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

The result was delete. -- Core desat 04:45, 7 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Daniel Mirante (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

Although this article about a visionary artist claims notability, there are no independent reliable sources that substantiate any of the information here, hence this article fails WP:NOTE. Google for <"Daniel Mirante"> (with quotes) finds 59 results, none from reliable sources and all mention the subject very briefly. [1] Search for <"Daniel Mirante" "Journal of Cosmic Play"> gets 5 results - the journal itself, Wikipedia, and a blog. [2] JSTOR, Factiva and LexisNexis turn up no results. Resurgent insurgent 00:30, 2 April 2007 (UTC) reply

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. – Alf^Photoman 20:30, 2 April 2007 (UTC) reply

• Delete unless reliable sources are added before close of AfD. WP:COI issues exist. janejellyroll 00:31, 2 April 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete fails WP:BIO, WP:COI, unlikely to be reliably sourced Hornandsoccer ^Talk 01:08, 2 April 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete there are no sources used in the article and it as created by a user with the same name as the article subject ( WP:COI). Darth griz ⁹⁸ 01:21, 2 April 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete per Hornandsoccer. Sr13 ( T| C) 01:53, 2 April 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete Fails WP:BIO and WP:V-- Dacium 04:04, 2 April 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete: Per nom and above comments. Seicer ( talk) ( contribs) 06:11, 2 April 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete- fails to meet the critera of WP:BIO Thunderwing 08:26, 2 April 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete per above - fails WP:BIO and not likely to be sourced. - Anas ^talk? 11:36, 2 April 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete per everyone else. Acalamari 16:58, 2 April 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete unless backed up by non-trivial secondary sources by end of this AfD. As is fails WP:A and WP:BIO Special Cases Alf^Photoman 20:41, 2 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Hello I am considered by many artists within the field as a valuable contributor to the visionary art scene. Right now the visionary art scene is somewhat esoteric, so unless you take the time to research it you may not appreciate my contributution.

I have written the wiki entry on visionary art and many of the practicing artists there have wiki entries. I have added a wiki entry for myself and it appears 'resurgent insurgent' has it in for me for some reason. This entry is simply to contexturise my work within the visionary art scene. I'm not 'self advertising'. Most of the projects I have conducted within the visionary art movement have been to bring more attention to artists in this scene.

I have been published in several journals considered important to the contemporary visionary art scene. These include 'The Visionary Revue' at visionaryrevue.com (check the page to see the high profile of my projects'. The famous visionary artist Oleg Korolev has claimed that the www.lila.info project, run by myself, represents best the current scene as it stands.

I have published several unique interviews with the representatives of the visionary art movement and also produced historical and theoretical contexturisations of the scene. Only two other people, Laurence Caruana and Jon Beinart, are involved in this work.

I am also an apprentice of the famous artist Brigid Marlin www.brigidmarlin.com... she runs the Society for Art of the Imagination, which is considered one of the most important organisations in the visionary art scene. I have written several articles and had work published in the Inscape magazine which is one of the only regular journals to cover the visionary art movement. My membership to ths society can be verified with Brigid Marlin or my work viewed on the societies site.

I have had work published by Elfintome which is the West coast flagship for the visionary art movement.

Basically, I feel foolish by these neccesary self-justifications but I feel my integrity and intention is being questioned by this action to remove my existence from Wikipedia. My work is considered important by people within this fledgling scene, but I can understand from the perspective of someone who knows nothing about this movement that my wiki entry may seem pointless. But is that fair to judge unless someone is aware of this scene in detail ? I don't go to areas of wiki that I know little about and then question peoples relevance or the integrity of their work.

Daniel Mirante

Danielmirante 12:24, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, so looking at the big red signs pasted onto the wiki entry in my name, and surveying the objections to the wikipedia guidelines (which do say "is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense"... and "is a guideline, not a policy", I had my partner the editted wikipedia entry, so it no longer conforms to 'autobiography', nor does it fall under biography because it is not a life review. It is a discussion of a participant in the visionary art scene and is intended to be an informational source on my work.

Just because the 'judges' of this entry may not be aware of the field under discussion here does not give grounds for deletion, since this would be an act of deletion through a prejudice toward subject matter... or rather ignorance of subject matter ... visionary art may be irrelevant to you but this is not the basis on which information should be deleted from wikipedia.

Also, 'lack of reliable sources', I want to know what 'reliable' means as this is not quantified by wiki.

Resurgent Insurgent is wrong about 'lack of reliable sources' - there are several websites (www.elfintome.com, www.lila.info, www.visionaryrevue.com, www.artofimagination.org etc) and publications that carry my work, and I am the apprentice of a painter who is acknowledged as a visionary master artist. What is so unreliable about this ? You may never have heard of my work but the people involved in the scene under discussion have.

Similarly my friend has provided avenues to verify the existence of my art career and writings, which may be of no personal interest or relevance to you, but will be to people interested in visionary art.

Wikipedia has room to grow... it is not a paper encyclopedia. If it is useful to the people concerned with visionary art then let it be  !

Best Daniel Mirante

80.229.40.235 15:36, 3 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Quote by Oleg Korolev, visionary art master

"By the way such art enthusiasts as Brigid Marlin ( and her "Society of Art of Imagination"), Jon Beinart ( and this forum) and Keith Wigdor ("Surrealism Now") , Daniel Mirante ( lila.info ), actually represent this movement now ... AND THAT IS ALL...! "

http://www.koro-art.com/ http://surrealartforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=1017

15:51, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Painting of Daniel Mirante by Brigid Marlin , founder of the Society of Art of Imagination

http://brigidmarlin.com/Pages/CatholicMysteries/Resurrection.html

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

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

The result was delete. -- Core desat 04:46, 7 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Paul Arbour (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

Clearly fails WP:BIO - can come back if he gets elected to Provincial office - Delete Bridgeplayer 00:38, 2 April 2007 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom. Resurgent insurgent 00:42, 2 April 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete fails WP:BIO, probable violation of WP:COI (see history) can be recreated later if he wins something bigger Hornandsoccer ^Talk 01:07, 2 April 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete WP:BIO failure-- Dacium 04:05, 2 April 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete: Per nom and above comments. Recreate if held in higher, more notable position. Seicer ( talk) ( contribs) 06:11, 2 April 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete - Although the nom and others have got some rather basic facts wrong (he has just been nominated for a federal riding, not a provincial one, and his nomination is for the next election, not the last one), he hasn't won yet and doesn't pass WP:BIO. (In fact, he was just nominated to run against the Minister of Defence a week ago.) -- Charlene 14:25, 2 April 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete not notable at the moment. Acalamari 16:59, 2 April 2007 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. -- Core desat 04:47, 7 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Ybarra Elementary School (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

An editor suggested I take this to AfD, so I am doing so. Without the irrelevant details about current faculty, this "article" consists of a one-line description. Without sources or claims to notability it appears to be unable to be expanded beyond this. There are many things in the world that exist, but Wikipedia is not a catalog of them. Salad Days 02:48, 27 March 2007 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom, NN school. TJ Spyke 08:07, 27 March 2007 (UTC) reply
• Comment. It's stubby but if "Its' A.P.I. score was over 900 for 4 consecutive years." can be verified, I think it might be worth keeping. - Mgm| ^(talk) 12:27, 27 March 2007 (UTC) reply
• Keep once again: ALL SCHOOLS are notable. The infancy of this article is not grounds for deletion. Allow the seed to grow. Jerry 21:52, 1 April 2007 (UTC) reply

If you look at the history of the editor who created the article, you might be less optimistic that it will grow, at least any time soon. I'm all for giving people time, but only if I've got some indication that there's someone out there who will actually improve the article. I see no evidence of that. What I see is a potential vandal magnet. It can always be recreated. Noroton 05:04, 2 April 2007 (UTC) reply

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjB scribe 01:00, 2 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Delete: The concept that "all schools are notable" is a position held by a faction of editors that is neither enshrined, either explicitly or implicitly, in any policy or guideline, and that one of the hallmarks of this curious notion is that such articles be exempt from any standard of verification or attribution. It certainly isn't anything by which tacit eyerolling at how dense we are is merited. As far as this particular school goes, its claims are unsourced and unsupported, and it hasn't been worked on since its creation. RGTraynor 13:25, 2 April 2007 (UTC) reply

• Delete. A school is subject to the exact same notability guidelines as anything else here on WP. Jerry, note that this article has been around for just about three months - it could have been expanded in that time. As an aside, the article is badly written - though, that's not a criteria for deletion unto itself, it's a criteria for cleanup. -- Dennisthe2 02:41, 2 April 2007 (UTC) reply
• Keep if reliable sources can be provided regarding API scores before the close of this debate. Yamaguchi先生 03:24, 2 April 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete WP:V failure, which leads to it not having WP:N-- Dacium 04:06, 2 April 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete unless sourcing was provided as per Yamaguchi's comment, in which case I'd change my vote. Noroton 05:01, 2 April 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete: Per nom and above comments. A short one-line zinger. Seicer ( talk) ( contribs) 06:12, 2 April 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete Not noteable. Dalejenkins 08:22, 2 April 2007 (UTC) reply
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- Noroton 15:27, 2 April 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete There is no consensus at Wikipedia that all schools are or are not inherently notable, as evidenced by the many AfDs closed at "keep", "delete" and "no consensus". Since there is no special dispensation for school articles, they have to pass WP:A and WP:N to be retained, and this one does not. -- Butseriouslyfolks 17:24, 2 April 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete I believe all post-secondary schools are notable and that most secondary schools are as well. However, I believe few primary schools are. TonyTheTiger ( talk/ cont/ bio) 19:26, 2 April 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete nn school, clear-cut case. DES ^(talk) 20:41, 2 April 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete, not suitable for WP in its current state. -- Sn0wflake 22:59, 2 April 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete as failing the standards of notability to which all article subjects (schools included) are subject. The "API score" thing might be a point of notability, but it's unsourced at the moment. What does it mean, anyway? BigHaz - Schreit mich an 09:14, 3 April 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete, all efforts at coming up with consensus guidelines for school notability have failed to date. I tend to think that all colleges and universities will be able to meet the primary notability guidelines, but am extremely dubious about any "all" arguments for anything beyond that. This does not meet the primary notability criteria for articles, not to mention WP:ATT/ WP:V, and as such, should be deleted. Xtifr _tälk 21:38, 3 April 2007 (UTC) reply
• Keep Assume that more information can be added. Hmwith 10:03, 4 April 2007 (UTC) reply

• Comment: An encyclopedia with pretentious to accuracy and utility can't "assume" anything, and WP:ATT doesn't permit it. RGTraynor 02:57, 5 April 2007 (UTC) reply

• Delete: Just not notable, unsourced, too chatty (POV), too short, and too difficult to work with. Who is it named for? Is there any trivia related to the school? Does it meet the Google test? Has anyone notable ever graduated from this school? Does every school in the US have to be listed? Bearian 00:10, 5 April 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete. The article does not describes the subject. "Introduction" is poor and it should be rewritten (that means, the whole article should be rewritten). Meanwhile, it does not meet criteria for keeping. Rjgodoy 12:15, 6 April 2007 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was Merge and redirect -- Bubba hotep 09:35, 7 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Craig D. Calam (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

Non Notable Person make no other accomplishments other than as a supporting cast member on the Uncle Floyd Show They call me Mr. Pibb 00:29, 27 March 2007 (UTC) reply

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 09:13, 27 March 2007 (UTC) reply

• Delete Non notable regional performer StuartDouglas 10:13, 27 March 2007 (UTC) reply
• Keep regular cast member in a very notable show. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:15, 27 March 2007 (UTC) reply

• Merge merge with the Uncle Floyd Show DCUnitedFan2011 12:24, 31 March 2007 (UTC) reply

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjB scribe 01:00, 2 April 2007 (UTC) reply

• Merge and Redirect to The Uncle Floyd Show. Not notable enough for own article.-- Dacium 04:08, 2 April 2007 (UTC) reply
• Merge and redirect: To The Uncle Floyd Show, per above comments. Performer non-notable by himself. Seicer ( talk) ( contribs) 06:13, 2 April 2007 (UTC) reply
• Merge and redirect: To The Uncle Floyd Show, per above comments. Poeloq 08:42, 2 April 2007 (UTC) reply
• Merge and redirect as above. Myself, I wouldn't characterize a local broadcast offering available only through a couple stations in the NYC area as a "very notable show." I can't think of many examples of such shows where its cast members had notability beyond mention of the shows themselves. Ravenswing 13:33, 2 April 2007 (UTC) reply
• Merge and redirect per everyone who also said to merge and redirect. Acalamari 17:00, 2 April 2007 (UTC) reply
• Keep the man paid his dues in television and should be recognized for it especially since he is now deceased. BobCrayson 08:21, 3 April 2007 (UTC) reply

• Comment: Wikipedia is not a memorial. Ravenswing 13:24, 3 April 2007 (UTC) reply
• Comment: I agree with Ravenswing Wikipedia is not a memorial and after thinking about this I would not be opposed to a Merge and Redirect with the The Uncle Floyd Show article. They call me Mr. Pibb 06:28, 4 April 2007 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Even the deleters don't sound terribly convinced of the case. - Splash - tk 15:47, 8 April 2007 (UTC) reply

The Carnival Band (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

Non-notable band per WP:MUSIC. The mentions in reliable publications are trivial; other sources are self-published. RJASE1 ^Talk 13:29, 27 March 2007 (UTC) reply

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjB scribe 01:00, 2 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Weak Delete Does not seem to be enough for WP:MUSIC, there are no sources of non triviality, just mentions in local papers about them playing somewhere. did not tour nationally etc.-- Dacium 04:14, 2 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Weak keep: Does need a rewrite but I did find some basic information through a Google search. Needs information regarding tours other than the one-line zinger. Seicer ( talk) ( contribs) 06:14, 2 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Delete Weak Delete as per nom and Dacium. Springnuts 06:32, 2 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Keep, has enough notability. -- Sn0wflake 23:01, 2 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Weak Keep - We're clearly into the realms of the obscure and specialist interest lobby here, but there is just enough non trivial coverage available to meet WP:Music. A1octopus 23:14, 4 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Keep has sufficient notability. Kukini ^{hablame aqui} 00:35, 7 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Delete. Fails WP:MUSIC quite clearly. There is no non-trivial coverage that I can see. It's all press clippings from local papers. Nothing more than their name, a photo, and that they played at such-and-such location. Half of the press section in the article is about other bands that are similar. Rookwood ^{Dept. of Mysteries} 15:18, 7 April 2007 (UTC) reply

• Keep. They've toured Europe and played on the East Coast. This is sufficient for WP:BAND. Herostratus 06:34, 8 April 2007 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. -- Core desat 04:48, 7 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Carr Creek elementary school (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

Not notable Epbr123 14:21, 27 March 2007 (UTC) reply

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- Noroton 16:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC) reply
• weak keep The school seems to be notably effective in science--at least I think that's what I think it's trying to say. I haven't seen an article before suggesting notability of the basis of what conferences the teachers went to. Notable teachers do make a school notable, and this might be a good direction for those writing articles on the subject to try--although I don't think this particular instance is sufficient for that. If sources are supplied, I'd accept this article. DGG 23:56, 27 March 2007 (UTC) reply
• Weak Delete pending verification and attribution of sufficient awards. -- Butseriouslyfolks 01:48, 29 March 2007 (UTC) reply

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjB scribe 01:00, 2 April 2007 (UTC) reply

• Weak delete echoing User:Butseriouslyfolks. They assert notability, but they don't have links. Change my mind. -- Dennisthe2 02:42, 2 April 2007 (UTC) reply
• Redirect to Knott County, Kentucky. We already have a guideline in place for this, WP:LOCAL, we do not need to be repeatedly flooding AFD with these. Yamaguchi先生 03:22, 2 April 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete Has not be able to verify notibility (which was extremely weak to begin with).-- Dacium 04:17, 2 April 2007 (UTC) reply
• DeleteRedirect (I missed Yamaguchi's comments until after I hit the edit button. I strongly agree with him. Best solution) no one but us is paying attention to it. It's ripe for vandalism. Someone searching for information on the school would probably be better satisfied through a search engine than by looking at this article. Not even a deletion discussion has attracted any local supporters. Noroton 04:42, 2 April 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete: Unverified information, non-notable school. Yeah, it has won awards, but so have dozens of other schools in the state. Seicer ( talk) ( contribs) 06:15, 2 April 2007 (UTC) reply
• Keep nomination falls squarely into Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions   ALKIVAR ™ ☢ 06:28, 2 April 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Why is that a reason to keep?! Its obvious why it isn't notable. Epbr123 10:13, 2 April 2007 (UTC) reply
• Keep I am somewhat inclusionist about schools and so would tend towards keep in any case, however imo passes notability tests. Springnuts 06:36, 2 April 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete or Redirect Non-notable school. TJ Spyke 07:34, 2 April 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete or Redirect As per nom. Dalejenkins 08:16, 2 April 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete non-notable school, fails WP:ATT, no sourcing at all. Odds that the article will be improved are near to zero, given that it is the sole Wikipedia activity of the creator, and that much nearly five months ago. (Quite aside from anything else, I'm unimpressed with the use of "Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions," an essay representing the opinion of its authors which is neither policy, guideline nor consensus, as a citation.) Ravenswing 15:30, 2 April 2007 (UTC) reply
• Weak Delete Conceivably it is notable, but there is no source whatever to demonstrate it. If they have been doing as well as claimed, here should be something. DGG 02:35, 3 April 2007 (UTC) reply
• Weak Keep Requires sourcing, but passes notability. Kukini ^{hablame aqui} 00:38, 7 April 2007 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 04:51, 7 April 2007 (UTC) reply

