PROD removed, non-notable wrestler, fails WP:V, WP:A and WP:BLP. Darrenhusted 00:06, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom and my original vote. Nikki311 00:42, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non notable wrestler. Nenog 03:28, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.Oyster Guitarst 04:42, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletions. —John Vandenberg 09:54, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, google search only brings up 25 odd results, and I couldnt see many useful ones amoungst them. Magazines might have offline resources, but her blog doesnt mention doing interviews so I wont hold my breathe. John Vandenberg 04:04, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. MPJ-DK 11:41, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unfortunately this ~~Man?~~ ~~Woman?~~ Wrestler does not seem to have anything notable on her page at all. It would need drastic improvement, but I've seen alot, alot better articles deleted. --SteelersFan UK06 02:51, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No Consensus so the article is kept by default. Notability seems marginal, but present, based on championships listed, and media coverage cited. It any case there just isn't a consensus to delete here. DES ^(talk) 00:13, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Short Sleeve Sampson

PROD removed, non-notable wrestler, fails WP:V, WP:A and WP:BLP. Darrenhusted 00:06, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom and my original vote. Nikki311 00:39, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non notable wrestler, made three apperances for WWE portraying miniature versions of WWE wrestlers. Nenog 03:33, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.Oyster Guitarst 04:41, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletions. —John Vandenberg 09:54, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Probably the most well-known midget wrestler in America right now. He has also made many appearances in TNA PPVs in addition to his vast work in WWE. Dannycali 00:28, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment unless he is Little Boogeyman or Little Finlay he is not the most well-known midget wrestler in America. In fact being charitable he is not even third. His vast work in WWE? Two or three appearances. Darrenhusted 18:26, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Short Sleeve is the most well-known American midget wrestler not wrestling under a gimmick name in the WWE. DanZero 04:26, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I'm sure I've heard that somewhere before... But I think Dannycali at least prefaced it with "probably" DanZero. Darrenhusted 12:27, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Whilst he is not the most notable midget wrestler currently in wrestling, he has appeared on many WWE and TNA pay per views. He is one of the more famous midget wrestlers currently around, along with Little Boogeyman, Hornswoggle, Mascarita Sagrada and Super Porky. A-Dust 15:28, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No Consensus Neithe wight of numbers nor weight of arguments estabnlishes a clear consensus. DES ^(talk) 23:57, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Rumble

PROD removed, non-notable wrestler, fails WP:V, WP:A and WP:BLP. Darrenhusted 00:05, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom and my original vote. Nikki311 00:37, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.Oyster Guitarst 04:39, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletions. —John Vandenberg 09:54, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, ranked in the PWI 500 for six consecutive years, and went on to be successful in the promotion part of the industry. John Vandenberg 03:41, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, sometimes PWI 500 will list anyone to fill out the 500, what were his rankings? Did he get into the top 100? Darrenhusted 15:39, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've added some related external links, including [112]. The article says that the "Tony Rumble Memorial Battle Royal" is a sporadic event, but a quick look though those google results indicates it may be annual. John Vandenberg 16:10, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, as it stands this article does not establish the need for an article on this person. It is full of redlinks, the mentions of other famous wrestlers seem to imply he had something to do with them, but no more than booking them on a show, and his most noteworthy achievement is placing 257 in 1994 on the PWI 500. Most of the links quoted are for things other than this wrestler, that he has a memorial show is not enough to justify this article. Darrenhusted 18:24, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
... and he ran a promotion for ten years, and those famous wrestlers named in the article just happened to wrestle in his arena. Did you read this ? John Vandenberg 18:45, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did, there are a hundred small promotions running around the US, they are all not notable and those who run them are not notable. And the link is only 1/3 about Tony Rumble, and it tells you very little about him. He ran an indy, so? Name wrestlers wrestle for anyone who'll pay them ten bucks. Darrenhusted 22:04, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Rumble is certainly notable as a New England wrestler, AfD here suggests deletionism. DanZero 04:25, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep How exactly is Tony Rumble not notable enough for an article? Everyone who is a fan knows who Tony Rumble is. Theperfectone 04:00, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by the look of this AfD not "everyone" does. Darrenhusted 12:15, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Sadly that is more a commentary on members of the Pro Wrestling wiki project rather than Tony Rumble. DanZero 15:38, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: this article has been copied to http://prowrestling.wikia.com/wiki/Transwiki:Tony_Rumble; see discussion at [113]. Let me know if I havent done it correctly. John Vandenberg 15:45, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No Consensus Article will be kept by default. Recently added refs weaken the earlier delete arguments, although more should be added asap. DES ^(talk) 23:43, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Glen Osbourne

