Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 June 9

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Purge server cache

Contents 1 Faster is Better : French 2 T.N. Baker 3 Dance Wiv Me 4 Fumble Rumble 5 Give a Little Love (The Judds album) 6 SKE48 7 Blatz (band) 8 PadmaPrasad 9 Slam book 10 Triplemania 11 Paintbrush (software) 12 Plastic Little (rap group) 13 Eastbury Farm J.M.I primary school 14 A Very Special Love Movie 15 Dinner For Schmucks 16 Cherry potato 17 St John's CofE Primary School 18 A Man, A Band, A Symbol 19 Peter Hammerschlag 20 Somastate 21 Krewe of Orion 22 I'll Be Lovin' U Long Time 23 Getaway car 24 Easter Eggs in Grand Theft Auto 25 Herschell Wynton 26 Poptropica 27 Elephant in the Sand 28 3OH!3 29 Audience of One 30 Abhi Nahi Tou Kabhi Nahi 31 Tru Thoughts 32 Adam seth Nelson 33 Battrick 34 Mahmoud Abu Shandi 35 The Goonies 2 (film) 36 DVS: Dose verification system 37 Alice Russell (singer) 38 ReaSoft Image Converter 39 Reasoft pdf printer 40 LinkConnector 41 Life-shield blanket 42 Sean Garrity 43 Tore Rønningen 44 Huggy Wuggy 45 Californian independence 46 Shahnaz Husain 47 Controversies surrounding the Indian National Army 48 Prime+ 49 L reborn 50 Beyblade timeline 51 The Fly (magazine) 52 Cher's Forthcoming album 53 Ed Biado 54 Etoo 55 Igor the Assassin 56 Interconnect agreement 57 May Be 58 Shojo 59 The Visioner's Tale 60 We All Die One Day 61 Zdzisław Kaczmarczyk 62 List of emo artists 63 Baron Of Glastry 64 IT sourcing 65 Not Happy, John 66 Lee County High School (Leesburg, Georgia) 67 Wanderlust (1991 novel) 68 Exopolitics 69 The Works (Band) 70 Mary Hanley (Edmonton) 71 Andy Carlson 72 Mae-Wan Ho 73 Anti-knot 74 Breakout (album) 75 Turaga (Bionicle) 76 Dickipedia 77 Harriet Sylvia Ann Howland Green Wilks 78 TaskMaker 79 Comet (song) 80 Howard Steven Brown 81 Allegations of Israeli apartheid 82 The Mixtape About Nothing 83 N-Tyce 84 3g iphone 85 XMPlay 86 IDance 87 The International Scope Review 88 The Social Capital Foundation 89 Cubans of Brazil 90 Brad Chalk 91 Patrick Hunout 92 Virtle Rock 93 What's New Happening on Disney Channel India 94 Baxall 95 Identifying spiders 96 Naturopathic doctor 97 UFO Phil 98 Ngarto Februana 99 .sport

[edit] Faster is Better : French

Faster is Better : French (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable album by non-notable performer (William Girard) whose own article is nom'd for speedy deletion. There is no speedy criterion for albums, and in fact, speedy deletion is specifically prohibited for albums, even if the artist is nn. Corvus cornix_talk 23:18, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete WP:MUSIC. If it's red, then goodbye to you.  Esradekan Gibb  ^"Talk" 00:16, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete fails to make any claim of notability, and I'm tempted to speedy it just has I did William Girard. What exactly is "chipmunk music" anyway? Are we talking Alvin and the Chipmunks? - auburnpilot talk 00:26, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Why can't this be speedied under the nonsense criteria? I sort of understand what the article is getting at, but it's borderline gibberish. Are we accepting "chipmunk" as a technical term here? Townlake (talk) 01:08, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  • A7 applies only to articles about web content or articles on people and organizations themselves, not articles on their books, albums, software and so on.. Corvus cornix_talk 01:20, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Righto And the nonsense criteria isn't A7. Townlake (talk) 03:00, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:MUSIC. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 02:54, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] T.N. Baker

T.N. Baker (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Apparently non-notable author. All of the information seems to be a rework of the bio on her website, including the part about liking hot bubble baths. BradV 22:52, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• KEEP A quick google reveals that this is areal novelist, she has a novel out form St. martin's press, no small accomplishment. The novels appear to be black romance novels, or, perhaps, black chick-lit. I'm pretty ognorant about both genres. However, I think that four novels (that's how amny appear on Amazon) from real(i.e. not vanity) presses qualifies a writer for Wikipedia. About the article, however, what can I say. Wholly inadequate. But hang a needs improvement tag on it, rather than deleting it.Elan26 (talk) 00:39, 10 June 2008 (UTC)Elan
• Delete There are no reliable secondary sources that establish notability. The only source is a personal website. Fails WP:BIO. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 03:02, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dance Wiv Me

Dance Wiv Me (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is an apparently non-charting, non-notable individual song. No reliable secondary sources that establish notability have been provided, and the only rationale provided is that it has received airplay and is by two notable artists. That's not notability per WP:MUSIC's section on individual songs. Erechtheus (talk) 22:50, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete WP:MUSIC. No chart, no WP:RS, no article.  Esradekan Gibb  ^"Talk" 00:19, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete There are no reliable secondary sources that establish notability. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 03:00, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - a single from two notable artists. It's only been on radio for two days, with no reason to expect it not to chart. --T-rex 13:11, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - Fails WP:MUSIC, as they have had no charts, and also no WP:RS. Soxred 93 13:46, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fumble Rumble

Fumble Rumble (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

I haven't nominated an article for deletion in a bit, so bear with me here. I cannot find anything to substantiate this article in order to qualify its claim of "notability" I'm a huge football fan, but this completely unreferenced article about one play in one game, at the collegiate/non professional level no less, has me baffled as to its inclusion here as a separate article. I've done the appropriate google searches in earnest, and I'm only turning up Wikipedia mirrors. I recommend deletion. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:42, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Non-notable. No reliable sources to speak of, either. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 23:15, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete "The Fumble Rumble is the nickname given to one of the most stunning plays to end an American college football game." Unencyclopedic article. No reliable sources. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 03:05, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - no sources, and no mention in the Las Vegas Bowl article --T-rex 13:12, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Give a Little Love (The Judds album)

Give a Little Love (The Judds album) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

No reliable sources exist for this album. It's not listed on All Music Guide or anywhere else that I can find. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:26, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:27, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Keep – Unless I'm misreading something here, this album appears to have won The Judds their 1988 Grammy for Best Country Performance by a Duo or Group with Vocal. Link to Grammy site – Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:58, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Ah, never mind. It was the song "Give a Little Love", from their album The Greatest Hits. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 23:07, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
    • A little further investigation has led me to a Chicago Tribune article (Jack Hurst. "On the record", March 26, 1987, p. 12) that notes, "The Judds' latest invasion of London has paid off handsomely. Soon after they left, their current British LP, Give a Little Love (the European version of their current U.S. disc, Heartland) took over the No. 1 country album spot in England." Perhaps, then, this article should be moved to Heartland (The Judds album)? Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 23:21, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
      • Heartland only includes nine tracks (see here). I haven't found anything to verify the bonus tracks though. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:42, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
        • It's not All Music Guide, but here is at least some evidence of all the tracks on the European release. The original author of the Wikipedia article stated that the 15-track version is indeed the "1987 German 15-track LP". Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:04, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete No reliable sources. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 03:13, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  • The Chicago Tribune is a reliable source, and it states that this album reached #1 on the country album charts in England. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:06, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Comment I didn't know this was a European release of an American album. I support Erik's idea of moving the page to the American title and mentioning that six tracks were added for the int'l version. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 03:39, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Blatz (band)

Blatz (band) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

No reliable sources to establish notability or verifiability. Fails WP:MUSIC. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 21:59, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] PadmaPrasad

PadmaPrasad (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Questionable notability, no references, possible self-promotion (created by Pprasadnair (talk · contribs). Delete. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 21:30, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Unreferenced. Looks like self-promotion. Thetrick (talk) 23:27, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • The page no longer reads like promotional, but it is still unreferenced and fails to establish notability. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 08:53, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - no claim to notablity --T-rex 13:32, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Slam book

Slam book (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article has been tagged as unreferenced and original research for way too long! The closest thing to a reference is the connection to the movie Mean Girls but the book in that isn't even called a "Slam book" but apparently a "burn book". I can't find any encyclopedic sources for this subject. As it stands there is no verifiability. It may be that these books do exist but without references we have to assume that the analysis is pure original research. DanielRigal (talk) 21:28, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - Appears to be original research and a neologism of some sort as well. TN‑X-Man 21:36, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Keep but source. Numerous Google Books results indicate there are substantive sources available for this adolescent culture topic. --Dhartung | Talk 21:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the phrase is in use but does not seem to have a consistent meaning that enables us to write about it in a coherent, encyclopedic way, hence the confused mess that the article is currently in. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:53, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Keep there are news articles ( http://www.timesrecordnews.com/news/2008/jun/03/rush-not-your-mamas-diary/) appearing on the phenom as described in the article, which needs sources. It is a useful function for wikipedia to define terms appearing in pop culture.Elan26 (talk) 00:56, 10 June 2008 (UTC)Elan26

That is not a news article about slam books, it is a news article about something else that mentions slam books briefly, in passing. It might give us some clues to infer what a slam book is but it doesn't get us any closer to an encyclopaedic article on the subject. Remember that Wikipedia is not a dictionary. We need to do more than define terms. --DanielRigal (talk) 11:17, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Triplemania

Triplemania (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Confused, no-context essay about an organisation or something else involved with wrestling. Its "references" defy comprehension. Even if this turns out to exist and be notable, it still fails WP:V and WP:NOR.  Sandstein  21:24, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. This is so incoherent that, even if it is a notable subject, it would be better to delete it and let somebody start over with a clean sheet. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:36, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - rambling without a topic, as such no real claim of notability. --T-rex 13:34, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Paintbrush (software)

Paintbrush (software) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable software article full of images which should also probably be deleted. Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 21:17, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - Non-notable software, lists itself as a copy of other software, and no references. TN‑X-Man 21:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Just being open source isn't notability. Probably best to redirect to Paint (software), as Paintbrush is the former name of the Windows equivalent. --Dhartung | Talk 21:42, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - Doesn't show notability. Soxred 93 02:44, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per above WP:N. Amor amor (talk) 11:48, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Weak Keep - appears to be notable (even if no real claim is made), although article is very poorly written --T-rex 13:37, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Plastic Little (rap group)

Plastic Little (rap group) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

This group fails WP:MUSIC; judging by All Music Guide, they have released only one full-length album (She's Mature) on what seems to be a small indy label. But the talk page suggests that things are controversial here. B. Wolterding (talk) 21:08, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - According to the talk page, there may be some reliable sources out there for this group. However, I could not find them, and as such, group does not meet WP:BAND. TN‑X-Man 21:40, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as the group fails WP:MUSIC as established by the nominator. JBsupreme (talk) 10:16, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A Very Special Love Movie

A Very Special Love Movie (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article subject fails to meet the relevant notability guideline OnlyinTheatresThisChristmas (talk) 20:49, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete: per nom. Fails to assert notability as per WP:MOVIE. Victor Lopes (talk) 21:03, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. I was quite prepared to register a keep, since we don't delete film articles just because they're not American or European, but the film doesn't even seem to exist yet. The link to imdb goes to an entirely different film. "A Very Special Love Movie" may be another title for the film linked at imdb, but it doesn't star Sarah Geronimo. There are too many unanswered questions here. Corvus cornix_talk 22:29, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: Nobody said the article would be deleted just because the film is not American or European. Victor Lopes (talk) 22:35, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. —Lenticel ^(talk) 23:30, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• comment the movie came out on 13 February 2008 in the Philippines but under a deffent movie titleOo7565 (talk) 04:54, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Nope. That movie is My Best Friend's Girlfriend which has a working title of A Very Special Love. The movie in question is an upcoming movie.--Lenticel ^(talk) 10:04, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - links and sources don't appear to match up. Regardless an entry on imdb alone is not a claim of notablity --T-rex 13:39, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dinner For Schmucks

Dinner For Schmucks (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:NFF. No prejudice towards recreation when reliable sources can be provided to show that filming has begun. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 20:03, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Keep, reliable sources - [3], [4]. Corvus cornix_talk 22:32, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A Man, A Band, A Symbol

A Man, A Band, A Symbol (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

500 copy compilation album featuring minor bands, released by a redlink record label. No reliable sources cited. Prod was removed with the comment "deprod please take to afd for consences please". J Milburn (talk) 19:29, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 19:40, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete No reliable sources, red link record label, mostly non-notable artists. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 19:41, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per reasons given by TPH. ArcAngel (talk) (Review) 20:27, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete WP:MUSIC & WP:RS.  Esradekan Gibb  ^"Talk" 00:30, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - being a cover album doesn't help it's notablity --T-rex 14:13, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Somastate

Somastate (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Previously speedied, I've decided to give this one a chance at AFD, just in case... A band article with no independant sourcing, and IMHO no real indication given of notability. TexasAndroid (talk) 18:32, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Speedy delete Seems to be pure advert. Thetrick (talk) 19:35, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete There is nothing in the article to support notability. ArcAngel (talk) (Review) 20:21, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy delete - No notable album release, no hit singles, no record deal. TN‑X-Man 21:42, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• Comment by Tnxman307 is irreverent and incorrect. They have both toured with reputable bands and have their CD available through reputable sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.158.143.28 (talk) 01:47, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Krewe of Orion

Krewe of Orion (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

I WP:PRODded this article about a Mardi Gras crew for lack of notability. The PROD was contested with comment: "all MG crews are probably N." I disagree. As it stands, this is a local club with 300 members. Many such clubs exist (even when restricting to Mardi Gras, Carnival, Fastnacht etc. groups) and they would certainly not automatically pass WP:ORG, in the absence of some truly convincing secondary sources. However, I found only some mentioning in the local press, and directory-style announcements. B. Wolterding (talk) 18:25, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment It's almost all behind pay gates, but with ~90 sources I'd think there has to be something with which to build an article. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 18:49, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • From the summaries, it seems like what I saw on Google web search: mentions in the local press (The Advocate, Baton Rouge), and many directory-style announcements. --B. Wolterding (talk) 18:57, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• comment I hope there's more to say about it from the press mentions. But I notice its not the New Orleans MG, so I'm not sure about significance. I notice that particular Mardi Gras does not have an article of its own, so quite possibly the individual components might not yet be notable. Best solution problably is to use thisas a stat for an article on it. DGG (talk) 20:24, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] I'll Be Lovin' U Long Time

I'll Be Lovin' U Long Time (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

This song from Mariah Carey's album E=MC² is claimed to be the next single. The article lacks verification through reliable sources that it will, in fact, be released as a single. Although it was performed at a concert in Japan, please notice previous claims of upcoming singles from that album based on such incomplete information: [5], [6] and others. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 18:22, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Please note that unlike "Love Story" (which had only a couple of interviews supporting it, right after the release of "Bye Bye") and "Migrate" (which was never announced as a single, officially nor unofficially), "I'll Be Lovin' U Long Time" has the "support" of various paparazzi pictures showing her filming the video. Now, that's not official, but I'm just making note of it. Plus, this single was released in Japan already (hence the Japanese charts, although I also realise that they're not the official Oricon charts). Due to the fact that it's not officially verifiable at this point, can't this be made into a redirect to the album page until otherwise proven or disproven? SKS2K6 (talk) 18:28, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • The parallel to Migrate is the fact that this ecyclopedia was flooded by speculations of it being released as a single after it was performed on SNL, just like this sing was performed in Japan. If the article contained any verifiable and reliable sources at all to support the claim that this song is being released as a single, I would drop this whole thing. But there is absolutely nothing. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 18:35, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
    • But it's already charting in Japan, which makes it somewhat notable regardless of whether it becomes the third single in North America/Europe or not. As there is only a little bit of info regarding the Japanese release, it can easily be merged into the album article until we get confirmation of release in the States. That way, we don't delete the page history, which is not the thing to do apparently, according to Wikipedia:AFD#How_to_discuss_an_AfD. SKS2K6 (talk) 18:42, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
      • I understand the point you're trying to make about it charting in Japan, but having only a link to the Japanese Billboard charts, where do we get enough verifiable information to write an article larger than a stub? WP:MUSIC#Songs states A separate article is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article. I'm arguing that this is not the case for this song. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 18:56, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
        • I'm not arguing for this article to be kept. I'm just saying that a merge and redirect is preferable over deletion. SKS2K6 (talk) 19:04, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

*Keep - Isn't This and That enough proof?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by J.s.a.s. (talk • contribs) 18:45, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• A file sharing service and an unreliable site? No. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 18:47, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• What we mean by reliable and verfiable sources is something official, like a statement from her record company confirming the release, or Billboard releasing a news blurb confirming it, etc.. Although Carey stating it is not totally unreliable, the fact of the matter is that these things can be changed at any time (like "Love Story" from this album, or "Say Somethin'" from her last). SKS2K6 (talk) 18:49, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

*I get your point, but u can see her shooting the video....if thats not enough proof, i dont know what is....J.s.a.s. (talk) 18:53, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• • WP:V and WP:RS will tell you what is enough proof. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 18:57, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete No reliable info about a release date and like with 'Migrate' Just because she performed it doesn't automatically make it a single. CRocka05 (talk) 22:07, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Confirmed as the third single from E=MC2 in the United States by All Access. It will go for Pop, Rhythmic, and Urban adds on July 1st. [7] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Goldsoundz86 (talk • contribs) 00:00, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Weak keep, as it seems it indeed charted in Japan. Needs better sources than message boards, though. Anyway, we'll learn soon whether it's the official third single or not. – Alensha ^talk 00:16, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Weak keep We have plenty of other articles on songs, and Mariah Carey is supposedly famous or something. So I'm not sure why this should be deleted, just because it might not be an actual single. M1ss1ontomars2k4 (talk) 05:57, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Getaway car

