Knowledge

:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 December 15 - Knowledge

Source 📝

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Black Kite 17:29, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Maraca (hash function) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Maraca is a hash function created for the NIST hash function competition. While the competition is notable, submission to the competition is not an assertion of notability - there were no minimum submission criteria and all entrants were accepted. Maraca was rejected for the first round of competition (being accepted would be a claim of notability) and has subsequently been shown to be broken . Hence, all the independent discussion of Maraca, now and in the future, is likely to either concern the competition generally, or else the fact that it's broken. Essentially, it has no future as a notable subject. — Gavia immer (talk) 00:01, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

It's worth naming it, saying that it's broken, and linking to both in the refs. That's probably enough. ciphergoth (talk) 23:17, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Redirect to List of Shortland Street characters WP:SNOW (non-admin closure). Matt (Talk) 07:24, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

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

Fails WP:FICTION Real-world coverage criteria. Fictional character presented without any sources showing real-world context or notability. dramatic (talk) 23:59, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

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

The result was delete.  Sandstein  07:59, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

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

Non-notable actress. No references currently provided in any language, only a collection of links to image galleries. Initially prodded and tagged for multiple issues, but prod and all other tags(Notability, COI, Wikilinking) were removed. Right now article has a set of external links, the non-youtube ones are either very brief mentions or image galleries. Article also should have an interwiki to a Telugu wikipedia (te:మొదటి పేజీ) entry if one exists there. -Optigan13 (talk) 23:32, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

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

The result was delete (speedy, per G7 and clear consensus). Mangojuice 21:20, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

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

Non-notable footballer has never played in a fully professional league and therefore does not meet WP:ATHLETE or WP:FOOTYN Mattinbgn\ 23:10, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Note: left note at blocking admin to review. -- Alexf 11:43, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 09:39, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

School of Rock 2: America Rocks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The notability guideline for future films recommends that a film article is not created until principal photography can be confirmed to have begun. This does not exist to ruin anyone's hard work, but for very good, practical reasons. The guideline prevents the creation of film articles the instant a project is announced in Variety or wherever, because experience has shown us that the intention to make a film often does not mean a film will be made. Budget issues, scripting issues, casting issues and scheduling issues can always get in the way of the filmmakers' intentions, and without the guideline, the place would be full of stubby articles about films that were never made, and would thus fail the general notability guideline. Now, sometimes the high profile of a certain projects means that they are more likely to be made than not, but if we made an exception for these then that would only render the guideline toothless. Even "sure things" do not always make it to production (Jurassic Park IV was supposed to have been released in 2005, if the original announcements are to be believed). School of Rock 2, however, is not even in this camp. Little new information has come out since the original spurt of articles in July. No-one's saying the available information can't be included; it's just the best place for it right now is at a parent article, where what little information there is can be placed in the appropriate context. Steve 23:03, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

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

The result was keep. No support for deletion here (apart from the nominator). No consensus for a merge either but this decision should not prejudice a decision for or against a merge based on discussion elsewhere. Davewild (talk) 10:49, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

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

In universe plot summary, doesn't add anything to understand For Better or For Worse. No sources exist. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • 22:54, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

  • I'd be fine with that. The sources cited by Peregrine Fisher are more about the strip as a whole, not this particular part off it. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • 00:50, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Sure, Graymornings, it has no relevance outside of the universe of the strip. But does Jabba the Hutt really have relevance out of Star Wars? Nikki and Paulo outside of Lost? Troy McClure outside of The Simpsons? Yet all are featured articles. Yes, they all have more sources, but that's only because their mediums (television and movies) are written about more than comics are. -- Zanimum (talk) 15:36, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
  • There has been plenty written about Jabba the Hutt outside the movie; he's indisputably a cultural icon. Of course he's been written about more than a minor fictional Native American tribe. He's notable. The Mtigwaki aren't. Two of the sources are mentions by the artist herself; two are minor academic articles. Unless the Mtigwaki have achieved notability on their own, there's no sense having a separate article. Graymornings(talk) 16:46, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  08:10, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

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

I have not been able to find any evidence that such a person exists. If she conducted a study of menstrual synchrony, no report was ever published as far as I can tell. Looie496 (talk) 22:13, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

  • delete i think. If she was in fact the first to prove menstrual synchrony, that would be notable. The wiki article on this is caled the McClintock effect. No mention of a cohen there. But... still searching. It appears a "Sari Cohen" has been involved in research in this area... but it's not clear from anything i can find that she was the "first" to prove this theory.Bali ultimate (talk) 23:03, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 06:13, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Google Scholar returns no hits. Google News returns no hits for a search with these keywords: "Sheri Cohen" "menstrual synchrony". A general Goggle search returns 3 hits, all related to the Knowledge article.--Eric Yurken (talk) 14:54, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. No formal vote, but this seems problematic. Sheri seems unlikely to be her full forename, which might be a problem with Google searches; I've tried searching with "S Cohen" and "menstruation" or "menstrual", which comes up with many hits, but represents several different people. It is entirely possible that the work on what's now termed menstrual synchrony referred to it under a different name. Also, the Stanford Center For Research On Women, named in the article, has been renamed the Institute for Research on Women and Gender. The page creator might be able to help, but hasn't yet been notified -- I'll go and do that now. Ah, I see they've been indef. blocked. Espresso Addict (talk) 22:47, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. I've tried a little Googling in an attempt to figure out whether this is a hoax or not, and have at least come up with a chronology of directors of CROW (under its various names): Myra Strober 1974–1976; Diane Middlebrook 1977–1979; Myra Strober again 1979–1984; Deborah Rhode 1986–1990; Iris F. Litt 1990–1997; Laura Carstensen 1997–2001; Barbara C. Gelpi, acting director 2002–2003; Londa Schiebinger 2004–present. If Cohen exists there's only a brief window 1985 where she might have fit, and it's surprising that nothing can be found on her when all those others can be found. I'm leaning towards a hoax. Regardless, this fails verifiability. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:17, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. I'm leaning towards hoax here, per David Eppstein's careful searches and the fact that the creator & sole substantive editor has been indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet. I too failed to find evidence that an S Cohen had ever been the director of CROW. If we're mistaken, then someone else can always create the page with appropriate referencing. Espresso Addict (talk) 19:58, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per all of the above comments. Does look like a possible hoax and, at the moment, fails WP:V. Nsk92 (talk) 21:57, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. –Juliancolton 01:10, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

F-16 flight simulator (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails to establish a claim of notability, and also to verify this through reliable independent sources. The limited references provided include a press release, and other non-independent sources. The article is also incoherent, and I do not see this as a natural grouping for a subject. Of much more applicability would be an article on military PC-based Desk Top Trainers not just specifying one aircraft type. There is no rational as to why F-16 PC Based desk top trainers are more relevant compared to, say, an F/A-18 PC Desk top trainer. The article cannot be salvaged in such a way that it makes sense, as well as satisfying notability. Icemotoboy (talk) 22:13, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Delete: Your nom confused me a bit, but now I've read the article I get it; this is simply just a list of flight simulator games that feature F-16s. Ryan4314 (talk) 09:59, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

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

The result was redirect to Cornish self-government movement. Consensus is that this should not be an article of its own, on account of WP:OR concerns, but - even after discounting the last two "keep"s as unhelpful - there's no clear consensus to outhright delete this content. Sourced elements may be merged from the history to the target article.  Sandstein  08:07, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Cornish conspiracy theory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Forking and non notable crankery. A google search for the term "Cornish conspiracy theory" leads to one (I repeat one) single use in any news article and all other links simply refer to this Knowledge page. Google Book Search returns no results at all for such a term or conspiracy. Oddball tinfoil hat crankery of a complete non notable term and the sources are WP:FORKed to present a personal essay rather than representing what is contained within the link. Sprogeeet (talk) 21:31, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

But does it pass WP:Notability? There only seems to have been one single use of the term in passing in the media, ever. That doesn't seem to suggest it would qualify or that people search for such a term. The only way I could imagine people even finding the article is by its spread in "see also" sections, which is how I found it while browsing. - Sprogeeet (talk) 22:18, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
It should also be noted that the so called "Duchy of Cornwall Human Rights Association" although gaudy and sparkly sounding in name is not an offical representative of the Duchy of Cornwall. This is the official website which has ".org" and is sanctioned by the Duke of Cornwall, the unofficial ".eu" website, is a personal, unaffiliated website of crank historian John Angarrack. - Sprogeeet (talk) 22:47, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: under closer inspection, it doesn't have even one mention in the media. I original presumed this on the BBC website was the one mention, but actually, this is in the user section personal space, not the BBC mainspace, added by a random user named Indiana_Trevaskis on the same day that this article was created on Knowledge. Not a journalist. So now the term has ZERO sourceable mention. There is similarly crankery as this case involved with the Cornish Foreshore Case article also created by a user who made just one edit before vanishing into the night. Another randomly invented term, with no Google results for use in the media, or no use in any published books after a search on Google Book Search. This seems to be an attempt to use Knowledge as a form of propaganda. - Sprogeeet (talk) 23:06, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. While the article looks at a first glance to be well sourced, it is worth noting that each individual source discusses only one aspect of something that is described by the article as a unified conspiracy. None of them address it as part of such a conspiracy. Therefore, this is a case of original synthesis. JulesH (talk) 12:55, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. This is completely original research, as well as POV. Lots of examples are cited, but it is entirely the interpretation of the authors of our article that they amount to a "conspiracy theory". Basically it's propaganda masquerading as an encyclopaedia article. Stephen Turner (Talk) 22:50, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
    Comment - Citing sources and coming to a conclusion is not, in my opinion, original research. If we are looking for the same exact phraseology when submitting an article for inclusion, here on Knowledge, than half the articles here on Knowledge would be deleted. However, if we are to grow as a verifiable - creditable organization, that is for the free dissemination of information, as a encyclopedia should be, the average - rational individual should be able to pose a legitimate search phrase, and there is an article here on Knowledge that addresses that question. And that article should be here on Knowledge. Is not that the whole concept behind the organization, or have I been delusional and mislead. Thanks. ShoesssS 23:44, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong keep - It is clear that there is collusion between the Crown, its Agencies of Government, and the Duke of Cornwall in misrepresenting the true constitutional position of Cornwall and the Cornish people. That this has a profound and serious consequences for the future existence of the Cornish people is proven by the interminable discussions over Cornish-related articles on Knowledge. It must be queried of the initiator of this exercise, what it would take for him to see the issue as legitimate? Considering his weasel worded description above of John Angarrack, perhaps his only interest is in silencing any information touching on the Cornish Paradox. This suggests that he might even be part of the process at work against specifically Cornish interests! —Preceding unsigned comment added by TGG (talk • contribs) 16:46, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Comment: Tinfoil hats aside, can you explain how such an article which is completely and entirely against the policies of WP:SYNTH, WP:OR, WP:SOAP and WP:FORK would be suitable for keeping on Knowledge? You have not voiced which policies would support keeping such a crank/extreme fringe made up article, but instead voiced your personal, non-academically supported opinion. Keep in mind that Knowledge is not a blog experiment for people to invent their own synthesis and coin their own phrases, it is an encyclopedia. Name one encyclopedia with this nonsense.- Sprogeeet (talk) 22:02, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Keep - and remove the word "theory" - the major differences between the .org and .eu duchy of Cornwall sites is the .eu has plenty of primary source material that offers a true account of duchy history. The .org site in itself is evidence of conspiracy to conceal the truth through absence. Everything else "Royal" in Britain is flaunted, why not the Duchy? The Duchy was recently asked by a Notary Solicitor if they still aknowledged the outcome of the Foreshore case - they refused to answer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FTI-Cornwall (talk • contribs) 22:55, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

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

The result was Speedy deleted WP:CSD#G4. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 22:01, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

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

Not a fictional sport, but a fictional form of a sport. It's not at all notable; I couldn't find any mentions it on the internet. Also while the fiction notability guidelines are currently being developed it doesn't meet them either. It's not culturally significant, the info here could easily be included in the main article and it has no non-trivial real world mentions. Patton123 20:53, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

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

The result was Delete. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 23:36, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Jules Drucker (Musician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Not sure if this is notable? Originally tagged with speedy delete but it was removed. ♪TempoDiValse♪ 20:15, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

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

The result was speedy delete per G3; no sources, hoax. Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :D 23:22, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

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

Apparently this is an "emerging" branch of knowledge. It doesn't appear to have emerged very far at all. The only thing a Google search on "Profusionism" is something to do with creation science and nothing to do with this. Reyk YO! 19:35, 15 December 2008 (UTC)