PROD removed, non-notable wrestler, fails WP:V, WP:A and WP:BLP. Darrenhusted 00:05, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom and my original vote. Nikki311 00:46, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Oyster Guitarst 04:35, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Note: title would make very useful redirect to Glen Osborne. Grutness...wha? 05:17, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Osbourne was a founding member of ECW and was the youngest-ever winner of the ECW World Television Championship. That in itself makes him notable. He also held many titles in the East Coast Wrestling Association. Bittenbender, 25, June, 2007. — Bittenbender (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletions. —John Vandenberg 09:55, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 10:00, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. MPJ-DK 11:40, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep This really needs citation, but I remember this wrestler, there was notability there. The article just needs better citation, also the article structure is currently in a poor state and could do with a clean up. Govvy 23:44, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The subject is non-notable and the article itself is borderline as far as WP:BLP is concerned due to lack of inline supporting citations. Burntsauce 18:17, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep For reasons stated. DanZero 04:22, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - though DanZero's account cannot really be described as an s.p.a. to the extent that Bittenbender's can, 22 of his first 40 edits have been objections to wrestling afds. Grutness...wha? 10:06, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I posted a note to the prowrestling.wikia.com forum asking for guidance regarding whether it is possible to transwiki these articles on Afd. While we are discussing the people attending the Wrestling afds, a number are active on the Pro Wrestling project: Nikki311, MPJ-DK, Darrenhusted and Nenog have all voted delete on these Wrestling Afds. John Vandenberg 11:30, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't vote, I put 20 23 of them up for nomination, because they were all de-PROD-ed. The list of PRODs was on the to-do list of the talk page, as is the list of AfDs. Do you have a point John? Darrenhusted 11:34, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I dont see the distinction you are making there; the nom is in principle considered an opinion to delete, unless the nom specifically state that it is a procedural nomination. All I am saying is that the WP:PW opinion is the main opinion being voiced on these nominations, and so far I have yet to see a WP:PW opinion that differs from the nom. I think it is something the closing admin needs to be aware of. John Vandenberg 14:39, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a member of WP:PW, I'm a wrestling fan doing my own "Personal" wrestling contributions here. One of the contributions is to delete some of the articles that do not belong on wikipedia to help improve the image of pro wrestling here. If you'd care to look then you'd see that I don't just vote "delete" to all wrestling AFDs, far from it - when I think they're worth saving I vote for that, plenty of people can attest to that, Hackney sure can ;). So how about you focus on the article and the problems stated about it instead of starting to attack the voters or their intentions. Look at my contribution list on my user page and tell me that I'm some guy trying to hurt the pro-wrestling articles on Wikipedia - I'm just not a blind mark who thinks all things wrestling related needs to be on Wikipedia. And please everyone else, let's just get back on topic here. MPJ-DK 12:31, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wasnt looking at the members list so much as the people who have been active on the talk page, add have seen the long list of wrestling articles that have been proposed there to be deleted. I am not insinuating foul play or attacking the people who are voting here. I am simply letting the closing admin know that a number of opinions on these Afds are coming from a subset of the wider Wikipedia community, and that due to discussion on the Project talk page, they probably all had already formed an opinion to delete these articles before the Afds nominations. I havent tried to save these articles because all attempts to dispute notability have been shot down. (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tony Rumble). John Vandenberg 