Knowledge (XXG)

:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 June 17 - Knowledge (XXG)

Source 📝

Purge server cache

Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Log/2008 juni 17

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

The result was delete. I do realize this is an extremely contentious issue and I full well expect to see my decision contested on DRV, but to be honest, I doubt that any closure would survive without being contested in some manner. A review of the several previous deletion debates over this list shows that the community's desire to keep it has clearly been waning and this discussion is certainly following in that pattern. It is obvious that the list suffers numerous issues and many of the arguments for keeping this material are rooted in the claim that these issues warrant cleanup and rewriting rather than deletion. However, several salient arguments have been put forward that these issues are egregious and multiple and that no amount of cleanup will salvage the article. During the course of the debate a number of editors were convinced to change their recommendations from keep to delete, but I don't see that going in reverse. Finally, a number of the keep !votes were, rather than any kind of rationale for keeping the material itself, were calls to close the discussion for what were perceived as procedural violations rather than arguing that the material is inclusion worthy itself. To put it more succinctly, the arguments being made in favor of deletion are stronger than those made for keeping this material. In tandem with the fact that, over time, consensus in each debate seems to be straying from keep and trending closer to delete, I do not feel that closing as "no consensus" will be of any aid except to stave off deletion until the next debate rolls around. Shereth 03:16, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

List of groups referred to as cults (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Procedural nomination. There has been a lot of recent discussion about whether this page is needed, and it has been a year since the last AfD, so let's put it to a discussion. Darrenhusted (talk) 12:42, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Real deletion rationale are being provided by people voting "delete", perhaps this can turn into a real AfD. Merzul (talk) 12:33, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
  • : I second this being a "real AfD." The difference between real and false AfD's I don't think is clearly stated anywhere so technically saying "it's a real AfD" is perhaps unnecessary. Although the idea this is somehow a "false AfD" seems strong enough I've said it. I'll say it again I guess, I second/third the nominate of this for deletion.--T. Anthony (talk) 02:52, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Not enough time left to be a "real AfD". Milo 04:32, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Important note, the list looked much more reasonable about a year ago (here 05:05, 3 October 2007). The main difficulty seems to be its maintainability, as it is tempting for someone, who finds their group on this list, to try to add many other groups that normally wouldn't be considered as cults. This has lead to this current list that some of us find carelessly constructed. What can be done? Should we Keep / delete / userify / or close and discuss on talk page? Merzul (talk) 12:57, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Merzul has requested that I change his "about a year ago" link above to what I consider the most encyclopedic version of List of groups referred to as cults (LOGRTAC). I'll just edit in the date, since his link is a good later sample of the period when the 1920+ header criterion 4 kept old religions off of the list – so that controversy was minimal on the talk page. An earlier version (here 04:34, 26 January 2007) has less polished notice texts, but it also includes partial governments lists. Milo 22:35, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Objections to procedural nomination archived, as enough people have given deletion rationale below
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

*Keep To make it clear where I stand. Darrenhusted (talk) *Neutral to follow the convention. Darrenhusted (talk)

