Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 September 19

< September 18	September 20 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was Delete. Eluchil404 21:17, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Concurrent Voting

Delete. Original research. Yellowbeard 16:53, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Interesting, but no reliable sources or independent support of notability, validation, or use of this method. DMacks 17:15, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:OR -Icewedge 19:06, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, doesn't appear to be OR, if the usage by the NY Times (http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F00D16F63D5D13738DDDAD0994D9415B868EF1D3) is the same. Burzmali 19:44, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep apparently not OR. needs more sources. NYT article confers notability.--Victor falk 20:33, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The NYT article is dated "November 14, 1926" and is about the then ongoing elections of the League of Nations. There is absolutely no connection between the NYT article and the Wikipedia article. Yellowbeard 12:19, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's a deficiency in the article then, not a cause for deletion. The use of the concept in a context as important as the League of Nation satisfies WP:N. The article needs a rewrite and cleanup. Burzmali 12:34, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, the NYT article doesn't say that the League of Nations used "concurrent voting". Yellowbeard 13:22, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; the article is a stub and needs time to be developed. It can be relisted for deletion if no progress is made by the end of the year. CRGreathouse (t | c) 15:14, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article can go until someone wishes to write about a verifiable and widespread use of the term, assuming there is one. Accidental juxtaposition of two words in the NYT 80 years ago does not make an encyclopedic topic. Gazpacho 06:59, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Google books would suggest that the term was once used, and now someone else is trying to reinvent it. The article need a historical perspective added from someone who has access to one of those books. Burzmali 12:11, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Today, you get a large number of Google hits for every possible accidental juxtaposition of two words. That doesn't prove anything. Yellowbeard 12:29, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the article were about this apparently verifiable use of the term, I wouldn't say delete, but that is not the case. Nothing in the article right now can be kept. Gazpacho 02:30, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. and Gazpacho.--JayJasper 12:47, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Carlossuarez46 03:29, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

North All-Time Wrestling

No claim to notability, and apparently no notability -- pushing the google button showed zero hits for "NATW 'North All-Time Wrestling' -wikipedia". Seems to be a small, minor-league wrestling organization. Pending outcome of this AFD, I'm also going to want to nominate Travis Helmsley, Alyssa Ortiz, and NATW X-Factor Championship -- they all are linked from here and all depend on the notability of this organization for their own notability. This may also be vulnerable to speedy deletion due to criterion A7; I'm not sure. Deltopia 16:53, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no sources, no Google hits, no verifiability. Speedy may be out since the article has a weak assertion of notability: They also gained popularity when ... Huon 22:12, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. -- Longhair\^talk 10:16, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lyon's

Lack of notability and written as advert. Chef Christopher Allen Tanner, CCC 16:26, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Appears to have enough sources to satisfy notability Yngvarr (t) (c) 16:42, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question - Do adverts usually describe in detail a company's bankruptcy record? --Oakshade 17:07, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Appears notable, per coverage by independent reliable sources. Nothing particularly spammy about the article. -Chunky Rice 17:10, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not notable and little chance for expansion. - Rjd0060 17:14, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm not seeing where it fails to meet WP:CORP. There are are a number of sources, full articles about the business. A franchise that at one time had 72 locations seems like a notable business. If there are advert problems (none jumped out at me) they should be able to be cleared up with editing, not deletion.Cube lurker 17:23, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, sourced article on a formerly important regional chain. Notability is permanent, seems like notability was met and is still. --Dhartung | Talk 18:08, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, not the most significant topic in the world, but a $100m subsidiary of a public company is definitely notable. So Lyon's was notable, and thus is notable, even if the current corporate entity probably wouldn't satisfy WP:NOT on its own. I've sorted out the article, eliminated the bits that did seem like WP:ADVERT for some franchisees' new businesses, cleaned up the references etc. I'm assuming that Nation's Restaurant News is a respectable source in the foodservice world, it looks OK? The one query I have would be about the current company, it looks like they've lost a number of franchisees and I couldn't find anything that looked like a corporate website - anyone? FlagSteward 12:04, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nation's Restaurant News is a very reliable hospitality industry source, thanks for working on the article. I posted this as per an individual that added it on the WikiProject Food and Drink. I think it is better to do an AFD post than a general deletion discussion as this becomes more notable and people like yourself can see this and get to work on convincing people of its notability.--Chef Christopher Allen Tanner, CCC 19:10, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Carlossuarez46 03:30, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fahrenheit 1/15 Part II: Revenge of the Nerds

A disputed prod. This album (mixtape?) fails WP:MUSIC. UsaSatsui 16:23, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It certainly does. Has no sources to establish WP:N and has no potential to expand. Spellcast 22:39, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Jreferee t/c 23:03, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

San Diego Bay Wine & Food Festival

Appears to lack sufficient notability Chef Christopher Allen Tanner, CCC 16:19, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The San Diego Union-Tribune has given extensive coverage to this festival [1] --Oakshade 17:30, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Local newspapers write about all kinds of non-notable things. Punkmorten 08:20, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - You're only pigeon holing this with other completely undefined "non-notable things" and disregarding the fact a major newspaper gave a very thorough in-depth coverage of a major event affecting a metropolitan area of about 3 million people.--Oakshade 19:37, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is a reletivly new event to the area but it does show four past years hits in Google in magazines from across the country. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Exit2DOS2000 (talk • contribs) 16:12, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unless some properly independent sources can be found. It's easy to fall into the trap that "many sources = notability". But this can overestimate the notability of commercial entities that employ PR people to place stories in the press - and this is particularly true of one-off events whose commercial success relies on creating a 'buzz' in their local area. So I'd be particularly wary of sources for this article from California, and in the run-up to the event (ie October/November). Don't forget the first criterion of WP:NOT - Independence of the sources from the subject. This is not true of even 1000-word newspaper articles that just rehash corporate press releases. In fact for this kind of event I'd almost put more weight on directory listings as long as they showed some kind of genuinely independent editorial judgement being made. So for instance I'd be really impressed if it was in a list in Le Monde or the Sydney Morning Herald of "The Top 10 Food Festivals In The World" - in fact that kind of thing might even make it a Mid rather than a Low. Conversely I would put no weight on an LA Times list of "All food festivals in California". My feeling is that this is probably unnotable, but am prepared to change my mind if people can find multiple, genuinely independent references within the next week or two. That San Diego Union-Tribune piece is definitely not one such, it reads as little better than advertorial. FlagSteward 13:14, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The event appears to be mildly notable, or notable enough to include. Burntsauce 21:48, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Carioca 02:25, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Albany Junior High School

This is an article for a non-notable school which provides no encyclopaedic value. B1atv 16:15, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Redirect~~ our readers to Albany, New Zealand instead. I can see some encyclopedia value here, but feel we'd be better serving visitors with a redirect. Burntsauce 17:19, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep in light of recent changes made by gadfium, I can support this article now since it has been expanded with reliable sources. Burntsauce 18:19, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletions. —gadfium 19:23, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is an unusual and controversial type of High School in New Zealand. I've added some references. Until I did so, I had thought it was the only Junior High in the country - I certainly couldn't name any of the others.-gadfium 19:23, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to appropriate section about the controversy in Education_in_New_Zealand--Victor falk 20:40, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Gadfium.--Limegreen 03:51, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep also per Gadfium--JForget 23:24, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or, as a last resort, redirect. An article for middle schools in New Zealand would be nice, though; I'd actually prefer for this article to redirect to that rather than to Albany. That concept has notability; the school, aside from that, does not. CRGreathouse (t | c) 15:16, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. —Noroton 17:24, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Gadfium's edits pointing out that this is the first purpose-built junior high in NZ.--SarekOfVulcan 18:54, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 19:42, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

World wrestling revolution

Non-notable talk radio show. Host's article was just deleted via AfD, this probably should have been bundled with it. Precious Roy 15:49, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nn talk show. Carlossuarez46 03:31, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Carlossuarez46 03:32, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Webgpl

Contains a bit more than the version previously AfD'd but is still non-notable (Google search). -- RHaworth 19:39, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 04:25, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Scientizzle 15:35, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Google says it's a clear delete and me too; it seems to be not used on more than a handful of non-notable pages. -- Kl4m ^{Talk Contrib} 20:59, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Consensus is that Rich Nathan has received enough coverage in reliable sources that are independent of Rich Nathan to develop an attributable article on the topic. -- Jreferee t/c 23:50, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rich Nathan

Subject of article does not pass the notability test. There is only one external source, and it was written by the subject himself. The article about the church he heads was merged into this article, but that part mostly appears as a combination of a sermon and and advertisement for the church. Analogue Kid 15:13, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Nathan is a notable figure within Christianity, a key leader of the Vineyard Movement after the death of John Wimber, Nathan's church draws about 6,000 people every week. Google hits for his name were 12,400. He is one of the primary voices advocating the Third Wave of the Holy Spirit. Agreed that the article needs some more sources and third party neutrality, but his notability shouldn't be in dispute.Brian0324 17:26, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have added some external links that are of published secondary sources (1) Columbus Dispatch interview, (2) Columbus, Ohio Community Relations article, (3) Christianity Today article interviewing Nathan. -- Brian0324 19:17, 19 September 2007 (UTC) (4) here's an article from a Jewish website that claims that Nathan's church is one of the biggest in the state of Ohio -- Brian0324 19:29, 19 September 2007 (UTC). (5) Jackson, Bill (1999). Quest for the Radical Middle: A History of the Vineyard. Vineyard International Publishing. ISBN 0620243198. -- Added this reference to Nathan's article Brian0324 19:42, 19 September 2007 (UTC). (6) Gaffin, Richard B. (1996). Are Miraculous Gifts for Today?: Four Views. Zondervan. ISBN 0310201551. -- Added this reference to Nathan's impact on the Third Wave Movement Brian0324 20:17, 19 September 2007 (UTC). (7) Grudem, Wayne (1994). Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine. Zondervan. ISBN 0310286700. Nathan's response to John F. MacArthur is cited on page 1040. -- Brian0324 20:48, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the alleged interview with the Columbus paper (item (1) above) likely would get him enough notability, but we need a link to the article, and it referenced in the text. Likely, he is notable but the outside sources need to be found and used in the article. -- Rocksanddirt 22:47, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, here it is.Columbus Dispatch interview. -- Brian0324 13:32, 20 September 2007 (UTC) :Now a quote appears from this article in the text. -- Brian0324 13:45, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I was recently interviewed by the Dispatch, but I seriously doubt that makes me notable.--Analogue Kid 23:11, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as above Elmao 18:07, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by nominator -Google is not a test of notability. Unfortunately it is not practical to determine whether the hits you receive are for the Rich Nathan who is the subject of the article or Rich Nathan who is someone else. If after reviewing the notability guidelines given below, you still feel that the article should be kept, please provide additional 3rd party sources as soon as possible so we can determine notability. As it stands, it fails the test for the following reasons: (1) The person has been the subject of published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. None given presently (2) If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may need to be cited to establish notability. Trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability. Once notability is established, primary sources may be used to add content. (3) The person has been the subject of a credible independent biography. Not that I can find (4) The person has received significant recognized awards or honors. Nothing noted. (5) The person has demonstrable wide name recognition I have lived in Columbus my whole life and never heard of the guy until I ran across this page (6) The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field. See note below (7) Commercial endorsements of demonstrably notable products None (8) Note from above: Generally, person who is "part of the enduring historical record" will have been written about, in depth, independently in multiple history books on that field, by historians. A politician who has received "significant press coverage" has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists. An actor who has been featured in magazines has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple magazine feature articles, by magazine article writers. An actor or TV personality who has "an independent biography" has been written about, in depth, in a book, by an independent biographer. Nathan does not satisfy this as well (9) It is difficult to separate what is notable to one personally and what is notable to the world at large. If he really is as important as both those who have voted to keep and the article claim, it should be no trouble whatsoever to find external independent sources that can establish notability.--Analogue Kid 19:08, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment see additions to my comment, above. Thanks. -- Brian0324 19:17, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for interrupting, but "I have lived in Columbus my whole life and never heard of the guy until I ran across this page" is the very model of an irrelevant argument. I wouldn't recognize the names of any churchmen in NYC probably, but that doesn't mean they're not notable, just that I'm not interested. DGG (talk) 21:09, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is a borderline A7 qualifier. He runs a large church, which confers more innate notability than city councilman how exactly? 1 trivial gnews hit, he was quoted along with multiple other people. Ghit total isn't that impressive, especially once you factor out websites his church owns. Hits are mostly things showing up for sale at various Christian bookstores, or other people named Rich Nathan. If Ghits amounted to notability, we wouldn't be deleting many pornstars, and most of those deletions had wider name recognition than this articles subject. Unless someone finds enough WP:RS to establish significant coverage, this has no valid reason to remain that I can see. Horrorshowj 19:36, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Nathan's photo and quotes appeared in the article by Michael Gerson, "A New Social Gospel," Newsweek, November 13, 2006. -- Brian0324 20:31, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Sojourners: Christians for Justice and Peace hosted a Presidential Forum, and here is Nathan on CNN video in July 2007 -- Brian0324 21:44, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete by User:Jimfbleak as pure spam. Burzmali 16:40, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Technique Studios

Rat 15:02, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep--JForget 23:40, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Beasties (1989 film)

Contested prod. Movie which was not theatrically released apparently, then made in 200 (!) copies only, and ... well, that's it apparently. Not one of the people listed as collaborators (actors, director, ...) are apparently notable (they certainly don't have a Wikipedia page), and not one other reason why this film could meet WP:NOTE is given. Existence alone is not enough reason to have a Wikipedia article. Fram 14:57, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as it's verifiable, has external references Elmao 15:14, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment But is it notable? MarkBul 16:04, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment It's the worst film made ever :) Elmao 16:15, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Worst film ever? Keep, then. 96T 22:13, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only sources are official website and IMDb, fails WP:NOTFILM. Jay32183 22:35, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I've added two reviews from reliable websites, plus an interview with the director about the film. There were only 200 copies released on video, but this has a following 18 years later suggests this is more notable than the usual straight-to-video movie. Magiclite 03:32, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There's no indication that either of those sources could be considered reliable. One is self-published, and the other appears to accept reviews from anyone, please correct me if I'm wrong. Jay32183 04:12, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per this reference. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:06, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Freewebs.com isn't exactly reliable. Jay32183 20:07, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed, a purely commercial link which more indicates the non notability of the movie ("check out our eBay store"!) than the notability. Fram 09:36, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; the sources are good enough, the roguecinema.com review is made even more legitimate by also having an interview with the movie's director, and both the review and the interview were made by the same writer. The critcononline.com site is self-published, but it seems this has been published for the last 25 years, and the writer appears to be knowledgable on the whole genre. Masaruemoto 02:14, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Those things don't make the sources reliable. Jay32183 02:19, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is a distinct lack of independent, reliable sources here to show compliance with WP:NOTFILM or other notability. Eluchil404 21:20, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete duplicate article. See CSD G6 - Housekeeping. This AfD has no bearing on the status of Grandmasters (album) and is not to be used as a basis to delete Grandmasters (album). -- Jreferee t/c 23:58, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GrandMasters

Dupe of Grandmasters (album). east.718 at 14:51, September 19, 2007

Merge anything worthwhile to the other article and then re-direct, which probably could have been boldly done without bringing it to AfD..... ChrisTheDude 15:00, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into album article and then redirect to Grandmaster. J Milburn 21:09, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete,as there doesn't seem to be any sourced content that would justify a merge and/or redirect to Grandmaster, a disambiguation page as does Grandmasters. --Tikiwont 12:22, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Please defer merge related discussion to article talk. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 20:21, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Former airline hubs

I believe this violates WP:NOT#INFO, almost any airline which is no longer flying could also be placed on this list, making it totally indiscriminate. Russavia 14:51, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It would be indiscriminate only if it was simply a list of airports, but in this case, the information provided is which airlines used which airports for hubs. Arguably, becoming the hub of a particular airline is the most significant accomplishment for an airport and the surrounding community, and losing the airline's presence is equally devestating. Mandsford 15:59, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Merge per Elkman below. If the article gets too wieldy, it can be split again. There are a lot of current Airlines (Continental, American) that consolidated operations (either through contraction or shutdown of companies taken over) that have dehubbed cities. Even as a deletionist, I think this is worthy of an article. This + what Mandsford said shows the importance of it. Spryde 16:29, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per others. Useful also in its own right (not just as archive of dead stuff) for looking at the changing patterns of hubbing vs point-to-point routing. DMacks 17:19, 19 September 2007 (UTC) Could also go with merge per Elkman below. DMacks 00:15, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep To topic is too specific to be an indiscriminate list and the topic is encyclpedic. --Oakshade 20:25, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Airline hub. The rationale of showing the importance of a hub and the changing patterns of hub cities is an encyclopedic topic, but it might be better served within one article rather than two. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 22:22, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keeep because it distinguishes between current and defunct airlines. Encyclopaedic because it shows effects of mergers and being made redundant.--Inetpup 03:30, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Airline hub. Having more places with basically the same data is a maintenance nightmare. --Matt 12:51, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. Much easier to maintain by moving within the same page as hubs come and go. Vegaswikian 18:20, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Eluchil404 21:21, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mary's Lake Road

PROD just about expired. No assertion of notability. No enhancements since original prod. Spryde 14:38, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no sign of notability. Punkmorten 19:03, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment - I don't get it. What is this article about? a bit of road through a nice area? --Rocksanddirt 22:40, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yep Elmao 07:59, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable, trivia, and written like an advertisement. Dahn 13:57, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Jreferee t/c 00:08, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

European Cartoon Network

Contested prod. Appears to be a duplication of material already available on several articles: Cartoon Network around the world is the main article which details exports of CN into other countries; Cartoon Network (UK) appears to be the same programming content as the contested article... Yngvarr (t) (c) 14:05, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect to Cartoon Network around the world#Europe - Most information in the nominated article is already present in the "around the world" article, which has more information anyway. Alternative would be the reverse - split the content in "around the world" to the nominated article, so that it serves its intended purpose better. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 14:34, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Hersfold. Even if "useful" were considered an argument on keeping an article, this list doesn't look particularly useful to Europeans or anyone else. Mandsford 16:01, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The real problem is that this user is (supposedly) 13 years old and a non-native English speaker. He has a habit of duplicating material for no reason other than for article count. He split season articles, character lists, and even tried to make an article listing only the credits from a show. This article here is exactly the same material that he wrote for Cartoon Network Portugal, which was deleted. This user cannot even sign posts properly, and has no idea what the user and talk pages are for, and those actions show a much more fundamental problem with said user's understanding of Wikipedia than anything else. I'm not sure we've kept any articles of his, TBH. MSJapan 16:25, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete - seems like a pointless copy and paste to me. stolenbyme 23:33, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:28, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SPCMDCON.SYS

Wikipedia is not a repository for every single piece of minutia that exists in the world. ghits: [2] NMChico24 13:49, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not minutia. It's not irrelevant. It's for those who have booted up their systems, crashed, saw SPCMDCON.SYS onscreen and said, "What the hell is that?" Gp75motorsports 14:04, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please actually click on the link and read the guideline. Thank you. --NMChico24 14:15, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's not very clear from the article what SPCMDCON actually is. Context is not clear and appears to contradict itself: It is an automatic crash that is triggered when the system becomes outdated: does this mean that if I don't run Windows Update my will system crash? However, you cannot initiate SPCMDCON manually. The computer will not recognize it as an executable command due to its nonexistence. If it's non-existent, how can it harm my computer, and how can it even run in the first place? Is there a relevant article to merge this into? Yngvarr (t) (c) 14:22, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You know what? There probably is. I'll search for one and if I don't find it, I'll do that. (change of mind) Nah. I'll fix it now. Thanks!

Comment Further comments from my will be on the appropriate talk page. Let the AfD continue its process, as any further input from me wouldn't be relevant to the AfD Yngvarr (t) (c) 14:42, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done! Check it. Gp75motorsports 14:34, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A link would be very helpful - I can't see in your contributions that you've edited anything other than this discussion and the SPCMDCON article since Monday. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 14:40, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as OR and contradictory information per nom, unless it can be merged as suggested above. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 14:40, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research and opinion that is ill-informed and mostly wrong. This driver is an essential component of the Windows NT (and above) Recovery Console, which this could optionally be redirected toward. --Dhartung | Talk 18:13, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unless some references put in - this is almost worse than the one line porn star bios. What does it mean? --Rocksanddirt 22:37, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - and how can somebody have suggested this non-page to be merged in Page fault? are you kidding? --Godzillante 21:22, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I just found out what it was. Apparently I was misinformed before. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gp75motorsports (talk • contribs) 23:28, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NEWS FLASH-I've got a few details on the way from [[3]], so don't delete it yet. I'm hoping these guys are all they're hyped up to be.

I've added those details. I'll probavbly need someone to verify them and see if they're true.

~~Gp75motorsports~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gp75motorsports (talk • contribs) 10:35, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:24, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PISA Cup

No claim of notability in article. 18 non-wiki ghits, none of which show notability. Contested prod. Fabrictramp 13:05, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The refs provided are not substantial. I may change my mind better refs are provided as there appears to be several reaces associated with this. --Blind Eagle^{talk~contribs} 13:30, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete, unless some real sources and notability are found - --Rocksanddirt 22:34, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see no claim of notabilty, a league can be considered as a group, and is eligible for speedy deletion, if the tag doesn't work. Delete Blahblahme 03:47, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete which I was going to do until I saw this AfD. CSD A7 No reasonable assertion of importance/significance. The listed importance/significance are speculative analogies. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 04:12, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You can still speedy an article, even if it has an AFD tag. Blahblahme 16:58, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus. I encourage editors to use their prerogative to merge the content. Stifle (talk) 19:15, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quint (Jaws character)

Minor role in a single movie, content can easily be merged into Jaws (film) or a list of Jaws characters DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 12:35, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. ff m 12:41, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I disagree that this is a minor role. However, there is not enough here to warrant a seperate article. --Blind Eagle^{talk~contribs} 13:33, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A significant role, but says nothing much that the parent article doesn't already. The JPS ^{talk to me} 13:35, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. There are only a few instances where a character in a film merits an article, for no matter how notable the film may be, everything we know about a particular character is drawn from 2 hours of observation, after which there is nothing else. This article does try to go further, with a comparison of the movie to Benchley's novel, and some speculation about a real-life inspiration for the character. Pluses are offset by the gratuitous reference to the USS Indianapolis and the IPC stuff. Mandsford 16:07, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per all above. Most info is already included in the film article. The two most important sections, Inspiration and In popular culture, can easily be merged to improve an already Featured article. - Mtmelendez ^{(Talk|UB|Home)} 18:33, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we can't just merge it to the film article, there is a book boys and girls! Either way, the character isn't that famous. Alientraveller 20:25, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If there's a book article, Quint can't be merged into the film article? To the extent the character is famous, it's because actor Robert Shaw made "Quint" the second most interesting character in the film. Shaw was one of the few people who could literally make people laugh by running his fingernails down a chalkboard. Mandsford 21:28, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - As much as I too love Shaw's performance, that's biased. Alientraveller 07:41, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well "character isn't that famous" is biased as well. Besides, didn't he make the top 20 of some 100 greatest movie character list? Parjay ► Talk 15:57, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per all above. Parjay ► Talk 15:57, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Jaws characters as per the deletion nominator's proposal. Revolutionaryluddite 05:21, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The content is unsourced and Jaws (film) is a featured article that doesn't really have a place for this information. The portrayal of this role doesn't seem to have received specific comment from reliable secondary sources. I can't see content worth merging and it doesn't seem worth creating a list of characters in Jaws for this one character. WjBscribe 16:26, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable or mergeable. Mbisanz 19:06, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:27, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wynonna Winter

Doesn't pass WP:PORNBIO. Epbr123 11:56, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nom. Definitely does not pass WP:PORNBIO - Rjd0060 17:17, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: more importantly, utterly lacks sources except for unreliable sites like IMDB. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 19:11, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I notified the creator and only significant editor. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 19:11, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
eh, I don't care - seems like almost notable enough actress, but a quick search only found sources selling movies/videos she was in. Not reviews or other normal notability information. Generally, I'm not a fan of deleting these edge people, but there has to be some kind of source for notability. --Rocksanddirt 22:30, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perma-Delete and Salt. Fails WP:PORNBIO. UnknownMan 00:37, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Tabercil 13:07, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of notability in the article, and a check on some of my favorite sources (AdultFYI, lukeisback, AVN) for more information reveals nothing. Tabercil 13:07, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep with the consideration of focus on the incident, rather than the person herself. - Mailer Diablo 05:24, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Qian Xun Xue