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

The result was Clusterfuck. The debate has been hopelessly confused by the fact that the article has changed to two distinct articles; one on the theorem "Permanent is sharp-P-complete" and one on the "Proof of Permanent is sharp-P-complete". It appears that the topic has been split, and that it is impossible to determine which article, or which version of which article, anyone below is commenting on. That at some point one article was set up as a redirect to the other, and the entire situation has been protected against editing makes this hopelessly muddled. There is no prejudice against improving articles during an AFD process, however the manner in which these changes have occured can hardly be called "improvement". The way this situation has worked out, I can't even say with certainty that we have a "no-consensus" situation here. Work out WHICH article we want to delete and WHICH we want to keep, even if we want to delete both or keep both. Once the situation has been sorted out, and we know exactly which article is which and what is going on, feel free to renominate either or both for another go at AFD. Jayron32.talk.contribs 06:54, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Permanent is sharp-P-complete (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article not encyclopedic, not an article, is a probable copy-vio, and Knowledge is not the place to (re)-publish research, and this proof is probably not notable.--Tznkai (talk) 19:06, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep and improve The proof is certainly notable: its importance is comparable to that of Cook's theorem for NP-completeness, because Permanent is the canonical #P-complete problem, just as 3SAT is the canonical NP-complete problem. I do not believe this article is copy-vio, and is just one of several Category:Article proofs actually. I agree it could be improved, made more readable, more sources used, some sections trimmed etc. Shreevatsa (talk) 19:21, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Even though my eyes tend to glaze over when presented with proofs like that, the result clearly is important, and the proof is too complex to include in either Permanent or #P-complete, which are substantially less technical. 5 sources in article suggest notability, and I note that citeseer has additional citations of at least one of those. JulesH (talk) 19:58, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
  • delete With mathematical proofs we are treading on a very sharp boundary between original research and encyclopedic texts. This particular article is nothing beyond retelling a proof published in an original article, i.e., based solely on the primary source - AFAIK it is not admissible in wikipedia. With proof complex as that, the major issue is woth verifiability: I have no reason to believe that the wikipedian represented correctly the ideas of the proof, and this article may be actually a disservice; and just as well the original proof is available in libraries. In many cases a proof of some theorem is so notable as to be reprinted in several monographs, with commentaries and explanation. An encyclopedic article is possible in this case: it may consist of the outline of a proof, its associations and ramifications as presented by experts in reliable sources. This is not the case here. It is a nice, but still original essay, a non-reliable retelling of a tale. Of course, any wikipedia article is basically retelling of some tales by wikipedians, but the case of mathematics brings the issues of verifiablity no n-th degree. `'Míkka>t 21:48, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Um, mathematics is more verifiable than any other discipline :) I also agree this proof as it stands (relying on one source, apparently) is not appropriate, but the article itself is very much admissible. Shreevatsa (talk) 06:38, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
I have no reason to believe that the wikipedian represented correctly the ideas of the proof. You can say that about any article on Knowledge with references, not just the mathematics ones. Your point in making that comment is? The rest of your remark seems to be that you don't like how this article is written. That's never a valid argument to delete, as well you should know. The theorem is notable, and thus it should have an article. Merging or rewriting are all editorial decisions to be proposed and worked out elsewhere. --C S (talk) 20:29, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per mikkalai. Unnotable proof. Tavix (talk) 23:55, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Whether or not this proof is notable is irrelevent. Reprinting a proof does not constitute an article at all and is merely a primary source. In order to have a wikipedia article we would need to have independent sources discussing the proof. None are presented here. Indrian (talk) 01:01, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
It's possible the article just retells one proof (I don't know; I didn't write it), but there are independent sources discussing essentially the same proof: see the ones in the references. The article will have to be improved to incorporate all of them. Shreevatsa (talk) 06:38, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete WP:NOTREPOSITORY combined with WP:RAP and WP:INDISCRIMINATE and the above stated by Mikkalai is a good enough basis for deletion for me. Switching to Neutral, would like wording to be better though. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 06:56, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. If deleted, please transwiki to b:Famous theorems of mathematics. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 15:14, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Firstly, WP:NOTTEXTBOOK. Secondly, WP:MOSMATH says "include proofs when they expose or illuminate the concept or idea; don't include them when they serve only to establish the correctness of result"; this proof is not unusual or illuminating. It consists of showing that a problem known to be #P-complete is equivalent to the calculating the permanent of a particular matrix, a very standard approach to such complexity proofs. Result could be mentioned in the permanent article, but we don't need to reproduce the blow-by-blow details. Gandalf61 (talk) 20:26, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Please. "Tznkai", could you at least attempt to make your case? You say it's probably a copyright violation. All it would take to back that up is to specify some copyrighted source—a web page or a book or something—that you think it's copied from. And you say "probably not notable". I wouldn't think that would be too hard to explain. But you don't attempt it. Michael Hardy (talk) 07:14, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. This result is fundamental to both permanents (and a lot of work on the borders between statistical mechanics and combinatorics) and the theory of #P-completeness (and the polynomial hierarchy more generally) in computational complexity. And as someone else pointed out it's too long to be merged into either of its parent articles. The following argument is kind of waxy, but still, if you're going to get rid of this, you might as well get rid of all of Category:Article proofs and reduce Knowledge to more of a Schaum's outline of mathematical results, asserted to be true and with pointers to the literature, but with all explanations of why they're true excised. The article could use improvement (too much first person) and I don't care for the title (should be a noun phrase such as Sharp-P-completeness of the permanent rather than a sentence) but those aren't reasons for deletion. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:18, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
  • delete - with all due respect to the importance of the result itself, the article fails to demonstrate the notability of the details of the proof. Also, the requirements to the correctness/validity of proofs are beyond the scope of an encyclopedia, and all the more of wikipedia, which, as it is well-known, is not an instrument of peer review of someone's retelling of the proof. And indeed, the whole Category:Article proofs deserves to be scrutinized as well. The problem with encyclopedic articles which present proofs remind me the following joke retold about several genius porofessors: "During a lecture professor XXX explained some proof, repeating 'Now it is easily seen that...', 'YYY readily implies that ...'. After one of 'it is evident that ZZZ... " he abruptly stopped and started hastily scribbling long formulae in a corner of the blackboard. After ten minutes he wiped sweat from his forehead and continued, 'Yes, it is evident that ZZZ...' Twri (talk) 21:13, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep – The result is as good as any in the field of computational complexity. Moreover, the proof is highly notable – I think the standard computational complexity textbook of Papadimitriou makes this case explicitly, which should work as an external reference for notability. (But I’d have to check.) Of course, the current form of this article may fail (indeed, does fail) to explain what’s so great about this proof. But that’s not an argument for deletion, only for improving it. And rename as per David Eppstein’s suggestion. Thore Husfeldt (talk) 21:20, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
    • I like better the siggestion of Mikka, Computation of the permananent of a matrix: it is both general ("Computation") and correctly specific ("permanent of a matrix"), and I am doing this right now. Twri (talk) 21:40, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
      • I don’t agree. The literature on computing permanents is vast, Valiant’s result is just one of many. Upper bounds, lower bounds in restricted models, hardness results in at least two frameworks I can think of, comparison with determinant and pfaffian,… I’m not saying that Algorithms for matrix permanent (or something like that) shouldn’t exist; in fact, that would be a great article. But the present article is much more specific. Thore Husfeldt (talk) 21:49, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
        • Sory, I was not clear or (was not reading the suggestion of Thore Husfeldt clearly): I was talking about a general article, which is clearly missing. Twri (talk) 21:56, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Following up on my own comment, the best quote I could find in Papadimitriou’s book is “The most impressive and interesting #P-complete problems are those for which the corresponding search problem can be solved in polynomial time. The permanent problem for 0-1 matrices, is the classical example here.” (Computational complexity, p. 443, emphasis his). It’s not quite the quote I had in mind, but the best I could find. Thore Husfeldt (talk) 09:55, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep (and copy-edit for style and otherwise improve). The arguments for deletion are weak at best. "Copyvio"??? That's utterly arbitrary unless one points to a published article or book or web page that it may be copied from. Most of the other arguments could be addressed by improving the article rather than deleting it. And just saying "not notable" and signing your name is not an argument; you should explain your position. Michael Hardy (talk) 17:51, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep I am not familiar with this (deletion) but I think that the article should be kept. Point-set topologist (talk) 18:25, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Apparently additional comments from me have been requested: I've stated its probable copy vio because of the style and the single source attribution. It looks like a copy write violation (likely to have copy/pasted material) and single source attribution runs into serious plagiarism and copyright violation situations. If I took a newspaper article lets say, copied it whole sale, and reworded it only slightly, that is still a copyright violation. I'm not an expert in mathematics, but I've never heard of this proof, I've never seen refresher to this proof, and I've gone ahead and looked briefly, but not in advanced mathematics journals - if an expert insists its notable, go for it. If this ends with a keep I would suggest a turning it into a stub and flagging for improvement, as the current version is unacceptable, even if the topic matter deserves an article as suggested above. Anyway, I have no burning desire to see this article deleted, I just ran across it on random article patrol.--Tznkai (talk) 18:36, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment. I think it is very counterproductive to start advocating stubbification for anything that merely looks like it was professionally written. Sometimes articles here have that appearance because the people here who are writing them are in fact professionals, and we shouldn't be discouraging experts from contributing what they know. If you are suspicious that it's a copyvio, try searching Google for matches to some of the unusual phrases, and settle the question positively or negatively for yourself before casting aspersions so wildly. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:53, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
        • I agree with David Eppstein. Stubbification is not appropriate; what is needed here is expansion of the introductory section and some style clean-up. This is a notable theorem with a notable proof that deserves to be presented and has significant encyclopedic value. As a mathematician, I find WP articles about mathematical results that present at least a sketch of the proof to be much more useful and informative than short stubs where the result is only stated with a ref given. This is a published notable proof, so it is not a case of WP:OR. Nsk92 (talk) 20:37, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
      • But it does need some style improvements. Michael Hardy (talk) 19:29, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
    • Additional comments requested? That's one way to put it. I think a reasonable way to put it is that people have noticed that literally not a single thing you wrote makes sense. Your accusation of copyvio comes from the fact that it looks well-written and one main source was used. Silly. You said the theorem or proof is "probably not notable", and yet you also say "I'm not an expert in mathematics, but I've never heard of this proof". Oh, and I suppose you think it's reasonable for a non-expert to say something is not notable because s/he hasn't heard of it? Ludicrous. And I just love the cogent way your nomination was worded! The article is not only "not encyclopedic", it's also "not an article"! And woah, here's news to me, Knowledge is not the place to republish research! Damn. Let me go back and delete all the articles I've written! --C S (talk) 20:29, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Week keep the result does seem to be notable, whether the proof is notable is another matter. I generally thing the bar for proofs should be set quite high as there can be problems with OR and verifiability. I'm inclined towards keep here. One point is the article might be better titled Permanent is ♯P-complete note use of sharp ♯ symbol rather than hash # which overcomes technical problems.--Salix (talk): 18:55, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep I am really surprised to find this entry up for deletion. I work in pure mathematics, fairly far from technical complexity theory, but even I heard about this theorem. Computation of the permanent of a matrix is a basic example of a ♯P-complete problem and it does play a fundamental role in the subject. There are sufficient references in the article to establish notability of this result already, but there are quite a few more where ♯P-completeness of the permanent is discussed in substantial detail:. The article could use expansion of the introductory part where the history of the result is explained in more detail but it certainly deserves to be kept. Nsk92 (talk) 20:17, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
    • I just looked up our library's copy of Papadimitriou's book Computational Complexity and the theorem about sharp-P completeness of the permanent is discussed there in substantial detail: Theorem 18.3 on page 443, with the preceding discussion on pages 439-443. Moreover, the proof that Papadimitriou presents appears to be essentially that given in this article, although I did not have time to digest the details. Let me just quote what Papadimitriou says about the significance of the result before giving the proof (italicization is Papadimitriou's):"The most impressive and interesting ♯P-complete problems are those for which the corresponding search problem can be solved in polynomial time. The PERMANENT problem for 0-1 matrices, which is equivalent to the problem of counting perfect matchings in a bipartite graph (or cycle covers in a directed graph, recall Figure 18.1) is the classic example here:" Really, this unfortunate nomination ought to be withdrawn. Nsk92 (talk) 21:01, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
      • Here are a few more sample secondary refs for doubters: says:"In terms of computational complexity theory, Valiant proved the seminal result that computing the permanent of integer matrices is complete for the counting complexity class ♯P, and is therefore NP-hard". Note that the theorem is referred to as a "seminal result". The book of Kozen also discusses its significance. An article in "Encyclopedia of Microcomputers" referes to this theorem as "the seminal result". Here is one more, calling this theorem a "celebrated result". And so on. Nsk92 (talk) 21:43, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
      • The theorem is "the seminal result", but this result is by Valiant in 1979, and this proof is yet to be proved to be "seminal". I am surprized that mathematicians (are you?) lack the basic logic. Mukadderat (talk) 01:22, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
  • keep: And whoever goes around bringing stuff like this up, stop wasting people's time. Do something constructive instead.72.229.20.108 (talk) 20:36, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment All this discussion still has not fixed possible issues with WP:NOTTEXTBOOK. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 21:17, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
    • WP:NOTTEXTBOOK is not an issue here in the first place. We are talking about an advanced mathematical result, not a textbook kind of fact. The result is highly notable and plays a fundamental role in the subject. Its notability has been established by detailed coverage in multiple reliable sources. That is more that sufficient for a keep. Nsk92 (talk) 21:24, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
    You'll notice I used comment, not delete. I was merely referring to the wording of the article. ;) Also, IP 72.XXX.XX.XX, don't attack other editors. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 21:54, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
    Yes, I saw that, but at the time of my reply I also saw your original delete !vote above which I now see you have changed to neutral. I agree with you regarding uncivil comments by the IP, they are not helpful. Nsk92 (talk) 22:00, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep per Shreevatsa and Thore Husfeldt. This is pretty far from my area of interest, but I still know of it as a major result. Further, this is good content -- there's not enough of that around! Even as a deletionist (in general) I see value in this article. CRGreathouse (t | c) 22:49, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Please allow me to respectfully notice that people confusing two distinct issues: the fact and its proof. The fact is extremely notable without doubt. However it belongs to Valiant (1979). Discussed here is a proof by different people, which may be smart, but it is secondary follow-up and I fail to see what kind of breakthrough it presents that makes it notable for its own article. Mukadderat (talk) 01:17, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
The article about the theorem stating that computing the permanent is sharp-P complete. You say yourself that the result is notable. There is no requirement for the proof presented in the article to be Valiant's initial proof. For notable mathematical results proofs are often significantly simplified and improved over time by other mathematicians, and it is a standard and accepted practice for WP math articles to give such simplified and modern proofs. As long as the result is clearly attributed to Valiant (which it is) and the proof given is based on a published source (as seems to be the case here), there is no problem. Nsk92 (talk) 01:27, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
The issue of notability is applied not to separate articles, but to any pieces of them. Otherwise what would prevent me from describing my dog in the article dog (of course this is an absurd exagerration, bit where is the boundary?). Also, I supplied my vote with the observation no one made until now. I also subscribe to other wories wxpressed, but I didn't want to be repetitive. But if you insist, then yest, I agree the presentation of a complex proof is on a dangerous verge to original research. In mathematical chain of thought every step cannot be misstepped. "Expert-unfriendly" Knowledge gives no guarantee that the wikipedian did not make a blunder somewhere. Retelling an event or description of Madagascar consists of small independent, independently verifiable pieces. Whereas a mathematica proof is a monolith, and would never trust a wikipedian. Mukadderat (talk) 01:40, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Knowledge math articles routinely contain proofs and/or sketches of proofs. As is anything else, these proofs are subject to WP:V and to scruitiny of other Knowledge users and if mistakes are discovered they should and are corrected. The math proofs given in math articles do need to rely on published reliable sources, and this one does. As a professional mathematician who does read Wkipedia math articles fairly frequently, I can tell you that there is significant encyclopedic value in both explaining the statement of a result and its significance, and in explaining how it was obtained. Mathematics is not static and changes over time; ideas progress, new tools and notions are introduced, language is simplified, etc. Proofs of important results get simplified, improved and rationalized too. It is entirely appropriate to present simpler and more modern proofs than the original ones, and this is routinely done in WP math articles, as well as in math books and math research articles. For example, the proof of Fundamental theorem of Galois theory would hardly be recognized by Évariste Galois, as most of the language and the notions have changed rather considerably since his time. Regarding your example with your dog and the article dog, the difference with the present case is in WP:UNDUE. Nsk92 (talk) 02:08, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Whether or not you describe your dog in the article dog is irrelevant to whether the subject of "dog" is notable and the corresponding article should be deleted. --C S (talk) 01:57, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
In fact, I find it ironic that you are complaining that the proof is a "secondary" follow-up. It is in fact the golden standard of Knowledge that articles should be based, to the extent possible, on secondary sources, not the primary ones. Nsk92 (talk) 01:29, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
In fact I find it ironic that you don't understand that secondary source and "secondary importance" are quite different issues yet you find it possible to insult me by hinting at my low intelligence. If an author of the text we vote about has the same level of logic, then woe to the readers. Mukadderat (talk) 01:40, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Mukadderat, I usually have a fairly thick skin, but this kind of a personal attack by you is unacceptable. Please retract it. Nsk92 (talk) 02:14, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Pray tell, where is Nsk92's "hinting of low intelligence"? All I see is your not so thinly veiled insult that Nsk92 and others are "lacking basic logic" and your repeating of that kind of insult in your last response. The article is called, "Permanent is sharp-P-complete". There are plenty of reputable sources that say this is an important, seminal fact playing a fundamental role in the theory. Thus the article should not be deleted. That is the basic logic here. The fact that you insist on conflating this with other issues does not make those saying "keep" lacking of logic. --C S (talk) 01:57, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
The page in question is nothing but the proof of this fact. The fact itself and discussion of its importance may be easily put into Computation of the permanent of a matrix. (Wait, it is already there!) I am voting to delete the proof. Mukadderat (talk) 02:11, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep and rewrite from scratch. The result is notable, so the article should be kept. But the current content of the article is inappropriate, because the details of the proof are not notable. Compare, for example, Euclid's theorem (on the infinitude of prime numbers); Euclid's proof (not just his result) is famous. You all know what I'm talking about when I say "multiply all the primes and add one." I have not seen anyone make a case that the proof that computing permanents is #P-complete is similarly notable. The theorem is notable; the proof is not. A sketch of the proof is appropriate; the details are not. (That said, it would be nice to transwiki the present article to Wikibooks, as suggested above by Jitse Nielsen.) Ozob (talk) 06:13, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
As pointed above in David Eppstein's post, the proof is notable too, because, for example, a classic book on computational complexity by Papadimitriou which is the standard book in the subject, presents essentially the same argument. If this proof is simpler than the original one by Valiant, there is no problem with having this proof: it is informative, directly relevant to the article and encyclopedic. As I said above, with many, probably most, notable results in mathematics the initial proofs are too complicated and inefficient. If the result is interesting, other mathematicians come in and try to simplify and clarify the initial proof, and it is these simplified and clarified arguments that actually make it into books and encyclopedias. It makes perfect encyclopedic sense and in fact reflects the standard practice in Knowledge articles on mathematical topics to present these new simplified proofs as opposed to the original complicated ones (which also often use language and machinery that becomes outdated). E.g. the proof of the Fundamental theorem of Galois theory contained in that WP article is certainly not the original proof of Évariste Galois, but rather a considerably adapted and simplified modern version. Similarly, proofs of other notable results given in the articles like Picard–Lindelöf theorem, Banach fixed point theorem, etc, are certainly not the original proofs but significant modern simplifications. This is a completely standard, reasonable and acceptable practice. Nsk92 (talk) 06:45, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Comment I agree with Michael Hardy and Ozob. An article about the result, with a sketch of methods of proof would be encyclopedic; the current lengthy texbook-style line-by-line exposition of one particular proof is not encyclopedic. If the article were re-written to focus on the result, establishing its notability, discussing its history, sketching one or more proofs (at the same level of detail as the present Proof overview section), maybe mentioning some consequences, extensions or generalisations, then I would withdraw my Delete !vote. Fundamental theorem of Galois theory is a fairly good model here (although very undersourced) - note how short its Proof section is. But all that would require a major re-write of the current article. Gandalf61 (talk) 09:43, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, just a proof, not an article about the proof. Can be transwikied somewhere if desired. Note that the early page history contained stuff that was cut and pasted to True quantified Boolean formula, but I have spliced the page histories. Kusma (talk) 10:12, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
    Okay, now that there is a bit of an article, there is something worth keeping. I still think the proof should be removed (e.g., it could be transwikied out to Wikibooks, improving both Wikibooks and Knowledge). Kusma (talk) 17:03, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
  • DO NOT CLOSE THIS DISCUSSION YET. I've just notified
that this discussion is in progress. We should see if they have something to contribute to this discussion. Michael Hardy (talk) 12:43, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep! The article is encyclopedic (for Wiki). There are references in this article, and there are no official experts in Wiki to solve is it true. Let every reader solves it himself. However the article may be improved.--Tim32 (talk) 13:46, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
    Unfortunately it is not an article, but the proof of a theorem. If this can be improved without a complete rewrite, please do so. Kusma (talk) 14:41, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
    As I tried to explain above, a proof of the theorem also has significant encyclopedic value and properly belongs as a part of the article. I have just added some background information and discussion about the theorem's significance, with some references, to the lede. Nsk92 (talk) 15:48, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
    I disagree, but your lede is enough to be used as an article (nothing below the TOC is necessary, though). Kusma (talk) 17:03, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep per Hardy and Eppstein points. Tparameter (talk) 16:55, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete naive COPYVIO. The recent extension of the initial article was not warranted. The text moved into anothe article with meaningful and reasonalby general title, Computation of the permanent of a matrix. This proof is a blatant copyright violation. Think what will happen is you publish Harry Potter in very close detail. Mathematical proof is intellectual property; you cannot "retell" it in your own words without author's permission and pretend that it is OK. Laudak (talk) 17:47, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
    • Laudak, please stop it immediately! There was no consensus for your massing changes, moves and redirects. Wait until the AfD is concluded and obtain a consensus at the article's talk page before proceeding with such drastic changes. Nsk92 (talk) 18:02, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
      • You are attempting to game the vote. The vote was started about the proof. The expansion of the article shouild be in page Computation of the permanent of a matrix, where I moved the text. All votes to delete was about proof. Laudak (talk) 18:08, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
        • I did not game anything. The article was about the theorem and I have expanded it, as quite a few users suggested, by adding well-sourced information about the theorem. You, on the other hand, unilaterally removed this material and performed drastic changes to the article without consensus to do so and with AfD still open. This is outrageous. Nsk92 (talk) 18:18, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
          • I did not remove your addition from wikipedia. I moved it into appropriate place, with appropriate edit summaries. I don't need consensus to move text into a more appropriate place. This page was about a specific topic: proof. From the very beginning it said: This page gives a mathematical proof that.... And this proof was to be deleted as inappropriate. Laudak (talk) 18:30, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
    • NOT COPYVIO. What on earth? You cannot copyright mathematics; this is absurd. Also, I object to your renaming the article without discussion or consensus. Shreevatsa (talk) 18:04, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
      • Oh yest you can. Just try and copy someone's proof. Laudak (talk) 18:08, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
        • Laudak, your ignorance is astonishing. Ask anyone in mathematical publishing if it is possible to "copy" someone's proof without violating copyright. It happens all the time and is accepted practice, and perfectly legal. --C S (talk) 22:13, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
      • Could somebody please revert Laudak's outrageous edits? The AfD is still open, there was no consensus for either deleting the article or the proof and no copyvio case has been established. The discussion above shows clear consensus that the theorem is notable and I have expanded the article to add background material about the theorem as some of the delete !votes suggested. There is no justification for Laudak's outrageous unilateral actions! Nsk92 (talk) 18:11, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
        • Please stop insulting colleagues. AFD was about the proof. You are adding the text into a wrong place and thus gaming the system. Many people are against this proof.
          • Laudak: please stop yourself. It is very standard to improve articles in content, focus, and title during the course of an AfD, as a way to make them more appropriate for inclusion; see WP:HEY and WP:Article Rescue Squadron. Your reversions of Nsk92's improvements in order to force the AfD to consider only the as-nominated version of the article are counterproductive, WP:POINTy, and bordering on vandalism. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:24, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
            • David, respectfully, I did not delete Nsk92: I moved his addition into Computation of the permanent of a matrix with the appropriate edit summary. Many people vote for deletion of the proof. Do you want a separate vote again, when this one ends and I will want to delete the proof out of the page if it is expaneded and survive? The vote was started about proof and must be ended about proof. Otherwise we are voting for diffierent articles. This is confusion. Laudak (talk) 18:28, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
              • Please, give me a break. Just as many people voted for keep; the AfD was not closed and there was no consensus to do what you did. Nsk92 (talk) 18:33, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
              • This article is about hardness of the permanent. Whether the word proof is in the title or not, Valiant's hardness result is the main subject and the question is about the notability of that specific result as the subject of an encyclopedia article. Computation of the permanent is both a different topic (the emphasis being on upper bounds rather than lower bounds) and much broader. I see an ideal version of the article as focusing on the specific result but still including an outline of the proof (though likely not as in-detail as the nominated version). Your insistance that the only possible version of the article we can consider as the nominated one prevents any such refactoring attempt and unfairly forces any future article focusing more on the result than the proof (but still including the proof outline) to face a heavier obstacle of G4 speedy deletion. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:37, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Article protected against revert war. Any admin has rights to unprotect without asking me first. `'Míkka>t 18:25, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't object to protection in principle and I know that protecting the wrong version is a time-honored tradion, but please restore the pre-Laudak's version that includes my improvemennts and that most of this AfD is about. All of the discussion above relates to that pre-Laudak's version and the kind of radical transformations he attempted must wait until the AfD is completed. Nsk92 (talk) 18:31, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm not going to unprotect (it was indeed an edit war, and you properly protected it in the wrong version) but doesn't this lead to a problem with the AfD? As I just pointed out to Laudak above, it is standard to attempt to improve articles in order to stave off their deletion, and Nsk92 has been working to try to do so with this article. Protected, it is impossible to make such improvements and this gives an unfair advantage to the deletionists in this debate. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:31, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Not only that, but subsequent AfD !voters are looking at something radically different from the pre-Laudak version which does not show my improvements at all. Why don't we break with tradition and protect the right version for a change. Nsk92 (talk) 18:35, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
David, I understand that you may be annoyed by actions of Laudak, and therefore ignore his argument. His argument was that the deletion was started about the particular topic, namely the proof of some statement. There are many wikipedia articles which topics are specific proofs. And this is OK. This AfD discussion stared as deletion of the proof. During the discusion the article's topic started to change: it started to shift into article about the problem. But the article about the problem already exist: it is computation of the permanent, i.e., the "sharp-P-complete" page started turning into a fork, which is unnecessary. I guess Laudak is relatively new and does not know this wikilawyering term, and hence made his life harder and gained him more enemies :-). `'Míkka>t 18:42, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
"This AFD discussion stared as deletion of the proof..." Nope, that's your POV. The deletion discussion started with "Article not encyclopedic, not an article, is a probable copy-vio, and Knowledge is not the place to (re)-publish research, and this proof is probably not notable". The issues here are "not encyclopedic" (this includes the article title and substantial content not related to the proof which existed back then), "not an article" (I have no idea what this means), "probably copy-vio" (let's put in the kitchen sink too!), "(re)-publish research" (in order to avoid NOR, we have to be republishing, so I have no idea what this means), and "proof is probably not notable", which is in your eyes, the only relevant issue as the discussion supposedly only started with this, right? Mikka, you don't own the discussion and you and the others certainly are not supposed to be able to hijack an AFD in this manner. I suppose the thought of just warning about 3RR and letting the AFD proceed never occurred to you. --C S (talk) 22:13, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
The improvements I made clearly show that the theorem of Valiant is notable, even famous, and more than deserves a separate article, rather than a meager mention in computation of the permanent. The AfD is and was about the theorem, which is a famous and notable mathematical result. Nsk92 (talk) 18:48, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
A meager mention would be in place in permanent. The page computation of the permanent safely holds what you wrote so far. When it grows over 32K, then you may split them into several pages. This is how wikipedia works: meager pages grow, mutate, split, merge, split again... Game of life. `'Míkka>t 19:11, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
The article computation of the permanent was created on Dec 17, well after this AfD started, and edited by the most ardent !delete voters here, including Mukadderat and Laudak. Talk about gaming the system! It is thecomputation of the permanent article which is a fork for the article discussed in this AfD. Nsk92 (talk) 19:55, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
  • No vote. This is difficult. I might make an analogy with the pages containing source code implementations of algorithms, such as quicksort implementations, which were long ago deleted via AfD per WP:NOT (Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Quicksort implementations). In my experience, detailed mathematical proofs are not well-maintained by the wiki process; well-meaning contributors tend to introduce small errors into the proof that make them invalid. I think it is acceptable to have an article about a theorem, with an informal proof sketch, that also describes the impact of the theorem; in this case, I think it'd probably be best to just take the proof summary and an example or two and merge it back into Sharp P complete, with a reference to the paper for a full exposition.
Oh, and regarding the silly edit warring - I move for an extension of the AfD by another few days in light of the protection. Dcoetzee 18:43, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
I would also suggest to do something to separate the votes about two conflated issues: the problem and the proof, in an analogy with your example about quicksort implementations. As I see in this discussion, some people who woted to keep the (expoanded) article still added that they want the proof gone. `'Míkka>t 18:48, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
And I would suggest that we restore the version that was being !voted on until an hour ago so that people know what they are actually !voting on. Regarding separating the theorem and the proof: while I believe that the proof belongs in the article about the theorem, in the formal sense the question of including or not including the proof is a content WP:WEIGHT issue for an article, not a deletion issue. If an article about the theorem is kept, the question of whether or not the proof should remain a part of the article is something that would need to be worked out in the talk page of the article. AfD is not the place for making these kinds of decisions. Nsk92 (talk) 18:55, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
The vote was going on long before your edits, and about the different issue. You were free to write a separate article about the problem, under correct title, which is computation of the permanent of a 0-1 matrix, or something. The article was about the proof and no particularly forcing reason to change the subject and to re-start yet another discussion in a talk page when we already have it. Laudak (talk) 19:02, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry I got myself dragged into an edit war. I was offset by a revert of my good-faith edits with false edit summary: the reverter said that I deleted the proof, which I did not; exactly the opposite. Therefore I made the resoration, assuming that the reverter will undestand their mistake. However I was reverted again with edit summary which made me to conclude that the author wants to own the article: when only two are in disagreement and one side starts speaking about consensus, it usually means that in his view his consensus is better than mine. This kinda pissed me off. Anyway, this was first time with me here and of course it was silly. A good lesson. Thanks, good bye. I will not pursue the issue any more. Laudak (talk) 19:02, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