Getaway car (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Seems to be a dicdef. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 18:18, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Definitely seems like a dicdef to me.ArcAngel (talk) (Review) 20:24, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Easter Eggs in Grand Theft Auto

Easter Eggs in Grand Theft Auto (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Completely in-universe; essentially a guide to finding Easter eggs, which is one of the things Wikipedia is not for. I'm sure eeggs.com or some other wiki will gladly take such a list though. Wafulz (talk) 18:16, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• delete - unless there is some kind of third party reference for it. I did reform the article so I can at least read it. Mostly not even true 'easter eggs' but comments on links from previous versions of the game. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 18:22, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - per WP:NOT (plot summaries, manual or guidebook, original research). --B. Wolterding (talk) 18:44, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 19:53, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Most of the "easter eggs", rely on the user finding them (original research) or are highly subjective. Thus should be deleted, unless reliable sources are found that comment on the "easter eggs". NanohaA'sYuri^{Talk, My master} 20:11, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:GAMEGUIDE. ArcAngel (talk) (Review) 20:25, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia isn't a game guide. RobJ1981 (talk) 20:41, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - the article adds undue weight to an unnotable topic. Possibly a merge into the series article would be apprpriate,or maybe a transwiki to a suitable gaming wiki. Gazimoff ^Write_Read 23:39, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Theres a section in Electronic Gaming Monthly about easter eggs in GTA, you can probably make a decent article using that source. But its still fancruft and should not be on Wikipedia. -- Coasttocoast (talk) 01:17, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - per WP:NOT#GUIDE. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 04:38, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Weak delete unencyclopedic even though I love easter eggs. M1ss1ontomars2k4 (talk) 05:58, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per all the above.Jasynnash2 (talk) 08:49, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Herschell Wynton

Herschell Wynton (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article about a producer who has produced 1 million songs (an unsourced statement of course). Gives 5 references but none are articles with non-trivial coverage about this guy, per WP:MUSIC... most are just track listings. We need better sources, otherwise the article should be deleted. Rividian (talk) 17:57, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete I doubt that anyone could produce a million songs, that's probably an exaggeration or total BS. The lack of reliable sources is most telling, as is the lack of background in the infobox (hate it when people do that). Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 18:21, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per lack of verifiable reliable sourcing. ArcAngel (talk) (Review) 20:26, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. The claim to producing a million songs seems to be based on the idea that the subject created 62 samples, which were supposedly downloaded 1.5 million times, and most of those downloads were by other artists to use those samples in their songs. Thus, he supposedly contributed to a million songs. I can't find sources to support his claims, though. The subject may well be an up and coming music producer, but being up and coming is not necessarily enough to satisfy WP:MUSIC. For this article to be kept, the hype would need to be toned down and the sources would need to be boosted up. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:22, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Poptropica

Poptropica (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

It's a non notable game. Megata Sanshiro (talk) 17:44, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 18:01, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• Comment. Can you please go into more detail about the steps you've taken to make reasonably certain that this article cannot be improved, and that we are best off with not covering this topic rather than covering it in some other way, and the places and methods you've used to search for more sources? --Kizor 19:10, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• Comment A quick Google search is comes up with ~44K results. Most of the ones I saw in them were either forums, blogs, or other unreliable(?) sites. Given the results of the above (and that the subject is an online game), it seems that it may not be notable or at least not notable yet. If no reliable sources can be found, the my !vote is delete. NanohaA'sYuri^{Talk, My master} 20:28, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep The sources seem like an acceptable starting point. NanohaA'sYuri^{Talk, My master} 23:22, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. Reliable sources - [8], [9],. Corvus cornix_talk 22:43, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• Weak keep adequately attested on the web. JJL (talk) 23:09, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• Comment. I am the author of the article. I revisit the article every couple of days to clean it up and make sure the original context and grammar is upheld. This article references an extremely popular kids game, and kids love to come in and add their own commentary to the article ( hence the occasional poor grammar ). Thank you for the suggestions and article points for reference. I will go into the article and update immediately. Idocartoons (talk) 14:05, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Elephant in the Sand

Elephant in the Sand (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

It isn't notable enough to have an article as it's just a mixtape Shadyaftrmathgunit (talk) 17:20, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. Doesn't give the impression of being professionally produced, and only notability it touts is how many times it was downloaded. No notability established. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 18:52, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete What Dennis said. No reliable sources, no official production, and mixtapes are rarely notable anyway. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 19:00, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per the section of WP:MUSIC dealing with demos, bootlegs, and mixes. ArcAngel (talk) (Review) 20:29, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per all the good reasons stated above. Fails WP:MUSIC.  Esradekan Gibb  ^"Talk" 00:33, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 3OH!3

3OH!3 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

No assertion of notability per BAND. The band is playing the Warped Tour, but there are at least 85 bands on the official list, so I don't feel that it is a strong enough assertion of notability, being that they are not a headliner. Being on Warped is not an automatic N, either, as quite a few bands on the comps (since 1998) have no articles, and the total band list is much larger than the comp album list. This band has opened for artists, which is no big deal for a band - local bands open shows all the time, and I don't know that the headliner has anything to do with that process as opposed to the venue booker. Most tellingly, all their listed shows are Denver-area, which is where they are from, meaning that they are a local band that has not toured outside of their city. Prod was removed by a Denver-area IP who has never edited anything save that article, which means there may be a COI issue here as well. MSJapan (talk) 17:19, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. Indy band, signed to an indy label that seems equally insignificant (in fact, it's up for PROD right now). Hopefully they get their name out there, but until notability is established, nothing for here. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 18:54, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• "Save". Acts are Colorado based not Denver based, which is less local than the original argument suggests. Myspace Page has close to 1.5 million hits, which indicates some renown. Music Style is Unique, possibly original creation. In addition to that, its sound provideds pride to residents of Colorado. Its a unique thing for the state, and everyone loves them. This page has been created (then deleted) multiple times by multiple parties, eventually it will have to stay. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.138.126.110 (talk) 20:20, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• Save. This is one of the most notable bands in Colorado. Their popularity and relevance is undeniable. They have sold out show after show across the country. Conversely to what Japan says, they are headlining a portion of the Warped Tour as well. And though other bands on the Warped Tour play only a select few dates (ie: 1 to 10 dates), 3OH!3 is actually on the entire tour. The significance of being on the Warped Tour CD is important too as only the most relevant and large bands are on the CD thanks to tour founder Kevin Lyman. Also, KTCL in Denver has a long history of discovering such bands as the Flobots and The Fray and 3OH!3 is just the next band in line. I urge this page to remain here and it has to remain eventually. 3OH!3 is too significant for this band not to have their own page. Ajkaneobrien (talk) 23:05, 9 June 2008 (UTC) — Ajkaneobrien (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • You'll pretty much need to demonstrate this. Need reliable sources that are verifiable that demonstrate notability. Saying how important they are, frankly, isn't sufficient. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 01:08, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC, WP:RS.  Esradekan Gibb  ^"Talk" 00:35, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Save. All the arguments brought up are contradictary by nature. You state that just being a member of the Warped Tour does not represent noteriety, however, this is a tour that has been around for years, and headlining it has not only just jumpstarted many bands carreers, but in some cases (Blink 182) has defined them. If you say that is not a relevent tour and does not warrent a page, then by the same token many bands that have been on the Warped Tour still have a Wikipedia page even though in your eyes they do not deserve it. It is truely a rediculous notion that Headlining an event with so much national prestige such as the Warped Tour is not reason enough for a Wikipedia page. To emphasis what AJKANEobrien said, KTCL, the radio station in Colorado that regularly plays 3 oh! 3 can be credited with boosting the carreers of the Flobots, who recently are on tour and have made television apperances and the National hit, the Fray. With that track record, and a headlining spot on the Warped Tour, it is likely that 3 OH! 3 will recieve great nation attention in the coming months. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.9.227.158 (talk) 02:30, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Audience of One

Audience of One (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

nn high school band of a current indie musician (Anthony Green). The article freely admits the band went nowhere, and the notability policy states that notability is not inherited - Green is notable as part of and because of his band Circa Survive (and that's questionable, IMO, but not up for debate here), not as a solo artist past or present. Unsourced article, prod removed on this and the album by an IP as its only two edits. MSJapan (talk) 16:52, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I am also nominating the album article as an NN album of a NN band.

I Remember When This All Meant Something (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

• Delete both. High school band, garage band for all intents. what more is there to say? --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 18:55, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete both Yea, garage bands don't pass WP:BAND. ArcAngel (talk) (Review) 20:30, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy delete A7 Not notable. Malinaccier (talk) 22:42, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• Comment: There's a very complicated set of interrelated articles associated with Anthony Green (musician). Check out all of the related links to verify notability. Corvus cornix_talk 22:46, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 23:00, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete both per WP:MUSIC.  Esradekan Gibb  ^"Talk" 00:37, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Abhi Nahi Tou Kabhi Nahi

Abhi Nahi Tou Kabhi Nahi (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. Non-notable film, no sources listed. TN‑X-Man 16:52, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. It's not so much that notability isn't demonstrated, it's that notability isn't demonstrated outside of the community it is geared toward. If there's a wiki more geared to this, it really should be there. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 18:10, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tru Thoughts

Tru Thoughts (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Doesn't seem to be a notable label; sources given are primary or Discogs, not reliable.

Also nominating related musicians and albums::

Hint (musician) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Will Holland (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

The Quantic Soul Orchestra (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

The 5th Exotic (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Apricot Morning (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Mishaps Happening (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

An Announcement to Answer (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 16:50, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 16:55, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Notable in my opinion. Sure the articles could need some improvement and additional sources. The keyword 'Tru Thoughts' gets 250.000 hits on Google. However, I am not sure if separate articles for the individual releases are needed. They might be merged into the main artist's articles. Splette :) ^{How's my driving?} 19:07, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:CORP.  Esradekan Gibb  ^"Talk" 00:39, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Please unbundle Too many different issues here, some may be notable and not others. Are there established criteria for notability of record labels? I'm indenting some !votes that may be spread out over different debates if this is unbundled. Mangostar (talk) 02:58, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Keep QSO and merge to Will Holland I could find several profiles of the band by reliable sources. Non-trivial profile coverage from Lexis: Nige Tassell, "For those about to squawk", The Guardian (London), December 7, 2007 (1094 wds); "An eclectic set from quantic", Bristol Evening Post, July 12, 2007 (674 wds); Andrew Drever, "Young and Restless", The Age (Melbourne, Australia), November 12, 2004 (536 wds); MARTIN LONGLEY, "FUNKED UP AND GROOVY", Birmingham Post, December 8, 2003 (266 wds); Louise Ramsay, "Quantic Soul Orchestra Komedia Brighton July 25", UK Newsquest Regional Press - This is Brighton and Hove, July 25, 2003 (433 wds); "Quantic Soul Orchestra", Bristol Evening Post, June 12, 2003 (430 wds); Beth Pearson, "It all went apricot-shaped; Will Holland's life plan ended in early failure, but he has had more than enough success since then to make up for it, reports Beth Pearson", The Herald (Glasgow), December 6, 2002 (804 wds). QSO also gets 240,000 ghits. I think keeping all content about QSO in the Will Holland article makes most sense, because he's had several projects, and it pretty much looks like QSO just is him. Mangostar (talk) 03:10, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Merge QSO album articles Did not find much coverage for individual albums when searching for QSO--don't think the sourcing is there. Mangostar (talk) 03:12, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Hint Could not find adequate independent sourcing in Lexis. Mangostar (talk) 03:15, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Tru Thoughts Haven't thoroughly investigated this one, but with so many ghits and at least two notable artists signed to them (Will Holland/QSO and Alice Russell) they are surely notable. Mangostar (talk) 03:18, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Adam seth Nelson

Adam seth Nelson (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article was previously speedy deleted under the name Adam seth nelson. The subject of the article is an actor turned public relations person. The article is long on name dropping and short on references. A search for reliable sources turns up nothing to substantiate notability. The only Google News result on a search for "Adam Seth Nelson" in quotesis a wedding announcement. Whpq (talk) 16:36, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Is this close enough to the previous version to warrant a G4? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 16:41, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Reply G4 applies only if the deleted article was previously deleted through AFD. The previous article was deleted through a speedy. And in any case, I don't know what the contents of the previous article were. -- Whpq (talk) 16:46, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Whoops, didn't catch that. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 16:47, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete No reliable sources in sight. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 16:47, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - no notability established.  Frank  |  talk  17:13, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Battrick

Battrick (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

A browser-based cricket management game with less than 10,000 members and minimal to no reliable sources; of the three cited references, one is a blog, one is a dead link, and the last is a one-paragraph mention on a specialty sports management game website. I see nothing here that helps this pass WP:WEB other than its connection to Hattrick - and if that's the notability, perhaps this should be merged there instead. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:14, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 16:19, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - I cannot see (or indeed find) any evidence that this passes WP:WEBand there is an absence of reliable sources; although the article does cite three references on closer inspection they are 1) an announcement about an online Q&A session, 2) a blog and 3) a deadlink. At best this merits a short paragraph in Hattrick Limited nancy ^(talk) 17:45, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Appears to fail WP:WEB. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:45, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mahmoud Abu Shandi

Mahmoud Abu Shandi (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

A clearcut case of WP:ONEEVENT - a Palestinian deported from Canada as a security risk. Clarityfiend (talk) 16:03, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:ONEEVENT doesn't seem to link anywhere particular, just Biographies of living persons. CallipygianSchoolGirl (talk) 01:08, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Unless this has established case law or other policy it is NN. Thetrick (talk) 00:59, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] DVS: Dose verification system

DVS: Dose verification system (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

The article, as written, reads like an advertisement for the product; I consider it unlikely to be salvageable. The subject of the article is a niche market tool for clinical radiation dosimetry. (Note that the article describes in detail how to obtain insurance reimbursement for the product, but offers scant comment on the device's operatation—even mention of the type of dosimeter employed is omitted.) While our dosimetry article could use expansion, per WP:NOTCATALOG there is no need for Wikipedia to be a catalog of dosimetry products and services.

The article was created by User:Smg2008, whose only contributions to Wikipedia have been the creation of this article and links to it from high traffic articles like breast cancer and prostate cancer (see Special:Contributions/96.234.60.75). This article was originally PRODded on 5 July; the PROD tag was removed today by the logged-out original author, so I'm bringing it here for further discussion. (In case of any ambiguity, I'll note for the closing admin that my not-vote is to delete this not-article.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:37, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment As it stands, it does read as an advert. However, a quick google search shows that it might be notable - it has been cleared for treatment. It's a shame that there are no notability guidelines for drugs and treatments (well, none that I can see). I would say though that any that are cleared for use on human patients, or trialled drugs/treatments that have received multiple secondary coverage should be notable. With a rewrite, it might make for a good article. StephenBuxton (talk) 16:19, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Additional comment Found this talking about DVS, but it isn't clear if it is the same product. StephenBuxton (talk) 16:23, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• • • I would comment that while the class of devices – implantable dosimeters – may warrant an article in the future, there just isn't enough to say about any particular one to justify a separate article on each. While we have articles on forceps and projectional radiography, we don't have articles on specific makes and models of tweezers or of x-ray machines—nor, per WP:NOTCATALOG, should we. With drugs, we maintain one article for each unique compound; we don't have an article for every generic copy. If someone were interested enough in the topic to write a short, general blurb in dosimetry, that would be superb. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:50, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
      • Sounds sensible. I !vote that the article is merged with dosimetry. StephenBuxton (talk) 06:57, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Alice Russell (singer)

Alice Russell (singer) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

fails WP:MUSIC because the artist does not have any charting music, and the indie label upon which notability might rest relies on her and only two other artists for its notability (they cannot support each other for notability!) - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 15:22, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete as does not comply with WP:V (among others). Myspace.com and Youtube.com videos are not trusted references. If she were of any signficance to warrant an article, google would have turn up more reliable sources that weren't 'planted'. I've actually put this up for a speedy delete earlier today, but now I think AfD is more appropriate. Amor amor (talk) 23:22, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, fails WP:MUSIC, WP:RS, & WP:V.  Esradekan Gibb  ^"Talk" 00:41, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Strong keep Very surprised to see this nominated when scrolling through the AfD list... I have her albums on my computer, so was spurred to do a bit of a hunt for references. Per the Sydney Morning Herald, she has done at least three tours of Australia, satisfying WP:MUSIC. I'm sure she's toured in the US too, because I remember being disappointed I was out of town when the concert near me was. :) Other reliable or semi-reliable news coverage: [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15] (coverage of a European tour). Mangostar (talk) 02:47, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• And more from Lexis:

• The New Zealand Herald, April 15, 2007 Sunday, British soul singer returning to play with the Drop
• Waikato Times (Hamilton, New Zealand), March 24, 2007 Saturday, Return of the soul sister
• The Observer (England), October 22, 2006, The young soul rebels, Elle J Small
• The Evening Standard (Palmerston North, New Zealand), March 17, 2007 Saturday, The grand manor, WHITE Tina
• South China Morning Post, September 17, 2006 Sunday, Alice Russell, Mathew Scott
• The Scotsman, September 15, 2006, Friday, Alice Russell, Fiona Shepherd
• The Press (Christchurch, New Zealand), January 14, 2006 Saturday, sound check; ALICE RUSSELL, ANDERSON Vicki
• The Age (Melbourne, Australia), November 18, 2005 Friday, Expression marks; MUSIC, ANDREW DREVER

• And so on... Mangostar (talk) 02:57, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reasoft pdf printer