Deletion candidate in possible violation of the following deletion criteria: basic pillar of Wikipedia per WP:NOT#NEWS, section 5 (indiscriminate collection of news reports); notability of temporary news subject per WP:N; and possible violation (though not certain on this point) of privacy for biography of living person per WP:BIO. My vote: delete. J Readings 11:29, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly a news article. She would not be noticed but for the actions of her father. Should not have an article per the commentry in WP:BLP#Articles_about_living_people_notable_only_for_one_event - Peripitus (Talk) 11:43, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Had this been a cause célèbre we would need an article. But an article about every child abandoned by his/her parents or legal guardians is way beyond the scope of Wikipedia. User:Dimadick —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 12:00, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Changing my vote to Keep following a rename and a decent expansion. User:Dimadick —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 13:22, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Wikipedia is not wikinews. ff m 12:42, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, so it should be about the incident, not the person, and Qian Xun Xue should just redirect there. Thing is I'm not sure what to call the whole story, so I started with the child because that is where the story started on Saturday. Can we leave it until a better name presents itself or a label is given to it by the media? Surely overall this is a notable incident, it is a murder inquiry spanning 3 countries involving some rather bizarre circumstances. Bramley 13:16, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not even rise to the level of the usual WP:NOT#NEW deletion, because of an apparent lack of coverage of the crime. Not every person mentioned in every news article needs to have an article about them permanently placed in an encyclopedia. Also should be deleted per WP:BLP1E, on the notion of "Do no harm." TV True Crime crime shows would change names to "protect the innocent." Give the child some peace rather than making her forever an entry in Wikipedia a top-10 internet site. Edison 13:32, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Apparent lack of coverage of the crime? This has been headline news across Australia and New Zealand ever since she was abandoned. (What is presumed to be) her mother's body has just been found in Auckland, and the father is missing somewhere in America. It's a truly bizarre situation, spanning four countries (if you count China, where the child's nearest relatives live) and raises significant questions about who should get custody in such a cross-jurisdictional scenario. I don't really think the child should have an article at the present stage, but the situation might develop to such a stage that she should. - Mark 16:06, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree, she probably doesn't need a page of her own. I didn't intend for this page to be just about her anyway, it was to be about the whole story. As I said, I picked her name because that is where the story started. Are there any suggestions for a different page name? The media has no overall name for this story yet, but it has been headline news since Saturday. Bramley 16:18, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Probably an article should be at the name of the mother, assuming that it is her body which was found in New Zealand. In the context of that murder inquiry, the child abandonment is just a side issue. - Mark 16:23, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Canley 15:20, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletions. —Canley 15:22, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a news website. Keb25 18:00, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - she is certainly associated with a major news story (mostly because there is actual video of her being abandoned) but as WP:NOT#NEW says, "in many cases this will mean not having a biography about someone who is not an encyclopedic subject, despite having made a brief appearance in the news. Timely news articles, however, are welcome on our sister project Wikinews." After the dust has settled is the time to evaluate any long-term notability sufficient to justify an article. Euryalus 21:16, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Very good points, Mark. I agree that the main issue is now the death of her mother (the actual incident, and this sounds awful but does not have the undoubtable BLP concerns as an article about a very young child). However, while this incident is clearly noteworthy in one sense, it may be prudent to wait until the dust has settled and there are more details available - when the father is found, and the circumstances of the death? --Canley 21:56, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no other indications of notability beside the most recent event.--JForget 23:25, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This story has been a front page issue in Australia and New Zealand for the best page of a week. She is as notable as Madeleine McCann. We should have something about her even if it is under her father. This appears to be a clear case of I haven't heard of it therefore it isn't notable. Google News shows over 1,000 news stories.Capitalistroadster 03:23, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. —Capitalistroadster 03:23, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Capitalistroadster -- yes might be only one event but major major front page news story in Australia (and presumably NZ). Possibly a redirect would be appropriate - the child herself is not notable other than the news story. However, there are plenty of precedents for articles on people who are notable for only one event: Madeline McCann, that runaway bride woman in the US, Peter Falconio who was murdered, .... At the moment the child herself is somewhat of a celebrity too - don't know whether that will last but in a year's time deletion or redirection can be reconsidered - not now. --Golden Wattle ^talk 04:05, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a highly notable news story in Australia, however, I really don't like the idea of having an article for the child. As the story develops, we will probably have to think about writing one about her father, but I think there are BLP concerns with regard to articles about minors who are victims of crime but otherwise not notable. Delete, with the possibility of a later article about the father or about the crimes, as is the case with Madeline McCann which is actually at Disappearance of Madeleine McCann. I don't think renaming is enough; it needs to be rewritten to focus on the crimes and (likely) the father, rather than the little girl. Sarah 04:07, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Rename. The girl is not important, but the case is. What we need is just to rename the article to the case, not the person. --Neo-Jay 04:11, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. This is a hugely significant story in Australia and New Zealand. Hard to believe the number of overseas editors who have chimed in with "Delete - I've never heard of it" or similar in the first hours of this Afd. Currently the name of the case is in a state of flux, but it is primarily associated with the name of the little girl, originally nicknamed 'Pumpkin' by police before her real name, Qian Xun Xue was ascertained. I say we keep this at its current name for the time being, and rename later if a new name emerges in the media which specifically describes the case rather than the girl. Easel3 04:28, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - please stop this Afd. I have now rewritten the article to reflect the case rather than to serve as a biography of any person involved, which it was never going to be, nor should it have been. I have moved the article to Qian Xun Xue case, as an interim measure until a better name for the case is found. The more common but less official-sounding name Pumpkin case now redirects here. It's unfortunate that the article was torpedoed in the first couple of hours of this Afd but I urge other editors to see past that and Keep the article for this important event. Easel3 06:17, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well done Easel3. By the way, questions are being asked in the New Zealand parliament how the father was able to gain a passport and leave the country in defiance of a court order. [4] Capitalistroadster 06:34, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Jealous - I never had an article for me when I was a three-year-old pumpkin. :( — xDanielx ^T/_C 08:49, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- On a more serious note, I think Easel3 did the right thing. This isn't a local news story that will be forgotten in a day. I think we should keep the Qian Xun Xue case article and leave the redirects intact. — xDanielx ^T/_C 08:53, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, since the article is now titled "Qian Xun Xue case", and is demonstrably about the whole situation, which is notable due to press coverage. Whether or not that's the best title is open to debate (since my guess is people will call it the "Pumpkin Case" to avoid the names of the people involved). The girl herself is only borderline notable, but the whole messy situation surrounding her family looks to be. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 09:14, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article is still just a news article about a cute little abandoned girl and should be deleted. The girl is not notable...only newsworthy. I would possibly change my opinion if the article was Nai Xin Xue and was about him, his life, the possible murder and then the abandonment of his daughter... basically a completely different article.- Peripitus (Talk) 10:04, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the article's about slightly more than that - although I'll be the first to admit it's in pretty poor condition at present, which is probably due to the fact that the first anyone knew about this case was the girl being abandoned at the train station. That the article needs attention to add in more information about the father and his background isn't a reason to delete it, though. It's a reason to hunt up said information and stick it in. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 10:20, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename Although it's already been renamed, I think it would be better if it was renamed to focus on the father rather than this girl. Definitely notable enough for an article given the coverage in Australia alone. pfctdayelise (talk) 10:52, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, rename and expand. The article should be renamed something like "Xue family murder and abandonment" so that it reflects all of the various elements: the murder of Ms Liu, the abandonment of Qian Xun ("Pumpkin"), Mr Xue's escape to USA, related family matters and even the bungled operation by the NZ cops. WWGB 11:03, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. - Not a case that will be forgotten in a hurry. The case has now escalated into a murder investigation of the mother and a slightly international 'manhunt' for the father with the use of Interpol in USA. Eventually the article will have to be expanded over the next few days and/or weeks with new information that could come through at any time. - Vicer 11:31, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename, as all the elements of the case can be included. Recurring dreams 11:45, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - more notable than the horse flu epidemic which I thought was not deserving of an article - and has international coverage too. JRG 11:49, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - An important kidnap/murder case in Australia, New Zealand and the United States. Tmpnz 13:02, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure that "kidnap" is the right word for your own child, but agree with importance. WWGB 13:27, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, and preferably rename to focus on An An Xue (the mother). Important enough given all the elements listed above by WWGB and others. -- Avenue 14:26, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Most certainly notable enough --Oskar 23:15, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with the above, the case is notable in it's own right beyond merely being a news item.Number36 00:11, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: why are we overlooking one of Wikipedia's most basic policies: recent news items are not encyclopedic and notable in and of themselves? That's why the policy exists; it help to prevent Wikipedia from being inundated with short-term news items. If this case dragged on for years in the media, produced a lot of commentary from multiple disinterested third-parties, and provoked something notable within the legal system of these countries, for example, I can definitely see adding it to this encyclopedia. Right now, it's just a recent news item and all the crystal balling about what the future has in store for this news item is just speculation. My vote remains in keeping with Wikipedia's most basic policy: delete. J Readings 07:36, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be implying that this case is non-notable just because it's recent. Sometimes events occur whose notability is quickly apparent; there is not always a need to wait for a case to 'drag on for years' before it can be given a Wikipedia page. This case has easily received enough media saturation in the last week to warrant inclusion, and there are references on the page which confirm this. No crystal ball is necessary here. Easel3 03:53, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, most certainly notable, as it involves multinational co-operation, raised important issues relating to domestic violence and dysfunctional families, led to criticism of NZ police for handling of the body-in-the-boot case, and is likely to remain a unique and highly analysed case. This is certainly not something that will become a trivial factoid once it leaves the news cycle. Brisvegas 09:38, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Emphasis on the word "likely to remain," which is all part of crystal balling (a Wikipedia no-no). As for the other "keep arguments", unless they were brought out by third-party sources, that strikes me as original research in defense of keeping this article (another Wikipedia no-no). I don't know folks. The arguments in favor seem forced to me. J Readings 09:51, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In terms of the other arguments, the media here in Australia has certainly been vocal in criticising the Kiwi police over the car-searching business. If there aren't sources for that, I'll see what can be scared up. Similar things can be said about the multi-national flavour to the whole thing. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 10:01, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt that majority of the keep votes were forced. Mine certainly wasn't. As for the "original research in keeping article" comment, from what I see in this arguement it has all been mentioned in the news and has most likely been sourced in the article itself. For example, my arguement was not original research, I clearly sourced it on the page. Ever since you nominated it for deletion, the page has expanded from just three sentences + links to separate paragraphs with sourced information, so you may want to look at what's changed since then. But if you decide not to, that's fine. You are still entitled to your opinion. - Vicer 03:11, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename. It's notable. --Ninevah 11:56, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep now that the WP:COATRACK issues have been appropriately dealt with. Burntsauce 17:50, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I have never heard anything more ridiculous. If you delete this, you have to delete the Madeline McCann article too. Try doing that, and you'll have the whole of England on your case. Also, the argument that it is a current news item is bogus. The Hurricane Katrina article was never considered for deletion when the event was happening, and nor should it have been. Wallie 07:15, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename. --60.242.95.95 08:03, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, we are not a news site. It is highly likely that our current article is factually wrong in some significant way, even if it is up to date with the latest breaking news. These sources can not be called reliable because they are based on opinions and investigations that are ongoing. John Vandenberg 10:53, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The fact that the article might be wrong isn't a reason to delete, surely. There's a pretty high chance that there are significant errors in a good many articles, but that means they should be rewritten to remove the inaccuracies. The sources tend to be newspaper articles and the like, which are held to be reliable in most other situations - regardless of the fact that they provide only a snapshot of an ongoing situation. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 11:58, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - The problem is that it has little hope of being right. The facts have not been established in a meaningful way. Can you tell me with 100% assurance that Nai Xin Xue placed his wife in that trunk ? If not, it belongs on WikiNews, which is built to deal with issuing appropriate updates. What is the significance of this event; what were the ramifications? John Vandenberg 17:21, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - What it has, though, is considerable hope of being as right as it can be as the events develop. New facts come to light about everything every day, particularly in relation to crimes and other things like that, and presumably dedicated editors will add those to the article as they do. The article is prominently festooned with the "Current Event" template, so I'd expect things to alter on a regular basis, just as is the case with any other article with that template. Additionally, the article doesn't say that Mr Xue put his wife in the boot of the car. It says that Mr Xue's wife was in the boot of the car, which is all that is publicly known at the moment. An important distinction, I'm sure you'll agree. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:50, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - The current event template is not appropriate. This is not an event in the sense that Hurrican Katrina or 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake were events; this is a crime investigation! John Vandenberg 03:08, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        With respect, I fail to see your distinction. Yes, it's a crime investigation. In a crime investigation, new information comes to light all the time. Why does that mean that it's a problem? I can't claim to have been involved in the discussion surrounding the creation of the Current Event template, but unless there's some kind of definition for its use, I don't see where this distinction comes from. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 03:25, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - So, how is this different from the Madeline McCann case? Do you know who abducted her? Wallie 21:30, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Wallie,WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't a good argument for keeping an article. If you think other articles were created because they're in the recent news headlines (and they were allowed to exist, "so why not this one?"), it's quite possible those articles (including Madeline McCann) are future AfD candidates, too. It happens. That said, I'm not sure why you think Hurrican Katrina, a natural disaster of unprecedented proportions with immediate financial, political, and social implications, somehow justifies keeping a one week old news story about an alleged kidnapping and murder that, in my opinion, still violates WP:NOT#NEWS. J Readings 21:45, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Madeline McCann also depends entirely on newspaper articles and there are way too many of them. If it was at Afd, I would be vetting those to see which sources are in-depth journalism vs breaking news reports. As it happened almost five months ago, and most of the important facts are now known, I expect that some of the sources will contain very thorough journalism, so I expect that my opinion on that article would be keep and improve. John Vandenberg 03:08, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus. There is a Babelmedia (babelmedia.com), which appears to be unrelated to Babelmed (Babelmed.net) and remains unaffected by this AfD. Jreferee t/c 00:26, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Babelmed

A few things wrong here - Firstly, there are obvious conflict of interests for the creator of the page, whose name is, un-subtly, Babelmed (talk · contribs). Secondly, there is potential copyright problems. Thirdly, French Wikipedia is also putting this up for deletion. This page does, however, have a massive Google count and our page looks aesthetically pretty good, but there's something suspicious (for me, at least) here. Montchav 10:33, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not sure how there can be objections to both conflict of interest AND copyright problems here. Presumably if it's written by someone in the organisation then they're not going to sue wikipedia about it appearing here? The fact that another wikipedia is putting it up for deletion, as opposed to having deleting it, isn't exactly relevent either. If it has lots of google hits, and therefore presumably independent sources, what's the reason for deletion? Here's a piece from the Times of Malta [5] for instance. Nick mallory 13:35, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
weak delete There are only 60,000+ hits in Google and it appears to be an ad. However, the article is done well enough for a starter/stub. If it added some verifiable secondary sources, I may change my mind to keep. If you could place the reason the is placing this up for delettion (if different then your reasons) it may also help. --Blind Eagle^{talk~contribs} 13:41, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Only 60,000 Ghits?!?!?!Nick mallory 03:37, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've added some references of websites which link or refer to Babelmed. No copyright problem, since the presentation text of Babelmed in french is placed under GFDL[6]. The French deletion procedure was based only on the debate about the "notoriety" of Babelmed, which I hope these links will help to prove.--Babelmed 14:48, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If editing will fix the article than it does not qualify for deletion Ratherhaveaheart 17:39, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as article lacks secondary sources demonstrating notability. --Gavin Collins 09:49, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
15 organisations from culture or media (among them some institutions like the European Commission) refering to Babelmed, and more than 60,000 hits in google.com, is not a demonstration of notability???? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Babelmed (talk • contribs) 12:26, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Carlossuarez46 03:36, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ensenada Grande

Fails WP:N, can't find non-trivial, reliable sources to establish notability, the one source given is a WP:COI source by User:Traveljournalist. Russavia 10:20, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only claim to notability in the entire article is the beach featured in The Travel Magazine, a London publication launched in 2000 with no article here yet. We don't even have evidence of the Magazine being notable, much less the locals featured in it. User:Dimadick —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 12:07, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note I put The Travel Magazine up for speedy deletion as a spam/no notability entry, and that has been removed. --Russavia 13:19, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. -- Longhair\^talk 23:23, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

N64 Gamer

Fails WP:N, can find no third-party non-trivial reliable sources to give this magazine notability in an encyclopaedic context. There are also smacks of original research. Russavia 10:05, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete. It definitely needs a rewrite. It may be difficult to find sources through Google because the terms 'n64 gamer magazine' are very common. If someone can prove that the magazine is as notable as the article seems to imply, I would happily change my recommendation.Darkcraft 10:25, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Hard to verify. ff m 12:44, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as lack of sources fails to demonstrate notability. --Gavin Collins 09:14, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep The fact that it is one of only two Australian produced magazines about Nintendo systems in the late 90's is noteable enough, the other magazine being Nintendo Magazine System (Australia). The rest being Uk and US imports. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Atirage (talk • contribs) 11:16, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. —Longhair\^talk 10:18, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable magazine. Keb25 10:45, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn, and the fact argument for keeping by Atirage is not convincing: if two otherwise nn magazines about Nintendo (or pick whatever subject tickles your fancy - Ford, Nokia, music boxes) circulated in Albania with a few dozen copies each - they'd both get articles here because they're the "only"s. Fraid, not. Carlossuarez46 03:36, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:25, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nerds Gone Wild!

Fails WP:N, can find no third-party non-trivial reliable sources to give this magazine notability in an encyclopaedic context Russavia 10:04, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:N --Blind Eagle^{talk~contribs} 13:45, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Seems pointless and sounds like an ad for the magazine. CRocka05 17:11, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:21, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Airline Weekly

Fails WP:N, can find no third-party non-trivial reliable sources to give this magazine notability in an encyclopaedic context Russavia 10:02, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Although the publication may not be of general interest, it is notable as a newsweekly within the airline industry. As an alternative, this information should be merged into an article that incorporates the news and business magazines that are aimed at the narrow community of people in airline management. Delete per below.Mandsford 01:38, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is not even a magazine--it is not listed in Ulrich's nor in OCLC; it has no ISSN. It's a news web site, and needs some references to its notability as such. I see no such evidence. DGG (talk) 21:40, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per DGG. — xDanielx ^T/_C 08:54, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 05:21, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Airliners (magazine)

Fails WP:N, can find no third-party reliable sources to give this magazine notability in an encyclopaedic context Russavia 10:01, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I haven't formed an opinion yet, but if this article is deleted, then Image:Airliners novdec04.jpg should be deleted as well. -- Hawaiian717 15:35, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Although the publication may not be of general interest, it is notable as a longstanding (nearly 20 years, 100 issues) magazine that has circulation within the airline industry. As an alternative, this information should be merged into an article that incorporates the news and business magazines (this one and Airline Weekly are two examples) that are aimed at the narrow community of people in airline management. Mandsford 16:15, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Unlike Airline Weekly, this is a real magazine with a listing in OCLC and Ulrich's and an ISSN. that alone isn't enough, but according to Ulrich's, the standard independent 3rd party RS, it has a paid circulation of 45,000. That is high enough for notability of such a specialized publication. DGG (talk) 21:50, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG. — xDanielx ^T/_C 08:55, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The magazine exists. It is of importance in the airline management and airline enthusiasts world. Therefore an article in WP is needed - Adrian Pingstone 18:51, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG, but a merge could work too. - Mtmelendez ^{(Talk|UB|Home)} 20:42, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The circulation figures, built up over several decades, suggest a fair amount of notability alone. Burntsauce 17:52, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This magazine is not aimed towards airline management, it is not used by airline management, although it is aimed squarely at the airline enthusiast/spotter, and 45,000 worldwide circulation really is not all that much, is it? Still, non-trivial sources are still sorely lacking. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Russavia (talk • contribs) 08:20, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus - there doesnt seem to be a clear consensus here, so the article is kept by default. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 11:13, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aviaction

Fails WP:V, can find no third-party reliable sources to give this magazine notability in an encyclopaedic context Russavia 09:59, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non notable magazine. Also, slightly resembles and advertisement. - Rjd0060 17:19, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as clear infringement of WP:SPAM. --Gavin Collins 09:51, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This is one of the first magazines that was launched in Pakistan about aviation, hence, I thought it was significant to have it as an article. If you have problems it being too much of an advertisement or spam, let me know how I can improve it. Thanks --Fast track 19:57, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP: This article needs looking into, there is significance in it. --Greelight 19:33, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lissome Avid Engineer.Carlossuarez46 15:44, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Denovah Avaku

Non-notable game characters that fail WP:NOTABILITY. Lack of secondary sources is not compensated by in universe descriptions that read like WP:Fancruft. I am also nominating the following related pages:

They too lack notability or real world context. --Gavin Collins 08:57, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletions. --Gavin Collins 09:16, 19 September 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Selectively merge or, should the author or someone else be interested in doing so Transwiki to a new Wikia. Level of unsourced, fancrufty detail inappropriate here, but might be appropriate elsewhere. On our end, cut 90% and merge back to the game articles. MrZaius^talk 09:35, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or possibly merge. Percy Snoodle 11:23, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki or merge per MrZaius. ff m 12:44, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete or Transwiki These articles don't have a place on wikipedia. They have no bearing what so ever outside of the game. I am also concerned about possible CopyVio but I don't have books to compare. Turlo Lomon 01:12, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - maybe we can move them all to the Exalted page and include about a paragraph each? Fairly agnostic about this one. Web Warlock 03:25, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Jreferee t/c 00:33, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Ulrich

The subject of the article is not notable. --teb728 08:00, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nonnotable playwright who has written no notable plays. ff m 12:45, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing here shows notability per WP:BIO or otherwise. Eluchil404 21:25, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep, though merging to a combined article per Torchwoodwho might well be a better longer term solution.--Kubigula (talk) 03:13, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Star Fleet Battle Force

This gaming article reads like a spammy product launch, offering free samples and details of future product releases. Notability is not asserted in either the article text, nor is evidence demonstrated of notability other than links to publisher's own website. --Gavin Collins 07:59, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletions. --Gavin Collins 09:25, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete spammy with no assertion of notability, no Wikipedia:Verifiable sources MrZaius^talk 09:36, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There are a lot of articles based on the 'Star Fleet Universe'. If we delete this, we will have to delete all of those other articles. A lot of different users have edited those articles, which suggests that it does have some level of notability. It also seems to have something to do with Star Trek, which is highly notable. The articles have a lot of information in them too. I really don't know whether these should be deleted or not. If someone can prove notability, that would be good.Darkcraft 09:57, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I revised it and cleaned it up a bit. How's that? (Note I am not the entry's originator.) granted the game is not that hugely significant, but it is one valid part of the SFB universe. SFB overall has huge notability and significance. thanks for notifying me about this. BTW, note that for a work as huge as SFB, it is useful to have some clarifications about even more minor items. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 13:15, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There's a review of this game in the latest issue (Sept 2007) of Fictional Reality [7]. --Craw-daddy | T | 13:49, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

hmmm, takes a while to download, even with DSL. can anyone please provide an excerpt here, if they have a chance to get the article from the website? It is a pdf file. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 14:11, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I added in two footnotes to the review, as well as a quote. Hope that helps. Locating another source/review or two shouldn't be too hard I would think. --Craw-daddy | T | 16:29, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the links you have added makes this look even more spammy. The 'review' looks like product placement to me. --Gavin Collins 13:15, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, when in doubt, impugn the references... As you, yourself, said to me elsewhere, "Prove it". I don't think they're "product placement". --Craw-daddy | T | 21:07, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge a product summary on to the publishing company's article page. I think commercial games have almost the equivalent notability to cinematic movies. But the closest criteria I could find is WP:NB, which this does not quite meet (although I'm uncertain about the published works mention, since it has received reviews). Some criteria such as top seller, new revisions published, or released at a major game show, would seems appropriate for notability (to me), which this may satisfy. I do think the game was sufficiently well-received to deserve mention. Otherwise keep. — RJH (talk) 16:34, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Mergge - The footnotes don't look spammy to me. Rray 19:17, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ughh... Sigh... Trim, Relocate and Delete I'm going to kick myself in the morning for this one, but I'm going to suggest that someone builds a new page with a title like "Star Trek RPGs" and lumps all of this stuff together on there. I make no bones about my inclusionism, but in this case it has to be relocated and clipped. It makes me sad that I couldn't find any solid reviews or articles about this game. You really need sources that will stand up to a hard beating, and it just doesn't cut it right now, however I think Star Trek RPGs in general are notable and if they're moved to a new page and condensed I'm fairly certain that their combined sourcing would have a better shot of staying on Wikipedia.--Torchwood Who? 06:01, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Star Fleet Universe and SFB series of games are notable, having been a fixture on the gaming scene for many years. Colonel Warden 17:05, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the article needs to be sourced, but not deleted. Keeping in mind to do a proper sourcing of this is going to require people to go through stacks of old gamer journal, not websites. It will take longer. But proper research should not be rushed nor subject to a "popularity" contest. Web Warlock 19:12, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:09, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Waste Elimination Accidents

Made up in school one nasty day, posted to Wikipedia the next. Google only returns Wikipedia mirrors. Don't know why it's plural. SolidPlaid 07:24, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOT. I thought this article would be about nuclear waste. How very naive of me. --Bongwarrior 07:30, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete lol. A funny piece of writing but unfortunately does not meet our criteria. --Hdt83 ^Chat 08:05, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete The term seems to be a neologism. The subject matter is covered extensively from a medical point of view in urinary incontinence and fecal incontinence User:Dimadick —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 12:28, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above... Chances that you will have such an accident increase during the time that it takes to access and read the article. And since Wikipedia is not a "paper" encylopedia, cleanup cannot be had merely by tearing pages. Mandsford 16:19, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Eliminate this waste from wikipedia. THE KING 20:30, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:09, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cledford Infant and Nursery School

One sentence and an infobox on a non-notable nursery school. There must be on the order of one million nursery schools in the world; they are about as common as grocery stores. SolidPlaid 07:10, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. After a quick Google search, I couldn't find anything that satisfies notability. Unless it really is notable for some reason, delete it. I don't think that the average nursery school should have a wikipedia article.Darkcraft 10:07, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even if it was notable, current article content only points out that it exists. Not even a proper stub. User:Dimadick —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 12:31, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Usually, these types of articles are written by students who are using Wikipedia to improve their writing skills, so Cledford I & N must have some prodigies. And maybe the school's "duck duck goose" team is second to none. However, nursery schools, like elementary and middle schools, are not assumed to be notable. Mandsford 16:24, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No notability here. Bfigura ^(talk) 17:55, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as definitely lack of notability.--JForget 23:28, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Punkmorten 08:19, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:08, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LazyDesis

Contested proposed deletion. No evidence is provided that this site satisfies Wikipedia's inclusion criteria for web content. JavaTenor 07:00, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unless an outside source shows notability. SolidPlaid 07:13, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep An article about any internet forum bringing together Telugu people from several different countries seems interesting enough. Their articles might help us improve our current meager covering of the subject. User:Dimadick —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 13:07, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Where is the notability? - Rjd0060 17:21, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems to strongly fail WP:WEB Bfigura ^(talk) 17:56, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Seriously fails WP:WEB. --Тhε Rαnδom Eδιτor 19:21, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Honestly this qualifies as a speedy deletion on the A7 provision but whatever, just get rid of it. Burntsauce 17:52, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. -- Longhair\^talk 10:21, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cipher in the snow

Essay on obscure book(?) that has an external link to a strange page that claims to be a true story. SolidPlaid 06:53, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Needs more details, but keep. Elmao 07:28, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note user above is a main contributor to article. -- Kl4m ^{Talk Contrib} 20:08, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

yes, but i first give the vote, after i saw the google results, and only then contributed. Elmao 03:10, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; enough external source are provided. StaticElectric 08:05, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Enough external sources to confirm it being a factual subject. User:Dimadick —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 13:12, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Two of the references are to the story - a one-pager. No evidence of notability I can see. Enough external sources of notability are certainly not present - please provide links if you have them. MarkBul 16:16, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, something that apparently has been around for more than thirty years and that has multiple external sources providing evidence of its verifiability. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:24, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is not so obscure that we cannot afford an article about it. Burntsauce 17:20, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Google Books and Google Scholar show citations in the context of moral education. ~~But it needs cleanup to be more objective (we don't need the gucky moralising and hyperlinks to every other word)~~. BTW, the title should be Cipher in the Snow, but that can be dealt with later. Gordonofcartoon 18:27, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cleaned up. Gordonofcartoon 19:19, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! nice job (see how it was :) ) Elmao 19:21, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It's verified now, but is it notable? SolidPlaid 02:45, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair question. Around 10,000 Google hits, and ones on Google Books and Scholar (see above) and the News Archive. It seems reasonably popular on the moral education circuit. Gordonofcartoon 03:03, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 20:37, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spring Meadows Elementary School