14:39, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You were the one who rounded these articles up in to this seperate category, making it easier to cast multiple votes. And all these pages had been discussed at WP:PW before PRODs were added (meaning that the project already felt they were not worth keeping). Is it any surprise that once they were put in to AfD that they would attract votes from those at WP:PW? I'm sure the closing admin will take this in to account, but ask yourself if these article survive who (other than WP:PW) will be tasked with improving the articles? Darrenhusted 14:49, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Many of the votes I am referring to came before I even had a chance to WP:DELSORT them onto the list of Wrestling-related deletions. Who will maintain and improve them? The creators, random IPs, the people that de-proded the articles, etc; and they are on my watchlist now too. John Vandenberg 15:39, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As a common courtesy to the pro wrestling project many people who put wrestling articles up for AFD list them on the main page, so that those who KNOW the subject can chime in on any notability that may not be shown in the article. Of course people who participate in the WRESTLING project will vote on WRESTLING related AFDs, it's just common sense - no one has solicitated "deletes" or "keeps", they're listed so that the members and others can go and voice their opinion - it's a neutral listing and as such isn't anything that needs to be "noted to the admin" because it's not telling people to go and vote a certain way just that the AFD is there in case they miss it. MPJ-DK 16:05, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent) See [114] and [115] for Pre-PROD discussion. Darrenhusted 16:09, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As a member of the wrestling project, I vote on all the wrestling related deletions, because that is information that I am familiar with. I don't vote with the project and nobody solicitated my vote. I vote based on my own opinions. Also, I regularly check the "wrestling related deletions" (that John V. puts articles under) and vote on articles that the wrestling project may not even know are up for AfD. None of the recent articles listed for deletion IMO are notable enough to warrant an article (and that is my opinion based on looking over the articles in question). Furthermore, I don't always vote delete...if I think an article deserves to stick around, I vote keep (for example the Martha Hart article that was recently up for AfD). I'd prefer you not question my voting record or accuse the project of vote stacking, because we are not guilty of either. Nikki311 17:57, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One more thing. Goovy is a member of WP:PW and he voted "weak keep". At the project's talk page we indicate that articles are up for AfD and let the individual members decide whether or not they are worth saving. Nikki311 17:59, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment My nickname is spelt Govvy and I am no longer a part of the project. Also, the article hasn't been improved at all. Not a good sign. Govvy 15:02, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. I didn't know you had left. Sad. :( Nikki311 05:22, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is close to getting closed or relisted, but I'm a bit disappointed in how off-topic this discussion has meandered. It's wandered into a debate on whether WP:PW is guilty of block voting with next to no debate on the article itself. Morgan Wick 07:48, 4 July 2007 (UTC) Comment, Five deletes, two keeps (one by an SPA, another by an editor with few edits outside of AfDs), what is left to debate? The article has not been greatly improved. Darrenhusted 13:38, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have cleaned up the article, added three citations to help support this wrestler. It's not perfect, but helps support him, the wins of the ECW and ECWA belts with citation support helps for a pass on WP:BIO Athlete. Article could still do with more work. Govvy 13:52, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I've changed my vote from before. While, the article still needs some more cleaning up and could do with some more sources, it has been worked on. I now think maybe Osbourne is notable enough to keep. He did win the ECW Television Championship (the youngest winner in the history of the title) and held it for about 5 months. Nikki311 19:06, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 04:09, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Madison