Reasoft pdf printer (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

non-notable software ju66l3r (talk) 15:41, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Scientizzle 15:18, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete just like the image converter I can find lots of ghits but, they seem to be just download sites and the like which suggests non-notability from lack of third party coverage. Jasynnash2 (talk) 15:37, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Life-shield blanket

Life-shield blanket (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Crufty topic with no independent sources and no evidence of notability. Gatoclass (talk) 14:55, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete non-notable fancruft ukexpat (talk) 15:42, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable fictional item. Any relevant information should already exist in the main article(s). Jasynnash2 (talk) 15:44, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• Merge/redirect to List of Dune terminology. While the article may not be able to stand on itself as is, it may be able to be merged in with the article that I listed. Otherwise, delete. NanohaA'sYuri^{Talk, My master} 20:36, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sean Garrity

Sean Garrity (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

In-univese biography of a fictional character. This topic is completely OR and unreferenced, and does not establish the notability of the character. Removing the OR material leaves us with no content for the article, so I'm listing it for deletion. Mikeblas (talk) 14:18, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - article has had plenty of time for someone to add a ref. or two, it's been around since 2006. Gatoclass (talk) 15:05, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• Redirect to the entry on him in the list of characters, which seems adequate for the purpose or could be expanded a bit. DGG (talk) 15:43, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Californian independence

Californian independence (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article has no reliable sources that such a movement even exists other than a few Yahoo groups and an essay by someone described as a satirist; notability is not shown and reliable sources do not seem to exist. Large portions of the article are clear original research and essay (WP:SOAP) Article should redirect to List_of_active_autonomist_and_secessionist_movements#United_States, if anything. Stlemur (talk) 09:22, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Also WP:UNDUE. Redirect unnecessary as this doesn't even come close to being a 'movement'. Debate 木 13:21, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as not reliably sourced (unlike Cascadia and the state of Jefferson, both of which have published sources). WillOakland (talk) 20:42, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose Deletion the article needs rewriting to reflect the limited scope of the movement- more a cultural phenomena- but it has published sources reflecting legitimate and existing opinions. Not the New York Times, but legitimate alternative media sites none the less.--David Barba (talk) 06:27, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

• Would you mind posting a couple of your sources? At the moment there's none in the article itself and I'm personally struggling to find anything even half credible... The closest the article gets is a satirical opinion piece from 2002 that includes the highly encyclopedic "10 Most Bitchin' Reasons California Becoming Its Own Country Would Be So Cool". Other sources include a Google group that hasn't been active since October 2007, and a primary source website that is almost completely devoid of content... Debate 木 08:07, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose Deletion I'll agree with David Barba and say that it does indeed need to be rewritten right now, but I don't think it needs to be deleted.

"At the moment there's none in the article itself and I'm personally struggling to find anything even half credible..."

Here's a couple of sources that seem credable:

• Californians for Independence
• Free The Bear: Independence for California

Iveri R. (talk) 20:49, 7 June 2008 (UTC)— Iveri R. (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment Neither of those sites establish notability. One guy with a webpage is not a movement. --Stlemur (talk) 21:57, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

What I was think of when I opposed were a few groups organized several years ago that made news in a few California local and college papers, and if I remember correctly the SF Chronicle or Guardian. However it appears now that they have since disbanded and whatever material there was I can no longer find. What a shame. It's really too bad in my opinion. Far out political movement, that a half jokes to begin with, are really the best and most creative.--David Barba (talk) 23:21, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah ha! I was about to concede my position. But sources found.

"Long Live Secession!", Salon.com

"If at first you don't secede", also Salon

"California Split", New York Times

"Movement explores possibility of California secession", The California Aggie

"Californians Dreaming of Secession?", CNSNews.com

"Forget Canada, let's have California secede" By Jeremy Beecher & "California, independent in everything but reality" by Patt Morrison Daily Trojan and LA Times, I can't find the originals sorry.

Basically, the committee set up in 2005 called "Move On California" to explore California secession got the most press coverage (it appears to have since disbanded) and otherwise secession reflects a popular cultural fantasy, often satirical, yet genuine sentiment none the less. The article does need to be rewritten to reflect to real scope of the "movement" and its cultural and political context- highest affinity following conservative Republican success in the 2002 and 2004 national elections. --David Barba (talk) 00:01, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth:

• 1. is about Vermont and succession generally. California warrants barely rates a paragraph and a half in a much longer article - a couple of flavor quotes from a "former evangelical minister".
• 2. is about Liberal disenchantment, makes some vague commentary on succession generally, and doesn't mention CA succession anywhere specifically.
• 3. is an op-ed, mainly on the USA being too big, with some throw-away speculation that CA might be a candidate for succession someday.
• 4. reports the same single news event as #1. The report notes "5,000 hits and 200 e-mail responses" to the organization's website (following minor news coverage).
• 5. a tiny, cookie-cutter article quoting the "former evangelical minister" again.
• 6. Appears to be a blog, with quotes attributed to the LA Times including "we don't need no stinkin' secession either", an op-ed piece that's more of a general rant.

So anyhow, if a single news cycle story about the loony pronouncements of one individual, coupled with a couple of op-eds that don't even clearly advocate the topic, and a couple of other minor references in articles about something else are enough to establish notability around here then near every boy and his dog, not to mention every piece of trivial satirical commentary, have a case for articles as well. Debate 木 02:56, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. There are enough publications to establish notability.Biophys (talk) 00:35, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I think notability has been established. If you feel the article does not reflect the reality presented in the sources, rewrite the article- don't delete. Debate, you argument at this point comes down to personal preferences (your opinion)- not wikipedia standards. This question veers a bit off-topic and don't take it too personally, but why take wiki and encyclopedic knowledge so seriously? Important to note (since we're discussing Cali anyways) that most Californians have less strict attitudes about these things. This user personally happens to believe all knowledge is ultimately subjective anyways, so get over it.--David Barba (talk) 19:13, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Notability has not been established. Quoting from the General Notability Guideline, we have:

1. Significant coverage: Only trivial coverage has been shown; the news articles linked to all fail the criteria for notability in news coverage.
2. Reliable sources While I'll readily admit the newspapers cited are decent newspapers, their coverage is trivial. The non-trivial coverage does not come from reliable sources; it's blogs, internet fora, and self-published websites.

Furthermore, I'd like to ask that everyone involved in this discussion please refrain from making assumptions about the modes of thought of either their fellow Wikipedians or of Californians. --Stlemur (talk) 19:35, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Quoting Notability guidelines: "News items are generally considered notable (meriting an independent article) if they meet any of the following criteria: 1. The subject of the news item has become the subject of secondary documentation or analysis independent of news services."

The California Aggie, Solan.com, and CNSNews.com are independent of the "movement" and associated groups/individuals in question. The other sources reflect opinions, notable to the sentiment of California secession under discussion (Patt Morrison is not a nobody in California public discourse). Your point about sources: The blogs linked are not the sources- they are reproductions of the articles actually published in reputable sources- LA Times, Daily Trojan ect. It is otherwise difficult to acquire the entire texts from archive for demonstration purposes- to prove what they actually said. If you can help in this regard it would be appreciated. The blogs are not being cited, the newspapers are. Again you are subjectively characterizing this coverage as trivial- your opinion, not the guidelines. Please direct your criticism to rewriting the article.--David Barba (talk) 21:05, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Those news outlets are independent, as I've already stated. Their coverage is, I reiterate, non-subjectively trivial according to the guidelines cited above. I'll quote:

News items are generally considered notable (meriting an independent article) if they meet any of the following criteria: 1. The subject of the news item has become the subject of secondary documentation or analysis independent of news services. This includes being the subject of books, documentaries or non-trivial academic study (i.e. excluding non-scientific surveys), or incorporation in an important public debate. 2. The subject of the news item has set, or has caused to set, a precedent in some way. This includes new laws being passed, novel interpretations of existing law, first tests of new law, notable "first of its kind" achievements, new or increased safety legislation, causing a notable change in societal behaviour or norms, etc. (Predictions that it will set a precedent, however, are inappropriate attempts to predict the future).

(1) is not met, and (2) is not met.

I'm not arguing and have never argued in this discussion that something being copied in a blog makes it an unreliable source; it's simply that every citation provided thus far is either insubstantial, unreliable, or in the case of many of the pieces cited by the article and by you, outright satirical.

As for rewriting the article, the reason why I nominated this article for deletion in the first place is that if one includes in the article only facts cited in reliable sources, there is nothing at all left other than "two websites and a Yahoo group have people who think California should secede from the US." That's not even a stub. --Stlemur (talk) 21:45, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

(1) is clearly met by the sources provided. You are characterizing these sources, from reputed outlets, as "insubstantial, unreliable", selectively judging sources based on personal assessment of content rather than notability.--David Barba (talk) 22:04, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Then show us a book, a documentary, a non-trivial academic study, or an important public debate independent of news services on the subject of Californian independence. --Stlemur (talk) 22:50, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment Note, also WP:UNDUE, which is where we started and which entirely sums things up for me, quote:

• "If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
• "If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
• "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it is true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not." (my emphasis. nb. nor is this an "ancillary article", it's the main article)

Debate 木 00:59, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

To closing admin, note also the vote stacking above. Debate 木 00:59, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Stlemur, the editorial articles included in that list (I believe only the California Aggiee and CNSNews.com are strict news reports) constitute public debate (that's what editorials are), apart of the historical record- even if you and I may find some silly. Some additional sources "How to Secede From Jesusland, Without Really Fighting" SF Weekly, "Political groups want California to secede Union" Daily Titan, "Free California: is independence the answer? " by Robert Nanninga, "Group Explores California Secession" by Jeff Morrissette. But to further assure you there is the documentary A State of Mine (2008) featuring the Move On California group.

Debate, your point is mute in this debate (about deletion) but refers us to another discussion- one I totally agree with having- as to whether and how this article ought to be merged with another more appropriate main article- made into a "ancillary article". And about prominent adherents- Jeff Morrissette founded the since disbanded group Move On California and the current head of the Californians for Independence is Kyle Ellis, attendant to the 2007 Chattanooga 2nd Secessionist Convention put on by the Middlebury Institute wiki: Middlebury Institute. I also hope the large number of texts by different authors shows that this sentiment is/was more popular than a few crackpots. For future reference altering an article or merging it with another in order to better conform with Wikipedia standards is always preferred as opposed to ought right removal of material, apart of operating in good faith of which making false accusations of vote stacking is not. The democratic experiment of Wikipedia is about maintaining an open mind and interest in the unfamiliar.--David Barba (talk) 04:16, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

For the record, none of the additional citations quoted cover anything other than the short flurry of light/novelty news concerning Jeff Morrissette's short-lived 2004 website. Jeff Morrissette is not significant per WP:BLP1E. At best we've established a case for an article about Move On California, however I'd personally argue against that per WP:NOTNEWS. Can I further suggest that there's one editor violating WP:Assume good faith, not to mention borderline WP:Civil, in this debate and it's not me. Debate 木 04:33, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I frankly find your new highly technical argument fairly silly- most wiki articles are based on less than has been established here. I believe notability for an article on California Secession (possibly ancillary) has been established and will let other users come to their own conclusions.--David Barba (talk) 05:22, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

"Other articles are based on less" is not a valid argument in deletion debates. I'm inclined to think, though, that part of the problem here is a dearth of voices; should I re-list the article on AfD so there are more than three opinions here? --Stlemur (talk) 11:59, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Re-listing sounds like a smart idea. This article is obviously controversial and something approximating consensus would be good. Cheers. :) Debate 木 12:06, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stlemur (talk) 13:35, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - none of the sources quoted mention a movement called "Californian Independence" that I can see. There are a couple of sources that quote a movement called "Move On California" but one of them is a student newspaper, which can hardly be described as a notable publication, and the other is CNSNews.com which is a marginal rightwing source. The movement itself also appears to have disappeared shortly after it arose. So I just can't see any reason to have an article on it. Gatoclass (talk) 14:07, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as a non-notable political standpoint with a lack of reliable 3rd party sourcing for verifiability purposes. Jasynnash2 (talk) 16:00, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Keep there are enough sources for this. Problems discussed above can be handled by expansion.DGG (talk) 16:07, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete There may be a lot of rumbling about this but I don't see in the article (or am I aware of otherwise) that this movement has had significant influence on the policies or politics of California or the United States as a whole. Perhaps it could be merged into some California politics article as a compromise. Thetrick (talk) 17:01, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• Merge with Secession in the United States, it isn't especially notable in and of itself but there is enough information to include it as a section in the article about various sundry secessionist movements within the country. Shereth 17:40, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Second Merge proposal. Perhaps in the future it will merit its own article, but not now.--David Barba (talk) 17:52, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Strong delete due to triviality of links above. Spell4yr (talk) 18:04, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• Comment Am willing to support merge although the sourcing would still need to be improved. Jasynnash2 (talk) 08:32, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Non notable, the sources are trivial at best. I don't agree with DGG as many of the sources cited have a tenuous at best connection to Californian Succession, and I'd rather see decent sources exist before the article is (re?)created rather than afterwards. If sources arise in the future then it can always be recreated. May warrant a mention in the general succession article, but given the sourcing issues I'd say just create that section from scratch rather than mergingCaissa's DeathAngel (talk) 09:22, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Shahnaz Husain

Shahnaz Husain (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Wording reads like a public relations puff piece and primarily deals with a companies products and marketing, not a bibliography. The cut-and-pasting of the web page [16] that until recently appeared in the article has been deleted.

• Comment Added missing afd notification to article Duffbeerforme (talk) 13:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. The nominator has only given reasons for editing, not for deletion. The article is sourced and, as I said when I removed the prod tag, there are loads more sources at Google News and Google Books that show clear notability. The very first book hit has a section entitled Shahnaz Husain: World's Greatest Woman Entrepreneur.[17] Phil Bridger (talk) 14:24, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Prime+

Prime+ (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested PROD. Future TV channel with absolutely no assertion of notability or any references whatsoever. A google search brings back far too few hits to be notable. Fails WP:CRYSTAL. Roleplayer (talk) 12:40, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. ukexpat (talk) 15:46, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] L reborn

L reborn (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested PROD. A google search brought back 4 hits, too few for this to be at all notable. In contesting the PROD I was informed that I had got the name wrong and that I should have searched on the original name, for which I got 28 hits. Still not enough, imo. Roleplayer (talk) 12:34, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Keep I feel this should be kept, few results on a single search engine does not mean this deserves deletion. Many things start off small and have few results on search engines, give it time and wait to see what happens is what I say.—Preceding unsigned comment added by LondonKid666 (talk • contribs) 13:23, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• The above comment was originally posted at Talk:L reborn and transferred here by Roleplayer (talk) 15:03, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• In that statement of yours there is an admission that this is not notable yet. I suggest deleting now, and if it does become notable in the future, recreate it providing those verifiable references that prove its notability. -- Roleplayer (talk) 15:27, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Redirect to Death Note per the redirect text that already exists on the page. L reborn doesn't meet the criteria for its own article so this should be a redirect. Jasynnash2 (talk) 16:07, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. —Farix (Talk) 00:58, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete or redirect. I'm not seeing any references for this, and any time a fan favorite is brought back in a contrived manner and it has no references, I'm a little suspicious that it is even real. --Gwern (contribs) 03:00 10 June 2008 (GMT)

[edit] Beyblade timeline

Beyblade timeline (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Is a timeline revealing a plot for a series, is most fancruft and serves little encyclopedic value to wikipedia Angel Emfrbl (talk) 20:56, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• Keep I'd say it serves plenty of encyclopedic value to fans of the show and manga. Ford MF (talk) 21:14, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per other timleline articles - fan-driven content that makes no claims to real-world significance; non-notable & in-universe. Fails our fiction guideline (Please make your voice heard on fiction-related topics!). Eusebeus (talk) 23:21, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

  We don't have a fiction guideline. That's a proposal, and a highly debated one unlikely (if the talkpage is any evidence) to gain consensus. Ford MF (talk) 00:51, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete as it fails WP:FICT, WP:N, and it is mostly OR and original synthesis. -- -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:54, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

  It's no more original synthesis than any other plot summary. Also, your argument is that "similar articles have been deleted in the past"? Ford MF (talk) 00:53, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

  Yeah, it is OS. It is not straight plot summary, its synthesis and making guesses. Also, it is rude to just run around and jump on everyone's deletes. Just make your keep and leave it at that. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:56, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

  See under: wiktionary:debate. Ford MF (talk) 01:47, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

  I presume there was a point there, but as I do like to follow WP:CIVIL, I'll refrain from giving my response. Too bad you have so little confidence in your keep reasons that you have to attack the deletes to try to make it better. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:52, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

  Questioning delete rationales that are iffy or spurious isn't "attacking", it's what is done at AfD. You're not exactly new here. Ford MF (talk) 14:54, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:48, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete This isn't a time line, it is simply a series of tables listing "attacks" which fails WP:FICT in any of its incarnations. --Farix (Talk) 01:01, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete I can't really tell what this article wants to accomplish in the first place. If it was a clearcut fictional timeline, I'd likely !vote delete for failing WP:NOT#PLOT. Now it's just an extreme in-universe mess of statistics (WP:WAF and WP:NOT#STATS). – sgeureka ^t•c 06:50, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:08, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Fails notability criteria for inclusion. Jasynnash2 (talk) 16:09, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per Farix, and because (IMHO) this page looks like little more than an excuse to show off what someone can do with tables. —Dinoguy1000 17:45, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Fly (magazine)

The Fly (magazine) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article has no sources independent of the site itself, and fails the specific criteria laid out at WP:WEB. Seraphim♥Whipp 11:45, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cher's Forthcoming album