  • I see that Laudak has moved this page from Permanent is p-sharp complete to proof that permanent is p-sharp complete. I'd have kept the old title and changed it to an article about the theorem rather than the proof, possibly including a proof or a sketch of a proof, if I'd known enough about the role of this theorem to do that fairly quickly. Laudak's new title seems biased against that. Should we move it back? Michael Hardy (talk) 19:21, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
    • Yes, I would prefer both the initial title and the previous version to be restored, at least for the duration of this AfD. Since Laudak has officially bowed out from pursuing this issue further, could one of the admins here please restore this version (which included a reasonably extensive discussion of the theorem and its significance, that I have added today, with multiple sources) and perhaps unprotect the article, so that the AfD can continue normally from the point where it was before all the moves and redirects occurred? Nsk92 (talk) 19:25, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
      • I was voting both against the proof and an article which contains solely the proof. I agree with Laudak's move, which restored the initial focus of the vote. I have no doubt that the result is a milestone and deserves the inclusion in wikipedia, but no one proved yet that proof in question is a comparable milestone. I find it ridiculous that someone changed the subjhect of the discussion and wants the original discussion to be restarted somewhere in a talk page when only a handful hardened POV-pushers will see it, and they may arrange whatever consensus they want. Mukadderat (talk) 19:38, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
        • P.S. Someone has removed my several tags I placed to indicate that the article in question is original research and of poor quality, too (and hence to be deleted) without fixing the problems or providing references. For starters, Someone "improved" the article with "By the definition of #P, #SAT is a #P-complete problem". Well, the article Sharp-P says nothing to this end. And there is no Sharp-SAT page to become wiser. I read more and it has more and more such dubious statements. I guess it was written by a college student as an assignment, and I am very surprised people want to keep it or "improve" a text which sucks by wikipedia standards despite pretty pictures. If someone thinks I am nitpicking, here is a problem: Both #P and proof for "permanent of 01- matrix" are introduced in the same 1979 paper. Since its title was "The complexity of computing the permanent", it is rather reasonable to assume that perm was the first ever #P-complete problem. Therefore its proof based on #SAT may look simpler but sweeps under the carpet the proof that #SAT is #P complete (and leaves the suspicion in circular logic; not that I believe that Ben-Dor made such a stupid mistake, but it is quite possible that someone publishes a "simpler" proof for #SAT which by some chain may be based on Perm and it finds its way into wikipedia). What I am saying, in math it is important to clearly ane explicitly keep track the causative chain. Mukadderat (talk) 19:58, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
          • Don't know who removed your tags (you'd have to look through the history log), but the other changes you are complaining about were made by Laudak. You may also want to look more carefully at the last version before Laudak's revisions: It did contain quite a few references and a discussion, in the lede, of the significance of the theorem, that I added this morning. Nsk92 (talk) 20:07, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete "Below we give a mathematical proof that follows Ben-Dor and Halevi (1993)" Um, no we don't, that would be Wikibooks or some such. We discuss the theory but we don't do textbook proofs. Guy (Help!) 20:22, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete and transwiki per Guy. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:19, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Close AFD as gamed by Mukadderat, Laudak, and Mikkalai. A fork has been created from the initial article "Permanent is sharp-P-complete" and the initial article moved to a new title and substantially revised. This is about as ludicrous as arguing that the article dog should be deleted because it contains too much information about Mukadderat's dog. Then when people argue "dog" is notable and should be kept, I moved dog to Mukadderat's dog and say, "I'm focusing the discussion on the relevant topic which is whether Mukadderat's dog is notable or not." --C S (talk) 22:03, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Note to subsequent AfD !voters: Before !voting, please take a look at the pre-Laudak version of the article, that contained substantial additional information, including a discussion of the theorem's importance, and quite a few more references compared with the version of the article that was nominated and compared with the current Laudak's protected version. Also please note that the title of the article has been moved by Laudak too and that the original title was the statement of Valiant's theorem, Permanent is sharp-P-complete. Thanks, Nsk92 (talk) 22:23, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment OK, now that this has been moved from Permanent is sharp-P-complete to Proof that permanent is sharp-P-complete, this could get deleted and then a new article could be created titled Permanent is sharp-P-complete, which would be about the theorem rather than about the proof. The objection expressed by some of the "delete" voters would not apply to that. Would someone then speedily delete it as "recreation of deleted content"? Michael Hardy (talk) 22:37, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Summary of the attempted "fix" and why it is lacking: The article which had as title the theorem "Permanent is sharp-p-complete" has had all material about the theorem's impact and relevance moved to another article called computation of the permanent. The leftover material, on a standard proof of this theorem, was then moved to Proof of permanent is sharp-p-complete. Does the move make sense? As David Eppstein indicated above, computing the permanent is concerned with upper bounds, while saying a problem (like PERMANENT) is #P-hard is concerned with lower bounds. I would go even further. Saying a problem is #p-complete only says the general problem is hard. The average case could be much easier. And if one is truly concerned with the computing of the permanent, probabilistic methods could make the problem a lot easier. (Some stuff like this is already there, I notice, in "Computation..." and was moved there from the article Permanent) In other words, the practical problem of computing the permanent is really only somewhat related to this result, and it is a substantial, large topic in its own right. The move was entirely inappropriate in this regard. What would have been reasonable would have been to move only the stuff related to the detailed proof out of the article into another one called "Proof..." But then for people who are fixated upon deleting this particular article, that would hardly be satisfactory, would it? What would even be more reasonable would be just to raise the topic of whether the proof is too detailed on the talk page of the article.--C S (talk) 00:05, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Carefully read nominator's reasons
  1. probable copy-vio - there is no evidence that this is copyvio, just an unfounded assertion,
  2. Knowledge is not the place to (re)-publish research - so we can't republish anything ???
  3. proof is probably not notable - the nominator argues from ignorance as a reason for deletion. 86.167.196.116 (talk) 00:11, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Sockpuppets: Based on their strange use of the English language, I suspect that several of the usernames in favour of deletion are operated by the same person. Will an admin please check their IP addresses. 86.167.196.116 (talk) 00:54, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment. I see no evidence. The keep voters, on the other hand, seem to be mostly using similar phrasing. (No, seriously, I've seen most of both groups on math articles before.) Please be specific. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:18, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
      • I agree, the sockpuppetry claims seem far-fetched. As far as I can see, all the !delete voters are in fact established users. There were enough instances of actual wrongdoing here but sockpuppetry was not one of them. Nsk92 (talk) 01:50, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. –Juliancolton 01:06, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

The Yogi Bear Song (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Apparently a drinking song sung by fans of a particular rugby club. Disgusting lyrics, no claim of notability, no references just stupidity all around. There's been multiple occurrences of vandalism. -- Zanimum (talk) 19:37, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

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

The result was keep. John254 17:22, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

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

"independent documentary" doesn't ring good for notability, and sources are similarly dubious. Punkmorten (talk) 18:37, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

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

The result was redirect to Good Vibrations (disambiguation). Boldly redirected. (non-admin closure) — neuro 03:12, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

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

This article was created over three years ago, and its longest non-spammy state was last year with 1.5kB, still with lots of WP:OR and a major dict-def vibe (WP:NOT#DICT). I was going to bold-redirect it to either Good Vibrations (the famous Beach Boys song, a plausible capitalization) or Good Vibrations (disambiguation) (which can cover the dict-def'iness just fine), but since the article survived a prod in May 2007 and since there were three talkpage volunteers who thought this article is worthwhile (with which I don't agree, but I am not a linguist, and google doesn't help), this should go to AfD for a wider input. – sgeureka 18:01, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

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

The result was keep. John254 17:23, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Yorktown High School (Indiana) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable. No references. Very little content. Gr0ff (talk) 17:55, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Delete. High schools are notable, but should not always get their own article per WP:NNC. A high school must have notable content to warrant a seperate page. In this case, Yorktown High School lacks such content and should be removed or merged with the appropriate school district. -Gr0ff (talk) 19:46, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Possibly true, but high school deletions are near WP:SNOWBALL in Hell proposals. They are unproductive efforts with very rare exception and it has been that way for over a year. The best editors can do is to improve the articles as they can. • Gene93k (talk) 20:30, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Noted. Thanks! -Gr0ff (talk) 21:58, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not because highschools are or are not notable, but because I'd have speedied any article similar to this with A1 or A3 for failing to provide content and context that actually makes the article encyclopedic. (Merging to the school district until it has such content is acceptable too) - Mgm| 23:36, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep and improve. Definitely needs more content and sources, but it does have at least six Google news hits and the high school itself has a site, so it's lack of trying rather than lack of available info. It's as notable as your average high school on WP. Graymornings(talk) 01:12, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - I am travelling and just popped in to see what is going on and was surprised to see this nomination. Using a friend's creaking laptop, I can't really edit this page for another 24 hours until I get home. Meanwhile, I have added a clear claim to notability, to meet Mgm's A1/A3 point (coming in the top 2% of a state's high schools is a pretty good claim!). In addition, there are many sources that can be mined from here, and here including a notable band competition win. TerriersFan (talk) 02:18, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep suggest a SNOWBALL keep this is obviously notable JBsupreme (talk) 07:06, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep High schools are inherently notable. Edward321 (talk) 23:09, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - It's short length may encourage those who have knowledge of sources to expand the article to do so. I firmly believe that a short stub on a notable topic is far better than no article at all. New editors may question starting a new article about a subject, however, they may be much more inclined to expand upon a preexisting article they know something about. Think to the future, not the present. Coastalsteve984 (talk) 16:26, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep as nominator. Thanks for all of your input! -Gr0ff (talk) 18:47, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. MBisanz 03:33, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Sandy Bay Resort, Haad Yao, Thailand (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The entire article is biased, unsourced and gives no information, it might also be considered as advertisement

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 CSD G4 - already deleted via AFD, nothing changed since then. If someone wants to contest the result of that AFD, please use WP:DRV instead. --Angelo (talk) 19:31, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

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

No reliable sources, and doesn't pass the criteria at WP:PORNBIO. Epbr123 (talk) 17:40, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton 01:05, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

On roll consulting (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No Google hits, and the two cited references don't mention this topic, so WP:Notability isn't apparent. Appears to be WP:OR, WP:NEOLOGISM. —Largo Plazo (talk) 17:28, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

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

The result was speedy delete. MBisanz 03:33, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

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

Newly-launched gin brand. Deleted several times as advertising. Spam content now removed, but what's left is "this is a new brand of gin." The sources cited are two articles that merely quote PR releases, and one blog. Notability not established by reliable independent sources. NawlinWiki (talk) 17:05, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

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

The result was keep. John254 17:24, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

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

Intro includes "undiscovered" and "largely invisible to promoters, labels and the press" which indicates it is not notable. RJFJR (talk) 17:01, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

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

The result was keep. WP:SNOW MBisanz 09:36, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

2008-2009 ACB season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I'm not sure it's appropriate to call this an "article," but this collection of tables was listed for Knowledge:Proposed deletion in the past for lacking any sort of assertion whatsoever of notability and citations. Prod was struck without explanation, but it seemed an obvious enough case that it attracted the template again, more recently. This random collection of statistics plainly does not warrant retention, especially in its present form. MrZaius 15:23, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton 01:04, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

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

Actor who has only appeared in two episodes (per IMDb) of a show that's not exactly burning up the airwaves yet. Search under spelling used at IMDb (Lossasso) gives just 5 non-wiki ghits and 0 gnews; search under Losasso spelling gives more ghits (60 unique, 3 gnews), but notability still isn't turning up in those. Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:17, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. "Fangwillripoffacertainuserstinywoodanddigestitinminutes" has been blocked (talk • edit talk • message • contribs • block log • change block settings • watch). MBisanz 03:34, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

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

Author, does not seem to pass WP's notability guidelines - one book listed on Amazon but not covered by any reliable sources, unreferenced article Richard Hock (talk) 14:48, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

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

The result was delete.  Sandstein  08:10, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

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

The notability guidelines for films do not seem to be satisfied:

  1. The film is widely distributed and has received full length reviews by two or more nationally known critics.
    • No suggestion of such. While there is a quotation from an NBC critic, there is no evidence that it is from a full length review (a Google search for the text doesn't generate any hits other than on the filmmaker's website).
  2. The film is historically notable, as evidenced by one or more of the following:
    • Publication of at least two non-trivial articles, at least five years after the film's initial release.
    • No suggestion of such
    • The film was deemed notable by a broad survey of film critics, academics, or movie professionals, when such a poll was conducted at least five years after the film's release.
    • No suggestion of such
    • The film was given a commercial re-release, or screened in a festival, at least five years after initial release.
    • No suggestion of such
    • The film was featured as part of a documentary, program, or retrospective on the history of cinema.
    • No suggestion of such
  3. The film has received a major award for excellence in some aspect of filmmaking.
    • No suggestion of such
  4. The film was selected for preservation in a national archive.
    • No suggestion of such
  5. The film is "taught" as a subject at an accredited university or college with a notable film program.
    • No suggestion of such