One sentence article on a non-notable elementary school. SolidPlaid 06:43, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to its school district. Punkmorten 07:10, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
redirect and merge into its school district. No notability on its own.\ ff m 12:46, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing to merge here but its name and location. No other content. User:Dimadick —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 13:13, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No claim to notability whatsoever.--Victor falk 21:07, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect Just as the typical nn local (just around the corner) elementary school.--JForget 23:30, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Judson Independent School District per our redirect guidelines. Do I need a macro for this, or what? Burntsauce 18:03, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. —Noroton 17:27, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and merge to district per Wikipedia talk:Schools and WP:LOCAL.--SarekOfVulcan 18:51, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:08, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Auburndale Elementary School (Kentucky)

Two sentence squib on a non-notable elementary school. Linked to List of schools in Louisville, Kentucky which doesn't list it. SolidPlaid 06:39, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable; many GNews hits for "Auburndale Elementary School", but these turn out to be about other schools by the same name in Florida or Wisconsin. [8]. Also congratulations to the nominator for apparently being the first person ever to use the word "squib" on AfD. [9] cab 07:52, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable.Darkcraft 10:32, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Again, no content but its name and location. User:Dimadick —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 13:15, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No notability whatsoever. Also, very little content. - Rjd0060 17:22, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:ORG. --Тhε Rαnδom Eδιτor 19:15, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No claim to notability whatsoever--Victor falk 21:09, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just the typical around the corner local non-notable school.--JForget 23:31, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Consensus is that spinout was not appropriate for this content fork. Jreferee t/c 00:44, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Allentown, PA in popular culture

a trivial breakout page about a small American city. Most "in popular culture" articles are not considered notable, and this is one of those "it was too big a section for the main article" breakoffs. There is already a simple/suitable section for this on the main page. Prod was placed, but was removed by the article creator. Dannycali 05:04, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A few of the items can go back into the main article on Allentown, the rest are non-notable, and some are not even "in popular culture." SolidPlaid 06:45, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - listcruft. StaticElectric 08:06, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Allentown, Pennsylvania#Allentown in popular culture which already contains the notable items on this list. The remaining entries are trivial (United 93 passing over Allentown is the "best" example of this). No real reason not to give our readers a pointer to the main article however. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:40, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Couldn't have said it better myself. Most entries are trivial mentions, not "Allentown PA in popular culture". MarkBul 16:19, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Sjakkalle ff m 12:47, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Sjakkalle. --Metropolitan90 12:51, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Sjakkalle. User:Dimadick —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 13:18, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge and redirect without deleting. The information is well organzed and with references added verifiability wouldn't be a problem. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 14:43, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Sjakkalle. Granted, most towns have not had a popular hit written about them, but after Billy Joel, most of the references are trivial. It's kind of like Peoria in popular culture, which I hope is a red link. Mandsford 16:26, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't mind a redirect for the most part, but I thought that should be done if the term may be commonly searched for. I just don't see anyone typing "Allentown, PA in popular culture" in the search box. Dannycali 19:45, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We don't to talk about every popular culture mention of a mid-size town. WP:TRIVIA and WP:V failures.--JForget 23:33, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Importantly captures some of the important and relevant references to this city, which help define it and which are widely known, but which belong on this stand-alone page, not in the main one, given the number of entries. A valuable page. PAWiki 23:38, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- See WP:USEFUL Blahblahme 04:09, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless there is a GFDL issue, which doesn't seem to be the case. Trivia about a minor american town, violates multiple wikipedia policies. No one will search for an article named Allentown, PA in popular culture nither, so if it's redirected, I'm placing it on MFD. Blahblahme 04:09, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- And it'll fail. For one, you want RfD. For another, it doesn't meet the criteria for a delete. --UsaSatsui 16:18, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I see people commenting that nobody will type "Allentown, PA in popular culture" into the search box. That may be true, however there is a real possibility that some people will type in "Allentown popular culture" into an online search engine, and come across this AFD debate via Google or Yahoo. In that case, the redirect will be useful enough since one can just click the AFD's heading and get to the correct article. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:14, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If anyone searches for "Allentown popular culture" after this article has been deleted, the first result that appears on Google will be the Allentown, Pennsylvania article, with the In popular culture section clearly shown. The chances of anyone finding that section via this afd on Google are non-existant, since afd discussions virtually never show up in Google results. Crazysuit 02:05, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Allentown. Well, we're sittin' here in Allentown...and they're closing all our articles down...Out in Bethlehem they're doing fine, splitting out forks, nobody minds...--UsaSatsui 16:44, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Say, that's pretty good! "And the Wikpedia we never found...and I don't know if this article can stay... ay-ay-ay... ay-ay-ay... ay-ay-ay... it's an article on Allentown." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mandsford (talk • contribs) 21:33, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Every section had a pretty good shot | To get an article like Pokemon got | But something happened on the way to that place | They threw an AFD vote right in our fa-a-a-ace!" --UsaSatsui 07:20, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and no redirect. As has already been explained by others, no one will ever search for "Allentown, PA in popular culture". If anyone is looking for information about Allentown in popular culture, they would probably already be looking at the Allentown, Pennsylvania article which already contains the relevant In popular culture section, and if they weren't, they'd find it easily enough. Crazysuit 02:05, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete under trivia guideline. I don't know why people think they can't remove trivia dumps from articles, but have to instead spin it off. Gazpacho 06:53, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 05:07, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adder technology

Company profile. Non-notable. Advertisement. Violates WP:SPAM OfficeGirl 06:23, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Was Speedy deleted per nom, re-created out of process, so re-opening the debate. Delete as a directory entry. Guy (Help!) 06:42, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly notable company article in standard company article format. 23 year old technology company sells popular line of computer products all over the world, 60,000+ google hits. My recreation is just fine. Speedy deletion was done improperly and out of process, 4 hours after AFD nomination with no discussion, citing spam and notability even though the old article was already substantive, had an unambiguous assertion of notability, and was clearly not spam; nevertheless, this is a substantially modified version with sourcing, links, and a more encyclopedic tone. Wikidemo 07:09, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The recreation was problematic because it restored some of the deleted article's text without restoring the deleted article's edit history. In other words, the article's edit history didn't preserve the article's previous versions and didn't document all of its authors. (This problem has since been fixed). --Muchness 16:38, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As per Wikidemo above. This article is not intended to be spam in any way, purely a company article in standard company article format. Adder technology where a founding force behind the creation of the KVM industry. Shepperd 15:39, 12 September 2007
- It should be noted that User:Shepperd is the creator of this article. ff m 12:53, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CitiCat^♫ 04:56, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, attested as the top European KVM vendor.[10] --Dhartung | Talk 06:30, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have moved the article to Adder Technology and cleaned it up, putting a key notability claim in the intro and adding others. --Dhartung | Talk 06:44, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems fine now and spells its main reason of notability within the introduction. Good work. User:Dimadick —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 13:21, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Easily passes WP:ORG now. --Тhε Rαnδom Eδιτor 19:24, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the above, good references are provided too.--JForget 23:34, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The one "keep" arguer has a tough row to hoe without English-language sources. If some are found, the article can be recreated. Chick Bowen 01:27, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bane Mojićević

PROD contested reason nn person fails wp:music. -- Oo7565 04:17, 10 September 2007 (UTC) Delete also - article has no sources. He won the contest in 2004; has no albums out by him; says he toured the world with the other 5 people from the contest but again no sources; totally fails wp:music. -- Oo7565 04:23, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Not non-notable, just poorly sourced and badly in need of expansion. I've added one source, and while I don't know if it covers everything, it certainly covers enough to confirm the contest and a few other minor points. There may be more information in there that could be used to expand the article further, as well. I've also found two other links (unfortunately, they're only blogs), one of which agrees with more points made in the article and is also the only English source I could find, and one which may or may not have more information as well. The article also does not fail WP:MUSIC.:
- 9. Has won or placed in a major music competition. -- This much, at the very least, is/was claimed, and is now sourced.
- 4. Has gone on an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country, reported in reliable sources. -- Claimed, perhaps sourced, but I can't read Serbian so can't be sure of what those links say.
- 5. Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels (i.e. an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable). -- I don't know where Grand Production falls on this scale, but he has released one album through them, if not two.
- 1. It has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable. -- I would imagine there are more sources, especially newspapers and things, but I am unable to check that, so while I won't use this as proof of notability, it's still worth consideration.

I can believe that he likely isn't very notable in the English-speaking world, but if that's the logic being used, the argument behind deletion degrades into something little better than WP:IDONTKNOWIT. If a Serbian speaker could work on the article a bit, that would probably help immensely, but having someone actively expanding a stub is hardly a requirement, for any article/topic. -Bbik^★ 16:26, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from nominator - for wp: music it passes number 9 but for number 4,5 and 1 it does not pass maybe it does if does please update the article also please make sure it souredOo7565 07:40, 14 September 2007 (UTC) One more thing someone who ever closers this afd might want to relist this to get a better consensus on this AfD thanksOo7565 07:42, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Can we see a source which proves that there was a 'world tour'? At the moment I'm borderline Delete. Marcus22 18:34, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CitiCat^♫ 04:56, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is English Wikipedia, which requires material from reliable sources that are independent of Bane Mojićević to create an attributable article. If the reliable sources are in Serbian and no one participating in this AfD can locate them, then consensus only can be that the topic does not meet the general notability guideline requirements of English Wikipedia. Bane's Serbian Wikipedia entry - Бранислав Мојићевић contains even less information than his English Wikipedia entry. My own search turned up no reliable source information. Bane may have done a lot of important/significant things and the topic might even meet WP:MUSIC, but if no reliable source is writing about his activities, then there is nothing to put in the English Wikipedia article. English Wikipedia will just have to wait until Serbian Wikipedia sources their article better or someone can locate enough reliable source material for the article. -- Jreferee t/c 01:11, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. "Delete and merge" or "delete or move" aren't really interpretable positions. Article can be moved or merged according to editorial discretion. Chick Bowen 01:30, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Boston Bypass

Article subject was the idea of one man - the multi-billion project went on in spite of his efforts. Trivial mentions in the media MarkBul 03:56, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No attribution of the notability of this proposal to independent sources. Even if there is a source or two about it, I recommend adding a comment in the Big Dig article itself. Every major transportation project has critics and sometimes third parties propose alternatives but these are rarely notable unless they are proposed by influential groups and/or over a long period of time, such as the Crosstown Expressway (Chicago). --Dhartung | Talk 07:20, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Rename I would suggest we rename it to Vincent Zarrilli with some history about him, as he seems to be a prolific protestor/activist [11][12][13][14]. Fosnez 07:21, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Solarapex 12:36, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge what can be reliably sourced. The B.B., like "Scheme Z", was a relevant issue for the History of the Big Dig and the main Big Dig articles. The press coverage of the time is out there to find, at least on paper. • Gene93k 19:12, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Vincent Zarrilli per Fosnez. (change of vote). • Gene93k 16:46, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I nominated this one. The Big Dig was/is a multi-billion dollar project. Mr Zarrelli went around Boston putting his own printed posters on light poles and walls. He got some mention in the local media as a human interest story. His proposal was nutty - no one every thought of it seriously. Press coverage does not equal notability - he was a very minor news story that pased, like a cat that keeps climbing up the same tree. The Boston Bypass was certainly never relevant to the Big Dig - it was one guy's idea, followed by no serious interested parties. MarkBul 17:23, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The coverage was more substantial than that. A search of the Boston Globe Archive (they want $$$) shows 11 articles including "Bridge-bypass Alternative To Plan For Central Artery Gets Support" - Feb 25, 1990, "Zarrilli Plan Enters the Fast Lane" - Dec 17, 1989, and "A Better Boston Bypass" - Dec 9, 1989. I also remember at least one opinion piece calling the B.B. problematic. People of the North End hated and feared the Big Dig. The Bypass had supporters there. • Gene93k 23:46, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CitiCat^♫ 04:55, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep or Merge. This article is a bit borderline. I like Fosnez's idea, to me it seems to be the best solution.Darkcraft 09:44, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If you want a pottery manufacturer designing your highway, make sure he has a really big kiln. I agree with the original nominator that this appears to be the story of a guy. He's trying to "fight City Hall" with a complaint that the highway should be put somewhere else. Mandsford 16:29, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the proposal doesn't seem to have ever been seriously considered by MassHwy, or really supported by anyone other than Zarrelli. Could be made into an article about him. —Scott5114 ↗ 17:40, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Vincent Zarelli, per Scott5114, Fosnez, and Darkcraft--Victor falk 20:35, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge wherever appropriate (Big Dig or Zarelli). --Polaron | Talk 21:11, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - seems like extra unencyclopedic stuff master son^{T - C} 18:31, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Big Dig or History of the Big Dig, with appropriate redirect. -- Tckma 17:44, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the article, merge its contents where applicable per Polaron. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 05:54, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge where appropriate. --NE2 17:05, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:07, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Human Canopy Evolution

Non-notable evolutionary hypotheses that humans evolved on trees. Just 101 Google hits for "human canopy evolution", most of which are either Wikipedia mirrors or "isn't this interesting"-type references on science websites. szyslak 04:41, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Neutral so far~~ The author of this article is apparently the author of the theory. The fact that some science websites found it interesting might make it worthy of inclusion, but we have to tread carefully when someone puts in their own published work. Anyway, if you want to see the cited reference, it's here (7 page long pdf). I'll try to revisit this when I'm less tired. CitiCat^♫ 05:12, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Change to Delete. The wikipedia article is clearly not neutral, and is clearly promoting the theory. It may be a theory that passes inclusion, but not an article by the theory's author that says things like "a powerful new synthesis of data", "Extensive analysis establishes. . .", etc. CitiCat^♫ 05:18, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I got my crazy, outsider idea published in a peer-reviewed evolutionary journal. Let this guy submit his essay to peer review, and once it's accepted he can create a Wikipedia article on it. SolidPlaid 06:59, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletions. —Pete.Hurd 17:27, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete article makes no claim of notability. Fails WP:N. We require some demonstration that this article does not merely represent WP:Undue weight per "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia ... regardless of whether it is true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not." Vastly fails the (rejected) WP:SCIENCE, which for me represents the appropriate bar for inclusion. Pete.Hurd 17:41, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable - single relevant citation on Google Scholar (a citation of the Perry article in another paper), zero relevant hits on PubMed. Tim Vickers 17:53, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable enough for The Guardian "New theory rejects popular view of man's evolution" and New Scientist "Our upright walking started in the trees". KTo288 21:22, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The two articles you cited are about the general idea that proto-humans began walking upright while living in trees. They have little to do with the specific theory outlined in this article. szyslak 21:41, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable, not verified science as of yet. • Lawrence Cohen 01:53, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a propaganda piece. CRGreathouse (t | c) 15:19, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The idea can be better covered in articles on human evolution. If the term acquires commoner usage, a re-direct can be set up. Bondegezou 16:03, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable. As Szyslak points out above, most of the references now cited in the article actually refer to a different concept and do not use the term "human canopy evolution", so they do not establish notability for this article. Gandalf61 14:55, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep (merge should be discussed separately at article talk page). Chick Bowen 01:22, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Naharin

There is already a clear reference in the Nairi article as well as the Mitanni article, which show that Naharin was the Egyptian name for Nairi. Thus, this article is unnecessary. Moosh88 03:36, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The term 'Naharin' is used by Egyptologists for the Ancient Egyptian reference for Mitanni. The word Naharin is also used clearly in this web site: [15] Naharin was just the Ancient Egyptian term for this kingdom. Leoboudv 03:44, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As an Aside, the respected English Egyptologist Kenneth Kitchen also employs the term Naharin for Mitanni in his paper here in honor of the memory of William Murnane here: see the bottom paragraph of page 5 here [16] where he refers to "List A covers major powers and places from Assur, Sangara (Babylon) and Naharin (Mitanni) in the east through Syrian Carchemish..." If Kitchen can use the term Naharin, Wikipedia should permit it too. It is just the Egyptian reference for the Mitannian kingdom, nothing more. Leoboudv 03:51, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect with Mitanni; I concur with previous posts that this term should remain in Wikipedia, but the page will never grow beyond its current stubby nature, whereas the Mitanni article is long and lush. Pray let us guide people to that which is useful... Alba 04:22, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Change to keep; more pixels have now been spilled in defense of this page than the page contained. Take it to Talk:Naharin and improve the article, k? Alba 04:53, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Mitanni as alternative name. Certainly no reason to have a separate article, no objection to merge if someone sees mergeable content. --Tikiwont 14:44, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The page as currently worded does not fully encompass what Naharin is. This merits alteration, not deletion. Aram Naharin is a geographical entity referring to the northern part of Mesopotamia between the Tigris and Euphrates and not directly to the Political state of Mitanni, and certainly not to the neighboring region north of the Tigris named Nairi by the Assyrians. Deleting Naharin because there is an article on Mitanni would be somthing akin to deleting Anatolia because we have an article on Turkey. Naharin has notability beyond merely being the synonym of Mitanni in the Egyptian Language. It also shows up in academic literature as the area of an Assyrian vassal provence in post-mitannian times, as well as appearing in the book of Judges as the homeland out of which Cushan opressed the Israelites. Moosh's assertation that Naharin is mearly an egyptian word for Nairi is also demonstratably in error. Naharin refers to the area between the two rivers, the Tigris and the Euphrates. Nairi, on the other hand, can be seen on any map to be the region due north of Assyria on the north side of the Tigris across the river from Subartu. George Roux's Ancient Iraq page 279 places it up there, as well as his map of Northern Mesopotamia and Ancient Syria in the appendix of his book. It is erronious to say that this is a synonym for Mitanni or Nairi, and a merge would be misleading. Thanatosimii 17:12, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even the reference that Leobdv gave of Naharin, says "Mitanni was "Indo-European" (Hurrian) people[17], that Hurrian is not some different entity from Mitanni. He also said that Nairi and Naharin are the same people (see the Mitanni edit history). Showing that it was not just Indo-Aryans, but other related groups, such as the Armenians. Also, the Mitanni names with "Arta" prefix like Artatma etc. are not Indo-Aryan; the majority of linguistics, including Colin Renfrew (Anatolian theory of Indo-Europeans professor), Ivonav and Georgian Tamaz, and many others, put the Greco-Armeno-Aryan group of Indo-Europeans together during the 3rd millenium BC, revealing that "Arta" was not just Indo-Iranian, but with the Ar root of Armenian and it was ancient Armenian, in the group that was Armeno-Aryan. That was the common language of that group together as Greco-Armeno-Aryan, they had the Arta prefix , before they split, So its not just Indo-Aryan. The distinct Kura-Araxes culture's (Aratta) pottery has been found in Mitanni and associated with Mitanni, and this culture excisted around the 3rd Mil. BC. So the Kura-Arax (Aratta) spread to the region of Mitanni earlier , and this all showing an Indo-European presence, cause Mitanni was Indo-European, and earlier Kura-Arax culture showing Indo-European links with Mitanni. With all this, we have the 3rd millenium and 2nd millenium BC, records of Armenians in Mitanni. However, I am not saying Armenians were the only ones there, but that they participated in the establishment of the kingdom. It's clear that some of the gods were Indo-Aryan, such as Indra. The Mitanni pantheon had many Indo-Aryan gods, but the kings were not Indo-Aryan for the most part, such as Artatama.

Also, the "Arta" prefix is no longer found in the Indo-Iranian languages , like Farsi for example, does not have Artar or Arta anymore as the word for "righteous". It was in Old Persian, but not in the modern language. This is contrasted with the fact that Armenians, to this day have that prefix Arta (being one of the most common prefix), as righteous and in many Armenian names and words. But Persians have ceased to use it now. Such an important word as righteous is not just lost, thus it shows that it doesn't originate in Indo-Iranians only, but if anything, in Armenian, an Armenian root or prefix. Also, it should be noted that the other words Persians have kept which Armenians share with them, for example mikh mekh, zang zung, tag taj, namak nameh, zambeegh zambooygh, modeed medod, These are nail, bell, crown, letter, basket , and pencil, but Arta has not been kept by the Indo-Aryans. Another interesting find was that the Indo-Aryans may have used Rita instead of Arta, which was/is used by the Armenians.

Furthermore, there is ample evidence that Nairi and Naharin were the same, both meaning "land of rivers", in that the Egyptian pharaoh Thutmose III referred to Armenia as "Ermenen", his reign was during the same time as Mitanni. The Assyrians used the term Nairi (land of rivers), which is a semetic word, for the people and land around and south of lake Van. On top of that, Naram-Sin mentions Armânum (Armenia) as part of the Diarbekr region, which had recently been taken over. To this day, Kurds and Turks refer to Armenians as Ermeni (Kurds) and Ermeniler (Turks). Another example is that Nairi is a very common male name in Armenia, and Naharin or Nahrine is a very common female version of Nariri name. --Moosh88 18:51, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Naharin isn't a people group, it's a geographic entity which specifically refers to the land between the two rivers. All that ethnic stuff may be true or false, but it hasn't got the slightest to do with geographical names. Thanatosimii 20:50, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Naharin and Nairi refer to the same people, as well as the land on which they lived. They lived in the "land of the two rivers" - Nairi, therefore they were known by that name too, as a people. I also presented even more evidence that the Armenians were involved with the establishment of Mitanni; so my question then is, are you trying to say that Armenians didn't participate in Mitanni?--Moosh88 21:08, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's not the point of a deletion thread. The only relevent question here is, is naharin the same thing as either mitanni or nairi? The answer is, for the first one, not exactly; and for the second, absolutely not. Mitanni is a political entity, Naharin is a location with a history both before and after Mitanni. Nairi, both the people and the location, is/are located northeast of Naharin, across the tigris. Naharin and Nairi are distinct and different places, whose only similarity is the root nhr. Look at any map in a good book about ancient history and you will find Naharin squarely located in northwest mesopotamia, and Nairi sitting northeast of mesopotamia in the mountains. Thanatosimii 21:17, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Dear Moosh88, I respect your opinion and arguments--you are indeed knowledgeable on this matter. However, I must stress that the word 'Naharin' was applied by the New Kingdom Egyptians to the entire Hurrian state of Mitanni. In contrast, while the Nairi lands was certainly part of Mitanni, it did Not encompass all of Mitanni. The Nairi lands was located in the in the northeast section of the kingdom of Mitanni around the Tigris river. After Mitanni was conquered by the Hittites under Suppiluliuma I, the Nairi lands became a matter of dispute between Hatti and Assyria. A Hittite king Tudhaliya IV would later fight and lose a major battle at Nihiriya against the Assyrian king Tukulti-Ninurta I for control of the Nairi lands which were subsequently annexed to Assyria. But the rest of the former kingdom of Mitanni--the area west of Nairi--remained under Hittite control. So, Nairi and Naharin is not exactly the same piece of territory. That is why I ask if you can please consider allow this short Naharin article to stand. Thank You. Leoboudv 00:45, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nairi (Armenians) invaded the lands that would become Mitanni, along with other Indo-European peoples. As early as Akkadian times, Hurrians are known to have lived east of the river Tigris on the northern rim of Mesopotamia, and in the Khabur valley. The group which became Mitanni gradually moved south into Mesopotami sometime before the 17th century BC. Eusebius, writing in the early 4th century, quoted fragments of Eupolemus, a now-lost Jewish historian of the 2nd century BC, as saying that "around the time of Abraham, the Armenians invaded the Syrians" The Naharin term was applied to Mittani by the Egyptians in reference to Nairi and on names of the Mitanni kings, such as Artashumara (righteous son) and Aratama, among others, who were Armenian, because Nairi was the semetic term used to refer to Armenians, the Egyptians based it off of this. But it is not all based on the Nairi, Nahrin similarity, as I showed in my last post, the kings names were Armenian, not to mention the other points mentioned above. Modern scholars, which does not equal Roux by the way, but the likes of Ivanov, Gamkrelidze, Renfrew, and Kavoukjian, among many others, have shown without a shadow of a doubt, that Nairi was one of the key peoples in the establishment of Mitanni. So we have ancient sources, as well as modern that attest to the role played by Nairi in the formation of Mitanni. I may be wrong, but it seems that you (Leoboudv) and Thanatosimii are trying to divorce Mitanni from Nairi and thus Armenian History. Am I incorrect in this?

Sources that prove the above points.

Vyacheslav V. Ivanov and Thomas Gamkrelidze, The Early History of Indo-European Languages, Scientific American, vol. 262, N3, 110-116, March, 1990.

Gamkrelidze, Tamaz V. Vjacheslav V. Ivanov (1995). Indo-European and the Indo-Europeans. Mouton de Gruyter. ISBN 3-11-014728-9.

Renfrew, A.C., 1987, Archaeology and Language: The Puzzle of Indo-European Origins, London: Pimlico. ISBN 0-7126-6612-5

Kavoukjian, Martiros. The Genesis of Armenian People, Montreal, 1982.

Kavoukjian, Martiros. Armenia, Subartu and Sumer, Montreal, 1989 ISBN 0921885008

And this list is incomplete since it only has English language books, there are many more on the subject in Russian, German, French, and Armenian.

Here is a good map of Mitanni [18]--Moosh88 02:13, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Hi Moosh88, Yes, that's an excellent map of Mitanni. I don't know where you found it. However, it also shows that the area of Nairi was located in the northeast sector of the Mitannian empire..which I think was Thanatosimi's and my basic point. In contrast, the word 'Naharin' usually refers to all regions of Mitanni, not just Nairi. When Egyptologists like Kenneth Kitchen use the word Naharin, they refer to the entire empire of Mitanni too. That is why I believe the word Naharin should be kept--as a reference for Mitanni, nothing more. As for divorcing the history of Mitanni and Armenia, I don't know what to say here beacuse I don't know the answer. I would say that the kingdom of Urartu or the Orontids are closer ancestors to the modern Armenian peoples but I am not an expert here and this is off topic. Thank You Leoboudv 02:52, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moosh, as I said, a deletion nomination is not the place for such a discussion. An editor presented these views last winter and the consensus that arose was that these theories are minority verging on fringe. If you want to change consensus regarding the connexions between Mitanni and Armenia, it isn't to be done in the AFD page for Naharin. My argument stands: Naharin and Nairi are not the same place, and Naharin and Mitanni have slightly different aspects like Anatolia and Turkey have different aspects. As such this page is not redundant, though it could use a good expansion. Thanatosimii 03:49, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I could see Naharin being kept, but strictly as the Egyptian term for Mitanni. However, one must realize where the name "Naharin" came from, it has its roots in Nairi. As I stated earlier, the Nairi (Armenians) invaded Syria along with other Indo-European groups, and Mitanni was formed. Urartu was Nairi, the name Urartu was given to the people living around lake Van, by the Assyrians. As early as Akkadian times, Hurrians, an Indo-European people are known to have lived east of the river Tigris on the northern rim of Mesopotamia, and in the Khabur valley. The Nairi were closely related to the Hurrians, most likely being a sub branch. Thus, Armenian and Mitanni history is interwoven and it is not "off topic" to bring up the relation. I pointed out many sources, ancient and modern, so before either of you say it's "off topic" or "verging on fringe" read carefully what I have outlined in the previous posts.--Moosh88 04:03, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reading unconvincing sources has left me unconvinced. Your assertations are all from the minority position, which to my knowledge is has found little to no credence among mainline scholars.Thanatosimii 04:21, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who says that these are "minority positions"? Or that no "mainline scholars" attach credence ot them? It seems that this is your opinion, and not the opinion of the majority of scholars. As I wrote earlier, the points I have mentioned have international support. Colin Renfrew, for example, are you saying he is in the minority camp? He is one of the main scholars on Indo-European studies.--Moosh88 04:34, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Moosh88, If you agree, let's resolve this discussion now by keeping the Naharin article as the Egyptian term or reference for the ancient kingdom of Mitanni as you proposed above. That is all I ever thought of when I created the entry...as you can see from my typed comments for Naharin. I used the word Naharin because various Egyptologists--not only Kitchen--web sites and the Ancient Egyptians use this phrase to refer to the Empire of Mitanni. I hope you concur here. With kind Regards, Leoboudv 04:36, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We have an article for Hatti, rather than a redirection to Hittite. The article should be small though, with links out to other article for context. Markh 11:56, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As long as the article provides links to the Nairi (people) article and the Mitanni article, it can stay. And here are more links to sources showing the influence that Armenians had on Mesopotamia, as well as Sumeria.