Cher's Forthcoming album (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete this article. This article contains pure speculation with no references to back up those rumors. While it is appropriate to post information that may or may not happen with respect to a future album, there must be some reference to the origin of such rumors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JRoman1976 (talk • contribs)

• This nomination was incomplete. It has now been listed. ➨ ЯEDVEЯS used to be a sweet boy 11:42, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete WP:MUSIC & WP:CRYSTAL. If it ain't got a name, delete per TPH Law.  Esradekan Gibb  ^"Talk" 13:32, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete unnamed album which fails WP:MUSIC & WP:CRYSTAL. Really, until it has a name it shouldn't have an article. Jasynnash2 (talk) 16:12, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. It's generally a bad sign when you see an article titled "Whichever Artist's Upcoming New Album" or some variation thereof. At this point it is all speculation as mentioned above and does not warrant an article. Shereth 17:44, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per 10LBHAMMERSLAW Sceptre ^(talk) 23:55, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Too much WP:CRYSTAL, too little notability. Ecoleetage (talk) 01:39, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ed Biado

Ed Biado (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Since they may have a lot of material published under a by-line on the web, the notability of professional writers and journalists can be tricky to understand. Most of the sources cited by this article are things written by Mr Biado himself, which does not confer him with wide notability through independent coverage by reliable sources which have published pieces in which he is the subject. There has also been odd, steady vandalism. A Philippines IP editor has tagged it as spam and as a joke, hinting something here is likely amiss. The article even quotes his Friendster profile. What's that about? Gwen Gale (talk) 15:06, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I brought this speedy up to Gwen following my own hesitations due to the vandalism mentioned above. It was tagged once as a hoax, but the person does exist as a published writer. I agree that I have not been able to find coverage of him yet, and if it isn't found it probably should be deleted (although some seem to be kept, and others deleted in AfDs). However I think the fact that he's a writer for a newspaper asserted enough notability to avoid a speedy on the grounds of A7. I plan to keep looking for coverage of him/his work during the AfD. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 15:23, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, despite his sage advice on socks. Socks are a "basic" consideration for any well-dressed man and attractive socks are an indispensible addition to all male wardrobes, an expert has commented. Thank you for that aperçu, Ed, sock expert; I plan to remember it and think I'll go with navy blue tomorrow. -- Hoary (talk) 15:28, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Trivial accomplishments. But none the less enough accomplishments that it wasnt a speedy. DGG (talk) 17:44, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. —Lenticel ^(talk) 03:03, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete due to notability concerns. There are no independent and reliable source that is focused on the writer himself.--Lenticel ^(talk) 03:11, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:08, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Igor the Assassin

Igor the Assassin (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Completely unverifiable. If this character does really exist, I'm sure he's been very careful to keep out of any reliable sources that we can get access to. The OCNUS reference is really just a blog, and it quotes the News of the World which is more famous for pics of topless girls than actual news. Igor would make a cool web comic character though ;-) — FIRE!^{in a crowded theatre...} 23:42, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. He belongs to Category:Mysterious people, and he is notable as a possible murderer of Alexander Litvinenko - according to some reliables sources and according to one of possible versions of the events. The results of official investigation by British authorities remain secret. So, no one can dismiss such version. I included reference to a book; more references can be found if needed.Biophys (talk) 00:17, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep per Biophys Kuralyov (talk) 00:30, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:09, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete non-notable, maybe real maybe fictional person/character. Any truly relevant information can be added to the article about the event. Jasynnash2 (talk) 16:18, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Keep or at least merge - important figure at the centre of a big scandal; name appears in reliable sources. Biruitorul ^Talk 19:56, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Interconnect agreement

Interconnect agreement (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

I was unable to find any sources that defined this phrase or make it WP:NOTABLE. This article is almost a WP:DICTDEF, an "interconnect agreement" is an agreement to interconnect two networks. It has been a stub since it was created in 2005. Before I proposed the speedy-delete, I tried to think of how to expand this and couldn't think of anything, nor could I think of a good target to redirect. I checked for similar articles to see what I could expand this stub with, but couldn't find similarly used phrases such as "sales agreement", "purchasing agreement", "marketing agreement", "property agreement". WP:SIZE says that if an article stays this small for more than a few months, you should think about merging or something. Wrs1864 (talk) 15:20, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. —Wrs1864 (talk) 15:20, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

• Expand, then keep: This article needs expansion, rather than deletion. Interconnect agreements are typically complex, involving coordination of routing policies, acceptable use policies, traffic balancing requirements, etc. etc. Legal requirements are often an issue: for example, networks may be forced by law to interconnect with their competitors. A good article can certainly be written on this topic. -- The Anome (talk) 15:29, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

• comment yes, that's what I thought, before I actually tried to expand it and find any reliable sources to discuss such issues. It's a geeky topic, and wikipedia has a WP:BIAS toward such issues. Wrs1864 (talk) 15:39, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:09, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. There ought to be some sources available for this. The article itself is written reasonably clearly and seems free from covert commercial agendas. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:58, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] May Be

May Be (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable sailing boat Thetrick (talk) 23:38, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:09, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Redirect to probability. This would seem to be a non-notable private yacht. I am reminded, though, of the profound philosophical discussion alluded to in Gilbert and Sullivan's Princess Ida. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:00, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• May Be Deleted as a self-reference. Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 16:36, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - The boat does exist but it's claim to notability has no reliable sources. --Pmedema (talk) 18:14, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Shojo

Shojo (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

I don't see any good reason for this article to be in Wikipedia. It is all about descriptions on the Japanese term for 'virgin' unlike Shōjo. Appletrees (talk) 05:28, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. They are not even the same word. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 06:04, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 06:06, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Commment I already acknowledge that these two words are not even the same word and have different Chinese characters. However, what else the shojo has in the article? Virgin? Wikipedia is not a dictionary. --Appletrees (talk) 06:17, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
    • The article actually goes into more detail than a simple dicdef. And I changed my mind based on the Japanese article: I recommend redirecting this article to Virginity, which is where the interwiki link on the Japanese article goes. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 06:32, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Answer me this: does wikipedia have articles such as this one for any other language? TomorrowTime (talk) 06:46, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I don't think so, which is why I recommended redirecting it. Another possible redirect (which may be even better than my first suggested target) is to Shōjo (disambiguation), and place an entry on the list of possibilities. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 07:05, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

That could be a win-win solution, yes. Get rid of the article about a Japanese word that never even entered the English language, and keep some of the information. TomorrowTime (talk) 07:21, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

• Redirect to Shōjo and tag it with {{R from title without diacritics}}. As shojo (virginity) is not a English term, adding it to {{wiktionarypar}} in Shōjo (disambiguation) is probably enough. --Kusunose 07:49, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
• Comment I noticed these two articles a few weeks ago and was a little confused. Mainly because when someone uses the romanized term shojo in the English language, they are always referring to a young girl but not necessarily a virgin. So are shojo (処女) and shojo (少女) pronounced differently? If not, then shojo (処女) should probably be included as a footnote to shojo (少女). --Farix (Talk) 13:46, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

• Redirect (Addendum) While looking at the articles that link to Shojo, all of them are referring to the term for "young girl" or the shōjo demographic, but it is not being used to refer to a "virgin girl". So restoring the redirect to Shōjo would be perfectly fine while including the above footnote. --Farix (Talk) 14:02, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

• Transfer to Wiktionary the obvious solution for a dictionary definition. As for incoming links that have the wrong meaning, they should be corrected to go to the right article. The words shojo and shōjo have very different meanings and, to a Japanese speaker, distinctly different pronunciations, and it is good to get the links to go directly to the right article. In addition to transferring to Wiktionary, put an entry on "Shōjo (disambiguation)" as Nihonjoe suggested. Fg2 (talk) 02:17, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:09, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Redirect to Shōjo, as that's what wiktionary indicates, and since people can't type weird diacritics anyways, it should be redirected. 70.51.10.156 (talk) 07:18, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Visioner's Tale

The Visioner's Tale (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Not only no google hits for title, but frgments of the first line and one middle line get nothing. Nothing even remotely similar in The Complete Works of Geoffrey Chaucer, edited from numerous manuscripts by the Rev. Walter W. Skeat (2nd ed.) (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1899). 7 vols., or the newer EChaucer at the University of Maine. Originally copied from an anon creation in 2005 at Simple Wikipedia. T L Miles (talk) 14:49, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:09, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. This is probably a hoax. That it is "generally omitted from most editions of the Canterbury Tales" on account of being a fragment (my copy includes fragments; why not this one?) is an extraordinary claim, and as such requires extraordinary evidence; I see no evidence whatsoever. The author claims that it is to be found only in academic commentaries; that's a weird claim, and certainly not supported by Google Scholar. If I had access to better academic databases, I could be certain enough to recommend a G3 speedy, which I imagine will be the end result anyway. AnturiaethwrTalk 16:00, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• I'll also point out that the poem is not at all typical of Chaucer's style (at least as I remember it), and I'm fairly sure he never used the word synchicity. AnturiaethwrTalk 18:00, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] We All Die One Day

We All Die One Day (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete per "Wikipedia:MUSIC#Songs" and WP:OR. It wouldn't be acceptable even on the album Cheers since there are no references to back up all of this. Do U(knome)? ^yes...|_{or no} · 02:32, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:10, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Well, thanks bot. I used TW to complete the AfD, but as usual it creates problems or doesn't finish them. Do U(knome)? ^yes...|_{or no} · 14:23, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• We All Delete this right now as it is unreferenced. Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 16:37, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Zdzisław Kaczmarczyk

Zdzisław Kaczmarczyk (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Not notable, can't use prod tag because an admin removed it (>O_o)> Something X <(^_^<) 15:22, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. There are many references to him through google. Most are not in English but he looks probably notable. I think this AfD is premature. The article is poor and just a stub and needs work. I would flag with {{{notability}}} at most. ~ Antiselfpromotion (talk) 16:57, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:58, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
• Comment. I don't speak Polish, but here[18] I think you find a book describing his life. If he was notable enough in Poland to have a biography published, he's probably notable enough for Wikipedia. Somebody who speaks Polish should check this reference and, if possible, also add some material to the article, which really is nothing much. --Crusio (talk) 22:26, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep author of about 30 books in polish--some held in over 40 US/UK libraries, which for a Polish author writing on Polish history, is fairly substantial. But the article really needs some information besides what's there. since everything's in Polish, someone else will have do do the work here. I would like to be a little more confident though about the publisher and nature of the bio. DGG (talk) 00:39, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep per DGG and Crusio. Passes WP:BIO based on the published biography, and seems to pass WP:PROF as well. There is a bit more info about the biography that Crusio mentioned at GoogleBooks:[19]. The publisher of the biography, "Wydawnictwo Poznańskie", seems to be well-established as well[20]. Nsk92 (talk) 06:18, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:10, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of emo artists

List of emo artists (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Wholly redundant to Category:Emo musical groups (both sort alphabetically), which is what List of emo bands and List of emo groups redirects to. Sceptre ^(talk) 11:22, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

STRONG KEEP At it again, eh? We've been through this. The List of emo bands is nothing but pure OR. The list that you want deleted complies with wikipedias current policy and guidlines and is by far a better list. You need to read WP:OR, WP:V, and WP:RS. The List of emo artists complies with each. It is sourced by reliable and varifiable sources and is NOT influenced by personal opinion. Redundent my foot. If any thing, the List of emo bands should be deleted, as it violates all policy.13Tawaazun14 (talk) 12:22, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Keep but could these not be merged? And wouldn't a category be better for these two? D0762 (talk) 14:57, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Speedy Keep No valid reason for deletion stated according to Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Reasons for deletion, bad faith nomination by the same editor who nominated it just two months ago where it was explained quite clearly that categories and lists are not exclusive. There is no valid reason to nominate the same article again. According to guidelines, "Developers of these redundant systems should not compete against each other in a destructive manner, such as by nominating the work of their competitors to be deleted because they overlap". The list should be used to improve the category, as suggested in guidelines, as the category contains poorly sourced articles. So i suggest this is closed and sanctions brought against the nominator if this and the disruption of the article continues. --neon white talk 21:41, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Explain to me how the list differs in any way from the category apart from the columning. All I can see is an alphabetised list - which is what a category is. The references can be added to the band articles. At the very least, the list and category should be synchronised. I think the passage you link to also doesn't mean what you say - I don't think it supports redundancy (and for the record, the reason for nomination is different - the previous one was because of the stigma attached to the label making it a synthesis and POV-pushing hotspot). Sceptre ^(talk) 22:44, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

That it completey irrelevant. As has been pointed out many times and you well know that lists and categories should not be considered to be in conflict with each other. Neither is favoured by the community, the consensus is that they both should coexist and compliment each other. That is the current consensus and this is not the place to argue in favour of one or the other and it is certainly innapropriate to use an afd to try and make a point. The guideline WP:CLN clearly spells out the pros and cons of each and states attempts to delete one in favour of the other is considered inappropriate. "the "category camp" should not delete or dismantle Wikipedia's lists, and the "list camp" shouldn't tear down Wikipedia's category system - doing so wastes valuable resources. Instead, each should be used to update the other." The articles is also a valid fork of the main Emo article. --neon white talk 14:04, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

We've gone through this, read the guidline. It supports our position.(13Tawaazun14 not signed in)96.234.176.56 (talk) 01:17, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Does it? As many people thought it would be better as a category... Sceptre ^(talk) 08:10, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I guess the problem with a category would be we'd lose the sources, and without that people would start adding whatever they wanted to the category without justification. But I agree with Sceptre that the sources could be added to the band articles. D0762 (talk) 09:35, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Which is what the guidelines suggests doing. You use each to improve the other. --neon white talk 14:07, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Baron Of Glastry

Baron Of Glastry (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Glaister family (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete)

Probable hoax, there were no baronets in the 13th century. References do not check out, for example, this is all thepeerage.com has to say on people named Glaister. Also nominating Glaister family as the only thing apparently notable is the supposed barony/baronetcy. Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 10:56, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete, as I can find no sources that confirm this baronet's existence as such. Happy to reconsider if some source comes forward, but the sources I can verify do not appear to confirm anything in this article. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 12:41, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete As Jonathan Oldenbuck says, there were no Baronets then. Nor do the references confirm it or any source I can find. And I've removed the nobility stubb and the Barony category, as Baronet is not a title of nobility nor is it the same as a Barony, it's a step below

[edit] IT sourcing

IT sourcing (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Essay / original research / how to guide / fork of existing articles. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 10:34, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. ukexpat (talk) 15:48, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete: we never need this essay. Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 21:02, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --KurtRaschke (talk) 00:44, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Not Happy, John

Not Happy, John (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

No viable assertion of notability for this book. As for saying it "inspired the 'Not happy John!' campaign, I suspect it is more likely to have been the other way around. I'm am dubious over that claim and would need to see some evidence. Moondyne 09:34, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Moondyne 09:46, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• I agree with Moondyne that there is little if any assertion of sufficient notability. The claim that 'Not happy John!' campaign comes from this book is dubious at best. giggy _(:O) 09:56, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• Merge to Margo Kingston. I think that the book did come before the campaign, but don't see how it meets WP:BK. Nick Dowling (talk) 10:02, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• Comment I seem to recall this book attracting plenty of attention on its own basis along with the campaign as a whole. A quick search of the web, however does not turn up much in the way of RS (as opposed to blogs etc.). Perhaps others will find more and I will hold off on an opinion one way or the other until then. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 10:03, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• Comment. Perhaps I'm wrong. this implies it was the Not happy, Jan! commercial first, the book second and the campaign third. Who to believe? Moondyne 10:43, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - The book was launched by Tony Fitzgerald QC, some of whose comments at the launch were published by The Age, it was reviewed by the Journal of Australian Studies (reprinted by API, here) and by Quadrant magazine (and very likely by all the major Australian newspapers at the time, here's just one review I found in the Sydney Morning Herald), and it also became the inspiration for a significant political campaign, as evidenced here. So I don't think there can be any doubt about notability. Gatoclass (talk) 11:54, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep per User:Gatoclass above. Book has been reviewed and discussed at length in Australian newspapers, thus both WP:V and WP:N are met. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:26, 9 June 2008 (UTC).
• Keep - the book is notable, inspiring the campaign and the first signs of anti-Howard resentment from the 2004 election (particularly in his own electorate). JRG (talk) 00:58, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lee County High School (Leesburg, Georgia)

Lee County High School (Leesburg, Georgia) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

PROD contested because "experience shows that deletion of high schools will certainly be contested, so prod is inappropriate". Non-notable high school. Fails WP:SCHOOLS. Wolfer68 (talk) 08:20, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per nomination. (Already appears on List of schools in Georgia). Ben MacDui^Talk/Walk 08:47, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 09:20, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 09:20, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep – there is "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", therefore the school meets the notability guideline and the proposed school guideline. The sources I added establish notability, and more importantly, mean that the article meets our verifiability and no original research policies. EJF (talk) 14:50, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep—Sufficiently notable.—RJH (talk) 16:11, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep as per EJF's excellant sourcing. I'm an Editorofthewiki^{[citation needed]} 17:57, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Per improvements. Of all the H.S. articles i've seen at AFD, I can't think of any that could not be sourced and improved once someone put in the effort.--Cube lurker (talk) 18:10, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep per EJF's sourcing. ArcAngel (talk) (Review) 20:34, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - easily meets WP:N with substantial, reliable secondary sources. TerriersFan (talk) 20:35, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - Sources indicate this easily passes WP:N and WP:SCHOOLS. --Oakshade (talk) 02:06, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wanderlust (1991 novel)