The Upwelling (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

The subject of the article does not meet the guidelines for notability per WP:MUSIC Nv8200p talk 14:29, 27 March 2007 (UTC) reply

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjB scribe 01:00, 2 April 2007 (UTC) reply

• Weak Keep the band does have outside reliable sources and is touring with the notable band Third Eye Blind, but it does need a few more sources. Darth griz ⁹⁸ 01:30, 2 April 2007 (UTC) reply
• Weak Delete Where does it pass WP:MUSIC. 2 reviews from web-zines and touring with Third Eye Blind is not a tour for WP:MUSIC standards.-- Dacium 04:38, 2 April 2007 (UTC) reply
• Keep Properly cited notable accomplishments so that they pass I believe. TonyTheTiger ( talk/ cont/ bio) 19:44, 2 April 2007 (UTC) reply
• Keep, as it does assert notability. -- Sn0wflake 23:02, 2 April 2007 (UTC) reply
• Keep -asserts notability with citation. -- Kukini ^{hablame aqui} 00:41, 7 April 2007 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was redirect to Battlelore. -- Core desat 04:50, 7 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Kaisa Jouhki (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

No assertion of notability per WP:MUSIC for an independent article. Nv8200p talk 15:21, 27 March 2007 (UTC) reply

• Replace it with a redirect to "Battlelore." None of the other members appear to have pages, and she doesn't seem to be individually notable. You can delete first if needed. - MrFizyx 06:24, 31 March 2007 (UTC) reply

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjB scribe 01:00, 2 April 2007 (UTC) reply

• Redirect to Battlelore - there is nothing in the article to assert notability beyond her connection to that band Hornandsoccer ^Talk 20:52, 2 April 2007 (UTC) reply
• Redirect to Battlelore - this individual does not seem to have notability or fame other than as a member of this band. A1octopus 15:53, 4 April 2007 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. — Cryptic 01:22, 7 April 2007 (UTC) reply

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

The subject of the article does not meet the guidelines for notability per WP:MUSIC. Nv8200p talk 15:31, 27 March 2007 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom. Vaguely 20:07, 28 March 2007 (UTC) reply

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjB scribe 01:01, 2 April 2007 (UTC) reply

• Delete YouTube-only artist. NawlinWiki 03:45, 2 April 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete No notibility. Not Verifiable out side of it self since no reliable sources-- Dacium 04:41, 2 April 2007 (UTC) reply
• Keep Article could be cleaned up, but it should not be deleted. Just because she is a on Youtube doesn't mean she doesn't deserve an article. Can we please cut the snobbiness?-- Darth Borehd 01:08, 7 April 2007 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Disregarding single-purpose accounts, the arguments for deletion are stronger than those for keeping. There was nothing presented to satisfy WP:ATT and WP:RS. -- Core desat 04:53, 7 April 2007 (UTC) reply

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}}.

The Filthy Truth (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

A web mailing list that doesn't seem to meet the guidelines laid out in WP:WEB. Googling only brings up about 600 ghits, almost all of which are irrelevant. This article fails WP:ATT and is not verifiable through reliable secondary sources. The current references consist of a forum mention and a copy of something from the mailing list itself. The article has been tagged with the "verify" tag since November and no improvements have been made to it. Delete as such. Wickethewok 15:36, 27 March 2007 (UTC) reply

• Delete per WP:WEB, and the only sources are from forums... bad sign. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:16, 27 March 2007 (UTC) reply

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjB scribe 01:01, 2 April 2007 (UTC) reply

• Delete. A mailing list has to prove that it's notable, which is admittedly hard. At the time of this edit, there are two links that don't prove notability. -- Dennisthe2 02:43, 2 April 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete Sourced by a mention on a forum, no reliable sources. No notibility, Not verifiable as its now private.-- Dacium 04:43, 2 April 2007 (UTC) reply
• Keep TFT remains to be one of the most influential mailing lists in the games industry. Anyone may join if they are proposed and seconded and the so-called exclusive nature of the list is little more than mythical. MrMarmite 21:42, 2 April 2007 (UTC) reply
• Keep A proposal to delete clearly shows a lack of knowledge of the significance of this mailing list. ACarPark 21:52, 2 April 2007 (UTC) reply

• Personal testimony really isn't worth much. Do you have any sources to back up your claims? Wickethewok 23:20, 2 April 2007 (UTC) reply

• Keep This list is very well known to those who work in the games development industry, particularly those who came from or worked in the UK or US. The mere fact that those outside of the games development industry don't know about it or cannot find it on Google doesn't mean this article should be deleted. This site is after all a repository of knowledge and I would have thought because some knowledge is not well known by the general population but is also entirely accurate is good reason that it should be kept for future generations. Before anyone tries to claim personal testimony isn't worth much then I say they should reconsider because the personal testimony of someone with qualifications in a relevant field is actually worth something. My credentials as a games developer are as follows: http://www.mobygames.com/developer/sheet/view/developerId,99935/ Fnagaton 23:45, 2 April 2007 (UTC) reply

• Per WP:ATT, Articles need to be based on independent reliable sources, regardless of who vouches for the supposed notability of something. Wickethewok 00:38, 3 April 2007 (UTC) reply
• A source doesn't always have to be a link on the internet. Fnagaton 01:16, 3 April 2007 (UTC) reply

• Quite true. But you've failed to bring up any print sources either. Wickethewok 04:23, 3 April 2007 (UTC) reply

• Print sources and internet sources are not the only sources either. You wouldn't dismiss that a public speaking event happened just because you had not been there to witness it in person would you? You do have the ability to take personal testimony from an expert in a relevant field as a source don't you? You can contact me directly to verify what I write here. Fnagaton 09:31, 3 April 2007 (UTC) reply

• Weak Keep as Probably notable, with understanding about the difficulty of sourcing, but at least something could be added about N people who regularly post there. DGG 02:37, 3 April 2007 (UTC) reply
• Keep as one of the original contributors to the body text of the Filthy Truth entry, it was decided to keep the wiki entry short and simple. too many wikipedia entries have become bloated and over-edited. the reason this page has not been updated in so long is that it says everything it needs to say, that are many much larger wiki entries that have less worth than this humble page. The Filthy Truth is more than a mailing list, its an online community that has had a huge impact on the games industry itself, the fact that it is one of the few places Games Developers can talk openly is one of it largest apeals to members. Many of the other places that the games industry communicate ( and where the Filty Truth is well known )are heavily monitored by the larger games companies ( Sony, Microsoft, EA ) and the ability to help others is limited for fear of reprisals. the Filthy Truth has contributed greatly to the development of hundreds of Video games that are listed in Wikipedia, please allow the people who made these games to also have a small place here too, and a little recognition. MrStarslayer 04:07, 3 April 2007 (UTC) reply
• Keep TFT, although private, is an important mailing list for people involved in games development. If Wikipedia is to fulfil its aim of being a comprehensive online encyclopaedia, it must include all information, not just that which is well known or easy to find. A short article on TFT takes up very little space, and provides information on another aspect of the business and politics that goes with game development. Molesworth 08:29, 3 April 2007 (UTC)Molesworth — Molesworth ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
  • Might want to check out WP:ABOUTEVERYTHING for a good reason. -- Dennisthe2 21:47, 3 April 2007 (UTC) reply
• Keep The Filthy Truth remains an important part of the UK games industry subculture. It has been around for years, has hundreds of members and because of its active stream of information, debate & news will probably be around for many years more. 152.114.1.10 08:56, 3 April 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Comment The currently listed Yahoo directory for The Filthy Truth displays a total membership of 110. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ Yell ○ 18:31, 5 April 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete no sources that can verify its notability + Hexagon1 ^{( t)} 09:14, 3 April 2007 (UTC) reply
• Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri ( via) 13:51, 3 April 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete Unfortunately, there's no sources in the article. Any searching for sources is pretty well fruitless, as "The filthy truth" is a common enough phrase that even tossing qualifiers into the search term doesn't yield verifiable results. As word of mouth doesn't count as a verifiable source, I would suggest that those arguing for the article being kept find actual sources. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ speak ○ see ○ 18:20, 3 April 2007 (UTC) reply
  • "No sources in the article"? There are sources, I for one am a personal source and relevant industry expert. The article itself has http://www.firq.cwc.net/filthy.htm and http://www.answers.com/topic/james-poole Fnagaton 22:39, 3 April 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Oh, sorry. To clarify: There's nothing that meets the policy-defined concept of a reliable source. You might also want to check out the policy on verifiability. To sum it up: You are not a reliable source. Neither is a reposting of a forum thread, and Answers.com relies heavily on Wikipedia itself for it's content. Something which would be required is an article (as in published as content, not in forums) ON The Filthy Truth in a publication like EGM or on a site like IGN or 1UP.com. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ speak ○ see ○ 23:55, 3 April 2007 (UTC) reply
      • You are incorrect to try to dismiss my reliability because you have made no attempt to contact me in person to verify me as a source despite you having more than enough information to do so. I've been in the games industry for over ten years, I find it deplorable that you should attempt to dismiss an expert in a relevant field. According to your rules on reliable sources I am a primary source. Fnagaton 00:32, 4 April 2007 (UTC) reply
        • No - you are not a reliable source. Period. Even if you are who you say you are, even if those are your credentials, and even if those credentials qualified you to verify this article, interviewing you for the purposes of editing this article would be WP:OR on our part. You would only qualify as a source if you had been interviewed and published by a reliable and independent entity, and anything you say would need to be confirmed by another reliable and independant source. All industries have secret gatherings and in-jokes - that doesn't mean that any of these are suitable for Wikipedia. Please read WP:ATT and understand it. Delete for failing WP:V - CosmicPenguin ( Talk) 01:42, 4 April 2007 (UTC) reply
          • "Even if you are who you say you are"? What rubbish. For your information I have been "interviewed and published by a reliable and independent entity" more than once and that is something you would have found out if you had checked the sources I have already given. Fnagaton 07:11, 4 April 2007 (UTC) reply
            • Look, just read the Wikipedia policies I directed you to. I have no doubts you are an established professional with years of experience. I am not calling this into question. The problem is that sources need to meet verifiability standards. We can't treat you as a source because we'd be running off of your word alone. If we used you as a source, there's no guarantee that someone reading the article three months down the line could contact you to verify your claims, let alone a year or two years down the line. All good articles in Wikipedia have sources which can be investigated by anyone reading them, and at lease one source is REQUIRED for any article. You are not a source as defined by policy, though I'm certain you could contribute a fair amount of knowledge on this subject, as well as many other subjects. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ speak ○ see ○ 13:35, 4 April 2007 (UTC) reply
              • I have read the policies you posted and I don't see anything in them that would merit removing the article since the article does describe something which is probably notable as described by DGG above. However nothing is guaranteed, for example nothing guarantees that any interview on any site will stay there for years. It was CosmicPenguin that made the dubious comments about "Even if you are who you say you are" and I responded to that insinuation because it is not true. Fnagaton 13:51, 4 April 2007 (UTC) reply
                • The conflict boils down to this: you require peer review, as well, especially if you are being a primary source. I will confess that, when somebody comes up and says something like "I'm a reliable source!", it sets up alarms all over the place - but that could be shellshock from participating in other rather...well, noisy AFDs. =^_^= Anyway, point being is that WP:RS doesn't exclude you, but now we have another issue - a mailing list is typically perceived as being little more than a means of communications for a group of people with a common interest, and I personally would compare it in notability to a conference room at an office - so to prove this list notable is, from what I can see, going to be a major struggle. So that said, you'll still have to change our minds. Good luck. -- Dennisthe2 14:55, 4 April 2007 (UTC) reply
                  • Thank you Dennisthe2, I knew WP:RS does not exclude me despite what some other above were claiming, this was my point. ;) So moving forward, would you agree that being "peer reviewed" in this instance would be a case of someone else with similar or better background in the games industry to corroborate what I've been saying? May I also assume from your comment that you don't particularly agree with the whole List of mailing lists? Fnagaton 16:38, 4 April 2007 (UTC) reply
                    • As for the list, another primary would help, but if you're using people to vouch for the list, you need to have some other resources. Good question on the list of mailing lists as well, as it does bring up another point. The Linux Kernel Mailing List alone gets coverage at least on Slashdot - partially I think because Linus Torvalds still participates a bit in discussion, and of course, when Linus so much as farts, Slashdot listens. =^_^= Something like that for TFT would, I think, be a keeper. -- Dennisthe2 18:30, 4 April 2007 (UTC) reply
                      • This idea has legs and I will see what can be done about providing another primary. Fnagaton 15:21, 5 April 2007 (UTC) reply
                    • For what it's worth, btw, I think CosmicPenguin's comment can probably be reinterpreted: anybody can say they are you, especially on the internet, and likewise, somebody to vouch for you online can come about at random as well (see WP:SOCK for a one example of this - not to say you're sockpuppeting, just demonstrating a point). This would be why we especially want a secondary and even a tertiary source for an expert vouching for something. If you can come up with something, this would be worth holding the AfD open a little longer, I think, if we have to - but that's just me. -- Dennisthe2 21:22, 4 April 2007 (UTC) reply
                      • Absolutely right. There is somebody out there in meatspace with those credentials, but we have no way of knowing if those credentials belong to the person posting with the username 'Fnagaton'. As we were recently reminded in a very public way, we cannot assume good faith about the credentials of anybody who posts here. That is why it is is so important that we get reliable sources. If somebody comes here and states "I am Dr. Somebody, I am an expert in this field, and you can trust me that this is true", then in order to use that as a reliable source, we have to somehow qualify Dr. Somebody as an expert - this is nearly impossible to do. But if the same poster came along and said "I am Dr. Somebody, I am an expert in this field, here is an article about it in the London Times" - then all anybody has to do to verify it is go to the London Times and read the article, and we don't care if the poster is Dr. Somebody or not, because we're not relying on them. Thats how the system works. You can take offense at all this if you wish, but many of us also happen to be professionals and experts in our respective fields, and yet not a single one of us enjoy the right to post freely without attributing our work. - CosmicPenguin ( Talk) 03:42, 5 April 2007 (UTC) reply
                        • "but we have no way of knowing if those credentials belong to the person posting with the username 'Fnagaton'" - You can use the contact details I have posted here and on my user page to send an email to my company (which you can also verify as being notable by doing a simple search) whereupon I will confirm that this user account and the "Martin Piper" who has been in the games industry for over ten years are in fact the same person. I've invited this kind of verifiable contact more than once on this page and nobody has yet done so.
                          • Perhaps you're not quite understanding the issue here. We don't care whether you are who you claim to be. That is not the issue. You could be and nobody's actively disputing that. However, policy requires us not to take this at face value. If you'd like to contribute your knowledge, you must do so via articles and interviews with Martin Piper which have been published elsewhere. We cannot take your word for this due to policy. You may not always be a wikipedia contributor and you may not always be accessible to those who've read the page and wish to verify the statements made. Because of THAT SPECIFIC REASON, you are not a source. Period. A source is something that anyone reading the article can check right then and there, without having to contact someone else and request clarification. A source is words written, or words spoken and recorded. An EGM article in which you give an interview, for example, will always be there. It doesn't require specific contact with you to flip open EGM issue for random month/random year and verify what you've said. That's what makes EGM a source, but not User:Fnagaton. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ speak ○ see ○ 14:04, 5 April 2007 (UTC) reply
                            • I understand perfectly and it looks like you are wrong because you started off this trying to claim there are no reliable sources, to which I provided sources and myself as a source and as later pointed out by Dennisthe2 regarding WP:RS does not exclude me. You and others then tried to start claiming you couldn't verify who I am. I have given you more than enough information for you to verify who I am, my industry experience and my company notability. I am not expecting you to "take my word for this" but I do expect you to follow policy and to conduct the required checks you are meant to do from the information provided. What you are doing is continuing to post verifiability and to dismiss the information that does allow verifiability. It was it noted in the record that not one of those complaining about verifiability have actually made any effort to verify who I am because nobody has gone to my company website and emailed the company to try to make contact. It is your job to check and you are not doing it. By the way, at least one of the links in my user profile is a reliable source to a respected site that lists profiles of some of those working in the games industry and the information they post is peer reviewed and verified, that is how you get to my company website and then you can contact me through there to verify the facts posted here. Fnagaton 15:06, 5 April 2007 (UTC) reply
                              • You've misinterpreted Dennisthe2's comments. Specifically, regarding you as a reliable source. By the strict definition of a reliable source, you would count. To quote WP:RS "Primary sources are documents or people very close to the situation you are writing about. An eyewitness account of a traffic accident published in a newspaper, and the White House's summary of a president's speech are primary sources." Both are not just "So and So said X to us on a Talk Page", but "So and So said X in a newspaper". Cheers, Lankybugger ○ speak ○ see ○ 15:36, 5 April 2007 (UTC) reply
                                • I have not misrepresented Dennisthe2's comments and I demand that you retract that baseless accusation. I want it noted in the record that you are now avoiding the issue of your failure to properly verify the the information from the reliable sources that have been given. As such I submit that all of your comments about verifiability are discounted from this discussion until such time that you demonstrate you are going to comply with the policy. Fnagaton 16:06, 5 April 2007 (UTC) reply
                                  • Dude, chill! He didn't say misrepresented, he said misinterpreted! It's two different things, man! You may have misinterpreted, but that's not misrepresentation, it's just an honest mistake! -- Dennisthe2 16:54, 5 April 2007 (UTC) reply
              • regarding this issue, the information at http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/tft3/ proves that the list is current and has an active membership, and the Wiki entry simply explains what the list is. how is this any less notable than say the wikipedia entry http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_PS2_DVD9_games that has a list of playstation 2 games that are on the DVD-9 format? if you wish for secondary / tertiary varification of identities, then i invite you to join the group one day, and we can e-mail you from all the big games company names you'd care to mention. would that suffice as expert vouching? MrStarslayer 03:58, 5 April 2007 (UTC) reply
                • The issue is not notability, but verifiability. Arguments can easily be made for The Filthy Truth's notability. However, without sources to verify the notability, the article cannot remain on Wikipedia. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ speak ○ see ○ 14:07, 5 April 2007 (UTC) reply
                  • It was a few posters up at the start who were writing about notability. Again you are trying to claim there are no sources when I have posted those sources. I further submit to you that until you make an effort to verify the facts posted you drop the issue of verifiability. Fnagaton 15:06, 5 April 2007 (UTC) reply
                    • Again, I'll point out that forum postings, reposting forum postings, and Answers.com are not suitable sources which can be used for verification under current policy. To quote WP:V: "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources." Even if the current home of The Filthy Truth would count as a source, it requires backup in the form of secondary sources, something even the most recent revision of the article lacks. And regarding me confirming the facts... The onus regarding any questioned items is for the user wishing to keep the questioned facts provide a source, not for the user wishing to remove the questionable item. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ speak ○ see ○ 15:36, 5 April 2007 (UTC) reply
                      • Now you are misrepresenting the facts because you know full well that those are not the only sources that have been provided. I have bent over backwards to provide myself as a primary source and to vouch for this article. The onus is on you to check the facts provided, you have not done that check, therefore you have no logical reason to dismiss those facts. Fnagaton 16:12, 5 April 2007 (UTC) reply
                        • It's like we said earlier, we still need the secondary sources. Look, I could conceivably phone you and talk to you, but I can't be that secondary source. Have you been interviewed by the major gaming or other mainstream press that verifies the notability of the list in something more than just passing comments? If yes, provide the information so we can verify, and we can work with that for a secondary. See the secondary list in WP:RS for what we need - that we lack this is what is stopping us from accepting your statements as a primary. -- Dennisthe2 17:00, 5 April 2007 (UTC) reply
                  • I'm prety sure that I also spoke of how to verify the sources in my last comment. perhaps you overlooked this. feel free to contact me ( myspace or gmail ) and you can come on to the list and talk to as many verifiable names in the industry as you like. the only reason no names are mentioned in the wiki article is to allow people a little anonimity, would putting the names of several willing people on to the page help? or would you also call them out as "non-verified source" and then not follow oportunities to help us verify them? MrStarslayer 15:44, 5 April 2007 (UTC) reply
                    • It's not a matter of contacting you. That's never been the issue. I've cited Wikipedia:Reliable Sources several times and I invite you to read the policy very carefully because it goes hand-in-hand with my objection to the article: Wikipedia:Verifiability. There's no perfectly reliable way for any reader to contact you OR User:Fnagaton in regards to your claims to verify the information in the article. I'm not talking in the context of today, this week, or even necessarily within the next three months. If someone reads this article a year from now, there's no guarantee that either of you will still work in the field you do, that you will still post to The Filthy Truth, or that the contact information left as a reference will be accurate. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ speak ○ see ○ 16:51, 5 April 2007 (UTC) reply
                      • I somehow feel that this is using the letter of the rules to spite the spirit of the rules. we're trying to provide you with everything that you need, yet the majority of the sources that can prove what you want are under direct control of the larger games companies and access to them come at the cost of working on a playstation or x-box game. this is why the Filthy Truth is as well known as it is amoung the games industry, its one of the only places where games developers can talk freely, and thus has merit here. there are many places on Wikipedia that have more dubious information, mostly unregulated, in particular the user profiles of the admin's and editors, do they get checked out via newspaper articles and press coverage as well? MrStarslayer 17:48, 5 April 2007 (UTC) reply
                        • But we've already made it clear on what we need. It's like I said to Fnagaton, in summary: anybody can say you're you, and anyone else can vouch for that. That makes that unverifiable - and this is why we need that secondary source, and this is what prompts the constant references to WP:RS - the list is there. That is what we need. Sure, you can be a primary, but get a secondary source per that policy (i.e., not another person, but perhaps a published interview - and in this case, something that mentions the TFT list in more than just passing) to provide the vouching. -- Dennisthe2 18:01, 5 April 2007 (UTC) reply
                        • Check out WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. I can identify with your frustration about the status of the article, but Wikipedia requires secondary sources to back up primary sources of information. As regards userpages, those are frequently policed though held to a lesser standard. The simple fact of the matter is that other items which might merit deletion get caught sooner or later, and the deletion of these articles is part of the process of dealing with a structure like this. Policy is strict on this matter: Articles need secondary sources to back up primary sources. Any article without secondary can be deleted if no secondary sources can be found. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ Yell ○ 18:08, 5 April 2007 (UTC) reply