Bongomatic 14:28, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I think that's item (3) above. Bongomatic 23:42, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Is there even one instance of "significant" coverage? Is any of the awards "major"? Are they even documented? The inthecanfilm link provided doesn't actually say which (minor, festival) awards it actually received, so it is not verifiable. Bongomatic 23:42, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
chifcpug.org: "WRESTLED, which he edited and sound designed, was picked up by IFC (Independent Film Channel) for the 2006 season. The film, shot on 16mm B&W, gained an official selection in the Slamdunk Film Festival in Park City, Utah, and won the “Best Dramatic Short Film” award from the Orion Film Festival in Texas." Schmidt, 02:48, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
The sources provided in the article are are considered "significant" in that they are more-than-trivial. In The Can Films states "Wrestled was selected to take part in the Apple computer series Made on a Mac, hosted by Roger Ebert, profiling filmmakers who are using the Final Cut Pro software to produce new and innovative work. The film earned critical praise, resulting in interviews with Donlon on NBC and in Relevant Magazine." That is NOT a trivial mention. Reel Chicago states "The film marks the third time Donlon and Ordower have worked together. All three films have been directed by Donlon with Ordower serving as editor and sound designer. The first of these films, 'Wrestled,' was picked up by the Independent Film Channel. Ordower took on producing duties with the second film, 'A Series of Small Things', which was accepted into the Palm Springs International Film Festival. According to Ordower, each film has been an educational experience and has helped the pair take on progressively greater challenges. While 'Wrestled' was shot in two days on black and white film, 'The Man in the Silo' is being shot on Super 16mm color film and makes heavy use of Steadicam and Dolly shots." That mention is not trivial. The guidelines do not mandate that the coverage must be exclusive to the subject, only that it not be trivial. Further, the film is available through the DC Library. Flickerings writes ""Wrestled" is Phil’s first film as a filmmaker. Previous directing and writing experience was for the stage with Chicago’s critically acclaimed Gilead Theater Company, which Phil led and co-founded. Before this film Phil worked in front of the camera as an actor in various indie films, commercials and TV shows including 'Friends' and 'Early Edition'. Phil left Chicago a year ago with his wife and moved to Los Angeles because of representation with the William Morris Agency and management with Foundation. He has tested for two network pilots for NBC and ABC, and is currently working on a feature version of 'Wrestled.'" as a non-trivial report of film and filmmaker. Schmidt, 02:27, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
There needs to be significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.
  • reelchicago:
  • Irrelevent misdirection, as the mention not used to source article.
  • Irrelevent misdirection, as the mention not used to source article.
  • Irrelevent misdirection, as the mention not used to source article.
  • Irrelevent misdirection, as the mention not used to source article.
  • Irrelevent misdirection, as the mention not used to source article.
  • Oops... not independent. However, is not contentious and is allowed per guideline.
  • False. The covereage is not in depth, but is most definitely significant as it is MORE THAN TRIVIAL.
None qualifies. Bongomatic 02:52, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
  • They actually DO qualify under policy WP:V and guideline WP:RS: "Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article and should be appropriate to the claims made", as the guidelines allow that a source may be considered in context with what is being asserted. Schmidt, 03:41, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Yes, some of the qualify under those guidelines, which get the article 2/3 of the way to notability, which requires verifiability, reliability and "significant coverage". None of them is actually "significant coverage", and none of them verifies the awards (they refer only, with no names), so they don't get you the whole way there. Bongomatic 03:52, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
  • I surrender, as Knowledge is riunning out of paper and I cannot see the point in even trying to improve articles. The nom may now move unopposed through Knowledge to weed out the thousands and thousands of lessor articles that do not meet a narrow interpretation of policy and guideline. I am glad he has the time, as all I had time for was giving to Wiki and not taking away. I will now revert my improvements to the article as having been pointless. Schmidt, 03:56, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Closed as moot for housekeeping. Article already deleted by User:Richardshusr, citing WP:CSD#A7. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:32, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Ph.Art Gallery (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Australian art-based website that was founded less than a month ago. I first noticed the article on new pages patrol and left a message here saying that the article creator needed to add verifiable references backing up the notability mentioned in the article in order for it to stay: this has not happened. I therefore request deletion. role 14:19, 15 December 2008 (UTC)


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

The result was No consensus (default keep). Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 22:33, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Cloward-Piven Strategy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Citations are entirely opinion pieces from unreliable sources like discoverthenetworks.com Bali ultimate (talk) 13:34, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

  • cmt the first five you listed are clearly not reliable sources (all right wing mags/websites) the last might be a reliable source (cursory glance it appears to be an academic paper) accept nowhere does the term "Cloward-Piven Strategy" appear.Bali ultimate (talk) 14:46, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
  • cmt News articles in WT are probably ok. But op-eds, in WT or anywhere else, are certainly not rs (this particular one says sometihng about this "strategy" being used to have created the current financial crisis, in order to "destroy capitalism and support Mr. Obama." the whole thing looks like some weird right-wing meme.Bali ultimate (talk) 16:04, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
The final source establishes only that there was a book written by Cloward and Piven in which the final chapter argued for this particular approach. There is no indication that it became a "strategy" or was ever known as such, that it would work, that anyone ever tried it, or that it is in any other way relevant to welfare in America. The article repeats without any reliable sources a fringe theory that liberals have used the welfare system to bring financial ruin on America. The article does not cover the fringe theory, it is the fringe theory. I see no way the article could be reformed to meet WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:NPOV. The correct way to report it would be to mention the subject an article about the book or the professors involved, but even there one would have to establish that it is a notable position of theirs. Wikidemon (talk) 17:50, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Biased sources can be reliable sources, as long as we are careful to consider the bias of the source in its use. Unless you want to label them as "extremist", nothing on WP:RS discounts the use of the sources I provided. A large proportion of the notability of this topic is because it is a strategy that Barack Obama was accused of having used during his election campaign. It was widely talked about in right wing sources of all kinds. The ones I indicate are, I believe, generally respected publications, even if their bias is well known. While I wouldn't want to trust their opinions that Obama is involved with this strategy, I certainly would trust their descriptions of what it is. And the fact that they make the accusation indicates notability.
As to the fact that the academic paper does not mention the strategy by name, this is somewhat unfortunate. It is, however, clearly discussing the same subject, and I don't see that the lack of use of a particular term means that this does not add to the notability of that subject. JulesH (talk) 20:26, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
No, we don't elevate fodder of election-year attack politics into articles that presume that these things actually exist, nor is every claim coming out of the blogosphere a notable thing in its own right. Even far more reputable publications like Wall Street Journal or Fox News often carry editorials that coin concepts or arguments as attacks on people, organizations, or ideologies.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikidemon (talk • contribs) 15:49 15 December 2008 Stricken because it is now clear to me that this is more than election-year "fodder" - Wikidemon (talk) 06:17, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - The article is sourced -- and I use that term loosely -- almost entirely to "discoverthenetwork.org", which I challenge any rational observer to conclude is a reliable source by any stretch of the imagination. --GoodDamon 19:32, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Weak keep - No reliable sources are offered, and I could find none in a google search, either for verifiability or weight. Further, the article seems to be part of a POV agenda. Although there are indeed academics named Cloward and Piven who made an argument in one of their books, the "Cloward-Piven Strategy" as discussed above does not seem to actually exist, except as a term coined by a few bloggers and editorialists by way of bashing liberals who they claim are following it. As a (hopefully neutral) analogy, suppose Oprah Winfrey writes that she can use her book club as a way to raise awareness of certain social issues in America, e.g. her opposition to factory farming. If someone who opposed her on the issue, say a right wing think tank, wrote derisively about anti-farm liberals using an "Oprah strategy" of promoting books via book clubs, we would not write an article on "Oprah strategy." It is not a strategy, just a statement of hers picked up as a political football. Wikidemon (talk) 20:49, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Note - opinion changed from "delete" to "weak keep" in light of sources found by JeremyMcCracken. There are only a few, mostly redundant with each other, and some come from the promoters of the plan, but there does seem to be a small amount of discussion in academic / activist circles about this in the 1970s that got picked up later by conservative critics. Given that the article is not bad at all as a brand new topic, but I think it should make clear that the "strategy" is a term given to a proposed action plan that was followed somewhat but not widely, as opposed to a new descriptive term given to a pre-existing phenomenon. But that's a matter for ongoing editing, not an AfD discussion.Wikidemon (talk) 06:16, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Definitely not good enough. That the phrase "Cloward-Piven strategy" was used in several books doesn't mean anything, because the phrase seems to only refer to the strategy of flooding welfare rolls as a means of welfare reform, not as a means of bringing about "the demise of the capitalist system" as this article contends. The article would need to be rewritten as something like Cloward-Piven welfare reform stategy, and all of the existing text would need to be dumped. And with that, we would end up with an article about a deeply non-notable topic. So why bother keeping it? --GoodDamon 16:55, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm not so sure about the rewrite- the abstract to the original article on The Nation's website (here) indicates they meant to implement "guaranteed annual income", which the Reisch and Andrews cite supports. Politically, that's about borderline between welfare and socialism, but that's just a word choice, not a need for a rewrite. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 04:41, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 06:42, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. There is no actual "Strategy" with a capital S. There is, instead, a coinage used for political purposes. Some right-wing coinages, like "poverty pimp" or "Bush Derangement Syndrome", are notable enough for articles, but this one isn't. Sixteen hits on g-books doesn't move me. "Right-wing extremist" has 50 times that many and doesn't merit an article. JamesMLane t c 02:44, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per GoodDamon & JamesMLane. Note that the additional sources that aren't from right-wing/conspiracy sites do not discuss a 'strategy' to "bring about the demise of the capitalist system", but a grass roots welfare reform campaign which Cloward & Priven were involved in. The relation between this campaign and the 'Cloward-Piven Strategy' exists only in the minds of the conspiracy theorists, so using these reliable sources to bolster the theory's notability/credibility is entirely WP:SYNTH & only makes sense if you buy into the theory. Also doesn't appear to scope for an article on the conspiracy theory itself, as we don't have sources discussing it as a conspiracy theory. Misarxist 14:27, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep * The article, which I created, was initially weaker than it is now in terms of reliable sources cited but it is shaping up nicely. The article describes an important though obscure political strategy. Apparently, some question the existence of the strategy. That's fine.

They are free to do so and may add appropriate critical information to the article to that effect but the mere fact that the strategy is the subject of scholarship, as referenced in the article, is proof that it is notable and worthy of inclusion in Knowledge. Let’s look at another example of a disputed political strategy/theory. Conservatives would say there is no such thing as a vast right wing conspiracy and yet it has been talked about and written about extensively by reliable sources since Hillary Clinton began using the phrase during her husband’s presidency. Knowledge has an article on the topic: http://en.wikipedia.org/Vast_right_wing_conspiracy. Whether there actually is such a “conspiracy” is irrelevant in terms of meeting Knowledge standards for inclusion. The VRWC article should stand. The Cloward-Piven Strategy has been well discussed by reliable sources and therefore the article concerning it should also stand. Further thought: I'm not sure why everyone here seems to have ignored the 1966 article from the Nation magazine in which the professors explain themselves. Is there a reason none of you have mentioned it? I regret I could not provide a link to it because I could not find a copy of it on the Web, but I have read it and know it exists and its existence can be verified. Moreover, Bali ultimate misdescribed the WP deletion policy to me previously and gave me a stern warning for removing the tag. Although I didn't know there was a deletion policy I looked it up and coincidentally happened to be adhering to it. It may be found at ] and the relevant portion says: "If you disagree: Any editor who disagrees with a proposed deletion can simply remove the tag. Even after the page is deleted, any editor can have the page restored by any administrator simply by asking. In both cases the editor is encouraged to fix the perceived problem with the page." I will now follow the policy and remove the tag but there is no reason why this discussion can't continue and why we can't all work together to improve the article. Syntacticus (talk) 05:09, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Wait- don't remove the AfD tag. That's referring to proposed deletions, which are a means of deleting an article without coming to AfD. (You tag the article with {{prod}}, and it's deleted after a few days if no one removes the tag.) We're past that now, so it has to go through discussion. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 04:41, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
Syntacticus, you're correct that some political phrases are notable enough for articles even though the "other side" would dispute the very existence of the subject referred to. You gave Vast right-wing conspiracy as an example from the left; I gave Bush Derangement Syndrome as an example from the right. Both of those have been so extensively discussed as to merit articles. That doesn't mean that every phrase employed by a handful of polemicists must be similarly covered. This one just doesn't qualify. JamesMLane t c 06:00, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete This doesn't appear to be a notable political term. It's briefly mentioned in one book, and then mentioned in a couple of papers by political partisans. Considering it's been around for 40 years, that's not much. It isn't even important enough to mention in the bios of either proponent. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:07, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per User:JamesMLane. Forty years on, it's still obscure. Knowledge is intended to document notability, not be used as a vehicle for promoting it. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 06:32, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep per the sources found in this discussion which I think are sufficient to establish notability. Davewild (talk) 10:53, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment – The academic article Joyce Gelb and Alice Sardell (March–April 1974). "Strategies for the powerless: The welfare rights movement in New York City", American Behavioral Scientist 17 (4): 507–30 describes and analyzes the strategy in some detail. It does not refer to it as "Strategy" with a capital S, however. There is definitely nothing to suggest that it was an attempt to "bring about the demise of the capitalist system". Paul Erik 18:11, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. I was tempted to close this discussion as "no consensus to delete; defaulting to keep" but I find myself more moved to express support for it because it clearly belongs in the project. The discussion above centers around whether it's a "Strategy" or a "strategy" as if that distinction affects notability; in reality there are plenty of reliable sources - books and magazines included - that address this concept on its own. The discussion also refers to whether or not such a strategy was/is/will be successful as if notability depends on the answer to the success of the strategy. There are any number of ideas and strategies that are notable but failed in their time; look at any 20th century war and you'll find a loser that had plenty of strategies that are notable, even if they failed. I agree the current sources are weak; I agree that notability does not automatically jump out in a cursory glance. However, it does not take too much digging to find that it is real, it is notable, and it has been discussed by scholars in each of the four decades since its introduction by two sociologists who also are notable. I'm off to add some text and references to show exactly that.  Frank  |  talk  20:29, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep – Frank makes a compelling argument. If this closes as keep I would consider a move to a different title such as Cloward-Piven welfare reform strategy, especially since as I was digging around for sources I discovered that Cloward and Piven later had something else that was also referred to (by other sources) as their "strategy"—a 1982 proposal to get more poor people registered to vote, by having social service workers double as voting registrars. Paul Erik 21:34, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
    And it's in there now, along with criticism from one of its detractors.  Frank  |  talk  21:49, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete per WP:SNOW. Lenticel 23:38, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

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

This article's content is based only on text found in one strip of a webcomic. It is not notable and has not been put forth as "Xkcd theory" anywhere else. I prodded it earlier, but it was declined. Mysdaao 12:56, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 09:38, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

The X Factor (UK Series 6) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete. Pure WP:CRYSTAL and no WP:RS. Filming doesn't start until May and the programme doesn't air till August, so I also suggest that this be PROTECTED to stop die-hard fans from re-creating. Bravedog (talk) 12:45, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Delete This page exists for pure speculation currently as no details exist Delete--Jaydub47 (talk) 18:48, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

  • Redirect The article itself says "Neither the judges or presenters for the 2009 series of The X Factor have been officialy confirmed." I'm pretty sure the voiceovers haven't been either. The only confirmed info is the age restriction which can be added to the article about the previous series. - Mgm| 19:15, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. I'd also like to mention the fact that at the end of Pop Idol UK series 2, ITV ran a similer appeal for contestants for "the next series" as they did at the end of last saturdays X Factor series 5 finale. Pop Idol series 3 never happend! This just shows the importance of WP:CRYSTAL. No TV show is 100% guaranteed another series. JS (chat) 17:13, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete: speculation, per WP:CRYSTAL. JamesBurns (talk) 00:12, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. MBisanz 03:34, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Email marketing best practices (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Knowledge is not a how-to guide Scapler (talk) 12:38, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Peridon (talk) 13:22, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment. I declined the G11 speedy request and edited out the link farm at the end to take care of the spam issues. No opinion (yet) on deletion.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:51, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
It is still a direct copy-and-paste from the website I noted from above. This either 1) completely fails WP:NOT#WEBHOST or 2) if the person is not the copyright holder, is blatant copyright infringement. I still claim spam as the article is designed to try to exploit Knowledge SEO capabilities for corporate gain. MuZemike (talk) 00:55, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was WP:SNOW keep. No policy-based grounds provided for deletion. No chance this article about a notable potato variety will actually be deleted. Non-admin close. JulesH (talk) 13:52, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Adirondack Blue potato (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

It sucks Plankstop (talk) 11:47, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

— Plankstop (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Xyr only other contribution has been the creation of Elin Sen (AfD discussion). Uncle G (talk) 13:02, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. WP:SNOW MBisanz 03:35, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Untitled 10th Album (Dream Theater) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Untitled unsourced speculative future album per WP:HAMMER. Prod removed by IP editor. tomasz. 11:47, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton 01:04, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

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

No real claim to notability. 2 albums are independently released, not on an important label. lacks coverage in reliable sources. Duffbeerforme (talk) 11:16, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Note to closing admin: Many links to this article have been placed in articles, and other articles have been redirected to this one via AFD. Please check incoming links and redirects. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 01:57, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 23:26, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

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

H.O.A.X The Rolling Camel (talk) 11:26, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

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

The result was keep. I would remind participants that just because a user is not an administrator, it does not mean that their views should be taken any less seriously than users who have been through the RFA gauntlet. Lankiveil 03:41, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

2008 Burkina Faso crash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. Knowledge is not a news source and currently neither the article or a search shows any lasting coverage of this event. Nuttah (talk) 10:23, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

And by the same token, just because you think it isn't notable does not mean that it isn't. Luckily, it's not up to any one person's opinion. If it had been 60 persons killed in a bus accident in Wyoming, I don't think the article would even have been nominated. I think also that most Wikipedians don't know (and don't care) where Burkina Faso is. For those who don't know, but don't want to say that they don't know, it's a nation in West Africa, formerly known as Upper Volta. Mandsford (talk) 17:09, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Actually my opinion has nothing to do with it at all. That is why we have guidelines that spell out exactly what is needed to be notable. Bombs go off everyday in Iraq but we do not have articles on them but if one went off in the US you bet we would have an article on it. Heck for that matter the fact they have had 800 meningitis deaths or 31 miners killed would be notable in most countries. Gtstricky 20:02, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep per Richard Cavell. A road crash of this magnitude in rather small country will generate thousands of investigative documents, both government and private. Much more sources are likely available in French (the official language of Burkina Faso). --Oakshade (talk) 06:05, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
    That's just speculation. But if there are French sources to establish notability beyond simple news status, they should be included in the article.--Boffob (talk) 19:23, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep as it is a significant death toll, and considering that Nuttah is not even an administrator, there are many articles covering similar subject matter. OOODDD (talk) 06:27, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
"and considering that Nuttah is not even an administrator", what does that have to do with anything? Gtstricky 16:41, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
That's another ad hominem attack from this user. There's already one in this Afd debate. Cheers. Trance addict - Armin van Buuren - Oceanlab 18:53, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
It's an argument based on a mistaken assumption. OOODDD isn't the first person to conclude that comments from an administrator might be weighed higher than those from a non-administrator. Logical conclusion, but not correct. Odd as it may seem, we're all equals during debate, and the decision has to be made by an administrator who didn't participate. In my first month, an administrator voted !keep on article that I was hoping would be kept, and my thought at that time was "Here comes the cavalry!". Needless to say, the article got deleted anyway. So please, no arguments based on the status of who said what. Mandsford (talk) 14:02, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. John254 17:25, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

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

One of a list of apparently completely unremarkable settlements in the UAE. Completely failing to meet WP:N. The mere existence doesn't warrant an article, if they should be mentioned they can be named in the article of the region/country/emirate to which they belong. As for the argument that they're just stubs: They exist for months now, and not even the most basic information was provided.