Wanderlust (1991 novel) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article does not go beyond plot summary, violating WP:NOT#PLOT; plus, the topic seems to fail inclusion guidelines (WP:BK). The only point it WP:BK#Criteria it might meet is #1; but for that, sources are missing. PROD was contested. B. Wolterding (talk) 08:09, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete No references and presently fails WP:BK. It is available on Amazon and my be salvageable if someone put some effort into it other than regurgitating the plot. Ben MacDui^Talk/Walk 08:32, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - author has written notable material, hence notable. Part of a notable genre. Fully agree it needs some out-fo-universe material, however article quality is no grounds for deletion per se. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:11, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep article has some real world content, and therefore meets WP:NOT. Tho published in 1991, still in about 200 libraries in worldcat, and many public libraries did not include their holdings in WorldCat then. Translated into spanish, Hebrew, Danish. Notable series. Kirchoff is a major SF author. Another possibility is to merge into one article for the subseries The Meetings Sextet, DGG (talk) 14:23, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Notability is neither inherited from the series nor from the author. Per WP:BK, all books of an author would be notable if he "[...] is so historically significant that any of his or her written works may be considered notable.", "For example, a person whose life or works is a subject of common classroom study.". Is doubt that is the case here. --B. Wolterding (talk) 14:30, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep as entry in a notable series of books. Picking and choosing violates WP:NPOV which takes precedent over other considerations. The article, of course, needs to be improved. But that's a content issue. Any book with wide distribution that isn't vanity press is inherently notable. 23skidoo (talk) 15:56, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • "Any book with wide distribution that isn't vanity press is inherently notable." This does not match the consensus at WP:BK (I don't find this kind of inherent notability there.) Then, what's the standard for "widely distributed"? There are millions of books that are distributed in large numbers (else publishers wouldn't print them). Far more books, certainly, than Wikipedia has articles. One should not confuse an encyclopedia with a library catalogue. --B. Wolterding (talk) 16:07, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

right, but the library catalog is different because it includes both the books of wide distribution, and those without wide distribution. One or a few libraries represents collecting for purely archival purposes, unlike Wikipedia -- What many libraries collect, though, is collected because of the general interest of the readers. What the general public notices is notable. DGG (talk) 03:05, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Exopolitics

Exopolitics (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is based on a self-published book. Much of it is WP:OR, anything that isn't should be at Alfred Webre Doug Weller (talk) 07:56, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. The subject may be unscientific but it clearly has its proponents and whilst the article needs some clean-up it looks passable to me. Ben MacDui^Talk/Walk 08:26, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, I think study of hypothetical political relations says it all. Unless we can add sufficient refs to no longer violate WP:V, WP:SOAP, WP:N, I see no way we can prevent deletion. Will change if article suddenly improcves. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 11:03, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep There are lots of hypothetical articles on Wikipedia. 80.65.250.247 (talk) 21:04, 9 June 2008 (UTC)— 80.65.250.247 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Comment Did you forget to login (this surely isn't really your first edit)? I'm sure you know other stuff exists is not a convincing reason. Doug Weller (talk) 21:18, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Abstain; redirect to Black Holes and Revelations if deleted Sceptre ^(talk) 23:56, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• NOTE attempt to speedy delete this page USER:Phalanxpursos besides adding the tag above, has removed the AfD tag on the article with the comment 'removed vanalism' see [21] -- can an Admin please deal with this? Thanks. Doug Weller (talk) 08:53, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Just in case anyone wonders, the tag added was a speedy delete tag for this article. Now removed by a helpful admin. Doug Weller (talk) 09:53, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per Nomen. --Ave Caesar (talk) 12:54, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• I wish there was some way to keep this lovely farrago of nonsense, but sadly I can't think of any. Delete. --Relata refero (disp.) 13:57, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete I see a lot of ghits, but since the term is based largely off the work of a single author (who's also made a lot of contribs to that page), I'll go with delete. // Chris ^{(complaints)•(contribs)} 14:24, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Works (Band)

The Works (Band) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

non notable band, prod removed because "has references that show notability". Only reference that works is for an announcement of a gig in a major newspaper, trivial coverage. Duffbeerforme (talk) 06:36, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC & WP:RS. One reference needs a password for crying out loud.  Esradekan Gibb  ^"Talk" 07:53, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete The sources are insufficient to meet WP:MUSIC. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 16:24, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mary Hanley (Edmonton)

Mary Hanley (Edmonton) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article has nothing other then an infobox with an image and some information which isn't sourced and fails to state anything that would make this school notable. Bidgee (talk) 06:06, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- DoubleBlue (Talk) 06:07, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -- DoubleBlue (Talk) 06:08, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as unsourced and failing to show notability. The name is incorrect as it fails to identify the subject as a school. Ben MacDui^Talk/Walk 08:17, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Per nom. Virek (talk) 08:21, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mae-Wan Ho

Mae-Wan Ho (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

An article on a living person has sat since February 2006 without any reliable third party sources. Given her highly controversial opinions, that are argueabley pseudoscience, it's essential an article like this have substantial third party sourcing. Otherwise, it can only alternate between a hatchet job or a promo piece. --Rob (talk) 05:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Um, does "third party" mean "secondary source" as in "Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources" or does it mean "tertiary source" as in "encyclopedias or other compendia that sum up secondary and primary sources". Are reliably sourced news articles or journal articles acceptable "third party" sources? Are her own reliably sourced books or journal articles acceptable sources to describe her own views? --EPadmirateur (talk) 07:19, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

"Third-party" means that Mae-Won didn't write it. Nothing she writes on her own can possibly establish her notability, regardless of who published it. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:45, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I vote for deletion and agree that this article can never amount to anything because the only stuff written about this person is either from herself or from non-reliable sources such as purveyors of alternative medicine or anti-GM activist publications. Mainstream science essentially ignores her pseudoscientific views. Ttguy (talk) 05:47, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —Rob (talk) 06:11, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. —Rob (talk) 06:12, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• DeleteKeep as not having established notability through reliable third-party sources. This lack of reliable third-party sources means that the article has, at times, devolved into edit-wars over whether her CV substantiates fields of expertise claimed in her 'biographical sketch' (both sourced from the subject). There just isn't enough here for a solid article, let alone one that needs to carefully navigate a controversial subject. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 06:23, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Nature article cited by Tim Vickers below meets the threshold of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 08:06, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. Zero evidence of notability, and nothing significant appears from a quick gsearch. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:37, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Keep, because Mae-Wan Ho is notable by a number of measures. Third party citations have come and gone in the article that would support that. However, I doubt that any reliable sources or neutral presentation would be allowed by other editors. Since its inception, this article has served as a personal sandbox for a few editors who used it consistently to publish discrediting information about her, even after the material had been removed, and to remove or strongly dispute any positive information that might be put in it.

For example, User:Ttguy has used a set of favorite items for discrediting Mae-Wan Ho:

• From the beginning through to the present, that she is a vivisectionist who likes to burn rabbits' eyes (and is therefore a hypocrite): [26] [27] [28] [29]
• Also from the beginning, that she believes living organisms don't follow second law of thermodynamics [30] [31] [32]
• that she has been involved in cloning humans and therefore a hypocrite [33] [34]
• that she is a "AIDS denier" and the "treatment she recommends is selenium and other antioxidants" [35] [36]
• that her claimed academic credentials are "inflated" and simple claims of what fields she worked in are false: [37] [38] [39] [40] Ttguy even has [his own webpage containing his personal analysis of Ho's credentials, which he uses in the article and in the talk to support the claim that Mae-Wan Ho's credentials are don't match her claims
• that she may have been fired for incompetence from an academic position [41]
• when positive or balancing information is added, it's removed usually for trivial reasons [42] [43], including the one third party reference that made it into the article [44]: why? because it was "POV"

Also User:Hrafn has disputed what should be non-controversial edits, for trivial or contrived reasons [45] [46] [47]

It's ironic that the first two editors to jump in and vote to delete this article are Ttguy and Hrafn.

So this is what WP:BLP allows: the unbridled two-year-long campaign to discredit a person's reputation, where deleted material is constantly re-added, and where honest attempts at balance and neutrality are smacked down to the point where the only thing left to do is delete the article. It would be impossible to add any reliable third-party sources to this article in good faith because, I'm afraid, they would be removed for trivial reasons within a day. I have no interest in Mae-Wan Ho or her positions but I strongly oppose the kind of editor POV pushing and bullying that is evident in this article. I asked in another place "is this the way WP is supposed to work for biographies of living people who happen to do something some editors don't like?" Hey, I guess so, and when it gets really bad, we just delete the sandbox. --EPadmirateur (talk) 15:32, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: If there has been substantial coverage in reliable third party sources that has been deleted from the article, then where are the difs? Please provide substantiation. All your other accusations are irrelevant to an AfD. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 16:11, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• EPadmirateur , It seems you want a biography based only on Ho's writings. You were fine with my removal of negative material sourced to her research paper (like the eye buring), but you're happy to have positive things sourced to Ho. The problems with this article stem from the fact, there's no third-party reliable material to go off. So, all the editors inject their own opinions, because that's all there is: opinion. Wikipedians are left to debate what's relevant and notable about her self-claimed work. Wikipedias policy on deleting non-notable bios is actually in the best interests of the bio subject, who are most harmed by the inevitable original research that's conducted on them. It's unfortunate that this article wasn't deleted at the beginning. --Rob (talk) 16:31, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Not at all: I would gladly seek out reliable sources to provide information about her. However, I'm nearly certain that they would be removed for trivial or contrived reasons, as was done with the simple claim of what fields she has worked in. I thought that the policy for BLP was to provide balance as per WP:BLP#Criticism and praise and to avoid "biased or malicious content about living persons". If WP wants to permit POV pushing and bullying in BLPs as you seem to want to allow here, fine. Just let us all know, and by all means delete this article. --EPadmirateur (talk) 17:03, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

You are free to show us the reliable sources right here. Please also show the diffs of where an editor has removed a reliable source. --Rob (talk) 17:21, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I haven't searched for third party sources. Under the circumstances I don't much see the point. The two external sources that were removed mentioning Ho were deleted here.EPadmirateur (talk) 19:06, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[48] is an article on a blog where they have interviewed Ho. I dunno if this contributes to notablility or not Ttguy (talk) 10:47, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[49] tells us that Ho attended a meeting along with 1400 other people. Not sure this contributes to notability either. She is mentioned once in the article. Ttguy (talk) 14:25, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea how reliable these sources would be viewed but they are the only two that have been added. Ho is certainly controversial and influential as these two citations show and also here. Her work is cited in Meaning of life, in Black people, in Rupert Sheldrake#The Presence of the Past, in Horizontal gene transfer. Her name is listed on the List of signatories to "A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism" (original document here, page 2) and as writer on holistic science. She has 79 journal articles listed in PubMed. Those are 79 reliable third-party sources. Here are 13 articles or letters appearing in The Guardian about her or written by her. Here's a book review in New Scientist. Here's an interview, a lecture summary, a briefing to the European Parliament, etc. That's just for starters. I think there are dozens more third-party sources. What more do you want? How hard did the other editors try? --EPadmirateur (talk) 19:06, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

You said "Those are 79 reliable third-party sources". Anything written by Ho is, by definition, not a third party source. I will review the other sources as much as I can shortly. --Rob (talk) 02:16, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Side comment: I think it would be a good idea of editors could go through the backlinks, and check how Ho has been used as a source in other Wikipedia articles. --Rob (talk) 16:36, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, thanks. I think there are a couple of third party sources there that can be used in this article. I would also say that her own suitably published work can be cited as WP:RS when describing her ideas, as was the consensus recently in Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons#Self_published. --EPadmirateur (talk) 17:17, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're what you're talking about. I wanted people to review the backlinks, where Ho is sometimes cited, since those should be removed or replaced by cites from recognized authorities. Ho is not a recognized authority in any field, and shouldn't be cited as such. Unless/until Ho is mentioned by a third-party, Ho doesn't belong on Wikipedia, anywhere. --Rob (talk) 17:25, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Well I think there are plenty of third-party sources (see above). She certainly has scientific credentials (see PubMed list above). But her notability comes from her controversial stances on a number of things, which can be reliably documented in third party news reports, interviews, etc. In addition, her own papers in reliable journals and books published by reliable independent publishers can also be used as a reliable sources for her own views (see the consensus recently in Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons#Self_published). --EPadmirateur (talk) 19:14, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Except (apparently) if these papers show her in a bad light (eg Burning rabbits eyes) - then these papers can not be used !!!! - right? Ttguy (talk) 09:52, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Of course, the experimental work on corneas can and should be used if it is relevant to her notability. Apparently even her AIDS denialism is not notable by the third-party source standard (I couldn't find anything), only her anti-GMO work. --EPadmirateur (talk) 11:26, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• either delete, or merge into AIDS denialism. dab (𒁳) 18:36, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Keep this seems to be a very interesting person, she has some very interesting ideas, a whole lot of wrong ideas and possibly she doesn't always know what she's actually talking about. In addition, she seems to be somewhat hypocritical, and may in some contexts be considered a 'ho'. I've been somewhat rude, maybe I've made some overstatements, my apologies for that, probably not all she says is rubbish, it may in fact be very interesting to analyse how this woman has come to combine wisdom and knowledge with misinterpretations and other nonsense. Anyway, it should be the task of Wikipedia to clarify the whole mystery and controversy surrounding this person. 84.194.237.100 (talk) 20:01, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Keep apparently at least borderline notable as a scientist. About 60 published papers in peer-reviewed biology journals, cited reasonably according to Web of Science (GS is not helpful here, the papers are back in the 70s) Her papers on theoretical evolution in Journal of theoretical biology, a mainstream journal though in my opinion willing to publish pure speculation had 76, 65, etc citations. Some of her perfectly orthodox cell biology papers in good journals had 128, 71, 70. This counts as quite respectable. Her later work is not science, nor is it published by significant scientific publishers. However, it's widely noticed. I think it's deplorable, but it's notable. DGG (talk) 04:11, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Keep Notable scientist with notable views on notable subject. WAS 4.250 (talk) 04:44, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Keep a notably bad scientist. Not notable for their research or expertise, but the extreme opinions exposed by this person have gathered wide notice and a strongly negative reaction from their peers. See Nature news article for example. Tim Vickers (talk) 04:45, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Be very careful here. She is a very controversal figure, but no assertion of her non-notability should be credited without a review of just who is asserting it and with what motivations. Notably bad might be very accurate, but quite notably bad. --Blechnic (talk) 04:47, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. I agree completely with DGG. Her views on GM crops are clearly wrong to me, but she's a notable opponent. --Crusio (talk) 08:13, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Off topic. I'm not ready to dismiss everything she says, but I have gotten rather tired of hearing her at times. I work in agricultural genetics, so I've probably heard a bit more than most. --Blechnic (talk) 08:16, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Anti-knot

Anti-knot (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Other editors and I discussed the problems with this article long ago, but none of us got around to AFD'ing it the first time. In summary, 1) the term "anti-knot" appears to be a neologism, not used in any of the references, and I couldn't find a suitable reference using Google Scholar. 2) the content appears to be partly bogus, partly vague/speculative. The first proof assumes what it is trying to prove. The second uses a magical "knot energy" that does exactly what is needed. It's fair to say that the property needed of this knot energy is nontrivial and most likely an open problem. The "proof" given seems to be OR synthesized from the three references. 3) the purpose of this page is to explain that "anti-knots" in fact do not exist. This is in fact a well-known basic result (as explained in knot sum), so there isn't anything more to be said about the topic. C S (talk) 11:19, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

• Redirect/Merge to knot theory, or a more suitable page? A brief mention of the result should be sufficient. For a ref., perhaps: Cromwell, Peter R. (2004). Knots and Links. Cambridge University Press, p. 90. ISBN 0521548314.  Theorem 4.6.1. Given a non-trivial knot K there is no 'anti-knot' K^-1 such that the product K # K^-1 is the trivial knot.—RJH (talk) 19:49, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I guess I could have just redirected to knot sum where the information is already there, as I said. The only problem I have with that is that "anti-knot" is a neologism. It is in Cromwell, true (the very last hit on Google Scholar, which I overlooked), but his use of it is not meant to indicate it is a standard term. So I would not want to propagate a neologism by mentioning the term in knot sum. --C S (talk) 22:55, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