• The problem is Lankybugger is not applying WP:RS correctly, that is to say using the bolding to highlight one bit without considering the whole, (in comment 15:36, 5 April 2007 (UTC)) and I will show why. "Primary sources are documents or people very close to the situation you are writing about." : Note the full stop. "An eyewitness account of a traffic accident published in a newspaper, and the White House's summary of a president's speech are primary sources." : Note it does not say they are the only sources that can be used, obviously since there are more than two methods of reporting something. Also Lankybugger has been saying "It's not a matter of contacting you. That's never been the issue." and then proceeds to say "There's no perfectly reliable way for any reader to contact you" which leads to self contradiction since that user has been also trying to use "lack of contact" so the points of that user are inconsistent. WP:OR says it plainly "There is no firm definition of reliable, ... In general, ... As a rule of thumb....". Note the wording, it doesn't say reliable sources explicitly only come from only those things mentioned, the reliability of a source is more like a value judgement. DGG's comment appears to mirror this point of view. Fnagaton 22:30, 5 April 2007 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom and above discussions. TheRingess ( talk) 22:57, 5 April 2007 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 04:52, 7 April 2007 (UTC) reply

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

Notability not established or sourced per WP:CORP, WP:WEB. WP:SPAM is also possibly applicable. RJASE1 ^Talk 17:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC) reply

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjB scribe 01:01, 2 April 2007 (UTC) reply

• Redirect to National Underwear Day which should be made a stub, since the day itself seems to be well known enough.-- Dacium 04:50, 2 April 2007 (UTC) reply

  National Underwear Day redirects here per another AfD discussion. RJASE1 ^Talk 06:04, 2 April 2007 (UTC) reply

• Delete as spam. as above make 'National Underwear Day' into a stub. Springnuts 06:39, 2 April 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete nn internet store (Alexa rank 28,000+) and the article is almost entirely about National Underwear Day rather than Freshpair anyway. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:48, 2 April 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete per everyone else. Acalamari 17:03, 2 April 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete unless some sources can be found. -- J2thawiki 18:48, 3 April 2007 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was Redirect -- Bubba hotep 20:23, 7 April 2007 (UTC) reply

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

Card game that doesn't assert notability. Article is also unsourced. Google turned up a couple of reviews, but they can't be considered reliable. Delete per WP:ATT and WP:N-K @ng i e ^meep! 23:22, 27 March 2007 (UTC) reply

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjB scribe 01:01, 2 April 2007 (UTC) reply

• Well, the game's out there, and as near as I can tell, it's fun, but being out there and fun to play doesn't make it notable. Delete accordingly. -- Dennisthe2 02:45, 2 April 2007 (UTC) reply
• Keep or redirect to Steve Jackson Games. It is a real product, and can be described at the company's main page if a separate article is not warranted. FrozenPurpleCube 15:41, 2 April 2007 (UTC) reply
• Much as I love the game, it's no longer in print (according to SJ's website) and obviously didn't make as much as an impact as, say, Illuminati. Cheesy fun while it lasted, but probably not deserving of an entire article that SJ Games and Phil Foglio's own webpages can do better and unfortunately not notable. Delete with a heavy heart. KaynSlamdyke 22:09, 2 April 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete I don't think every card/board/video game ever deserves an article, or even a mention. And this one looks like it was not one of the most popular of its genre. Brianyoumans 00:37, 3 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Question So, do the folks calling for deletion oppose a redirect to Steve Jackson Games which already has a brief entry about this game? FrozenPurpleCube 14:58, 3 April 2007 (UTC) reply

• • Answer - No, a redirect would be fine. My !vote stands, but unless the GFDL forbids it, a delete and redirect would be OK IMHO. -- Dennisthe2 15:08, 3 April 2007 (UTC) reply
  • If there is something about SPANC already in the Steve Jackson article, I have no objection to a redirect. Brianyoumans 20:02, 3 April 2007 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 04:52, 7 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Flash Video Player (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

An article about one web designer's script for embedding flash videos in web pages. There are many such scripts, I see nothing particularly notable about this one. -- Mcoder 01:25, 2 April 2007 (UTC) reply

• Delete as advertising. No assertion of notability for this particular program. 23skidoo 02:13, 2 April 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete as spam. — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib} 14:12, 2 April 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. Seed 2.0 14:16, 2 April 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete spam. Acalamari 17:04, 2 April 2007 (UTC) reply
• Weak Keep Contains useful information, and could be expanded a little more. This article is just like Windows Media Player, but sounds like an advertisement, which I don't like about it.  Smcafirst |  Chit-Chat |  SIGN  posted at 00:45, 5 April 2007 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was Delete -- Bubba hotep 20:29, 7 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Kris Potts (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

Contested prod, previously speedied as A7. Author claims notability. ˉˉ ^anetode ╦╩ 01:30, 2 April 2007 (UTC) reply

• comment He might be notable, though it is hard to tell from this article. It really should be taken in hand by somebody else or started over. DGG 03:22, 2 April 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete unless rewritten because the article right now is nothing but promotion and a gross NPOV violation. NawlinWiki 03:47, 2 April 2007 (UTC) reply
• Rub it out for someone else to start again. If not COI, then a terrible sycophancy piece. Not wanted in either case. -- RHaworth 06:07, 2 April 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete Reads like a possible copyvio text dump, though I wasn't able to confirm that. In any case, it's a NPOV mess. -- NMChico24 06:38, 2 April 2007 (UTC) reply
• delete Might well be - probably is - wiki-notable, so my heart says keep, but my head says article is unsalvageable as above. Springnuts 06:46, 2 April 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete - may well be notable but is nothing like a wikipedia article at present. Maybe reduce to stub and recommend the author(s) expand it slowly. -- J2thawiki 10:25, 2 April 2007 (UTC) reply

• Delete or reduce to stub as J2thawiki's helpful suggestion above, which would keep my heart and my head in harmony. Springnuts 10:50, 2 April 2007 (UTC) reply

I appreciate the various pieces of feedback.

It's not clear to me what is "promotion" in the article, since the bio covers all sorts of notable events and experiences, etc., and states that his video is no longer in release and he works in non-profit work as a chaplain. There is no reference to web sites or anything else that seems to be "promoting."

As Lloyd Bentsen might say, "He's no John Kennedy," but the bio is intended to provide basic factual information about him and cites those who he worked with, wrote and reported about, produced for, etc., as assertions of notability.

I don't know what a "dump" is, but presume it means something like a cut and paste. Clearly, given all the citations to published works, etc., it is not that. In fact, it was written off line (to avoid being dumped by a limited access ISP and keep a phone line open) and submitted and corrected following various views and reviews, as well as updates to sources following previous comments about assertions of notability.

I respect the purpose of Wikipedia, but let's not forge that the company head was just on network news telling the world that it is good that colleges are banning it as a citable research source because of its "grass roots" provenance (my phrase, not his) that is part of the new interactive age. It seems to me that the standards being asserted here, while very helpful, are so strict as to make it impossible for any but the highest of academics to put anything here. If that were truly the source of all of Wiki's content, it seems unlikely that, for all its value, it is the subject of such great discredit right now.

Also, while there is much said about providing verifiable sources, etc., I've read dozens of pages here that provide no such material, links, etc., that is provided in this bio. Nothing says this guy will ever win a Nobel Prize or deserves any great praise or honor, but let's not forget the Albert Einstein was a sixth grade drop-out who was, accordin to his teachers, destined for nothing. And this guy's no Einstein, but we shouldn't forget that the true print encyclopedia's are filled with thousands of people none of us knew, but learned about and came to appreciate, perhaps respect, because someone took the time to write something about them and find what's notable. This guy's been in the Kremlin, at KGB Headquarters, with Billy Graham for his only Soviet crusade, etc. That doesn't make this guy famous like Graham, but certainly notable. And he's a widely published journalist, with no book or other products being hawked in the entry or anywhere else that I know of. This is clearly of intrinsic value, not remotely commercial in orientation. And it's not asking for money, donations, sales, anything...

Cute neologism with the ol' "sycophancy" comment. But stating facts with clarity and citations is not "sycophancy," it's just providing some depth and context. The purpose of Wiki, as I understood it, was to add or modify based on personal knowledge or research of citations, not to blast and attack someone else's work with cute, pithy, Roger Ebert-esque sound bites. Please be as respectful with the comments as we're told to be with our replies to those who suggest deletion, modification, edits, etc. [By the way, as I noted earlier, my ISP just booted me while I wrote this, so I had to log back on in the hope that Wiki would take this when I hit "save".]

Also, the suggestion that it be added to slowly seems contraindicated by the fact that it was previously deleted for being too short. Now you say make it short and add to it later. Since this isn't Al Gore or Charlton Heston, too little made/makes folks like you say "who is this and why is he notable?" So an article answering those questions is completed and submitted to resolve such concerns and it is blasted for having that depth of content, assertions, proofs, citations and links, etc. In that sense, therre seems to be no way to win.

Also, the suggestion that someone else restart it... Just who do you recommend? Someone who doesn't know the subject or sources? Or, as another of you said, someone who just doesn't care for or like this person/profile/article? It's like asking Nancy Pelosi to write a profile of George Bush! Or Eve to write about Al Gore? (Who doesn't know Al from Adam! Though that's not the right analogy, aster all. I'm just not as quick a wit as "Mr. Sycophancy," I guess.)

Finally, I've found many wonderfully written and other woefully written pieces here on Wikipedia, but I don't figure that it is my place to insist that in order for each and every one of them to stay here they must be written in such a way as to conform to my very own personal and, I admit, narrow need to "keep my [very own] heart and my head in harmony." That is the joy of perusing encyclopedias and Wikipedia -- to challenge and push and test and expand and enrich our hearts and minds. I'm not saying that this does this, but it is far from the sort of trash we've all seen all over the web/net, and its example of someone who has done much in his life to report on others in the more traditional media and served others as a chaplain/missionary is certainly worthy of being considered by those who are interested in such things and might be even slightly inspired by it, as I was.

Please, as Rodney King once said, to much grumbling, "Can't we all just get along?" (Or, as quoted by others, "We can all get along.")

I'm new to the Wikipedia process, but hope that I've slid fast up the learning curve -- and ask your forgiveness to the extent that I'm not entirely up to snuff yet.

Just count me a "Sycophancy Pansy" (not interested in hawking anyone but trying to find ways to get people to think about a lot of others. (By the way, that's what this guy did: tell stories about others. I'm telling his, sorry of an effort as mine has been.)

Thanks for your patience.