This is what the other site I tryed to link says, (I provided the url on the edit summary).

Tracing the Origin of Ancient Sumerians By Ashok Malhotra

Contribution of Armenians to ancient civilization

In the Indus valley from which the Sumerians emerged there were other tribes that lived in close proximity of the Austric Sumerians. These were prehistoric indo-Aryan tribes of an Armenian origin – followers of the God Ara. The indo Aryans were fair skinned and light haired. Hence the reason for the indo-Sumerians to label themselves as dark headed in comparison to the Ara people who were shining. Sumerians also began using the word Ara for fair and bright and eventually they labeled all indo-Aryan people as Ara or Arya. The word Armenian has its origin in AR-MA, i.e. the children of Ara and Ma the fertility Goddess. Later indo-Aryan migrations of around 1500BC into the Indus regions were apparently of Hittite origin. Apparently, some intermarriage also took place between these indo-Sumerians and Armenians probably leading to a more vigorous community then would have been possible otherwise. A physical marriage also resulted in a marriage of the religious traditions of the Sumerian and Armenian tribes as well as the Sumerian language being influenced by Armenian. Such influences can be found by comparisons between the Armenian (or even Hungarian that emerged from ancient Armenian) and Sumerian language. Are was the Sun God and the roots of sun worship in the world appear to have an Aryan origin rather than a Sumerian one. Archaeologists refer to Transcaucasus region, including modern Armenia, as the earliest known prehistoric culture in the area, carbon-dated to roughly 6000 - 4000 BC. A recently discovered tomb has been dated to 9000 BC. Another early culture in the Armenian Highland and surrounding areas, the Kura-Araxes culture,(Aratta) is assigned the period of ca. 4000 - 2200 BC. Armenians are one of the oldest Indo-European subgroups. Therefore, it is not surprising that from amongst the Aryans it was the Armenians who spread around the ancient world of Mesopatomia and Indus valley first. The Hittite Aryans that became more powerful than the Armenians by 1500 BC were close neighbors and racial cousins of the Armenians, at times clashing with them and at times co-existing, yet probably gaining form the interaction at all times. Buxton and Rice have found that of 26 Sumerian crania they examined 22 were Australoid or Austrics and four armennoid. Further According to Penniman who studied skulls from other Sumerian sites, the Australoid Eurafrican, Austric and Armenoid were the "racial" types associated with the Sumerians. Certainly it cannot be confirmed without further investigation if the Sumerian-Armenian alliance took place on Sumerian or Indian soil. It is also not certain if it was a forced or voluntary one. The fair skinned Armenian ladies are likely to have regarded the dark broad nosed Sumerians as ugly. Nevertheless, it may be deduced that the earliest Sumerians who introduced civilization in our world were around 85% Austric and 15% Armenian Aryans.

(there is more, but this is good info)

[19]

[20] --Moosh88 18:54, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, then Moosh. The article can stay with the Mitanni link. Anyone who accesses the Mitanni site from the short Naharin article can then immediatedly see the linked articles on the Nairi peoples which you have enclosed. As for sources that Armenians were the descendants of Mitanni, I'm afraid a deletion forum is not the best site for this discussion. A talk page on Mitanni is a better site for this long discussions. Naharin should strictly be limited to the foreign (Egyptian here) word for the kingdom of Mitanni as you and I note. Leoboudv 19:25, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That works. However, note that I am not saying that the Armenians are/were the descendants of the Mitanni, they participated with the other peoples, such as the Indo-Aryan (Indic) peoples, in establishing the kingdom of Mitanni.--Moosh88 20:02, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Yes, then we agreed, Moosh. Regards, Leoboudv 21:13, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Before this discussion ends, did you take note of the points that I made? Or do you only agree that the Nahrin article should link to Nairi (people) and Mitanni article?--Moosh88 21:26, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just agree with what the Egyptologists say: that Naharin was the term for Mitanni. As for whether the Mitannians were ancestors of the Armenians, anything is possible in the Near East. After Mitanni was conquered, it was reduced to a mini vassal state under Hittite control but once the Hittite empire was destroyed by the Sea Peoples, we don't know what happened to the remaining Mitannians. Were they destroyed by the Sea Peoples, or displaced to the highlands of Turkey/Armenia? No one knows but its certainly possible that some Mitannians were ancestors of modern day Armenians, Turks and Syrians--the latter two since the Empire of Mitanni covered parts of both Syria and Turkey. Thank You. Leoboudv. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leoboudv (talk • contribs) 22:52, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am beginning to doubt very much that you (Leoboudv) have read any of my posts or for that matter, whether you have even read any of the sources which I listed. How many times must I state that Armenians (Nairi), along with other Indo-European groups, the people that established Mitanni. There is no Mitannian ethnicity per se, it was a local melting pot (if anything), not an ethnicity. It may be possible that Syrians (Arabs) and Turks have some of the blood that the inhabitants of the kingdom of Mitanni had, but the Turks didn't come to the area until around 1100 AD, and the Arabs didn't until around 600 AD. Both of these dates are more than 1500 years after Mitanni's demise. The sources I linked you to show that Armenians existed before 1200's BC, as you see with Mitanni and earlier Kura-Araxes (Aratta) culture, which spread to region of Mitanni and helped form that kingdom. For example, Thutmose III during his reign (1500's BC), which was around the same time as Mitanni, mentioned Ermenen in reference to Mitanni, Ermenistan is now used by Kurds, Turks, and Azeri's as the name of Armenia. Thus, it's nonesense to say that the Sea Peoples were the ancestors of Armenians, when it has been established that Armenians were already a people by this time. Once again read my posts clearly, and read the sources I provided.--Moosh88 02:02, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have never once claimed that the Sea Peoples are ancestors of the Armenians and don't dispute for one minute that the Armenians are an ancient people. This discussion here is merely about whether the term Naharin should be permitted on Wikipedia, nothing more. Since professional Egyptologists and Egypt related web sites use the word Naharin for the Egyptian expression for Mitanni, I think it should. Its simply the Egyptian term for Mitanni, nothing more. Thank You. Leoboudv 04:57, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But did you not say that "its certainly possible that some Mitannians were ancestors of modern day Armenians", when it has been clearly established that Armenians, along with other Indo-European peoples, were the founders of the kingdom of Mitanni. I understand that Naharin was used in reference to Egypt, but do not pass over the strong Armenian connection with Mitanni.--Moosh88 05:58, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, that's fine. I may agree or disagree with your point but I do see where you are coming from. Thanks. Leoboudv 07:00, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And may I ask, what points do you disagree with?--Moosh88 07:23, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that you discuss the ethnic origins of the Armenians on another page such as the Naharin or Mitanni discussion page. This site is not conducive for such discussions...only on whether Naharin as a word is acceptable as a reference for the Empire of Mitanni. Thank You. Leoboudv 00:00, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you disagreeing with the scholars or the historical records, cause I can understand you not seeing eye to eye with a scholar, but to deny ancient records is unjustifiable.--Moosh88 21:15, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My specialty is Egyptology--not the ancient history of the Levant or Armenia. So, I don't agree or disagree with any particular scholar or historical record on Mitanni's or Armenia's origins since I don't have any specific position here. All that is certain is that Mitanni/Naharin was a Hurrian (ie. non-Semitic) state. But this page is only about whether the Egyptian word 'Naharin' is reasonable as a term of reference for Mitanni. I think it certainly is. Regards, Leoboudv 06:00, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep: as this article cites significant coverage of its topic in multiple, third party reliable sources in University of Florida Taser incident#References, the incident is presumed to be notable per Wikipedia's general notability guideline. WP:NOT#NEWS has also been advanced as an argument for deletion. Whatever the merits of ever raising WP:NOT#NEWS in any deletion discussion without claiming serious WP:BLP issues^[1], WP:NOT#NEWS clearly does not furnish a valid rationale for deletion here. Indeed, WP:NOT#NEWS expressly states that "topics in the news may also be encyclopedic subjects when the sources are substantial"; the massive media coverage of this incident cited in University of Florida Taser incident#References would therefore suggest that this incident is, indeed, an "encyclopedic subject". Likewise, the involvement of Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry in the events preceding the incident favors the conclusion that the incident does indeed have "historical notability". John254 03:21, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

^ WP:NOT#NEWS was added to WP:NOT during the controversy surrounding the events considered in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff, admonishes editors to "[keep] in mind the harm our work might cause", and advises that "While Wikipedia strives to be comprehensive, the policies on biographies of living persons and neutral point of view should lead us to contextualize events appropriately, which may preclude a biography about someone who is not an encyclopedic subject, despite a brief appearance in the news." The extent to which WP:NOT#NEWS ever applies to any articles other than biographies of living persons that present a substantial risk of causing serious embarrassment, humiliation, or other harm to their subjects is therefore doubtful. Archetypical of the sort of article that clearly qualifies for deletion under WP#NOT:NEWS would be a biography of a person whose sole claim to notability is an arrest for driving while intoxicated, where the event was only covered in two local newspapers.

University of Florida Taser incident

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

WP:NOT#NEWS. The University of Florida police overreacted to a borderline heckler at a John Kerry speech. Footage was shown on television because it contained the memorable line "Don't tase me, bro!" and some print sources ran stories, but this has no lasting, encyclopedic interest. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 04:06, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is a major PR story and useful case study. Also, the university has not taken final action, so the story is not finished.

KEEP The phrase "Don't Tase Me Bro" has become something of a phenomenon, being echoed in stand-up routines, late night shows, and t-shirts. Just Google that expression, and you will find dozens of hits. It is part of the American lexicon now. In fact, that phrase should be the primary Wikipedia link and focus. To remove the entire article would deprive researchers of critical background for this expression. If it should one day fall out of disuse, it can THEN be deleted. But there is no reason to rush the article off Wikipedia's site. Another expression with its own entry is, "Yo, Blair."

Removed link to Cafepress site. Wikipedia is not an advertising service. superluser_tc 2007 September 23, 06:50 (UTC)

KEEP I'm not an American citizen but if I were I would feel that this video depicts an important event in which fundamental principles of my democracy have been undermined. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cockers (talk • contribs) 13:27, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Whether or not you feel this is something that should be deleted, there's really no reason. It is an event. It happened. It's now part of history. There isn't a limited amount of space that this article is going to take up. It doesn't matter whether you agree with what happened or not- YOU CAN'T DELETE HISTORY! And the fact that it has made such a huge impact and had so much media coverage is the reason it is a noteworthy article.

If you don't want to read it, don't go searching for it. It's as simple as that! ~Nini —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.48.133.1 (talk) 20:07, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Keep" This is a piece of history that should not be wiped from the public's consciousness. Free speech is still free in most of Americans' minds although politicians and police have tried to take it away from us. Why weren't Meyer's questions answered? Even more, why was Meyer dragged off, tasered, and arrested for asking them? Kerry is a public official and the least of all rights we have to expect when dealing with one is that we be allowed to question authority, however unfashionable it may be these days. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.113.20.61 (talk) 05:17, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. First, 'Footage was shown on television because it contained the memorable line "Don't tase me, bro!"' is not the reason I'm interested. In fact stating that this is the only reason there is interest is overreaching...and insulting. Obiter you do not speak for everyone...clearly! This is a current event of some interest; obviously. Stating that the line "Don't tase me, bro!" is the only reason there is interest and thereby qualifies the article for deletion is beyond ridiculous. Second, if the two videos are watched and listened to carefully one will quickly realize that everything stated in the article as of this point in time is accurate. In fact one can clearly hear an officer threat to tase Meyer before he begs not to be tased. Third, POV tags should NEVER be thrown without a reason being given. William (Bill) Bean 13:43, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Um, I didn't add the POV tag to the article. Nor have I commented on the article's accuracy or who was "right" in this incident. You obviously have me confused with someone else. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 15:24, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Where did I say YOU added the tag Obiter? Please point that out. What I'm saying is that the reason you give for killing the article is not the reason I'm interested in it. Further, I'm stating that you don't speak for me. That should be pretty clear. Perhaps you should work on your reading for comprehension skills. Just a suggestion. William (Bill) Bean 21:06, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As you threw up your comment out of order at the top of the list, immediately after the nomination statement, it was logical to infer that it was a direct response to it. I'm befuddled by your assertion that I don't speak for you. I've never claimed to, nor, AFAICR, have I ever interacted with you before. Proposing a community discussion of this article has obviously elicited an emotional response from you, and I'm frankly at a loss as to why that should be so. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 21:36, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You certainly make a lot of assumptions. "Proposing a community discussion of this article has obviously elicited an emotional response from you, and I'm frankly at a loss as to why that should be so." Obvious? Since it is highly unlikely that you read minds I can only assume that you are jumping to a conclusion without sufficient evidence. Shocking! What is obvious to me is that the people who are having a problem with this article do not know how to follow proper procedure. Beyond my faux pas at putting my vote at the top of the list rather than the bottom I do know two things with total certainty. When an article is tagged for POV a reason must be given. When an article is nominated for deletion that nomination should appear where the entire community can find it. Otherwise both are meaningless; for obvious reason. FOLLOW PROPER PROCEDURE!!! William (Bill) Bean 00:39, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't feel this is a conversation I need to continue. I will simply point out (again) that the nomination was indeed posted to the afd log for September 19 by the TWINKLE script, which does this automatically. This is because is was nominated at 4:06 Greenwich Mean Time on that date. You couldn't find it because (as you said) that you looked in the log for September 18. Even though it was still the 18th where you lived, it was already the 19th in other parts of the world. Do you understand this now? ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 01:02, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Stop with the "assumptions" and it will end. Do I get this now? No I'm too obtuse! Give me a slight break here. My ONLY concern is proper procedure. That is it! Now is there anything else you want to make "obvious" about me or are you through playing the passive aggressive game? William (Bill) Bean 01:27, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is the Kent State shootings of our era, a demonstration of excessive police state force against students massively reported in the media. It is also reminiscent of the Rodney King beatings. Ejeder 13:19, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I must say, comparing this to Kent State is in rather poor taste. Phil Sandifer 13:32, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I will agree with Phil, above. Nobody was seriously hurt in this incident; nor did it involve a shooting of any sort. Tom Sullivan 1500, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- This is most certainly NOT in poor taste-- this is an example of police overpowering innocent university students. At heart, the principle is absolutely identical. This is a newsworthy event, it appeals to our national, cultural history, and it should be rightly chronicled as so in this encyclopedia. User:Unidyne7 19 September 2007.
- Wow, that's very offensive. A split-second tazing of upper-middle class prankster for insulting a United States Senator is not comparable to a merciless beating by police officers for no reason other than racism. Revolutionaryluddite 21:22, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Er, what? The Kent State victims were white students shot for protesting Vietnam, not victims of racist beatings. -- Dandelions 02:02, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I was referring to the Rodney King beating. Revolutionaryluddite 17:38, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This story is meaningful from several angles: the passivity of Sen. John Kerry, former candidate for U.S. President, the forebodings of the beginning of a police state in America, the loss of free speech, historically one of America's most treasured traits, and with all the video evidence, this story is not going away. This event may stand the test of time, much like the murder of four students at Kent State University during the Vietnam War.--RuthStar 11:31, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Let the facts be presented as the vision of Wikipedia allows for. This event is clearly of interest beyond news and internet video --for anyone wishing to research contemporary issues in free speech in the college system of the U.S. 75.35.23.193 07:37, 19 September 2007 (UTC)Benzl[reply]
Support/Delete I agree. Already, we've had 1 user (not saying any names), going through and removing hidden notes, and people referring to the prankster as "douchebag". A delete is what this article needs. [Tyler] ^{(talk/contribs)} 04:09, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Huge story, of relevance and interest to the American and world public, and which users will come here looking for. This story will not go away or be forgotten, and thus merits coverage in our encyclopedia. Badagnani 04:09, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - To Badagnani: But it doesn't belong here, as per WP:NOT#NEWS. [Tyler] ^{(talk/contribs)} 04:11, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, you're incorrect. This is a rare example of use of force with a Taser on a college campus, against a student asking a question at a forum, something that doesn't happen often and raises questions about the use of force (specifically with an electro-shock weapon) in the United States. As such, it is a very high-profile example of the Electroshock weapon controversy and not to treat it would leave an illogical lacuna. Badagnani 04:22, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This was #1 story earlier this evening on cnn.com, videos have ~500,000+ views on utube, hundreds of news stories and thousands of google hits and we still have an article for UCLA_Taser_incident which happened a year ago. Leafyplant 04:14, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment But if people wish to know about this, they can easily look it up on Yahoo News, YouTube, etc. [Tyler] ^{(talk/contribs)} 04:15, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Interesting event, during the election campaign, may spark debate about policing in the USA. I'm sure much worse happens every day, but this case is particular because there was a violent reaction, a will to censor political critique. A peaceful political opposer was tortured by electrical shock until he accepted to wear handcuffs and be arrested for no reason. This is a rare happening in the USA, normally political censorship and intimidation is more discreet. It's an interesting turning point, especially as it was ordered by the democrats who often oppose the heavy handed way the Republicans have of dealing with problems. Democrats have often campaigned for the use of tasers instead of guns, and gun control in general, this gives an interesting insight on how they may be planning to use them. Jackaranga 04:18, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Right. It's in the news right now, but it's unlikely that it will have lasting historic importance. And now we apparently have the danger the article will turn into a coatrack after the rest of us have forgotten about it next week. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 04:25, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#NEWS, this is a NN event. Just because lots of people watch it on YouTube does not make it notable. meshach 04:40, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is a great deal more than a "popularity of viral video" issue. First amendment rights, use of excessive force, student rights, and broadcast rights can all be seen in this article. Though there have not been many reported incidents of campus police use of excessive force, there have been other cases as well. I can see the article being incorporated into another article that deals with free speech, student rights, use of force etc., but for now it should stand. William (Bill) Bean 15:06, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is much more than a story about a prankster that loves attention. Using violence to put an end to what amounts to disorderly conduct is rather disturbing. It won't be long before this story is lost in the clutter of the ever changing news sites. At least here, we'll have a chance to view this story to its natural end. This is not always the case when relying on broadcast/cable news.Alecquaid 04:54, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NOT#NEWS. No encyclopedic longevity. - Crockspot 04:55, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:NOT#NEWS - time will tell this event to be without lasting significance. If something notable emerges and there is more significance, a new article can be written with the benefit of more hindsight. Dlabtot 04:57, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is classic WP:NOT#NEWS MarkBul 05:05, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Wow, AfD seems to have died down. I still stand by my delete. This will end becoming a hatrack soon [Tyler] ^{(talk/contribs)} 05:20, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a very notable story right now. Keeping and closing off edits for the time being until we see how impactful it really is may be the way to go User:Edgecution03 04:57, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with Dlabtot's statement. This is not notable, and if it somehow turns into the root cause of a major policy change, then the article can be re-created. This kid was being pulled out for disruption the same way a heckler would be thrown out of a comedy act, and the police used vastly excessive force. This sort of thing happens so much these days that police have a reputation for it, especially in certain communities but even in general. There was no lasting injury. A couple of years ago, University of Central Florida students were tailgating, and there was an altercation in which an undercover UCF officer had his gun drawn. An Orlando cop was in the area, and due to a lack of communication between the two police forces, the Orlando uniformed cop shot and killed the undercover UCF cop who had drawn his gun. Guess what? This story does not have an article, nor even a mention anymore anywhere in Wikipedia (no, this is not supposed to be a police brutality example, just an example of notability). Mbarbier 05:24, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment So create one. William (Bill) Bean 15:08, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Umm, his/her point is not that an article should be created for that incident - but that an article rightly has not been created for that incident. Dlabtot 16:00, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'Comment' "Um" is not a proper way to start a sentence; just for future reference. Whether or not an article is created and kept is not up to you. It is a rightfully a community decision. Stating your opinion that "rightly" does not qualify for this article is all fine and good, but you do not speak for everyone. I'll be happy to remind you of this "sad" fact as often as necessary until you get it. I can see that it might be often. Finally, flagging an article NPOV without giving cause is in and of itself POV. I could also be considered vandalism. I strongly suggest you refrain from doing that in future. Your talk page indicates this is not the first or even second time you've done this. William (Bill) Bean 21:15, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - We've got an article for Rachel Corrie of all people; this guy's just as notable. Evan1975 05:35, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Rachel Corrie was killed; this person was Tasered. I think there's a difference. Bondegezou 13:55, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per Not#News -- best handled at Wikinews:Student_questioning_Senator_Kerry_is_tasered. – Zedla 06:01, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Badagnani. --Itub 08:31, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This was a news story, but it's not only a news story. There are enough references to it out there that, as Badagnani said, someone who missed all the coverage in 2007 may come upon a mention of it a year or a decade from now and want to know more. I don't agree with Tyler Warren that we should dump an article if people could look up the information elsewhere on the Web. We don't do original research, so most of Wikipedia's content is available elsewhere on the Web, and the rest is available in libraries. JamesMLane t c 09:48, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Very significant event, not just a news article. Someone could want to read this article months/years from now. Connör ^(talk) 10:22, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per JamesMLane. Darksun 10:24, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep why the hell would it be deleted? - mnuez —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.13.148.23 (talk) 10:43, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is not Wikinews. --ElKevbo 11:15, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Just one day since the event's occurrence, and this article has already been nominated for deletion. Amazing. Why on earth such a rush to delete??? Evidently some editors are blessed with psychic powers, able to determine that a month or a year from now this story will have been forgotten, and is thus of no lasting value -- and accordingly, not worthy of an article on Wikipedia. Or perhaps I'm wrong -- maybe they have access to that time-travel vehicle from Back to the Future. If so, I'd like to at least see some sort of physical evidence -- you know, a cancelled check or something like that. :)

Ahem. In all seriousness, this nomination is based on nothing more than a personal view that supposedly "minor" incidents of police abuse, where the victim wasn't maimed or killed -- aren't deserving of attention. That might be a valid argument -- if we were talking about Iraq or Afghanistan. But this sort of thing is not supposed to take place here in the United States. So unless it turns out that it was all staged -- nothing more than some sort of "performance art" on the part of both the student and the police -- it should be considered intrinsically worthy of documenting here on Wikipedia. But wait... that would be notable in itself, wouldn't it?! (And by the way, let's not forget that most online newspapers don't keep their articles online permanently.) Cgingold 11:27, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now. At the moment, this is a major event, with plenty of non-trivial secondary coverage by major news organizations. Revisit it in 6 months and, if by then it's no longer considered major then it can be merged with the applicable articles. I have to express concern that some of the arguments above (on both sides of the issue) cross the line of WP:NPOV and WP:ILIKEIT/WP:IDONTLIKEIT. 23skidoo 11:56, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I agree wholly with this viewpoint. Any developments in the story will likely not be addressed by national news outlets, so at least for now, wikipedia can serve as a comprehensive account of the event. It can be reviewed again in six months, and then nominated then. --Asarkees 15:34, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First arbitrary section break