True, but I'm not sure that the term 'anti-knot' even needs to be mentioned. Or you could say an inverse knot, for example.—RJH (talk) 16:19, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Redir per RJH. M1ss1ontomars2k4 (talk) 22:59, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:47, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
• Merge to connected sum. I think the amount of text needed to be added to complete the merge would be very small, on the order of adding "That is, no knot can have an anti-knot that is its inverse element in the connected sum monoid." after the existing sentence "In three dimensions, the unknot cannot be written as the sum of two non-trivial knots." This is an important fact about knots that is already covered in connected sum and does not need a separate article but that could stand to be made a little more prominent there. The two supposed "proofs" in the anti-knot article, though, look worthless and should not be merged. If not merged, it should be deleted; it does not stand alone as a separate article in its current state. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:54, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
• Comment I've seen this non-existence of "anti-knots" mentioned somewhere in Wikipedia before. Maybe this should redirect to that. But at the moment I don't know where that is. Michael Hardy (talk) 06:17, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
  • PS: I don't see how the first proof works. It seems to be circular (pun not entirely intended). Michael Hardy (talk) 06:18, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. Nothing in here worth saving. Redir/Merge. Connected sum does a much better job of explaining the non-existence of "anti-knots", and the "application" to string theory is entirely bogus (because the "strings" in string theory exist in spaces with more dimensions and much more complex toplogy than 3D Euclidean space). Gandalf61 (talk) 10:23, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Changed my vote to Redir/Merge in case that helps to demonstrate consensus. However, I don't really understand why this AfD has been re-listed, as there was already a thorough discussion and no Keep votes - don't we already have a consensus ? Gandalf61 (talk) 08:23, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Connected sum asserts that anti-knots do exist in higher dimensions; that makes the polemic against knot physics largely fallacious as well as inappropriate. Take it out. If we need to link this somewhere, <span id> now permits redirects to arbitrary points in text. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:00, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
• Redirect? One place where I find a valid proof of the non-existence of anti-knots is Eilenberg–Mazur swindle. Since this is a valid concept, but perhaps of interest only for proving the non-existence result, it should get redirected if it's deleted. I'm not sure where. Michael Hardy (talk) 00:58, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Michael, I'm starting to get very puzzled by your comments. You don't appear to have read any of the remarks above. For example, you commented on R.E.B.'s talk page that you would have had no idea to look at Mazur swindle for a proof of the theorem. But several people (including me in my nomination) have already pointed out that the valid content is in knot sum/ connected sum, which states that the Mazur swindle gives a proof. It is also stated that knot genus gives a proof, although the details are not included. You commented about the "valid concept" of anti-knot, but I have no idea what this means. There is a theorem that no "anti-knots" exist, but nobody except Cromwell states it that way. The concept of "anti-knot" is about as "valid" a concept as the concept of natural numbers without a prime decomposition. There is, of course, a theorem that every natural number has a prime (even unique) decomposition. Nonetheless I would find it strange that if one author were to state that theorem as "No 'unbreakable' natural numbers, i.e. not having a prime decomposition, exist" , and then people were to start calling "unbreakable natural numbers" a valid concept. --C S (talk) 01:37, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
    • It has to be a valid concept if there's a theorem saying it can't exist. Certainly the concept of natural number without a prime decomposition is a valid concept. Otherwise there could be no theorem saying no such thing exists. If the concept were not valid, the theorem would have no content. The difference between that and the concept of anti-knot is that the existence of prime factorizations can be stated without introducing a concept such as the one you propose. On the other hand, the theorem saying there is no anti-knot is essentially negative: you can't state it without the concept. Michael Hardy (talk) 03:47, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
      • Sure you can: every sum of nontrivial knots is itself nontrivial. No mention of antiknots. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:56, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, jonny-mt 05:34, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I am the only delete !vote other than the nomination, and I would join a consensus to redirect, probably to a section of Connected sum. Michael Hardy is the only keep argument, and he hasn't actually !voted. Please close. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:17, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Yeah, just Redirect to connected sum. Jkasd 03:05, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Turaga (Bionicle)

Turaga (Bionicle) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Relisting per DRV: AFD 2 nom: This article asserts no notability through reliable sources, and is just a regurgitation of the plot of the various Bionicle stories from the novel and video game articles. As such, it is repetitive of that content with no out of universe information and should be deleted. MBisanz ^talk 03:43, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] TaskMaker

TaskMaker (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable game which I've played the hell out of in my life. Only sources are a stubby All Game Guide review and a primary source. No other third party reviews or sources found. Has been tagged for merging with Storm Impact for ages, but nothing's come of the merge. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:22, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:29, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:29, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - There are certainly mentions and reviews in the contemporary computer press which could be obtained (searches found the references but no full-text of those articles so far for me). Seems to have been a game of at least some interest at the time. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:21, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• Could you show me some of these sources that you found please? I didn't find anything substantial. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 11:13, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

• I found references to reviews in Apple-related magazines of the time, but no full-text of those magazines is available to me. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 05:50, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 00:12, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 03:23, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Keep and Merge with Storm Impact. It seems to be a notable part of their history being their first game and all. CRocka05 (talk) 04:09, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Howard Steven Brown

Howard Steven Brown (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unsourced biographical article. I have searched for sources about this person but I have been unable to find any connection between the person's name and the foundation he reportedly founded. I previously userfied this article because it was created by User:Hsbrown00 and the subject's initials would make him H. S. Brown. As it turns out, User:Hsbrown00 claims not to be the subject, asked that this article stop being deleted (two other admins have each deleted it once), and claimed that there are sources. So I am taking this to WP:AFD now for other editors' viewpoints. Please note that the User:Hsbrown00 page has not been edited since it was userfied; thus, it is not certain that the article is a conflict of interest/autobiography. Regardless, though, it looks appropriate for deletion per WP:BIO due to lack of verification and sources. Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:39, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

The article should be kept. I have searched for sources about this person and have been able to locate a connection between the person and the foundation on www.temple.edu, the person and Gloria Brown within the Philadelphia Dailynews database in an article published on March 20, 1998, the person and Marc Mezvinsky in a diagram page in a pdf file posted by Goldman Sachs. Although the article lacks the neccessary verification and extensive references, the person and entry seems creditable and approriate. I can update some of the references with the information I have discovered and edit the entry this evening. User:Jellystomach —Preceding comment was added at 20:57, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Allegations of Israeli apartheid

Allegations of Israeli apartheid (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Posting on behalf of another user as follows: 1)Article fails to deliver the political neutrality championed by wikipedia. That in itself should be more than enough reason to delete. 2) It is politically biased. Article is thoroughly sourced, but article is overly-dependent on biased sources (like Uri Avnery). Article fails to deliver the balance necessary to be hosted on wikipedia. 3)The article has been in clean up limbo for more than a year, but nobody has made any real attempt to do a write-up. 4)The whole concept of an Apartheid regime in Israel is flawed. The Arab minority in Israel are full citizens with voting rights and representation in the government. In the apartheid regime in SA, blacks could not vote and were not citizens of the country in which they are the overwhelming majority of the population. The article has no room for this fact. 5)Segregation is debatable, but Allegations of an Apartheid is far too sensational. 6)Unfair voice. There is no "proponent" section. The article is one big slant and has no balance. I cannot emphasize this more. 7) Some of the original authors have been banned or disciplined for wikipedia violations, though I'm not sure how relevant that is. 8) The most recent nomination had a majority delete, though the consensus was none. Not sure how important that is, but thought I'd mention it. 9)All in all, I think it is a perfect candidate for deletion. I can't think of any other reason why it should stay other than the potential to be cleaned, which as far as I can tell won't happen any time soon. If I see some pursuit by other members to fix this article, I'll gladly drop my want to delete this article. thanks for the quick response. Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:04, 9 June 2008 (UTC) — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 02:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Neutral – I'm remaining neutral on this issue. My only involvement is to properly post the AfD request for Wikifan12345. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 02:45, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Addendum: There are two Arbitration cases that are relevant here as well: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Allegations of apartheid & Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 02:52, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Nobody's worked on it, but that alone is no reason to delete. Neither is a PoV dispute. This article has gone through seven AfDs and was kept each time. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 02:42, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy keep Seven AfDs strikes me as resolving the issue for a good long while. People need to stick to working on the content of the article. Thetrick (talk) 03:03, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep If it's POV, change it, it's not a valid reason to delete it. Nominator tries to explain why the allegations are invalid, but that's irrelevant to such a nomination, since the allegations have already been made, are citable, notable, and it's not up to us to decide whether they're right or wrong. FunkMonk (talk) 03:28, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy keep Re: seven prior AfDs. This is a valuable article and your argument basically amounts to "it needs to be fixed, so delete it." -Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:36, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy keep Seven prior AfDs and two arbitrations. --John Nagle (talk) 04:01, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Highly notable subject. Many readers will search using the terms "Isreal" and "apartheid" to read more about this perspective. Content cleanup is not a reason for deletion. Ryan Paddy (talk) 04:26, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment having read the article, I'd now say that the nominator's description is completely inaccurate. The article appears very well balanced and is an appropriate discussion of a modern debate. So ignore my "content cleanup" comment, this article is not in need of cleanup. The POV tag on it is mistaken, as they so often seem to be on contraversial subjects. Ryan Paddy (talk) 04:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • comment I disagree. The neutral tag had been on for several weeks with no prior edits. Today it was removed, and I put it back on. I've listed some very good reasons why the article is not neutral. Please give reasons for your findings. Also, I'll like to add that those who say keep, please review the reasons i listed why the article should be deleted. this isn't just a quality standard, there is something intellectually wrong with this article. plain and simple: it's biased, and blatantly. i dont see how you guys can shrug it off with "cleanup isn't a reason to delete". there is something more to this and i really wish some of you would accept that. pov isn't the only issue. Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:12, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
    • PoV is not a reason for deletion. Period. --Thetrick (talk) 05:16, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
      • Is propaganda not a reason for deletion? Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:19, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
        • Are you saying the article is propaganda? FunkMonk (talk) 05:36, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
          • I'm saying it possesses qualities that could be considered propaganda. Using Uri Avnery as a credible source is VERY alarming. But I'm guessing you guys just brush that off in the POV pile...right? I'm going through the article right now. I've already found one source that was used incorrectly.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikifan12345 (talk • contribs) 05:40, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
            • That's exactly what you should be doing instead of dragging out the debate here. --Thetrick (talk) 05:44, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
              • Doing what? Shifting through sources?? Tell me, if this article is so reliable, so factual, so non-propaganda, why is it still rated in the start class? Clearly something is wrong here. Wikipedia is hosting a very flawed article, and nobody cares. It's loaded with fallacies, and on top of that, many of the sources don't even connect with the paraphrasing. What do we call that again? This is ultimately turning into my view verse your view, which is unfortunate considering the influence this awful article has on the internet. If only wikipedia wasn't so political, perhaps quality would top partisanship. Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:58, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
                • Has anyone made protests against your edits on the article? No, so instead of complaining, go and edit it so it isn't POV anymore, that's how Wikipedia works. FunkMonk (talk) 06:01, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
                  • Wow, way to miss the point there. Didn't you just say the article was full of reliable and well-sourced material in the talk page? Nice.Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:04, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
                    • It is, but that doesn't mean there aren't unreliable ones, That should be beyond obvious. FunkMonk (talk) 06:11, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Your "very good reasons" that the article is not neutral have no basis in Wikipedia policy or guidelines, so they are not good reasons at all. Your reasons show no understanding of the neutral point of view policy. Please read the policy, and learn than it is appropriate for contraversial subjects to have an article on Wikipedia, so long as all perspectives of the discussion are represented. "Neutral point of view is a fundamental Wikimedia principle and a cornerstone of Wikipedia. All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles, and of all article editors." That is done in this article. It is desirable for well-sourced opinions to be presented on Wikipedia, and for opposing well-sourced opinions to be presented where they exist, as this article does. This article shouldn't have a NPOV tag, let alone be up for deletion. The fact that some people would like to bury or discredit this subject does not make it any less suitable for an article, but it does explain the many failed AfDs, the incorrect tags, and the "start article" status. Contraversial subjects should be covered in full, with all sides discussed, without all the attempts to bury it in tags and meta-discussion, so that interested readers can become informed and draw their own conclusions. That it what Wikipedia is for. Ryan Paddy (talk) 23:54, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Sigh. Israel's self-appointed defenders on Wikipedia have been hammering away at this article for years; the resulting edit wars, often involving newbie single-purpose-accounts, have degraded its quality. Now the degraded quality is being cited as a reason for deletion. It's very tiresome. Anybody who thinks that we can't cite a veteran Israeli journalist and commentator because he's a post-Zionist leftie ought to explain why it's totally acceptable to cite lesser-known figures who are on the other side, or partisan advocacy organizations funded by the Israel government and aligned with radical Israeli nationalists. There may be good reasons to remove advocates from both sides from the article's citation, but that's another debate entirely. This looks an awful lot like somebody just trying to get rid of opinions that he doesn't like.
• Edit conflict: See above comment of 06:04 GMT; he's actually trying to exclude entire ethnic groups that he doesn't like. Somebody speedy-close this debate, it's going nowhere. And ban the troll while you're at it, too. <eleland/talkedits> 06:09, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Good catch. --Thetrick (talk) 06:17, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Hah, racial profiling. FunkMonk (talk) 06:18, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I don't know what you're talking about Eleland. I'm honestly too tired to fight this. Clearly you guys want this more than I do. This isn't about opinions. This is about deeply flawed article that shows no signs of up. Most of you seem to agree that there is a problem, but don't really care enough about it. Perhaps because it satisfies your politics, or maybe you don't want to take the time. But this article isn't going anywhere, and you have just proved that. Thank you! And btw, I don't appreciate being called a troll. If anybody is a troll, it's you. Don't bate me next time dude. Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:26, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Wow Eleland, your user page speaks volumes. Appreciate the hate, man. Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:31, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• Now Wikifan has resorted to personal attacks two times in a row, not much left to discuss here I'm afraid. FunkMonk (talk) 06:32, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • This is ridiculous. I'm responding to attacks against me. How am I attacking? Wait, I get it. You're doing this to distract from the problem. Bate me and then spin. Wow, you're all just full of fallacies to do now aren't you? Funkmonk, Eleland, I appreciate your political affiliation. I understand. But let's keep this discussion on-topic, ok?!
    • [50][51]. Ad hominem attacks. FunkMonk (talk) 06:47, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
      • Ok lol. I think we know this isn't going anywhere. I would like to see this discussion stay open but I'm not expecting a delete. You guys are too devoted in maintaining this article no matter how terrible it is. XD Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:57, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
        • Once again, no one has contested your recent edits on the article in question, so go ahead and edit it until it pleases you, and quit wasting everyone's time. FunkMonk (talk) 06:59, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
          • Whoa, way to double back there. Making baseless claims and then telling to be basically get out. Wikipedia at its finest. Wikifan12345 (talk) 07:08, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
            • Yawn. FunkMonk (talk) 07:19, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
              • Shweet. Wikifan12345 (talk) 07:22, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy keep Here we go again; it seems that some editors are so determined to remove this article, that they will constantly tie us up in meta-discussions rather than get on with the task of improving Wikipedia. This is a balanced article on a notable subject; the objection is apparently to its very existence, rather than the content ("The whole concept of an Apartheid regime in Israel is flawed"). The proposal is accompanied by racial stereotyping ("I see you belong to the Arab world wikiproject. Now I get it.") and baseless BLP smears ("Using Uri Avnery as a credible source is VERY alarming"). Avnery is a leading journalist and political activist in Israel, a long-standing editor of one of Israel's major magazines, he was for many years a member of the Knesset. You may not like what he has to say, but you can't simply dismiss him with a snide sneer. Is there no way to protect an article from this constant vexatious disruption? RolandR (talk) 07:35, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Appeal to authority much? Wikipedia is not about opinion. Whether I agree with his views or not is irrelevant. It's the fact that the author uses Uri Avnery as a balanced source is alarming. You say the article is balanced, which it blatantly isn't...it wouldn't be in start class if it were otherwise. You say it's balanced because you agree with, I say it isn't because I don't agree with. Get it? I've listed specific reasons why it isn't balanced. Wikipedia is not supposed to be a voice of partisan politics. This is just another wikipedia-sanctioned stab at Israel and is not encyclopedia appropriate. Perhaps in blog, maybe a biased newspaper, but not on wikipedia. Wikifan12345 (talk) 07:47, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• A little off-topic, I'm having trouble fixing the ref for the Nelson Mandel update (see SA views of Israel Apartheid). I have the source listed and it checks out, but I can't seem to fix the text correctly. Any help will be appreciated, thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikifan12345 (talk • contribs) 07:48, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Response to last point: the memo is a myth, based on a journalistic satire. I've removed the text from the article, and explained this (with source) on the talk page. RolandR (talk) 08:42, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete The article is now and always has been a POV-fork. The article itself barely addresses the subject - it is not a description the allegations but rather a list of them used to circumvent the undue weight section of the neutrality policy. We should not permit our policies and customs regarding the treatment of fringe perspectives to be undermined by the obfuscating expedient of prefixing article titles with the words Allegations of .... CIreland (talk) 12:31, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete all articles like this that present a POV as an encyclopedic topic... inherently problematic. I am no expert on middle east affairs so I can only argue by analogy... but I don't create articles like Allegations that Senator Barack Obama is unfit to be elected President... yes it's a topic with sources and notability... but sheesh.--Rividian (talk) 13:46, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy keep as repetitive nomination covering no new ground, to the point of filibustering. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:07, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - My my, It's like déjà vu all over again indeed. Let's go point-by-point;

#1 - What is "political neutrality", and where is this a Wikipedia policy? Such a prohibition would gut pretty much any article on any controversial subject. If this was a kludgey reference to WP:NPOV

• Are you asking what political neutrality is? I think it's pretty self-explanatory. Th article is slanted. Both sides are stated, but their is more emphasis on the opponents than the proponents. If you look at the introduction, it basically reads out why Israel is NOT an Apartheid state. But further reading is nothing but repetition. Overwhelming the reader with this ridiculous fallacies and absurd amount of sources (many of which don't connect with the source material...paraphrasing from no source is not wikipedia appropriate) 70.181.148.148 (talk) 18:34, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

#2 - The article is balanced by text from those who reject the analogy. Even if it wasn't, this is not a valid reason for the deletion of an article. See #1

• This article goes beyond the analogy. It draws from mostly critics, while ignoring the many sources who disagree. We might as well have an article that says "Allegations of why Israel is not an Apartheid state. 70.181.148.148 (talk) 18:34, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

#3 - The clean-up was reached a long time ago, just that the tag was never removed. the sections and paragraphs ans such are much more orderly and coherent than they were in the past.

• I just spent 10 minutes browsing and found several critical errors. Most of you obviously agree with the article, so of course you don't look at the errors. And why is it still in start class? Read the talk page for more criticisms. 70.181.148.148 (talk) 18:34, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

#4 - Article content is irrelevant to an AfD rationale. Take it up on the talk page.

• How so? 70.181.148.148 (talk) 18:34, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

#5 - See #4

#6 - A completely untrue assertion. There are numerous parts of the article that contain counter-arguments of those who reject the analogy, and why they do so.

• I'm not debating that parts of the article contain counter-arguments, but it ISN'T BALANCED. See #2 See #1 & #2. 70.181.148.148 (talk) 18:34, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

#7 - An attempt at well-poisoning by casting aspersions on the article on the basis of who has created or edited it in the past.