P.S. Even I had difficulty reading it once it was done, but not for style and content reasons. I found/find the very narrow/thin font on Wiki almost insufferable.

• Comment - wow. I think your comment above demonstrates the biggest problem with the article - it's so long and wordy. As you say, even you have difficulty reading it once done. Other long articles such as George W. Bush are readable because they are broke up into sections. As you are new to wikipedia you should have spent some time looking at how other articles are written rather than copying and pasting in so much text.

I'm not aware the article has been previously deleted for being too short. Looking at the logs, [3], it was deleted on 28th March for "csd a7; no assertion of notability".

My overall feeling is that, as it currently stands, the article is not useful. It has lots of sources but they are pasted at the bottom - references should be placed next to the facts that they are sources for. -- J2thawiki 13:01, 2 April 2007 (UTC) reply

• I have done some limnited wikification and cleanup. If the author of the article cleans it up further, so that it is possible to detrmine which specific citation supports which statement, and if it is trimmed a good deal this might be worth keeping. Weak Keep if and only if significantly improved promptly. DES ^(talk) 22:02, 2 April 2007 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was Delete. Shimeru 01:51, 8 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Isley nicole (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

According to her IMDB credits her roles mainly consist of names along the lines of: Beautiful Babe, Maid, Fantasy Girl, Friend, and repeatedly being Trophy Model for BET. Non-notable. IrishGuy ^talk 01:36, 2 April 2007 (UTC) reply

• weak delete might meet WP:BIO if someone really did some digging, I don't see the evidence though [4]. But a relatively large number of credits would make me think there's a decent chance here... but we need some evidence. Also I've trimmed the article a bit... it looked like a copyvio but I couldn't tell of what. Certainly seems to have been created as spam, more or less. -- W.marsh 03:36, 2 April 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete Appears to be an autobiography.-- Ng.j 17:37, 2 April 2007 (UTC) reply
• Keep as she appears to have headlined at least one film listed on Amazon.com. I added it to the article, although it really needs cleanup. I am not big on deleting articles that merely require cleanup and more information. Kukini ^{hablame aqui} 00:56, 7 April 2007 (UTC) reply
• comment She was in a direct to video glorified music video. How is that notable? WP:BIO states: With significant roles in notable films, television, stage performances, and other productions That is significant roles in films plural. One direct to video does not notability make. IrishGuy ^talk 04:07, 7 April 2007 (UTC) reply
• Weak delete. The case for WP:BIO is tenuous at best. WP:AUTO is not clear criterion for deletion, but it certainly suggests which direction the information in the article may be slanted. Rookwood ^{Dept. of Mysteries} 21:52, 7 April 2007 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 04:53, 7 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Joe Peacock (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

Blogger but the article lacks any substantial secondary sources. Bridgeplayer 15:28, 24 March 2007 (UTC) reply

• Delete Even if the website's notable (which I doubt) the author doesn't warrant his own entry. - Iridescenti (talk to me!) 19:36, 24 March 2007 (UTC) reply
• Comment - Joe Peacock has been subject of a reliable, intellectually independent secondary source. See here. I see Peacock as being equally notable as Tucker Max, but just less controversial. The Wal-Mart Story which made Peacock notable has received well over 2,000,000 visitors, and Peacock is now published with a major publisher. This article was nominated for deletion in 2006 when he wasn't published, so I waited until now to write this article. I believe he is now notable. Please note that I am not affiliated with Peacock in any way. - GilbertoSilvaFan 20:06, 24 March 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment "creativeloafing.com" is a reliable source? For what it's worth, www.mentallyincontinent.com is number 458,794 in the alexa rankings and has only 92 links in [5] whilst Tucker Max is in the top 4000 - just because the guy's own website claims he gets 2 million hits doesn't necessarily mean it's true. - Iridescenti (talk to me!) 20:44, 24 March 2007 (UTC) reply

Heh okay dude, don't worry. I wasn't trying to persuade you (or anyone) to vote one way or the other, I was just writing that info so people can quickly/easily see his biggest achievements, and decide whether he's notable or not. I don't have anything to gain from the article being there one way or the other, nor does the author; so if people decide that Wikipedia is better off without the article, then cool. The last thing I want to do is argue about whether Peacock is lying or not, I have better things to do. - GilbertoSilvaFan 01:44, 25 March 2007 (UTC) reply

For what it's worth, I don't really see myself as much of anything besides a dude who likes to write and has had the great fortune of being read. There's the FarkTV thing, but that's not really worth pointing me out specifically. If I stay on Wiki, cool - it's an honor that GilbertoSilvaFan thought enough of me to actually write this thing. Admittedly, the bulk of the work I actually do isn't directly related to Mentally Incontinent, so I hope you won't take just that one site into condiseration to determine my "worth" or whatever. I will say that things are starting to pick up career-wise for me, and that I'm working hard to get a bit more out there and make a bigger name. But since I had to even say "Working hard to get a bit more out there," that very fact means I'm not out there yet. So, either way. I'm not going to have any hurt feelings, because really, last week I wasn't on Wikipedia... Just because I am this week, it won't make next week much different for me if I'm not on Wikipedia again :) -- Joethepeacock 23:33, 25 March 2007 (UTC) reply

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Herostratus 01:48, 2 April 2007 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom, and Iridescenti. - Aagtbdfoua 02:36, 2 April 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. For what it's worth, the guy can write, and the Wal-Mart story did make me laugh, but I didn't believe for a second he actually pulled it off as advertised. Bottom line is no Google News Archive results for "joe peacock" or "mentally incontinent", and even the website's Alexa rank is past 800,000, so this fails WP:BIO. -- Dhartung | Talk 04:10, 2 April 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete per the nominator. Acalamari 16:58, 2 April 2007 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was speedy keep no argument given, nomination is in defiance of the reference section. It's also a featured article linked from the main page. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 03:13, 2 April 2007 (UTC) reply

George Washington (inventor) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

Subject may be non-notable after all. Xiner ( talk, a promise) 02:35, 2 April 2007 (UTC) reply

• Keep - Uh, this guy is real, right? Not a fake article? Then i don't see why it shouldn't be kept. dposse 02:43, 2 April 2007 (UTC) reply
• Speedy keep and close. Not a good AFJ. -- Dennisthe2 02:46, 2 April 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Change vote to Delete, the article was the AFJ. Fallout, anybody? -- Dennisthe2 03:08, 2 April 2007 (UTC) reply
• keep is this a joke? Nom makes no meaningful argument,... -- W.marsh 03:04, 2 April 2007 (UTC) reply
• speedy keep this was a featured article for crying out loud.-- Ted-m 03:07, 2 April 2007 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, although this should not be seen as setting any kind of precedent, in spite of some comments made in the AfD. -- Core desat 04:56, 7 April 2007 (UTC) reply

List of Virtual Dungeon monsters (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

Unencyclopedic. The monster entries are only comprised of plot summaries ( WP:NOT#IINFO) and are only sourced from the TV show itself. It contains absolutely no out-of-universe context ( WP:WAF). There is very little possibility to get any kind of secondary sourcing or out-of-universe context because VR Troopers is relatively obscure; it's highly unlikely that we will find interviews from the producers about the monsters. I recommend deletion as an article unmaintable and unencyclopedic. Hbdragon88 03:32, 2 April 2007 (UTC) reply

• Keep This is a collection of information directly related to a reasonably notable television show, collating the various monsters that appeared in it. In a sense, it's almost like a list of episodes, which might be the preferred format. I see no reason to delete it. FrozenPurpleCube 03:56, 2 April 2007 (UTC) reply
• strong delete Multiple, reliable sources need to be presented for any article. This one seems to rely on only a single, primary source: the show itself. Without any context or discussion of meaning this is meaningless. 69.210.75.23 05:46, 2 April 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Actually, I think that not discussing it is more important than trying to present some meaning for it. Presenting information is far more appropriate for an Encyclopedia than analysis of any kind. And the context is quite clear, so I don't even know why you're objecting to it. FrozenPurpleCube 05:55, 2 April 2007 (UTC) reply
    • 69.210.75.23 is referring to WP:NOT#IINFO, whcih stipulates "real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's achievements, impact or historical significance..." hbdragon88 06:37, 2 April 2007 (UTC) reply
      • Um, what's missing with the context of "this appeared in episode X of Show Y"? If you insist on more than that, then I'd say you are raising the bar to a fairly higher standard than is common on Wikipedia. Sure, individual articles on these monsters might not be a good idea without more content, but a collected article? Fine with me. At the worst, repurpose the article to cover the episodes more explicitly. In fact, given that this article exists, I'd say there is a good indication that this isn't just some random standalone article, but part of a relatively decent amount of effort. Thus I'm satisfied that if there is further expansion needed, it will come. FrozenPurpleCube 07:00, 2 April 2007 (UTC) reply
        • I was planning to possibly AFD that in the future too. I asked Ryulong ( talk · contribs) about it in December, but he just stated monsters generally got a list anyway. For the episodes, such episode pages already exist for Power Rangers, making the monster ones even less useful. hbdragon88 07:10, 2 April 2007 (UTC) reply
          • Well, I disagree, both in this case, and that one. I think the material is quite appropriate for an encyclopedia. I am also troubled by using this as a test case without mentioning your further plans. I would prefer you had either stated so in the first place, or picked a less obscure show to start with. It would have been much more upfront. Oh, and I don't think you've actually looked at the pages in the Power Rangers episodes category. I consider most of them to be downright abysmal. OTOH, the quality of the monster pages while not perfect, is still a good start. If I had to choose one or the other to keep, I'd pick these pages over the others. FrozenPurpleCube 07:40, 2 April 2007 (UTC) reply
            • I don't think you've actually looked at the pages in the Power Rangers episodes category - well, not that I expect you to check their histories, but I actually created a number of them so I could merge the sheer number of loose and lame stub pages that were floating around. I echo everybody else when I say that lists are better than individual stubs. Article deletion should not purely be about the current state of one or the other - it should be baout the notability of them, really. hbdragon88 01:21, 3 April 2007 (UTC) reply
        • Well, now that you tell me, looking at the ones I see you created, no insult intended, but I think they're the worst of the lot, so I wouldn't say your creation of them means much. If for some reason there was a problem with the concept of the monsters pages, I would say converting the various monsters pages would actually make for a much better base to start the articles with than what's there now. At the least, the monsters lists are reasonably complete. But then, I'd say they're arguably better than all the episodes articles, so don't feel too bad. I would, however, suggest that you at the least, start looking for a reasonably complete episode list. FrozenPurpleCube 02:58, 4 April 2007 (UTC) reply
• Keep Dreadful show, but fairly notable, and merged lists such as this are the normal way that minor characters such as these are generally handled. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:40, 2 April 2007 (UTC) reply
• Strong Keep A lot of work put in, the list is well presented, and references to episodes exist.-- Ng.j 18:21, 2 April 2007 (UTC) reply
• Strong Keep Let this page stay. If they delete this, no one will have know what each monster is and their pictures will be orphaned. Rtkat3 ( talk) 2:22, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
• Strong (possibly Speedy) Keep - I'm sorry, was there an actual reason for deletion in there? Let's examine closer....

1. "Unencyclopedic" - Vague non-argument. Might as well be a !vote. Fails WP:ILIKEIT.
2. "...only comprised of plot summaries..." - You mean "information from the primary source", i.e. the work itself? For works of fiction this is not only normal, it's the most effective way to ensure accurate information on elements within that fiction.
3. "It contains absolutely no out-of-universe context." - Somehow you missed the numerous inline citations referring to "this character did X in episode Y." How does that not make it clear that this article is talking about a separate, fictional universe?
4. "...(we can't) get any kind of secondary sourcing..." - The only pressing reason for using secondary sources in works of fiction is to establish notability, not to provide "out-of-universe context". This has been done by the " parent article". Any use of subsequent use of secondary sources in this article is a nice bonus, not a necessity.
5. "...because VR Troopers is relatively obscure..." - Red herring. It's not obscure enough for you to have nominated this article due to notability issues, because the argument clearly won't hold water.
6. "...article (is) unmaintable...." - How? It's a listing of monsters/villains/foes in a finished series with a finite, known number of episodes. It is almost a poster child for being maintainable, as there is slim to no chance of there being a need for major additions or changes made to the article from its current form.

Finally, I'd like to echo what a lot of other people have said: this is a list of minor characters, merged into one article to provide accurate, detailed information on a subject without needlessly detracting from the flow of the main article on the topic. It's SOP for character-rich works of fiction; nothing about this is different than what is outlined in WP:FICT and what has been already done in dozens of other "minor character" lists for TV shows. -- Y| yukichigai ( _ramble argue ^check) 19:44, 2 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Wow, way to take the "unencyclopedic" word totally out of context. If I had just written that, go ahead and tear me up on it, but after that I try to provide other reasons based on policies, so, honestly, why are you making a mountain of a mole hill?

I didn't say that plot summaries were terrible and should be completely eliminated from all articles, but WP:NOT#IINFO says that there needs to be more than that. WP:WAF: (Plot summaries) is fine, provided such fictional passages are short, are given the proper context, and do not constitute the main portion of the article. This is all the entire article is, save for the "this monster appeared in episode X" bits, which are essentially plot summaries anyway. I like how you skip that line and totally trash everything else about the argument.

If secondary sources do not exist, the article should not exist. Sometimes people say "keep and cleanup," waiting for more sources. That isn't going to happen here. VRT was obscure, will stay obscure, what other source will there be besides the show itself? hbdragon88 01:21, 3 April 2007 (UTC) reply

"If secondary sources do not exist, the article should not exist." There's no policy that says that, certainly not in the manner in which you intend it. The closest you can come is WP:N, and since notability has already been established it doesn't apply. Even ignoring that, it is ludicrous to suggest that for works of fiction we cannot use facts from the primary source unless we also have a secondary source which contains more facts about the topic. For works of fiction, secondary sources are inherantly unreliable for determining facts, or at the very least are less reliable than the primary source, i.e. the work of fiction itself.

As for the "plot summary" objection, it too doesn't apply. For works of fiction, sub-article lists are kind of an exception, or rather cannot be evaluated as a stand-alone document. They exist solely to retain useful, noteworthy information without detracting from the quality of the "primary" article. They are some of many articles which are exceptions to all of the guidelines you've linked to, particularly WP:WAF. To expand on what I said before, there are reasons why some documents are policy and some are merely guidelines: the liklihood of exceptions. -- Y| yukichigai ( _ramble argue ^check) 02:34, 3 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Another, quick point: you keep repeating how "obscure" VR Troopers is. It's not. First off, it's notable enough to be a well-sourced Wikipedia article that passes WP:N with flying colors. Secondly, if there were some issue of "obscurity" someone (like, y'know, you) would have nominated it for deletion, successfully deleted it, and this whole argument would be moot. Not the case. Thirdly, no matter how many times you say something, it won't become true. I realize the inherant difficulty in proving a negative, but you haven't even brought up any kind of indication other than continually repeating "it's obscure" over and over and over again. If you really have a problem with the VR Troopers article, add it to the nom; otherwise, drop the damn straw man. -- Y| yukichigai ( _ramble argue ^check) 02:46, 3 April 2007 (UTC) reply

• Keep - deleting this would set a precedent for deleting all character lists, and the show is fairly notable, even if it isn't so in your area Hornandsoccer ^Talk 02:19, 3 April 2007 (UTC) reply
• Extremely strong keep - deleting this will make Wikipedia look bad in the eyes of many who visit here and I seriously DO NOT CARE TO HEAR WHY IT WOULDN'T. It's sad that other, more meaningless things can have articles but this can't. I think there is prejudice here, clearly. If articles like these get deleted while other pointless ones remain, Wikipedia would eventually fail. And when it does, we, the fans, will not listen to any complaints brought on by those pro-deletion fanatics who will no longer have a Wikipedia to work with. I once was a strong fan of Wikipedia, but after seeing articles like these, I am having second thoughts. 71.249.255.91 15:43, 3 April 2007 (UTC) reply
• Keep -I agree with the argument of Hornandsoccer. Kukini ^{hablame aqui} 01:05, 7 April 2007 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was Delete -- Bubba hotep 20:51, 7 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Canadian Federal Government, Financial Year 2003-04 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