I am also nominating the following related pages because of the same reason:

'Akamiyah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
'Aqqah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
'Asamah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
'Ashashah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
'Ayim (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
'Uqayr (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
'Uraybi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Averell (talk) 09:26, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep all - thousands of people live in each of these settlements. Perhaps there is some difficulty with translation - they should be called towns, I think. I believe that any town with thousands of people in it should be on wikipedia. - Richard Cavell (talk) 10:03, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Truth is, I would have let them alone if there'd been even the tiniest amount of verifiable information. Just one source, a sourced population figure, anything. But I didn't even find anything useful on Google. If the only thing you can say about those towns is "they exist", then to me it seems perfectly o.k. to say that in one of the "upper" articles (and make a redirect of the town names, if you like). Averell (talk) 10:20, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

--Darkspin (talk) 10:42, 15 December 2008 (UTC) I agree with the above statement from User:Averell and in addition want to add a statement that no matter the size of the population it does not constitute the right to neglect or reject the fact of its existence.

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

The result was Speedy delete as blatant advertising Guy (Help!) 20:07, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

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

This page describes a networking idea that may not have achieved sufficient notability for inclusion. This idea is not published anywhere else. Wherever 'htptp' appears on Google, it is usually a typo of 'http'. The idea itself appears to be a type of caching, or else distributed webpage serving. The last few sentences imply that this page will be used to develop the concept. Richard Cavell (talk) 09:44, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

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

The result was speedy delete. Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :D 09:28, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

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

This person may not have achieved sufficient notability for inclusion. Richard Cavell (talk) 09:03, 15 December 2008 (UTC)


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

The result was keep -- there's a clear consensus here that third-party reliable sources discussing this topic can, and to a significant extent, have been found, remedying any original research problems. John254 17:37, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

(formerly "Aught ought naught nought")

Aught ought naught nought (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article constitutes original research. It is also a synthesis and lacks reliable, third-party sources discussing the subject. It was started, as the creator admits, "because the words often confuse me and thought others would appreciate some insight"; however, that does not sound like a valid reason for starting an article. Biruitorul 07:51, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

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

The result was speedy deleted by Kylu as a blatant advertisement. Non-admin closure. -- Shadowlynk (Talk) 06:56, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

AhnLab, Inc. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article does not seem to satisfy the requirements of notability as it currently exists, as listed in WP:ORG. OliverTwisted (talk) 06:34, 15 December 2008 (UTC)


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

The result was No. --Bongwarrior (talk) 06:02, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

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

    This day is the least notable, and article has very few citations, and is completely inaccurate Johnishungry (talk)


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

    The result was speedy keep. The revision history of Monday is enough to conclude that all three of Johnishungry (talk · contribs · checkuser · block user · block log · edit count), Pisswiggles (talk · contribs · checkuser · block user · block log · edit count), and Kemptinplickc (talk · contribs · checkuser · block user · block log · edit count) are one single person who is here purely to disrupt. The revision history of this article indicates that 74.214.108.37 (talk · contribs · checkuser · block user · block log · edit count) is that person, too. 74.214.106.9 (talk · contribs · checkuser · block user · block log · edit count) below probably is as well. This is just vandalism. Uncle G (talk) 07:22, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

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

    Company is not notable, and this is primarily an advertisement page Johnishungry (talk) 05:47, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

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

    The result was delete. –Juliancolton 01:03, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

    TV-Fucked By Plastic Queens (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    NN bootleg album, fails WP:MUSIC. Five pages of Google results show no reporting on the bootleg other than fansites and lyrics pages. roux  05:51, 15 December 2008 (UTC)


    --Darkspin (talk) 10:37, 15 December 2008 (UTC) this article is about a music band album and fits its name. It depicts a RARE album release that for that reason does not have very many pages about it.

    this might be true, but it doesn't seem notable per WP:MUSIC notability guidelines. tomasz. 11:59, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. WP:SNOW MBisanz 03:35, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

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

    The article appears to be a promotional piece written by the subject of the article. Additionally, while some effort has been made to cleanup and source the article, nothing establishing notability has been found. ···日本穣 05:24, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

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

    The result was redirect/merge to Todd Friel. Please add anything useable to the main article. Black Kite 17:32, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

    Wretched with Todd Friel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Does not meet WP:NOTE, as does not cite any sources independent of subject. At time of nomination only references were to the program's own website, that of its parent network, and that of its predecessor series. I am also nominating related article Todd Friel for deletion. HrafnStalk 05:21, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

    • Given that that article likewise contains no "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", I do not see how this offers any improvement. HrafnStalk 19:33, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
    That's not the point. Articles with good sources doesn't make it notable. If ABC News had a report on a dog that saved a girl from falling, even if it has good ABC sources, it doesn't make it notable. This would, facts and information do, sources prove the facts. -- American Eagle (talk) 20:00, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
    "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." That is the point. Your ABC News report example is not "significant coverage", so is beside the point. HrafnStalk 22:21, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
    Notice the end of it, "...for a stand-alone article." I think this (Wretched) is perhaps a weak delete, as the show is not yet nationally known. Friel, on the other hand, is well-known as a comedian and Christian in many works. Wretched is mostly notable for being a work of Friel, so generally should be merged and redirected to it, probably as a section. -- American Eagle (talk) 23:13, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was no consensus. for deletion. Disagreement over notability and whether sources are sufficient to establish notability. Davewild (talk) 11:04, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

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

    No indication that this article meets WP:NOTE or WP:BIO. Of the 17 references at time of nomination, 16 are clearly not independent (3 are to the agency representing Friel, 3 are to pieces written by Friel himself and 10 to mentions by organisations for whom Friel has performed/spoken/written) and 1 is to a blog entry (unreliable and unacceptable per WP:BLP) I am also nominating related article Wretched with Todd Friel for deletion. HrafnStalk 05:16, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

    • Keep - as sources don't establish notability, facts do: 1500 stage performances, radio host of several broadcasts (including nationally), evangelist, writer for Christian Chronicle and Christian Worldview Network, TV host for 30+ million homes nationally, a writer, and a few other things - all of which establish notability. Sources don't establish it, being notable does. Sources are to verify them. -- American Eagle (talk) 05:26, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
    WP:BIGNUMBER, even if any of this were supported by WP:RS. HrafnStalk 06:28, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
    No. And there are sources to prove them, or turn on your TV. The problem is that most of the sources are Christian organizations, which makes it worthy of a template message, but not deletion. -- American Eagle (talk) 05:34, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
    To each his own. ILovePlankton (talk) 06:00, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
    Actually, (with the possible exception of his agency) all of the sources are "Christian organizations" and (with the possible exception of the blog entry) none of them are "independent of the subject". Additionally, as none of them are scholarly or major news organisations, their reliability is highly questionable. HrafnStalk 06:13, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
    Comment. After clicking through most of the free news articles (in the google news link above), I couldn't find much of anything that would be usable. There might be usable references in the articles that are pay per view.  LinguistAtLarge  07:25, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment If it's a legit source and article in pay per view it can be included. Most archives seem to be pay per view, which is unfortunate, but if there are articles covering this subject substantively they count, whether availbe on the web for free or not. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:32, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
    • Trouble is there's generally no way of knowing whether a pay-per-view article has substantive coverage (or merely an insubstantial mention-in-passing) without paying for it. This is why sources referenced for specific facts in the article count, but WP:GOOGLEHITS do not. HrafnStalk 11:17, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
    • Many sources which are "pay-per-view" on the Internet are free to view at many public libraries. Some will even give you a library card which you can use to access some of these sources for free at home. DHowell (talk) 01:25, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment Also keep in mind that this isn't a game of "find the name mentioned in a major newspaper". There has to be significant coverage where this person is the subject of the article, not some passing mention in a book, magazine or newspaper.--Rtphokie (talk) 12:41, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
    • Weak delete Extraordinary. I am certain I have heard of him, yet I am in a different continent and we do not move in the same circles. So I find the lack of reliable, independent and substantial sources very odd, but compelling from a Wiki-notability point of view. Comes closest, maybe, to being a creative professional ... or to being an entertainer - he may have a "large fan base or a significant 'cult' following" ... but I come back to the lack of reliable, substantial, independent sources. My heart wants to make an exception here but my wiki-head says he is better deleted for now and re-created when he is (in the Wiki sense) notable. Springnuts (talk) 22:33, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
    • (Weak) Delete - I've looked through the sources, and discounting the non-independent and self-published ones, there just doesn't seem to be enough written about him to justify an article. There's plenty of material written by him, but that can't be used to source an article about him. By all means, some evangelists are notable - but I'm not convinced he is at this time. Terraxos (talk) 22:58, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment: Take note of this deletion discussion, which proposes that if this article is kept, Wretched with Todd Friel will be merged into it. -- American Eagle (talk) 03:41, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
    • Keep. Subject of independent reliable sources. The article in the St. Paul Pioneer Press, even if just an "announcement that Friel's show is coming to a local station" is significant in that his name is in the headline of a 552-word article; this American Daily article is substantial coverage, and even though it appears to have a conservative bent, it is sufficiently independent of the subject for notability to be established. DHowell (talk) 02:08, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
    • The full version of the first article can be found here -- its mention of Friel is clearly trivial. Is American Daily a WP:RS? It appears to be simply a politically partisan blog that accepts contributed articles via email. HrafnStalk 03:16, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
    • Good find. While the Pioneer Press article is clearly not all about Friel, I wouldn't say that it is "clearly trivial" either. The first two paragraphs are about Friel, and there are 4 more paragraphs which quote him. And how did you decide that American Daily is how you describe it? The author is described as a "Staff Writer" and an "award-winning investigative reporter and researcher" whose written for "numerous local newspapers". This hardly sounds like a blog which accepts articles from any random e-mailer. Even if it is partisan, are you saying it exercises no editorial control and does no fact checking over its contributed articles? Where's your evidence for this? And I'm sure that in this day and age even the most respected printed newspapers would accept articles from their journalists via email, so I'm not sure how that matters. DHowell (talk) 04:24, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
    • It is "clearly trivial" in that it's depth of coverage is similar to the example of "trivial" included in the WP:NOTE footnote. Laura Adelmann may be a "staff writer" (though I take author-bio-blurbs with more than a pinch of salt) -- but not for American Daily -- she works for New Media Alliance (which is itself merely a "coalition of citizen writers, journalists and grass-roots media outlets"), which in turn shops its writings to AD (and presumably other news outlets). AD's contribution policy can be found here. AD gives little impression of editorial oversight or the infrastructure needed for fact checking, and is most certainly not a "mainstream news organization" in the context of WP:RS. HrafnStalk 05:45, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
    • The WP:NOTE footnote talks about a "one sentence mention", and that is precisely what it is: a one sentence mention. If one tried to use that as a source for an article, the most the article could ever say is "Three Blind Mice was a band that Bill Clinton was part of while in high school." That's trivial. Far more can be said about Todd Friel from the information gathered from mainstream newspapers alone. And I see no reason to doubt the reliability and independence of Laura Adelmann as a source for information about Friel, despite whatever AD's contribution policy might be. DHowell (talk) 05:45, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Lankiveil 03:39, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

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

    Non-notable author; all his works appear to have been self-published. Reads like self-promotion. Cue the Strings (talk) 04:58, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

    Save I am Edwyn Thai, Professor of English Literature at Hong Kong International University. I teach Leadem's "Highland Ballad" as an example of Western Romanticism of Historical Events. I fail to see the fault in making his literature available free and worldwide. This somehow lessens its value? All the same criticisms above were made of Knowledge in its infancy: unprofessional, non-notable, undocumented information. Does that mean it too should have been deleted. The point of this site is education. I am an educator. You're going to have to do better than unfounded attacks to stop the information. The question for me is, Why do you try? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.119.232.100 (talk) 13:59, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

    Interesting. I'm not turning up any such institution in my searches. Can you provide us with a link? Oh, and this is interesting too:
     jules@vengeance:~$ whois 162.119.232.100

     OrgName:    Kaiser Permanente Medical Care Program
 OrgID:      KPMCP
 Address:    25 North Via Monte
 Address:    Network Design and Engineering
 City:       Walnut Creek
 StateProv:  CA
 PostalCode: 94598
 Country:    US
    I wonder what a Hong Kong-based professor is doing in Walnut Creek, CA. JulesH (talk) 20:01, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

    Writing sabatical, would you like a sample? No such link? Have you tried it? You never heard of Project Gutenberg, which you yourselves sight as a link. Do you know what makes me truly angry? All you have to say is negative, is he good enough to be let into our club. A Nobel Prize winner once described such a club in his high school. It's only activity? Sit around and decide who was as wonderful as themselves. Do the work, do the math, and stop with these mindless attacks. EDWYN THAI, HONG KONG INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY. ENTER MY NAME IN GOOGLE! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.119.232.100 (talk) 22:49, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

    Who said they'd never heard of Project Gutenberg? I do note that Leadem's book is somewhat unusual for being a self-published work that PG has accepted for republication; they will usually only accept professionally published works. Not being aware of the process that lead to their acceptance, however, I cannot be sure that this was not simply a mistake (i.e., they were perhaps unaware that the books' publisher was a self-publishing service).
    As for looking up your identity, I can find nothing that satisfies me as to your identity. The reason I enquire, by the way, is that if you really _are_ who you say you are, and we can find a way of proving it, it might be enough to save the article. One of the criteria we use to judge a book as notable is if it "is the subject of instruction at multiple universities or post-graduate programs in any particular country." (WP:BK). As the author of a notable book, Leadem's article may be more likely to be kept. But first we have to show through real sources (not something randomly posted on a Knowledge discussion page by somebody whose identity cannot be verified) that this is the case.
    Now, if you really are who you say you are, there should be a page at your university's web site with some details about who you are and the courses you run. Ideally, this page would mention the books you use in your courses. Please provide a link to this page, as it will help your cause. JulesH (talk) 13:07, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

    Save

    Hello. Christopher Leadem, the self-publishing, self-promoting, non-notable author in question. It's all bs and personal attacks, but so be it. And 'Vengeance' (this is who you listen to?) if you look up this computer you'll find it to be owned by the Arapahoe Library District, Greenwood Village, CO. I'm not sure what that makes me guilty of, but I'm sure you'll think of something.

    First, I'd like to apologize to ET, for suffering the cross-examination of nerds. Were you sleeping when the People's Republic of China rolled their armored vehicles into Hong Kong? Are you unaware of the Chinese government's brutal suppression of the Internet? ET may be in Hong Kong, Taiwan, California (more on that in a minute), I don't care. He's standing up for what he believes in the face of potentially serious consequences. Would you do the same?

    Second, if someone has in fact hacked into the Kaiser Permanente computer system, they'd better get out fast. A little thing called HIPPA, the Patient Privacy Act. It carries stiff penalties for such things.

    Third, is this a serious encyclopedia, or a chat room? 'LOL'?

    Delete the article as if it were untrue or irrelevant? It's documented information (view the links above), it brings people to the site, and is all of about a hundred words long. What's the down side?

    Sincerely,

    Christopher Leadem, Author, Human Being

    PS- "Every new group or organization starts out asking for tolerance, then becomes itself intolerant." -Milton Goldstien

    "100% of your ads have been negative." Barrack Obama

    "...who vested with a moment's authority doth beat his breast like an ape and proclaim to the Heavens above, 'Here, see me!'" -William Shakespeare

    —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.93.226.126 (talk) 00:10, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

    • Comment Establishing notability with references to substantial coverage from reliable sources such as articles, books, or reputable websites would be more helpful than launching an attack filled diatribe. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:14, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was Nom Withdrawn, Redirected to Photoreceptor_cell#Dark_current. Lenticel 06:03, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

    Dark current (biochemistry) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    The information in this page is already in http://en.wikipedia.org/Photoreceptor_cell#Dark_current Fangfufu (talk) 04:37, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

    I want to withdraw the nomination as redirection would be better. Fangfufu (talk) 05:58, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

    Neutral, but a redirect would be better than a deletion.Headbomb {κοντριβς – WP Physics} 04:42, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

    I actually support this idea. Am I supposed to vote? Fangfufu (talk) 04:53, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
    WP:VOTE ILovePlankton (talk) 05:30, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. –Juliancolton 13:52, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

    Tom and Jerry: A Little Learning (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Prod for notability and lack of reliable sources expired. Declining Prod and referring here because the article was previously deleted via prod. I agree with the prod, looks to fail WP:CRYSTAL Jclemens (talk) 04:32, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

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

    The result was no consensus.  Sandstein  07:55, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

    Aeroflot — Russian Airlines terminated destinations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    I do not believe it is necessary for us to have a list of places which are no longer serviced, and this list is not important enough to exist here. Remember, Knowledge is not an indiscriminate collection of information Scapler (talk) 04:02, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

    • Addendum: I should add to my reason for delete the following reasons: unsourced, unlikely search term and notability of terminated destinations not established. Merely being true is not reason for inclusion. What does this list offer as encyclopedic info?--Boffob (talk) 15:48, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

    *Delete. Yep, even for a Knowledge list, this is pretty bad. Doesn't meet WP:SALAT by a long shot. Graymornings(talk) 04:47, 15 December 2008 (UTC) Changed to keep, see below.