PROD removed, non-notable wrestler, fails WP:V, WP:A and WP:BLP. Darrenhusted 00:04, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom and my original vote. Nikki311 00:39, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non notable independent wrestler. Nenog 03:36, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Oyster Guitarst 04:23, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletions. —John Vandenberg 09:55, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 10:00, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. MPJ-DK 11:39, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 04:56, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ron Hutchinson

PROD removed, non-notable wrestler, fails WP:V, WP:A and WP:BLP. Darrenhusted 00:04, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom and my original vote. Nikki311 00:40, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn; the HOF link doesn't even work. JJL 03:12, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, while he did trained several notable wrestlers, he himself is not that notable. Nenog 03:35, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable, by the way the wikiquote had nothing on him. Oyster Guitarst
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletions. —John Vandenberg 09:56, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Claims of notability were not supported by any reliable sources --- indeed not by any sources at all -- either in the article or in this debate. DES ^(talk) 23:08, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jake Milliman

PROD removed, non-notable wrestler, fails WP:V, WP:A and WP:BLP. Darrenhusted 00:04, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom and my original vote. Nikki311 00:45, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, wrestled as a jobber, won no titles, and the article has no sources. Nenog 03:34, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not a notable wrestler and no sources. Oyster Guitarst 04:17, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletions. —John Vandenberg 09:56, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Very notable wrestler for AWA in the 1980s and 1990. He won a ton of important matches and was a big part of the AWA. He won the Team Challenge Series battle royal, he beat Col. Debeers in the "Turkey on a pole match" and was a phenomenal wrestler. Needs an article. Dannycali 00:27, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, he does not "need" and article. His notability is questionable, try establishing it. Darrenhusted 12:38, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, wikipedia is not a place for articles on jobbers. MPJ-DK 11:40, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment in the nature of pro wrestler, some of the "loser" wrestlers can be as notable and important as midcard ones. Just because you think he is a "jobber" doesn't mean it should be deleted. Dannycali 03:17, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...and it's not a reason to keep him. Darrenhusted 11:30, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...and you are a jerk and idiot. Dannycali 02:05, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...reign it in there tough guy. Darrenhusted 08:30, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep For reasons given by dannycali. Should Barry Horowitz not have an article just because he was a jobber? DanZero 04:34, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, no. I know who Barry Horowitz is, but I have never heard of Jake Milliman. Darrenhusted 12:16, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 05:14, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rick Fuller

PROD removed, non-notable wrestler, fails WP:V, WP:A and WP:BLP. Darrenhusted 00:03, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom and my original vote. Nikki311 00:40, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. Nenog 03:38, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Oyster Guitarst 04:15, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletions. —John Vandenberg 09:56, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A huge part of WCW in their peak of 1997-1999 and was featured in several of their video games. Won tons of matches on Nitro and Saturday Night, and he deserves an article, and is very notable. Dannycali 00:29, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, valid points, not reflected by this article, it has no references for a start, and what has he done since 1999? Darrenhusted 22:31, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Transwiki (or delete) For reasons given by Dannycali. Certainly an article I plan on adding to in the near future, and I hope others do too. DanZero 04:36, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment after some basic research, it seems that Fuller never really achieved notability outside of the scope of his WCW Saturday Night-type status.--DanZero 15:56, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment try to make the "near future" some time this week. Darrenhusted 11:48, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You know, some of us do have lives outside of this thing, we don't always have the time to find sources or improve articles. He is very notable, had a long career in WCW, one of the biggest wrestling orgs ever, and was pushed to an extent. Check ddtdigest.com or something. Dannycali 03:16, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 05:11, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chet Jablonski

PROD removed, non-notable wrestler, fails WP:V, WP:A and WP:BLP. Darrenhusted 00:03, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom and my original vote. Nikki311 00:46, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Oyster Guitarst 04:14, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletions. —John Vandenberg 09:57, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom MPJ-DK 11:38, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment heh, I remember this Chet guy, seen him in a few job matches. You might want to keep a backup just in case he does make it. But from what I seen I can't see it happening!! Govvy 23:49, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. My thanks to the WP:PW project for taking this head on. Burntsauce 18:16, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki Article isn't particularly well-developed, not sure if there is a proper wrestling wiki to send it to, though. For that matter, why the heck is there so much effort being put into pro wrestling on wikipedia if there will be so much deletionism? Might as well just create a pro wrestling wikipedia with teeth. DanZero 04:44, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 05:06, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Bradley