The last time I checked, Wikipedia was an encyclopedia, not an almanac or a collection of statistics or budget revenues or expenses. This might be able to become an article, but then it probably wouldn't warrant it's own article at all. At present, it violated WP:NOT#INFO. I recommend a straight delete - Royalguard11( Talk· Review Me!) 18:27, 24 March 2007 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom. The government is better able to track and update this information than Wikipedia will ever be. -- Dhartung | Talk 20:06, 24 March 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. GreenJoe 21:36, 24 March 2007 (UTC) reply
• Comment Wikipedia actually is an Almanac. However, there is no need for articles like this for individual years. Unless more information can be added, merging such information into single articles would be more useful. Resolute 22:25, 24 March 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Comment incorporating elements of doesn't necessarily mean is. When it says it incorporating elements of an almanac, it probably refers to the fact we do have some statistics (sports related on player pages, population related on cities, other things) but they are usually incorporated into the encyclopedic content. When I said we're "not an almanac", I mean we're not literally an almanac. Like we don't have whole pages or topics that deal with the historical day to day prices or stocks, the temperature in a year, random sports statistics (like season by season standings), or things like that (the just numbers things). - Royalguard11( Talk· Review Me!) 02:44, 28 March 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Actually, we have hundreds, if not thousands, of season-by-season articles for sports teams and leagues, and a very strong prcecident supporting their existence. What you are arguing here is that this article requires expansion, as opposed to deletion. I would suggest that the fiscal information of a national government is useful, and its inclusion would be merited uner WP:5. It does require prose to help add to it, however. Resolute 03:58, 28 March 2007 (UTC) reply
      • You might want to look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FA Premier League results December 2006 and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FA Premier League 2006-07 goalscorers and even Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/La Liga 2006/2007 results December 2006 then. If you think it's worthy of an article, extend it then. So far it's still nothing, just numbers. Not acceptable. You want to keep it? Then do something constructive and {{ sofixit}}. - Royalguard11( Talk· Review Me!) 04:08, 30 March 2007 (UTC) reply
        • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1902 LSU Tigers football team, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2006-07 New Jersey Devils season and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Swindon Town F.C. seasons. As I said, precident for keeping such information, and I would suggest that my examples form a much more acurate parallel to this article than yours do. Regardless, I am not an expert on government spending, and the impacts it has, so I will leave cleanup to someone who knows better. So far, the only thing you have successfully argued is that the information has merit, as you have repeatedly suggested that expansion would "fix" it, but instead choose to take the lazy way out yourself by requesting deletion. This article is a stub, and being a stub is not a valid reason for deletion. Resolute 22:25, 31 March 2007 (UTC) reply
          • A stub is actually worthy of having an "expand and cleanup" tag put on it. This isn't even stub class. - Royalguard11( Talk· Review Me!) 18:52, 1 April 2007 (UTC) reply
• Keep per my arguments. A need for cleanup is not equivalent to a need for deletion. Resolute 03:58, 28 March 2007 (UTC) reply
• EXPAND & Keep a government's budget is often a major lever used for ecconimic control. The tables of figures are not as important as what they mean, in relation to the political realities of the day. This sort of information is more interesting when compaired over a time span. cmacd 12:51, 28 March 2007 (UTC) reply

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — bbatsell ¿? ✍ 03:35, 2 April 2007 (UTC) reply

• Abstain I abstain from vote. Please maintain respect to great nation of Canada. Wen Hsing 05:37, 2 April 2007 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was Delete -- Bubba hotep 21:13, 7 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Point Juncture, Wa (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

Please see WP:MUSIC for notability guidelines. Furthermore, this page reads like a fan site and not an encyclopedia article. Delete. JakeB 22:09, 24 March 2007 (UTC) reply

• Erm. They have two records - but one is five tracks, self-published. But the other is on a real (albeit small and local) label, Lucky Madison records. They do have an entry at allmusic.com - bit it's blank (except for listing the records). The article notes that "An upcoming tour in November will take them to Washington, Idaho, Minnesota, Missouri, Arizona, and California." That would be November 2006 I think, so... has this tour occurred? And does this qualify as "a national concert tour in at least one large or medium-sized country"? It's not really national... but then, the USA is a big nation, the area covered would be good chunk of Western Europe, especially when you note that Missouri is included. Reviews? They only list for their only record, in an entity called CD Baby (Nov 2005), whatever that is... they're on the bubble, but sliding off I guess... I would say Delete, but as gently as possible, please. Herostratus 14:16, 28 March 2007 (UTC) reply

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — bbatsell ¿? ✍ 03:42, 2 April 2007 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom and Herostratus. I wouldn't say they're on the bubble; they're flat on the ground covered with ex-bubble dew, blinking hard. RGTraynor 15:20, 2 April 2007 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 04:54, 7 April 2007 (UTC) reply

7k (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

Nonnotable band; unsigned. Claims notability due to appearance at South x Southwest and 1 song on soundtrack of obscure film. I don't think they meet WP:MUSIC. Contested speedy (see article talk page). NawlinWiki 03:44, 2 April 2007 (UTC) reply

• Delete - Non-notable band, maybe...earmarked for deletion, why? This article defines '7k' in the current rock music vernacular. By simply conducting a Google search it is plain to see that this music group is having an impact (however miniscule) on today's music industry. This article defines them as they are and doesn't smack of advertisement.

(UTC)

• Delete - Non-notable band that hasn't done anything particularly important or great-- $UIT 04:27, 2 April 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete As per nom. Dalejenkins 08:21, 2 April 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete not notable. Acalamari 17:05, 2 April 2007 (UTC) reply
• Weak keep: There are some reviews of them- see this and I dunno if the band wrote this or ripped it from CD Baby. There is this, and a Spanish review. Not a band that it is easy to search for, but I reckon those pages, along with their own claims of notability for the reasons NawlinWiki mentioned, make these guys just notable. J Milburn 20:10, 2 April 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete None of above links appear to be non-trivial as per WP:Music. Rockeyez article in particular could well have been written by the band as site looks to be the musical equivalent of Lulu. A1octopus 23:49, 3 April 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete Nothing came up on an advanced LexisNexis search under a bunch of different searches. Absolutely nothing. Their appearence on the Blood & Guts soundtrack could fulfill criteris #9 of WP:MUSIC, but per #9, if this is the only criteria available, the page should just be redirected. But since Wikipedia doesn't even have a page for the film, it should just be deleted until further reliable sources are discovered. Rockstar915 05:14, 5 April 2007 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was Delete. Shimeru 02:04, 8 April 2007 (UTC) reply

List of songs under one minute in length (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

This list suffers from arbitrary inclusion criteria. What is substantially different between these songs and songs 61 seconds in length? Or 62 seconds? They're all short. The notion that this is a notable way to classify songs is original research, specifically original synthesis. I suggest we delete. — coel acan — 03:45, 2 April 2007 (UTC) reply

• Delete Worthless list. Selection criteria created out of thin air for no particular reason, WP:NOT-- Dacium 04:58, 2 April 2007 (UTC) reply

• Weak delete I was going to say keep, but after seeing how few other articles link to this article, I changed my mind. -- MatthewUND^{( talk)} 07:35, 2 April 2007 (UTC) reply
• Strong Keep Jusi link a few articles and provide references/external links. Dalejenkins 08:20, 2 April 2007 (UTC) reply

• In what way would that solve the problems laid out in the nomination? The list is a classic instance of arbitrary cutoff, and deciding upon such a cutoff is always original research. Why this list and not "list of songs under 53.446 seconds? What on earth makes this anything but an indiscriminate list? Maybe the reason so few articles link into it is that it's arbitrary and nobody thought it was worth linking to. — coel acan — 08:29, 2 April 2007 (UTC) reply

• A minute is a very commonly used unit of time. 53.446 seconds is not. Having songs under one minute means that the song is short enough to be only measured in just seconds. It seems like a perfectly resonable cut-off time for defining a song as being short. Tumble 03:53, 5 April 2007 (UTC) reply

• A block of thirty seconds is also a very commonly used chunk of time. Having songs under thirty seconds would be another way to list songs short enough to only be measured in seconds. We agree that what this list actually is is a "list of short songs". Where we disagree is that one definition of short is better than another. You believe that <60 seconds "seems like a perfectly resonable cut-off time for defining a song as being short". I disagree, and I point out that your gut feeling on this amounts to nothing but a violation of WP:SYN, which is policy. — coel acan — 08:08, 6 April 2007 (UTC) reply

• delete This is a ridiculous list, a lot of it is unverifyable and unreferenced. -- Greatestrowerever 11:07, 2 April 2007 (UTC) reply

• Delete It is unverifiable and unreferenced. It is Fancruft. Lizzie Harrison 15:03, 2 April 2007 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Unmaintainable list, arbitrary inclusion criteria, everything that Wikipedia is WP:NOT. Specifically, this list fails as a list of loosely related topics, and there is no compelling reason to hang on to a list of songs just because they are of length X or less. Arkyan &#149; ^(talk) 15:25, 2 April 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete per everyone else. Also, the list is long already, and it will just get longer. Acalamari 17:20, 2 April 2007 (UTC) reply
• Keep Also, the list is long already, and it will just get longer., haha, thanks for that, professor. Lugnuts 19:41, 2 April 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete, as per Coelacan. The list has no use whatsoever, and could include so many millions of songs. Also, Lugnuts, you provide absolutely no reasoning for your keep vote. J Milburn 19:58, 2 April 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Better than using weasel words like "Worthless", "ridiculous" and "Unmaintainable". Lugnuts 20:01, 2 April 2007 (UTC) reply
• Keep, strongly. This nomination sets up a classic Catch 22: if a list has a clear, bright line criterion for inclusion or exclusion, that criterion can then be called "arbitrary", and its selection then becomes "original research" or "original synthesis"? Of course, vaguer criteria are called "subjective" here. If current trends continue, those policies will end up meaningless officialese, without any more meaning beyond WP:IDONTLIKEIT.

  This is a list of songs under a minute in length. What original theory does it introduce? How exactly is it "analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor"?

  To the extent that it needs references, reference to the recordings upon which they appear would seem to be sufficient; that isn't grounds for deletion. Obviously the creator has put a lot of work into creating this page. Please remember the Golden Rule, people. - Smerdis of Tlön 20:28, 2 April 2007 (UTC) reply

• Keep It is no more arbitrary than a Top 10 or Fortune 500. Are some numbers natural and based on reason, and others unnatural and arbitrary? -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 22:30, 2 April 2007 (UTC) reply
  • No. And all the bands without articles should be deleted off the list too. Lugnuts 17:52, 3 April 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Comment yes, would your position be the same on List of songs under one minute and fourteen seconds in length? Carlossuarez46 17:21, 3 April 2007 (UTC) reply

That's a good question, Richard. Some numbers are natural, such as pi and e and phi. The number in question here, however, corresponds to ^1/1440 of an Earth revolution, and that is arbitrary. You're getting misled by the fact that this appears to be a simple whole number. It's not which number that is important so much as the idea that any particular number shall mean "short song", because this is indeed intended to be a list of short songs. The difference between this and a Top 10 list or Fortune 500 list is that those numbers are chosen independently of Wikipedia, so we aren't endorsing them, rather we are merely reporting them from other sources, as WP:ATT requires. We aren't saying "a top ten list is a good way to see what's worth your time", or anything like that, we just report that another source has published a list and it has ten items. Same with Fortune 500. It's Fortune who decides on the number 500, not Wikipedia. Here, on this list, we're deciding, and that's original research. — coel acan — 08:48, 6 April 2007 (UTC) reply

• Keep but prune it to bands with articles written for them, as to atest notability (of the bands, of course) -- FateClub 22:12, 3 April 2007 (UTC). reply
• Delete, I disagree that it's unmaintainable, but it's clearly arbitrary. There are plenty of lists on Wikipedia that are neither arbitrary nor subjective, so Smerdis of Tlön's argument that removing arbitrary lists will leave us only subjective ones clearly fails. And Fortune 500 is defined outside of Wikipedia, so it's not original synthesis (not that List of Fortune 500 companies exists anyway). I don't see any other keep arguments worth rebutting. This is not a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT because I do like it, but it clearly fails WP:NOT. Xtifr _tälk 22:15, 3 April 2007 (UTC) reply

• I'm still not sure how this is supposed to be "arbitrary." For a list of very short songs, one minute or less seems a reasonable cut-off: it's based on a round figure of a standard measure. At any rate, whether it's arbitrary or not, claiming that this is "original research" or an "original synthesis" ignores and distorts the actual language and meaning of those policies beyond recognition. What we're left with instead is a list on a popular culture subject that's certain to draw hostile attention, that at least one editor found interesting or useful. The only policy I see applying here is that Wikipedia is still not paper. - Smerdis of Tlön 13:44, 4 April 2007 (UTC) reply

• Sure, one minute is a nice round number, but it's still arbitrary. Why not one second? Or one hour? Or one year? Phrase your answer in the form of a citation to a reliable source, please. The question is, ultimately, who decided this was a worthy topic for a list? If the only possible answer is "some random Wikipedian", then that makes this a novel synthesis! Wikipedia, like any encyclopedia, is supposed to distill what other, reliable sources have written about. Yes, it's not paper, but it's still supposed to be an encyclopedia. I think this is a great list, and I hope it finds a home on the Internet somewhere. I just don't think Wikipedia is the place for it. Maybe Wikisource would be good. Xtifr _tälk 10:00, 5 April 2007 (UTC) reply

• No, it doesn't. The policy about "original syntheses" you are referring to actually speaks about "analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor". This, by contrast, is a list of songs, and if there is some tendentious point to it, I haven't found it and no one else has pointed it out either. These policies lose meaning if they are extended so far beyond the things they were meant to cover. Lists on Wikipedia serve a valuable indexing function, and they indeed can be about arranging facts in ways that some random user found useful or interesting. - Smerdis of Tlön 16:42, 5 April 2007 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Arbitrary inclusion threshhold- what is special about songs up to 59 seconds in length? Why single these out from others? Should we have a list for songs between 1 min and 1 min 59 seconds inclusive as well? I see no reason to present this information in this matter and clear policy against doing so. WjB scribe 10:08, 5 April 2007 (UTC) reply
• Weak keep as per Richard Arthur Norton, FateClub. I am of the opinion that sixty seconds is the most appropriate length of time for this list, but I am not fully convinced that it needs to exist in the first place. -- Ianiceboy 15:53, 5 April 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete per Arkyan. -Panser Born- (talk) 01:24, 7 April 2007 (UTC) reply
• Keep per Smerdis of Tlön. If a specific inclusion criterion is used, a list is labelled "arbitrary". If a vague criterion is used, it's "subjective". If a "Top 10" list is presented, it's a violation of WP:NOT#DIRECTORY. To me, this is solely an issue of content organisation. One minute (60 seconds) is a common cut-off point. If anyone thinks 61 seconds works equally well, propose it on the talk page and see if you can gather consensus to change it. If you can't, then that's a sign that that proposed organisation of content is not community-supported. Cheers, Black Falcon 07:25, 7 April 2007 (UTC) reply

• Delete. No assertion of notability. - Aagtbdfoua 13:29, 7 April 2007 (UTC) reply
• Keep, but split into separate lists, or cut out the less notable songs. If I knew more about music, I'd do this myself. 60 seconds is perfectly reasonable given the way we measure time. Black Falcon brings up particularly good points above. Rookwood ^{Dept. of Mysteries} 22:14, 7 April 2007 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 04:54, 7 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Nation (novel) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

Next to nothing is known about this future Terry Pratchett book. The sole content of the stub - that it will not be a Discworld book - is pure speculation. Thus I believe it is better to delete the whole thing and start fresh once some reliable information is released. Charon X/ talk 03:50, 2 April 2007 (UTC) reply

• Delete WP:CRYSTAL-- Dacium 05:01, 2 April 2007 (UTC) reply
• It is NOT pure speculation... Pratchett is on the record as saying it will not be a Discworld novel. Barbara Osgood 18:29, 2 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment: Then please give us a source for this. The most recent source regarding "Nation" I found was [6] and it explicitely states "Is it Discworld?" he asks, anticipating the question, and answers: "Not necessarily. At the moment I'm just writing. If it needs to be Discworld it will be Discworld. It could be set in this world 150 years ago while still more or less being a fantasy. The codename for it is Nation." Regardless, I think right now it is just too little content to have an article about. Charon X/ talk 19:42, 2 April 2007 (UTC) reply

• Delete per Dacium. If "Nation" is not going to be the book's title (and it appears that it's not), there's no reason to retain a stub at this name. Deor 00:59, 3 April 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete as crystal balling. The quotation from the source provided even has Pratchett saying "if it needs to be Discworld, it will be Discworld", so in other words we know precisely nothing about what it is or what it will be. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 09:11, 3 April 2007 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, april fools vandalism (csd g3?). - Bobet 09:19, 2 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Annie Mail (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

I don't even know where to begin. Obviously this is an April Fool's day joke. It was originally tagged for speedy deletion, but later removed because the article does assert notability. In fact, quite a bit of notability. However, Annie Mail certainly does not exist, Cher did not reference her ever, and she is definitely not an online editor at Time Magazine. Probably my favorite part about the whole article was that she discovered hip hop upon meeting "Da Man Swizzle Dizzle." Anyway, I nominate for deletion, probably speedy deletion, and hopefully even inclusion in WP:BJAODN. Just read it. You'll laugh. And then "cry with tears of undisputed joy." Rockstar915 04:54, 2 April 2007 (UTC) reply