    • keep Neither indiscriminate nor useless. Its a specific list of the places to which they once flew, which is a very sharp and exact discrimination. Its not useless, and is it relevant in understanding the history of the airline--or that country's air transport industry in general--and in elucidating mentions in historical events and geographic descriptions. It's only useless if you think the purpose of Knowledge is to be a current travel guide. WP NOT is also a positive criterion--of its more than travel guide coverage, it's appropriate here. DGG (talk) 05:55, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
    • Thank you! --Dimitree 03:54, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
    • comment. I checked it for obvious errors. It appears that the list is generally correct (there's Dublin listed as terminated, Aeroflot does sell it but with a stopover in Prague). But who will maintain it in perpetuity? Some routes may reappear (given current hiatus in Russian airline industry, whole bunches of routes may be on sale tomorrow), is it possible to keep it up to date? It'd rather see it textified to a verbal history of "network optimisation". NVO (talk) 20:33, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
    • As for Dublin. Aeroflot definitely terminated destination Moscow-Dublin-Moscow as its own (direct flight) and now operates it in code share with CSA Czech Airlines WITHOUT STOPOVER in Prague. Leg Prague-Dublin is operated by CSA Czech Airlines fleet... --Dimitree 03:54, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
    • Delete. A list providing no illumination whatsoever, just anorak-level detail. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 08:38, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:59, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:59, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
    • Keep per DGG. The Rolling Camel (talk) 11:27, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
    • Delete unless there's an indication that improvements are being made. Perhaps some of the editors who see potential in the article can offer the new contributor some pointers on Knowledge format. I can appreciate that this is the editor's first contribution, but he/she needs to provide sources. Unsourced, uninformative, and, yes, indiscriminate. We have to take the author's word for it that the list of airports is a list of places that Aeroflot served during the years "1992-2003". Conceivably, information could be provided about when Aeroflot stopped flying to Pyongyang or Chicago, and conceivably, context could be added to reflect why Aeroflot couldn't afford to serve these locations post-USSR. Without even so much as a link to something that is useful, this article is currently of no help to anyone. Mandsford (talk) 15:00, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
    • Delete Aeroflot as the largest airline the world has ever seen had, excuse my French, a shitload of destinations, and the international destinations that were served were all but a small part of the network. Almost every village in Russia had service from Aeroflot, such as Chokurdakh and Srednekolymsk, and this was throughout the 15 constituent republics of the USSR - the village didn't even need to have an airport (aircraft such as Mi-8, An-2 and An-28 don't need them. The history of Aeroflot goes back to 1923, so one would have to include every single destination in order to even begin to have an understanding of the airline's history and network. I am working from time to time on getting the article improved (off-wiki), and one of the things planned is a map of the international network and destinations previously served, however, my skills on that side of things is basically non-existent, so any pointers to where to get help there would be good; a map is a much better way to go, as it can then be included in the main Aeroflot article, rather than having a list with an arbitrary date of 1992 which doesn't tell the reader anything that wouldn't be better covered in prose within the article - such as the reasons behind the reduction in the network and the shifts of focus for the airline during the different periods of its existence. --Russavia 20:42, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
    Looking up one of the references I am using, using just the Antonov An-2, Aeroflot used to serve over 2,000 villages and selos throughout the USSR. Another source lists at least 12 destinations in Antarctica which Aeroflot used to serve with Ilyushin Il-76, Ilyushin Il-18, Antonov An-2, Mil Mi-8, etc. There is no chance that such a list would ever be completed, and as stated above, only once that list was complete would a reader even begin to understand the sheer size of Aeroflot and the complexity of its history. --Russavia 21:14, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
    • Actually, the article specifically addresses only Aeroflot-RAL (international operations), not the Aeroflot of good ole days that flew AN-2's to every forgotten village. So the domestic routes and irregular Antarctic flights are off topic. NVO (talk) 15:32, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
    Even with only international destinations being addressed, and this would go to the arbitrary date of 1992 being used, wouldn't one also have to list destinations of Центральное управление международных воздушных сообщений (ЦУМВС)? Whilst the entity that we now know as JSC Aeroflot-Russian Airlines is the legal successor to the entity that was known as Aeroflot, this same entity was born out of the operations of the ЦУМВС (being based at Sheremetyevo (blaahhhhhh) Airport). As much as I don't believe such lists belong, other airlines don't differentiate between say Qantas Empire Airways and Qantas Airways Limited. In part of the re-write of the main article I have been working on, I have touched quite considerably on the An-2 operations, for example, did you know that villages, towns and cities in Siberia and the Far East an area the size of the continental US had no rail/road connections, and therefore they were reliant on Aeroflot and AviaArktika services with the An-2 for their very survival. Would it add anything to the article for the entire list of communities which were reliant upon these services to be drawn up? I believe it would be crufty and so much so to the point that it would lose all meaning. It's the way that I believe lists would be better served as prose within the article proper, explaining why the network has been reduced and prose describing the changes, and perhaps with the addition of a map (as shown below); in the case of Aeroflot, the name was changed from Aeroflot-Russian International Airlines to Aeroflot-Russian Airlines, and this was done in order to better demonstrate the direction that the company was taking; i.e. concentrating more on the domestic market (one which it was not prevalent in between 1992-2000) and less on the international market. Prose, prose, prose, in my mind would be much more preferably to lists such as these. --Russavia 16:19, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
    in fact, the very size of the airline is a reason for having the information. WP i not paper, and having too much information is not a reason for deletion. If necessary, we can separate into domestic and international, or even divide further. The relevant policy for this objection is WP NOT PAPER. How to present the information is a qy for the talk page. Quite possibly graphics such as you mention would be a good addition to enrich the article further.DGG (talk) 06:56, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
    Comment. this all looks like a reason for keeping, not deleting. How does the fact that Aeroflot is the largest airline the world has ever seen make this information unnotable? Surely it makes it even more notable that information about any smaller airline. We don't delete articles because theyt might grow too large. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:35, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
    • First, please, be so kind to use an appropriate and correct language instead of you obscene folklore: citation (being based at Sheremetyevo (blaahhhhhh) Airport). For those who do not speak Russian, blaahhhhhh means almost the same as fuck...
    • Second, regarding the arbitrary date of 1992 being used. As I've said earlier twice, 1992 is the year when Aeroflot became a Russian Federation flag-carrier, keeping in mind 8 December 1991 when the Soviet Union has collapsed (History of the Soviet Union (1985–1991)). Official decision of renaming (rebranding) of Aeroflot - Soviet Airlines into Aeroflot - Russian Airlines was taken on 28 July 1992 .So starting from 28 of July 1992 Aeroflot is the Russian Federation flag-carrier with its network. Am I correct?...
    • Third, as for the name was changed from Aeroflot-Russian International Airlines to Aeroflot-Russian Airlines, please, do not distort facts. Aeroflot remained always Aeroflot and changing of the name do not involve changing of its product. First domestic routes (after being converted from Soviet into Russian Airlines) were launched in 1995 to Saint Petersburg, Khabarovsk, Novosibirsk, Yakutsk, Neryungri and Novosibirsk - look here ...
    • Forth, try to be objective even if you can not. Regards, --Dimitree 03:12, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
    • Keep: My name is Dimitri, I'm the author of this Article. First of all, I do not consider it at all "being considered for deletion". It contains authentical information (gathered and sorted by myself), all necessary references and sources. So I don't know why it has to be deleted and I insist in keeping this Article on Knowledge pages. Moreover, if you delete this Article, so delete all the same Articles (Terminated destinations) which exist in each Article devoted to this or that aircompany. It would be fairly... To whom Russavia the date 1992 "doesn't tell ... anything", I will explain: it is the date when Aeroflot became an aircompany of Russian Federation, not of Soviet Union. I hope now it tells a bit the reader... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dimitree (talk • contribs) 23:03, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
      Hi Dimitri. It's nice to see the references and sources. I think all the other airline destination pages have terminated destinations in separate sections of the page, e.g. Asiana Airlines destinations. If you add the date when the service was terminated that would be even better. Juzhong (talk) 23:17, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

    This Article Aeroflot — Russian Airlines terminated destinations, as you can see, IS in a separate page (if it is the only remark). As for dates. Almost all of them are indicated in references and sources. So I do not think it is necessary to post a date to each terminated destination. Moreover, you will not find such a detalization at any other similar page devoted to an airline terminated destinations... So if it is so necessary to someone to delete it, let's also delete all the others similar pages, ok? If Aeroflot (the world's biggest carrier at its time) does not merit such a privilege, what else does? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dimitree (talk • contribs) 23:33, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

    There aren't any similar pages. All the other airlines have terminated destinations and current destinations on the same page. Juzhong (talk) 23:51, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
    Dmitry, in regards to terminated destinations of other airlines, I would support them being removed as well, because they are simply WP:CRUFT. The problem with 99.99% of the destination articles (which are on very thin ice going by past AfDs) is that they provide no context, they are not sourced (there are many which are still unsourced after I placed unref tags on them over 12 months ago -- yet people still keep adding and deleting to them), most of those which are sourced are not done within the confines of WP:V (I fail to see what "Reference: Airline website" adds, why not simply give a link to the website in the main article for such things). One editor has approached the destinations with maps, e.g. File:Easyjetdestinations.png. I would also refer to previous AfDs for such articles, such as Knowledge:Articles_for_deletion/Previous_United_Airlines_destinations. I also recall similar articles for others such as JAT Airways and Delta Air Lines also being deleted, but I can't find those AfDs. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS shouldn't be used as a reason to keep or delete, each article has to stand on its own merits, but in previous discussions, it has been considered that these articles should be deleted. --Russavia 23:56, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
    Comment 2 Juzhong: As I said earlier, if the question of the union of pages is the only one, let's unit both articles. No problem: let's unit these two Articles (Actual destinations and Terminated). Or let's delete ALL SIMILAR ARTICLES OF ALL AIR COMPANIES, including Delta, United, British Airways, BMI and all the rest. According to you, these Articles are "indiscriminate and useless" (as Boffob and other say). I would like to underline: it is history and no one can escape it or change it. But if someone (very distanced from aviation) thinks it is useless, let him do not read it. Let's delete all historical articles because they have no anything in commun with reality we live in. Useless facts, names, dates, destinations and so on --89.178.19.152 (talk) 00:31, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment 2 Russavia: Would you please indicate what exactly articles of this kind are unsourced? What exactly articles have no external links? And if people, as you say, "still keep adding and deleting to them", so there is a need! Please, be objective: everything has its history even if it (history) is not ok for someone. Neither you nor I can decide what to do with history. And, please, privately, speak Russian with me - you can do as good as you do in English. Regs, --Dimitree 01:12, 16 December 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dimitree (talk • contribs)
    • Comment 2 Martintg: Really? Totally useless? And how did you decide? Any arguments? Aeroflot operated flights to Australia (where you live now) and Qantas never did the same to Russia, for example. Just have a look around the site and you will find hundreds of articles of such kind. As for Qantas, you are able to do whatever you want with it, even delete (it's up to you), but be polite and politically correct, at least, while speaking to an open audience... Regs, --89.178.16.178 (talk) 02:48, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment 2 Juzhong: so what for this spectacle is playing? I wonder how agressive are those who live in GB and other English speaking countries. It seems I insult them by creating this Article. Morover, I've maiden the same (created the Article "Aeroflot Destinations") in 4 other European langueges, but only here, in English Knowledge, I met such a reaction. Especially hypocritically sound all their insults commented with "cheers" and "smiles". Fancy! --Dimitree 09:53, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
    • Regarding "not reading", I think it just got too big. When it was smaller, wikipedia probably had a few deletion discussions and everyone who participated had time to follow them. Now there are so many of them that people just take a quick at the article and vote based on their first impression, it's just quicker that way. Juzhong (talk) 09:58, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
    • Strongest possible keep: every airline article on Knowledge has a section called Terminated destinations. For Aeroflot the list of terminated destinations is too long to fit into a section. That is why the original author put it in a separate list. The article (and its title) can certainly be improved, but statements like "boring", "indiscriminate", "useless" are all POV and should not be offered as a serious argument for deletion. --Zlerman (talk) 14:31, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
    • Delete - Knowledge is not and indiscriminate collection of data. --Pan Miacek (t) 17:01, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
    • Delete - the Aeroflot article can provide an adequate summary of destinations, but this exhaustive list is indeed useless and boring, and serves no particular purpose. The minutiae of a company's business practices are beyond our scope. - Biruitorul 19:55, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
    • Would you be so kind to give, at least, one objective reason for deleting? Let me kindly inform you: there are HUNDREDS of Articles (Sections) dedicated to Terminated Destinations of EACH air company, presented on Knowledge pages. So, according to your logics, next should be, for example, the section "Destinations" from the page of "TAROM - Compania Natională de Transporturi Aeriene Române"? Multsumesk! --Dimitree 20:24, 17 December 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dimitree (talk • contribs)
    • Strongest possible keep Unless there are NO ANY OBJECTIVE REASONS (let's miss appreciative epithets like indiscriminate, useless, borring and others), Article "Aeroflot — Russian Airlines terminated destinations" MUST exist at least as a Section of the main article Aeroflot — Russian Airlines destinations... --Dimitree 20:35, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
      • No matter how many times you vote, you still get only one vote. A list being indiscriminate is a perfectly valid reason for deleting it. And you are not to tell us what we "MUST" have - we are under no obligation to have any particular article, even the one on Aeroflot itself. - Biruitorul 20:46, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
    • Keep. This is encyclopedic information about an airline that would be too much to put in the airline article. It needs expansion, not deletion. The fact that many destinations are "no longer serviced" is irrelevant. Any half-way decent encyclopedia covers history. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:22, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
      • It depends on your definition of history. To me this is legitimate history. A random list of places the airline happened to fly during one decade - not so much. - Biruitorul 22:29, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
      • If it depends on YOUR vision of history, pay attention to this Knowledge:Notability. May be it would update your vision of present?
    • First, would you please citate my "bringing ethnicity into this"? If I know to thank someone in his native language - it is considered a personal attack? Fancy! You should better rebuke others, for example,Russavia who uses a foul language (in English transliteration). And "I'm not to tell" you what you MUST have. Citate me, please, without distorting facts (as it happens here: first - deleting of sources, second - voting for deletion). And saying "we are", you mean whom? Yourself?
    No, the whole business about "well, you're Romanian, so of course you'd like to keep the Tarom list" is silly and unnecessary. "We" is the Knowledge community - we can have any articles we please.
    • Any article you please? With no limits? So, what are we talking about? I like my article. Me means we - Wiki community. It is ok? --Dimitree 04:18, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
    • OK, we can have any articles we please, or we can delete any we please: clearer? No, it's not OK: this process was decided upon by the community, and you do not have the power to override its will; similarly, the fact that no article must exist is also the product of community consensus.
    • Second, you say, citation - "A random list of places the airline happened to fly during one decade - not so much" - end of citation. So do you mean saying "random"? It is official network of one of the world's biggest airline. Why it is random? Please, see references and sources. And "not so much" mean what? If I place here ALL NETWORK of Soviet Aeroflot (1923-1992) it takes TOO MUCH SPACE, bieleve me: 102 countries and 133 destinations on six continents, including Antarctica. But in question is Aeroflot - Russian Airlines, not Soviet. Feel the difference...
    Random bits of trivia don't really enrich the project.
    • Really? Don't enreach? Eliminate, please, all the same articles for "enreaching" the project. --Dimitree 04:18, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
    • Third, you say, citation - "A list being indiscriminate is a perfectly valid reason for deleting it" - end of citation. I kindly ask you to explain in what consist this indiscriminate? Also, I kindly ask you to give a reason for existence of sections ("Terminated Destinations") almost on each page dedicated to each airline presented in Wiki. For others - it is ok, for Aeroflot - "A list being indiscriminate". On what criterion is based this categorical statement?
    Well, because frankly, the thing is pretty boring - writing actual articles is so much more interesting. - Biruitorul 07:33, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
    • Decide for yourself what is MUCH MORE interesting for you, not for me. --Dimitree 04:18, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
    • ATTENTION, PLEASE! I expected it and know I inform the others: have a look please at those who voting here -user Russavia is blocked from editing, citation from his page - "User notice: temporary 3RR block Regarding reversions made on 10 December 2008 to Patriarch Alexy II of Russia, you have been blocked from editing for a short time in accordance with Knowledge's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text below. The duration of the block is 48 hours. William M. Connolley (talk) 22:19, 10 December 2008 (UTC) But Russavia votes for deleting of articles! Fantastic! It is a real spectacle! Applause, please :))) --Dimitree 03:21, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
    He was blocked for 2 days. The 2 days are over. Moving on...
    • I thank a lot everyone who supports me or my article! I agree on having some surplus remarks towards some of users (in reply to their insults. I'm shoked by actions of a user User:Graymornings who accused me of sockpuppetry: it is evident: even if I've written "keep" twice or thrice I've used my nick and IP. Ok, let him be as he is - accusing people without any proofs, no matter... The matter is when an editor (Scapler), pretending to be objective and competent, engages voting for deletion and DOES NOT GIVE ANY REASON for deleting of the article, but keeps posting vague (and insulting for me) definitinos like "an indiscriminate collection of information"... The matter is when NO ONE of voting for deletion replies me in a reasonnable way. They just play a puzzle: "borring", "useless", "indiscriminate" - put them together and define what you have got...

    I've spent A MONTH for creating this article: collecting and sorting of information, its verification, endless dialogues with Aeroflot current route-managers, flight-attendants who served and serves all these destinations (from 1979 till now!!! - almost 30 years in Aeroflot), disputes on aviation forums - and all in vain? All for "being deleted"? Not even MERGED! While EACH OTHER aircompany, presented here, on Wiki-pages, has such a section "Terminated Destinations", merged in global article "Destinations". It is not a fair game! Really! I do not pretend to be an Aeroflot's lower, but I think that one of the world's biggest airline (and biggest in 80-th!) - flag-carrier of my Motherland - Russia, - merits to have a complete article "Destinations". Anyway, all decisions are taking here through a "voting", so the only thing for me is to wait for results of this "voting"... Thanx for your time and best regards, --Dimitree 04:08, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

    Your conversations with airline employees are not valid encyclopedia material: see WP:NOR, WP:PSTS, WP:RS. Yet a further reason to delete.
    • Comment 2 Biruitorul As you can see, conversation (anyhow you call it), is not indicated in text of the article. And of course, conversation can not be considered as a "further reason to delete". Be objective. Try. Or imitate, at least.

    P.S.: I'd like to mention that NOWHERE EXCEPT ENGLISH-SPEAKING WIKIPEDIA I was attacked in a such way. I've created similar articles in five European languages I fluently speak. And only here I met such a "cordial welcome". I regeret it, really... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dimitree (talk • contribs) 04:08, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

    We have higher standards here. Biruitorul 07:33, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment 2 Biruitorul As I've already asked you above, be so kind to explain me, saying "we are", "we have" and so on, you mean WHOM? Yourself? Try to take care of yourself not of "us". And now I ask you using your terminology: "do not bring ethnicity into this" while comparing English-Wiki to other European Wiki-pages: French, Spanish, Italian and Portuguese. According to you, these Wikis have lower standards, haven't they? Would you please indicate me these "higher standards"? To use obscene language and being bloked from editing for violating rules and engaging in editorial wars like User:Russavia? To accuse me of sockpuppetry without any proofs like User:Graymornings? To delete references from the article and nominate it for deleting like User:Scapler? To post "borring" and "indiscriminate", "useless" taking them for criteria like you, User:Biruitorul? It is dicrimination, my friend! To your displeasure, I was thanked there (in Roman-speaking Wikis) and my articles are only being improved by other editors. And finally, please, cease to invent irrelevant pretexts for deleting. Do not make yourself an object to laugh at (even having "a higher standard" then all others)... Regs, --Dimitree 13:33, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
    • We, en.wiki, have higher standards. Example: de:Willy Brandt just appeared on the Main Page of de.wiki; it's a Good Article with just 10 footnotes and reams of uncited text, something you'd never see here. You don't seem to get that Russavia's block ended a week ago, and that Scapler was well within his rights in nominating for deletion. Claims of "discrimination" are really rather daft in this instance. - Biruitorul 06:01, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment Sorry, but where did you find this figure "2,000+ destinations"? Do not distort facts, please! In its peack (mid 80-th) Aeroflot flew to 102 countries (133 destinations) and this was actual until 1992... --Dimitree 04:18, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
    • Question to the user, who wrote this:

    Your conversations with airline employees are not valid encyclopedia material Do you think that the words of the witnesses don't mean anything (for example in court trial)? I'm former Aeroflot pilot, who actually served those routes (shown in the article under question) in the past. Do you consider that my words as a witness worth nothing? Don't you think that most articles in any kind of encyclopedia are based on the words of witnesses and participants of those events and facts the articles talk about?