  • Delete as un-encyclopedic, to make this easy. Darrenhusted (talk)—Preceding comment was added at 14:01, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Darren you are making this worse. Now you have provided a rationale for deletion that you don't even believe in yourself. You need to let someone who actually wants this deleted nominate it with a rationale they believe is applicable. No one blames you for your good faith effort here, but its time to realize that it was a mistake and support withdrawing the nomination.PelleSmith (talk) 14:17, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Speedy Close I believe the talk page is best for discussions about the article that do not directly involve Deleting the article outright. Alternatively, no rationale is provided for deletion. I'm not going to close, as I want more eyes to make sure I'm not insane. UltraExactZZ ~ Evidence 12:56, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Speedy Close As I already mentioned on the talk page I'm thoroughly confused about what procedure the nominator is following. I second the speedy close, not because I want to keep this entry (in fact I think its horrible and should get axed) but because if/when it goes to AfD again it does so with a rationale for deletion. This sounds like a request for comment misplaced in an AfD.PelleSmith (talk) 13:03, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
From the article talk page Lists like this are evil, attempt to avoid AfD and this list remains ridiculous. There is clearly a feeling amongst some editors that this page should be deleted. Having read through the full list of WP:DEL I do not see anything that requires the nominator to want a page deleted for them to nominate it (you are free to find the section that says that and post it on my talk page), so here we are with an AfD. Darrenhusted (talk)
Darren, I believe you nominated this on good faith, but can I note that two of the three thread titles you mention above are of my own creation. You are basically arguing that I (and those who may agree with my perspective) should have nominated this for deletion but haven't so you will do it for us despite the fact that you do not agree with us and therefore have created an AfD sans any good deletion rational in its nomination. I object on principle and ask for this to be withdrawn until such time that someone actually provides a deletion rationale in the nomination. I'm not sure that this type of nomination violates policy but it certainly goes against convention. Regards.PelleSmith (talk) 13:31, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Knowledge (XXG):Articles_for_deletion#How_to_list_pages_for_deletion tells us how to create this page, the discussion page "subst:afd2 | pg=PageName | cat=Category | text=Reason the page should be deleted". Deletion discussions are started from the premise that there is a "reason the page should be deleted". That is the "convention" I referred to above as well.PelleSmith (talk) 13:41, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Precisely. It's not against policy as such, but AFD normally proceeds when a Nominator tags an article and proposes its deletion because it violates policies X, Y, and Z, is unsourceable, or otherwise does not meet our criteria for inclusion. Editors then support or oppose deletion, providing reasoning for both. Most Delete comments agree with or expand the rationale of the nominator. Most Keep comments refute the nominator's contentions in some way, or provide reasons why they are not applicable. After 5 days, an admin reads the debate, weighs the arguments on the merits, and closes the debate as keep, delete, or what-have-you. The problem here is that there is no reason provided to delete, so there is A) nothing for Keep comments to refute, and B) nothing for Delete comments to expand upon or concur with. Thus, there is no meaningful debate possible in the context of a deletion debate. I add that this doesn't look like a bad faith nom - those are usually of the "You want to delete my article, FINE, I'll nom yours too" variety - but it's still hinky. UltraExactZZ ~ Evidence 13:43, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Also note that despite any clear policy language about this it obviously implied that the nominator of an article for deletion actually thinks the article should be deleted. See Knowledge (XXG):Guide_to_deletion#Nomination.PelleSmith (talk) 14:09, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete. Knowledge (XXG) is not a list or directory. Is there a list of religions site? Further, one man's "cult" is another man's religions. What goes on the list often reflects one's POV. Windy Wanderer (talk) 13:11, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately, the article meets none of the criteria for Speedy Deletion, per WP:CSD. It has context - it's clear what the subject is. It has content - it's not gibberish. It's not a copyvio or a purely negative WP:BLP. It's not advertising or a test page. It was not created by a banned user, nor does its only author request its deletion - it probably has hundreds of authors by now. It is in english, and has not been improperly transwikied. So, an argument to delete would have to cite other policies that the article fails to meet. Is it sourceable? Is the subject notable? Is it possible to write a neutral article on the subject? Is the existing article salvageable to this end? The nominator presents none of these arguments, which is why I believe this debate should be closed and discussion on these points be taken to the talk page of the article. UltraExactZZ ~ Evidence 13:20, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Speedy Close or Keep (keep vote moved to relisted AfD below) The regular editors have been in heavy debates, and working hard to propose major changes to this article. There is an RFC currently open which has brought new ideas to the article for debate and implementation, and implementation just began today, precipitating complaints that no one has had a chance to discuss or rectify. There are a bunch of possibly satisfactory solutions in the pipe, if complaining editors can be persuaded (maybe not, but there should be an opportunity to do so). I'm not opposed to good faith AfD nominations, but the proper timing was about three months ago for LOGRTAC's "routine" AfD. Milo 14:19, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
    Eight reasons why List of groups referred to as cults (LOGRTAC) is useful:
• 1. It's an index useful for further research, and that is the purpose of the article.
• 2. It's a list too long to fit in the associated text article Cult.
• 3. It's useful to the average reader because controversial subjects have high general interest.
• 4. It's useful to laypersons, who participate in cultic studies by to a degree not found in other academic subjects (see Cult). If they don't have graduate student research experience (or even if they do), they may begin by consulting an encyclopedia, and a Google search quickly leads to Knowledge (XXG).
• 5. It's useful to law enforcement officers investigating cult complaints (comparing a local group to their behavior reported elsewhere).
• 6. It's useful to national government employees engaged in legislative, administrative regulation, and cult policy research. See French Report (unofficial translation) and Groups referred to as cults in government documents.
• 7. Group members find it's not useful to them, but I think they grudgingly concede that it's useful to their opponents. Otherwise they wouldn't work so persistently to delete it.
• 8. It's useful to global citizens who are concerned about a group who has moved into their town or neighborhood. Based on USA cult-prevalence statistics (see Cult), roughly 97% of the time they will be reassured by finding no listing for the group locally referred to as a cult. Milo 04:13, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
So given your points it seems that the rationale to keep this list is to aid the Anti-cult movement in its various endeavors? I don't believe that this is our "purpose" here at Knowledge (XXG). We should not use this list (under the cosy acronym "LOGTRAC") for those purposes because that would mean using Knowledge (XXG) to generate information for a lobbying machine. BTW, cult is in a poor state at the moment, and it reads like a compromise between "anti-cultists" and "cult members" instead of a well written objective and scholarly entry. I think this entire area sorely needs the attention of those who have scholarly expertise, and a outside perspective.PelleSmith (talk) 14:23, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
See line 1. Milo 18:43, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
I see line 1, but I also see the rest of the lines. Furthermore, in terms of line 1, our entries report facts, as the result of research, they do not provide the basis for "future research". You must be confusing Knowledge (XXG) with something quite other than an encyclopedia.PelleSmith (talk) 18:55, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
"entries ... do not provide the basis for "future research"."
I see you are out of league debate arguments. WP:MADEUP
Milo 04:32, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
So you think its our purpose to provide people with partial information so that they can then go about doing future research? Point of fact is that you wish to provide misleading information, but we can leave that one alone. Instead of just insulting me with this "made up" accusation why don't you enlighten us here with some policy, guideline or other available Wiki conventions what support your "for future research" claim. I'll be patiently waiting.PelleSmith (talk) 14:09, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
"enlighten us here with some policy, guideline or other available Wiki conventions what support your "for future research" claim."
No need to. It's an axiom of all research, that all research materials lead to further research, ad infinitum. You either accept this or you're not a scholar. Since you claim to be a scholar, you either have to accept this axiom or launch into tendentious debating – by which you would also lose your scholar's credibility. Milo 13:25, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Total and utter BS. Encyclopedias are not "research materials" meant to lead to "further research". Not only is that nonsense in the academy its completely against the very principles of this Knowledge (XXG)--you may be familiar with WP:NOR, the principle of which being that we seek to report the results of research as reliably as possible, not to create our own. BTW, I'll take my cues about what it means to be a "scholar" from somewhere else, thank you much.PelleSmith (talk) 14:14, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Going line by line when it comes to 1 and 2 List of new religious movements and destructive cult could serve some of this. Not that all or most new religions are cults, but information could be added to the list on those groups that have faced consistent cult allegations. On line five we have List of convicted religious leaders, I created it although I somewhat regret doing so, which deals with some of the legally suspect groups. Some of the others sound a bit paranoid, even if it's a paranoia I respect.--T. Anthony (talk) 23:34, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - criteria is so wide that it makes this nothing but an indiscriminate list of organizations. Some of the entries like Buddhism, Christianity, Communism, Judaism, Mormonism, Protestantism, Al-Qaeda, Hillsong Church, Hells Angels, Knowledge (XXG), and Youth With A Mission are all not cults to list them as if they were takes away all creditability and usefulness away from the list. Furthermore these are just the ones I am familiar with, I am sure that there are many more that don't apply as well. Unless the list is cut down to a more reasonable list of organizations it has no place in this encyclopedia. --T-rex 14:42, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
    Comment (2 e/cs w/revert and thread mess to clean up) You're being taken in by a cunning AfD jam-scheme spearheaded by a tendentious and now-banned user. He and other listed members of modern groups figured that if major religions were readded to the list, editors like you who didn't know about his scheme would demand deletion - and sure enough here you are. From Aug 6, 2006 to Oct 25, 2007 there were fewer complaints because the list was scientifically restricted by the 1920+ rule (per UCSB cult encyclopedist Dr. J. Gordon Melton), to groups founded after the modern meanings of cult began appearing in 1920. Buddhism, Christianity, Communism, Judaism, Mormonism, Protestantism and other old religions weren't on the list. Instead of complaining and polling delete because of unscientific trickery, how about joining the centrist editors in consensing a restoration of the 1920+ rule criterion? Milo 15:39, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
    I actually think that deletion is the better option --T-rex 15:58, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
    Feel free not to answer, but it would be helpful to know if you are a philosophical opponent who might be convinced by the evidence, or if you are a post 1920-founded group member who will never accept anything but deletion. Milo 16:28, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
    I'm not sure I understand your question. However I do have a problem with the 1920 rule. There is no reason to believe that cults didn't exsist before 1920, and it would still fail to remove groups such as Al-Qaeda, Hillsong Church, Hells Angels, Knowledge (XXG), and Youth With A Mission which really fall outside the title of "cult". --T-rex 17:50, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
    "no reason to believe that cults didn't exist before 1920" Perhaps you mean that you could personally decide that some group before 1920 practiced mind-control? That's not only original research, it's historic revisionism, which I assume that you aren't professionally qualified to practice. Only "cultus", positive connotation "cults of veneration", existed by definition before 1920. According to prolific Britannica and cult encyclopedist Dr. J. Gordon Melton, UCSB, the modern scientific use of c-u-l-t began in the 1920s-1930s, ('sociological cult') being the first junior homonym, with six or more appearing later (see Cult). "still fail to remove groups such as Al-Qaeda, Hillsong Church, Hells Angels, Knowledge (XXG), and Youth With A Mission" According to early LOGRTAC editor Wjhonson (20:09, 24 January 2008) previous commenters criticized LOGRTAC editors for making judgments as to who was a cult: "The article has a mechanical approach now, not a judgemental one". The criteria specifically exclude uninteresting cults with easy-to-spot definitions (like fan-cults), but accepts any other definition of c-u-l-t found in a reliable source – which WP:Avoids undecidable arguments. The Knowledge (XXG) reference is always chuckle bait until one actually reads it. Charles Arthur quoted dictionary definitions of "cult" in support of his quite serious opinion ("Log on and join in, but beware the web cults"). You can say you disagree with him, but he's published in a reliable source and you aren't. Milo 22:53, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
The fact that the word "cult" was not used with a particular meaning before 1920 does not mean that cults did not exist before then. The argument boils down to: "The word dinosaur was invented 100 years ago or so. Therefore there were no dinosaurs before then." I don't believe that. Even in my limited research I have come across references that suggest that the early Seventh-Day Adventists, the Mormons, and the Christian Scientists as well as 19th century American Utopian Communities like Oneida, Amana, New Harmony, and the Shakers would be regarded as cults, see for example the US History Encyclopedia on answers.com. John Campbell (talk) 15:16, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Sure. Those names you mention might become regarded as cults if an expert in both cults and history wrote a scientific paper of historic revisionism on, say, 'mind-control cults of the past', then got it published in a peer-reviewed journal of some stature. But even if that happened, it would create a controversial new class of cults, yet not affect the historic change in meaning of the 1920s-30s cited by Melton, which is the basis for the former 1920+ rule criterion. Milo 00:15, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I agree with you entirely, and myself think this list should be deleted, but this listing is not proper. Someone needs to re-list it with deletion criteria else I fail to see how this could end up rendering any actual decision.PelleSmith (talk) 15:09, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
    Comment (2 e/cs w/revert and thread mess to clean up) Check my comment above to T-rex - it might have happened to you also, but you tell me. (Not sure what your formatting objection is - it's a standard double-indented-insert showing a direct reply to the top poster, but added later. Follow the edge of your earlier direct reply straight up to the top poster. I didn't use a leading asterisk out of habit due to the problem that a leading asterisk won't support line breaks within the comment. See if this is ok.) Milo 15:39, 13 June 2008 (UTC) Re-edited 16:28, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Speedy Close I would think that the objections raised above merit cleanup and talk page discussion, not destruction of the article. As a clearinghouse of closely related topics this list has value. While it may not be possible to quantitatively delimit organizations that merit inclusion, it is certainly possible to come to a consensus about specific organizations. Besides, sources being discussed as cults should be sourced as such. HatlessAtless (talk) 15:14, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
There have been clean-up efforts, discussions, proposals, etc for at least 2 years. At best it's been a "2 steps forward then three steps back" kind of process.--T. Anthony (talk) 19:24, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
"2 steps forward then three steps back" Yes, that's a fact, but isn't that normal for a controversial article? So, should global warming have been dumped in the 'it doesn't exist' days? Milo 22:53, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Note: I misread that for "3 steps forward then two steps back". I don't agree that there hasn't been any progress. Milo 13:25, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
The global warming article appears to be only two months older than this one. It was featured when it was about 54-55 months old. Talk:List of groups referred to as cults/Archive 9 gives a sense, good and bad, of where the cult list was at that age.--T. Anthony (talk) 04:15, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
You made my day. Archive 9 begins with LOGRTAC's most productive period, the second half of 2006. Six to eight editors all worked together on an abstract set of cult list rulecraft issues. They succeeded in crafting selection criteria, which produced a list that made sense to passing editors and lasted for over a year. Milo 08:20, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Close without prejudice As someone noted above I question any list that mixes Communism, Judaism, & the Hells Angels. I also think this AFD has gotten off to a start that can't lead to a consensus. If nominated it needs to be nominated by someone who truly believes it should be deleted, and have them put a good effort into explaining exactly why it should go.--Cube lurker (talk) 15:50, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
    • AgreeDelete This article is the definition of a coatrack, but this AfD is a non-starter given the way it was opened. There's no delete rationale on which to build any discussion. Townlake (talk) 17:03, 13 June 2008 (UTC) (time stamping strikethrus Townlake (talk) 20:54, 14 June 2008 (UTC))
  • Speedy Keep No rationale for deletion stated. Townlake (talk) 16:31, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
  • speedy keep if the sources back all of it up, and keep removing unsourced bits or adding reliable sources for them if they exist. Sticky Parkin 17:01, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong and speedy keep. Impeccably sourced, encyclopedic content, good organization; an ideal, list, really. It has issues like any other article or list, but that is why we have regular editing processes and don't do everything as a committee. If there are issues that can't be resolved, then come back and layout your concerns, but coming here with nothing makes this a pointless AfD. Celarnor 17:22, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
    While I think this AfD needs a "procedural close" calling this an ideal list filled with "encyclopedic content," which is "impeccably sourced" is pure madness. There is little to no academic basis for including the drastically varied uses of the term cult, and there certainly is no reliable scholarly sourcing for virtually all of the inclusions on the list. If the list were to be workable you'd have to scrap most of it and get a very strict academic definition requiring scholarly sourcing, and none of this mass media hysteria/hype or quoting of biased parties.PelleSmith (talk) 17:40, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
    There is already a strict-standard academic section, but it doesn't cover the notable issues of cult crimes, lawsuits, abuse, and illegal labor exploitation (often children). At LOGRTAC these issues are covered by the reliable source media section. You may not be a fan of Knowledge (XXG)'s coverage of the police beat, but in 1995 the French Report decided that watching and control of cults that commit small crimes was an urgent priority to prevent more of the thousand-some deaths caused by cults between 1978 and 1995 (see the unofficial French Report translation). You can say you don't agree, but global citizens have decided otherwise, and the principles of the French Report have been quietly adopted by other countries (see GRTACIGD). Milo 22:53, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep Absurd nomination. Please do not bring articles to AFD because it is their anniversary or for procedural reasons. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:34, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep this WP:LIST. It is a useful navigational tool for anyone researching the phenomenon of cults; it also has potential as a development tool. The list has a well-defined inclusion criterion, i.e. groups referred to by reliable sources as cults. I have no opinion on whether a post-1920 rule should be applied, and no comment to make on the presence of inappropriate entries. Such questions of content or quality are beyond the scope of AfD and should not be used as arguments for deletion. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 17:51, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete or if you want userfy. I worked on this list in 2005 and some of 2006. I've also been on the talk page of it on at times since then. I believe it is impossible to do this list in a public forum because of conflicting perspectives and ambiguity in meaning. Also that the articles cult suicide, destructive cult, and Groups referred to as cults in government documents are sufficient.--T. Anthony (talk) 19:22, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Also procedurally weird or whatever I think it's better to discuss this now then close it and then discuss it in a couple days or let it fester longer.--T. Anthony (talk) 19:28, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Speedy Close/Keep reestablish 1920 cirteria on talk page. ThuranX (talk) 20:53, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
    If this is kept, the 1920+ criteria should be re-established, it was based on a reliable source, and makes sense as modern notions of the word "cult" only developed around then. Merzul (talk) 12:45, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. This list is thoroughly sourced. It has a clear criteria that is strictly enforced. It maintains the NPOV, attributing the claims to the sources. The matter of groups called cults is noteworthy, with numerous lists in existance in both scholarly and popular sources. I'd also note that a recently-agreed upon, though not yet implemented, change would require at least two media sources for each group which would remove some odd entries like Knowledge (XXG) and Protestantism. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:15, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - the list is useless, because it confuses the distinction between a cult in the sense of a destructive cult, and other definitions. In the past Sunni and Shia Islam were listed, based on sources that indicated nothing of the sort. Also, other religions have been listed, again based on inaccurate reading of sources. Agree with PelleSmith, to describe this article as "impeccably sourced, encyclopedic content, good organization; an ideal, list" is ridiculous. Finally, per T. Anthony, the subject is adequately covered by other articles. PhilKnight (talk) 22:29, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
    "Sunni and Shia" Those were two of the more worrisome listings that were eliminated by the 1920+ rule criterion, and a potentially urgent reason why 1920+ should be restored. You've obviously made up your mind, but I hope others editors here will help get major religions back off a list on which they do not belong. Milo 22:53, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
    Hi Milo, about having made up my mind - yes, probably. I think the section using academic sources is ok, however the media section has always proved difficult to manage. PhilKnight (talk) 23:57, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
    Check the LOGRTAC talk archives from Aug 6, 2006 to Oct 25, 2007 when 1920+ was a criterion. Compared to previous years, it was relatively quiet at talk and the media entries were easy to manage. Milo 04:03, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
    I participated in the discussion under my previous user name of Addhoc. PhilKnight (talk) 11:50, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Categorise apart from a lot of self explanation and invented inclusion criteria the list doesn't seem to provide anything a category wouldn't, it's main body is already organised like a category. If accusations of being a cult are an important feature of the group a reliable source saying as much will already be given in the group's article so I don't see the lack of referencing in a category being a problem. Guest9999 (talk) 23:06, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
    Categorization was tried and rejected long ago. The basic objection was that Knowledge (XXG) was seen as declaring categorized groups to be cults, which nearly all active groups deny. The exception is destructive cults, which everyone agrees are cults in fact; but there are less than 20 of those, most of which no longer exist. "accusations of being a cult ... will already be given in the group's article" Unfortunately not. Eventually all regular cult topics editors learn that groups' articles are collectively WP:OWNed by each group. Unless endlessly watched and coerced, reliable-source mind-control cult references will usually be purged from their articles. Occasionally certain groups become object lessons for editorial enforcement, but most purge cult accusations as they please. That leaves LOGRTAC as the only place in Knowledge (XXG) where further research can be done on most group's cult accusations, and naturally that means LOGRTAC is a target for tendentious group members, who never give up on trying to get it deleted. Milo 04:03, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
    Categorization is a potentially worse idea as it gives no explanation or context. Plus we already have Category:Cults.--T. Anthony (talk) 04:19, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
    Note that the criteria of Category:Cults specifically prohibits adding groups. It is only used for general articles on cults. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:12, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Speedy close with prejudice; recommend starting a Wikiproject to maintain it and a meta-discussion on how to handle repeated AfDs on an article. History has shown that when a subject racks up this many AfDs, it usually leads to extensive and rather unproductive debate and is eventually deleted on a technicality, to the satisfaction of no one except a few people with an axe to grind. Haikupoet (talk) 05:06, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
    You may be correct about the downward arc, but I don't see how a Wikiproject would help just one article if they're a means to centrally coordinate several articles. The problem is that there are more of "them" (anti-reporting group members) than there are of "us" (pro-reporting encyclopedists). The group leaders seem to recruit an unending supply of aggressive ideologues who argue against facts, aggressive sophists with cunning agendas, and aggressive de-educated clones who use words differently from the way they are defined in standard dictionaries (use Google to sample the Babydweezil cult topic dialogues). OTOH, pro-reporters eventually get tired of tendentious struggle with the marching shards of Mickey's broomstick (cf:Fantasia). Milo 08:20, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
    Really? I know PelleSmith from Wikiproject:Atheism and I've seen T. Anthony before in many places. About PelleSmith, I don't know that he has any axe to grind other than enforcing WP policies. I have previously disagreed with him twice, and now I agree with him. Merzul (talk) 12:11, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
    You inferred a position I did not imply. T. Anthony is a old-time LOGRTAC editor whom I respect and like. His position is philosophical. Milo 18:43, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
    Agreed. Characterizing all the editors 'voting' delete in this manner isn't reasonable. PhilKnight (talk) 14:16, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
    That didn't happen. My example was Babydweezil, a long-banned user. Most AfD delete voters appear to not be tendentious group members. Milo 18:43, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
    You are correct, I was quick to take offense; since you have made clear that you don't consider most delete voters part of that group, I think this issue is resolved. I'm not sure about the article though, I will follow the discussion. Merzul (talk) 19:30, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
    Yeah Milo and I get along fairly well on the talk page. In an idealistic way I'd like to think he's right and his ideas on improvement sound mostly reasonable. I'm just not particularly idealistic, at least not when it comes to matters of Knowledge (XXG) and religious groups. I feel the ultimate collapse of the period of improvement was inevitable because of the nature of Knowledge (XXG) and the disputed nature of the word "cult" in general society. If we were at a convention of sociologists maybe it would be different. (Then again maybe not)--T. Anthony (talk) 23:24, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. I gave this a long thought and reading what people say here and on the talk page, I'm leaning towards delete due to the serious concerns about the synthetic nature of this list. I think there is a problem when a term is a) ambiguous and b) controversial, so we should not bunch together groups that have been called cults for whatever reason. A detailed survey that would pay attention to the various reasons a group have been labeled a cult would indeed be useful, but that requires a bit of high quality original research, something we should leave to experts. Or not, so an option would be to userify this list so that proponents could come up with a more careful construction, but this current mess should be deleted. Thanks, Merzul (talk) 12:01, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
    For other editors, the WP:Synthesis claim has been refuted at "cult cocktail" below. Milo 13:25, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete I am changing my original recommendation of "Speedy close" on procedural grounds (see above archive), since no such close occurred and now there are other rationales for deletion all over this AfD. This list is not simply uninformative but actually anti-informative as it confuses readers by presenting a hodge podge of unrelated groups under different sourcing criteria (scholarship v. mass media) without adequately explaining the meaning of it all. A particular problem presents in listing groups referred to as cults by the media, since scholars consider the media a primary source, not as the uninformed reader will imagine, for simply "identifying cults" but instead for aiding the mass cultural creation of "cults" by activating and promoting the label in the first place. An unfortunate result of this is that many well meaning individuals "think they know something" about cults since they are reasonably informed news watchers--these people do know "something" for sure, but they don't see the social process at work here, nor do they get the distinction between the findings of research and the hype of mass culture. To them it seems logical that this is an informative and helpful list, and that sourcing it to the media is a high standard of verification. That simply is not so. Also this list ("LOGTRAC" to some) should not be maintained in order to influence other social and political institutions, or otherwise maintained for the purpose of aiding the Anti-cult movement in their own lobbying efforts and civil engagements. While anyone should be free to cite Knowledge (XXG) for their own purposes we ought to be weary of claims that this type of greater purpose is a rationale for having information on Knowledge (XXG) in the first place. I have suggested already on the talk page of this list, that a more adequate list could be something like List of NRMs labeled as "cults" in mass culture, or List of NRMs referred to as "cults" by the media. Such lists would satisfy the Anti-cult movement because it is exactly the groups they target that would be listed, but such a list would also nuance and distinguish the meaning of the list in the first place--the accurate distinction between scholarly and popular understandings of "cults" and the recognition of the social process that causes actors in mass cultural discourses to apply the label "cult" to an NRM, and/or less so to a secular group of some kind. That, if well sourced with scholarship would be an informative list.PelleSmith (talk) 15:16, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
"a more adequate list could be something like List of NRMs labeled as "cults" in mass culture, or List of NRMs referred to as "cults" by the media."
That title has no advantages over the current one, plus an additional disadvantage that some cults are not religious. Also since, very roughly, 97% of NRMs are not cults, putting NRM in the title could cause unnecessary offense. While NRM was coined as an intended synonym for a religious cult, it was only partly accepted by scholars and not at all by the public. See Cult. Milo 13:25, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
That is a distorted version of fact. "NRM" was introduced to replace the term "cult" in sociology. NRM has little to no currency in popular discourse (something I know you know and can diff you saying yourself). In other words in the same sentence you invoke the scholarly usage of NRM and the common usage of cult, as if that makes any sense. The vast majority of NRMs are not destructive cults and or otherwise clearly abusive or illegally behaving organizations, but to those who cling to the old sociological usage of cult, they are still "cults". This confusion is a distraction. My suggestion is precisely to be exact about the scholarly labels and the popular labels. You act as if an NRM not on the list will take offense because we clearly attributed the cult label to other NRMs on the list to the media. All I can say to that is ... AS IF!! There was an alternative btw, see the talk page, in which I removed NRM altogether, but we still utilized the scholarship v. media distinction. List of groups referred to as "cults" in the media.PelleSmith (talk) 14:39, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Please see the talk page here for two very valid points derived from the essays of two scholars in this field. I'm copying these from Talk:List_of_groups_referred_to_as_cults#.22Cult.22. Regards.PelleSmith (talk) 17:10, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment PelleSmith seems to be arguing for an article move, rather than a delete. It's a good argument for such, and I'd support it. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 17:06, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
      • Response (w/ agreement but for semantics) Call it what you will but my recommendation remains "delete" for the current list with an added recommendation for what could be an informative but "different" list. I would advise to start from scratch and not to move. I also have other ideas on how to restrict the list in ways appropriate to a name of the kind I have suggested but will not bother posting them here. Should this happen I will be glad to join the conversation.PelleSmith (talk) 17:17, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
        • The technical implementation could still be a page move followed by stubbing the article. It would keep the contribution history, and one could selectively restore the relevant parts of it. I support the idea to focus on NRMs, using a more neutral title, and adding a carefully written introduction about the problems with media based on PelleSmith's academic sources. Merzul (talk) 18:55, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
←That misunderstanding fails a plain-text reading of WP:Synthesis: "Synthesizing material occurs when an editor comes to a conclusion by putting together different sources." But LOGRTAC is just a list article with links and quotes, which are never original research. There are no conclusions, so synthesis isn't possible. Now, all controversial articles create strong Rorschach impressions in readers of things that are not there, but they are different impressions for different readers. Subjective inferences are also not WP:Synthesis.
2. "focused" The article is about a spelling with eight or more homonyms (or polysemes). Perhaps you are dissatisfied with the degree to which those homonyms are currently disambiguated, and so am I, but the criteria are also not unfocused in the sense of vague.
3. "scholarly" Three of the c-u-l-t homonyms, sociology, psychology, and ancient veneration theology are scholarly, are reported by academic journals, and they are adequately addressed. The next homonym, Biblical theology, is reported by fundamentalist sources and some religious journals, but all such scholarship is religiously partisan. The remaining homonyms have sometimes overlapping meanings of destruction, abuse/exploitation, and mind-control, are reported by newspapers, and are adequately addressed. This is not scholarship, but it is responsible journalism. Any view that reliably-sourced journalism is not acceptable in a Knowledge (XXG) article, is not compatible with WP:V.
4. "advantage" Assuming it refers to the reader's advantage, this is an argument of utility – asking of what use is the article to the reader, even though there is no such Knowledge (XXG) requirement. The consensed purpose of the LOGRTAC article is "further research" which is a use. Since this utility issue often comes up as a puzzlement among editors unfamiliar with the global seriousness of the cult topics, I anticipated it by posting a list of Eight reasons why List of groups referred to as cults is useful, with the clear understanding that they aren't the purpose. The argument that the reader shouldn't make use of the article in certain ways is irrelevant to whether it could be useful, and a call for deletion on a "shouldn't use" basis is a call for censorship. (Knowledge (XXG):Knowledge (XXG) is not censored) Milo 04:32, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Hmm... good points.
1. Synthesis, well, I have to admit that I do see blood when other people see only bunnies and flowers. For example, I thought synthesis being violated on the atheism page when it said "Notable atheists of the last century include Bertrand Russell and Joseph Stalin." (and a few more...), so probably synthesis is not the problem here, but ...
2. I think you have nailed what really bothers me and what I thought to be the implied conclusion not supported by the sources, the implication that these references to the word "cult" would be referring to the same concept. On the deeper problem, it seems we fundamentally agree.
3. Here is a serious disagree with PelleSmith, and I don't have an opinion on that, yet... I don't know if I will be able to form an opinion on that, but it is being discussed on the talk page of this AfD.
4. Again, a disagreement with PelleSmith, but here I completely agree with you. If our articles can be of any use to people as a starting point for research, I don't see a problem with that. Merzul (talk) 11:28, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
UGH. Merzul I have to disagree with you.
2 Here Milo is completely misrepresenting the ambiguity of this term in a falsely systematic way, as if there are eight readily definable homonyms (inside and outside of scholarship). This is not true. There are a handful of related scholarly usages of this term and then there are a mish mash of related popular/media usages of the term all of which are pejorative and fall on a scale of relative similarity to the usage by the Anti-cult movement. Also the very idea that this article is about a "spelling" is ridiculous. If that is the case we need to close it down immediately. That argument is simply a way to get around my suggestion about NRMs vs. cults and starting from a position of scholarly precision, as if this entry isn't about NRMs since that label is no longer part of the homonym family ... although in scholarship NRM is exactly about the pertinent subject matter.
3 Leaving the usages available from within a religious perspective (e.g any theology) aside--there are usages of this term in the psychology/sociology/anthropology/religious studies in relation to NRMs (mostly in the developed world) and then there are usages in the social sciences (mostly anthropology) but more so the history of religions (and religious studies) in relation to religious veneration and systematic ritual practice. When Milo admits that the "remaining homonyms" all relate to "destruction, abuse/exploitation, and mind-control" he is mostly correct. It should be noted here that there is absolutely no scholarly evidence for the "brainwashing" (e.g. mind-control) claims made by the Anti-cult movement and bandied about by the media. What Milo fails to point out is that these various usages of "cult" all derive from scholarly usages (mostly the social sciences), but as such have been completely malformed to the point that they add characteristics (mind-control) and insinuations (everything with the label is abusing and exploitative) that are simply the product of hysteria and not empirical evidence. Finally, the claim Milo makes about WP:V supporting the use of the media here is patently false. Scholarship from peer-reviewed publications and academic publishers is much more reliable than the media. When we have a situation in which there are empirical studies that show the popular bias in using the term "cult", and an almost complete consensus in the scholarly community that the media reportage on NRMs ("cults") is biased and distorted it becomes imperative to explain what someone is looking at when they see a "list of groups the media has labeled as a cult". Doing otherwise is simply against our principles here of presenting NPOV information to our readers, and against the purpose of WP:V and WP:RS. Lets not forget the volumes of scholarship available on the Anti-cult movement and its causal connection to various moral panics.
4 Here I think you (Merzul) have the right idea in mind but maybe you're not seeing what I am. The problem is not in a benefit that providing accurate and NPOV information may have to society at large. The problem is with writing entries in order to effect some sort of change in society at large. Articles can be of use to people as starting points of research, sure that's entirely fine, but what Milo is suggesting is that this article should be useful furthering the aims of the Anti-cult movement, in indoctrinating social institutions with the inaccuracies of the media/popular/anti-cult perspective on this matter. In other words, if you read his points at the top of this AfD you'll see its not as innocent as you think. We're not just talking about helping people learn, we're talking about furthering hysteria. That's simply not our job at Knowledge (XXG).PelleSmith (talk) 13:38, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
"there is absolutely no scholarly evidence for the "brainwashing" (e.g. mind-control)"
The issue is definitely disputed but "absolutely no scholarly evidence" is unsupportable. The basic source is Thought Reform and the Psychology of Totalism by Robert Jay Lifton, M.D., Distinguished Professor of Psychiatry, CUNY. For later decades of pro and con positions, see Mind control#Cults and mind control controversies. BTW, "brainwashing" and "mind-control" are not the same.
"claim Milo makes about WP:V supporting the use of the media here is patently false."
Tsk, tsk, maybe you wouldn't have lost your credibilty if you had read it before claiming that: WP:V#Reliable sources (emphasis mine):