• Speedy delete - I already tagged it with speedy deletion tag. It seems to be a hoax, and lacks any reference to assert notability - not to mention some dubious claims. Baristarim 05:06, 2 April 2007 (UTC) reply
• Comment It is kinda funny though :) Baristarim 05:08, 2 April 2007 (UTC) reply

• Isn't it, though? I read it over again and laughed some more. Rockstar915 05:16, 2 April 2007 (UTC) reply

• Delete as obvious hoax, or perhaps hot mess. -- Dhartung | Talk 05:53, 2 April 2007 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was Speedily deleted by Mailerdiablo ( WP:CSD#G1). ◄ Zahakiel ► 17:31, 2 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Helga Funk (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

Sigh. I already nominated Annie Mail for deletion; Helga Funk was created by the same auther, with the same ridiculous nonsense. Not only does Helga Funk not exist, but she certainly did not predict the "inventions of automobiles, the entire field of aeronautics, and man's landing on the moon," nor write any of her groundbreaking science fiction. Per my arguments on Annie Mail's AfD, this article was most likely an April Fool's day joke, and the author is probably getting a kick out of the fact that its even being discussed. But... the article asserts notability, no doubt, but still should be speedied, and probably put in WP:BJAODN. Rockstar915 04:59, 2 April 2007 (UTC) reply

• Speedy delete - I already tagged it with speedy deletion tag. It seems to be a hoax, and lacks any reference to assert notability - not to mention some dubious claims. Baristarim 05:06, 2 April 2007 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 04:56, 7 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Ross Walker (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

Ross Walker, exact phrase, along with "amber" has 10 ghits, the top being a self-promotional site, and the rest seem to be various project pages, no outside coverage by reliable sources. There seems to be no evidence of independent press coverage that mentions Ross Walker in the context of AMBER. He is not currently mentioned in the WP article AMBER. This page was created by User:RossCWalker. The speedy delete tag was removed from the article by a newly created single-purpose account. There is no evidence of notability that satisfies WP:BIO Darkspots 05:19, 2 April 2007 (UTC) reply

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd 05:48, 2 April 2007 (UTC) reply

• Delete. He is listed on the first external source in the article as being one of 31 authors of this fine software, but that does not make him notable enough. It is also a COI. -- Bduke 08:05, 2 April 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete - per nom. This article is a failure of WP:AUTO and WP:COI. Morenooso 12:21, 2 April 2007 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to Rhinoceros. -- Core desat 05:00, 7 April 2007 (UTC) reply

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

Clear and present hoax. This non-existent dinosaur lived 350 million years before other dinosaurs in the precambrian, eating branches from the tall trees which didn't exist in the precambrian either. Dinosaur-sized bollocks. Grutness... wha? 06:33, 2 April 2007 (UTC) reply

• delete per nom. Googling does produce a lot of hits, which is a sad reflection of poor spelling nowadays. Springnuts 06:51, 2 April 2007 (UTC) reply
• Redirect to rhinoceros. As Springnuts noted, many people make this spelling mistake, so might as well help them. If you want to delete the hoax before redirecting, I have no objection to that. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:02, 2 April 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete or redirect. All the google results appear to be jokes or misspellings. The latter suggests there is a good argument for redirecting it to rhinoceros. Will (aka Wimt) 08:18, 2 April 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete- agree with Wimt- does not appear to be a real. Thunderwing 08:24, 2 April 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete and redirect as common spelling mistake, per Sjakkalle. I guess I'm the only one who thinks it's funny enough for WP:BJAODN. cab 08:31, 2 April 2007 (UTC) reply
• Redirect per realistic spelling error. MLA 12:38, 2 April 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete and redirect as suggested above, I know I have made this spelling error in the past and people are likely to do it again. Arkyan &#149; ^(talk) 15:26, 2 April 2007 (UTC) reply
• Redirect, no deletion necessary. Misspelling is plausible. Ab e g92 contribs 18:42, 2 April 2007 (UTC) reply
• Redirect, but make sure it is on someone's watchlist, to prevent recreation. J Milburn 19:55, 2 April 2007 (UTC) reply

• Done, but more eyes can't hurt. Ab e g92 contribs 23:45, 2 April 2007 (UTC) reply

• Speedy delete utter nonsense. Acalamari 22:37, 2 April 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete- though I kind of like this word. ;) Metamagician3000 07:22, 3 April 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete and Redirect, since there's no merger, there's no reason to preserve the history, and probably good reason not to do so. (Side note: while it's mildly funny, I definitely don't think it's good enough for the already-bloated BJAODN.) Xtifr _tälk 22:21, 3 April 2007 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 04:57, 7 April 2007 (UTC) reply

List of Homer Simpson's jobs (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

This falls under Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information in my opinion. It's a fan list that isn't very notable to people other than Simpsons fans, and its very trivial. Lots of one time things happen in shows (the Simpsons especially), I dont see a need for them all here. What's next: things Lisa complains about? jobs held by Bart? Things Maggie has played with? All happen on a frequent basis (maybe a little less, but it's a comparision, to show there is many repeating themes that could be collected in useless lists). Previous AFD was no consensus: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Homer Simpson's jobs. RobJ1981 07:30, 2 April 2007 (UTC) reply

• Merge into Homer Simpson. Crotalus horridus ( TALK • CONTRIBS) 08:11, 2 April 2007 (UTC) reply
• Keep Notable enough. Dalejenkins 08:17, 2 April 2007 (UTC) reply
• Keep- too much information to merge into the main Homer Simpson article. I can see why it may be seen as trivial, but are the jobs of Homer Simpson not a notable theme in most Simspon storylines? Thunderwing 08:23, 2 April 2007 (UTC) reply

• According to whom? Wikipedia? Are there multiple independent sources which make the claim that this is a notable theme in most Simpson's storylines? Original research seems to be a big problem here. --- RockMFR 00:49, 3 April 2007 (UTC) reply

• Delete Should be on a fansite, not Wikipedia. Important information can be merge into the main article. Poeloq 08:50, 2 April 2007 (UTC) reply
• Keep Homer's jobs have directly been the subject of self-parody on the show, it's a notable aspect of Homer's character. Not a random list. Wl219 09:17, 2 April 2007 (UTC) reply
• Keep - significant plot element and significant part of the character. Would unbalance the character's article if included. Otto4711 13:46, 2 April 2007 (UTC) reply
• Weak delete. I am pretty sure that this article will be kept again and I'm gonna be in the minority here but I agree with the nominator and Poeloq that this information isn't exactly encyclopedic. Otto4711 makes a good point that Homer's taking of a new job (albeit temporary) often serves as an important plot point in Simpsons' episodes, I am just not convinced that "important plot elements" are material worth keeping in a general knowledgebase - they are more suited to fansites. Arkyan &#149; ^(talk) 15:31, 2 April 2007 (UTC) reply
• Keep per Otto4711. - Peregrine Fisher 17:36, 2 April 2007 (UTC) reply
• Keep - Part of a larger topic. Homer's jobs are significant episode plot points. Wikipedia is also not paper, so I see no reason to exclude this very encyclopaedic list. Matthew 18:48, 2 April 2007 (UTC) reply
• Keep, but someone needs to sort out the "count as of now" at the top of the page. Lugnuts 19:39, 2 April 2007 (UTC) reply
• Keep encyclopedic and must remain forked. TonyTheTiger ( talk/ cont/ bio) 19:49, 2 April 2007 (UTC) reply
• Keep per excellent points made by the others. Volunteer Sibelius Salesman 19:53, 2 April 2007 (UTC) reply
• Keep as a list that adds context and elaboration to Wikipedia's coverage of an important fictional character in American (and, frankly world) popular culture. youngamerican ( ahoy hoy) 20:30, 2 April 2007 (UTC) reply
• Keep per the other keeps. Acalamari 22:37, 2 April 2007 (UTC) reply
• Keep per youngamerican. Plinth molecular gathered 23:27, 2 April 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Complete lack of any sources whose subject is "Homer Simpson's jobs". Fails every notability guideline. I will be very disappointed if this ends in a head count. --- RockMFR 00:46, 3 April 2007 (UTC) reply
• Keep as a non-arbitrary and well-annotated list.-- danntm ^T _C 02:45, 3 April 2007 (UTC) reply
• Keep Important and well-annotated list, though it needs more paragraphs, easily obtained by citing the large volume of Simpsons scholarship readily available. Cromulent Kwyjibo 16:22, 4 April 2007 (UTC) reply
• Strong keep Per all the above. - Denny 17:46, 4 April 2007 (UTC) reply
• Keep Homer Simpson is an important icon of American mythology and some of his one-episode jobs practically have the status of folk fables. Del arte 18:57, 5 April 2007 (UTC) reply
• Keep Ideally, I would merge this to the character; but, in this case, length is a prohibitive concern. Sufficiently encyclopedic, considering the character's iconic status, as supported by the sources in his article. Sourcing concerns for the list are reasonable, but presumably easy to cure, given the number of Simpsons reference books published by the show's staff. Xoloz 15:13, 6 April 2007 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was NO CONSENSUS. The closing remark by the nominator suggests this should be worked out elsewhere, and that deletion was never his actual intention. - Splash - tk 15:50, 8 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Monica Hannan (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

I don't feel that a news director of a small television station is inherently notable. I have tried to clean this article up, but I still don't feel that Hannan is notable or worthy of an article. MatthewUND^{( talk)} 07:51, 2 April 2007 (UTC) reply

• Keep Looks fine to me. Dalejenkins 08:18, 2 April 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete - fails WP:BIO. Otto4711 13:49, 2 April 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete no significant evidence of notability cited. DES ^(talk) 22:49, 2 April 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete - fails WP:BIO, news anchors, unless nationally known, are generally not notable enough. - Hornandsoccer ^Talk 02:23, 3 April 2007 (UTC) reply
• Keep - WP has plenty of articles on smaller-market media personalities. Hannan should not be an exception. -- AlexWCovington ( talk) 04:49, 3 April 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - I hate to pick on my friend Alex, but where are all of these articles for local news personalities? There are plenty of articles for journalists who work on a national scale, but am I missing a category for local journalists? I have come across a few local news personality articles in the past and they have often seemed like vanity pieces. -- MatthewUND^{( talk)} 05:02, 3 April 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Peruse Category:American journalists and see how many stack up to the news director of a 4-station television network. - AlexWCovington ( talk) 05:18, 3 April 2007 (UTC) reply
  • WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument at AfD. If you think there are other articles that may not meet our policies and guidelines, you can nominate them for discussion separately, but here and now, we're discussing this article. See also WP:INN. Xtifr _tälk 22:37, 3 April 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete sources are not independent nor reliable. Ohconfucius 10:03, 3 April 2007 (UTC) reply
• Keep - Hannan is bismark`s no.1 anchorwoman and is known city wide — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.104.138.189 ( talk • contribs)

Question What do you bean by a small television station — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.104.138.189 ( talk • contribs)

• • Comment - Well said, except I would go even further to say that she is known through much of Western ND, as her newscasts reach that area both on radio and on television. Weatherman90 02:42, 7 April 2007 (UTC) reply
• Keep she is a writer — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.104.138.189 ( talk • contribs)
• Keep She is one of north dakotas major broadcasters — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.104.138.189 ( talk • contribs)

Check WP:BIO Again — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.104.138.189 ( talk • contribs)

Comment: In a remarkable display of being bold, 70.104.138.189 had actually edited WP:BIO to support his argument in this AfD. You can see the edit here. This was quickly reverted by User:Radiant!, who, like me, is not a participant in this debate (yet), and therefore has no particular axe to grind. Although Radiant merely called the edit "redundant", I think it also conflicted, mildly, with WP:LOCAL, which is another guideline that might be worth considering in this particular debate. This person may or may not be sufficiently notable, but the television station where she anchors almost certainly is, and so a merge per WP:LOCAL is an option worth considering. (I still have no stated opinion in this debate.) Xtifr _tälk 10:32, 5 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Ok, WP:LOCAL has been marked historical since last I looked at it. But while the specific points it addresses may not have reached consensus, the underlying notion about mergers are widely used throughout Wikipedia, and they are what I had mind. Xtifr _tälk 10:39, 5 April 2007 (UTC) reply

• Keep Seems to meet all necessary criteria for a stub. Kukini ^{hablame aqui} 01:18, 7 April 2007 (UTC) reply
• Keep - She is a television anchor who covers all of western North Dakota. That is a lot of reach. Weatherman90 02:40, 7 April 2007 (UTC) reply
• Comment - I feel that a little clarification is in order. As a member of WikiProject North Dakota, I am very much in favor of having a robust level of North Dakota-related content on Wikipedia. The reason why I nominated this article for deletion was because I wasn't sure that this individual was notable enough to warrant her own individual article. I would be happy to see the content of the article merged into the NBC North Dakota article. If we did that, we could turn Monica Hannan into a redirect to the NBC North Dakota article. We could add a section to the NBC North Dakota article with the info about Hannan and other anchors from the station. I would actually think it would be a great idea to include brief information about anchors on other North Dakota tv station articles as well. I'm certainly not opposed to having that kind of information on Wikipedia. My only reason for nominating the article was because I didn't feel that this one anchor was any more unqiue than other anchors and that she really didn't deserve her own article. I would like to see this material merged with the NBC North Dakota article. I think that would make sense. In hindsight, I perhaps should have done the merging myself and turned Monica Hannan into a redirect myself instead of nominating this article for deletion. -- MatthewUND^{( talk)} 04:39, 7 April 2007 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kungfu Adam ^{( talk)} 18:06, 2 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Silver Hammer (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

Non-notable band. The only external reference is the bands myspace site. delete-- Greatestrowerever 08:11, 2 April 2007 (UTC) reply

• Speedy delete - no assertion of notability. So tagged. MER-C 11:48, 2 April 2007 (UTC) reply
• Speedy delete - no assertion of notability, and it wouldn't matter if it had. This isn't even a garage "band," because "band" implies more than one person. This is just the uberkewl name attached by this guy to the demo he worked up, which has all of seven minutes running time. RGTraynor 15:09, 2 April 2007 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Demo by band whose article was speedy deleted per CSD A7. WjB scribe 18:41, 2 April 2007 (UTC) reply

March Into Battle (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

album by non-notable band Silver Hammer that is also up for deletion. Should also be Deleted-- Greatestrowerever 08:14, 2 April 2007 (UTC) reply

• Speedy Delete, no assertion of notability. This isn't even a self-produced, unreleased album. It's a self-produced, unreleased seven minute demo. RGTraynor 15:10, 2 April 2007 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Mailer diablo ( CSD A7). WjB scribe 18:38, 2 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Isaac Domagalski (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

Member of non notable band Silver Hammer which is also up for deletion. Delete-- Greatestrowerever 08:17, 2 April 2007 (UTC) reply

• Speedy delete - being a member of a garage band is not an assertion of notability. So tagged. MER-C 11:49, 2 April 2007 (UTC) reply
• Speedy Delete, no assertion of notability. He isn't so much a "member" of this putative garage band, he's its only member. "Isaac Domagalski is the driving force of Silver Hammer. He started Silver Hammer in 2006 and continues to make music under the name Silver Hammer" is the entire article, the sum total of its work being a seven-minute demo (AfDed above). We might as well toss in WP:COI as well, given that these three articles (and putting the names in on other articles) constitutes the sole activity of the creator. RGTraynor 15:14, 2 April 2007 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 = default keep -- Bubba hotep 21:41, 7 April 2007 (UTC) reply

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

Not noteable Dalejenkins 08:31, 2 April 2007 (UTC) reply

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri ( via) 13:53, 3 April 2007 (UTC) reply
• Keep - Nominator has failed to assert a reason to delete. Furthermore, as this is a broadcast product that would indicate notability to me. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 07:28, 6 April 2007 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 04:58, 7 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Ric Jilla (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

Non-notable rap artist, appears to fail WP:MUSIC Neier 08:37, 2 April 2007 (UTC) reply

• Delete as nom. Neier 08:37, 2 April 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete, falls well under the bar of WP:MUSIC; single album selling only 10,000 copies, even if sourced (which it is not) this is NN. RGTraynor 15:05, 2 April 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete not notable. Acalamari 22:35, 2 April 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete not proven notable. Opening for so many leading acts of the genre as claimed in the article would, I feel, be sufficient grounds for notablity, but I cannot find any sources that prove this to be true. A1octopus 23:09, 4 April 2007 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 04:58, 7 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Sagging fetishism (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

Probable hoax, entirely unsourced, original research. "Sagging fetishism" gets 0 google hits while "sagging fetish" gets 27, mostly related to breasts. Robotman ¹⁹⁷⁴ 08:41, 2 April 2007 (UTC) reply