Delete - this is a subject for a wikinews article not an enclycopediac one. People feelings about the importance of the event don't change it being simply a newsworthy event. - Peripitus (Talk) 11:58, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- how can you assume so quickly that it does not have long-lasting encyclopedic significance? Surely we need to wait a while and see how it plays out to determine that. In the meantime, this clearly satisfies the first criterion of WP:BIO -- subject of multiple, independent, reliable published reports. Dylan 12:03, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of cases of police brutality or some similar article due to recentism.... There is no telling that this event will have any actual historical impact. When it does beyond the initial media hype (as with all passing events), then perhaps a stand-alone article is warranted. It is way too early to determine the long-lived impact of this, and a case should be proven to keep it (other than to avoid deletion), not the other way around. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 12:44, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Saying that "a case should be proven to keep it…not the other way around" has no basis in Wikipedia policy. dcandeto 14:18, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure it does. Read WP:NOT#NEWS and WP:NOTE -- the long-term historical significance has not been established for this. I was published in a few newspaper articles, so maybe I'll be a big deal someday -- let's create an article on me, shall we? This is not evidenced to have far-reaching impact -- it's just the topic of the week as far as anyone can tell. Not even the I-35W Mississippi River bridge has its own article about all the national press that it received. It didn't stay in the national scope forever, and there's no evidence that this will, too. I don't want to blank mention of the incident from Wikipedia, but it needs to be more concise (less WikiNews) and placed in a broader article. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:52, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- We don't know how this will play out and what kind of impact it may have, i believe this AfD is premature, it should be kept for the time being. DTGardner 12:46, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Exactly, we don't know. Gazpacho 21:49, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- The University of Florida Taser incident story is just developing. It MUST be kept and eventually cleaned up. But any move to delete it is suspect. -- Greenpagan1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Greenpagan1 (talk • contribs) 12:50, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- "Must" why? "Suspect" how? Gazpacho 21:49, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- the massive media coverage more than establishes notability. As for the "performance art" argument, if it turns out that this was all staged, in my mind this does not diminish notability. I mean, if this was staged, it is probably one of the most successful (in terms of media exposure) acts of performance art ever; such an event -- a student successfully creating a scene that captures global media attention and provokes a "serious" national discussion regarding excessive force used by police and freedom of speech -- would perhaps be even more notable than a tasering incident standing alone. Interestingstuffadder 13:11, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Although I find most of the keep votes ludicrously offensive (Comparing this to Kent State?) for the moment this seems notable by any measure we use. Phil Sandifer 13:32, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No question there is censorship in the United States, and also there are those who would censor any mention of this censorship, as evidenced by the sprinkling of delete votes here. But, sorry, it's a little too late to "keep a lid" on this one now; even the BBC has reported on it. Os Cangaceiros (Yippie!) 13:45, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why isn't there an entry for this nomination in the September 18, 2007 nomination for deletion list? Damned hard to discuss a nomination like this, in the broader community, if no one knows where to comment on it. William (Bill) Bean 13:47, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment SOFIXIT already. Edison 13:55, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The person who threw the tag should fix it or the tag should be removed. William (Bill) Bean 21:17, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's already listed at the log for 19 September. Just because it was September 18 in the United States when it was nominated does not mean it was September 18 everywhere else in the world. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 15:28, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak delete~~ Keep Edited to add: per ~~494~~ 671 news article about the event to be found at Google News search [21] and ~~1.2 million~~ 5 million views of the top 7 YouTube videos of the tasering of the student. ~~views of the YouTube video of the incident~~. It is offensive to compare a publicity seeking student (perhaps the only white guy in this millenium who would call a black cop "Bro") who gets tasered by the police in their attempts to remove him when he stays at the microphone too long during a question and answer session, with four students going about their business at a university being shot dead by the National Guard, or with a young lady being crushed by bulldozers when she puts her body on the line to prevent homes being demolished, or with a man stopped for speeding and beaten half to death because of his race. Go to a political event, a town council meeting, a stockholders meeting, or any other forum and seize the microphone, refuse to yield it after asking a question, and you will likely be removed, by force. The force may be taser, mace, or just arm twisting, but you will eventually be carried out. That said, this is one of those stories which might or might not prove to be encyclopedic. We have the philosphy "notability is permanent" but so far this is just a news story, and per WP:NOT#NEWS it may be deleted. Our newshungry 24/7 newschannels take any titillating video footage and run it around the clock for a couple of days, and every paper runs lurid stories to try and coax coins out of someone's pocket at the news stand. This is not "Currenteventspedia." For that, see Wikinews. People wanting to look up this news story 2 years from now can check the NY Times online files. The news editors are not trying to choose enyclopedic stories. "Notability is permanent" implies that "only things with enduring notability should have articles." See also the essay WP:NOTNEWS which distinguishes between the encyclopedic and the merely "newsworthy." We might have a philosophy of creating an article about a newsworthy (but posibly not encyclopically notable event) and then later deleting it if coverage rapidly drops off, which is what I prefer. In such a case, our initial impression of notability was mistaken. If it has no enduring effect on society (such as laws passed, defeat of a political candidate, regime change at a college, new rules for campus police using tasers) it can be deleted later. Or in accord with "permanent notability" we can wait and recreate the article if it proves to have enduring importance. Who can say at this point what its long term effect will be? At least the story is appropriately about the incident and not the non-notable person. Edison 13:55, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is big news, newspaper all over the world are reporting it. Vote to keep it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.255.106.75 (talk) 14:06, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep My guess is that there will be something else about this case that cements its notability, but my crystal ball isn't working very well. Saying that this should be covered at Wikinews is cute, but nobody actually reads Wikinews (I came here, looking for an article called Andrew Meyer; I haven't visited Wikinews in months—it is usually hours behind Wikipedia in getting news-like updates.) dcandeto 14:20, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you saying that Wikinews isn't working well, therefore Wikipedia should take up the slack? Gazpacho 21:49, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This incident might not be the Kent State of our time, but it is certainly newsworthy, particularly in the context of comparable incidents of police over-reaction in recent history (the UCLA taser incident, the Seattle WTO riots) that all are Wiki articles ApolloRPL 14:21, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is one of few 'live-footage' police brutality incidents in current times. --Joffeloff 14:29, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. - This should not be deleted the day after it happened. Wait until the incident settles down, see what comes of it, and then reconsider it for deletion. The fact that it was even nominated for deletion this quickly is suspect. Digitiki 15:37, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- "Suspect" how? Don't pussy-foot. Gazpacho 21:49, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep This article isn't about the student; it's about the incident, which is ongoing. It involved a US Senator, has been widely reported on by news outlets both online and offline, and has so far resulted in at least one investigation by the University of Florida. It's therefore pretty notable. The incident will surely be mentioned in Kerry's and the University of Florida's articles, so it's best just to link to its own page where the full incident can be explained.--Gloriamarie 15:40, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It devalues WP:NOT#NEWS if an article which is clearly more appropriate for Wikinews is kept, because there is no point in a policy which has so many loopholes that it never applies. The 'passivity of Sen. Kerry' can be dealt with in his biography; the behaviour of the campus authorities can be mentioned in the page about the University. Of the rest, the media coverage is broad but shallow and the incident has all the characteristics of a publicity stunt; it is likely to be forgotten in a few months. Sam Blacketer 15:48, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Major news item that will become of significant historical importance. See UCLA Taser incident. (Yes, I already know about the essay that says not to do this, but I disagree with it.) Philwelch 15:50, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very Weak Keep (for Now) It's frustrating to read the article now that it's mutated into a POV screed in support of Meyer. Still, the article is (or is supposed to be, at least) about the incident and its aftermath. The fact that an irate protester crashed a town hall meeting and was removed as normal isn't notable, but since this happened in a widely reported meeting with Senator Kerry it is notable to that extent. I don't know. The fact that other users keep saying ILIKEIT without actually defending the article is also frustrating. It's news, but it's a developing story and I'm leaning twoard seeing what happens. Revolutionaryluddite 16:00, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just to provide some perspective The New York Times ran a single, one-paragraph story on this incident, credited to the Associated Press. It did, however, note that the video has been replayed widely on television and the Internet. In other words, no one in the grown-up world actually cares much about this. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 16:13, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- And now the story is completely off the front pages of almost all major news organization if it ever was anyway. 128.227.81.252 16:42, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. Watergate also took a long time to develop. That doesn't mean that this is the next Watergate, but that the true relevance of the story may not be known for some time. My vote can be found elsewhere. superluser_tc 2007 September 20, 02:34 (UTC)
Delete. Wikipedia is not a news blotter. Gamaliel (Angry Mastodon! Run!) 16:22, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems like a notable news event, since it happen during a polictal event. CRocka05 16:51, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Agree with CRocka05Samaster1991 17:36, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. This had ought to be kept; it has become a major news event in both public and online news, while most of the mass media ignores it. Darkahn 16:55, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and add a brief summary to List of cases of police brutality ("This list compiles incidents of police brutality that have garnered significant media and/or historical attention"). -- Gabi S. 17:02, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There has been no investigative or legal finding of brutality. Gazpacho 21:49, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - excellent suggestion. Dlabtot 17:56, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Most of the keep rationales that I am seeing here are based on the fact that this is a "major news event". This does not address the fact that, by policy, Wikipedia is not a news blotter. I am also seeing rationales that this story seems to support other collateral theories, which amounts to original research, which is also against policy. I have also seen at least one contributor who's first edit was to this AfD, which is suspicious in and of itself. I would hope that the closing admin will give these rationales their appropriate weight (ie., no weight at all), when determining consensus. This is beginning to look like the Zeitgeist the Movie AfD. - Crockspot 17:14, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As of now. This may turn into a big deal depending on what happens with the officers and the investigation. But as of now, delete per WP:NOT#NEWS. - Rjd0060 17:25, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Multiple reliable sources.
Keep: Widespread media coverage, multiple sources, significant topic. Xizer 17:55, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Very notable news event that is an example of a broader trend of Campus Law Enforcement violence, see UCLA_Taser_incident, the event has caused widespread campus protest and will quite likely involve legal response. Further it happened during a question and answer with a U.S. Senator, the setting itself adds weight. — Falerin^{<talk>,<contrib>} 18:17, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: If you think that the tasering of students is less important for an encyclopaedia than MediaWiki or any of the other random naval-gazing pages that you have, then you lot are all even more circular than I thought. If you are going to insist on notability then half the stuff has to go, e.g. every episode of a sci-fi show has a page for heavens sake!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.36.234.82 (talk) 18:19, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS Blahblahme 03:57, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep : Andrew Meyer may be a goofball but the incident showed unacceptable police brutality. Tasering someone for being a nuisance is a sinister development. It is a record of what the police do to those who dissent. The phrase : "Don't tase me, bro" has entered the lexicon of American dissenters. The article must be kept. Tovojolo 18:23, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There has been no finding of police brutality or civil rights violated. Gazpacho 21:49, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - Too recent an event for an article. Wait a month or two so we can gain some perspective on the event and its impact and then recreate. At the moment, it is clearly NEWS. Blueboar 18:30, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and stop wasting time with trying to delete things that happen to pertain to recent events - nothing in WP:NOT#NEWS supports deleting an article like this. Nothing there compels us to delete anything about an important event. It is merely a reminder that we don't need an article on every single homicide or traffic accident.

This story reaches beyond that. It touches on issues related to free speech vs. creating a public nuisance. Police brutality vs. maintaining order. It also touches upon long-standing sentiment (misplaced in my view) by a minority of the US electorate the Republicans are somehow "disenfranchising" people's vote.

Just because it is a recent event does not mean it is a news story. Some people actually thought we should delete Virginia Tech massacre because of WP:NOT#NEWS. This is not as big a waste of time as that effort was, but the same principle applies. Recent events can and should have a perfectly viable encyclopedia article.

This article complies with all Wikipedia policies and it is a far more useful reference (to give just one example) than any number of articles on minor British nobility who are someone "notable" because they were born into a bizarre caste system. Johntex\^talk 18:30, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: the event has already become highly notable. The fact that it concerns police harrassment of a university student in a university hall in the USA when he was asking about issues such as the 2004 United States presidential election controversy and irregularities and the Movement to impeach George W. Bush to a former candidate for president of the USA makes it likely to remain notable in the long term. Whether or not it is correct that the 2004 US pres election was rigged, and whether or not it is morally/legally/politically justified to impeach Bush are POVs, but it is NPOV to say that these are questions concerning one of the most powerful people on this planet. The fact that someone asking questions which are implicitly critical of this extremely powerful person got jumped on by police in the supposedly academic setting of a university lecture room makes it unlikely that the notability could drop. Boud 18:37, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is an important issue on the state of our police force, and on the right to freedom of speech. As a college student and as the editor of a newspaper that is covering this event, this page has helped me find links, sources, and facts. This is about a student being treated with unnecessary force while exercising his right to freedom of speech and his right to peaceably assemble on Constitution Day, of all things. The fact that some are tired of the quote, "Don't tase me, Bro!" does not make this issue unimportant.--Manda babylon 18:51, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit disturbed to hear that you use Wikipedia to research your journalistic work, and it is patently POV to assume that he was tazed for exercising his "freedom of speech". He was tazed because he was running aroung the hall being disruptive, pushing cops, and resisting his detainment. Tasers and pepper spray are used to subdue combative detainees, rather than risk hurting him or the officers by forcing him to submit through muscle power or a knightstick. Better to be tased or sprayed than end up in traction. I saw the video, he was running around like a fool, and he is lucky that he didn't get seriously injured. All of these arguments run counter to what this project is all about. It isn't a soapbox for radical students to "stick it to the man", it's an encyclopedia. - Crockspot 18:59, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Crockspot, your characterization that he was disruptive, running around like a fool, etc. is your personal opinion. I saw the same videos and I think he did none of those things. You want to delete the article because of your own POV.

As for Manda babylon using Wikipedia for his journalistic work, there's nothing wrong with that. He used it to find links, sources, and facts which he could verify himself. Nbauman 19:25, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well there you go. Two opposing POVs do not necessarily equal NPOV. The guy obviously took a lot more steps around the hall than most people are allowed to take when the police want to detain them. I think they were very generous with him. As for using Wikipedia to find reliable sources, true, it is good for that. I guess I was also taking into account the POV that this journalist was expressing. If the view expressed above is repeated in his/her news reporting, then I would have a difficult time giving that reporting much credibility, as it would be obviously biased. - Crockspot 19:30, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that this article is important and suitable for WP whether or not Meyer's demeanor was appropriate, and whether or not the police were right to arrest him or taser him. Those are the issues that people are debating. You're trying to remove the debate from WP because you believe in one side. Nbauman 19:59, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(comment?) I live in Bristol in the UK and it had an article in today's paper here. 86.137.127.139 19:17, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Appears right now to have significant interest. We can always delete it later if it proves to have no staying power. One of the great things about not being paper is that we can change our mind. Right now, people will be accessing Wikipedia to learn about this, and I imagine they will in future. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 19:22, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to considerable news coverage. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:22, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Kerry's proximity and (non)reaction make it very notable, though rare and notable regardless. Respected commenters, e.g. [22] see it as a free speech issue, indicative of a decline of protection of constitutional rights.John Z 19:33, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So it's probably Bush's fault that Kerry didn't jump in and start punching cops, no? I think I have to walk away from this discussion. My eyes are starting to glaze over. - Crockspot 19:38, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

His non-reaction makes it notable? Aside from not making sense, this is factually inaccurate. Kerry tried to address some of Meyer's questions after he was cut off, even though Meyer wasn't listening and was drowning him out. 21:49, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Kerry could easily have intervened; he had the microphone. He could have said, to the campus cops, "Hey! Wait a minute! This is America, and the First Amendment says people can ask questions of Senators. Let the man go." Instead, he said nothing about brutality toward a student who asked him embarrassing questions, in a scene reminiscent of Red China or the old Soviet Union, and which lost him a certain amount of support from those whoi supported him in his run for the Presidency. Then he said he had no idea the student was arrested or tasered, making him the only person in the hall whose powers of observation were so impaired. Edison 23:45, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. This is an important incident, for those of us who believe in free speech. For those of us who don't believe in free speech, it may not be important, but they shouldn't censor Wikipedia for the rest of us. The very fact that people are so divided about it shows that it is a watershed conflict about censorship, and people will cite it forever. Cases like this go through the courts for years, and people will want to look up the background facts about it during that time. In addition, I found that the Wikipedia article had a very well-selected collection of links when a Google search gave me thousands of mostly-repetitive links, so I want to keep it simply because it's so useful. Nbauman 19:40, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. As an example of how good this article is, it has a link to a Fox News story with the only comment I could find by two lawyers, discussing the reasons why he could or could not prevail on the legal issues. Nbauman 20:11, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This will probably be kept or done so by default. Obviously, it's hard to give a proper argument toward deletion of this article at this point, since it is a major news item, but I do not feel that it will have sufficient long-lasting notability. It would help if we could wait a week or so and then determine if an article should be made, but at this point, I would ditch it. Dannycali 19:43, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If it's on so many news sites as everyone claims, why is it "censorship" not to include it in Wikipedia? We're not an indiscriminate collection of information, nor as Edison put it, "Currenteventspedia". shoy 19:57, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The reason why it's censorship not to include it in Wikipedia is that most of the people who argue for its deletion are arguing that it's not important because they don't approve of his demeanor or of what he was trying to do. Those who give greater importance to the First Amendment believe the abuse is important and the article is important. Those who give greater importance to being polite, to not annoying the majority of people and to following authority and the police believe the abuse is not important and the article is not important. People are arguing for its deletion based on their political beliefs. Nbauman 20:18, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. No, they're not. They're arguing for its deletion because they don't believe the incident has demonstrated any long-lasting notability, as almost all of them have stated. They are having to deal with people who dislike that stance defaming them by ignoring their stated rationales claiming that their votes are politically motivated, or by making dark (and rather ridiculous) comments about how "putting the article up for deletion so quickly is itself a suspicious act." Binabik80 21:00, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A little background. I happen to think that deputizing the campus rent-a-cops is a canonically bad idea. I protested against it when the administration did this at the University of Michigan back in the early '90s when I was a student there. That is hardly the issue. This video is simply this week's version of LEAVE BRITNEY ALONE. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 20:25, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But it's not like if we don't have an article on it, it's going to fall off the face of the earth. If it becomes an important and oft-cited incident, we report that. But if it doesn't, we shouldn't. shoy 20:32, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It seems notable enough. For example I read about it on the other side of the Atlantic ocean, in Sweden. Otherwise the case could be added to the List of cases of police brutality and a redirect created? -Duribald 20:44, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I just got through reading the article on the UCLA taser incident last year, that was is still of interest, and this one will be to as a reference to similar topics in the future. --Michael Lynn 21:04, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's a very notable event that inolves many moving parts: A former candidate for U.S. President, a university format, police brutality, free speech, the use of recording devices and mainstream websites such as YouTube in quickly spreading news, and so forth. I agree that this is a pinnacle event for Generation Y. Sure it's not the same thing as Kent State, but it is a controversial issue that will be discussed for years to come. I'm sure now whenever people talk about Taser guns, this will be brought up. Whenever people talk about university police, this will be brought up. Whenever people talk about political speeches at colleges, this will be brought up. It has changed a lot of things and the way people look at them. Abog 21:07, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"A pinnacle event for Generation Y"? How could you possibly know this given that it happened two days ago? Because you speculate that people may talk about this in the future does not mean that this is an important event. When it becomes one, then it is the time for an article. Gamaliel (Angry Mastodon! Run!) 21:12, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It already has become an important event. Just like any other event becomes significant immediately after it happens. I've never heard of something being not important and then all of a sudden becoming important 5 years down the road. Abog 21:20, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone even remember the UCLA tasing anymore? 128.227.126.157 21:13, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Plenty of important events happen without notice because their full implications are not known until later. This is a matter for historians and reliable sources to decide, not you, but you've already decided it's "a pinnacle event" based upon lord knows what. It's not important, it's just a passing news item. Gamaliel (Angry Mastodon! Run!) 21:24, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Response to this Rhetorical Question I Certainly do, it gets mentioned plenty of times throughout these vote comments, and you yourself also remember it, so I think the answer can be determined to be a "yes." I consider the UCLA incident to be slightly less significant than this incident. There's a Wikipedia article on it too, without a vfd, and I think it should also be kept. --76.114.242.31 22:02, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Transwiki (I'm not volunteering). Passing news item. Many users who have said "Keep" are proposing to use Wikipedia as a soapbox for advocacy, which it is not. If the article is nominated a month or a year from now, they can be expected to make the same arguments plus "notability isn't temporary!" even though we have no argument for notability except "It was on the news," and "It's notable to me." Gazpacho 23:41, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep at the moment , 1275 news stories in Google Top News. The extreme interest now is a good indication of continuing interest--due not primarily to the police action alone, but the relationship with the presidential campaigns. DGG (talk) 21:23, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Second arbitrary section break

Keep. I suspect that attention to this story will grow rather than fade. MisfitToys 22:02, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep At the moment, this is a major news story. Whether or not other people agree that it is an important news item is irrelevant. Chris Quackenbush 22:03, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Being (maybe) a major news story is a reason to have it at Wikinews, not here. Gazpacho 22:19, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now per 23skidoo. VegaDark (talk) 22:22, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, at least for the time being. --Camptown 22:24, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets notability, and far more than some other articles. LuciferMorgan 22:46, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious keep - Front page news - Once notable, always notable. — Omegatron 23:14, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to WikiNews and (merge to various articles) with a link to it via U of F. That looks to be a significant event due the heavy coverage (in North America especially) but it is better suited for WikiNews and the University's article and also maybe some bits for Mr Kerry's article.--JForget 23:38, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious keep. It's front-page/headline news in numerous national news organizations. Quite a number of people have come here looking for information and details already. This sounds like exactly the sort of thing that an encyclopedia should document. -Krenath 23:50, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG DELETE. This article certainly has no encyclopedic longevity; Andrew Meyer is someone who just wanted attention and he got it. Good for him. Don't give him a wikipedia article (or two!). It's undeserving. Timneu22 00:04, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please note: Transwiki to wikinews is not an option because the licensing models are not compatible. Johntex\^talk 00:20, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep for now this is no everyday news story. this could turn out to be out generation's Kent state shooting. depending on how this unfolds this artivle will likley have to be re-created anyways.--66.188.133.158 00:25, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Naively idealistic suggestion for a truce. The article is extremely popular and prominent right now, no fundamental principles seem to be at stake and both sides agree that the present time is the hardest one to determine the scale, implications, impact and all that razz. As such, what reason is there not to close this discussion as temporarily suspended and come back in a month or so? --Kizor 00:45, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - a sensible suggestion. Dlabtot 02:41, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We don't normally do issues like this in AFD, and we don't close AFDs as "temporalily suspended". Blahblahme 03:57, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info. I'm kinda new here. Dlabtot 04:07, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I agree we don't "suspend" AFD discussion, but there is plenty of precedent for declaring no consensus, or calling to reconsider this again after a period of time. 23skidoo 04:16, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen it done before. It was weird, but worked quite well. --Kizor 10:00, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When has it been done before? Anyways, I agree that a "postpone due to no consensus at this time" decision is a good idea. Revolutionaryluddite 17:43, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Many articles get a second or third AFD. If an event like this gets a Keep or No consensus now, and it does not turn out to be a "macaca moment" for Kerry, like happened to George Allen in the 2006 Senate campaign, it could later be deleted or given brief mention in an article about him. Since Wikipedia is not paper, we can always take a second look at the encyclopedic nature of a news story. The stated permancy of notability does not mean our judgements of it are not subject to further review. We are not required to have a crystal ball, and instantly determine the long term effects of every newsworthy occurrence. Edison 16:35, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete It's news not encyclopedic content. --345Kai 02:06, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete with option for recreation at a later date Dlabtot had it right. This may be a major story later, but right now, it's not much. Give it a week to a month and see if people keep talking about it. If they do, it would probably make sense to add it back in. It is an issue that involves issues of free speech and police brutality, so it should be notable if it has any legs. superluser_tc 2007 September 20, 02:10 (UTC)
Comment Why was a section break created? Revolutionaryluddite 02:21, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They're a common sight in long discussions. From what I can tell, they're created arbitrarily to make the discussion more organized and easier to read and possibly prevent the occasional edit conflict. --Kizor 02:25, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Really really really strong keep, because telling you how serious I am gives my opinion more weight - Pardon the sarcasm, but I really thought people would have cut that nonsense out by now. Article cites sources, covers a national news event, and is yet another case in what is becoming a controversial issue, the police use of teasers to compel behavior instead of simply to defend themselves.--stufff 02:22, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#NEWS. PaddyM 02:44, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Important event, not just a news. --Neo-Jay 03:40, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not encyclopedic. 220.120.157.2 03:42, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see any indication why this is considered as an "important event" like many people in this debate is saying. Sure it has alot of news coverage, but that what wikinews was created for, not wikipedia. WP:NOT is a policy. Also it can't be transwikied to wikinews as they have different licences. Blahblahme 03:57, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: You are correct that it's a policy, however as this AFD shows there are many cases where articles fall into a grey area. I've seen far less-notable news situations become subject of articles that have been kept. I opined to keep earlier on the basis that it is currently a major issue and for us to revisit it in a few months to determine if this stays the case. But I do feel comparing it to things like Kent State where people got killed is rather in poor state and rather offensive -- and it really hurts the argument for keeping this article. That's most likely a contributing factor for why WP:SNOWBALL hasn't been activated because (again as I said in my earlier comments) there's far too much WP:NPOV-violating and WP:ILIKEIT/WP:IDON'TLIKEIT discussion going on. 23skidoo 04:14, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. Just because no one died doesn't mean that it's not significant. There have been a few riots (or even massacres) where no one died. They're still significant. No, the reason why the Kent State comparison is bad is because Kent State shocked a nation. This has yet to do that. superluser_tc 2007 September 20, 04:48 (UTC)
    - A massacre where no one died? That doesn't seem to agree with the dictionary definition of massacre. --Itub 10:25, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Regardless of whether you think the event was an incident of police brutality or not, every cable news station has been talking about it all day and something like 1/3 of the most viewed videos on youtube right now are about this incident. I think it's pretty safe to say that it's news whether you like it or not.Ottawastudent 04:09, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a critical event that highlights the tension in our culture between the elite and regular people, violence versus free speech, the controversy surrounding tasering, habeus corpus repealment, arrest without miranda rights or a charge (inciting a riot? are you kidding me?). And for the record, yeah maybe the guy is a jerk, but that doesn't mean he didn't hit on a major news category that millions of people have now been discussing for 2 days. 24.14.125.124 04:58, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Excellent points. Badagnani 04:59, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. What does this have to do with habeas corpus? Miranda is reaching a bit, too. Do you have any evidence that he was not mirandized? superluser_tc 2007 September 20, 05:04 (UTC)

Keep. I came here to get an objective overview of the situation, which I believe the article comes pretty close to doing. This guy was all over the news... I can think of many people who are lesser known that have articles here. Rawr 05:32, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is perfectly acceptable for its historical relevance, significance, and importance. The desire to have this article deleted is biased by political motives or to conceal the incident or something about it. If Wikipedia does delete it, then they'd might as well delete many other articles, such as the one about Rosa Parks and her bus seat incident. --76.114.242.31 07:21, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Look, this isn't Rosa Parks, it's not Kent State, it's not My Lai, it's not anything like that. I think the guy had his rights trampled, but these grandiose comparisons are really offensive and over the top. And they really don't help the discussion. In fact, the only thing that they really do is make the name droppers look foolish. superluser_tc 2007 September 20, 07:43 (UTC)

Look this doesn't have to be Rosa Parks or Kent State or My Lai. Every article here does not have to be as important as the Sun, the Moon, and the Stars. We are not paper. We can have an article on a minor river in India and a cartoon show. Let's not look for every article on Wikipedia to have some major cultural impact 10 years from now. We are out to be comprehensive, and that certainly includes an event like this. Johntex\^talk 14:06, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Please do not try to imply that I made a claim that isn't true, I don't appreciate that kind of behavior, especially where it doesn't belong. It needs to be understood how to interpret this statement correctly. This is the interpretation (I'll spell it out for you):

If either the Rosa Parks bus seat incident, Rosa Parks the individual, or the injustice she was standing up against (yes, you got me, it was a pun) are more significant than this student incident, then the point is "where do we draw the line on how to determine what articles to delete?" But if this incident is equal or greater in significance, well then that obviously would trivialize the argument. --76.114.242.31 03:29, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment #2. Just because someone comes along and points to something red and says "green" doesn't make it so. You can argue that my argument is foolish, but that won't make it so. I make light of these types of things because your goofy mind tricks don't work, except on the weak minded. I'm also skilled at putting adversaries on the defensive: I myself find it offensive to claim that this incident is somehow insignificant to another without justification or a plausible argument. --76.114.242.31 04:04, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Slippery slope#The_slippery_slope_as_fallacy. No one here has suggested deleting Rosa Parks' entry. Rosa Parks was an influential part of a US Civil Rights Movement. Mr. Meyer was not. Mr. Meyer thus far has been little more than a footnote in history. Rosa Parks is known to quite a few people in the US. Her name is listed in textbooks. Same with John Brown or Elizabeth Cady Stanton. If you ran a poll today, how many people would be able to recognize Andrew Meyer? It's offensive to place him alongside those whose lives and events have shaped the consciousness of a nation. I should add that if Mr. Meyer does become a great civil rights leader (or even a very minor one), I think that this article should be kept. But there's no indication that this thing will stay on anyone's radar for more than a week.superluser_tc 2007 September 21, 04:21 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'm not sure I agree with this assessment, but that's better. --76.114.242.31 04:53, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. I don't know about those on the delete side of the aisle, but this is the most strikingly clear case of unlawful seizure combined with police brutality I've ever seen. Certainly there have been worse cases of police abuse, but this case took place practically in real-time and in living color, therefore it became a very popular news story. Someone mentioned Kent State. If this war drags on or escalates to the level of Vietnam, we might indeed face another Kent State. If so, we will look upon this event as a mere prelude, but until then I strongly suggest we meditate on this for a while, and read the Constitution.--Cjackb 08:07, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This is going to be kept but come back in two months and AFD it again, and I guarantee it'll be deleted. 193.95.165.190 08:25, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It was notable two days ago, it is notable right now, and it will surely be notable years into the future. This is a very significant event which has already garnered much attention and will surely be of historical value. Also a very fine article in my opinion, especially considering the short time period in which it was written. — xDanielx ^T/_C 09:14, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete An interesting story, but it's too early to claim that it's notable. My personal guess is that it will be a minor story, half remembered years hence. Of course, my personal guess is no better than anyone else's, but we don't have to guess. We can simply assume non-notable until there is clear, unequivocal evidence otherwise. Phiwum 10:28, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - except our policy clearly says "when in doubt, don't delete". The burden of proof is on those who want to delete an article. Johntex\^talk 14:06, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is the most controversial story so far in the Presidential campaign season (and is already being cited in the news as Kerry's downfall), and the details are being reported piecemeal in various media outlets. For example, a Google search for (andrew meyer "constitution day" "swear me in as president") yields no hits. As a professional librarian, I urge the editors to keep this intriguing story as it continues to develop.141.165.80.186 12:39, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Er, Kerry is not running for president, his downfall was his accidental "end up in Iraq" line, and I don't think I've heard anyone even imply that this was Kerry's fault; he was trying to answer the guy's question and keep everyone calm. -VJ 17:35, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A stupid incident, but one which has been reported on extensively, if only for sensationalistic reasons. Don't delete me, bro! 209.146.241.93 13:45, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If for no other reason than the fact that the vast majority of "keep" opinions are blatant examples of WP:SOAP. Randydeluxe 14:01, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even if true, this has no bearing on the article itself. Johntex\^talk 14:07, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article itself is about an event that took place. The DISCUSSION page is where opinions are being declared. If the neutrality of the article is the fault, then say that, but don't claim the article itself to be a soapbox when it's about an event that has actually happened.