...the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers. .... Academic and peer-reviewed publications are highly valued and usually the most reliable sources in areas where they are available, such as history, medicine and science. Material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used in these areas, particularly if they are respected mainstream publications.

"what Milo is suggesting is that this article should be useful furthering the aims of the Anti-cult movement, in indoctrinating social institutions with the inaccuracies of the media/popular/anti-cult perspective on this matter."
Denied. Other readers may examine my rejection of this claim on the talk page at Righting Great Wrongs. Milo 13:25, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Milo you have very selectively quoted from WP:V and I have dealt with this issue at full on the RS/N. Please see Knowledge (XXG):Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#List_of_groups_referred_to_as_cults_AfD. There is in fact a scale of reliability we adhere to based upon the quality of sources, of which scholarship clearly trumps news media. Regards.PelleSmith (talk) 15:01, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Ok, it seems that the objections on the talk page are then the central concern here. It appears to me that what I find most annoying is actually the result of a somewhat pointy attempt to get a focused "cult" list deleted; while on the talk page, there is discussions about some of the deeper problems that even a list focused on NRM labeled as cults would have, unless dealt with carefully. Do I understand things more or less correctly? Merzul (talk) 14:05, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
The current list is not "focused" it is confusing (unless you don't mean the current list here at all). My suggestion is to focus the list by adding precision and clarity, based upon the best available scholarly information. I'm not sure I think the attempt is pointy to delete the current list as much as there is a very valid point to deleting and starting from scratch. There is some discussion on this talk page, but it hasn't gone too far and seems to center around the notion that all groups labeled as cults are not "religious", hence the NRM distinction is not good. The truth of the matter is that very very few are not religious, and the fact that a couple of "non-religious" groups have made into this category simply speaks to the inaccuracy of the popular usage, which (and the scholarship is all there to back this up) did evolve from the same academic usages that have now evolved into NRMs. In the end, most of this discussion should be on a talk page and not here, that is entirely correct, however since Milo keeps on bringing in reasons to keep that strike at the heart of the public misunderstanding of this term it has become imperative to clarify the issues.PelleSmith (talk) 14:27, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
"all groups labeled as cults are not "religious", hence the NRM distinction is not good"
A mind-control cult is expected to be some system whereby one turns over their thinking to a group, combined with novel group beliefs and high group tension with the surrounding culture. Religion is the just the easiest way to seduce people into a cult, but political extremisms, questionable therapies, and pyramidal business marketings can also create cults.
I need to be a lot more specific, the "focused" list that I talk about is the hypothetical list that Milo would like to create to avoid the different meanings. About pointiness, it is not pointy to argue for deletion like you do, but I find it somewhat disruptive to add entries to this list with the express purpose of showing the ridiculousness of the entry criteria, and much worse, there seems to be a prolonged campaign to have the list deleted by adding all sorts of things on there. The right way to go about is of course the discussion on the talk page. And I think I do agree that your title is more appropriate, I need some time to think about it, and would like to see what other people say. Merzul (talk) 14:43, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment just to re-emphasize, the fact that this afd even exists is a mistake and it should have been shut down as soon as it started. The afd was brought by someone who believed keep was correct and now it's a debate about the content, not the existance. This should have been closed long ago,--Cube lurker (talk) 21:50, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Reply. Well, process is important in building an encyclopedia together, but we don't have to follow all rules when the discussion is otherwise reasonable. I find the current AfD debate constructive and believe some consensus can emerge out of this. Do you believe otherwise? Merzul (talk) 22:12, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Comment I agree this has become constructive, but I also think this AfD has turned into a conversation far more appropriate for the article's talk page than this forum... and this was sort of inevitable given that the nominator didn't start the AfD with a deletion rationale for discussion. The only consensus we seem to have is that the article needs improvement; I do recognize that's a worthwhile conclusion. Townlake (talk) 23:44, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
I might agree with "it needs improvement" in a way, but I think for a variety this will not happen, or at least it won't last, and that deletion is appropriate. I'd be willing to declare myself a "sponsor" for it being AfD'd if the actual nomination is deemed inappropriate.--T. Anthony (talk) 02:48, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
That's hardly fair considering remaining AfD time, as well as to the participants who've moved on, accepting UltraExactZZ's strong recommendation that this should be a speedy close. Milo 04:32, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Have they radically shortened the time an AfD can go? From what I can tell the majority of the AfDs from June 10 are still being debated. Don't we have five days from nomination? That should give us tell Wednesday.--T. Anthony (talk) 05:41, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Still if it's necessary for process I'll AfD this a few hours after this AfD is closed. That's assuming it's closed before June 16. (Three days seems like the normal minimum)--T. Anthony (talk) 05:43, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't understand the rush. Won't you be here six months from now? Historically LOGRTAC gets about six months between AfDs. There was a year's delay to this one, because it took a number of months for Catholics to be put back on the list after the 1920+ criterion was removed by group members (so they could put Christianity-generally on the list). Milo 08:18, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Years of this going nowhere is not "a rush." Besides what good will waiting do? I feel this being AfD'd now is valid. If it's going to get closed on a technicality I'll reopen it. (My computer is having problems so I might not be able to respond)--T. Anthony (talk) 03:29, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
"Years of this going nowhere "
I don't agree that is a fact. I think this article was started in (Feb?) 2004, but the early history was misplaced by a redirect laid over page move. Since the spelling has so many homonyms, it probably took a year or so just figure out what the issues were. Then it took the next year or so to find and consense the current NPOV title, and to develop criteria that focused the list on mind-control cults without theological cults (1920+ rule). Then a year in which the list functioned with relatively little controversy, while the centrist editors drifted away thinking the job was done. Then a recent year or less in which members of the listed groups hijacked the article because it was working, and jammed it with theological cults in order to get the article AfD'd. And here we are.
That article history is not "years of this going nowhere", but it's also not for impatient editors used to normal article construction times. It has been slow going because by analogy the topic has a huge 'virtual mass', meaning there's a huge amount to discuss due to all the homonyms and resulting homonymic conflict. Using a near analogy, if there are eight homonyms, every article-structure decision has to be consensed eight times. Milo 13:25, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I have a "3-articles" proposal.
The 1920+ criterion was successful because it separated references to old institutions founded before 1920, from references to modern institutions founded 1920+, by scientifically disambiguating the original word "cult" (of veneration - cultus) from all of the later junior homonyms. This separation prevents homonymic conflict, the root cause of the cult-conflict word issues (as opposed to the issues inherent to groups no matter what they are called).
The problem was that only a single article (LOGRTAC) needed to be taken over by group members to undo the anti-conflict separation. Therefore, I propose three ideas I've previously mentioned separately:
1. Rename LOGRTAC to include the 1920+ rule in the title (lists groups founded 1920 onward).
2. Create a second article to include a "1919-" rule in the title (which lists only groups founded 1919 or earlier).
3. Create a third article to include only cult-followings (fan-cults of popular culture).
This way, group members would have to take over at least two of the three articles, change their criteria, rename, and merge them to restart c-u-l-t homonymic conflict at Knowledge (XXG). Unlike criteria changes, rename and merge processes require flags to be set wiki-wide, increasing the chances that tough "why?" questions would be asked by investigating editors.
A classic objection has been a desire to avoid lengthy article names at LOGRTAC, but (re)ending homonymic conflict now seems to be a more urgent priority. LOGRTAC has been through a substantial series of name changes. The current word string has been thoroughly vetted and must be retained in some equivalent form to avoid restarting settled NPOV conflicts. ("List of cults", "purported" or "alleged" don't work.)
There may be no good names so lengthy, so my suggested goal is to coin the least bad ones. The one with the best grammar is listed first:
a "List of groups founded 1920 onward and referred to as cults"
b "List of groups founded 1920+ and referred to as cults"
c "List of groups founded 1920 onward - referred to as cults"
d "List of groups founded 1920 onward, referred to as cults"
e "List of groups referred to as cults, founded 1920+"
f "List of groups referred to as cults, founded 1920 on"
h "List of groups referred to as cults, founded 1920 onward"
i "List of groups referred to as cults, founded after 1919"
j "List of groups founded before 1920 and referred to as cults" (old groups)
etc. Milo 08:29, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Please respond separately to my comment below. The idea that we need to keep "group members" from hijacking these lists is correct, but you fail to explain that there are two types of "group members": 1) people belonging to NRMs and "cults and 2) people belonging to or promoting the views of the Anti-cult movement. Your suggestions only attempt to keep the first group at bay, while in fact welcoming the second with open arms. What makes this issue more difficult is (and there exists easily sourced scholarly consensus here) that the second group's agendas and misinformation are unfortunately assimilated to lesser and greater extents into cultural institutions like the media, as well as popular opinion. This attempted end run around scholarship and in support of the lobbying efforts of anti-cultists really needs to be understood for what it is. Regards.PelleSmith (talk) 15:06, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
I asked you rather nicely on your talk page to evaluate my suggestion above, something you seem to be ignoring. Can you explain why List of NRMs referred to by the media as "cults" is a poor suggestion? There is a very important distinction to be made between those using this term, and what they mean. Your suggestions circumvent the precision that mine suggests. I'd like to know why you think they are preferable.PelleSmith (talk) 13:47, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't see any advantage to be gained by replacing "groups" in the title with "NRMs". It would exclude several groups that aren't relgions, and wouldn't make the list any different otherwise. As for adding "by the media", one of the two lists in the artice is of references by scholars. We don't need to spell out every aspect of the criteria in the title. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:22, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
The advantage is keeping the oranges off of the page with all the apples. There are 4-5 groups that are not NRMs, and its is rather clear that media usage and scholarly usage of "cult" is not the same. But for those few groups all others are NRMs. The word, in popular usage, is derived from the sociological usage of "cult", which NRM is now a preferred synonym of. In terms of the media vs. scholarship simply listing one and then the other is just confusing, and it does not explain at all the discrepancy. It is, as I said already anti-informational, and only to the advantage of those who wish to obscure the scholarship here in favor of the bias presented by the media and by the Anti-cult movement. Scholarship not only offers a different perspective than the media it offers a perspective critical of the media. You can't keep on sidestepping this issue in order to keep up the rouse that media hype is purely and innocently informational here.PelleSmith (talk) 00:14, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
We use the media as sources for most article in Knowledge (XXG). Here we are specifically setting aside a special section of the article as being devoted to media references. Readers aren't unaware of the fact that these entries are sourced to the media. We also contrast the list with a list supported by scholarly sources. think it highlights scholarship rather than mixing it in with media sourcing, as most WP articles do. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:27, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
What they are unaware of, Will, is the well documented consensus amongst scholars that the media is a biased source when comes to "cult reporting." This is not a usual case at all, and is not comparable to how we usually use the media to source entries. As I've already told Milo as well, scholarship published in peer reviewed journals and by academic publishers is more reliable than the press. It is one thing when one or two media outlets have a specific bias, and quite another when scholarly consensus is that the media can't be trusted to report this subject matter adequately. We are dealing with a subject matter here, NRMs also known as cults, and not just some term "cult". What needs contrasting is how scholars and the media identify the "SAME GROUPS", and that is what I'm suggesting. This obfuscation grows more and more tiring. What exactly do you have against the scholarly consensus here?PelleSmith (talk) 00:49, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Do we have a source for this scholarly consensus? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:57, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
See references cited in ]? John Campbell (talk) 08:40, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Seven sources are mentioned there at Opposition to cults and new religious movements#The_role_of_the_media. Not all can be referred to as scholars. One mentions cults. One mentions cults and is paid by a cult-referred group leader. One mentions NRMs and anti-cultists. One mentions journalism. One mentions secularism. One mentions Christians. One mentions religionists. The scholarly consensus if any, is probably stated by Dart and Allen, 1983: "unhealthy distrust exists between religionists and journalists. Religious figures fear that people may misunderstand and misrepresent them; journalists fear making mistakes and incurring religious wrath. The resulting apprehensions inhibit the free flow of information and only add to misunderstanding."
PelleSmith (00:49): "media can't be trusted to report this subject matter adequately"
What's adequate? There's only one universally agreed standard for adequate journalism, and that is the law of libel. Can the media be trusted to report NRMs and cults to adequately prevent defamation lawsuits? For most stories, most of the time, the media can be trusted to report in a way that avoids lawsuits, because they would lose money and possibly their jobs to do otherwise.
Do cults, NRMs, politicians, celebrities, and average people like the way they are reported to the public? Often they don't, but if they can't sue, the reporting was adequate.
There is no reason why cults and NRMs should get any special exemption from media coverage in Knowledge (XXG). Once that slippery slope is tilted, every bad news media story ever written about anything could be deleted by being subjected to a scholarly consensus of media inadequacy. Milo 13:25, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
No one wants to give NRMs special treatment ... but nice reversal of logic there. Do you see a List of celebrities called fat ... or a List of heads of state ridiculed by the media? It is not special treatment to refrain from creating lists that use, as you admit yourself, a pejorative label to group various entities. Give us a break.PelleSmith (talk) 14:45, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Agree with PelleSmith. An acknowledged pejorative label is not a suitable criterion for creating a list. Jayen466 17:10, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
That seems to be a done deal; Knowledge (XXG) contains other pejorative lists. See List of events named massacres. Below your 08:31, 20 June 2008 post I've commented further . Milo 11:59, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
On a side note the last two AfDs ended with no consensus, not a keep. So it has been three years since an AfD on this list gave us a keep. Darrenhusted (talk) 10:03, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Indeed, I just removed one of the meticulous citations: Landover Baptist Church. On the other hand, why not? It is a very amusing list with well-known cults like Knowledge (XXG), Hell's Angels, and the Roman Catholic Church; why not provide at least some competition to uncyclopdaedia, they think we lack a sense of humour. Merzul (talk) 16:53, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
      • More seriously, I think keeping the current list is the worst choice. We either go with Milo's suggestion with something of a 1920+ rule, or with PelleSmith's idea to be sensitive to NRMS. Although the current list is the worst choice, entries like Knowledge (XXG) and the Catholic Church take any seriousness out of it, so I think PelleSmith doesn't have to worry about this being used for NRM hysteria. It would still be a very bad compromise, but if we can't reach a consensus, then the current list is at least harmless and somewhat amusing. Merzul (talk) 17:09, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Knowledge (XXG) was a serious entry. See a quote box of the qualifying text below. Milo 13:25, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
        • The "Roman Catholic Church"/"Landover Baptist Church" was added on on June 13 by user:Storm Rider. That user has argued against the existence of the article. I won't assume bad faith by guessing he intentionally added a poorly-source entry. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:46, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
            • Nor should you assume bad faith; when the standard of calling a group a cult is whatever the media says we lose all sense of a standard. As I indicated on the article's talk page, there are over 4 million entries on google for "Catholic, cult" (not all of which are negative, but more common to cultus, but the point remains many call the RCC a cult). What I did was simply do a quick search to add a group that I find best exemplifies that the list is without an anchor because there is no accepted definition of the term "cult". You may disagree that such an action helpful, but I believe it demonstrates how silly the list is. When the media becomes the standard any church could be added and thus the list cannot be maintained, nor would it be meaningful. --Storm Rider 03:33, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
          • Be that as it may, the sourcing is still not as meticulous as some claim. It is rather disheartening that people just look at the entry and assume that what it looks like must be correct. I'm removing dead links even as we speak, and I've noticed that several "news stories" in which we cite an actual news publication actually link to hosting on www.rickross.com, which is a problem, especially when some are "news summaries" of the original. On top of this one finds news articles from lesser publications in which the "experts" applying the "cult" label are people like Steven Hassan, who have entrepeneurial interest in locating cults. I'm not saying this is a disqualification, but simply that the sourcing issue is far from meticulous and/or reliable, even by media standards.PelleSmith (talk) 18:56, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
    You made many "corrections" that were only your misunderstandings, that I had to spend hours reverting in the middle of a "rush" AfD. Example, you don't remove dead links, you mark them, ...and on and on and on, all of which I've gone into detail about on the article talk page. Milo 13:25, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
            • The links to the Rick Ross should only be "courtesy links", copies of news items. If you delete any please leave a citation to the original source. Ditto with dead links. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:04, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
              • I highly doubt that Rick Ross is considered reliable for reproducing news stories, and as I said some are even labelled as "news summaries" of the original. I am tagging all such rick ross links with this. The dead links were deleted and I don't think they provided any exact citation only the supposed publication name, but let me look.PelleSmith (talk) 19:08, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
              • Further, Ross republishes this material in clear violation of copyright and we should not be linking to such violations, see WP:EL:

                "Linking to a page that illegally distributes someone else's work sheds a bad light on Knowledge (XXG) and its editors."

                It would behoove this project to strip out these "courtesy links" wherever found leaving only the bare reference to the original source. --Justallofthem (talk) 19:14, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
    That quote from WP:EL doesn't apply to references with convenience links, or to news archives which are not in clear violation of copyright. Copyright law generally allows fair use copies for study (somewhat depending on the market for educational sales to college students). Ross also offers to remove the copies of any newspaper that objects.
    Overall, not copyvio, although also no consensus. Until consensus, if ever, the news archive convenience links can stay. However, it's consensed that direct links should replace convenience links, if direct links exist. Milo 13:25, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - WP:COATRACK and inherently POV list can serve no useful purpose as the only standard for inclusion seems to be that someone somewhere (in RS) once called a group a "cult". It is about as useful as the hypothetical List of people referred to as stupid. --Justallofthem (talk) 18:24, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
    Justallofthem a.k.a. Justanother appears to be a member of a LOGRTAC listed group who would benefit from making unfavorable news more inaccessible. Milo 13:25, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
    And that, my friend, is what we call an ad hominem argument and a violation of WP:AGF. I hope your other arguments for keeping this list are more coherent logically --Justallofthem (talk) 13:56, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Yes, this is the problem with the current list and my position is a clear delete on this one. However, there are two proposals to do more careful lists. I don't know what is right, so I'm going to stop commenting after each vote, but this current mess is basically a failed compromise. I do hope a real compromise can be reached... Merzul (talk) 18:35, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
        • The current list was not any sort of compromise – it was a hijack tendentiously led by a now banned group member. Milo 13:25, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
      • There is no clear-cut definition of cult in its modern pejorative use so what we end up with is an inherently one-sided article that violates WP:NPOV in its very nature. And weasel-wording the title to "list of groups referred to a cults" rather than "list of cults" just highlights that point. Referred to by whom? What about the other side? What about the reputable sources that say the particular group is not a cult? The article is cherry-picked and one-sided by its very nature. The cult issue is a thorny one for this project which, as a whole, takes a much dimmer view, IMO, of religion than more traditional media, but this article is not the way to address it. --Justallofthem (talk) 19:01, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
"There is no clear-cut definition of cult in its modern pejorative use "
That's a groups' propaganda myth. Modern pejorative "cult" means groups who engage in destruction, mind-control, abuse, or exploitation, mostly of their own members. Milo 13:25, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Charles Arthur appears serious to me and other editors when he refers by definition to Knowledge (XXG) as strange or sinister:

Log on and join in, but beware the web cults
Charles Arthur
The Guardian, December 15, 2005

"Knowledge (XXG), and so many other online activities, show all the outward characteristics of a cult. Which, by my (computer's) dictionary definition, means "a system of religious veneration and devotion directed toward a particular figure or object; a relatively small group of people having religious beliefs or practices regarded by others as strange or sinister; a misplaced or excessive admiration for a particular person or thing; a person or thing that is popular or fashionable, esp. among a particular section of society, 'a cult film'.

Certainly the latter definition could easily be used for Knowledge (XXG). I also think the first ones are appropriate. There is a quasi-religious fervour surrounding the "rightness" of Knowledge (XXG), or Apple's products, or RSS vs Atom. To outsiders, it makes little or no sense. To those inside, it is the most important topic they can imagine."