• Delete, hoax. (Are hoaxes elligible for speedy?) -- Mikeblas 13:02, 2 April 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete whether it's a hoax or not. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:41, 2 April 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete as hoax or something made up in school one day, perhaps as a non notable fetish. Hoaxes are not eligible for speedy deletion as they are too hard to spot- something that is not a hoax could easily be mistaken for one, and two pairs of eyes is just not enough to confirm that. J Milburn 19:50, 2 April 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete per everyone else. Acalamari 22:36, 2 April 2007 (UTC) reply
• Speedy Delete - I'm about as kinky as they come, and I've never heard of this. WP:HOAXALICIOUS! -- Y| yukichigai ( _ramble argue ^check) 02:55, 3 April 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete this is pretty hoaxy, and I don't know any girl who actually likes sagging. That's strictly a chest-thumping male fashion. JuJube 06:30, 3 April 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete - No outside sources, little to no notability-- NPswimdude500 ^{( Talk| Contribs)} 03:21, 5 April 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete: The first two paragraphs are simply copied from sagging (fashion), the third is absurd. A google for "sagging fetishism" only pointed to Wikipedia. Graf Bobby 22:16, 6 April 2007 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was closed; deleted per nom Raul654 22:23, 6 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Scientific data withholding (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)

Note to closing admin: please check for WP:CANVAS like [7]

Raul654 22:23, 6 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Neologism; POV fork of Scientific data archiving. RonCram spent an awful long time [8] and repeats trying to label inadequate data arching as pseudo science. Eventually he gave up, only to put the same text in a different article, this one. Its just a POV fork/vehicle for RonCram William M. Connolley 08:51, 2 April 2007 (UTC) reply

• delete as per nom :-) William M. Connolley 08:51, 2 April 2007 (UTC) reply

William, your most recent edit was interesting. [9] You did not make any statement on the Talk page to justify the edit. Your only comment was in the Edit Summary: "attempt at NPOVing." You seem to think the best way to make the article NPOV is to delete information that is accurate and well-sourced. This may be a surprise to you, William, but censorship is not the same as NPOVing. There is no question McIntyre found a subdirectory marked "BACKTO_1400-CENSORED." The fact Mann did not report in the article that he got results contrary to his conclusions is another example of data withholding. If Mann had a good excuse and I left it out, you could certainly add the excuse and call it "NPOVing." But censorship in order to protect a business partner is not Wikipedia policy. RonCram 02:06, 4 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Ron, you seem to think you know a lot about William's personal motives and "business partners". I respectfully suggest that you be aware of the first 2 sentences of WP:NPA, especially the second. -- Nethgirb 02:33, 4 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Nethgirb, I did comment on the content of his edit. I don't like censorship. I do know enough about William's relationship with Mann to know that this constitutes WP:COI. See the RealClimate website listing the contributors. There you find Mann, Mann's coauthor Bradley and Connelly. [10] RonCram 02:40, 4 April 2007 (UTC) reply

So you have discovered that scientists in related fields collaborate with each other on academic projects. A bit different than saying they are "business partners". I respectfully suggest that you be aware of the first 2 sentences of WP:NPA, especially the part that says "Comment on content, not on the contributor". -- Nethgirb 04:34, 4 April 2007 (UTC) reply

I thought Mr. Connolley could raise such an issue if it seemed necessary to him, and that you could refrain from taking sides in this personal discussion between these two persons? Besides, I would be surprised that WP:NPA forbids someone to raise or discuss WP:COI - otherwise the latter would have little relevance no? Perhaps that's what Mr. Connolley understood... -- Childhood's End 13:22, 4 April 2007 (UTC) reply

I have listed William on the COI Noticeboard [11] Suppressing negative information about "individuals, causes, organizations, companies or products" you are affiliated with is the definition of WP:COI. I have asked William to explain. RonCram 13:36, 4 April 2007 (UTC) reply

• keep I originally thought data archiving and data withholding should be discussed in the same article. But they are different concepts. Data withholding is a much greater crime against science than a lack of data archiving. William Connelly's view of the article is affected by the fact he is closely associated with one of the examples of data withholding, Michael Mann. They are both contributors or partners in the website, RealClimate. In accordance with WP:COI, I have asked William to consider if he is too close to the subject to view it objectively. RonCram 14:41, 2 April 2007 (UTC) reply

• keep Replication and transparency are important (and seldom-understood) aspects of science. This article seems to provide fairly good supporting evidence. There are some famous examples of scientific data withholding, especially in the medical field, where data for drug studies was invented and ultimately lead to the disgrace of the authors. I think it would be good to have links to and from such examples. But overall, I think the concept of the article is reasonable for an encyclopaedia. 220.233.81.49

• speedy keep Consider that this was nominated for deletion within the first 24 hours. Keep the article (which already has established itself as legitimate and more informative in the 20 hours before this RfD was performed than many other articles that pass RfD. The article is not an issue is the nominator prefers text to be his way, even on the Talk Page for the article he links to above [12]. In fact, This article s/b WP:SK ("The nomination was unquestionably...disruption and nobody else recommends deleting it... Examples of this include obviously frivolous nominations...nominations which are made solely to provide a forum for disruption (e.g., a userpage of a contestant in a heated edit war by their opponent(s) solely for harassment)"). The only catch is the nominator's cadre will come and support deletion simply to thwart the speedy. Nonetheless, this RfD is just another retaliation in a wide-reaching edit-war. -- Tony 15:04, 2 April 2007 (UTC) reply

• speedy keep I also agree with the comment "RfD is just another retaliation in a wide-reaching edit-war." It is pretty clear when the nominator here doesn't agree with something...-- Zeeboid 15:09, 2 April 2007 (UTC) reply

• speedy delete As it stands right now - the article is a POV fork (or a pre-mature split) - i suggest that RonCram begin working on the article and differentiating it substantially from Scientific data archiving - it is way to close to a diff of Ron's work on that page currently. The concept should've been developed on the other article - and then when it was substantial, split off into a new article. -- Kim D. Petersen 16:37, 2 April 2007 (UTC) reply

• Keep It is not a POV fork, because it does not express a "different point of view" from its companion article. The articles could be merged. Moreover, Dr. Connoley is abusing the afd nomination to advance his own point of view, i.e., that there is nothing wrong with scientist withholding data from the scrutiny of their peers.
  • As a scientist, he's entitled to his POV, but "withholding data is contrary to the scientific method, textbooks describe it as unscientific or pseudoscience." If this sentence in the article is incorrect, it should be fixed; deleting the whole article serves no encyclopedic purpose. -- Uncle Ed 17:54, 2 April 2007 (UTC) reply

• Keep Uncle Ed is right. If there are errors, they should be fixed, but this seems a notable topic for an encyclopedia. Phiwum 18:51, 2 April 2007 (UTC) reply

• Speedy delete This is ultimately a POV fork of Global warming controversy. Ron wanted to give greater weight to a particular claim of data withholding in climate science levelled against Mann et al, so he created Scientific data archiving (for evidence, see discussion). Editors criticized that article as containing OR and being a front for discussion of a particular controversy regarding data withholding rather than data archiving ( see much discussion). Now Ron has created Scientific data withholding, but the fundamental problems of being a POV fork and containing OR remain. This may or may not be a notable topic, but I can say that the vast majority of the current article (excluding the copied-and-pasted policy statements) is either POV, OR, or irrelevant, so there's no particular reason to save this. For example, the entire introduction, except for the last sentence, is OR. The bit about pseudoscience has a reference but is not actually supported by it; notice Ron didn't provide a quote from the source. -- Nethgirb 19:24, 2 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Nethgirb, you are entitled to your opinion on the question of keeping the article or not, but I have to respond to your misstatements of fact. Nothing about either article is OR. In its current form, there is nothing controversial about Scientific data archiving article at all. I can provide a citation for almost any statement you may question in Scientific data withholding. Regarding the statement about pseudoscience, you only need to read the Wikipedia article to find support. Or you can read the quotes provided on the Talk page of Scientific data archiving where it was discussed at length. Almost every textbook that deals with the scientific method in any detail will describe data withholding is unscientific or pseudoscience. RonCram 21:38, 2 April 2007 (UTC) reply

SDA is only non-controversial *in its present form* because all the dodgy OR and POV pushing by you has been taken out; and subsequently stuffed by you into this article William M. Connolley 21:43, 2 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Yes Ron, I know that we have discussed it at length. Yet you still fail to provide an external quote for your claim that "textbooks describe [withholding data] as unscientific or pseudoscience". -- Nethgirb 21:52, 2 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Let's make this explicit Ron: I challenge you to exhibit right here a quote from a reliable external source which states that "textbooks describe [withholding data] as unscientific or pseudoscience". -- Nethgirb 22:03, 2 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Nethgirb, here is the quote I gave you earlier from a textbook chapter titled "Evidence-based practice and pseudoscience:"

Publically Verifiable Knowledge

The second principle involves the public nature of scientific knowledge. Knowledge gathered empirically does not exist solely in the mind of the scientist. In fact, it does not exist at all until the person disseminates it to the scientific community for critique, testing, and replicating of results. Knowledge or findings limited to one person or group and not verified can never have the status of scientific knowledge (Dawes, 2001). The person or group must present such findings to the scientific community in a way that others can achieve the same results. This process ensures that a particular finding is not the result of bias or error. [13] When you read that carefully, you will see that unverified info is not science. More importantly, you do not delete an article if you disagree over the meaning of one quote. RonCram 22:07, 2 April 2007 (UTC) reply

I see a lot in that quote about verifiability/reproducibility but nothing about data withholding. This is the fundamental point you continually have missed: a study can be verified and reproduced without looking at its data, because the data itself can be reproduced. "More importantly, you do not delete an article if you disagree over the meaning of one quote." -- Agreed. Other parts that are problematic: the rest of the introduction, excluding the last sentence, is unsourced and thus can be considered OR; the climate science discussion is significantly slanted towards the McIntyre/McKitrick POV; and the Jan Hendrik Schön example is not really about data withholding, because the important part is that he faked his research. (You might say that there was no data withholding involved, since there was no data in the first place. :-) ) This accounts for the bulk of the content in the article, excluding the copied-and-pasted policy statements. -- Nethgirb 22:23, 2 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Nethgirb, I must also respond to the charge the article is a POV fork of Global warming controversy. I do not understand how you can make that statement. First, the discussion of Michael Mann is a one paragraph subsection of the article. It is an illustration, not the main topic. Second, Global warming controversy is an article about the controversy. As such, its raison d'etre is to discuss events surrounding the controversy. How can you claim that an article about the AGW controversy should not contain information about Mann's withholding of data? That doesn't even make sense. RonCram 21:48, 2 April 2007 (UTC) reply

"First, the discussion of Michael Mann is a one paragraph subsection of the article. It is an illustration, not the main topic." It's also the longest paragraph. Coincidence? Here are your own words: "In an effort to explain some of the issues involved in this [climate science] controversy, I have written an article Scientific data archiving ... I have tried to make the article of general interest by not limiting the discussion strictly to climate science." [14] It seems pretty clear to me that you wrote the article in order to criticise climate science, and tacked on everything else in order to make it appear less like a POV fork. "How can you claim that an article about the AGW controversy should not contain information about Mann's withholding of data? That doesn't even make sense." I never said that. In fact, I agree: GW controversy or Hockey stick controversy are better places for an appropriately weighted discussion of the Mann issues, rather than creating your own POV fork. -- Nethgirb 22:40, 2 April 2007 (UTC) reply

You have quoted me correctly. I started the data archiving article to explain the issues of data archiving and data withholding in climate science but also wanted to put the issues into a larger context. I thought it would be helpful if people could read the policies on archiving and data withholding, learn about some of the studies of the problem and read some illustrations of the problem. Mann's data withholding happens to be the one I know the most about. Mann's case was especially notable since Congress had to get involved before he turned over his source code. I fail to see how this is a POV fork. Are any of the facts in the article in dispute? The only statement being disputed is calling data withholding "unscientific" or "pseudoscience." Yet, Kenosis, who edits the Pseudoscience page, commented that science allows "no wizards behind the curtain." He quoted a textbook by Gauch. Data has to be shared to be considered science. RonCram 01:20, 3 April 2007 (UTC) reply

• speedy delete -- I agree that this is a content fork in the same way as the data archiving article is a content fork. I suggest that the over-arching concept is "Scientific data sharing". Within such an article, sections on archiving and witholding would be appropriate. I also think it's fairly apparently POV and, furthermore, blatantly USA-centric; hence I added a globalise tag. — Dave ( Talk | contribs) 02:44, 3 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Dave, I added a paragraph on Dr. Singh, a cardiologist from India and removed the globalize tag. If you think it is still US Centric even though it mentions the UK- based journal Nature and now an illustration from India, let me know what you think it is missing and I will research it. RonCram 04:10, 3 April 2007 (UTC) reply

• Delete POV fork. The name is much more controversial than the subject it discusses. Jerry 02:46, 3 April 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete Clearly a POV fork. Plus, would an encyclopedia have an entry for a term that returns exactly zero pages on a google search? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SeaAndSand ( talk • contribs).

Try googling "data withholding" and see how many hits you get on science topics and papers. [15] RonCram 04:01, 3 April 2007 (UTC) Or you might try googling "data withholding" and "science" where you get 862 hits. [16] Or "data withholding" and "genetics" to get 639 hits. [17] Or "data withholding" and "climate" to get 260 hits. [18] RonCram 04:17, 3 April 2007 (UTC) reply

• Strong Delete First of all, a POV fork, and an particularly unfortunate one, imitating another article in order to include views of specific topics which the consensus had removed from the original page. This material--fundamentally a POV not on this but on Global Warming-- had repeatedly be inserted into the original article by one particular editor against the continuing consensus of everyone else. When the article was protected, the ed. resorted to this means of putting his particularly wanted material into an article on another topic. To add to plausibility, he inserted two additional cases, but in the ones selected the question was not in fact scientific data withholding, but the fraudulent absence of any data whatsoever. This is concocted by the desire to insert POV analysis on climate warming into irrelevant articles. The immediate nomination was appropriate, considering the apparent intent in creating the article. DGG 03:12, 3 April 2007 (UTC) reply

DGG, apparently you have not read the Talk page for Scientific data archiving. If you had, you would know that no consensus existed that the information about Global Warming was POV. I decided to move the more controversial stuff to a new article, not because it was POV or controversial, but because of this comment by Kenosis. He wrote: If I may reiterate the point I made in response to RonCram's statement on my talk page: Data withholding is one thing; failure to archive all data points is another. The former is an indicator, one of may possible indicators, that may contribute to a judgment of a particular enterprise as being pseudoscience. The latter is not necessarily such an indicator if the operational definitions and summary statistics are intact in such a way that the relevant experiment or study can be replicated. ... Kenosis 09:57, 25 March 2007 (UTC) Kenosis convinced me that these two different concepts- "data archiving" and "data withholding" should be discussed in separate articles. I had no idea that William would try to use that to delete the article. This is not a POV fork and anyone who reads the Talk page will know that. RonCram 05:11, 3 April 2007 (UTC) reply

I am a counterexample to your claim that anyone who reads the Talk page will know that this is not a POV fork.