Weak Keep. A lot of the 'keep' votes here seem to be crystal-ballery; we shouldn't be making a judgement based on how significant this event will become in future, but based on how notable it is now. And therefore, I say keep it: it received plenty of coverage from news organisations, and has provoked some further discussion on issues of free speech and the use of police powers on campus. A month from now, this event may have proved insignificant and been entirely forgotten; if so, we can delete it then, but for the time being, it does no harm to keep it. Terraxos 14:36, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Ok, ok, I'm not going to come here and say that we should keep this because this is a life changing event that will ring in history. I'm voting keep because it is a documented incident that has been relivant in the current media. It's been discussed enough on national news media to make it significant enough, I would say...

Keep as a significant event with significant coverage, per Cjackb. CRGreathouse (t | c) 15:21, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete there's no way this article could be NPOV, and Wikipedia is not a news service. That's what Wikinews is for. To put into perspective, Northern Rock's financial crisis, which was the second-most important news story in every newspaper in Britain last week, does not have an article, only a subsection (I say "secondmost" given the amount of exposure given to the Madeline McCann disappearance). If this were to happen in not-America, I doubt it would have an article (systemic bias). Will ^(talk) 15:37, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, but was the bank president tasered after shouting a dated colloquiallism? ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 16:51, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't exactly see what you're getting at. By the way, Northern Rock's financial crisis has about 16,000 results on Google News, and with it being on the headlines of at least Sky News and BBC News for the few days (Thu-Fri-Sat-Sun-Mon) it was ongoing, even overtaking Madeline McCann, it just shows how notable that articleless incident is than the "And finally..." stories such as this incident or "LEAVE BRITNEY ALONE!", which do. Will ^(talk) 20:25, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It was an attempt at humor that did not translate well over the Internet. Here's another comparison: the article is now far more extensive than the coverage Wikipedia gives to the student protests at the 1968 Democratic convention, which does not even have its own article. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 21:30, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Sceptre's reasoning. This is a non-article. Delete. --Tony Sidaway 15:40, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"non-article" means what, exactly? It certainly looks like an article. It is written in prose. It has categories. It has reliable references. What makes it a "non-article"? Johntex\^talk 16:16, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's a bit of newspaper fluff, not an encyclopedia article. --Tony Sidaway 16:25, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What is the difference between the two, in your opinion? Is it a question of recentness? If so, would you propose that we bar articles on movies, books, etc, until they have been out on the market for x years and we see if anyone still cares about them? Johntex\^talk 16:36, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Certianly not worthy of an encyclopedia article. WP:NOT#NEWS. Those saying that this is a freedom of speech related event are clearly expressing their point of view. The man resisted to his arrestation and that is why he was tased. Tomj 16:30, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep some people are saying we shouldn't use crystal ballery to justify keeping the article...so why should it be used to justify deleting? it's important right now, it's still being reported on, it's still generating discussion, so why is wiki trying so speedily to delete it? it's a noteworthy case of police brutality/authority abuse. maybe not as shocking as rodney king or kent state, but it has been extensively covered and could have ramifications in the future on how tasers are applied and how police act at public functions. "don't tase me, bro" even has the chance to become a catchphrase in popular lexicon. i'm not saying it'll be relevant in 3 weeks, but just as i can't say it will be relevant, you can't say it WON'T be. but as for RIGHT NOW, people are still talking. that alone to me says KEEP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.144.61.28 (talk) 16:42, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It only happened a few days ago, and the news aren't saying "abuse". It seems like because the video landed on youtube, it seems like abuse. Blahblahme 16:55, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- I don't care about anybody else's definition of what is appropriate for an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is the first place I came to learn about this event, I found it by searching "kerry taser," and learned what I wanted to know. The fact that the article is useful and relevant even to that degree is justification enough for its inclusion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.235.200.117 (talk) 16:49, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:USEFUL Blahblahme 16:55, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:USEFUL is just an essay. It carries no weight. Posting a pretty blue link is not contributing to the discussion. Johntex\^talk 17:22, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- It's a major part of AFD discussion, and many admins follow it. Blahblahme 20:52, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - If any admins are following an essay for guidance in closing AfDs then they need to be de-sysopped immediately. They are supposed to follow AfD closure policy. If an article does not violate policy, then it should be kept. As the closure policy says "when in doubt, don't delete". Johntex\^talk 00:46, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Tomj. This man does not deserve the attention. At least, remove his name and photo. Greswik 16:53, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I thought this incident was pretty significant. I know the guy may have been inciting it deliberately, but the fact of the matter remains that at least four officers were on top of him and he posed no threat; the taser was not warranted. The notoriety the incident gained, aided by the full video and youtube, warrants an article. -VJ 17:30, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - But precisly because it was incited, it will never be a good example on anything else than a PR-seeking guy knew how to make a policeperson tase him. This is exactly why a comparison with, say, Rodney King is so lame. Greswik 18:01, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Meyer, a modern day Herostratus -- Dlabtot 18:11, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- All Delete noms are based off speculation that this will not become a notable event. You guys say Wikipedia is not a source of current events yet the Main Page has the Current Events section or whatever it is properly called, which often links to current events. Also being said is that if this does become a notable event that it can be re-written. Why throw away work just because right now it is not as notable. I think will all the news coverage, online videos and such that it is already becoming notable. Lets keep this article around for longer. There is no telling what can happen at this point so leave the article be and the future will hold the fate of the article. FuzionZero 17:41, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment To AfD Starter - This story wasn't shown on television because of the "don't taze me bro" line. This event is obviously much bigger than that. Either you are unaware of all the facts of this event or you have chosen a poor scapegoat to try and delete an important article regarding the first ammendment and police brutality. I can't believe your reason for deleting this was because it was just some event shown on television because of some line that was said. FuzionZero 19:21, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - actually not all the Delete comments are based on speculation that it will not be a notable event. Some of the comments (such as mine) are based purely on the fact that current events should not have articles on wikipedia... that is what our sister project wikinews is for (the current events section of the main page is taken from wikinews by the way, not from Wikipedia articles). I fully expect that this event will be encyclopedic... it just isn't encyclopedic YET. We need to wait and see what the longer term ramifications and impact of the event will be. At the moment we are still dealing with it 'in the present'. That's why I suggest delete and recreate later is a more accurate option. Blueboar 19:36, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This may indeed have some long-term notability as one of the more effective pieces of political theater in quite a while. The current story, which doesn't recognize this, is an embarrassment. Many people have still not gotten the joke. This is an excellent place where WP:TIND should be applied. ObiterDicta ( pleadings •

errata • appeals ) 21:36, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think WP:TIND can be applied on different levels. No deadline means we should not get ahead of the sources, but it also means we don't have to get the whole story on the first try either. Unlike a newspaper, we can continuously improve an article over time, with no deadline. I would agree that the article needs improvement (like most WP articles) but I disagree that deleting it now and recreating it later is the way to get that improvement. Dhaluza 01:17, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I think that this incident was blown way out of proportion, and without the massive media coverage would never have been noteworth. However, I think that massive media attention makes it noteworthy. Nosferatublue 17:44, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – This made news and appears to be a notable civil rights abuse. —Ben FrantzDale 18:06, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Third arbitrary section break

Don't delete me, bro! - The article is well-sourced. Mfko 18:48, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Best....Comment....Here. Johntex\^talk 00:50, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The extent and character of the coverage outwiegh accusations of recentism. The incident has also become something of an internet phenomenon. From a Wired reporter: "Don't Tase Me, Bro!" Jolts the Web. Quote: "Just two days after it was yelled out in a University of Florida lecture hall, "Don't Tase Me, Bro!" has become the newest cultural touchstone of our pop-cultural lexicon." Ichormosquito 19:08, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So maybe the article should be moved to Don't tase me bro and focus more on the meme? ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 21:40, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the meme is notable enough on its own. Ichormosquito 21:58, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It's becoming news all over Europe and is being cited as an alleged example of police brutality, lack of freedom of speech and/or fear instilled by terrorist threats and events like the Virginia Tech massacre in the US. May be irrelevant in the future, but I think it should be kept for now. I actually came here to check for more information Universalcosmos —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 19:47, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The wide news coverage that this incident has brought (both in mainstream media and the blogosphere), and the viral video (http://feeds.wired.com/~r/wired/topheadlines/~3/158792950/dont-tase-me-br.html) cannot be ignored. It is notable enough in many ways (and remember that wikipedia even has a Leeroy Jenkins article). At least it should be added to the University of Florida article, although I don't think that's appropriate. --Miguel1626 20:55, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I presume that the function of Wikipedia is to inform and to educate its users guided by the idea that knowledge is an inherent good. This incident has appeared on national and international media. Regardless of that fact, the tasering of an individual when asking a question of an elected official is an extremely important event in a democracy. Regardless, of that fact, whether or not the police used unreasonable force on a citizen is an extremely important issue for all members of a society governed by the rule of law. It is contrary to the function of an encyclopedia to handicap public discourse by deleting an entry capable of elucidating the details of such an event. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.93.101.197 (talk) 21:43, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable. He'll have his 15 minutes of fame and people who see this article 1 year from now will have a skewed perspective from the article, i.e. they might come away thinking that anyone still cares about it or he matters at all. General Epitaph 22:26, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Merge the most significant of the material into relevant articles, such as List of cases of police brutality, John Kerry, and University of Florida. It's moderately notable, but it's too early to be creating whole articles on this. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 23:00, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This belongs on Wikinews...and it belongs on Wikipedia too. The two are not mutually exclusive as some have implied here. As for WP:NOT#NEWS, this is becoming one of the most widely misused policy shortcuts on AfD. The issue there is context, and the encyclopedic contexts of civil liberties vs. civil behavior have been laid out many ways above. Notability is a complete non-issue now, there never really was any reasonable doubt. For the people arguing wait and see on both sides, Notability is permanent--if the incident was a hoax, and the cops were really actors, and the taser was a prop, even that would make it more notable, not less. Notability is about whether something has been noticed by RS, not whether it meets some editor's personal opinion of whether it should be noticed. I think many of the comments, both keep and delete are not about what's best for WP readers, but are supporting the actions of the police or the taser victim. Amd I think many of the delete votes do not represent deletionism, as much as denialism. It happened; people know about it; so we can talk about it. Dhaluza 00:55, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - Don't delete me Bro! per Mfko. This is not even a close call. Two published sources. Fin. Thesmothete 01:29, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, because this can be referred back to by people who didn't know what happened and can't find any information on it because all of the news articles have expired since, despite this being an actual event.

--60.241.159.88 02:31, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fourth arbitrary section break

Delete. WP:NOT#NEWS was designed for news stories like this. When I first heard this story I was shocked and I thought this was a major breach of civil rights. Then I watched it on Youtube and realized this was just an obnoxious, whining student who clearly intended to get some kind of big reaction (I think "attention-whore" is the official term). Interestingly, many of the delete !votes are from editors who regularly take part in afd discussions, so they may be editors who are more familiar with deletion policy and Wikipedia policy in general than many of the keep !voters, most of whom appear to be saying "keep" based on variations of WP:ILIKEIT and "it's big news!". It is insignificant news, a student does something stupid and they show the tape on TV for a few hours. So what? This is an encyclopedia, look it up on Google news if you want to read about this. Crazysuit 02:12, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Attention whores can be encyclopedic, as well. What about Rollen Stewart? His article survived an AfD.superluser_tc 2007 September 21, 02:47 (UTC)
WP:NOT#NEWS is not designed to exclude significant news events--if it was, then the "design" does not represent Consensus, as demonstrated by the comments in this AfD. WP:NOR cautions us to avoid drawing un-sourced conclusions, and your delete argument is largely based on one. If RS say he was an "attention-whore" then it would be relevant to the article, and could be added with cites. But it is not a reason to delete, especially if it is just an editor's opinion, not an accepted fact. Dhaluza 02:52, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Appears to meet the standards of multiple reliable sources... SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:21, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strongest Possible Keep - This article is highly notable it has been covered multiple times on major news outlets. This deletion attempt reeks of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. -- Gudeldar 04:13, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Article refers to a relatively high profile news event. Article may need to be disaggregated due to noteworthiness of two (2) aspects contained in the article; "Andrew Meyer" and the catchphrase "Don't Tase Me, Bro!". (DTMB may become as popular in 2007 as "Where's the beef?" was in 1984. I myself am currently in the market for a DTMB t-shirt, but I digress.)72.82.198.34 04:19, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is just a news item with a lot of coverage right now. It will be all blown over in a month — Timotab ^{Timothy (not Tim}^dagnabbit!) 04:20, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. This is a notable event receiving a heap of news coverage. Yes, Timotab, notable events tend to get most of their news coverage in the days immediately after the event, but that is in no way a suitable argument for deletion. Besides, you are making an unmerited prediction that this will all "blow over," whatever that means. CelestialDog 06:17, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep, but read my comment for some arguments about the article. We should see how this pans out. Notability is probably asserted, although to what degree exactly we probably don't know. The WP:ILIKEIT and WP:IDONTLIKEIT arguments are not reasons to keep or delete an article. Yes, it is verifiable, but we need to look at its notability with regard to other issues - e.g. Freedom of speech, Homeland security, Internet memes etc. and then in a few months time, if the public decide it was a flash-in-the-pan incident, then it can be revisited at WP:AfD again. For now though, it's a weak keep. --Solumeiras ^talk 13:08, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (again) I already voted for deletion above, but I have a new argument. The International Conference to Review the Global Vision of the Holocaust in Iran made much more headlines in December 2006. Now, just a few months later, it looks like a not-notable event that should have been barely mentioned in the Holocaust denial article. I'm sure that in a few months the Taser event will be flushed down in history, and will not be worth more than a brief summary in other articles about police brutality or the elections. -- Gabi S. 14:54, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think I specifically disagree with this line of argument. One of Wikipedia's advantages over other encyclopedae is its virtually unlimited size. So, unlike other encyclopedae, it does not need to limit its usefulness to that of the general reader. I certainly hope that we keep the CRGVH article indefinitely, so that someone who, for example, is researching, say, Iran's evolving approach to the Holocaust, or comparing attitudes across Muslim countries, or the breath of international conferences. The thing about knowledge is that you don't always know in advance what you're going to use. What is the harm in keeping the article? The .01 cents of disk space? In this case, there is already a meme being promulgated "Don't taze me, bro" It seems quite likely that, years from now, someone, somewhere will utter that phrase and someone else will want to look it up to find out what it means. Why would we intentionally delete the answer? Thesmothete 15:19, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We're getting somewhat offtopic, so any follow-up discussions can be done on my talk page, or by e-mail. Regarding your position, I didn't mean to not include these topics, but to keep them as part of other articles, rather than independent articles. The meme also can be mentioned in several articles with phrases that arose on political situations. In all these cases, proper redirect links will guide the interested user to the article that includes the relevant incident. Independent articles should have notability above a certain threshold which, in my opinion, these events don't meet. -- Gabi S. 18:02, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How can a single editor state their wish for deletion twice? That seems very strange, and not allowed. Badagnani 19:17, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If this were a vote, you'd have a point. We wouldn't want people to vote twice. But it's not a vote. It's a discussion. Dlabtot 02:56, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The International Conference to Review the Global Vision of the Holocaust was nominated for deletion. The result was speedy keep. I agree with this decision. I think it's fair to have an article about a crackpot conference convened by a world leader. (also, I know a Gabi from elsewhere. Are you the same Gabi?) superluser_tc 2007 September 21, 21:18 (UTC)

Keep - NOT#NEWS doesn't say no current events, it just reminds us that we don't do all current events. This article may be notable now, and yeah, if five months or five years down the line it isn't, we'll delete it then - although I'd remind everyone that notability doesn't expire as popularity or memory fades. The potential for future non-notability, however, is not the same thing as being non-notable now. So keep. --Cheeser1 15:16, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep for all the good reasons already mentioned. AugustinMa 15:38, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is just another pointless occurrence, no more notable than those car chases they televise on cops, or a crack head who tried to run from the coppers and got beaten down for it. There's no article on Billy-Bob Crackpipe so why does this tosser who merely was tazed for resisting arrest deserve his own? Remember kids, your rights are yours to exercise until they impinge upon someone else's rights, anyone who disagrees is wrong. In either case, the article is written like dogshit. Comradeash 16:07, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep per 23skidoo, but definitely revisit this issue in a few months for reevaluation. Burntsauce 18:07, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This incident is in fact historically important because of the questions the guy asked, because of Kerry's reaction to everything (tells us something about Kerry) and because of student reactions. Then there's also the police. Sure police brutality happens a lot but seriously. Also the "attention" at the top of this page should be deleted. Why does it matter if someone created an account to voice their opinion over this? If it's just a particular incident that gets someone involved with wikipedia entries then... what's wrong with that? How does that make their opinion less valid? It all seems like vote-rigging to me.75.72.206.28 18:23, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Vote-rigging? Unless you're accusing the "Keep" side of rigging, it seems pretty unlikely that any vote rigging is going on. Why would the deleters rig the "delete" side to lose? superluser_tc 2007 September 21, 21:18 (UTC)

This event is notable and worthy of an entry because (1) The police removed him not because he asked a question, but because the particular questions he asked challenged Kerry. This is a violation of his First Amendment Constitutional right to freedom of speech. (2) He was tasered while he was face-down on the ground and under the officers' control, which constitutes police brutality. (3) Due to these aspects of the incident, it has received a large amount of coverage in the news media. So the nature of the questions Meyer asked is just part of one of the aspects that make this event worthy of an entry. The nature of his questions was the reason the officers removed him, which again, is a violation of the First Amendment. CelestialDog 19:02, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No-one ever seems to be aware of the bit about not having any protected rights on private property. He was told to leave, the police were merely enforcing that his from thereon in trespass came to a close, who gives a shit about what part of the rant he was up to, he was asked to leave by someone on the venues authority, he didn't, he was removed. Comradeash 14:02, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, really? I thought this incident occurred at a university, not on the private property of a recluse with "keep out!" and "no trespassing!" signs posted all around the perimeter. As a tuition-paying student can he demand a refund + interest for failure to provide that to which he is entitled? Even the general public usually has access to many of these types of university resources. Mr. Kerry, who was apparently interested in hearing his questions, answering them, and even wanting him to remain to hear his responses is speaking as a public servant, so I don't think you can argue that he wanted him to leave. Police are also supposed to be public servants. What's this "authorities" business? Do we live in a dictatorship? Is Orwell's Big Brother in control? I'm going to bring up Rosa Parks, again. Was she someone who was just trying to cause trouble & be disorderly, or was she doing the right thing by standing up against oppression & dictatorship? Is this student just a disruptive troublemaker, or is he doing something necessary & important? In either case, these are significant incidences about significant issues, and they should never be flushed down the "memory hole." --76.114.242.31 19:55, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, more or less (public universities do have the right to kick you off their property--for example, if you haven't paid for a course). But this is not the place to discuss whether you think he was right. This is the place to discuss whether you think it's encyclopedic. superluser_tc 2007 September 23, 04:24 (UTC)

Keep for time being, revisit in 6 months. StaticElectric 19:03, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete transwiki to wikinews. Whether or not this current event is notable will be answered in time, but for now, it is news. Testtest03 19:35, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep And, keep forever, you can't just keep something until it's notability goes away. If its notable now, it always will be. Anyway, if someone like Chris Crocker gets to keep his article, barely being notable, something like this should. It's sparked controversy on our first amendment and has been on the FRONT PAGE article of several news websites. Xihix 20:26, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bordering from Keep and Keep for now If the incident turns out to be 15 minute fame, then we can delete it later. No rush. If the incident turns out to be a notable example of police brutality, then we can keep this forever. May violates WP:NOT#NEWS at first instance, but I think we should give this a chance. Chris! _{my talk} 22:38, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
VERY STRONG KEEP This is an event in history and information is plentiful as is sources to cite. It has every potential that a wikipedia article needs. Not only that, but there is nothing in WP:NOT. That says that this can't be here.As long as it doesn't violate WP:NPOV, it can stay --Amaraiel 01:34, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable already, enough sourcing; if he decides to press a suit or anything, it will just get more still coverage. I can't see a reason to delete right now. If nothing else comes of it, and the press drops it completely in a week, renominate it again in a few months. • Lawrence Cohen 02:23, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep incident meets Wikipedia notability standards having received non-trivial coverage by notable third party sources.--Jersey Devil 03:12, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Side Note -- Other stuff exists is not a valid argument

(This a sidebar from the central discussion)

"If its notable now, it always will be." Contemporary notability is not the same as wikipedia notability. "Anyway, if someone like Chris Crocker gets to keep his article" This is not considered a valid argument on wikipedia. See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS#What_about_article_x.3F. Testtest03 20:40, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - again, that is just an essay. It is opinion of some Wikipedians that drawing analogies to other articles is not a valid argument. That is merely their opinion, and it is not policy. In order to delete this article, those who want to dispose of it must show an actual policy that it violates. Johntex\^talk 14:52, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Wikipedia is not a breaking news source. The existence of other articles does not automatically warrant the existence of this one. Closing admin should note that a lot of the keep arguments in the first couple of sections are particularly weak or aren't reasons to keep an article (not saying all the keep arguments are like this, though). --Core desat 21:35, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, I could say the same about the delete arguments. Connör ^(talk) 00:07, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, This really does contradict with NN, a mere summary in an article about police brutality or something would do. Ryan4314 04:02, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It seems to me that they're a lot of WP:CRYSTAL ballery going on, "This is going to be a landmark case for years to come" etc. versus "Everyone's going to forget this in a week" etc. shoy 04:54, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
EMPHATIC KEEP: I was shocked at Kerry's inaction, and the inaction of the student observers, and now you the public want to delete the occurence!?? It's not just about police brutality, it's about unabridged free speech. People please!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.220.166.252 (talk) 11:52, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It's not about free speech. It's about him being an idiot and resisting officers. Timneu22 13:49, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Damn bloody straight, its just so unfortunate that so many people aren't aware of the limitations of their precious constitution. Comradeash 14:05, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whether it is about free speech or police brutality, it would be notable either way. The fact that there is a heated debate over which one it is makes it all the more notable. Johntex\^talk 14:52, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Jontex... An AfD is never about free speech or some guy being an idiot. An AfD is about whether an article's topic is notable enough for an encyclopedia. Some feel it is, some feel it isn't... I happen to feel it isn't notable enough YET (Then again, I take a long term, wait and see attitude on all articles about recent events, I don't think you can assess encyclopedic notability until at least a few weeks after an event has happened). Blueboar 19:25, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This illustrates the weakness of the Delete arguments. Some people (including WP:RSs, think this is a violation of the First Amendment. Other people think that it isn't, or that a violation of the First Amendment isn't important. Whether or not you want to keep it depends on how important the First Amendment is. Nobody who believes that the First Amendment was violated has called for deletion. The objections are based on personal opinion. I think this debate should be resolved in favor of a keep. You can include POVs in the entry arguing for and against that viewpoint in the article. Nbauman 18:33, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, could you tell me how my link to WP:NOT#NEWS and my spiel about systemic bias automatically makes me believe the First Amendment wasn't violated? (Besides, it's totally irrelevant to a deletion discussion) Will ^(talk) 18:47, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this nomination is here under the rationale but this has no lasting, encyclopedic interest. We're not entertaining opinions here. I don't care, I don't care what any of your people's opinions are, the secondary sources establish notability and that has been well established. If I understand ANYTHING about Wikipedia's deletion policies, this is a clearcut keep case and I recommend closing this discussion in a timely manner. -Theanphibian ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:08, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. How can this be up for deletion but a similar article(The UCLA Taser Incident) is not? It is also notable because it has resparked the debate on stun guns/tasers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.60.163.94 (talk) 16:39, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - Actual Event; gained national prominence in the media; involved once and possibly future Presidential Candidate (who did nothing by the way - between Kerry and Bush (who kept reading the goat story as the buildings fell), well, that's what you get with a stinky two party system ruled by rich spineless losers, but that's off topic); shows the increasing crack-down on the right to free speech, one of the U.S.'s great claims to freedom; shows overuse of force by Police; UCLA taser incident is still a Wiki page; we don't know how this will turn out so we cannot make claims about irrelevance or future status; major YouTube hit therefore entered into Pop culture (especially with all the song remixes); shows the increasing slide into fascism in the U.S.; well referenced and cited, etc. Saudade7 23:13, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Minor, hilarious testament to effect on internet culture. Ichormosquito 01:45, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious Keep The very fact that so many are even commenting on this page is evidence that it is pretty dang important. Internet culture at its finest. Police overreaction. Political depth. This story has it all. How could we possibly even think of deleting it? It's a fine picture of American internet culture today. Wrad 02:48, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Side Note -- Please close

(This a sidebar from the central discussion)

Comment - This looks like a pretty clear keep. Can we close it and get it out of the article? — Omegatron 23:02, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This section is not "part of the article" as such. Also, I don't see a clear consensus on keep- more like a simple majority for keep. Please see the discussion above (in the 'Second arbitrary section break' part) about a proposal to postpone the deletion discussion. Revolutionaryluddite 23:14, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I would support an early closure to keep. The keep arguments are clearly stronger both in substance and in number. At the worst case, this would be a non-consensus, which is effectively the same as a keep. As Omegatron says, lets close this and get the tag off the article. Johntex\^talk 00:49, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The keep arguments are clearly stronger both in substance and in number. That's your opinion; please don't disimiss other users beliefs out of hand. At the worst case, this would be a non-consensus, which is effectively the same as a keep. 'No consensus' does not mean the same thing as 'keep'; please review the Wikipedia guidelines on deletion. Revolutionaryluddite 01:17, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I stand by both my statements. Every post here (with the exception of a few comments) contains someones opinions. My opinion is The keep arguments are clearly stronger both in substance and in number. You are welcome to form your own opinion.