Given that some Wikipedians spend upwards of 12 hours daily online doing unremunerated work, with considerable impact on their family and social lives and their ability to hold a job (or indeed get one), it is certainly an argument that can be made. Jayen466 17:15, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete The two biggest reasons being 1) Patent nonsense and 2) Knowledge (XXG) is not a directory. The article is atrocious and can't be fixed as its multiple nominations have shown. It is loaded with SYN, OR, and POV. It conflates the many different meanings of the word "cult" in the academic section and the media section is just meaningless. The problem with this article is summed up in this quote (which happens to be the last words on the entry for the term "cult" in a religious encyclopedia): "he careless application of the cult concept by both the media and opponents of specific groups has made the social scientific use of the cult concept increasingly difficult." (Encyclopedia of Religion and Society p. 123) There are multiple definitions of the term cult, even within a single discipline, they are used carelessly, even in academic journals, and this makes the taxonomy difficult. Lists "are encyclopedic content as are paragraphs and articles, and they are equally subject to Knowledge (XXG)'s content policies such as Verifiability, No original research, Neutral point of view, and others." Knowledge (XXG):Lists#List content provides “Stand-alone lists should always include a lead section just as other articles do. Even when the meaning of a list's title seems obvious, a lead section should be provided which briefly and clearly describes what the list is about. In other words, it should present the inclusion criteria items must meet in order to qualify to be added to the list.” and “If the list's title does not seem obvious, e.g. List of scholastic philosophers, the lead section should clarify the meaning of the title...” The problem is, because of the ambiguous, multiple and overlapping definitions of the term, the meaning can't be clarified. The list merely becomes a POV magnet and ends up meaningless. Knowledge (XXG) is not a directory. Just because there are cults out there does not mean an encyclopedia has to list them, especially when the definition is so slippery and the list ends up just being nonsense. Mamalujo (talk) 23:38, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Most of those statements have too little factual basis for a response. For example, patent nonsense is just random typing, and WP:SYN and WP:NOR are impossible for an article that contains only links and quotes as content.
So why would he mount such an irrational attack?
Mamalujo is a member of a major religion (that is also defined as a theological cult), which the hijacking group members planned to use as AfD bait by removing the 1920+ criterion. It worked as planned, and here he is. He can't take revenge on the group members, so he's taking revenge on the article.
Since his positions are mostly a rant that doesn't make logical sense, I suggest that the closing admin ignore his vote. Milo 13:25, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
WP:CIVIL is not a nice thing to have, but an official policy. Please do not use an AfD to attack people for their beliefs. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:41, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
That didn't happen. His beliefs are ok with me. Milo 00:15, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
You are asking the closing admin to discriminate against Mamalujo based upon his religious affiliation. Completely improper and uncalled for, not to mention based upon some serious paranoia.PelleSmith (talk) 14:22, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
No. Re-read my last sentence. Milo 17:05, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Uhm ... Milo your entire argument is built upon his religious identity ... you do understand that correct? Take away his religious affiliation and you have no argument, keep it in and its tantamount to saying that his religious identity causes a conflict, ask to have this conflict be the basis for dismissing his opinion, and you have clear discrimination on religious grounds. Sorry Milo, last sentence or not, that's what one understands from your statement.PelleSmith (talk) 18:55, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Milo, your ad hominem attack on my motivation aside, there is a plain factual basis for my statements. The article is patent nonsense: It does not include what could fairly be called well known destructive cults (Indonesian Witch Hunters, Jombola, Westboro Baptist Church, and World Church of the Creator) yet until just after the nomination, and for long before that, it included the likes of Buddhism, Mormonism, Judaism, Christianity, environmentalism, Freudianism, Protestantism and (got to love this one) Knowledge (XXG). As to OR or SYN, by Knowledge (XXG) policy they do apply to articles like this. And when the article and its editors conflate the many different definitions of cult (an inevitability in light of the varyiing and overlapping definitions and the POV nature of the subject), they are violating both those principles. Mamalujo (talk) 18:38, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
"As to OR or SYN, by Knowledge (XXG) policy they do apply to articles like this"
Yes, of course that's true by theoretical policy, but there is no practical way for it to occur. The only article content (as opposed to info notices) is links and quotes. Links and quotes are SYN and OR proof.
"And when the article and its editors conflate the many different definitions of cult"
No. Doesn't happen. Can't happen because there are no written conclusions.
You've subtly changed your position. In your (23:38) post you wiki-linked Patent nonsense which is an exact WP definition of "Patent nonsense", meaning things like random typing. Had any editor ever done that at LOGRTAC, it would have been quickly deleted by vandal fighters. Therefore LOGRTAC is not "WP:Patent nonsense" , using the random typing definition with which your post was published (intended or not) .
In your (18:38) post you have not wiki-linked "patent nonsense". While it's still not much of an argument, at least it can now be read metaphorically.
"The article is patent nonsense: It does not include what could fairly be called well known destructive cults (Indonesian Witch Hunters, Jombola, Westboro Baptist Church, and World Church of the Creator) yet until just after the nomination, and for long before that, it included the likes of Buddhism, Mormonism, Judaism, Christianity, environmentalism, Freudianism, Protestantism and (got to love this one) Knowledge (XXG)."
I see what you are saying. Loosely it might be termed "nonsense", but "patent" is rhetorically too presumptuous, given a system with a complex set of rules.
Here's my own first-post response to the same situation, except with Baptists and Quakers: Milo 05:13, 3 July 2006: "I was boggled by the inclusion of "Baptists" and "Quakers" on this list, yet I think it demonstrates that this page has achieved a usefully neutral method of listing such groups..." (M-W.com: boggle: to overwhelm with wonder or bewilderment <boggle the mind>)
I think the difference between our differing reactions was that I recognized this as machine logic rather than nonsense, calling for a reprogramming of the machine. The 1920+ rule criterion was the reprogramming that eliminated old religions from the list.
There's more arcane stuff in your first post, but I accept your second post as an understandable replacement. I withdraw my request for the closing admin to ignore. Milo 00:15, 18 June 2008 (UTC) Re-edited 07:57, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
While the random typing example demostrates "total nonsense", the page on patent nonsense also talks about another type: "Content that, while apparently meaningful after a fashion, is so completely and irredeemably confused that no reasonable person can be expected to make any sense of it whatsoever." This is precisely the case with this article, as my examples demonstrated, and it has been so for a very long time. The article makes no sense and it cannot be fixed, so it should be deleted. Mamalujo (talk) 18:42, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
"no reasonable person can be expected to make any sense of it whatsoever"
That definition of WP:NONSENSE is also trivial to refute.
To disqualify that claim, only one reasonable person has to find that LOGRTAC makes any sense at all. I claim to be one reasonable person, and LOGRTAC makes sense to me. There are also a substantial number of other keep voters on this page who have given reasons to keep LOGRTAC that make sense to them.
Thus LOGRTAC is not "WP:Patent nonsense", category 2. Q.E.D.
If the 1920+ criterion hadn't been hijacked, LOGRTAC would make so much sense that even you wouldn't be here complaining about it, because your old religion wouldn't be on the list. Milo 07:57, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
That's an anti-science first for ScienceApologist, who is voting to delete a sociological and psychological science section that I think even PelleSmith agrees is valid. Milo 13:25, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Well maybe that is because SA can recognize science when he sees it and this article sure ain't science. --Justallofthem (talk) 14:04, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Heh, good comeback. Milo 00:15, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, use List of new religious movements instead. Media reporting on these issues is criticised by scholars and even by the United Nations ("the media, and in particular the popular press, all too often portrays matters relating to religion and belief in particular religious minorities, in a grotesque, not to say totally distorted and harmful light" . --Jayen466 01:09, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
That suggestion is not an alternative. NRMs are very roughly 97% not cults, and some cults are not NRMs. Both NRMs and cults have beliefs non-traditional to the surrounding culture, but only cults have high tensions with the surrounding culture.
All media is biased due to fast reporting in a confined reporting space. That does not mean that there should be no media reporting (or indexing of it at LOGRTAC). WP:V has determined by policy that media references can appear in Knowledge (XXG). See my answer to the related reliable sources issue that Merzul entered at List of groups referred to as cults AfD. Milo 13:25, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Media bias is one thing, but doesn't this list have an inherent bias by selecting as its criterion for inclusion the application of a pejorative label, and offering no information but the application of that label alone? How does that approach an NPOV summary of available sources? You say, only cults have high tensions with the surrounding culture, but the reverse does not seem to be true. Not all cults listed in "LOGRTAC" are in a state of high tension with the surrounding culture. To give examples, Alcoholics Anonymous and Knowledge (XXG) are not, to my knowledge, in such a state of tension, yet they are in the list, because they fulfil the criteria. Now there is much more that can be said about AA and Knowledge (XXG) than that they are "cults", but there's no room to do so. – Many of the items in the list are NRMs; if you do a line-by-line comparison against the List of new religious movements, you will find considerably more than 3% of the NRM list represented here, and certainly most of the more visible NRMs are here. Generally speaking, the few list items that are not NRMs seem to have nothing much in common. (I note that someone has taken Knowledge (XXG) out of the list just recently, but here are the requisite media cites that would qualify Knowledge (XXG) for inclusion: ) Jayen466 08:31, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Re the alleged "inherent bias": the article militates against any inherent bias by casting its net wide and semi-mechanically covering both academic and popular press spectra of usage of the word "cult" and its synonyms. That covers a wide range of meanings while arguably combining to a good overall reflection of the general public's use of "a pejorative label". Built-in balancing = built-in neutral-point-of-view. -- Pedant17 (talk) 05:18, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Jayen466 (08:31): "Not all cults listed in "LOGRTAC" are in a state of high tension with the surrounding culture."
You've changed the subject from NRM, a narrowly defined concept (new religions), to c-u-l-t, a complex set of homonyms with multiple copyright-variants on basic dictionary definitions.
LOGRTAC appears to be mostly but not solely, a list of "high tension" cults, which definition is I think is attributable to Stark and Bainbridge – but editors don't judge these. All cult definitions not specifically excluded (like easy to recognize fan-cults) are accepted at LOGRTAC. Charles Arthur got his definition for the Knowledge (XXG) cult from an unnamed computer dictionary (see quote box this page). Alexander and Rollins, 1984, got their AA cult definition from Robert Lifton, 1961, Thought Reform and the Psychology of Totalism.
Jayen466 (08:31): "more than 3% of the NRM list represented here "
The Knowledge (XXG) NRM list is of meaningful notability, not meaningful size. 3% cults among NRMs is a very rough calculation based on comparing 100-200 high tension cults listed in the French Report (unofficial translation) with 3000-5000 mostly unknown USA "cults" reported by Prof. Margaret Singer, 1995. If the vast majority of Singer's "cults" are unknown, they are low tension NRMs rather than Stark and Bainbridge high tension cults. If NRMs/cults could be counted globally, the cult percentage of NRMs would surely be even lower.
Jayen466 (08:31): "Now there is much more that can be said about AA and Knowledge (XXG) than that they are "cults", but there's no room to do so."
Saying more in the sense of commentary about any group is not the purpose of the article. It's an index to literature for further research on appearances of c-u-l-t (that aren't fan-cults or a few other meanings in which global citizens are little interested). Wilson's Readers' Guide to Periodical Literature also does not comment on its indexed articles.
Jayen466 (08:31): "How does that approach an NPOV summary of available sources?"
It's not a summary, it's an index of references.
Jayen466 (08:31): "doesn't this list have an inherent bias by selecting as its criterion for inclusion the application of a pejorative label"
No, because the pejorative issue is external to the list of references – references to places the pejorative is sourced.
Compare List of events named massacres. All people agree that massacres exist, but all people don't agree that their historic event is a massacre (since that pejoratively labels the side that lived to have the most complaining descendants).
Knowledge (XXG) does report notable crimes, notable lawsuits, and even notable personal embarrassments. The only obvious alternative to listing notable, pejorative things is some sort of 'Pollyannapedia', which Knowledge (XXG) currently is not.
Fairness is not necessarily the same as neutral-point-of-view. Something that seems fair but not required to counteract media bias (if any in a given case), without compromising the NPOV reporting, was being worked on at the time of the AfD – denial links. These are links to groups' websites home page or their specific page, if any, where they deny being a cult. Milo 11:59, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
links to groups' websites home page or their specific page, if any, where they deny being a cult This is a ridiculous suggestion, and more primary source mischief. Jayen466 21:44, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
3000-5000 mostly unknown USA "cults" reported by Prof. Margaret Singer Strange argument. If Singer referred to these 3000 to 5000 groups as cults, then ipso facto they already qualify for being included in this "list of cults". Yet you are trying to tell me somehow "they are not cults." Jayen466 21:50, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
It's an index to literature for further research The New York Post is hardly "research literature". For those interested in media reporting on cults, it is a primary source, and we are not here to provide primary source collections for scholars. Jayen466 21:57, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - providing a list of groups simply because they have been identified as a cult in the media is hardly a standard of value. I suspect one could find any church being identified as a cult by someone else in the media. I would submit the list may not be maintained because so many groups would be identified as a cult in some newspaper article. When you can label the Roman Catholic Church as a cult, exactly what is the value of the standard? Does the media source just have to record that a group has been accused as such or does the media source have to demonstrate the accused group is an actual cult? By what definition of cult does the media source have to use? Is it only destructive cults, violent cults, non-mainstream doctrinal positions, the members of just too weird; exactly what definition is appropriate? The term "cult" has no agreement as to definition by anyone much less the media. The list is meaningless because the term is meaningless. It is used most often to belittle, besmirch, and deride groups by anti-cultists; unfortunately they are not the sole users of the word nor do they own the definition. --Storm Rider 03:53, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
"The term "cult" has no agreement as to definition by anyone much less the media."
That is a groups' propaganda myth. The list of definitions appears under Cult#Definitions. Milo 13:25, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
The extensive range of definitions listed there rather proves the point that there is "no agreement". Unless you just mean that there is agreement that the word can have a lot of different meanings! John Campbell (talk) 15:19, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, exactly, there is agreement that c-u-l-t has a number of different meanings. Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance give a figure of about eight agreed-on homonym meanings. Milo 00:15, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
23 entries for a definition of cult??? and you want to claim that it is a myth? What do you mean by a "group's propaganda myth". Which group are you referring to? Do you have any source, any where, that says there is a single, clear definition that is understood by the term cult? Of course not. That definition may exist in your own mind and in the minds of other anti-cultists, but it clearly does not exist in academia, the media, or the world culture.--Storm Rider 15:47, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
"Which group are you referring to?"
The ones with the most money.
"a single, clear definition"
No, because it's a single spelling rather than a single word.
The 23 listed include several similar or overlapping dictionary entries that differ mostly to satisfy copyright requirements; but, being reliable-source dictionaries, they are all agreed-on variations of 8-some multiple-homonym meanings.
The point is they are all agreed-on as to definition.
The c-u-l-t word set analogizes to an 8-string guitar that can play both sweet and sour notes, where each string is a basic homonym meaning, and the fret stops are the dictionary variations on each basic meaning. Each string tuning and each fret-note position is distinct and agreed on in most of the world, yet playing an 8-string guitar is not easy. Milo 00:15, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Someone needs to delete WP:IDONTLIKEIT or at least ban it from use in AfD discussions since it ends up being used as a lazy and highly judgmental non-point pretty much every time someone invokes it. No offense but these are not "personal objections" and this list is a sourcing nightmare. The issue of media bias is a well documented scholarly consensus--hardly a personal preference of some kind.PelleSmith (talk) 14:18, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment One can also imagine List of people referred to as stupid adhering to all list guidelines, being cited, and having clear but seemingly randomly-chosen criteria like the new list of criteria for the present article. (Why two media sources? Why not four or seven? Labelling a group a "cult" is no small deal.) Townlake (talk) 14:52, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
"Why two media sources?"
I don't know for sure. Two media sources has been a very slowly evolving consensus of many editors over a period of several years.
I was originally for multiple sources when part of the Washington Post archive went down and a group member made a quite reasonable fairness complaint because of it. But the multiple-sources draft criterion at the time was complicated, so the other editors may have polled against it for that reason. Also, at the time the media list was shorter, so two sources might have trivialized the list.
Since there was no rule against posting multiple sources, editors continued to add them until eventually most entries had at least two sources. At some point it became easy to implement two sources as a media-list criterion requirement.
The single source I'll miss most is:
Twentieth Century Architecture as a Cult by Nikos A. Salingaros
...IIRC, a brilliant piece of cultic research exposing the modernist architecture movement from the viewpoint of the wealthy-traditionalist building agenda. I remember a short debate as to whether INTBAU's 33-member group of international moguls, who owned or controlled a significant fraction of all the large-building wealth in the world, could be considered a basis for vetting this magazine as an adequately fact-checked reliable source. The clicher was INTBAU's headline patron - The Prince of Wales. Milo 00:23, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Two sources? Who's criteria is that? Do we have sources that describe such criteria? Or is this just an arbitrary criteria invented by Knowledge (XXG) editors? If that is the case, why not 4, or 7, or 13 sources? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:38, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Comment Milo, everything else about this AfD aside, that was some entertaining reading there. Thanks for the background and the chuckle. Townlake (talk) 19:44, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - I dont think Neon white has understood my deletion reason. This list indiscrimanetely jumbles together groups that have been described as cults in completely different contexts, and using completely different meanings of the word. Imagaine there was a list of things described as funny, which jumbled together things described as funny ha ha and funny peculiar. That list would, of course, be completely useless. This list has the same problem - the word cult has several meanings, from small tightly knit religious group, to popular phenomenon, to a homicidal group. Jumbling them together creates a list which is completely useless. The subject is adequately covered by other articles, so this list should be deleted. PhilKnight (talk) 22:42, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
The doesnt really matter. It is up to the reader of the article to make decisions on the quality of sources not editors of the article. Articles are only required to be verifiable, they make no claims to be the truth. This topic is encyclopedic, it has been studied academically, 'people referred to as stupid' has not. The sources should be academic ones and not media based ones in my opinion but this is a content issue and not a reason for deletion. I have never seen an afd where more comments have been made based soley on personal objections to the content. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is a very appropriate guideline to remember. --neon white talk 22:57, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Nope. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is a sorry excuse for a non-point that gets bandied about when people are unwilling to take the time to understand the substance of someone else's (often several, even a majority of someone else's) arguments. The guideline should be deleted or banned from AfD discussions, where it usually rears its ugly head. If you are interested in covering this topic in a way consistent with the scholarship on the subject then you support a very different list. Please see the talk page of this AfD for a discussion about one version of such a list. When I proposed a list to that end the keep supporters here wanted none of it because their agenda is not to pander to scholarship, but instead to glorify the supposedly straight reportage of the media. Also please see the several other editors who suggest another scholarly alternative already available List of new religious movements. Claiming that this is just a bloated content dispute fueled by "personal objections" is quite frankly insulting.PelleSmith (talk) 03:58, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Some branches of scholarship examine the direct impact of the social movements frequently still called "cults". Other branches of scholarship have more interest in wider societal attitudes to the new, the innovative and the exotic. The current article does not restrict itself exclusively to either attitude -- and this broad attitude counts as a virtue. The current article also attempts to subsume at least echoes of popular-culture sources, and that too redounds to its credit. -- The other article: List of new religious movements, has its pleasures too, but some merit subsists in grouping together at some level political cults, psycho-cults and biz-kults -- all of which exist in numbers -- alongside the more obviously spiritually-oriented orgs. -- Pedant17 (talk) 04:29, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Unless you are willing to support an entry that actually uses scholarship to elucidate the social processes at work in "cult accusations" or "cult labeling" (see my suggestions on the talk page) I see no point in your repeated mention of the value of a list that does so. The current list is not of such value, and that is a very big part of the problem. The current list simply lists cult labels and links to news sources that have used the label. The fact that you understand the social processes at work does not in any way mean that the average reader does--in fact we have to assume they DON'T. It also links to a poorly written section on cult labeling and the media in another entry. My suggestion tries to deal with this particular problem, and attempts to elucidate the social dynamics at work for the reader. If we compared an contrasted media portrayal with scholarship on the same groups, with a preface summing up the cultural politics here, we would be informing our readers. I'm sorry but while I agree that there is usefulness to a list like the one you are talking about, you're simply not describing the current list.PelleSmith (talk) 12:39, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Lists by their nature can tend towards the superficial and the generalized. By all means let's supplement them with analysis and linked commentary -- perhaps in separate articles. But right now we have a dynamic list, and proposals to abolish it put in jeopardy some of the more prized features of that list: its width of scope and its precisely defined criteria. -- Pedant17 (talk) 05:18, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. This article to which I contributed considerably in the past both in talk and content, has had recurring and unsolved problems mainly WP:SYN and WP:NPOV, resulting in perennial dispute tags. Despite claims that this is not a List of cults, it clearly is as per the redirect. No chance as it stands now to be an article that can be compliant with our core policies, and listsare articles and have to abide by the core principles of Knowledge (XXG). ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:37, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Synthesis and point of view are both content issues and not a reason for deletion. --neon white talk 22:57, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
There are severe WP:SYNTH and WP:NPOV problems, which have proved unsolvable despite several attempts by experienced editors over the last few years. I think in this case, they represent valid reasons for deletion. PhilKnight (talk) 23:37, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - There was never a more obvious POV fork. Every religion is a cult. There is plenty of support in literature to name the Catholic Church to this list as well. Some groups just rise to a level of acceptability within society without regard to how reasonable the actual beliefs are. Scientology and Rastafarianism are religions, but some well meaning local group merely wanting to discuss spirituality may be branded a "cult"? That hardly seems fair. Believe whatever you want. JUST DON'T GIVE ANY OF THEM ANY MONEY -cult or religion. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 22:23, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Thia article does not represent a single point of view in any way. Knowledge (XXG):Content forking#What content/POV forking is not might help. It is a valid fork of Cult according to guidelines and precedent. There is no policy reason why the cult article cannot contain a well sourced list of cults. --neon white talk 22:57, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Not a single pov but more than one, eh? Well there are 6 Billion p's of v in the world on this issue, so good luck with that. I should find everywhere major religions are referred to as cults. They deserve it, and should all be listed here as well. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 23:49, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Major religions were listed, that's what got the article AfD'd. I don't agree with that, but weird how you seem to be voting against what you say is your own position. (checks calendar – aha, full moon begins today) Milo 00:41, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
There is no real difference between a "cult" and "religion" except communicating acceptance or rejection. That's POV Plain and Simple. I certainly would prefer that they ALL be called cults, but that isn't going to happen. Better we call them what the adherents wish to be called. (This is basic respect, btw).Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 20:50, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Diplomatically, one can call people/orgs to their face by their chosen designation. but encyclopedically, one can question whether the Democratic People's Republic of Korea counts as "democratic", whether the United States of Mexico remains thoroughly "united", and whether the Church of Scientology operates as a "church" as much as a business or as a psychological school. Such questioning promotes a neutral point of view in a wider sense. -- Pedant17 (talk) 04:29, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. This topical and perennially popular and much-editd article (unlike some suggested non-existent straw-man article-titles) does precisely what its title suggests: it lists groups which (quotable) people have referred to as cults. It has developed (by intense internal discussion) evolving criteria of definition of its chosen subject-matter. It does not correspond to any person's favorite or unfavorite list of what that person might consider a cult (or even a "destructive cult'), so much of the turmoil pointing out alleged discrepancies or "ridiculous" juxtapositions has no relevance to the proposed discussion about deletion. -- Appeals for scholarly re-casting by-pass the intrinsically pop-culture aspects of discussion of cults -- a legitimate topic in its own right and one that the "Media" section of our article addresses systematically and usefully. -- People who want to delete the link from the "List of cults" page have a discussion-page Talk:List of cults on which to debate that matter. -- Given the debate on the 1920 cutoff date, I would favor encouraging dates of reference alongside each listed item within the article, just as we highlight sources in the article. -- The article provides a useful research entree to anyone interested in popular moral panics, loose language-use and hive minds. It has limited direct use as a source on culthood (that role belongs elsewhere). Its audience extends far beyond the non-existent or tendentiously invented "Anti-cult movement". -- Calls for steering the article in the direction of or into a renaming involving "New Religious Movements" fail to address the questionable relevance of religious labels to many "cults". The dividing-lines between "religious" and "non-religious" can become very debatable. -- Pedant17 (talk) 02:33, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Clarification Re your first sentence - the last "cult" in the media list right now is there because one media source references anonymous, unquoted skeptics who called the group a cult at some time before the article was published. I haven't gone through and looked at all of the groups and every source, but I cherry picked one entry and found that. Just sayin'. Townlake (talk) 03:12, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
    • When one deals with popular culture (like "cults" and the media) one need have no fear of "anonymous, unquoted skeptics" -- one can just process their opinionating (appropriately summarized by reputable sources) like any other. Just because a labelling apppears in Knowledge (XXG) doesn't make it so. But the labelling process itself(as opposed to the label) can remain worthy of note. -- Pedant17 (talk) 04:29, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
    • The media section hardly addresses anything "systematically and usefully." Would you care to explain what you mean lest we take it as empty flattery of that jumble of mish mash? If you think this list should be a useful resource on popular moral panics then why not support some actual precision. What on earth, in the current list, makes any connection to "moral panics"? Also, to Townlake's point about your first sentence, these references are not filled with "cult" labeling by several "quotable" people. The entry linked at the top of this page is almost unrecognizable in your post.PelleSmith (talk) 03:42, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
      • An alphabetical list uses the alphabet (and cross-references within it) systematically. It largely avoids favoritism and judgments by forcing names and titles into alphabetical order. Anyone familiar with that alphabetical order can find the reultant list useful: comprehensive, unbiased in structure, and enhanced (in this case) with highlighted references suggesting authenticity (or otherwise) of the sources. -- I know of no reference to moral panic in recent versions of the article, but insofar as it features media-driven labelling of "cults" and (by the implications of that naming) of their allegedly nefarious and socially questionable practices, the relationship to the study of the raw material of moral panic seems evident. -- I don't know exactly to what you refer in isolating "the entry linked at the top of this page", so I cannot usefully comment on that. -- Pedant17 (talk) 04:29, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
        • The entry linked at the top of the page is List of groups referred to as cults. You are capable of understanding the raw material, vis-a-vis various social processes. The average reader is not. The average reader only sees the media calling a group a cult. That is exactly the problem. I've suggested alternate lists that use scholarship to elucidate exactly this.PelleSmith (talk) 12:55, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