• Wait so now you're accusing me of fallacies? Whoa there. 70.181.148.148 (talk) 18:34, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

#8 - The previous AfD was aborted after less than 24hrs, as there was an ongoing ArbCom case regarding editor behavior and the pointy creation of counter-allegations of... articles. The conclusion drawn that the previous AfD was a "majority delete" is a misrepresentation of the 7th discussion.

• Wikipedia is very political. Many users aside from myself have expressed their disgust over this unnecessary article. It is pure speculation and is far from concrete. As I've said, it would be fair to have a "Why Israel is not an Apartheid State" because it would be in the same bounds as this one: Not neutral and not necessary. Do you agree? 70.181.148.148 (talk) 18:34, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

#9 - All in all, these are the same arguments tried in previous AfD and associated discussions, and they didn't work then either. The subject matter is notable and verifiable, and those are supported by reliable sources. That a controversial subject draws, well, controversy is not at all a reason for deletion. Tarc (talk) 15:45, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• I've already stated why the sources aren't reliable. And not only that, but many of the sources no longer work, some are dated, and some don't even connect with the paraphrasing. Meaning the author practically made up some of the info. Which is not surprising considering he was banned, so I'm he had a history of violating wikipedia rules. I'm not poisoning the well, I'm stating facts. 70.181.148.148 (talk) 18:34, 9 June 2008 (UTC)Wikifan12345 (talk) 20:30, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • What you are stating, both in the initial rationale and in these piecemeal responses, is your own opinion. Not a single deletion rationale is based upon an understanding of actual Wikipedia policy. Tarc (talk) 21:47, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep WP:SK #1: nominating on behalf of someone else while not advocating the nomination. I know we're not a bureaucracy, but the SK1 rule exists for a reason. (I take no position on any other issue raised by this conversation.) Townlake (talk) 16:39, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep Are we going to have to do this every time someone new comes along who doesn't like the article? CJCurrie (talk) 17:31, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Well obviously something is wrong if people are having issues with the article. You can't possibly think that the article is perfectly neutral (as you guys are portraying it has) while many people say nay. It's your political relationship verse ours. 70.181.148.148 (talk) 18:34, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

From my experience, most of the problems that people have identified with this page tend to revolve around WP:IDONTLIKEIT rather than serious discussions of its encyclopedic merit. CJCurrie (talk) 21:10, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Check the Notability fallacy listed on WP:IDONTLIKEIT. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikifan12345 (talk • contribs) 21:25, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Notice that nominator is more than eager to expand the equally controversial, but pro-Israeli and far less notable, Pallywood article[52], which represents a clear double standard. FunkMonk (talk) 18:54, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy keep. Nothing significant has changed since the 7th nomination, which decided to keep. 82.35.100.21 (talk) 18:56, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• Comment some serious refactoring has been happening on this page. Interested parties should check the history. Basically this whole discussion is a clusterfuck and should be terminated rapidly. <eleland/talkedits> 20:55, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

&CommentI do not appreciate your language Eleland nor your personal attacks against me. Check the history for all you want. All I did was correct a source in the citizenship section. SORRY! XD —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikifan12345 (talk • contribs) 21:14, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Strong keep As much as I support a speedy keep, I would like to point out that today and tomorrow are a religious holiday and observant Jewish editors will not be online until sundown on Tuesday (at the earliest). I think closing this nom early would result in valid complaints that the process was faulty. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 21:27, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I understand your concern, but I do not believe religious concerns have a role in this discussion at all, any more than the suggestion that the discussion of an Islamic-related article should be suspended during Ramadan. We shouldn't take holiday around religious observances. Tarc (talk) 21:47, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm only suggesting that the discussion not be closed early so we can try to avoid a second round at WP:DRV. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 23:09, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 21:31, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 21:31, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - Rividian is right. Just because something is notable and has sources doesn't prevent it from being a POV fork. Obama analogy was nice. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 21:52, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• If a number of notable individuals (including James Carter and Desmond Tutu - both Nobel Peace Prize winners) have referred to Israeli policies as "apartheid", it is an appropriate topic for an encyclopedia - regardless of whether or not you agree with them. An obvious keep. (Merge somewhere at worst, but don't delete under any circumstances.) - Mike Rosoft (talk) 22:05, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• Comment Appeal to authority much? Who cares if they're nobel prize winners. I'm sure you can some equally "awarded" individuals who say differently. I will that if this remains I'll be pursuing to create a separate that counters this one, because this clearly is an unnecessary an wikipedia-sanctioned political statement aimed at Israel. After all, it's only fair. 70.181.148.148 (talk) 22:44, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination. The article is one big ad hominem argument against Israel. There are plenty of better articles that touch upon the real issue and this one is just a pov form from those (such as Palestine Peace Not Apartheid, Zionism and racism allegations, Human rights in Israel, etc.). --GHcool (talk) 22:36, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• Neutral, but I feel it's worth pointing out that the nominator (Wikifan12345 (talk · contribs)) has been a registered user for only two days and has only edited one article - namely Allegations of Israeli apartheid. With all due respect (not biting the newcomers and all that) I'm not convinced that he has had enough exposure to Wikipedia's policies and practices to make an informed judgement about the merits of this article. I don't think I've ever come across a two-day-old editor nominating an article for deletion before (and I've been an editor for five years). -- ChrisO (talk) 23:03, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

'COMMENT ChrisO, I've told you, and many others, that I've been editing for over 6 months. Only recently did I register an account. Check my I.P. I would appreciate it if you would stop bringing this up. thanks! Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:34, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, I hadn't fully appreciated that. Apologies. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:49, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment Regardless of how long the nominator has been editing Wikipedia, the point that their reasons for deletion don't display any understanding of the WP:NPOV policy remains. See my discussion above. "I don't think this should have an article because I think the argument is flawed" is not a valid reason for deletion. The debate is a highly notable social phenomenon, so it should have an article wherin the merits and flaws of both sides of the debate are be presented with reliable references. That's what the article does, and that's in keeping with the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia. Ryan Paddy (talk) 00:09, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Keep, but rename to "Israeli apartheid analogy". Frank Pais (talk) 23:42, 9 June 2008 (UTC) Comment I agree with Frank. A renaming is a reasonable compromise (if this ends to keep). Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:47, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment I would strongly support renaming this article as "Israeli apartheid analogy". Would enough people support this as a compromise? CJCurrie (talk) 23:50, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment Renaming is a topic for another venue, but on the face of it I think that title is equally valid to the existing title and may somewhat pacify the people who see red whenever the word "allegation" is used in a title. It's unlikely to satisfy the "defenders of Israel" though, as they don't want an article with both "Israel" and "apartheid" together. Ryan Paddy (talk) 00:09, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment Defenders of Israel? What is your problem Paddy? You offer nothing to this article (as shown in the TALK and previous confrontations). Please stop with your personal attacks and hate. THANK YOU Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:19, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• • Comment I haven't contributed to the article or the talk, I wasn't even aware of its existence before I saw this deletion discussion. I'm not an interested party, I just sometimes comb through the deletion discussions making comments that I hope are based on Wikipedia policy and guidelines, as many editors do. I have not made any personal attacks or hateful remarks. It would be naive to think that an article that may be perceived as putting a country in a bad light would not attract attention from "defenders" of that country. That's not something specific to Israel, it's almost universal. However the title should reflect the nature of the debate. This debate specifically links Israel and the concept of apartheid. Therefore so should the title, despite the likely objections, which was my point. Ryan Paddy (talk) 03:42, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Strong delete the article is Wikipedia's best known POV push. It's evident that two arbitration cases have not helped to clean the content up, neither have the seven AFDs. I think two years is enough to make WP:HOPELESS a suitable reason for deletion (even more so as the article is, and I quote ATA, "so blatantly biased that it's an embarassment". Sceptre ^(talk) 00:01, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment WP:HOPELESS is part of an essay, and highly contentious. WP:NPOV is fundamental policy, and clearly overrides it. The article appears to cop a lot of flak despite being in a good state in terms of neutral presentation, hence the AfDs etc. To remove it would be censorship to appease people who don't want a notable subject described on Wikipedia because it offends their sensibilities. Ryan Paddy (talk) 00:20, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
    • We got images of Muhammad and the Pallywood article, what exactly makes this article different from those cases? FunkMonk (talk) 01:24, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep No noticable loss of notability since the last AfD. Nomination for an 8th time simply seems to be a clear and disruptive violation of WP:POINT. --Ave Caesar (talk) 00:07, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Notability is irrelevant. Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:10, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Notability is the principal Wikipedia guideline used to determine whether a subject should have an article. Please read the guideline, it was written by editors like you and me and represents that current consensus on how Wikipedia should be edited. Ryan Paddy (talk) 00:20, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Keep reading buddy, you're using notability as a fallacy. Just because it's notable does not mean it's valid, unbiased, fair, or balanced. I'm really getting tired of you. Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:23, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment I don't know what you mean by "using notability as a fallacy", it doesn't make any sense to me. The main guideline used to determine whether a subject should have an article is WP:N. By the definition in that guideline this subject is highly notable and therefore it should have article. I believe the article is currently well balanced, but even if it wasn't that wouldn't be a reason to delete because it can be fixed. Please don't get personal with your "sick of you" comments, you're clearly fairly new to the deletion process and I'm trying to help you understand how it works. It works by taking into account arguments based on policy and guidelines. Your arguments are not, so they're going to be ineffective. There are articles about subjects I find very offensive on Wikipedia, such as Race and intelligence. I hate the argument discussed there (that race affects intelligence) but I support it having an article in Wikipedia. Notable social phenomenon such as these arguments should have articles, that's what the WP:NPOV policy says and policies are the core standards that Wikipedia is based on. Ryan Paddy (talk) 03:32, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy keep As they say: "It's déjà vu all over again". If anything the expression/allegations have just become stronger in the 2 years since this article was created. Regards, Huldra (talk) 01:20, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Wikifan12345 is actively recruiting (pro-Israeli) voters to this page; by last count he had left messages at around 14 different user-pages. Regards, Huldra (talk) 01:25, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment Here is the WP:CANVAS policy and the contribs. --Thetrick (talk) 01:46, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete This enervated propaganda is not an encyclopedia article. Hell, even the United Nations reverted its emetic resolution equating Zionism with racism -- we should follow their lead. Ecoleetage (talk) 01:54, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Comment I'm not recruiting anybody. I was making aware what was going on with this article before you shove this under the rug with a wikipedia stamp of approval. This article violates the foundation and reasoning behind wikipedia. Wikipedia should never be a voice of partisan politics. Heck, the title "Allegations of..." is completely ridiculous.

Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:00, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• • So yet again, why do you want to expand the Pallywood article[53], which has exactly the same faults as this one? Because it is pro-Israeli? FunkMonk (talk) 02:07, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I know nothing about the Pallywood article. You're the one that seems to be obsessed with the article: So how about you take a stab at it? Don't expect my attention when you blatantly lied about my unsaid opinion. Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:13, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
    • I'm pointing out the double standard of nominating this article for deletion due to it being controversial while wanting to expand the the Pallywood article (which is equally controversial, but is about a pro-Israeli subject), like the link[54] I posted showed you do. I don't give a damn about the Pallywood article itself. Quit fooling around. FunkMonk (talk) 02:19, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Comment I'm getting the distinct impression that many people who believe the article is invalid have taken this position because they believe the analogy is invalid (for instance, [55].) In fact, these are two entirely separate questions. CJCurrie (talk) 02:28, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Comment Despite the assertions above, Wikifan12345 was clearly engaged in canvassing as he left 13 consecutive messages on talk pages of Wikipedia:WikiProject_Israel/Participants (and none on talk pages of Wikipedia:WikiProject_Palestine. --Thetrick (talk) 02:44, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Since when is it illegal to make aware of an important wikipedia happening such as this? It's only reasonable those editors who are most involved in this area of discussion deserve to know what's going on. Right? Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:09, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment That is clearly a dishonest argument given who you notified. Read Wikipedia:CANVAS#Votestacking. --Thetrick (talk) 03:18, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
      • Comment The purpose of Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Israel is to notify editors who have an interest in Israel-related articles that an article is the subject of an AfD. I wrote above that I had listed this article there. Wikifan12345, further messages are considered unnecessary and inappropriate. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 03:57, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Israel as an alleged apartheid state? there are a good few articles on wikipedia dedicated to the issue that are sufficient without pushing buzzwords. read the article apartheid and say Israel, Palestinians, and the United Nations, Israeli-Palestinian conflict amongst many others that touch on the subject. there is really no connection. frummer (talk) 03:45, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Please see my comments here. I recognize that many people oppose the analogy; that isn't sufficient reason to oppose the article. Note also that Frummer was canvassed by Wikifan12345 here. CJCurrie (talk) 03:55, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• CommentI did not canvaas anybody, at least not intentionally. I just wanted their OPINION, and considering they are the ones most active in this area of wiki, that's pretty REASONABLE. But thanks for the info. Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:15, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Keep doesn't seem to claim that any of what's stated is true--at the beginning of the article, it is explained that the subject of the article is the accusations themselves. M1ss1ontomars2k4 (talk) 06:04, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - it's always going to be a hotbed of anti-Semitism and religious warring. This normally doesn't matter that much, if there's a strong, neutral, sourced basline to begin with; we can always revert back to that. But in this case, it's biased and fails to give a reasonable view of a very sensitive topic. If it can be rewritten to be utterly neutral, arguments on both sides, fully sourced - without linking to too many websites attacking the Jewish faith, that'd be nice too. But unrealisitc. ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 07:12, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep but rename Allegations of apartheid in the West Bank to address concerns of nominator regarding possible confusion with human rights issues within Israel proper. There are several noteworthy accusations of apartheid in the West Bank regarding roads etc, but to say there is apartheid in Israel (minus the territories) is just absurd. пﮟოьεԻ 57 08:39, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Comment I support the renaming, however limiting the title to West Bank is not a smart move. The article touches on several areas, including Gaza, and the remaining territories where Palestinians inhabit. Second, allegations also go into Israeli Arabs. Which I feel is most absurd, since in several of the sections of the article support the fact that there is no Apartheid inside Israel. Arabs and Jews live in the country with equal rights. Heck, there is even an Affirmative Action Plan and policies that provide opportunities not government-sanctioned for Jews. Comparing an Apartheid regime inside Israel is not only false, it's intellectual dishonest. But that's besides the point. I supporting renaming the article "Analogies of an Israeli Apartheid". That seems more fair. However, I think this argument is not appropriate in this discussion. I'm still getting familiar with wiki rules, but someone mentioned that a deletion nomination discussion has no bounds in renaming the article. That's a completely different proposal...right? Apologies for my ignorance. Wikifan12345 (talk) 08:49, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Comment I'm against renaming this Allegations of apartheid in the West Bank; and in any case, this is not the right place for such a proposal. Many of the issues discussed in the article (citizenship, personal status, family law, marriage law, land and infrastructure and much more) clearly refer to the state of Israel itself, not to the areas occupied in 1967. The article also notes the explicit comments of several activists, arguing that there is a system analogous to apartheid within the state. There have been several unsuccessful attempts to remove these; the suggested name change would enable this, and indeed would necessitate the removal of a large part of the article. Incidentally, why is the suggestion restricted to the West Bank; what about occupied East Jerusalem, the Golan Heights and the Gaza Strip? RolandR (talk) 09:03, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I guess you could also have Allegations of apartheid in the Palestinian territories if there is reference to the same kind of thing happening in Gaza (I've only read about it in the West Bank) and as far as international law is concerned, isn't East Jerusalem recognised as being part of the West Bank (as no-one recognises the Israeli annexation). As for the Golan Heights, I don't believe anything of this sort goes on there (it is not mentioned in the article at all). пﮟოьεԻ 57 09:52, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Delete Articles like this are POV just from the way their title is worded. --Oren neu dag (talk) 10:15, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep There are plenty of sources used in the article directly discussing the topic of the article. This establishes the notability of this topic meaning that we should have an article on it. I do not agree that just because an article needs to be improved for a long time it should be deleted, we should inform the reader of the problems with the article with appropriate tags and keep trying to improve it. Davewild (talk) 10:17, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep per all the above keep reasons, the nomination is a POV as the article is accused of being. SGGH ^speak! 10:24, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep similarities between apartheid and the occupied territories are obvious, and well-attested in reliable sources. None of the objections given by the proposer has any validity according to Wiki policies, as demonstrated by others above. Certainly the article can be improved, but that is not a reason for deletion. NSH001 (talk) 11:33, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. The article has its problems, and it's doubtful whether a truly neutral article could ever be written about this topic - many would say that any article under the title 'Allegations of (something awful) against (somebody)...' is inherently non-neutral. However, having read the article, I'm convinced that this is a notable allegation (even though it may or may not be a totally illegitimate one; that's not for Wikipedia to decide) and therefore we should hve an article on it; and the fact that it's difficult to write a neutral article on the subject does not mean no article on the subject should ever exist. Terraxos (talk) 14:31, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Further comment: I note a proposal higher up this AFD to rename the page to 'Israeli apartheid analogy'. I for one would consider that title a vast improvement. I think one of the biggest problems with this article is simply its title, which sounds non-neutral even if the article actually isn't; for various reasons, 'analogy' simply sounds more neutral than 'allegations'. Terraxos (talk) 14:43, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Mixtape About Nothing