I did not say "'No consensus' means the same thing as 'keep'". Please review what I wrote, it was, "At the worst case, this would be a non-consensus, which is effectively the same as a keep." (emphasis added) A keep results in the article being kept. So does a no consensus. Therefore, they are effectively the same.

Therefore, some bold admin should invoke WP:SNOW and close this in favor of keeping the article. Johntex\^talk 01:25, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It frustrating to see user after user say 'Keep: I like it', but the majority is clearly on one side and there's no point in continuing the AfD. Revolutionaryluddite 01:43, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a majority-take-all vote. --ElKevbo 02:14, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Do we usually close after just one day? Badagnani 01:28, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If the nomination is disruptive or meets WP:SNOW, sure. Is it just me, or is every article about a current event nominated? For good reason, or just to put a big tag on the page that they know all kinds of newcomers to Wikipedia are visiting? This obviously goes above and beyond trivial news, and the (de facto) voters are in agreement. — Omegatron 02:58, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that a few of the NOTNEWS AfDs are basically people voting for whether they agree with the thing. You can see that here. Many people seem to be forgetting that AfDs are Template:notaforum, and they're suggesting that because they personally don't like what the guy did, he shouldn't get the benefit of a Wikipedia article. There are valid reasons for wanting to see articles like this deleted; I'm not sure if it's appropriate to paint all the delete voters with the same "attention whore" brush that they have been using.

I still say that we don't have enough perspective to write a proper article about it, and we don't know if it will have any staying power (I'd like to see it have some staying power, and I think it's more likely than me getting a pony). But I don't have any strong opinions on this. If it's kept, I'll be just as happy as if it gets deleted. superluser_tc 2007 September 21, 03:41 (UTC)

I agree that WP:NOT#NEWS is frequently being used to cloak WP:IDON'TLIKEIT arguments and give them an air of authority. That policy is based on context, and ironically is used out of context far too often. Dhaluza 10:37, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just Keep it ... there comes a point when if enough people are willing to argue about an event it becomes encyclopedic for that reason whether or not it was originally worth having. That point has been reached, and the point has been made quite well that it is a notable event anyway. Bugsy 14:18, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I don't see anything in WP:NOTABLE that indicates that something becomes encyclopedic "if enough people are willing to argue about" it.

And BTW, putting your comments in boldface does not make them in any way more persuasive Dlabtot 19:45, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this is clearly a notable event in U.S. History and is obviously encyclopedic. --Sprhodes 04:24, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is the kind of crystal ballery I'm talking about. The Revolutionary War was a notable event in U.S. History. This was an arrest and happened a week ago. shoy 17:11, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. WP:NOT#NEWS is being grossly misapplied here, and I think it is high time we close this discussion as the community seems split over this issue for the time being. RFerreira 03:57, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It would be a gross error to close this AFD prematurely as a "snowball." There is clear disagreement here, and no "snowball" result at all. A premature closure would only likely result in deletion review and unnecessary Wikidrama. Let the process play out and let the AFD continue for the usual 5 days. Edison 04:07, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it certainly does need to be kept. Police brutality is becoming a bigger and bigger issue in this country, and with many other possibly taser-misuse cases now coming to light, it is obvious that the more people that know about this, the more likely some kind of change will be made. You can't suppress history, that is a message that should be getting across right now.---- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.87.139.26 (talk)

Delete - my opinions have been echoed by others above- way too many are doing the crustall ball thing and saying "this'll be a landmark police brutality case", yet there has been no such evidence to that conclusion as of yet. David Fuchs^(talk) 17:49, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It's just as much of a crystall-ball move to say it won't be notable as to say it will be. Wrad 19:22, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Was the deletion of the comment above David Fuchs' intentional? If so, I apologize superluser_tc 2007 September 23, 21:36 (UTC)

Keep A viable article with information about a nationally recognised news story, this is an article with much information on a pertinent current affair. Geoking66_talk 23:07, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:05, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dov Simens

Apparent linkspam (see IP's other edits); no verifiable independent sources to backup claims of famous graduates; lacking these, no verifiable assertion of notability. Girolamo Savonarola 04:04, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is impossible to verify the contents of this article. A quick google search shows up no reliable sources for this article as well. Fails notability as well. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 04:35, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable vanity bio. Keb25 12:12, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per comments above. Ward3001 22:19, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus to delete, but article needs sources. Can be merged at editorial discretion. Chick Bowen 01:18, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Muten Roshi

Delete - article does not assert WP:NOTE, violates WP:NEU, has too much WP:OR information, and has been unreferenced since its creation. While the character did play active roles in a lot of the first portion of Dragon Ball, he continued to appear mostly as comic relief throughout the rest of the series, including DBZ and very rarely in DBGT. I really don't see how WP:WAF can save this page since Roshi became very minour (even moreso than Bulma) as the story expanded, as he is reduced to no less than a background character. ~~Merge to List of Earthlings in Dragon Ball at this time.~~ I also ask that the comments given here be not limited to WP:ATA. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 03:56, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- strong keep- guy was a major character in the first 13 books or so of a comic series that sold hundreds of millions of copies. Does this need a clean up? Yes. But this guy is notable. JJJ999 06:15, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Second look, this is a great article, how the hell can you nominate this for deletion?JJJ999 06:16, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - This guy is in almost a lot of sagas, and his house, Kame House, is one of the most famous places on the Dragon Ball Universe. TyrannoRanger 12:23, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - The delete nomination for this is just so strange... is there going to be a defence of it?JJJ999 15:43, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. —Fg2 10:08, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE TO CLOSING SYSOP: Please ignore the keepers who do not give very legitimate reasons to keep the unreferenced page. As WP:VERIFY says, "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it". This is why Cross Epoch was deleted. Muten Roshi has had no confirmed sources for much more than four years, therefore, such an unsourced page should be deleted per policy. Thank you, Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 02:22, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is a disgusting addition by LS, because he is the guy who has not reasoned it. A routine google search could confirm all this, the page need referencing, sure, but it's hardly delete worthy. "Muten Roshi" returns 25,000 hits, "Master Roshi" returns 98,700 hits and Roshi plus DBZ returns about 150,000 hits. The noteworthiness here is self evident. First LS implies Roshi was a "minor character", then when the merest of efforts shows he's wrong, he claims the page is "not referenced"? Well, reference it then, but this guys is vastly more prominent than alot of fictional characters I could think of, a man who was a star for 13 books, and a background mentor/comic figure for the remaining 29, is hardly unimportant, in light of the selling power of this franchise. JJJ999 04:40, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A quick good search reveals yet more to counter this silly deletion, "http://www.trannet-japan.com/ep/tjc_news_dtl.asp?dk=N0000010", 1 million copies sold in China on day 1 of release. Some websites I googled list hundreds of millions of copies sold, and billions in revenue... DBZ is the #1 Japanese Manga ever apparently, if characters from Harry Potter get pages, it is hard to understand why this guy, basically the equivalent of Dumbledore or McGonagall in terms of expose, wouldn't get one...JJJ999 05:09, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - JJJ999, there is not enough (if any) out-of-universe information for Roshi and that external link you provided has nothing to do with him, save for being a ref for Dragon Ball. And Jay32183 told you this at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bulma, sources are needed for a character, regardless.

And although I'm as big a Dragon Ball fan as everyone else at WP:WPDB, I don't like to see pages deleted, but this is for the best. If there were verified/reliable sources for Muten Roshi, then I wouldn't have begun this afd in the first place. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 06:20, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In universe perspective is easily solved by editing, and it's disingenous to think this lacks notability outside of DBZ.JJJ999 06:28, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Into a list of Human Dragon Ball Characters. I'd definitely rather not see this deleted. FamicomJL 22:34, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Once again this applies, to your problem with sources. From WP:OR "Research that consists of collecting and organizing material from existing sources within the provisions of this and other content policies is encouraged: this is "source-based research," and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia." Also from WP:OR "Examples of primary sources include... ...scripts, screenplays, novels, motion pictures, videos, and television programs." Finally also from WP:OR Secondary sources are only required when interpretation of the primary source was required. Editors seem to misuse the OR policy to get things deleted. OR should be renamed to Original Idea's or Original concepts, since that is what it blocks. This article does not present original thought, it is all verifiable through primary sources. This nominators use of colored boxes in his nominations is very unnecessary, and rude. Finally, saying that real world sources do not exist is completely insane. Viperix 01:50, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Cleanup or merge, What I said for Bulma works here too: clean it up, see what we're left with, and then evaluate a merge. Dragon Ball has been around for a while, and Roshi is a main character in the original series, which makes me think that real-world information is likely to be found. -- Ned Scott 05:43, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus--JForget 23:50, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Beautiful Angle

Article was prodded with reason "importance of subject not established". The talk page of the article has an argument for keeping. I feel it's best to decide here. I have no opinion at this time. CitiCat^♫ 03:51, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. —David Eppstein 04:06, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: the usual reasons for deletion are not relevant here: verifiability, for instance, is clearly established. However, no encyclopedic content has yet been posted. Without such, I cannot judge the appropriateness of this article; in short, the authors have given me no reason to think this project has any importance at all. If such is added, I would keep; if not, I would delete; but until I get some data, or indication of apathy, I can't vote either way. Alba 04:26, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on Alba Elmao 10:01, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now. It is really quite hard to judge whether it should be deleted or not. If it doesn't improve, it can be renominated at a later date.Darkcraft 11:05, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I made an effort when it was first created back in April to find notable content and encourage others who were editing it to do so but none was forth coming, I've tried again since and still haven't turned any up. The posters they print are beautiful, but their activities as a guerrilla arts group do not appear to have received any significant commentary. There is nothing encyclopedic beyond providing a listing that we can say about them. They fail our general notability guidelines and Wikipedia is not a soapbox. -- SiobhanHansa 11:59, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per SiobhanHansa. Indrian 17:14, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Apparently notable in Tacoma., sourced verifiabilty.--Victor falk 21:25, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep oddly enough this seems notable... as far as guerrilla arts poster projects go. Burntsauce 21:44, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus, after excluding the weak keep arguments. There is no consensus for a deletion so I cannot delete it. So this is an occasion to fix up the several issues that the article has.--JForget 23:45, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bulma

Delete - article does not assert WP:NOTE, violates WP:NEU, has too much WP:OR information, and has been unreferenced since its creation. While Bulma did play an active role in almost the whole first portion of Dragon Ball, she continued to appear briefly from time to time throughout DBZ and barely in DBGT, helping the Z Fighters whenever possible. I really don't see how WP:WAF can save this page since Bulma became very minour as the story expanded, she is reduced to nothing more than comic relief and as a mere background character. ~~Merge to List of Earthlings in Dragon Ball at this time.~~ I also ask that the comments given here be not limited to WP:ATA. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 03:35, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly merge an abbreviation as per poster, but consider also transwiki to Wikia for Dragonball Z, if such exists; this page needs more expert help than the main encyclopedia can handle. Alba 04:27, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment there certainly is a Dragon Ball wiki all set. Here is Bulma's page. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 04:42, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Elmao 10:09, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Elmao please give a reason as to why you want to keep the article. Your thought may be disregarded in the end. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 18:56, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - There are many pages confirming, including videos Elmao 03:01, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Clean up. A google search gives several pages dealing with the character, her bio, fan fiction, fan art. Seems notable enough to me. The problems with the article style and quality of information also seem valid but deleting the article seems to be an overreaction. Why don't you trim the article down yourself if you are knowleadgeable about the character history? User:Dimadick
Keep. Just because a major character in one series is no longer featured in a second series, doesn't mean she loses notability derived from the first. — PyTom (talk) 17:08, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Dimadick, you have to understand that trimming won't do a thing here because there is not enough real-life info. for the character. And no offense guys but can we lose the WP:ILIKEIT arguements? To those unaware, I'm not in favour in deleting the page but merging is better in this case in that we don't lose any of the information. And to answer Pytom, she appears frequently in Dragon Ball, but not really in Dragon Ball Z or Dragon Ball GT. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 18:56, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Bulma is an important character. Period. And again... Don't merge her into List of Earthlings in Dragon Ball. TyrannoRanger —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 19:45, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Like I told Elmao above, you will need to give a more legitimate reason TyrannoRanger. This statement alone won't give reasoning as to why the page should be kept. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 22:56, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There aren't real world sources so we can't keep. There's too much detail to merge. The logical transwiki target already has a detailed article. Deleting the article is the only thing to do. Jay32183 22:38, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I can sum up at least a paragraph entry if the page were to be merged, not deleted. Then again, we could use the information from Dragon Ball wiki. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 22:56, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per above. Noting that a character is demonstrably important to a show is a sufficient enough basis for urging its inclusion. Although the article needs sources, a quick glance at any search engine shows that sourcing is indeed possible. wikipediatrix 02:44, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Not one of those sources contains any real world content. Importance to the plot does not matter at all. A significant character with no real world content does not get an article, while a minor character with plenty of real world content does. This is because Wikipedia is not a collection of plot summaries or a publisher of original thought. Verifiability through reliable sources is also required. This article cannot achieve that. Jay32183 04:07, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The servant of your namesake has an article IE Jaken. It has been tagged because of lack of sources and in universe writing. My point being the two articles are parallel in importance and notability. Neither should be deleted but both could use some sourcing and cleaning. Viperix 00:53, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Those tags are not magic. If sources don't exist they can't be added. This isn't a matter of editors getting around to adding sources to the article, it's that the sources needed don't exist. Jay32183 19:48, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I never suggested they were magic. I am positive that sources exist and someone "in the know" could produce said sources. Bulma is notable both in DB and DBZ, not being notable in DBGT does not trump her previous notability. Exactly which real world sources do you suppose a fictional character has to have to be on wiki? or should all fictional things be deleted? Viperix 22:21, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Are you out of your freaking mind? -- AvatarMN 21:52, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, what next? Delete Vegeta cuz he died in the Freeza Saga? ...I'd better not give you ideas. Superior1 23:57, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The deletion reasoning isn't about Bulma's level of activity in the plot. It's the lack of sources to establish notability or provide real world content. Jay32183 00:11, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into list of human Dragon Ball characters. I don't agree with deleting the article, but merging it seems like a better idea to me. And maybe trimming it down FamicomJL 03:39, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE TO CLOSING SYSOP: Please ignore the keepers who do not give very legitimate reasons to keep the unreferenced page. As WP:VERIFY says, "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it". This is why Cross Epoch was deleted. Bulma has had no confirmed sources for more than four years, therefore, such an unsourced page should be deleted per policy. Thank you, Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 02:15, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment. I'd hope that the sysop doesn't give any special precedence to comments just because they're enclosed in a bright orange box. The last thing that's needed is for AfD to become a contest to see who's opinion can be made to stand out more visually. — PyTom (talk) 22:11, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Agreed. That is really, really, unecessary. FamicomJL 22:30, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I removed the box. We routinely weigh arguments without the aid of colored boxes. Thanks.--Chaser - T 02:43, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This guys keeps claiming he is a big DBZ fan, yet all his time is devoted to deleting their pages...STRONG KEEP, and much like the other page where you inserted this silly notice, I'll tell you why. DBZ was a huge franchise, searching for Bulma reveals huge ghit #'s, and as a main character she is entitled to her own page. Indeed, she is one of the only characters to appear in basically every book. Your motives for nominating all this pages is bizarre.JJJ999 04:52, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A quick good search reveals yet more to counter this silly deletion, "http://www.trannet-japan.com/ep/tjc_news_dtl.asp?dk=N0000010", 1 million copies sold in China on day 1 of release. Some websites I googled list hundreds of millions of copies sold, and billions in revenue... DBZ is the #1 Japanese Manga ever apparently, if characters from Harry Potter get pages, it is hard to understand why this guy, basically the equivalent of Dumbledore or McGonagall in terms of expose, wouldn't get one...JJJ999 05:09, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- We aren't looking for sources on DragonBall, we need sources on Bulma for more than just plot information. The same is true for Harry Potter characters, but they aren't related to Bulma, so they would require a separate discussion if the articles are inappropriate. Jay32183 05:14, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - The merest application of common sense would tell you these sources exist, the merest google search would do likewise. You're either part of the solution, or part of the problem. If you want to be the former, go put some footnotes in, its obvious you'd rather delete it than save yourself the trouble. Luckily nobody here agrees with you... did you have a grudge against the guy who made this page or something? I haven't seen one reason for removing this page, yet you've posted repeatedly on this...JJJ999 05:53, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - JJJ999, there is not enough (if any) out-of-universe information for Bulma and that external link you provided has nothing to do with him, save for being a ref for Dragon Ball. Like Jay32183 told you, sources are needed for a character, regardless.

And although I'm as big a Dragon Ball fan as everyone else at WP:WPDB, I don't like to see pages deleted, but this is for the best. If there were verified/reliable sources for Bulma, then I wouldn't have begun this afd in the first place. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 06:24, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In universe perspective is easily solved by editing, and it's disingenous to think this lacks notability outside of DBZ.JJJ999 06:28, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There's no evidence that any sources exist for the editing you're talking about. You're attempt to find sources found no reliable sources, or sources that didn't have any real world information. It doesn't have to be notable beyond the Dragonball franchise, we have to have reliable information beyond a plot summary. I can't add citations because the sources don't exist. Jay32183 22:49, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - From WP:OR "Research that consists of collecting and organizing material from existing sources within the provisions of this and other content policies is encouraged: this is "source-based research," and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia." Also from WP:OR "Examples of primary sources include... ...scripts, screenplays, novels, motion pictures, videos, and television programs." Finally also from WP:OR Secondary sources are only required when interpretation of the primary source was required. Editors seem to misuse the OR policy to get things deleted. OR should be renamed to Original Idea's or Original concepts, since that is what it blocks. This article does not present original thought, it is all verifiable through primary sources. Viperix 01:49, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I didn't mention WP:NOR. My argument is based on WP:NOT#PLOT, WP:N, and WP:FICT. Secondary sources are required for notability and articles cannot consist only of plot. Jay32183 05:11, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - You did in your nomination, And just now in the above argument, saying sources do not exist. Viperix 10:05, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        I didn't nominate the article. My above argument doesn't mention anything about original research. Don't confuse WP:V and WP:RS with WP:NOR. Jay32183 18:58, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Everyone here should vote keep for Muten Roshi too, since he's used the exact same reasoning to afd that...JJJ999 02:06, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - AFD's are not votes, they are discussions. The numbers don't matter. Jay32183 05:11, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Nor do shiny coloured boxes...JJJ999 05:38, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - That wasn't me, and that was really more for you guys who are presenting terrible arguments than for the closing admin. Jay32183 17:44, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I haven't exactly heard you criticising his obviously unecessary and guady attempt to win points, which btw is clearly addressed to the admins, and is of no help to us, we don't need a big sign to read what he says.JJJ999 01:52, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cleanup or merge, as in, clean it up, see what we're left with, and then evaluate a merge. Dragon Ball has been around for a while, and Bulma is a key character in the original series, which makes me think that real-world information is likely to be found. -- Ned Scott 05:31, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Bulma has been a main character of three animated series and a long-running manga. I can see this as a useful fork from the main dragonball topics.--Torchwood Who? 07:12, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletions. —Ned Scott 05:32, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as article appears to cover a notable fictional character. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:44, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I will happily userfy this if requested, but I'm not a big fan of userfying without a request, since it creates unnecessary pages that may well be unwanted. Chick Bowen 01:14, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Art Barron

Probably autobiographical; this person is a local TV reporter and does not seem notable. The article has basic lack of references or encyclopedic content. Shalom ^Hello 03:03, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy, of course. Alba 04:34, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This guy doesn't have a single edit outside of his autobiography, even to fix a typo on some other article. Seems pretty clear to me he created a user account specifically to get himself featured in Wikipedia, not to contribute as an editor; it's been two months since he finished writing his article, and he hasn't come back since. cab 04:49, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO. Moreover, it is difficult to verify the contents of this article from third-party reliable sources as well. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 04:42, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Chick Bowen 22:41, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Moretz

Non-notable biography. Not covered by secondary sources aside from one archive linked article, which requires registration & payment. Main claim for notability is a youtube page, which doesn't have high view or subscription numbers by youtube standards. All other links/references are by publications which appear to be related to or affiliated with the subject. I tagged this article just over a monh ago for lack of references or notability, references provided so far don't support notability. Optigan13 02:46, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because [Redirect page to nominated page] See also two additional pages linked to main article from its what link here:

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Chick Bowen 01:12, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If appropriate third-party sources can be found to support the site, I think it should stay, but as it is it doesn't meet Wiki standards. Renee 02:02, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. low notability for encyclopedic inclusion Jodes534 02:29, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete I don't see sufficient secondry sources documenting a notable impact. Pete.Hurd 03:06, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable. A YouTube video and some web-sites do not assert notability. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 03:16, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If he's notable, I see no evidence of it - that's what proper sources are for. ZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 13:55, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Sorry God, but delete. ;) NN. Spawn Man 12:27, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN Tiptopper 16:33, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 02:35, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A p valentine

Don't believe that this horse is notable enough. Could be wrong. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:26, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. (Can a horse fail WP:BIO?) Shalom ^Hello 03:05, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Neeeeeigh, Shalom, he has been featured in articles for Sports Illustrated [23] and the Chicago Sun-Times [24], plus a number of other Google news hits. Been in the big competitions too, like Preakness. Sorry to whinny and stomp my hooves, but I think this passes ~~WP:HORSE~~ WP:BIO for now. ~Eliz81 ^(C) 03:22, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy, Strongest Keep. This horse won a Grade I Stakes - the easiest, most straightforward claim to notability for a racehorse. And not just any GI, either...he won the Champagne), which is arguably the most prestigious 2 year old race in the US outside of the Breeders Cup (in which he was the favorite). The article needs serious cleanup though and should be renamed A P Valentine - the P is caps. Smashville 03:29, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if cleaned up: Smashville, you have made a defensible case for notability. If you or another will change the article enough to reflect that notability, I'll support keeping. Alba 04:29, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article already makes that claim, though. When I get a chance today, I'll work on cleaning it up. Smashville 12:18, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted that this article was renamed to A P valentine. ff m 12:58, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And I renamed it again to the proper caps...A P Valentine. Smashville 15:54, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Superlative work. Keep. Alba 17:06, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Finished rewriting the article. I think it's pretty properly referenced and notability is established. Smashville 19:03, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Impressive work Smashville. I'll give you a barnstar if I were more devoted to the field of horses but it is not my place to do so. Maybe we should have notability guidelines for animals.--Lenticel ^(talk) 23:30, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep References seem good now, but notability should still be shortly assessed directly in the lead of the article. SyG 08:51, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:27, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Islam and Terrorism: What the Quran Really Teaches About Christianity, Violence and the Goals of the Islamic Jihad (2nd nomination)

Even after the first afd, nothing has been inserted into the article that demonstrates any notability. A google search of the title returns 83 unique pages, many of them being personal blogs. Trulyequal 01:15, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletions. —Sefringle^Talk 01:34, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Should have been deleted last time around, I don't know how it was decided there was "no consensus." Article doesn't assert notability of book at all. Should be eligible for speedy per A7. faithless (^speak) 02:16, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless something other than adspam content is added. Alba 04:30, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable. Also not the best thing to have an article on when we don't have much information to back up why we have an article on it. It's written fairly neutrally, but the subject itself is a bit inflammatory. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 04:53, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Here is the first AfD. I don't know why it's not shown above. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 04:54, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The code was missing. I've added it and the display is now correct. → AA ^(talk) — 21:36, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as "Amazon.com Sales Rank: #17,746 in Books" and zero Google news archive hits. CitiCat^♫ 05:27, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Em. I guess 17,000 on the Amazon rank isn’t so bad as all that, especially for a book five years old. With millions of book titles in the inventory, this means it’s in the top 1% of Amazon sales. I bet there’re more than a few authors who’d kill to be listed so high. And that Wikipedia has many book articles titles places considerable lower. And of course you’re not going to find much mention of a five year old book on google news. It didn't even exist then.

In fact I just clicked on four random books from the wiki category: Cate!gory:2002 books – and not one of them was ranked anywhere near this book:

High Score!: The Illustrated History of Electronic Games # 602.322

Hobo (book) # 920,501

High and Mighty (book) # 343,383

Harmful to Minors #205,863

Heres a book by Herman Melville Mardi, and a Voyage Thither – coming in at a whooping #3,469,482. - and not a mention on google news. I hope we won’t have to start to delete Herman Melville books on that account. Rune X2 15:12, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1% is low. Since the million titles not in the top percentile sale only a few copies or not at all, it doesn't mean it sells sucessfully. See the long tail for further explanation of this economic concept. Anyway encyclopedic notabiltiy is not established by top sales lists, I doubt that Analytica Prioraby Alexander of Aphrodisias is much of a best seller.--Victor falk 22:09, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Um, the Melville book may just sneak by under Wikipedia:Notability (books) #5 - "The book's author is so historically significant that any of his or her written works may be considered notable". Any thoughts on which criteria this book passes, other than WP:OTHERSTUFF which you keep using? CitiCat^♫ 02:51, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep why would you want to delete a book article , unless you were trying to censor its content. The book is quite notable and has been feartured on numerous radio shows--CltFn 12:04, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Assume good faith unless there is convincing evidence to the contrary, please. If you can find reliable sources regarding such media coverage, then by all means produce them. Tarc 14:38, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable book. ff m 12:59, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There has been massive change in the accepted notability of books. I kind of miss the old days when we could have most every book... but, it's pretty hard to write balanced articles with so few secondary sources. gren グレン 09:41, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a complete failure of WP:N. If CltFn or others can provide sources for the "numerous radio shows" assertion, then we can see if it is notable. Tarc 14:38, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep : If you want to start the like of an electronic wiki book burning, lets start with thousands of wiki articles on less controversial books, to avoid any accusations of being political or ideological motivated. For instance the four book I listed above Rune X2 15:20, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Just because other non-notable books have articles is no reason that this one shouldn't be deleted. I can't speak for the others, but (after a cursory glance) I'd probably argue Delete for the books you mentioned as well. Why don't you nominate them? faithless (^speak) 15:52, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I know that argument, and I've heard it many times before. But I don't buy it, because it's always the controversial articles which are being deleted, leading to an obvious suspicion that the driving force is something entirely different than having non-notable articles removed.