          • If the average reader merely "sees the media calling a group a cult" (rather than "group X = cult") then we have fulfilled the promise of the List of groups referred to as cults and I see no further problem in that respect. (The average reader, I trust, also has a degree of healthy skepticism of the media, and may also note that the article distinguishes academic and media labeling.) -- Pedant17 (talk) 05:18, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Not only that, but just read this cross-namespace gem List_of_groups_referred_to_as_cults#Reliability_of_sources which cites a Knowledge (XXG) guideline in the body of an article (!!!) for an indea how this article has degraded into a WP:SYN nightmare. I mean what would you call this piece of unsourced and unattributed text: This list of references for further research, cannot of itself reliably establish any harmful or beneficial attributes. The sources referenced must be reliable sources, with the acceptable fact-checking required for all articles. Fact-checking does not imply that referenced opinions are either true or false, only that they are correctly attributed. A nightmare, indeed. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:20, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Due to the nature of the topic of "cults" and to the evolved nature of the subject matter ("groups referred to as") the article has a need to set boundaries and define limitations -- and it does so in detail, self-referentially, for it cannot do otherwise. Casual readers who want to know whether X "is" a cult get warned off or drawn in. People with set ideas about the definition of a cult as something harmful get reminded of the over-simplicity of their ways. And anyone who wants to believe in a black-and-white world of "true" and "false" receives a reminder of the rich variety and flexibility of Knowledge (XXG). -- Pedant17 (talk) 04:29, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Nonexistent anti-cult movement? Pray tell, how can there be so much written about cults and not be an anti-cult movement? I am baffled; you even refer to the article and yet deny their existence. When you talk to Hank next time, just ask him if there are anti-cultists in the world today. Ignorance is acceptable, but conscious denial of facts is beyond words. --Storm Rider 04:54, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Just because something has an article in Knowledge (XXG) doesn't mean to say that that something actually exists (note especially the article on the Invisible Pink Unicorn). Nobody doubts the existence of people opposed to one or more of the organizations which they perceive as "cults". It does not follow that a "movement" exists, with its connotations of organization and shared attitudes. As the Knowledge (XXG) article on the Anti-cult movement states: "The indiscriminate use of this expression for any and all opposition to cults makes a very varied collective of independent individuals and groups look like an organized group or like organized groups." And see the tallk-page of that article (Talk:Anti-cult movement for the case against the existence of an alleged "movement". -- I myself reserve judgement on whether an "Anti-cult movement" actually exists -- hence my use of the formula 'the non-existent or tendentiously invented "Anti-cult movement"'. -- I may get called ignorant, but my accusers may have to use words to do that. It would help me if they did so. -- Pedant17 (talk) 04:29, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
      I am a simple person. If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, certainly smells like a duck; it is a duck. One might propose that they are all live in wholly independent, isolated spheres doing what they do, but that type of environment in a social context does not exist on earth. The Restorationist movement is a group of churches motivated by similar beliefs, but that is all that binds them together. In reality they are disparate groups doing their own "thing"; and yet it is a movement. There does not have to be a Grand Pubba to be a called a movement. Its is a duck. Ignorance would not be an allegation, but I could be easily convinced of looking like an ostrich with its head in the sand. --Storm Rider 21:20, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
    • The case exists for regarding the Anti-cult movement as a movement. A case also exists for stating that no anti-cult movement, qua movement, exists. I've pointed to the debate simply in order to remind us that the debate exists, not to re-litigate that issue here and now. -- Pedant17 (talk) 05:18, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  18:49, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete POV listing which names a number of world religions as cults but avoids pointing the finger at one notable religion originating in the middle east which does not tolerate criticism, but which has been widely described as a cult. Then arbitrary criteria are set up as to number of media sources required, criteria which are documented nowhere else in Knowledge (XXG). The Bahá'í Faith is listed because Al Ahram says "Bahá'í beliefs differ from Islam." It was not an improvement when previously Gordon Melton was somehow made the unelected rulegiver of Knowledge (XXG) to dictate 1920 as a cutoff. As unencyclopedic and arbitrary as List of stupid people or List of evil people based on 2 media sources calling them that. Edison (talk) 19:26, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
    • The list "names" no entity as a cult: it merely references that other people have labelled various bodies as cults. Rectification of alleged omissions or inclusions invited. -- Comparing non-existent lists of "evil people" or of "stupid people" with a list of third-party references to the use of the worrd 'cult' appears inappropriate. Even a list of cultic orgs would have a different order of magnitude to a list of people. And the article does not list cultic orgs: it lists referenced, alleged cultic orgs. -- Pedant17 (talk) 04:29, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep with rename to List of groups referred to as cults and founded 1920 onward (Suggested discussion acronym "LOGRTAC20") This sub-topic of "cult", takes perhaps eight-fold more development time than other articles, inclusively because eight homonyms of c-u-l-t have to be considered for every concept-related decision to prevent or limit homonymic conflict. There is no official time limit for article improvement at Knowledge (XXG). Do the following to get back on track to an always imperfect, periodically-improved, and eventualism-progressable article:
1. Rename LOGRTAC to include the 1920+ rule in the title (lists groups founded 1920 onward).
2. Create a second article to include a "1919-" rule in the title (which lists only groups founded 1919 or earlier).
3. Create a third article to include only cult followings (fan-cults of popular culture).
Milo 22:27, 18 June 2008 (UTC) Re-edited Milo 23:51, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
      • Comment I don't think this means re-adding or creating new "recommendations" here. While this isn't a vote you should only have one "recommendation" on the page, and you now have two. Above you recommend "speedy close or keep" and here you recommend "keep with rename". I believe one of the two should be withdrawn or changed into something neutral like "comment".PelleSmith (talk) 22:50, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Note - there is no reason to restate your !vote in this section. This is section is for additional editors to voice their opinion, hopefully, to aid the closing admin is pinning down consensus. Milo, please refactor your comment so it does't not appear to be "double voting". Thanks. --Justallofthem (talk) 23:14, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
What's the guiderule for relisted AfD's? If it's a new AfD, the old votes don't count. But thanks for pointing the possibility for confusion. On the old vote, I've marked <s>Speedy Close or Keep</s> (keep vote moved to relisted AfD below). Milo 23:51, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Well there are no "votes" in AfDs either way. You make a recommendation. Also where did you get the idea that this was a "new AfD"? Its the same AfD, it was relisted to get more time. If it was "new" don't you think we'd be starting from a blank slate? Please remove one of your two "keeps" ... you can keep all the text around it, but you can't have two keep recommendations. Thanks.PelleSmith (talk) 00:35, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
The marking I described above apparently got lost during an edit conflict. Hopefully it's fixed now.
I'm a d-democrat so I vote anyway. Technically AfD is a vote which gets counted, but the for-against count is balanced against "good answers" posted by experienced or creative editors, to estimate some approximation of consensus including no consensus. This system is an experimental attempt to prevent complex issues from being obfuscated by partisans, and/or confusion-voted by earnest but lightly-informed passersby. This LOGERTAC AfD is a textbook example of both voting problems. Milo 02:52, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean by "echnically AfD is a vote which gets counted", but individual recommendations here are not "votes". Please see Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion: "The debate is not a vote; please make recommendations on the course of action to be taken, sustained by arguments." An entry may be deleted or kept despite a majority of recommendations saying "keep" or "delete", especially if there is no argument, or a bad argument for either recommendation. It is quite clearly, not intended to be a vote. It is highly recommended to have a real argument for this very reason.PelleSmith (talk) 03:06, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. Clearly a notable topic, as evidenced by the discussion here, and that's the main criterion for keeping an article. Any problems should be fixed by editing, though the whole article is very thoroughly referenced and I don't see any obvious issues with it. The criteria for inclusion are very clearly spelled out, so it's a perfectly good list (per WP:CLN). Klausness (talk) 23:30, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
    You've apparently linked to WP:NOR without reading it. It contains nothing about "WP-editor-created criteria". Editors are required to create criteria for lists. Milo 03:49, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
    You are correct that "WP-editor-created criteria" does not appear as a direct quote from WP:OR, and that lists need to define what they are. The rest of this debate has already been conducted with vigor above, by people with reading skills far superior to my own, and I don't think you I or anyone benefit from starting it anew here here. Although I guess we do have four more days to kill now... Townlake (talk) 04:33, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. The definition of Cult is far too weak to be taken seriously. It allows for any Organisation, Group or collection of people (even those without recognisable residence or group beliefs) to be listed purely to draw attention to the fact that some reporter somewhere once slipped the term cult into a dicussion about them. I am all for naming and shaming religions as no better than cults, but this list is absolutely pathetic. Also, take note (Comment) that though it isn't my place to judge everyone else's comments, it appears that all the Keep arguments, as far as i could tell want to keep the article on grounds that it is notable or can be cleaned up. Taking into consideration the absurdity of requirements to enter the list, it seems unlikely that the topic could possibly useful as no single definition of cult is encapsulated, and therefore the list only serves to be as wide as possible in order to avoid WP:POV problems. On that note, the definition of Cult, as with all thing's usually defined by unrelated legal documentatio is far to Individual to possible compress into a list, and an article on the subject would be more than enough. Finally, i see absolutely no purpose in such a list, as given all of the above and the fact that Knowledge (XXG) is not a place for lists, it cannot possbly serve to improve the wikipedia experience or provide service to anyone, which i believe should be the primary goal of incusion. Thankyou - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 02:17, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
    • The hard-fought definition of "cult" used in the article serves only for the scope of that article itself, as the introductory material ("Criteria for inclusion") explains. The definition has evolved to meet the needs of Knowledge (XXG)'s editors and readers -- but by all means set up a better article to run in parallel and using a completely different definitional basis. -- The characterization that "some reporter somewhere once slipped the term cult into a dicussion" does not do justice to the serious press or to the scholarly commentators included in our article. -- Characterization of the article's "list" (which of its lists?) as "pathetic" needs careful elaboration and justification. -- Discussion of the variant and individual definitions of "cult" have no place in regard to the article, which does not deal with "cults", but with uses of the label/word "cult" -- a large, significant and often-overlooked difference. -- On the merits of lists in Knowledge (XXG) see WP:LISTS and linked articles, especially WP:CLS. These internal documents suggest that a list can "possbly serve to improve the wikipedia experience" and "provide service". -- Pedant17 (talk) 04:29, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
      • Definitions of "cult" certainly have tangential import to this list. Of direct relevance is some discussion of the process of cult labeling, something you seem to agree with. Extrapolating from your own suggestions all over this AfD, this list could be more clearly called List of cult labels applied in the media. As such, the various and variable usage of the term cult, in the media, as applied to these various groups, is of importance. Milo likes to devalue the sociological significance of this issue by using the ridiculous notion of homonymic conflict, suggesting that this is about definitional differences, as opposed to context laden usage differences. I call BS on that move. Pedant17 if you really support what you claim, how about you join the talk page discussion about alternate lists that may actually be informative in the manner you suggest?PelleSmith (talk) 12:55, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
      • Comment Wow, that is the longest "reponse" i have ever see that doesn't actually respond to one thing i said. Your point about the definition being in the article was covered in my first comment, both in my saying that it is POV and in that it is also too Vague. Everything from then on seems to just be you quoting me without making any points, so it is quite hard to respond. First you mention the Press, seemingly you decide the definition of press, independent of Country or Politics, as otherwise my point stands (Of course, you only mean acredited american reporters?). I didn't say the list was dealing with cults, i dealt with the aricles text in batches. Infact, as you quoted, my words were precisely, "the term cult". And whatever you were trying to say about lists, you forgot to add context to article in question as you simply linked a page about usefullness of lists and completely ignored my open question of how useful this specific article (List of groups referred to as cults is to people browsing wikipedia. Of course the question is somewhat rhetorical, for, as i have pointed out from numerous angles, this list and the definition of cult are far too Vague to suitably service anyone. -- Jimmi Hugh (talk)
        • The label of "POV" applied to the defintion of "cult" used in the article has no merit. The article's introductory "Criteria for inclusion" effectively state, up front, that for the purposes of inclusion in the article itself we will use (within certain practical limits) whatever relaable sources have used. That covers the gamut of various points of view and displays strict neutrality about selecting between those points of view. -- The label of "vague" applied to the definition of "cult" used in the article has little merit. The article's introductory "Criteria for inclusion" spell out in detail what criteria editors have used. The criteria remain flexible: they have changed to some extent and anyone finding them too vague can participate in refining them further. -- My comment on the press responded to the previous mention of "some reporter somewhere" and attempted to point out that we can sometimes take journalists (some of them with by-lines) seriously to some extent; and similarly with academics. I have no intention of restricting my scope to "accredited American reporters" -- that would patently violate efforts against WP:BIAS. I note with particular approval the inclusion of the BBC as a respected source in the article. -- I stand by my generic statements: the article 'does not deal with "cults", but with uses of the label/word "cult" -- a large, significant and often-overlooked difference'. -- I stand by my contention that lists in general have acknowledged usefulness in Knowledge (XXG), as opposed to the previous claim that "Knowledge (XXG) is not a place for lists". -- I still await explanation as to how we can fairly characterize any of the article's lists as "pathetic". -- Pedant17 (talk) 05:18, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
          • Just saying my points have no merit, doesn't suddenly make your opinion fact, or points correct, especially when you are wrong. Now, as you don't know already, i will elaborate on what POV means. POV, stands for "Point of View". In the context of this article we are stating that the inclusion on the list is based upon a "Point of View" that makes the list unusable and unhelpful. Considering the fact that you require a list of standards for inclusion that goes beyond the simple boundry inclusion rules of most lists and actually have to define (from the authors "Point of View") "grouns referred to as cults" is the very definition of a "Point of View". So i think in reality, where people discuss and take on board other people's comments, saying it is POV does infact have quite a bit of merit. As for the oppsite angle, in that it is vague, well, how you can deny this is beyong me, especially considering some of your other posts on this page. Any list whose inclusion allows no stipulation for the actual status of the groups as cults, where Major globally recognised religions are listed alongside Groups with no Unified beliefs and where the Inclusion rules attempt to cater to every signle person, is incredibly vague, and therefore, very useless as a list. I can't think (so please do offer ideas), as to where this list could possibly be useful to anyone. It provides no content on the subject, is unrelated to any article featuring content of the topic of "groups referred to as cults", and is definitely too vague to provide a concise list from any Poing of View. "Spelling out criteria", is of course the problem, there exists no accepted definition of cult, other than the one that differs between countires (the legal one), and more importantly you criteria doesn't set limits, it simply spells out what is in a list with no intended audience, which is of no use on wikipedia. As for refining them, that simply sets more limits on the POV of this article and will serve as a ground for repeated editing to no further improvement.
          • Your comments on reporters are fair, however, as you yourself mention, in an attempt to not be Biased, you have to take into account other countires reporters, and therefore politics and cultural views. In Germany, the Cult of Scientology is legally banned and defined as a cult, to question that as a reporter is highly irregular, however, in the name of no Bias, you would take their words on face value in order to not discriminate against any reporter, and thereforethe inclusion is no longer based upon a clear definition but upon each countries conflicting politics. I don't completely disagree with the use of lists, however, each list needs to be able to prove it's own usefulness, not in presenting views, opinions or even facts, but in presenting information to the readers. This list continues to, and can't possible stop being, utterly useless to a reader coming from any point of view, unless they are researching information for a Major in Press References to groups referred to as things. As for Pathetic, simply go into the list with a number of differing views, that of the researcher of cults, that simply wishing to know about the references to cults, etc, any way you look at or consider these lists, they seem, for lack of a better description that doesn't out right insult it, "pathetic". They list Major religions alongside groups for suffering alcoholics, Brainwashed cults, alongside honest small time religions, and even more groups unrelated to religion.
          • I don't dispute the lists criteria, or that it lists those groups named and shamed by reporters (of the authors choice), simply that is serves absolutely no useful purpose. -- Jimmi Hugh (talk) 02:20, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
            • In Germany, the Cult of Scientology is legally banned and defined as a cult Please read Scientology_as_a_state-recognized_religion#Germany. Jayen466 11:14, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
              • Fascinating... I'd love to see what you read there that doesn't back up my point. Fair enough my fact was not correct, but so what, it was an example, and the content in the link you yourself provided shows that despite my precise reference being wrong, References to Cults in the media are affected heavily by Politics. Go be anally retentive about facts on articles, where it matters, not in the middle of a point that doesn't change either way. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 11:53, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Too much work for too little gain. There is no way to make sure that editors don't band together in a witch hunt. The article constantly swings from nasty POV to confusing gibberish. Chee Chahko (talk) 23:58, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Not valid reasons to delete: (1) Using that first concern, all difficult-to-write articles on minor but notable subjects would have to be deleted. (2) Would you try to nontrivially edit the Calculus article? Just because it's too much work for you doesn't mean it's too much work for other editors. (3) That's a concept applicable to business practices, not GDFL encyclopedia writing. There's no official Knowledge (XXG) expense or time limit to do a lot of work for a little gain. (4) Using the second concern, all controversial articles like Abortion would have to be deleted. (5) Until the hijack of this working article, there was suspicion but not proof a of "witch hunt" (or whatever term is politically correct). Now that there's proof, the article is potentially eligible for a variety of protections from conflict-of-interest editing. If you can't help (and I know you've tried, thanks), how about at least not becoming so disillusioned and deletionist that you actively help the "witch hunters"? To do that, just strike and change your vote to "neutral". Milo 02:10, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
"Witch hunters"? Now there is "proof" of conflict-of-interest editing? Milo, here's a nice request to stop this insanity before it swallows you whole. This level of paranoia is both unwarranted and unhealthy. Regards.PelleSmith (talk) 02:23, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Read all the above posts again. It's not my term, and I pointed out that it was not politically correct. Milo 08:21, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
"All?" You mean Chee, or whoever it is?PelleSmith (talk) 12:46, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Look, I'm sorry Milo, I've come to the conclusion that it's just too messy. It was interesting and fun to edit but I just can't support it anymore. The article either relies on a slight of hand to avoid being POV (groups REFERRED to as) or editors can't handle inclusion of cults.
The current debate about what qualifies as a group is a by-product of the above POV avoiding magic trick using the word "referred". We have to say something is referred to as a cult so someone settled on the word "group." Now the word group is an article of faith for editors who want to eliminate all their favored old cults and keep the new ones they want to "ethically" bash.
What the article feels like in the readers' minds is a list of cults in the sense of evil, mind controlling groups. That's why editors can't handle having religious devotions like the Cult of Mary or the Cult of Tea on the list. We have to think of the reader foremost in evaluating this list. I believe that because of the slippery definition of a cult the list will always be too confusing for the reader and the editor. Chee Chahko (talk) 05:35, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Chee Chahko (05:35): "We have to think of the reader foremost in evaluating this list." .... "What the article feels like in the readers' minds is a list of cults in the sense of evil, mind controlling groups."
That's an interpretation of what newspapers often report, it's related to the practical cult crime-watching and correcting mandated by the French Report (unofficial translation), and therefore it's what global citizen readers expect to see. When they don't see that, editors start complaining about silliness (if they see fan-cults listed), or they get angry if theological cults (RCC, LDS, Witnesses, etc.) are co-listed with destructive cults.
This AfD appears to be a direct result of an RCC listing by an article opponent (but too young to anticipate what would happen). None of this would have happened if the 1920+ rule criterion was still in place.
Chee Chahko (05:35): "religious devotions like the Cult of Mary or the Cult of Tea"
Those are old venerations that should be on a different list: List of groups referred to as cults and founded 1919 or prior. (Suggested discussion acronym "LOGRTAC19")
Chee Chahko (05:35): "I believe that because of the slippery definition of a cult the list will always be too confusing for the reader and the editor."
You appear to be a first or second year college student. You haven't entirely figured out how to format posts yet (that much bold looks like shouting). Your first talk post was June 3, so you've worked on LOGRTAC – one of the more holistically complex articles at Knowledge (XXG) – for all of 18 days !
Even your name means "newcomer". You may get a vote, but you're not qualified to draw a sweeping conclusion like "the list will always be too confusing".
Just because you don't know how to fix it, does not mean it can't be done.
How to reduce the confusion is relatively easy. The hard part is how to end run listed group members that don't want the confusion to be reduced. Previously that took about five or six editors working as a team.
You also don't have to vote even if you have an opinion. If you read Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/List of groups referred to as cults (all), you'll see that I was a major participant in that AfD, but cast no vote. Milo 11:59, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. This is really more trouble than its worth. While I would normally think that a listing of things referred to as cults by the media would have a place in an encyclopedia, it seems like there's just too much drama surrounding this particular collection. It is probably best just to do away with it entirely. Celarnor 00:31, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Worth to whom? No one asked you to edit a controversial article – it is hard work. How about not making it even harder for other pro-reporting encyclopedists?
To do as you suggest means progressively ceding COI-contested Knowledge (XXG) articles to the bias and manipulation of outside interests. In this case it's even worse to do so, since many of the reported groups have broken laws, which they wish to hide from potential recruits.
And remember LOGRTAC is just an index for further research. Would you tolerate it if groups stormed your local public library and removed all copies of the Readers' Guide to Periodical Literature 'because a divine revelation told them to'? Milo 08:21, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
(reply section 1)
To the project. Issues of UNDUE and NPOV aside, it's a very weak criterion. I don't think it really jumps over the bar of being an indiscriminate collection. Perhaps if new criteria were added (i.e, so many references in journals/abstracts, so many references in high-profile news) ... at this point, its just too easy for someone with an axe to grind in a local newspaper to get something that could cause harm to that group that may not be dersevant of it. As it stands now, there's nothing to prevent such things. If they were added, I'd probably reconsider my position. Celarnor 03:17, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
(reply section 2)
No, it means progressively enforcing neutral point of view and keeping the weight of sources and their statements in mind. Celarnor 03:17, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
(reply section 3)
If the Reader's Guide to Periodical Literature contained a "List of people referred to as satanists", and the only criterion for being added to the index was "someone somewhere referred to them as a satanist", then yes, I would. In fact, I would encourage it. I would also write to the publisher. Celarnor 03:17, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
I've moved your posts out from inside mine. Context-damaging threads can get started that way. Pardon if it leaves your reply points hard to follow. Milo 08:21, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
What....? If you don't intend to break to another point, then don't start a new paragraph. I have absolutely no idea what's going on now. Celarnor 18:22, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Putting something in print don't make it so. And summarizing what people have put in print don't make it so either -- it merely contributes to open discussion and gives everyone a chance to jeer or cheer the compiler. -- Pedant17 (talk) 04:29, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
LOGRTAC doesn't do summaries, just links and quotes. Milo 08:21, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Allow me to elaborate on the approach of my claim that "summarizing what people have put in print don't make it so ... -- it merely contributes to open discussion and gives everyone a chance to jeer or cheer the compiler". Real people encounter and have experiences with regard to what they may decide to term "cults". (Note that these real people often have sincerely held opinions, although we sometimes dismiss them as "anonymous", "skeptics" and/or "minorities", etc.). Then scholars and the media, bless their hearts, do their scholarly or media duty and reflect and analyze and compile popular opinions within society and put them into print. Then and only then does the Knowledge (XXG) List of groups referred to as cults come along and summarize/cite the stuff which the media and the scholars have put in print. -- The process should work like that. If our article sometimes strays from its role in the overall process, our editors try to correct that. -- Pedant17 (talk) 05:18, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
That's nice. So we don't need BLP, then. I assume you've never heard the adage "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"? Celarnor 07:00, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Unless a mistake is made, WP:BLP has no practical application to a list with only links and quotes. Milo 08:21, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Very nice indeed. Knowledge (XXG) policy on the biographies of living persons has minimal impact on the listing of alleged cults -- even their gurus tend to emerge as fair-game public figures per WP:WELLKNOWN. -- I can confirm that I have indeed heard the quote "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". The claim that source X has associated group Y with cultdom requires only the standard Knowledge (XXG) insistence on sourced verifiability, though quotations can also help give a context. -- Pedant17 (talk) 05:18, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
And where would we preserve all the valuable material, gathered and refined and defended by scores of Knowledge (XXG) editors over the years? -- Pedant17 (talk) 04:29, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Read Escalation_of_commitment and Sunk cost fallacy ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:13, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the references. Given that User:Celarnor appears to agree with me that "a listing of things referred to as cults by the media would have a place in an encyclopedia", it really does behove us to consider where best to place that material. One proposal to take material into the sphere of New Religious Movements would leave some data without an obvious home and would impede cross-comparisons. Hence my query as to the fate of the totality of the "investment" in information. -- Pedant17 (talk) 05:18, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Escalation_of_commitment requires continuing the present course of action, so it does not apply to preservation, a different course of action.
Preservation is a form of cost recovery. A sunk cost cannot be recovered, so there is no Sunk cost fallacy in preservation. Milo 11:59, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Also read BETTERHERETHANTHERE and LOSE. Celarnor 07:00, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
BETTERHERETHANTHERE does not apply, since deleters don't want to move the article information to somewhere else.
LOSE applies only in the special case mentioned, which reads, "Note that this argument does hold some weight in discussions of outright article deletion..." Milo 11:59, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
I remain unconvinced by Pendant and will keep my vote for the same reasons as Celarnor and Jossi. Chee Chahko (talk) 13:10, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Chee it wasn't Pedant who responded to your own "delete" rationale, but Milo. Better go back and have a look. Though its nice to see your enthusiastic support of other delete voters.PelleSmith (talk) 13:18, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Celarnor had voiced my argument but in a much more eloquent manner. Pendant argued against it. You'll be a much more useful thinker when your spidey senses stop tingling. Chee Chahko (talk) 16:06, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Aside from the annual AfD, there really hasn't been much drama associated with the list. Considering the topic, it's actually been remarkably peaceful. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:58, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. "More trouble than it's worth" and "too much drama" are not valid deletion reasons. The list topic is notable (otherwise we wouldn't be having this huge discussion here), and the criteria for inclusion are very clear. This is something that people might well look to an encyclopedia for (e.g. if they were trying to find background for a discussion about cults), and the article editors seem to have gone out of their way to enforce NPOV. Articles on controversial topics will always be, well, controversial, but a genuine encyclopedia can't throw out topics because of that. Klausness (talk) 13:04, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
'More trouble than it's worth' and 'too much drama' refer to the confusion for readers and editors. This is because of the inherant weakness in the definition of a cult. The article constantly swings from nasty POV to confusing gibberish, both valid reasons. Chee Chahko (talk) 14:08, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Could you give specific examples of the "nasty POV" and "confusing gibberish"? My impression is that the editors of the article have worked very hard to set very clear guidelines for list inclusion and to enforce those guidelines. For articles on controversial topics to keep from turning into an ugly confusing mess, editors have to put in a lot of work, but the editors of this article appear to have done that. I don't see how this article could cause confusion for editors and readers. Klausness (talk) 14:29, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Random break