PROD removed, non-notable wrestler, fails WP:V, WP:A and WP:BLP. Darrenhusted 00:04, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom and my original vote. Nikki311 00:39, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nobility is he was signed to a WWE developmental contract for three years but never called up. Nenog 03:37, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Oyster Guitarst 04:13, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletions. —John Vandenberg 09:57, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. MPJ-DK 11:39, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Bradley was one of the most notable WWE developmental wrestlers of the early 2000's.--DanZero 07:52, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just added more content to the page in addition to a handful of references, please reconsider if this meets notability standards.--DanZero 08:22, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can't use youtube as a ref, and his OWW basically says "signed to dev deal, released from deal in 2002" this statement applies to hundreds of wrestlers and is not enough to establish notability. Darrenhusted 11:12, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Peacent 03:13, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Destine

Non-notable, only sources are myspace and bands own website. Google brings up nothing but passing mention on NME which appears to have also previously shown many other non-notable bands. Only author also has same user name as lead singer of band. Jimmi Hugh 00:02, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete vanity article with no notability. --David Andreas 01:06, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-Per nom ChrisLamb 01:16, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Oyster Guitarst 04:11, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 10:01, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 10:01, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No evidence they satisfy WP:BAND such as charted hits or articles about them in reliable independent sources. Edison 16:12, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the band is simply not notable. Acalamari 18:14, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Mostly about future possibilities. Hu 20:52, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy keep, #1, nomination withdrawn and no other editors favor deletion. —C.Fred (talk) 01:39, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yahya b. Ibrahim

From speedy. I am not familiar with the matter but do not think A7 is correct here. Please consider article on AfD Alex Bakharev 00:48, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For what reasons? --Bduke 00:55, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- For what reason I have removed {{db-bio}} or for what reason consider its deletion? I have removed db-bio because I do not believe A7 is applicable here: some claims of notability are made. I guess the original tagger did not consider Yahya b. Ibrahim to be notable. I would also add that the article is not easily verifiable as no online references are providedAlex Bakharev 01:04, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- After looking into Google hits there seems to be plenty of online references. The guy seems to be notable. I am withdrawing my nomination. Any objections? Alex Bakharev 01:10, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 05:07, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GECKO Sri Lanka

The subject of the article fails WP:ATT. Nv8200p talk 11:37, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete Not notable or sourced. Reywas92^Talk 12:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, moreover Google hits are non-related. Punkmorten 14:34, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:46, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unreferenced and non notable. I too Sri Lankan myself but I have never heard of it. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{walkie-talkie} 16:25, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no sources. John Vandenberg 08:01, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge to New Democratic Party candidates, 2003 Ontario provincial election DES ^(talk) 22:24, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cory Judson

Non-notable failed political candidate - garnered less than 6% of popular vote in a by-election. Remove the fact that this person ran for office, none of the rest of the article merits inclusion. Does not meet the criteria set forth for politicians in WP:BIO. Agent 86 18:00, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect, per precedent. CJCurrie 23:19, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete failed political candidates are not notable. Resolute 23:39, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I agree, failed candidates aren't notable. GreenJoe 01:13, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 14:47, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unelected political candidates aren't generally notable enough for their own articles, true, but they're unequivocally and without exception permitted inclusion in a merged list of a party's candidates in any given election. Merge to New Democratic Party candidates, 2003 Ontario provincial election (which does already have sections for other byelection candidates post-2003.) Bearcat 02:33, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
merge per CJCurrie and Bearcat and precedent. Ground Zero | t 02:40, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.--Fuhghettaboutit 12:18, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jillian Zoboroski

Fails Wikipedia:Biography; article about an unmemorable reality star on a show with low ratings Irk _(talk) 22:21, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "Former reality television star" is an oxymoron. She's just a college student, folks. Shalom ^Hello 05:47, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 14:48, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fuhghettaboutit 03:52, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Reality show stars are not notable unless they do something notable past their 15 minutes on the TV Corpx 04:15, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As per Corpx. --Jacques Pirat ^Talk 04:34, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:BIO. Carlosguitar 10:51, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

^ Rilo Kiley - It'S A Hit Lyrics

[1] Rilo Kiley - It'S A Hit Lyrics

[1]