Anyway I don't nominate the other articles, from the same reasons I don't agree this article should be deleted, because I myself have an interest in obscure Victorian literature which leads me to find interesting articles on books which most people would find completely non-noteable and which I'm sure lists considerable lower on Amazon than this book. Which actually might not even be at sale there and sure as hell have never been mentioned on google news. Another person might easily have other obscure interests and find this book interesting, even when you or the other editors in here find it non-noteable. You throw around this "notable" like it could scientifically measured, but "noteability" depends entirely on your own interests and is anything but unbiased.

Besides I hate dead ends on Wikipedia. And since I can't imagine you'd want the article on the author deleted, then a mention on books by the author on that page would have to be de-linked. Thirdly I think the book is noteable enough, on account of the author being notable - the same way I think "Mardi, and a Voyage Thither" by Herman Melville is notableable because of its author. Rune X2 17:09, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You may have a point, that it's only the controversial nature of this book that has led to it being nominated here. I don't know, you'd have to ask the nominator. However, that's irrelevant. WP has guidelines and policies that must be adhered to. Regardless if this article is interesting or useful, the subject does not pass Wikipedia's (not mine or the other editor's) guidelines as to what is notable and what isn't. Furthermore, I fail to see how the author of the book is notable. faithless (^speak) 18:29, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You fail to see how a widely discussed and published author is notable, but a cursory look on your page revels that you yourself have created articles ranging from one on an obscure American soccer player, over some rock band with apparently no known cds to its name to an even more obscure fan of a little known American football team. But if that is your opinion then the honest thing would be to start with trying to get the article on the author removed - and then his books afterwards. Instead of chipping away at the corners and making the original author entry less usefull. And shouldn't we leave it at noting that it doesn't pass your guidelines as to what is notable and what isn't, while it does pass other editors notion of what is noteable. Rune X2 18:58, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whether you agree with it or not, coaches of national soccer teams are notable, as are people and bands who have received news coverage from reliable and independent sources. If You feel strongly about it, nominate the articles I've written for deletion. Meanwhile, try to stay on topic and not come up with petty attacks because someone disagrees with you. Widely discussed and published? You mean aside from his own books and website? Oh, and the Jets are anything but a "little known American football team." That's laughable. Stop taking this so personally. faithless (^speak) 20:35, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And actually, my two worst articles were the first two I created, before I really understood Wikipedia, on two actresses who really aren't very notable. If you'd like, feel free to nominate those, I'm sure you'd win. ;) faithless (^speak) 20:55, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No I wouldn't "win" - perhaps we'd both lose. Because, who knows, there may very well be people out there who are interested in little known actresses or everything to do with fans of American football teams or whatever - and Wikipedia loses nothing by also providing information for these people. Personally I think all to do with American football completely un-noteable, but wouldn't presume to list them all for deletion on account of my own interests.

Anyhow, no harm done. I guess I'll just post the article on some of the other language wikis. Already I find the German wiki often to be of a better quality than the English and often have article not found in English. And since I'm a fan of plurality of languages this is fine by me. Rune X2 16:24, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh well, so much for WP:BEANS :-) --Bfigura ^(talk) 21:37, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable book. CRocka05 16:58, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No notability asserted. Probably because there don't seem to be any reliable independent sources disscussing the book. Fails WP:V Bfigura ^(talk) 18:02, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not discussed by reliable sources WP:RS, doesn't to have made much ripples in the world; you find only a couple of forums and two or three mentiong it through googling, all of them utterly unnoticeable--Victor falk 21:52, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in the total absence of reviews or other RSs for notability. DGG (talk) 22:02, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there is no media coverage of this book and the author isn't even notable. A seach on lexis-nexis reveals no hits on this book, ditto with google news. I tagged it for notability months ago and no-one showed notability. Jayran 00:42, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- let's be careful not to pick books for deletion because we don't like the content. I don't see any delete notices on High Score!: The Illustrated History of Electronic Games, as pointed out above, and this book is over 20x more popular on Amazon. Almost 100 reviews on Amazon are enough for me to give a cautious keep. -Quasipalm 02:12, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, does someone want to AfD High Score for me? CRGreathouse (t | c) 01:03, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS If you think that there is a problem with another article, put it up for deletion. Look at this book on its own notability. Jayran 02:33, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And see WP:UGH for the reason why this and not the other works are listed for deleting. And as long as we're WP:SPAMMING then a couple of editors here might want to check out: WP:JNN, WP:VAGUEWAVE and WP:NOEFFORT. Rune X2 06:33, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article has been tagged with a notability tag for months and no one has ever suggested why it is notable. It is telling that this book has received no hits on Lexis Nexis or Google News. There appears to be no reviews by a rs. The fact that this book hasn't even received attention in its own cottage industry shows that it has no notability. Of the books listed, several should be deleted but the Melville book is notable on the basis of its author and among that list, the book, Harmful to Minors won a book award and attracted media attention. I don't know about the others as they make no mention of notability. Jayran 16:33, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As per my comment, the 100 reviews on Amazon are enough for me to say keep. -Quasipalm 00:08, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom (and per DGG - rarely do I see a delete !vote ) as it fails all the criterias at WP:BK. It would help the editors who are advocating 'keep' if they showed how it meets the WP:N & WP:BK criterias instead of raising arguments for WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and WP:ILIKEIT. Also, canvassing (or what can be deemed canvassing) is not the best approach and can be seen as disruptive. → AA ^(talk) — 07:55, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To this I'd like to add that some of them should assume good faith, and not make some shrill or insinuating accusations that every editor voting delete is trying to censor this book--Victor falk 08:06, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have already made the case that I find the book noteable on account of the author being noteable.

And talking of "shrill or insinuating accusations", then it would help if you didn't make ridiculous exaggerations ("every editor") and shrill or insinuating accusations against editors trying to keep this book. And remember this is not a vote, and that merely stating any number of WPs, WP:BK, WP:N or just stating it isn't notable or the article hasn't been worked on, is neither here nor there. Rune X2 09:09, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

sorry, I meant "a lot of", "many" or "most"--Victor falk 11:48, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please accept the fact that an author's notability doesn't make ipso facto any and all of his books noteable--Victor falk 10:05, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. I can easily accept the obvious fact that my opinion is not shared by most editors in this discussion, what I don’t like is how "noteability" is presented by some as a scientific verifiable fact, rather than just your own opinion. I also don’t much care being accused of making "shrill or insinuating accusations" Rune X2 11:54, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have stated it - yes. Could you elaborate please and explain then how "The book's author is so historically significant that any of his or her written works may be considered notable, even in the absence of secondary sources." (the example given is "For example, a person whose life or works is a subject of common classroom study."). Thanks. → AA ^(talk) — 10:16, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For fear of repeating myself, then I believe the author's page would become less useful and interesting, when you remove links to his books. I personally like to browse around Wikipedia, clicking from one article to the next and see where it takes me. If I was to happen on this article, and was interested in his book, then with this article gone, I’d have to copy-paste the book into Amazon or Google or whatever to see what it is about. This to me is a less useful Wikipedia. Of course, the material could just be lifted from the book page and moved to the author-page. But that would make it unnecessary cumbersome page. – Do you believe the author article would be improved by removing this article?

I also happen to believe Wikipedia should have room to cater to less mainstream, or even obscure, interests.

And finally I find it somewhat disingenuous to re-nominate an already nominated article, without there being substantial new development to think the situation has altered in some essential way. But the nominater, who hasn’t even bothered to come back and discuss his nomination, made no startling new arguments. Just a tired rehash of the old ones. It smacks of putting up an article you dislike for nomination again and again until one day you get your way. I don't like it when my country does it, and I don't like it when I see it on Wikipedia Rune X2 11:54, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation and please remember to assume good faith. The nominator has given a valid reason for the nomination - i.e. fails WP:N. The first AfD (which closed as "No consensus") was 2 years ago and therefore the article has had sufficient time to establish notability (which, once established, would ensure the article is not nominated again for this reason). We shall see what the closing admin says this time as there does appear to be a clear consensus. → AA ^(talk) — 12:08, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus? What, I don't exist? No, there is no consensus as several editors have expressed their disagreement. If there was consensus we wouldn’t be talking. There do however seem to be a majority if that is what you mean. Rune X2 16:17, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus doesn't mean unanimity, it means majority opinion. faithless (^speak) 01:34, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, it doesn't mean that either. You may want to look at WP:CONSENSUS#Consensus in practice CitiCat^♫ 02:25, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~You may want to look at a dictionary.~~ Sorry, that came out much more dick-ish than was intended. I apologize. faithless (^speak) 03:22, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: if a non-notable book has a decent article I might WP:IGNORE or bend the rules a bit, but if the article doesn't even say as much as the blurb on the book's back cover... why do we even have it? It's puffery or vanity. Now if the article was expanded that wouldn't make the book more notable but it might sway some editors. CRGreathouse (t | c) 15:24, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no evidence of notability in the form of non-trivial coverage in secondary reliable sources has been provided. not now, nor in the 2 years since the first nomination. ITAQALLAH 14:28, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per others, no evidence of notability.Bless sins 20:04, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The book's content is irrelevant, what matters is that the article definitely fails to illustrate that the book meets the notability criteria in WP:BK and therefore it cannot remain. --Kudret abi^Talk 08:54, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there are two reviews listed in the external links so it at least has some minimal coverage. // Liftarn

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:28, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chrissie Carnell

Delete - nn model/actress, only a few bit parts. Many references are dead links, no mention at Fashion Model Directory. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 01:11, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable Sefringle^Talk 01:32, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. Watchingthevitalsigns 02:10, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep this article is not really any different from any other model stub. Significant contributions to Vogue magazine and other notable publications. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tweety21 (talk • contribs) 19:48, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. ff m 12:59, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment please elaborate After Midnight, why this stub is any different from many listed on wiki...check out this joke: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angel_Anderson —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tweety21 (talk • contribs) 19:54, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I ask closing administration to check out other model stubs and this one is pretty standard, quality wise to the rest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.110.247.117 (talk) 14:19, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please read What about article x? Precious Roy 12:01, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A heads-up: please see Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Tweety21. Precious Roy 17:39, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comments by Precious roy are Libelous!!!! will contact admin!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tweety21 (talk • contribs) 18:40, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO. The majority of references are from user-edited sites like TV.com and are unreliable. Precious Roy 12:01, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Chick Bowen 01:11, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Intro/Bomb First (My Second Reply)

A song that was never released as a single. Unlike tracks of the album-oriented rock era, these songs do not warrant articles if they were never released as a single. Reading the actual content, it looks even less like an article about a song, and more like another one of those rap feuds articles ♠ SG →Talk 00:55, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like I should note for those of you voting keep: Wikipedia is not a democracy. Votes don't matter, it's the discussion that counts. The issues raised about the aforementioned article have not been addressed. If you want to claim "significant coverage" or "needz afew more refs", then hurry up and provide those references -- not fan sites and lyrics. No one is denying that the East Coast-West Coast rivalry isn't notable. It was an important point in hip hop history. This AfD is about a single track which was never released a single. I also find it highly amusing that all of the users who voted to keep have either "G-Unit" or "gangsta" on their user page. ♠ SG →Talk 20:54, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - ur a funny human. really! How is the discussion the final deal? If i could understand why one of the discussion sides win in the end i would be happy. OK, i want the Pete Rock article for deletion because i think he is crap and a disgrace. The sources doesent say shit there? Happy? lol. West Coast Ryda 21:31, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - We don't accept votes because it's relatively simple to go up to anyone and ask them to vote on a matter, thus swaying the result. On the other hand, proper consensus can be gained via actual discussion. This article has no sources, did not chart, and was not covered in mass media; thus, it does not meet notability criteria. Many people dislike Pete Rock, some hate The Beatles. You can nominate them for AfD, but as charting artists with sources to back that up, you'll be hard pressed finding people to delete those articles. ♠ SG →Talk 01:03, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Are u admin or what? If u r i could understand but if you ain't how can u say "We". it would be outrageous if ur not one. Anyways why would the "delete" said have the right to decide that the discussion is for theirs? pathetic. West Coast Ryda 09:38, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Can everyone stop calling each other names for a minute? I am an admin, and I can assure you that this isn't a simple "vote". What matters is whether there are sourced provided demonstrating the notability of the song. See this guideline for what I'm talking about here. At the end of the 5-day period of discussion, another admin (not me, since I've already had input into this discussion) is going to come along and see what's what. If there's evidence that the song is notable, it'll be kept pretty much regardless of numbers. If there's not, it'll be deleted pretty much regardless of numbers. If this means that you've been directing your energies towards getting more "votes" in an effort to secure a "majority" instead of towards finding and adding sources, then I apologise. I've tried to communicate this on a number of occasions, though. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 10:12, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But what the hell is source? West Coast Ryda 16:17, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- What is a source? The best definition is at this page. In short, something discussing the song (rather than just providing the lyrics) in a significant manner (rather than just as one of the several thousand songs Tupac recorded) is a source. The best kind of sources, according to that page, are books and scholarly journal articles, but there are others. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 23:03, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete poorly sourced, non notable. Sefringle^Talk 01:32, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom with a bit of OR and speculation thrown in for seasoning. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 04:57, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As it doesent violate any AfD. It doesent need to be a single so it is kept. It is explaining the song not feuds etc.. so if it is really poor sourced then look at the lyrics. Do we need source for the title of the song soon? West Coast Ryda and Talk to Me 13:52, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It was a notable song as it had alot controversy surrounding it, and it doesn't have to be a single to have an article. It just needs afew more refs and maybe abit of clean-up - keep it real - Real Compton G - Holla back 18:10, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - How is it looking now after a few clean up's? West Coast Ryda and Talk to Me 18:34, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment-Looks like a good article, No need to delete. --¤ The-G-Unit-฿oss ¤ 23:05, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable song. --- Who's the one you call Mr. Macho? The head honcho, swift fist like Camacho 02:19, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable in-depth sources to establish notability, only a lyric and fan site. The info can easily be mentioned in The Don Killuminati: The 7 Day Theory. Spellcast 07:36, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The feud mentioned may be notable, although I have my doubts. One particular song connected to said feud doesn't seem to be, and with these references I don't see anything which changes my mind. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 09:04, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - i took hour to make this article this good, is the main reason to delete this, sources and rivality relations? I can fix a few sources if it's what y'all might be hungry for wtf.. West Coast Ryda and Talk to Me 14:17, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- What there needs to be is evidence that this particular song was discussed in independent, reliable sources. A lot of people have said that it was, but there's no evidence provided that this was the case. It's the same threshold requirement that any other article requires. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:55, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- Dead Wrong, Why would you betray us like this? I personally like the article and think it should be kept, but the administrators will most likely delete even though there is nothing wrong wit it, just like they did Lil' Eazy-E. SameAsItEverWas 18:50, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- - Betray? You're funny kid. I'm not going to say keep just because all other hip-hop fans say keep, I say keep only when the article really deserves to be kept. --- Who's the one you call Mr. Macho? The head honcho, swift fist like Camacho 21:44, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Lil Eazy-E has not released anything beyond mixtapes, and even then, they didn't garner immense attention. If we go by those standards, any random kid with a mic would have their own Wikipedia article for being a rapper. ♠ SG →Talk 04:36, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep no reason to delete, it was a huge diss song, there is no reason to delete this just like there was no reason to delete the G unit feuds article--Yankees10 22:25, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The reason to delete has been made clear, namely the lack of independent reliable evidence that the song was notable. You can say that it was a huge diss song all you like, but evidence demonstrating that is needed somewhere along the line. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:55, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article looks pretty good, it just needz afew more refs --Brooklyn Soldier 20:05, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep-Because of in depth information. Fulfills WP:MUSIC as well as WP:N with "Significant coverage". Just needs tagging and more sources. --¤ The-G-Unit-฿oss ¤ 21:01, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there is no "significant coverage". The song didn't chart, didn't win any honors or awards, and hasn't been performed independently by other notable bands/musicians. There's not a single reliable source cited, only lyric and fan sites. Spellcast 08:52, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- BigHaz, You doubt that the Biggie/Pac feud is notable? Anyway this article should in fact be kept.SameAsItEverWas 16:40, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Did I say that? No. What I said was that the feud may well be notable. At the time I made that comment, the article seemed to be about a feud between Tupac and Xzibit, which is no longer the case. Regardless, the notability of the feud doesn't (as I said earlier) confer any notability on any particular song involved in the feud. Additionally, you may wish to provide a rationale for your advocation of "keep". BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:45, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - 2pac vs xzibit? u serious? EDI Mean said a line about Xzibit and it was not 2pac who was rapping then. It doesent make the page about a feud with 2pac and xzibit. West Coast Ryda 09:55, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Once again, I'm being misquoted. What I said was that at the time I made that comment (i.e. the article now reads somewhat differently to the way in which it did when I made that comment), the article seemed to be about a feud between those two people (i.e. it may not have conveyed that opinion to every single person who read the article). The article was in an atrocious state when I made my comment, so it's perhaps not surprising that I thought it related to a different feud. Nonetheless, my comment regarding the notability of this particular song still stands - regardless of the notability of any feud that it might be about, non-trivial, reliable third-party sources discussing the song are required. They still aren't here. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 10:28, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question - Yo, when does this debate finish ? - Keep It Real - Real Compton G 18:25, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Normally, AfDs last for five days, so this would have ended on Sept 24 by my count. Given that it's now late on Sept 26 Wikipedia time, I'd expect it to end as soon as an admin sees the page as being unresolved. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:18, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Final - So what's the final result? deletion or keep?... West Coast Ryda 14:45, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My AfD experience tells me this will be deleted. Almost all the keep votes have nothing to do with policy, only vague assertions about the song being notable. None of the reasons for deletion have been addressed yet; there's still no reliable source cited and there's still some original research sprinkled in. Remember, you can seek a deletion review and re-create the article once you find in-depth reliable references, not lyric and fan sites. Spellcast 16:27, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, after Nov 2 (by which point my other commitments for the year will be done and dusted), I'd be more than happy to help out with locating sources for a recreation of this article or any other. I don't guarantee it'll result in sources being found, but I'll do what I can. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:44, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Also, this song was never released as a single. Seems that the creator of the article likes to create pages a bout songs that he loves to hear.--Tasc0 23:27, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 18:22, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rolf Potts

Minor writer. No sources, no sign of real-world impact nor even assertions thereof other than a list of publications which have bought his articles. PROD tag added, but removed by User:VivianDarkbloom with only a link to the writer's website listing publications which have bought his articles as an edit summary. Calton | Talk 00:21, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable. Sefringle^Talk 00:24, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO ff m 13:00, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Does not meet WP:BIO or WP:N. - Rjd0060 17:27, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's nice to see a representative sample of deletion-happy users signing on to ratify a lie told by a malicious user. The link I cited in the deprod noted that the subject of the article has a book published by a major international publisher (Random House), that his articles are regularly included in major publisher compilations of the year's best travel writing, with links to the appropriate publishers to verify the information. Calton is a malicious troll who's embroiled in multiple acts of incivility (here,for example, he delivers an insulting rant against a fine editor who he falsely accused of vandalism, explaining that he was right because he's entitled to assume bad faith [25]). Note that the subject of this article has also won awards from the pertinent professional organization [26]. it may not be a Pulitzer prize, but it's a helluva lot more notable, by any rational standards, than winning "year's best blowjob" from a self-selected group of porn-obsessed bloggers, which confers Wikinotability on porno performers. VivianDarkbloom 22:33, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your particular obsession with porno articles, have a read of WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS: perhaps you can vent your frustration in more appropriate venues, such as at the AFD discussions I'm sure you'll be initiating instead of someplace as completely irrelevant as here. The rest of your misdirection by ad hominem can probably be safely ignored.
So any arguments that actually apply to the actual article under discussion? And which actually apply to the actual points made? --Calton | Talk 23:19, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your nose keeps growing longer, Calton. Perhaps you could explain why you don't believe that the fact that Rolf Potts has won awards for his writing from the pertinent professional organization isn't relevant to the article. Face it, you're a failed writer who takes out his spite on more successful ones. Vent your frustration in more appropriate venues, like banging your head against your bathroom wall, rather than telling lies [27] about other users. You haven't made a positive contribution to Wikipedia in your last, what, seven thousand contributions, but you do enjoy beating up on adolescent female newbees who post about their enthusiasms. Get a life. VivianDarkbloom 19:02, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Short answer, then, is "I got nothin'"? One "award" for "Best Internet Writing", from a minor trade organization? Surely you can do better than that?

No, strike that: all that flailing and venom tells me no, you can't. The various bits of your rant, though, add up to a revealingly textbook case of psychological projection in action. --Calton | Talk 23:48, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than spewing bile, you could read the citations I gave, but no, you resort to dishonest personal attacks. You are, after all, the guy who claims he has the right to accuse users of vandalism for deleting false reports that public figures have died, because you shouldn't have to was your time actually checking the facts, and the guy who insists he has the right to hurl racist insults at other users. Can't imagine why you have a problem with me cleaning up the slime created by dishonest, incompetent, and fanatical users like yourself, but hey, you haven't made a positive contribution to Wikipedia in godknowshowlong. VivianDarkbloom 22:23, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep per Snow - Non-Admin Closure . Fosnez 10:03, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

History of conversion of Jews to Islam

These articles are clear propaganda. This is an obvious POV fork that clearly lacks notability; it is poorly sourced and has been for over a year, and they are obvious POV magnets. Even more important, it is unsourced and unverifiable.

I am also nominating Jewish Christians for deletion, becuase it has the exact same problems as this article. It too is an unsourced pro-Christian POV fork. Sefringle^Talk 00:18, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Huh? What point of view? Forked from what article? Possible bad faith "POV" nominations. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 01:13, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever is sourced here, (which is very little of the article- most of the article is unsourced OR) belongs in Judaism and Christianity or Islam and Judaism. They are POV, as they give undue weight to the views of those who leave Judaism. Not to mention everything stated has been mentioned in other articles. Sefringle^Talk 01:19, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep both The Jewish christian article has reliable sources, though some are listed as External references. I think there would be hundred of others. I notice a long history of editing disagreements, and this is not the way to solve them. The Islam article is somewhat less extensively developed, but it too is a clearly notable topic. Nominating them together does seem like POV. DGG (talk) 01:18, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I nominated them together because they both are POV forks, and they are both poorly sourced. The muslim article does not show notability, so prehaps you can explain hoe it is clearly notable.Everything that is sourced belongs in other articles. Sefringle^Talk 01:28, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. —Eliyak T·C 01:35, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comments "Everything that is sourced belongs in other articles" Thats why they are in a new, separate article. Its to bring them all together in one topic. All the information in "Automobile" and "economics" can be found in other articles too. Its not just POV to write an article on a subject, its also POV to delete all articles that you object to, leaving just your article and your voice. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 01:39, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not nominating all articles I object to leaving only my voice. I am proposing deleting two clear unsourced POV forks which belong in articles where the content actually is sourced. Material that is inherently POV should be deleted, especially without sources, as it goes against wikipedia's WP:V policy. Sefringle^Talk 01:56, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep The article I read looks well-sourced using reliable and verifiable sources to satisfy the Wikipedia:Notability standard. I'm not sure where the POV is, other than in the nomination. Alansohn 03:04, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Islam article has all of 3 sources. [28], which is a book review that doesn't show notability in itself. The second source [29] is relevant, but alone doesn't establish notability. It would be better if this one statement was moved to another article. The third source is a book source that doesn't establish notability. The forth source [30] barely talks about the relevance of the topic. The Christian article at least has an external links section, but overall has no merits which prove notability. The links are similar to those sources in Judaism and Christianity, and the article itself has no viable content. How does these poorly sourced articles satisfy wikipedia's notability standards? Sefringle^Talk 03:18, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. the articles has references and doesn't look like having a POV. possible bad faith nom (probable COI) after seeing nominator's userpage and the "shotgun" reasons for deletion.--Lenticel ^(talk) 03:40, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete. Clear case of original research (see WP:OR). Angelo 23:21, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Creative Physics

This is unfocussed and seems unencyclopedic to me and is probably original research. Grahamec 02:19, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, fails WP:OR, WP:BIO, and others. This is a net.crank's biography/ad for his own crankiness. Alba 04:33, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This page has been userfied by its own author, User:Science-art. I am therefore marking the mainspace page as speedy A5. Alba 21:10, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article makes very little sense, and nothing I've seen in a trawl through physics journals and Google suggests that it would be possible to rescue it. One unrelated hit on a physics journal, and 19 GScholar hits whose value I can't determine because I have no idea whether they're related to the article's subject matter. Seriously, what is it even about? The run-on sentences full of names and titles don't help readability either. Unverifiable as it stands, as nom points out WP:OR is likely. Notable - who knows? --Kateshort forbob 11:50, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources and nonsensical ff m 13:01, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:OR and WP:N. Tbo ¹⁵⁷(talk) (review) 16:39, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete.~~ Speedy delete. This is original research, and about as blatant as can be. Burntsauce 17:22, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Pure WP:OR. Time to break out the WP:SNOW shovel. Bfigura ^(talk) 18:03, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete I think I know less about "creative physics" after reading this article than before, when I had never heard of it. Now that's a bit at cross-purpose with the goal of an encyclopedia, isn't it?--Victor falk 22:19, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Since it has a name at the bottom, looks more like an essay.--JForget 23:40, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletions. —Espresso Addict 02:25, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nonsense. • Lawrence Cohen 22:37, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] WP:NOT#NEWS was added to WP:NOT during the controversy surrounding the events considered in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff, admonishes editors to "[keep] in mind the harm our work might cause", and advises that "While Wikipedia strives to be comprehensive, the policies on biographies of living persons and neutral point of view should lead us to contextualize events appropriately, which may preclude a biography about someone who is not an encyclopedic subject, despite a brief appearance in the news." The extent to which WP:NOT#NEWS ever applies to any articles other than biographies of living persons that present a substantial risk of causing serious embarrassment, humiliation, or other harm to their subjects is therefore doubtful. Archetypical of the sort of article that clearly qualifies for deletion under WP#NOT:NEWS would be a biography of a person whose sole claim to notability is an arrest for driving while intoxicated, where the event was only covered in two local newspapers.

[1]