To be fair, there were a number of other editors who supported Ron's view on Talk:Scientific data archiving that that article held a neutral POV (unsurprisingly, the same ones who usually edit GW articles in ways that support a skeptical perspective). Those editors were in my opinion also wrong. Regardless, the lack of a consensus does not diminish the fact that this article is a POV fork. Rather than work towards a consensus (admittedly a difficult task) or fall back to 3rd-party mediation, Ron simply started a new article in which to insert his POV. Ron may not have been doing this intentionally—I believe Ron to be a good-faith editor—but that was the effect. -- Nethgirb 05:40, 3 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Nethgirb, I appreciate you trying to be fair. Did you read the comment by Kenosis that convinced me to move the controversial portion to the data withholding article? I copied and pasted it onto this page as well. I thought I was supposed to listen to the advice of other editors. He seemed to have a good point. It seems strange to me to now claim I was avoiding some kind of consensus on the archiving page. RonCram 14:32, 3 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Yes, I read it. I agree with Kenosis, who said that the data withholding-related text you wrote did not belong in Scientific data archiving. But that does not mean it belongs in its own new article; I would say it does not belong anywhere in its current form, and may belong in Global warming controversy in a reduced and neutralized form. This is consistent with my original comment above, which I quote again: "Editors criticized that article [ Scientific data archiving ] as containing OR and being a front for discussion of a particular controversy regarding data withholding rather than data archiving ( see much discussion). Now Ron has created Scientific data withholding, but the fundamental problems of being a POV fork and containing OR remain." I appreciate your willingness to consider the ideas of another editor on this particular point, Ron, but the effect of being a POV fork remains. -- Nethgirb 22:24, 3 April 2007 (UTC) reply

• Change Name "What about "Scientific Data Auditability" That results can be reproduced by other independent scientists is one of the most basic principles of the Scientific Method, . That scientist A might prevent scientist B from reproducing A's results is unacceptable. If the conclusions of A are based on secret data, then A's conclusions must be suspect.
• Delete. Sorry but neologism is the over-riding argument. -- BozMo talk 05:50, 3 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment. I do not understand the comment. What word is new? If you google "data withholding" you get plenty of pages dealing with science. If you google "data withholding" and "science," you get plenty of pages. If you google "data withholding" and "genetics," you get plenty of pages. "Data withholding" is the common term used for researchers who refuse to provide their data. RonCram 17:50, 3 April 2007 (UTC) reply

• Keep The article claims that withholding data is contrary to standard scientific practice in general (I'd be surprised if anyone had grounds for claiming this was controversial) and is specifically contrary to the policies of influential scientific journals and institutions. It backs up the claim that this aspect of scientific integrity is not adhered to by all researchers with a number of important example cases. That some of these cases make uncomfortable reading for some of the editors here does not make the article POV. The motivation of the original author is irrelevant: the article has merit in its own right. --Ralph Becket
• comment An article might have merity on this, yes, and we already have one. This article has no merit , the first ¼ repeats the other page, the middle talks about one special case, and the end talks about 2 scandals involving scientific misbehavior irrelevant to the topic. . DGG 07:44, 3 April 2007 (UTC) reply
• Comment I disagree: I think the article does have merit. It does not repeat material in the archiving article as far as I can see. I agree that better examples than Schon and Singh should be found, but the Mann example must surely pass muster. -- Ralph Becket —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.214.101.34 ( talk) 08:55, 3 April 2007 (UTC). reply
• Delete: quite clearly a POV fork, to the point where a large portion of the undisputed text is reproduced. -- Philosophus ^T 08:51, 3 April 2007 (UTC) (not WMC) reply
• Delete POV fork also violates WP:NOR. Anything necessary should be in the data archiving article. This topic most certainly should not be used to create a fork for a relatively tangential topic (global warming). csloat 09:05, 3 April 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom & Nethgirb. Guettarda 12:09, 3 April 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete - excessively one-sided POV thrust and content. -- Skyemoor 12:49, 3 April 2007 (UTC) reply
• Comment SO what about the GW article and its mention of Data Withholding? [19] Are you guys going to delete this too? This is so frustrating, how some of these wikipedians are shoving items under the carpet that they don't want. If you guys think its violating POV Forking, please provide sections of text from the POV Forking article to back up your opinion. To delete an article just by referencing a link to a large policy is Very Un-Wiki. Also, if you want to start quoting policies, then I have one to quote as well. Wikipedia:Ignore all rules. So by that rule, I believe if you guys are pushing the POV Fork (which I don't agree with anyway), then I think removing the article on Scientific data withholding would do more harm to Wikipedia then good. And to pull out the conspiricy stops, it would also appear many of these people markin the article as delete, carry over their same opinions when it comes to most GW articles: The balancing view must be crushed.-- Zeeboid 13:27, 3 April 2007 (UTC) reply
• Speedy keep Afd request coming from a user who is in an obvious COI, which is enough to turn it down. Subject is also notable, well documented, and is certainly different from the data archiving issue. -- Childhood's End 14:05, 3 April 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Comment The above seems to border on a personal attack, not to mention a serious failure to assume AGF. Furthermore, it is not at all obvious to me what William's COI would be in this case (that he happens to be a reknowned climate expert is somehow a COI now?), and even if there were a COI, nothing in WP:COI says that an AfDs coming from someone with a COI should be rejected. There are very good reasons to delete this article. Try to deal with those and not cast aspersions on the nominator. JoshuaZ 14:09, 3 April 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Comment Reknowned climate expert? Outisde his internet activities, is WMC a known "climate expert"? Also, I'm just trying to help with sound rules of evidence here (that the WP community is free to adopt or not, of course). If in any other inquiry, a testimony coming from a witness who is cought in a COI can hardly be accepted, why would it be different on Wikipedia? Please think about it before dismissing anything that may involve the nominator. -- Childhood's End 14:53, 3 April 2007 (UTC) reply
      • Reply to comment Counselor, objective evidence of WMC's status as a "climate expert" is that his work is published in first-rank journals such as Science, Geophysical Research Letters, Journal of Physical Oceanography, and Journal of Geophysical Research. Raymond Arritt 03:20, 4 April 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Let me help you with the WP:COI. Please look through his pages (William) and note his self proclaimed environmental activism. An Environmental Activist editing things that have to do with the Environment is about as bad as someone who works for Exxon editing pages that have to do with Exxon. WIlliam has too much vested in the success or failure of a POV. I agree with User:Childhoodsend in this respect. William's COI in his nomination for deletion of this article should be enough to turn it down. We wouldn't be here if it wasn't for an Activist's proclimation. Also, in what respects (becides Wikipedia) is this person "renowned"? Oh yea... RealClimate.org Blog, which is linked to off of his wiki article, lists articles from him that are hardcore bias. This website also has a vested intrest in Wiki articles like this failing. WP:COI.-- Zeeboid 14:30, 3 April 2007 (UTC) reply
    • • Actully, suggesting conflict of interest here is akin to teling a geologist he can't edit articles on geology. Connolley is an expert in his field and we are lucky to have him invest his time here at Wikipedia.-- MONGO 01:33, 4 April 2007 (UTC) reply

MONGO, would be okay if the geologist worked for EXXON and deleted any negative information about the company or its executives? That is what we call a WP:COI and that is exactly what William is doing in this case. RonCram 02:19, 4 April 2007 (UTC) reply

I haven't decided yet whether this article needs to be kept or not, I was merely addressing COI issues and other accusations that I don't believe are true.-- MONGO 02:38, 4 April 2007 (UTC) reply

MONGO, your comment made it sound like we are lucky to have Connelly regardless of whether a COI exists or not. I agree that Wikipedia is lucky to have Connelly, however he needs to be able to pull back from editing when he is too closely involved. He is not doing that here. Perhaps you did not know Connelly and Mann work together on RealClimate? Being a part of the same organization and working on the same project is the very definition of WP:COI.

• • • (edit conflict) comment WP:AGF applies as a default, but when a person has established a history of edit-wars and retaliation then there is no room for assuming good faith. When the history (for years in the case of whom you speak) exists then anyone is justified for not assuming good faith. This is from WP:AGF: "This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary. It gives 3 non-exclusive examples and continues to say, "Assuming good faith also does not mean that no action by editors should be criticized, but instead that criticism should not be attributed to malice unless there is specific evidence of malice. Editors should not accuse the other side in a conflict of not assuming good faith in the absence of reasonable supporting evidence." Pointing out that this Afd was initiated by someone involved in a COI (based on the fact the requestor is in an edit-war on the related articles...not more textbook of an example of a COI than that) is criticizing the action of requesting the AfD, is NOT implying any malice whatsoever, and if anyone erroneously concludes there is an implication of malice it would not be difficult to provide some irrefutable and "reasonable supporting evidence" of a continuous pattern as already described. -- Tony 14:49, 3 April 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Most of the above comments criticise editors rather than the content. I think it is better to stay focused on the content, for several reasons: (1) We are here to resolve an issue with the content, not the editors. (2) Any allegations of being involved in edit wars on the related articles can be equally well levelled against all of those involved on both sides. That is, to an outsider not looking at content, all that's clear is that there are two sides who are in conflict on many of the global warming articles. Thus, neutral 3rd parties need to evalute the content in order to reccommend a reasonable course of action. -- Nethgirb 22:43, 3 April 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete per Guettarda, Nethgirb and csloat. JoshuaZ 14:09, 3 April 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Purposeful witholding or suppression of scientfic data is already discussed, and could be expanded upon, in Scientific misconduct. Scientific data archiving currently however could also be expanded, particularly with a discussion of the need for increasingly large archives and the difficulties in data retrieval. Hal peridol 14:48, 3 April 2007 (UTC) reply
• Comment. I don't understand 'delete' votes. A delete vote means that we should have no article on the topic, or that a 'red link' is far better than the current article version. A redirect means that there's nothing in the current article worth keeping, but it's a legitimate topic that is (or could be) better covered in another article (the redirection targe).
• 2nd comment. What policy permits (let alone requires) an article to be deleted because a "consensus of editors" chooses to suppress factually true, well-referenced information which is germane to a topic?
• 3rd, concluding comment. This afd is too complex and the matter it addresses should be taken up in an article RFC. The chief issue is whether the data archiving / data hiding issue is of sufficient importance to merit an article (or section of one); or should be omitted from Wikipedia entirely. -- Uncle Ed 16:00, 3 April 2007 (UTC) reply
• Keep per Ed Poor. Different topics and not close to be considered a POV fork. If nothing else, merge. ~ UBeR 17:57, 3 April 2007 (UTC) reply
• DELETE this forking fork. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 23:37, 3 April 2007 (UTC) reply
• Comment What was the data that was withheld by Mann?...in what way did it "conflict" with the rest of the information we have on global warming which have been made by hundreds of reknown scientists that the earth is warming? The reason I ask these things is because that seems to be the main examination in this article...the situation regarding Mann...almost half the refs are in regards to him and that situation. Data witholding sometimes does happen in the scientific community when the data may be believed to be grossly inaccurate, or it comes from a contaminated source (this could be the same as not referencing information from biased sources) or if the data cannot be reexamined due to certain limitations.-- MONGO 03:03, 4 April 2007 (UTC) reply

MONGO, Mann withheld data almost from start to finish. The final item was his source code, an item the NSF says has to be archived and provided to other researchers. Congress had to request it before he turned it over. Mann also placed some data in a subdirectory marked "censored" that showed his his statistical method was flawed and his conclusions unwarranted. This is simply not done by a scientist. However, the controversy around Mann does not disprove AGW. RonCram 03:13, 4 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Yes, I understand...and I also see that the two folks most behind the opposing view are McIntyre, a former mining executive and McKitrick who is a GW skeptic...regardless, I see that much of the info about Mann is already provided in detail at Hockey stick controversy, and the rest of the info here isn't really that notable...certianly nothing to rival the Piltdown hoax so I believe this article should be Deleted.-- MONGO 03:37, 4 April 2007 (UTC) reply

MONGO, Hockey stick controversy discusses the criticism of McIntyre and McKitrick and the subsequent reports by Wegman and NAS. However, it does not deal with Mann's data withholding at all. If you had read the article, you would have known that. RonCram 03:44, 4 April 2007 (UTC) reply

I did read the article...what do you think I have been doing? I would not be opposed to taking some of the sources and info from this article and adding it there, as there is a lack of refs there...thaty would actually be a good idea. But I disagree that this isn't covered in Hockey stick controversy...just that it might be in less detail than it can. Building a better framwework in that article aout these events would help clarify the controversy there and that is my suggestion.-- MONGO 03:54, 4 April 2007 (UTC) reply

MONGO, Hockey stick controversy (HSC) does not discuss the fact McIntyre asked for data, methods and source code and Mann said "No." HSC does not talk about Mann's subdirectory titled "censored." HSC does not talk about the fact the NSF, contrary to their policies, backed Mann's refusal to provide data. HSC does not talk about the article in the Wall Street Journal talking about the fact Mann would not turn over his data and methods. HSC does not talk about the fact Congressmen read the WSJ article and decided to investigate. Congress had to request Mann turn over all his data and source code before he would turn it over. I keep seeing people repeat this refrain that "it is already covered" in HSC. It just is not true. And even if it was true, there is no context for people to understand the crime against science that data withholding is. This is not a question of good science or bad science. When data is withheld, it cannot be called science at all. RonCram 04:06, 4 April 2007 (UTC) reply

I have tried to make it clear that I think that this info can be put in that article as that would make it easier to understand wht the controversy is about. I think it can be summarized and added there...the rest of the infomation here is not notable. looking at the graphs done by numerous other paleoclimate scientists, Mann's work is supported, so unless there is a conspiracy by all these scientists to misrepresent the data, which there doesn't appear to be, I can't see having the same info here that should be in Hockey stick controversy.-- MONGO 04:28, 4 April 2007 (UTC) reply

• Delete Neologism and POV fork. The substantive issues of the controversy between McIntyre and Mann (which, as seen in his comment above, is the author's main justification for the article) already are discussed at Hockey stick controversy, so the present article serves no purpose. Raymond Arritt 03:32, 4 April 2007 (UTC) reply
• Speedy Delete. POV fork. FeloniousMonk 04:02, 4 April 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete POV fork. Well-sourced content may be merged into Scientific misconduct, Scientific data archiving per Hal peridol. To his list, I would add politicization of science for the Joe Barton, Energy & Commerce Committee, letter to Mann. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wsiegmund ( talk • contribs) 04:19, 4 April 2007 (UTC). reply
• Keep Again, another baffling nomination of a well written, highly sourced article. Cloveoil 12:25, 4 April 2007 (UTC) reply
• Comment Perhaps a Mediation here is required. The usual suspects are voting in the usual ways for this article's removal via FORK. In fact, I tend to think Mediation for all global warming related topics may be needed.-- Zeeboid 04:22, 4 April 2007 (UTC) reply
• Merge into Scientific misconduct, Scientific data archiving, and/or politicization of science, per Wsiegmund. 75.35.74.5 14:31, 4 April 2007 (UTC) reply
• Comment A Conflict of interest noticeboard thread relates to this nomination. Durova ^Charge! 16:50, 4 April 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete or merge into scientific data archiving. This is an obvious POV fork with content duplicated from scientific data archiving and other content that should be in that article. The article delves into great detail on two incidents rather than give a large list of incidents and brief descriptions of the issue in each, and both presentations are POV as the title implies that the subjects are known to be guilty of "data withholding". The title is also a neologism. -- EMS | Talk 01:49, 5 April 2007 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Not a neologism. It is significantly larger than scientific data archiving. Maybe a little bit POV, but this is not a reason for deletion. Biophys 02:28, 5 April 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete. This article is POV from the very start, and the actual selection of cases of misconduct doesn't seem neutral. Why are these cases included and no others? I'd be OK with something built up from well-balanced secondary sources, but this isn't it. The selection of material is so arbitrary and incomplete that merging doesn't seem worthwhile. EdJohnston 03:07, 5 April 2007 (UTC) reply
• Merge any useful content back to scientific data archiving, and delete. Article as-is appears POV, though a list of cases of scientific fraud article or the like with some of the leftovers could be useful. -- Christopher Thomas 03:26, 5 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment - 'Merge and Delete' is not an option in an AfD, because of GFDL. The edit history of whoever first added the material has to be kept. If a merge is done, the title of this article would become a redirect, which should achieve what you want. EdJohnston 15:43, 5 April 2007 (UTC) reply

• • Comment - A list of cases already exists at scientific misconduct. -- EMS | Talk 03:55, 5 April 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete. POV fork. --Akhilleus ( talk) 06:07, 5 April 2007 (UTC) reply
• Keep. The underlying issue here is the practical implementation of the scientific requirements of reproducibilty and openness to public scrutiny. Beside global warming, there are important scientific results that cannot be readily reproduced/verified, e.g. because they are very expensive and/or require huge infrastructure (think of Gravity Probe B), but also for other, subtler and more controversial reasons. It may be very hard to reach a consensus, but IMO an edit war is preferable to deletion. I may add, for transparence's sake, that I have been directly involved in a controversy concerning data withholding and that my POV here is directly affected by the stance I took. Stammer 16:24, 5 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment The underlying issue may be worthy of an article, but I think the data archiving challenges you reference should be at Scientific data archiving, and the scientific misconduct part of it should be at scientific misconduct. This article is overrun with POV. -- Nethgirb 19:59, 5 April 2007 (UTC) reply

• Delete The author of this article has coined a phrase. Google returns exactly one results for the phrase search "scientific data withholding". "Scientific data archiving" returns 3,420 results! That means this article fails WP:N as applied to neologisms, and I am convinced that this is a content fork. Jehochman ( ^Talk/ _Contrib) 18:23, 5 April 2007 (UTC) reply

And guess what that one hit is? [20] To be fair, though, the neologism problems with "scientific data withholding" may be somewhat mitigated by the fact that the phrase "data withholding" is used frequently in the context of science. [21]. But IMHO the content still belongs in other articles like scientific misconduct as EMS pointed out above (and it's still a POV fork). -- Nethgirb 20:06, 5 April 2007 (UTC) reply

• Delete as POV fork/neologism per all of the above, but most especially the rather horrifying results of the Google search - if Wikipedia is the only source, delete with fire and brimstone, salt and have done. KillerChihuahua ^?!? 22:39, 5 April 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete as POV fork/neologism and original research and synthesis. To the extent there is reliably sourced material there, it should be included in the relevant articles about the scientists so long as it is done in an NPOV fashion. -- THF 02:24, 6 April 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete as pov fork - it's all been said above. Vsmith 02:57, 6 April 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete, or redirect to Scientific misconduct. Count Iblis 15:09, 6 April 2007 (UTC) reply