    • I got this message:

    You have been accused of sockpuppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Knowledge accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the notes for the suspect, then respond to the evidence at Knowledge:Suspected sock puppets/Dimitree. Thank you. And my question is: Do you really cannot see (by checking my IP address) that I'm writing from different country (than user nicknamed 'Dimitree')??? Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Tolip" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tolip (talk • contribs) 17:14, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

    • Comment - Regarding seeing the differences between your IP and Dimitri's IP, editors on Knowledge (for purposes of privacy) cannot see the IP address of either user. Also, in regards to your comments during the deletion debate, your witness in court would of course be valid, unless of course its hearsay, as reporting what any other personnel of Aeroflot would be. Also, here we have our own set of laws. Knowledge:No original research states that editors are forbidden "from drawing on their personal knowledge without citing their sources". So, Dimitri's interviews are not admissible in court OR on Knowledge. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 19:14, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
    • Delete We appear here to be assembling a list of terminated destinations from a series of news reports, primary sources. That is a bad sign. So is the fact that the subject "destination no longer served by Aeroflot" is not encyclopaedia, making the list rather indiscriminate. Finally there is the issue of how many times Aeroflot actually had to land somewhere for it to be considered a destination. A lot of these would have been scheduled for political as much as commercial reasons. Guy (Help!) 20:14, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment:
    • Would you please explain me what kind source for an article is suitable? Have you seen SIMILAR ARTICLES of any other airline? Have you seen THEIR SOURCES? Have a look just to be a bit more competent.
    • According to you, citation - the subject "destination no longer served by Aeroflot" is not encyclopaedia, making the list rather indiscriminate - end of citation. So let's follow your logics and what do we have? We have the subject "destination no longer served by United/Qantas/British Airways/BMI/Alitalia/Air France/Varig/Lufthansa/Cathay Pacific......." is not encyclopaedia, making the list rather indiscriminate and have to be deleted. But they exist! Paradox or double standards?
    • You say, citation - a lot of these would have been scheduled for political as much as commercial reasons - end of citation. You are right, but if you speak about Aeroflot - Soviet Airlines. But this airline was abolished on 28 of July 1992 and since that date we have Aeroflot - Russian Airlines which terminated destinations are disputing here. I've already said to User:Russavia regarding his the arbitrary date of 1992 being used... 1992 is the year when Aeroflot became a Russian Federation flag-carrier (8 December 1991 the Soviet Union has collapsed (History of the Soviet Union (1985–1991)). Official decision of renaming/rebranding of Aeroflot - Soviet Airlines into Aeroflot - Russian Airlines was taken on 28 July 1992 . So starting from 28 of July 1992 Aeroflot is the Russian Federation flag-carrier with its network. And exactly THIS NETWORK (freed from Communist Party politics and Soviet presence all over the world) I've presented here. If you want you can easy follow the dynamics of reduction of Aeroflot - Russian Airlines network since 1992 till 2004 ... --Dimitree 01:50, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
    • News reports are not primary sources, although admittedly Dmitri has been using some primary sources, which is a problem. The subject is "destinations once served by Aeroflot", since wikipedia is not a news service these are just as notable as current destinations. I don't see why scheduled flights for political reasons are less encylopedic than commercial flights, quite the reverse. Juzhong (talk) 22:51, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
    • Keep I've followed the arguments, and there doesn't seem to be a good reason to delete the information. It's not information I plan to use and there are issues of sourcing, maintenance, and verifiability, but a strong case has been made that route history is notable and should be included in some form. How to format it, whether to trim it, and (hopefully) merge it to a more useful combination article can be done after the AfD. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:21, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

    , , , , endless list... --Dimitree 01:50, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

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

    The result was speedily deleted as an attack page under CSD G10.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:03, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

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

    Knowledge is not a Warcraft fan site. This is nothing but fancruft that fails WP:Notability Scapler (talk) 03:53, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

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

    The result was delete. –Juliancolton 01:02, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

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

    The product appears to be non-notable. dbolton (talk) 03:37, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

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

    The result was to keep the article.

    Non-admin WP:SNOW close. No possible outcome other than keep due to overwhelming consensus. Mike R (talk) 14:13, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

    Muntadhar al Zaidi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
    • * "Wait" - probably Keep. I agree. The fact that this man was kindapped (and received much media attention for it), and saw other things in Iraq that traumatised him, will come to have significance. He is likely to be interviewed and to speak about his experiences. Not only that, but the possible mistreatment of him in Iraqi custody (or perhaps even US custody), will also get wide publicity. His actions are also one of the few notable public direct attacks on President Bush ever, by Iraqis or Americans. To many people he may come to symbolise something about the war. In fact I predict he will become - as someone said - as symbolic as the guy who stood in front of the tank in China. His experiences themselves - his BIOGRAPHY - itself, may come to stand for all Iraqis. I am stating these things as a media professional, not because of my own personal (complex) opinions on the war. It just seems to me that this is fairly obvious and predictable. His experiences - his BIOGRAPHY - will be extensively explored and will come to 'stand for' those of all Iraqis. To me, that's pretty obvious. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zenji (talk • contribs) 14:11, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

    The phantom-shoe-thrower from a recent press conference, who attempted to whack Bush in the head with his footwear. Whilst a commendable action, Knowledge is not a newspaper and this person is only notable for one event thus failing WP:BLP1E Nanonic (talk) 03:27, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

    Pretty sure we have precedent for that. (1, 2) Anyway, I'd say that the protests and fuss he's created since the incident cinch notability. FlyingToaster 19:39, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
    Keep because as this story continues to unfold, it is clearly neither minor, nor soon-to-be-forgotten, nor without long-term consequences. -Alexanderj (talk) 02:18, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
    • (Disclosure: Article creator) Keep or Rename per Umbralcorax. Thanks to the Secret Service and their good security, very few people throw any sort of projectile at sitting or former US Presidents. In that context, I believe this Muntadar al-Zaidi is notable for being a member of that small group, if nothing else. More news references can be added if needed. -- Brhaspati\/contribs 05:32, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
    I would object to deletion as that would lose the history which is needed for proper attribution. - Mgm| 10:36, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
    If there is anything worth merging (I have my doubts), preserve the history. Deleting this news story outright without merging is no great loss. Hecklers throw things (eggs, pies, etc.) at politicians all the time. Such incidents are generally forgotten once the news cycle fades. • Gene93k (talk) 11:32, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
    I disagree. This story could easily exploded on Monday. Besides, it was a huge full-circle moment for Bush. Saddam's statue was flogged with shoes when it was toppled and now Bush was on the receiving end of a leather sole and the harsh words of a pissed journalist. Furthermore, the whole incident could be considered a defining moment of the President's final trip to Iraq. Starks (talk) 12:23, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
    "Hecklers throw things...at politicians all the time". This was the US President we are talking about, on a trip probably partly designed to show success in a major issue: the SECURITY of Iraq. I think it's obvious to anybody that that aspect is important. "Such incidents are generally forgotten once the news cycle fades". I'd be willing to wager a substantial amount that this incident will almost certainly appear in every single biographical documentary of Bush and most major general documentaries about the Iraq war. It has major symoblism, and it's memorable and dramatic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zenji (talk • contribs) 14:31, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

    Keep it. He is one of the very few Journalists who have the courage to do so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.178.224.164 (talk) 11:59, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

    • Comment Al-Zaidi's TV station is calling for his release. The way in which he should be treated by the authorities in Iraq is already a matter of controversy there. Thousands of al-Sadr supporters have demonstrated for his release. We may have to be patient for editors with the right language skills to add relevant material from Arabic-language sources on this. At that point, it is clear there will be too much material to reasonably fit in the article on George W. Bush. Therefore the choice will be between an article on al-Zaidi, or an article on the event itself, which clearly meets notability criteria, if there are objections to an article on him. It is inappropriate to ask that the al-Zaidi article be merged into the Bush one when it has the potential to grow, but may simply not have had time yet.
      Let me add that a number of people are misinterpreting the intent of the "one event" guideline. It does not support a merger in any way. It is intended to prevent the creation of biographies of people associated with a single, notable event, when there are numerous people associated with that event (such as all candidates, including minor ones, in an election). In this case, al-Zaidi is more or less synonymous with the event, in which he was one of the two main protagonists. The "one event" rule is not an excuse to avoid evaluating the notability of the event itself. By any reasonable measure, this event was notable. Otherwise, newspapers wouldn't have thought it important to report it, practically unanimously. (See the general notability guideline WP:GNG.) That leaves the choice of creating an article for the event or one for al-Zaidi. 67.150.245.46 (talk) 13:45, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
    I am giving a argument. Even if I can't vote, hopefully this will be persuasive to other editors. 67.150.254.154 (talk) 01:44, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
    It's much too early to suggest that this fellow is in any way comparable to Rosa Parks. Hyperbole will not help to clarify this discussion. I'm leaning towards voting 'keep' myself, but this man is not an instant folk hero; he's a journalist with more than one event of wider significance in his life to date. AlexTiefling (talk) 21:03, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
    Perhaps, but Robert B. Livingston is in good company. Rosa Parks was the first thing that came to my mind when I heard the story break. Of course, the symbolic expression of what we in the states refer to as a Rosa Parks-type figure is going to transform itself based on the culture that expresses it. I couldn't help notice how many news outlets tried to smear this guy hours after the story broke. Gotta love those "anonymous unnamed sources" who say he "detested Americans". Any particular reason nobody can go on record to say that? For more fun and games, head on over to the article talk page, where you will discover that the NYT rewrote their story when Zaidi was portrayed in too positive a light. Viriditas (talk) 07:46, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment: Full disclosure: I created the article. Tht said, this incident has more reliable sources and news coverage than most articles on Knowledge. The subject is notable beyond the context of the incident. Even though his name isn't well-known throughout the Western world (though this may change in a little while; after all, his name was released a very short time ago), in the Arab world, he's now a household name. Al-Zaidi and his actions have international significance even beyond the huge amount of coverage he's received in the English language. I know I shouldn't use WP:WAX, but this guy is at least as important and his influence as enduring as the dozens of internet memes on Knowledge. Graymornings(talk) 21:13, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
    • Yes, you are a primary contributor to the article, and I encourage you to keep at it. It was not my intention to take you down a notch, but rather to point out that multiple articles were created within a very short period of time. The three of you have close company with several other editors who also created duplicates, including User: AndriLimma. Viriditas (talk) 07:14, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
    • Keep. Al-Zaidi is now a hero throughout the Arab world "and beyond", as acknowledged in the Western press. (See New York Times "Shoe-Hurling Iraqi Becomes a Folk Hero" link a few lines above by Rcnet.) The Tank Man analogy is sufficient precedent for this article IMHO. It is hard to find any objective evidence for whether or not the Tank Man images influenced the mass sociopolitical behaviour either of Beijing residents, PRC soldiers, or the wider world, (except maybe through interviews of people saying it influenced them?), but it's clear that the event and images have become famous. Since we know the "Shoe Throwing Man"'s identity, we use his name instead of "Shoe Throwing Man". The case of Rosa Parks, is probably not so close IMHO, since it is clear with hindsight that the symbolic significance of her act, along with her longtime political activism, had a big influence on subsequent events, breaking a taboo. In this case, we cannot predict whether or not Al-Zaidi's action will significantly influence future sociopolitical events or not in the long term. IMHO it's unlikely that reporters will frequently get the chance to/decide to throw shoes at Obama or al-Maliki. (Hmmm, will reporters have to attend press conferences shoeless in the Arab world from now on?) However, mass demonstrations of support have already occurred in Iraq, within barely 24 hours of the event, and the massive international press reaction is certainly comparable to that of the Tank Man - one harmless human being daring to challenge a huge military machine just a metre in front of him. ("harmless" because even Bush getting a broken nose or a black eye would have done nothing to physically harm the US military-industrial-congressional complex.) Boud (talk) 21:52, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
    • Keep - why this article should be deleted, does this man exist? did webpages write about him?. -- User:glasszone33 —Preceding undated comment was added at 22:01, 15 December 2008 (UTC).
    • Keep.--Damac (talk) 22:06, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
    • Keep, mentioned by countless news organization. He is also a journalist by trade. --Voidvector (talk) 22:19, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
    • Keep. His career as a TV journalist in Iraq is not a singular event as it includes getting kidnapped in 2007 and throwing shoes at the U.S. President in 2008 and presumably much more like actual journalism. Sharksaredangerous (talk) 22:20, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
    • Keep. I do not think those who have invoked "one event" have responded to the fact that al-Zaidi's article incorporates notable biographical information beyond the shoe-throwing incident. Furthermore, as argued by 67.150.245.46, even if we ignore these other incidents, this intepretation of "one event" is flawed. A Biography of an individual known for only one incident can be notable, if there is interest in the individual themselves. I think this is clearly the case, as there are now multiple article about al-Zaidi himself, rather than just the shoe throwing incident. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Charlesfahringer (talk • contribs) 22:30, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
    • Merge to George W. Bush. This incident deserves mention, but I don't see anything that makes Mr al Zaidi notable enough for his own article. Yes, he's a journalist. Yes, he's been kidnaped. If we had an article for every journalist and every person who's been kidnaped, Knowledge would be huge! He can be mentioned by every newspaper in the world (and probably has), but if it's for the same thing, then it's still WP:BLP1E. He's not much more notable than the "I like turtles" boy. (Yes, I know I !voted to keep that article.) If Mr al Zaidi throws his shoes at someone else famous, then by all means recreate the article. Xenon54 (Frohe Feiertage!) 23:02, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
    • Keep. Yes it is notability based on one event, but it is high-profile enough to keep. There are many examples where a single event has developed greater significance: James Earl Ray, Matthew Shepard, Joe the Plumber... There are thousands of people protesting in Iraq about this subject. It is seen as highly symbolic. MakeBelieveMonster (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 23:24, 15 December 2008 (UTC).
    • Keep - it started as one event but there have now been rallies and such, and we've not seen the end of this story. Evercat (talk) 23:54, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
    • Keep - notable person, notable event, significant contributions already. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs 23:57, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
    • Keep Knowledge is not a paper encyclopedia. Increasingly, Knowledge plays a brand new role in the information sphere: that of compiling coverage of breaking news stories with encyclopaedic depth. The coverage of the Mumbai bombings is an example. This is another. After reading the news stories, I came here directly because I wanted deeper coverage that I could possibly expect in news stories. And the content that I was hoping for was here. Don't prevent genuine innovation by applying a rule that was meant to address other issues. Edrowland (talk) 23:59, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
    • Keep Per above.--70.224.16.81 (talk) 00:32, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
    • Keep John Wilkes Booth did just one thing in U.S. history. Would we consider deleting him? No. Anwserman (talk) 00:43, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
      Yeah, does anyone remember him for anything besides being perhaps the most prominent and glamorous actor of his day? ;) - BanyanTree 02:54, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
    • Keep - I see no reason for it to be considered for speedy deletion, the article is about a news reporter who was involved in two news-worthy incidents, a separate article can be created to emphasise the shoe-throwing event itself, but this one should stay to expand on the person himself. Basem (talk) 2:44, 16 December 2008 (GMT+2)
    • Weak Keep - Given the info about his kidnapping, I wouldn't be so quick to apply WP:ONEEVENT. I would like to see some more information on his background though. I would be much more gung-ho about keeping this article if it had better biographical information. --Eastlaw (talk) 01:12, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
    • Keep and Rename to something along the lines of 2008 shoe throwing incident. No Wikipedias in any language (including Arabic) had an article on the journalist prior to the incident, despite the kidnapping and all. But this incident is having such a massive impact- especially in the Arabic-speaking world (where apparently shoe throwing is much bigger deal than in the United States)- that it merits its own article on Knowledge. ~Eliz81 02:15, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
    • Weak keep based purely on him being an established journalist from an established news organization. Everything else is just topping, though his treatment becoming a test case of the justice system, as initial reactions seem to be indicating, would probably push this to a straightforward keep for me. - BanyanTree 02:54, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

    oh!than what would you like to say about the article of "robin hood".......bush is kissing my ass not "good bye" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.186.2.56 (talk) 12:50, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

    • Strong Keep This journalist is notable for several reasons. 1) detained by gangs 2) journalism 3) TV appearances 4) George Bush shoe throwing 5) He is seen as a hero throwout the Islamic world. Also I believe that the nominator, nominated this article for deletion per WP:IDONTLIKEIT, which is wrong. Ijanderson (talk) 13:28, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. –Juliancolton 01:02, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

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

    Completing unfinished nom for user:BeebleBrox6. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • 03:22, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

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

    The result was keep. WP:SNOW (non-admin closure) PeterSymonds (talk) 23:01, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

    List of Sgt. Frog episodes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    This is an unverifiable, original research episode listing. Knowledge is not a television directory or indiscriminate list of trivia. Tavix (talk) 02:38, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

    • Keep consistent with treatment of other TV shows. JJL (talk) 03:09, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
    • Keep and trim. Trivia alone is not a reason to delete. There is a quite large precedent that lists of TV series episodes are acceptable. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • 03:18, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
    • Keep is it seriously being asserted that the sequence of the individual episodes can never possibly be sourced? Obviously, some references mus tbe added, but to call this unsourcable is neither sensible nor productive. How much information to include on each isa different question: I do not think the information here needs trimming--rather, it needs expansion--the descriptions are really easers, setting up the situation. I suspect they may have been copied from some TV-guide-like source--encyclopedic descriptions say what happened, giving the entire story arc, not omitting the conclusion. We do not say "Better yet, the Hinatas discover something that is almost unbelievable in the sergeant's portable refrigerator! " We describe what the discovered. That's the true meaning of the guidelines -- we give concise, but adequate, plot summaries. DGG (talk) 04:18, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
    • Keep. I'm with DGG on this one. How can this possibly not be verifable??? Also, as TenPoundHammer and JJL assert, as do I, lists of episodes are overwhelmingly preferred in lieu of individual episode articles, so we should encourage this sort of listing. 23skidoo (talk) 04:48, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:43, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:43, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:43, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
    • Keep – needs cleanup, but certainly no reason to delete. Longstanding precedent for keeping lists of episodes. — sephiroth bcr 09:01, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
    • Keep as per everyone else. Dandy Sephy (talk) 09:44, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
    • As 23skidoo asks, how on earth is this unverifiable? It's a very popular series, and a simple search as required by WP:BEFORE can easily verify the basic content here. Keep per standard precident for notable television series. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:39, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment I have added a ANN reference for the episode titles, which is also useable for completing missing information (kanji titles for example). Consider this article verified and it only took 30seconds (I've switched the reference tag to "refimprove" rather then remove it, but it should be enough). The issue is probably due to naming differences between the currently unreleased english release and the existing japanese release (meaning much of the page may need updating as it starts being released). I was going to fix the tables, but the fact there are at least 3 different table formats used in a 200+ep list has scared me.... It could do with some work to a unified table format and splitting the seasons into separate articles to fix the size issue, but that is standard improvement work Dandy Sephy (talk) 17:17, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
    • Question for nominator: What, exactly, are you pointing at when you say "original research"? (Keep in mind that our policies are clear that just because something is not explicitly sourced doesn't mean it's original research, just that it might be.) —Quasirandom (talk) 21:14, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
    • Reply I could be wrong, but I think that it is original research because it seems like a person just decided to compile a random episode list from the show. From the article, is there any way to prove that these are actually the episodes and they actually contains this? No, because it is unreferenced. Tavix (talk) 22:08, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was Withdrawn. I'll tag this as spam. Schuym1 (talk) 02:12, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

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

    I can't find any reliable sources that show notability on Google and there is no results on Google News. Schuym1 (talk) 02:05, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

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

    The result was speedy keep. The subject is clearly notable meeting WP:MUSIC requirements, being quite well-known with plenty of third-party sources. Non-admin closure. JamieS93 02:20, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

    Stairway to Heaven (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Never released as a single, so failed to chart on Billboard Hot 100 NumberOneDisturbedFan (talk) 01:49, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

    Keep. I strongly doubt that this is a good-faith nomination. The sourcing on the this article is good, the ranking on such lists as Rolling Stone's 500 Greatest Songs of All Time should count as a chart, and, if you need a technical chart to overcome WP:MUSIC, Rolf Harris did reach #7 in the UK with it.—Kww(talk) 01:57, 15 December 2008 (UTC)


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

    The result was delete. WP:SNOW MBisanz 03:36, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

    List of J.O.N.A.S episodes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    WP:CRYSTAL list of episodes of an as-yet unreleased TV series. Sole references are from a blog/fansite, looking at the refs at J.O.N.A.S. shows that scripts and specific storylines are rumours at best right now. roux  01:49, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

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

    The result was delete. WP:SNOW MBisanz 03:36, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

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

    This is an article about a local government politician with no obvious notability Grahame (talk) 01:46, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

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

    The result was speedy delete. speedy delete per WP:CSD#G7 J.delanoyadds 01:49, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

    Jelly- Or Jam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Not encyclopedic TheXenocide (talk) 01:28, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

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

    The result was keep. –Juliancolton 01:00, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

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

    Self-promotional, non-notable, nominated for award that's probably not "substantial". COI issues. SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 04:48, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz 01:25, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
    Sorry? How does Jett Blakk meet WP:PORNBIO? If you mean that Jett Blakk won the XBIZ award, the only reason that award is listed in Category:Adult movie awards is because the author of both articles created them on the same day - a COI at best, vandalism at worst. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 06:56, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
    The XBiz Award may be minor but the GayVN and Grabby Awards are significant porn industry awards. • Gene93k (talk) 08:39, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
    Exactly as Gene93k says... GayVN is perhaps the leading award in this specific field. Tabercil (talk) 17:26, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
    Except that it's not true? The only "win" listed on the article is false: - the others are simply nominations. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 22:32, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. –Juliancolton 13:51, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

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

    Fails WP:BIO; little or no media coverage, no notability indicated, no 3rd party references. 4I7.4I7 10:36, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

    I am not sure If I am responding in the correct area as I am new to Knowledge. Please help me to reformat the page so it is closer to the correct format. Mar Omega has had media coverage and I am trying very hard to obtain the rest of it. It is mainly is newspapers. Some 3rd party references I included were code one auto and Freak. I would like to keep this article from being deleted if possible, please give some more advice on how I could improve it. Mar Omega is not known "world wide" But he is decently known across the U.S. and very well known in the NJ/NY/PA as well as Tx/OK area.

    Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.250.23.67 (talk) 15:24, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

    • Keep I am the author of this article. As far as national television is concerned, Mar Omega was interviewed by Don Imus on the MSNBC / WFAN morning show, Imus in the Morning back in November of 2006. His trademarks were boldly and intentionally featured on props that he loaned Jim Cramer on the CNBC hit show, Jim Cramer's MAD MONEY in March 2008. I've asked Mr. Omega for the exact air dates and he said he needed a day or two to find that in the archives since MSNBC moved from NJ to Manhattan.

    Mar Omega worked on the Iron-Man movie released in 2008, however the credit given was for the entire CNBC crew who worked on the scene. Because he didn't receive an individual credit in the Iron-Man movie, I will not use the fact that he worked on the movie as leverage for notability, but once again it is an example of his work seen world-wide.

    Being where Mar Omega has a growing cult following of 5000+ fans, and has been featured on national television, this article will adequately meet the standards of notability when these facts are updated. I will also include a more "list oriented" filmography and possibly a list of published works.

    This Knowledge entry will be an ongoing work in progress until everyone here and the person it's being written about are completely satisfied.

    Thank you for your consideration Boiyer2 (talk) 02:27, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz 01:24, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was merge to Jeff Dunham. Mgm| 10:31, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

    List of Jeff Dunham puppets (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    This topic is apparently too trivial to be covered in the main article, so it has been split out to sit forever. It doesn't establish any sort of notability and it is completely trivial. TTN (talk) 19:35, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz 01:20, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was keep. John254 17:49, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

    The Physics of Meaning (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Article does not assert notability and I found no evidence of the band's notability in a quick search. Also it has existed in stub form for 3 years, so it seems unlikely anyone will ever expand it. ThaddeusB (talk) 01:18, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

    I am also nominating the following album page as not notable in its own right.

    The_Physics_of_Meaning_(album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:24, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Lankiveil 03:36, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

    200 Po Vstrechnoy Tour (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Fails WP:V and WP:GNG. There is nothing that makes this concert tour any more notable than any other tour. No extensive media coverage. No references. Also nominating related tours below Nouse4aname (talk) 09:20, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

    Show Me Love Tour (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Dangerous and Moving Tour (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:19, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz 01:15, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was keep. Or at any rate no consensus to delete. Merges and moves can be worked out on the article talk page.  Sandstein  08:16, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

    United States House of Representatives special elections in Illinois, 2009 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    I previously (and prematurely) redirected this to Illinois's 5th congressional district special election, 2009. I should have instead proposed this AFD. This article is too speculative. Right now, there is only one likely election: for the 5th district, the seat held by Rahm Emanuel, who will be vacating it to become White House Chief of Staff. The other vacancies are much too speculative. —Markles 17:15, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

    Keep There is likely going to be more than one election and this is a repository for encyclopedic content on those possibilities.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:25, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
    Why would an article need a compliment? I would merge pertinent information into said articles. We don't even know that there will be any special elections aside from the 5th district. – Zntrip 04:47, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
    There is so much press about the speculation of whose districts might be up for election and so high a probability of having more than one that we should probably have an article now.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:51, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
    I agree. – Zntrip 01:19, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    Please see the subsequent discussion at Talk:United States House of Representatives special elections in Illinois, 2009#Remove speculation.—Markles 15:18, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

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

    The result was keep. John254 17:50, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

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

    Article about a parking corporation that lacks substance and only seems to be a history of the company itself, without asserting true notability. Also, conflict of interest with User:Paulwarshauer starting the article, whose surname appears on the article at least 16 times (Ben's name). ←Signed:→Mr. E. Sánchez / Talk to me!←at≈:→ 00:57, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

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

    The result was No consensus (default keep). Most of this discussion was whether or not to merge this; this is the wrong venue for that discussion, which never reached a consensus, anyway. It is clear that delete is not the outcome of this discussion, ergo: no consensus. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 21:45, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

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

    Delete promotional article about nn "print-on-demand" publisher Mayalld (talk) 15:48, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:52, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
    • Speedy Keep -- How can you say it's a "nonnotable" print on demand publisher? It's the parent company of iUniverse and AuthorHouse, probably the two most notable such companies in existence, with tens if not hundreds of thousands of books published between them and countless news articles from huge media companies, partnership with Barnes & Noble, etc. I mean, geez, it's off the scale notable. If it was just a holding company for one or the other, I'd say redirect to the article that already exists, but since it's two and they are almost equally notable, a redirect isn't a reasonable solution. Not even seeing how the article is promotional, as it's just matter-of-fact bland. DreamGuy (talk) 18:10, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
    • Added comment: Speedy Keep AND Oppose merge. AuthorHouse and iUniverse are the names by which the company is most notable. Knowledge naming conventions say those have to stay. And they are separate (for now anyway, companies may combine eventually), so can't really be merged. Leaving the article on the partent company certainly doesn't harm anything. DreamGuy (talk) 14:48, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment. Added links to articles meeting WP:RS for sourcing of legitimate information; removed non-notable claims sourced to primary website. However, couldn't find the specific and significant press coverage that shows this company is "off the scale notable". I, too, have relationships with BN, Amazon, Google and even Dollywood, but what does that get me? Flowanda | Talk 10:34, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment Give me a break. You didn't have, for example, Barnes & Noble advertising your services on the shelves where they sold "how to write" books in every store. And if you haven't found off the scale notable press coverage you didn't try very hard. Google iUniverse or AuthorHouse. DreamGuy (talk) 14:48, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite 00:40, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
    Why wouldn't we? The companies are being merged in real life ( the iUniverse article even says its offices are being moved to those of AuthorHouse ), seems reasonable to merge the articles on Knowledge. Squidfryerchef (talk) 15:00, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
    'Comment -- It absolutely DOES NOT fail WP:CORP, not by a long shot. I find it difficult to believe anyone could have looked into this at all with any amount of effort and seriously come to that conclusion. DreamGuy (talk) 14:56, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
    • Merge. Also consider merging AuthorSolutions into AuthorHouse until there's enough info for the parent company to stand on its own. Notability isn't inherited, and the existing sources just aren't enough to satisfy "significant" coverage. DreamGuy's comments to BN's promotion seems to reference IUniverse, not ASI. The PW and wsj articles are about news items that involve ASI, but more as examples than anything else. And even the Entreprenuer article (which seems to be a reprint of a profile from a pub called "Indiana Business Journal") weasels the claims made by ASI. And googling ASI -- which is what *this* article is about -- brings up little more than pages and pages of press releases, other than the articles *I* added last week. Flowanda | Talk 06:43, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
    It owns both companies, both of which have articles, and both of which have demonstrated notability. The only way a merge would work is if all of them were merged, and then you'dhave to do extensive rewriting to make that article make sense. There is no compelling reason to merge (and certainly not to delete). DreamGuy (talk) 18:22, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
    • Oppose a merge The other two articles establish notability for their own articles. There is no need for their content to be merged into this article. No comment on whether this article should be kept or deleted. Davewild (talk) 11:13, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. –Juliancolton 00:58, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

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

    Though I love Kingdom of Loathing and all that Mafia (as it commonly called) does for it, it really does not pass the inclusion requirement. - NuclearWarfare My work 00:35, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

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

    The result was delete. –Juliancolton 13:50, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

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

    Having been tagged Notab from Dec 2007, with no references and only 278 Ghits, this actor would seem not to meet criteria for notability under WP:BIO Trident13 (talk) 07:03, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

    • Comment In my experience plays and musicals are often hard to verify online. To make a sound judgement, someone who can should look for paper sources. - Mgm| 10:02, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
      • Reply: in using the criteria used by WP:BIO for entertainers, I can't see that Vallance has had: significant roles in multiple notable films, television, stage performances, or other productions; Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following (which should be internet found); has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment (which should be internet found). hence nomination. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 14:19, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton 01:02, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:14, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Xymmax So let it be done 21:04, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

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

    notability not established- all references lead back to the author, no references from credible publications. Mrathel (talk) 00:44, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

    By that I meant that all searches that I did to find outside sources lead to articles originating from the subject or a related website. The two sources listed are both independent, but the websites hosting them are not notable poetry reviews.Mrathel (talk) 07:27, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:12, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Xymmax So let it be done 21:05, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

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

    Previously nominated for deletion in May 2008 and failed to achieve consensus. The product clearly sells well, but I don't believe this inherently infers notability. The product needs to be covered by independent, reliable sources that indicate its notability. In the six months since the first nomination these have not been presented. While indeed, it's clear the product sells well. It just is not notable, I don't believe this is an entry that adds to wikipedia as an article on Flight simulation. Icemotoboy (talk) 02:41, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:10, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was Keep. Nomination stems from an apparent misunderstanding of the notability guideline precendence. WP:N trumps all others. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 03:46, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

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

    Unnotable editor at Viz Media. Fails WP:BIO. Declined speedy. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 14:24, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

    • Question. Admittedly there's only two citations at the moment, but in what way does industry reportage about him -- including an interview with him about the job at hand -- not indicate notability? —Quasirandom (talk) 14:41, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
    Only two "reports" and almost exclusively its just him talking up Viz rather than interviews about him as a person. Par for the course for any company higher up, to be the main voice in interviews, but that alone doesn't make them notable. As an editor, he has the additional criteria at WP:CREATIVE. Weidenbaum is not "regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by his peers or successors" (outside of standard company reports, which is not the same thing). He is not known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique" nor has he "created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, which has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." Nor has his "work" "won significant critical attention" and he hasn't won editing awards etc. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 15:09, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
    Ah, yes, WP:CREATIVE does seem to apply (though that's not an additional requirement -- a subject can either fulfill the general requirements of WP:BIO or one of the more detailed ways of fulfilling them such as WP:CREATIVE, WP:ENTERTAINER, and so on). And going by that, you are right, the subject does not seem to pass that requirement. Delete or possibly redirect to Viz Media, the employer from which his asserted notability derives. —Quasirandom (talk) 17:59, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:10, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
    Yeah, we did, hence the discussion above. Half those results appear to possibly be a different person, and the rest are trivial mentions noting he is the editor of some of Viz's magazines; again, does not meet the requirements of neither Bio nor Entertainer. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:14, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
    Comment - I do not want to sound sarcastic but are we looking at the same search results as I provided? I see a lot more than half that mention the individual. And yes, some are just mentions but others would not be considered trivial. Thanks. ShoesssS 16:21, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
    Again, see the actual criteria. He doesn't meet them. He's an editor and the general mouth-piece for Viz at the moment. He is mentioned in these roles. And? He has been an editor a long time, but that doesn't make him notable. He is certainly no Yumi Hoashi, his predecessor, who was once "one of the ten most powerful people in the U.S. manga business." Can you find such accolades for Weidenbaum or anything about the man himself not just him promoting Viz or doing press releases? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:23, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
    • Keep The fact that he has significant coverage in multiple third party source means he is notable. If a subject meets the General notability guidelines, they are notable, whether they are a company, person, etc. WP:BIO, WP:ATHLETE, WP:CREATIVE are additional criteria, that if a subject does not seem to meet WP:N they still merit inclusion if they meet the more refined, specific criteria. Because a person is, say, a high school athlete (which does not fulfill WP:ATHLETE) does NOT mean that they cannot be included even if they have significant coverage in reliable, third party sources. The specific notability requirements are ADDITIONAL requirements, they do not replace the general notability guidelines. Theseeker4 (talk) 16:28, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Xymmax So let it be done 21:07, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

    Asia Economic Institute (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    have marked the article for deletion because it serves to advertise for AsiaEcon, which is NOT a nonprofit organization. 71.106.166.24 (talk · contribs) Copy of the relevant part of a longer discussion on the article's talk page concerning the veracity of the article and the organization. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ takes life at five times the average speed 14:24, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:09, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Bduke (Discussion) 20:58, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

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

    Article written mainly as promotional, without adhering to WP:NPOV ←Signed:→Mr. E. Sánchez / Talk to me!←at≈:→ 16:28, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

    Delete. No coverage, no products (on website or web), article copy is feeble attempt to change enough words from website to avoid copyvio, although the changes may have been more accidental than intent. Flowanda | Talk 23:06, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:09, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was Delete. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:10, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

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

    Nonnotable individual who published a very small press game and a vanity autobiography also apparently self-published. Individual fails WP:BIO standards for inclusion. First time through deletion discussion (Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Tom Filsinger) people just said he was notable and that his games were notable but gave no evidence of either. Article has not been fixed in the years since then, and we've tightened up our rules on notability so they are a lot less ambiguous and at someone's whim. DreamGuy (talk) 16:43, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:09, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. –Juliancolton 13:50, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

    Shell Creation Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    The only purpose of this article appears to be a WP:Coatrack. Toddst1 (talk) 16:50, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was merge to Zoids: Chaotic Century. Lankiveil 03:31, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

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

    This fictional topic does not establish notability independent of Zoids through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of original research and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, and this is too trivial to require any separate coverage. TTN (talk) 19:32, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. –Juliancolton 13:49, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

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

    Non-notable political consultant. The only assertions of notability are that he served on a presidential campaign committee, he was elected to serve on a local political committee, and he writes a column in a student newspaper at the University of Missouri. Unable to find third-party reliable sources that demonstrate notability by providing substantial coverage of this person (the references provided in the article only mention him in passing). SheepNotGoats (Talk) 19:40, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. –Juliancolton 13:49, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

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

    I can't find any reliable sources that shows notability. Fails WP:ENTERTAINER.Schuym1 (talk) 22:00, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was keep. Xymmax So let it be done 21:11, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

    Euclid (computer program) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    I can't find any reliable sources that shows notability. Fails WP:NOTABILITY.Schuym1 (talk) 22:44, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
    Thank you for your response. Was the product ever fully developed? I think saying it's no longer supported would be better than no longer developed. It wasn't clear to me reading the article whether the product was ever completed. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:29, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. –Juliancolton 00:58, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

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

    Non-notable baseball player. He played one season in an independant league before retiring. He does not meet notability requirements. NatureBoyMD (talk) 23:39, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
    He's retired and most of the coverage seems pretty local. His college career seems fairly impressive, but that's not the focus of the article. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:57, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
    The local-ness of the coverage is what puts me to a weak keep rather than a strong keep. As to the focus of the article, that's an editing issue. If his college career is in fact notable, then the article should be rewritten to reflect that.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:22, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was keep. –Juliancolton 13:48, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

    Miss World 2010 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Knowledge is not a crystal ball. Nb667ahm5h (talk) 07:35, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

    • Keep - Per WP:CRYSTAL, Miss World 2010 is notable and and verifiable. "All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred." Matt (Talk) 07:43, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
    • Speedy keep If all Miss World pageants from 1969 to 2008 have an article, there is no reason to believe an article for 2009 won't been wanted.  LinguistAtLarge  09:43, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
    • Keep - this subject is inherently notable, and can be verified. Richard Cavell (talk) 10:07, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
    • Keep. This is not speculative at all. The Miss World organization has mentioned the plans and several media outlets cover it too. The article currently lists no independent sources, but they can clearly be found. _ Mgm| 10:45, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
    • Speedy Keep - This article is notable. The Miss World 2010 is definitely an even which we all are waiting for. This article has been started to provide information about the upcoming event. This is a widely accepted event n article will be helpful for the public. There are reliable links provided. Rahuljohnson4u (talk) 14:00, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
    • Weak Delete. I'm a little confused on this one; the 2009 contest, being the next upcoming pageant, would certainly be notable as a future event certain to occur, and I see that the Miss World 2009 article has dozens of references and detailed information. Miss World 2010, in contrast, has a blurb and a link to the official website. If there are reliable sources that talk about the 2010 event, then I'd be happy to switch to a Keep, but I'm just not seeing any independent, reliable sources - and a search of google news reveals nothing about the 2010 event. UltraExactZZ ~ Evidence 13:57, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
    Here's sort of what I'm talking about: Super Bowl XLV, the 2011 Super Bowl, has detailed information and - most importantly! - references. Future Olympic Games do as well. I know this event will occur, and I know that the information is likely to be accurate - but I can't see keeping it without sources. UltraExactZZ ~ Evidence 14:08, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
    The WP:SOFIXIT page exists for a reason. If an article is lacking sources, the first attempt to fix it should be to add them. If someone leaves the articles with WP:ARS it's probably referenced within two weeks or less. - Mgm| 20:23, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
    With respect, I attempted to do so - and noted the fact, above, when I was unable to find any that would seem to fit the requirements of our Reliable Sources policy. If they exist, I have yet to find them. Three additional links have been added since I commented, though I haven't had a chance to look into them; one is to a blog, which wouldn't typically be a WP:RS. UltraExactZZ ~ Evidence 21:08, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

    ↑