The Mixtape About Nothing (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Mixtape: Non-notable per WP:MUSIC. Mdsummermsw (talk) 13:01, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete WP:MUSIC.  Esradekan Gibb  ^"Talk" 13:26, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete unless sources are added to demonstrate that this is more than your "usual" mixtape. I {{prod}}ded an earlier version of this last week, and the rationale there ("Non-notable unreleased mixtape. I can't see any way this will ever be expandable to fit WP:N.") currently still stands. — iridescent 14:16, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep an entire article on Entertainment Weekly's website was dedicated to this mixtape. Thats more than "trivial coverage". Not to mention Julia Louis-Dreyfuss appears on this. Yes its slim, but its only been released for a week, I believe this nomination is premature.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 02:19, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 02:29, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Weak keep per the EW article, I'm sure more reliable sources exist or at least will exist given the album's newness. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 02:44, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete despite the EW article. We can all speculate that additional articles may exist in the future, but the time for an article is not until they actually do. I don't think one article, even in EW, is enough to cement notability for a mix tape that will supposedly be released soon. Erechtheus (talk) 04:20, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] N-Tyce

N-Tyce (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:MUSIC. Not notable as an individual artist, redirect to Deadly Venoms. Mdsummermsw (talk) 13:58, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete She is not a notable rapper. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 14:03, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy redirect to Deadly Venoms. Not notable on her own, but no reason to delete outright. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 15:58, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 02:25, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Redirect to Deadly Venoms.  Esradekan Gibb  ^"Talk" 02:58, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] XMPlay

This is another software product which fails both WP:N and WP:SOFTWARE -- I am unable to locate any reliable and non-trivial third party publications about it. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 17:26, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 03:09, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 02:12, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - essentially an advert. Ben MacDui^Talk/Walk 09:00, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] IDance

IDance (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable single, currently only on YouTube Esanchez_{(Talk 2 me or Sign here)} 02:13, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Do U(knome)? ^yes...|_{or no} · 02:40, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete WP:MUSIC.  Esradekan Gibb  ^"Talk" 02:57, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• iDelete as song has not been released to radio. Spell4yr (talk) 04:17, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The International Scope Review

The International Scope Review (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

article is unsourced and notability has not been established. Appears to be a "walled garden" with Patrick Hunout and The Social Capital Foundation, all three unsourced and each attempting to prop up the others. Madagascar periwinkle (talk) 01:44, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. According to the journal's website, the last issue appeared in 2008, so it seems to be moribund. That is in itself, of course, not a reason to delete, because a defunct journal may still have a notable history. However, according to the Web of Knowledge, only 9 articles published by the "INT SCOPE REV" have ever been cited (7 cited 1 time, 2 cited 2 times). This clearly indicates that this journal never made much or even any impact. --Crusio (talk) 11:30, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• Listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals/Deletion. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:20, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Totally non-notable. That a few citations to it are listed in WOS does not in fact mean it is one of the ones they index, just that other journals have been known to refer to it. they include every paper an included journal cites without checking further. Ulrich's does not even include it. Not even the Library of Congress has it, not even the British library. DGG (talk) 04:19, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Social Capital Foundation

The Social Capital Foundation (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

no evidence of notability has been provided. The article was kept despite the lack of sources in 2006 hoping that expansion would provide sourcing and satisfiy notability requirements, however, this has not happened and the article should be looked at again and evidence of notability should be required. This article, together with Patrick Hunout and The International Scope Review appear to be a "walled garden" using each to support the other. Madagascar periwinkle (talk) 01:33, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. I see no evidence of reliable secondary sources establishing notability for this foundation. Does indeed look like a walled garden... --Crusio (talk) 11:33, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• Do not delete. The expression "wall garden" does not mean much. There are numerous good academic contributions on their website as mentioned in 2006. Their conferences are also well-known. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.235.215.231 (talk) 18:36, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

— 62.235.215.231 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Comment. The William Davidson Institute is not very different and is not considered for deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.235.215.231 (talk) 22:59, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• ???? The William Davidson Institute does not have an article? In any case, the fact that other bad articles exist does not justify keeping similar articles. --Crusio (talk) 06:21, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment The William Davidson Institute does have an article, but it comprises no references, and is not considered for deletion, so why lack so much objectivity Crusio? This TSCF article gives complete info to public about a serious organization. See no problem with it.

  You're right, The William Davidson Institute does have a page (I searched for "William Davidson Institute", and then one gets redirected to the UMich article; it owuld be handy if you could clearly indicate such links in your comments). I'll have a look at it later, no time now, although at first sight I indeed do not see much reason why it should have a separate article. However, please WP:AGF. I am not biased against TSCF. That does not mean, however, that it is my task to find all similar articles and propose those for deletion, too (there must be thousands of those....) WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is an established policy for this kind of cases. --Crusio (talk) 10:22, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cubans of Brazil

Cubans of Brazil (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Cuban Brazilians is not a notable community in Brazil. The population is really small, the population contribution to Brazilian culture and history is nothing. This page is nothing more than an overexaggeration of Cuban Brazilians. There is hardly any Cuban Brazilians in Brazilian society. Why is there a page for an unnotalbe community? Lehoiberri (talk) 01:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. With all due respect, I don't think there is much to tell about Cubans in Brazil. DutchDevil (talk) 21:21, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Brad Chalk

Brad Chalk (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Two liner. Concerned has been expressed with a tag saying does not meet WP:NN guidelines. I concur, but move it here for more to see. Brusegadi (talk) 01:33, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. Satisfies WP:ATHLETE, which I haven't looked at in awhile. That criteria has been reduced from "major" league professional to those "who have competed in a fully professional league". The Fort Wayne Wizards are a professional team, so the guideline criterion is satisfied, so long as verifiable sources are added to the article. Truthanado (talk) 01:51, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. While Single-A ball doesn't meet my definition of a "fully professional league" (pay is so low that it's less than minumum wage), this article says he was an All-American in college, so there will undoubtedly be lots written about him.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:58, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. In the world of baseball, players such as Ryan Howard and David Wright make sudden jumps from being minor league scrubs to major league stars. You never know what could happen, so let's keep this here and see how his career plays out. Uncheelsrok (talk) 21:24, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Patrick Hunout

Patrick Hunout (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

there are no reliable third party sources, so notability has not been established in accordance with WP:BIO Madagascar periwinkle (talk) 01:27, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep This Google search reveals 2,400+ hits on him here There are ample third party sources on him; this Citizendium article even references a paper Hunout wrote here--see the first article. He's clearly notable enough. Artene50 (talk) 09:19, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • The question is not whether people are referencing his article, but are people writing about him. Only the later gives us source we can use in the article.--Prosfilaes (talk) 10:35, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. This is a strange case. According to it's website, it seems that the journal that he is involved with (The International Scope Review) has not appeared since 2006. The Web of Knowledge lists just one article by him, cited a grand total of 1 times (searching for "Hunout", so I cannot have missed articles because of additional initials, for instance). If I search for all citaions (i.e. also to works not themselves included in WoK), I find one additional citation to his thesis (by himself in the one article included in WoK) and one to an article in The International Scope Review. Most of the entries listed on the Google search linked by Artene50 are entries in Wikis (perhaps/probably made by the subject himself?) and networking sites (certainly made by the subject himself). Many references listed in the article are from the The International Scope Review and it is not clear how independent this is of him (the fact that he is on the Board and even its founder does not necessarily mean that his articles get in without any scrutiny. Any well-managed scientific journal will scrutinize articles from its editors as carefully -if not more- than those from other contributors to avoid the impression of favoritism. I am the founding editor of a scientific journal myself, so I know what I'm talking about....). Hunout has apparently also published several books, which might be notable, but it is strange that none of those have ever been cited in WoK. In short, the only serious reference brought up till now is the one to Citizendium, and the fact that they cite an article by Hunout does not really make him notable. Unless other sources would crop up, I'd probably go for delete, but will abstain for the moment. --Crusio (talk) 11:23, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. His work on job evaluation is well known and has been used as source in academic programmes and courses. The Review he is involved in is very demanding and his conferences as well. The bibliography mentions several publications at third parties. So he is notable enough. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.235.215.231 (talk) 18:54, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

— 62.235.215.231 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Comment Could you perhaps provide sources for the things you mention? If his works are used as text books in courses, that would establish notability, but there should be a way to verify that claim. The "Review" seems to be moribund. The current bibliography only mentions some works by himself and they don't seem to have had much if any impact. Perhaps I'm wrong, in that case, please present the evidence. --Crusio (talk) 19:00, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete, per Crusio, unless more positive evidence to indicate notability under WP:PROF or WP:BIO is found. As Crusio said, WebOfScience shows precious little in the way of the subject't work being cited by other scholars. GoogleScholar also produces very few citations[56], with top hits of 4, 3 and 1. I am not seeing evidence of passing WP:PROF here. Nsk92 (talk) 19:19, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Closer examination of the Google scholar results makes the numbers look smaller: the "top hit" of 4 citations appears to be really one citation, in a paper by Frédéric Schoenaers, repeated 4 times. In addition I tried (by Googling "hunout syllabus") but failed to find any use of his works in the classroom. The closest I found was a false hit on a sociology class close to here which unrelatedly includes a web poll of top sociologists in which some respondent (perhaps Hunout himself) has added Hunout's name to a list of larger luminaries. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:40, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• Do not delete. Crusio, you are mixing up several things. The Review is not moribund, does not publish every year unless it has appropriate (of sufficient high quality) material. New Editorial Board for 2008-2010 shows pundit names like Inglehart. If you look at other Wikipedia articles like e.g. Amitai Etzioni bibliography it is also made of their own works. The issue is not to list a large number of publications but visibility, and visibility is indeniable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.235.215.231 (talk) 22:48, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• Comment. Hunout is the President of a NGO not a pure scholar. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.235.215.231 (talk) 23:03, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete As for that link in Citizendium, it got there as a copy of the Wikipedia article at the time [57]. We have removed it long since, they have not yet done so.DGG (talk) 05:05, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Virtle Rock

Virtle Rock (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Page does not assert notability; google turns up 181 hits (or 22, for some reason the numbers drop off on the second and third results pages). Most google results are mirrors of wikipedia. Page has been around for 2.5 years with minimal expansion or linking. ) WLU (talk) 00:52, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Physical locations are generally notable, but I think they still have to meet WP:V, and this one doesn't. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 01:02, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. There must be independent verifiable sources here. Article doesn't even cite 1 reference. Artene50 (talk) 09:23, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• I have boldly merged and redirected to Lyme_Bay#Other_features; the rock does not have enough sources to build a viable encyclopaedia article, but it clearly exists. A merge and redirect is less drastic than a deletion, so the content can be unmerged some day if Virtle Rock manages to gain some notability (unlikely I know, but...) Regards, EJF (talk) 22:17, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• I don't get an arrow when I click on the link! It tries to direct me to "Virtual Rock" but that doesn't help. I'm no wizard with google maps so it's possible I'm somehow screwing it up. I've no problem with the merge if it's legit and I'm just not seeing it. WLU (talk) 22:29, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• OK, click on this link and then click on "search maps" and a pushpin should come up near Lyme Regis. EJF (talk) 22:39, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah, that did work, thanks. It's apparently too small to be seen even at the highest resolution, but it shows up : ) Redirecting is fine with me. WLU (talk) 23:58, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] What's New Happening on Disney Channel India

What's New Happening on Disney Channel India (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

WP is not a directory or TV listing. ukexpat (talk) 00:44, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Wikipedia is not a TV directory. What the nom said. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:52, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per the above rationale and also as at least arguable wikispam. Erechtheus (talk) 01:32, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - Wikipedia is not a TV listing guide. TN‑X-Man 13:15, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as strangely titled and unreferenced. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:44, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Not a TV directory. Malinaccier (talk) 21:47, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Identifying spiders

Identifying spiders (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Basically this is the same thing as a guide to eatable mushroom identification, which I'm sure there is no place for on Wikipedia. If anywhere it'd place on Wikibooks (with expansion). — Jan Hofmann (talk) 00:39, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Per what wikipedia is not. Specificly, wikipedia is not a guide. Tabor (talk) 02:01, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete although the contents of this along with List of types of spiders (which should also be deleted or renamed) - could be used in something like "Classification of spiders". Shyamal (talk) 05:01, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• Redirect to spider taxonomy Shyamal (talk) 16:29, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Transwiki to Wikibooks, per nom M1ss1ontomars2k4 (talk) 06:01, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Naturopathic doctor

Naturopathic doctor (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

POV fork of Naturopathy, and a dangerous one: I did a websearch for "ND legal requirements naturopathy" and found this website which says "In a state without naturopathic licensure, anyone can call him or herself a ND regardless of the level of training, experience or competence." According to the NCCAM, [58], only 11 states in the United states actually do licence them. In other words, we are making claims that everyone who designates themselves an ND is a fully-certified, highly-trained professional, something that is actually only true of a minority. This article should be deleted as a POV-fork, and/or redirected to the main article. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 00:15, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Does the degree exist? If so, could the article explain the problem of only certain states recognizing the degree? A²Kafir (and...?) 02:09, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• Comment If the degree exists, it may be pertinent information but some caveats must be given about the 11 US states that license naturaopathic doctors. If not delete. Artene50 (talk) 02:13, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - The ND degree exists and allows the practitioner to be a primary care provider in some (apparently 11) US states. However, in other states, either there is no regulation (anyone can call themselves an ND), or it is completely illegal. There is such thing as Naturopathic medical school, which grants the ND degree. In the article, these points should all be clearly stated in the lead. I don't think this is a POV fork, since the degree exists, and it is different from naturopathy in other countries. However, the article should be moved to the more appropriate Doctor of Naturopathy. (A history merge should be performed after this Afd.) Also, depending on the aggressiveness and boldness of this article's authors, there is a high potential for controversy, similar to what goes on between the traditional medicine and chiropractic camps. Some previous editors tried to insert naturopathic medical education information in with traditional medical education, which has repeatedly been rejected by the traditional medical community. I think having separate naturopathic medicine articles is appropriate and the best solution. --Scott Alter 06:42, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• After reading Scott's comments, I change my vote to Keep with the caveats and changes discussed. There are genuine online references in the article. Its not a WP:SPAM Artene50 (talk) 08:17, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• Comment Just to get the number right, there are 15 states that license naturopathic doctors; the 14 listed in the NCAM link in Shoemaker's comment above, and Minnesota, which passed a licensing law in the past few weeks, for references see the naturopathy talk page under "Minnesota Licensure." Lamaybe (talk) 18:15, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - It might be repetitive to motion to keep an article that I wrote, but I'd like to respond to the criticism that this is a dangerous POV fork. I think the first points that Shoemaker raises above are great, that anyone can call themselves an ND in unlicensed states, and that only certain states and provinces in North America license NDs. The original article also describes those points. But then Shoemaker states that the article makes claims "that everyone who designates themselves an ND is a fully-certified, highly-trained professional..." I don't see that claim, or even that implication, anywhere in the article. If this is a blind spot for me, please point it out! Lastly, this doesn't seem like a fork to me; it's describing a professional degree granted by accredited institutions, and recipients of that degree are licensed to be primary care providers in 15 states and 4 provinces! It struck me as being as worthy of an article as Doctor of Medicine, Doctor of Philosophy, or Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine, which is, of course, why I wrote it. :) Lamaybe (talk) 22:26, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - Although I think that Shoemaker's Holiday's initial critique had merit, it seems clear that his or hers concerns have been addressed by the series of rewrites. I think also that people looking for general information on naturopathy will generally end up at Naturopathic medicine; readers who reach this page are likely looking for specific information about licensure and accreditation, and hence this article is of use and should not be merged. Eggsyntax (talk) 22:32, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] UFO Phil

UFO Phil (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fail WP:BIO.The article contains no sources and I was not able to find any reliable source coverage of the subject. The article also appears to make overstated claims, one example is the article claim that he is a "regular on the nationally syndicated radio program Coast to Coast AM with George Noory, appearing frequently as a guest and contributor." The wikipedia article on Coast to Coast AM has a section about guests which he is not mentioned, he is instead mentioned in a section about callers. BlueAzure (talk) 00:15, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete I looked around for some reliable sources and couldn't find any, so it looks like the subject fails WP:BIO. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 07:08, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ngarto Februana

Ngarto Februana (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

An author of question notability. The primary author is User:Ngarto and thus likely has a conflict of interest. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:54, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. He may be notable, but this article is a classic case of conflict of interest. The only sources for biographical material appear to be self-published, and the article would thus fail WP:V. Ohconfucius (talk) 04:42, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:09, 9 June 2008 (UTC) Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:09, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Despite the unanimity of the discussion I have chosed to relist this because on the face of the article the subject is notable and COI is usually a reason to improve an article not delete it. Since consensus is supposed to relect policy I fell that wider input is required if we are to go ahead and delete this. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:09, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] .sport

.sport (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Recreation of article recently speedily deleted under the same name. The problem is with the topic, not the content, and remains exactly the same.

This is not an article about a ".sport" TLD. That would be notable. This article is spam from one company, claiming to have a plan to possibly make a submission to ICANN for a .sport TLD. That is no more notable than a plan I might have myself to submit an application for a ".andy" TLD, I merely need to get round to doing the paperwork. At this stage of the process this is simply not notable, and no more than commercial spam on the behalf of a single organisation. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. —Andy Dingley (talk) 21:41, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Anyone not already familiar with it might do well to read WP:OSE Andy Dingley (talk) 21:46, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Whilst I applaud the effort of the creator, this topic does not appear to have received any independent coverage, all the information appears to come from the proposers' website. If this is the only source available - I can't find any others - then it won't be possible to write a verifiable, neutral article on the topic which is free of original work. Guest9999 (talk) 23:49, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete article about an unofficial proposal suspected to perhaps be made sometime in 2009, Wikipedia does not predict the future and notability can't be inherited from the future either, particularly based on such unofficial, predicted proposals that may or may not happen. SGGH ^speak! 06:33, 10 June 2008 (UTC)