  • Delete per the arguments I raised in the previous AfDs. This list is synthesis out of primary sources and violates NOR if taken strictly. It was objected, that lists aren't restricted by WP:NOR, but I beg to differ. Also the one-drop-rule of inclusion is rather silly. --Pjacobi (talk) 20:58, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Nice to see you again Pjacobi.
Pjacobi (20:58): "primary sources"
I've consulted WP:PSTS, and I'm unaware of any primary sources on the current list.
Pjacobi (20:58): "list is synthesis"
WP:SYN requires a conclusion for synthesis to occur. There are no conclusions at LOGRTAC, only links and quotes.
Pjacobi (20:58): "It was objected, that lists aren't restricted by WP:NOR, but I beg to differ."
If by "restricted by" you mean 'does policy apply to LOGRTAC', then yes, of course it does. But that's not an issue. The claim is, 'WP:NOR policy has no practical effect on LOGRTAC'.
Pjacobi (20:58): "violates NOR if taken strictly"
"taken strictly" usually means 'plain text reading'. By a plain text reading of WP:NOR, a list article content that consists only of unoriginal links and quotes can't be original research.
Pjacobi (20:58): "Also the one-drop-rule of inclusion is rather silly."
That's changed since you last checked. Two sources are now required for groups listed in the media section. Milo 11:59, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
The two drop rule is is silly too. It doesn't demonstrate a concensus among the media. And large conglomerates often recycle their stories so the exact wording is spread across the media but has a single source. Chee Chahko (talk) 14:13, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
I've consulted WP:PSTS, and I'm unaware of any primary sources on the current list.: The relevant sentence in WP:PSTS is, "Primary sources are sources very close to the origin of a particular topic" Media reporting is the topic of the major part of the article; hence the media reports are primary sources. A secondary source would, e.g., be an academic source evaluating or commenting on media reporting.
In addition, in order not to fall foul of WP:SYNTH and WP:NOR, this list would have to be called: List of groups referred to as cults in two or more media reports. Instead, what we have is List of cults, which redirects here, and List of groups referred to as cults, without qualification as to the frequency of such references, and as to other terms applied to the same groups. That jump from "I can find two media sources who have called this group a cult" ergo "this group is a cult and belongs in List of cults (= List of groups referred to as cults)" is a text book example of WP:SYNTH. The silliness of List of groups referred to as cults in two or more media reports, which is what this is, is obvious. We might as well have
And it would be even more egregious then to have
redirect to these lists. Yet this is exactly the approach implemented in this present case. Jayen466 19:47, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Jayen466 (19:47): "in order not to fall foul of WP:SYNTH"
Read WP:SYNTH again. It's not possible for LOGRTAC to fall foul of WP:SYNTH. Synthesis can't exist without conclusions. There are no conclusions in LOGRTAC.
The conclusion and WP:SYNTH is inherent in the titles: List of cults and List of groups referred to as cults. In the first instance, the conclusion is that the group is a cult because two media sources or one academic have referred to them as such; in the second instance, the conclusion is that the group is (generally) referred to as a cult because the requisite number of sources have used the word about them. All that the list shows is that the group has been referred to as a cult by one adacemic or two media sources. This is the same difference as the difference between Tony Blair is a liar or Tony Blair is referred to as a liar and Tony Blair has been referred to as a liar by X, Y or Z. --Jayen466 13:16, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Jayen466 (19:47): "Media reporting is the topic of the major part of the article"
No, that just plain isn't a fact. You've built a house of cards on that mistake, what with calling newspaper articles primary sources, and so on.
The topic is what the article title says it is. The media section is shell container for a type of source, not a topic.
Calling a media section a media topic, is like saying every paragraph has the topic of paragraphs. Milo 07:16, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
The article title says "groups referred to as cults". That fact of being referred to is the topic of the article. The list of cites is a selective, POV-driven use of primary sources whose relevance is not supported by secondary literature. It is the same sort of strategy by which someone might select all the worst bits of the Bible to present Christianity as a cult advocating the murder of gay people. All a lot of fun, but not how encyclopedias are written. Jayen466 13:38, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
From what you're saying it appears that you'd prefer to have "List of cults", and just use the same sourcing requirements that we use for any Knowledge (XXG) article or list. Is that correct? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:05, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
I wouldn't like List of cults any better than I would like List of lying politicians. However, if we were trying to create an article on media coverage of cults, then the proper way to source the statement that "group X is rarely/occasionally/frequently/usually/always referred to as a cult in the media" would be to find scholarly references that state precisely that, with some context; not to go hunt for two qualifying media sources. Likewise, for the lying politician, we would need a source commenting on the fact that politician X is sometimes/regularly/etc. accused of lying in the media. It still would not be appropriate to include Tony Blair, for example, in List of lying politicians, on the strength of two polemical articles in conservative newspapers that described him thus. But if we had an article on the media image of politicians as liars, then the standard for inclusion should be someone commenting on him being regularly referred to as a liar in the media, rather than one or two instances of this being the case. (And frankly, I am not even sure that would pass muster by the community as a sensible list to create. Too many POV sources. But I hope you get my drift.) Jayen466 23:31, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
A "list of lying politicians" is different because presumably many of them would be living people. For that reason the comparison isn't correct. The standard across Knowledge (XXG) is to require only one good source for an assertion. If a reliable source says "X is Y", when do we require a second source that comments on X's assertion in order to use it as a source for X being Y? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:53, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
More direct parallels can be drawn. You could have List of nations referred to as dictatorships, List of societies said to have practiced cannibalism, List of organization claimed to have mob ties, etc. Then you'd need two media sources to be included in each.--T. Anthony (talk) 02:00, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Many cults are composed of living people. ;-) Without having read the article on Tony Blair, I am pretty sure it doesn't (usually) state that "Tony Blair is a Brtish politician who is a liar", though it may well state that he has been described as such on occasion. That is a basic element of NPOV. Jayen466 00:15, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
We very might well say that "Blair has been called a liar by the Sunday Times, by Lady Thacher, and by a committee of parliament" (if that were the case). Doing so would be consistent with NPOV which requires that all significant viewpoints are included. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:35, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
We are in agreement on that point. But would that make it a good idea to include him in List of lying politicians redirecting to List of politicians referred to as liars? I don't think so.
And btw, let's not forget that a number of the cults in our list are also state-recognised religions, and are also referred to as such by various commentators. Jayen466 00:42, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
We have similar lists, such as List of political scandals. You'll find many lying politicans on that list. United States journalism scandals is pretty much a list of lying journalists. As for your second point, thre's no tension between being a cult and being a state-recognized religion. The Church of Scientology is recognized as a religion in the U.S., for example. It's pretty easy to get recognized as a church, at least in the U.S. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:48, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, then the equivalent of that for this present topic would be a List of cult controversies. (Btw, I think Scientologists would disagree with your last statement. It took them over 25 years of wrangling to gain that recognition.) Jayen466 00:59, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
So you'd approve of a "List of cult controversies"? Scientology is an exception. It's very rare for a group to be denied, so far as I'm aware. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:15, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
I think I would approve of that. It would probably need to give more context to each entry and be more informative than this.--T. Anthony (talk) 02:03, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
It's an interesting idea but I'm not sure it would work. What is a cult controversy? Is it a controversy about whether or not the group is a cult? Is it a controversy about the behavior of the group? If it was about the behavior of the group how would you be sure that the group was a cult? Would it's inclusion be POV? Chee Chahko (talk) 05:14, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
It'd be no harder to decide than what constitutes a "scandal". ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:19, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, provided the controversies listed meet notability criteria. --Jayen466 11:02, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi Icewedge. I read your recent request for adminship. The consensus seemed to be that you had made some misjudgments, partly because you had too little experience as a Wikipedian. Please consider this an example of how to make better AfD judgments by a study of issues.
Icewedge (14:33): "article is not very usefull"
• Is that a valid reason for AfD?
• Can you cite a guideline that requires articles to be useful?
• Did you first read, or at least search, this AfD page, to see if there was already an answer to that claimed issue of usefulness or utility?
• How do you know that it's not useful?
• How many of the LOGRTAC indexed news articles did you read?
• Did you read the related Cult text article?
• Do you actually know enough about cultic studies (for the academic section), or global police cultwatching (for the media section) to have an informed opinion on this billionaire-propagandized and beliefs-mythologized issue?
No? Ok, start with Eight reasons why List of groups referred to as cults is useful, found early up on this page.
And remember, other than the stated purpose use in #1, "further research", other possible uses are neither the purpose nor an endorsment by Knowledge (XXG) that it should be used in the listed ways. Arguing that the article should be deleted because one doesn't like the ways it could be used amounts to arguing for censorship, and Knowledge (XXG) is not censored.
Btw, the very size of this AfD page approaching 200K should have given you pause, that giving an unstudied reason for your vote would not be wise.
Icewedge (14:33): "it has become is a list of groups people have tried to smear as cults"
Sure, let's work through the "smear as cults" claim. I'm guessing that as a groups defense claim it got started during the 1970s, prior to the public cult debate being settled by the Jonestown mass suicides and Congressman/media murders in 1978.
M-W.com "smear": 3: a usually unsubstantiated charge or accusation against a person or organization
So, if a group meets the definition of a cult, it's technically not a smear. But since there at least eight different kinds of cults, relevance of the definition is also a possible smear factor.
What global governments and their police consider relevant to the possible cult nature of groups is cult-watching a pattern of minor human rights crimes against members – abuses, sometimes sexual, or illegal labor exploitations, often committed against children (see unofficial French Report translation).
Do cults as defined try to hide these crimes from the public? Yes. When the public finds out and tells their neighbors, is that a smear? No.
What global citizens consider relevant to the possible cult nature of groups who live nearby to them, is the definition that "cult" is a group with beliefs nontraditional to the surrounding culture and in high tension with that culture. (Stark and Bainbridge, The Future of Religion: Secularization, Revival, and Cult formation (1985); see Sect.)
When the public finds out and tells their neighbors, is that a smear? Maybe, maybe not. It depends on what the group did, if anything, to cause the tension.
At this point, there's no substitute for a study of cases to find out if groups might have been smeared. How does one do that? Go to LOGRTAC and click on index links to read news archived off-wiki. (See – LOGRTAC is useful for further research.)
There are currently 85 groups with two or more cult-reference sources in the LOGRTAC media list. I've selected two pilot study cases: one that I first read last week during a criterion-compliance check and a second that I just selected using a random number generator.
Case study 1 (selected) The Body of Christ a.k.a. Attleboro Cult:
________________________________________________________________
IMPORTANT: ONLY THIS INDEX ENTRY APPEARS AT List of groups referred to as cults:
*The Body of Christ (a.k.a. Attleboro Cult) (Boston Herald) (Boston Globe/Associated Press)
________________________________________________________________

"Former sect leader appeals conviction in son's starvation death" - 2007-09-06, Boston Globe/AP: "Jacques was under the delusional brainwashing of this cult, and he was incapable of independent thought," said Janet Pumphrey, Robidoux's appellate lawyer." "COLD-BLOODED CULT; Journal shows sect let baby starve 'in God's hands'" - 2004-02-05, Boston Herald abstract: ""Our prayers should not be for Samuel to be healed but for God's purposes to be fulfilled. This is all we can do for Samuel," cult member Rebecca Corneau wrote in a journal entry 12 days before 11- month-old Samuel Robidoux died."

Case analysis: Robidoux was convicted of murdering his 11-month-old infant by starvation. There were at least two other family members convicted or allegedly complicit. In this case, Robidoux's own lawyer called BofC a cult. Is that a smear? No. Is the media biased? No, it's straight court reporting.
Case study 2 (random #21) Concerned Christians:
________________________________________________________________
IMPORTANT: ONLY THIS INDEX ENTRY APPEARS AT List of groups referred to as cults:
*Concerned Christians (BBC) (NY Times)
________________________________________________________________

"U.S. Alerts Israel on Cult; Plan for Suicide Is Feared" - 1998-10-24, New York Times: "Israel has been alerted that a Colorado doomsday cult that may be planning mass suicide could be on its way here, the United States Embassy said today. Several dozen members of the cult, Concerned Christians, sold their belongings and left their homes before Oct. 10, the day their leader predicted that Denver would be destroyed by an earthquake marking the start of the apocalypse. The leader, Monte Kim Miller, has said he will die in Jerusalem in December 1999 and reappear three days later." .... "This guy's influence is perhaps even greater than we'd thought, said Officer Roggeman, who monitors cult activity. I have gotten calls from Houston, New Mexico, all over, from people who knew their friends or family were in the group but never knew how dangerous it was or that this was going on." "Cult members deported from Israel" - 1999-01-09, BBC News: " Police said the Concerned Christians were suspected of planning unspecified "extreme acts of violence" in an attempt to hasten the second coming of Jesus, which they believe will take place at the end of the millennium." .... "They did not deny the fact that they are waiting here in Israel to wait for the return of Jesus, but they say they will not be involved in any illegal activity," said lawyer Eran Avital."

Case analysis: The Denver police called Concerned Christians a cult, after the leader said he was going to die in Jerusalem at the Millennium and reappear three days later. Then he departed with a group of members looking a lot like the 1997 Heaven's Gate suicide cult. Is that a smear? No, the leader said irrational things about impending death that others apparently believed and acted on. Was the Denver police estimate of disappeared members too high? Apparently, but not beyond reason. Did the Israeli police go too far in suspecting CC of planning violence? It's difficult to tell, but then Israel is a guerilla war zone. Is the media biased? Not in any obvious way. NYT reported what high and low officials said about the disappeared people. BBC reported official sources and contacted the group's lawyer for a statement. The stories are straight police, government, and lawyer reporting.
These two cases are just a pilot rather than a scientific sample. Still, the pilot sample shows no significant hits for either smear or media bias. They look typical to me. If other editors think they aren't representative, pick your own samples.
So, the final question to ask is, are you unintentionally smearing LOGRTAC? Milo 07:16, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
The point is that info of the sort you have provided above has a lot more encyclopedic relevance. This is what could be included in List of cult controversies; each of the controversies could have a section to itself, or an article to itself that is linked to from the list, much as we do with political scandals, journalism scandals etc. Jayen466 13:25, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
What I ment when I said it is not very useful is that it really is a collection of indiscriminate information; the standard of having two sources refer too a group as a cult can be so inclusive that truly bizzare entries can appear. If I were to do a reaserch project on cults and needed some examples I doubt communism would be a good example and in the case of Jeffrey Lundgren, how can a single person be a cult? — Icewedge (talk) 14:06, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Although I favor deletion "Jeffrey Lundgren" is shorthand for the small schism of Community of Christ created by Lundgren. The group has no article of its own because it amounted to 12 people and I'm not even sure it had a name. Still the group believed in Lundgren as a final prophet and killed for him. It is referred to as the "Lundgren cult" by several people. I can alter the name of that entry without creating an article.--T. Anthony (talk) 15:09, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Rumiton (15:28): "The standards for inclusion (high degree of tension etc)..."
Strawman fallacy – no one said those were the standards for inclusion.
Please read the above two case studies of LOGRTAC-indexed news stories, and explain how the Boston Globe, the Boston Herald, The New York Times, and BBC News are "condensed POV", "immature", "intolerant", "an invitation to vigilantism" and "an embarrassment to Knowledge (XXG)". Milo 07:16, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Reporting on religiously oriented groups whose activities have been found to be illegal is none of these things. For Knowledge (XXG) to apply guilt by association to a bunch of other people who have broken no laws is all of them.
I understood one of the standards for applying the word cult to a group was "a high degree of tension with the surrounding society." If this is not correct, what are the standards being applied? Rumiton (talk) 13:05, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
The standard is (1) one academic reference using the word cult for the group or (2) two references in a media source using the word cult for the group. Jayen466 13:28, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
←Rumiton(13:05): "what are the standards being applied?"
A particular scientific definition of a cult and the LOGRTAC standards for list inclusion are different things.
It's not just an issue of tension, rather it's combinations of tension and tradition which form Church-sect typology.
The Stark and Bainbridge, 1985, definition of "cult" is a group with beliefs nontraditional to the surrounding culture and in high tension with that culture.
By contrast, a North American "sect" is a group in high tension with surrounding culture, but with beliefs traditional to that culture (e.g., rural "Bible thumpers" who demonstrate against a nearby city as "Sodom and Gomorrah"). (See Sect.)
To avoid further misunderstandings, here are the actual LOGRTAC inclusion criteria:

Inclusion criteria for List of groups referred to as cults
currently installed (2008-06-22)


1. Listing is based on a single academic or government reference, or two media references, to reliable sources,
(A) as a "cult" in North American English; or,
(B) as a "sect" or "cult" in British English only if contextually intended to mean "cult" in North American English; or,
(C) as any foreign language word or phrase with a plain text translation and contextual intention to mean "cult" in North American English;
(D) using any non-excluded definition.
2. Organizations, and sets of individual practitioners, including those referenced or named by their technical practice of cult (cultus), qualify as groups.
3. Listable groups must be referenced within the last 50 years.
4. Excluded from listing are cultural or personality cults (artistic, celebrity or political fan-cults), or groups that don't have actual followings (fictional or self-nominated groups). If a reference claims that a group's other cult activities are more significant than its fan-cult, it becomes listable.
5. In list items where the reference keywords are different from "cult" only, each reference to a group is followed by parentheses containing the actual word(s) referring to them; formatted like (secte), or (cult/secte/sekte) for multiple references.
In addition to the above criteria, the article stopped working after a functional year when the the 1920+ criterion was hijacked, which reads as follows:

1920+ inclusion criterion for List of groups referred to as cults
installed from Aug 6, 2006 to Oct 25, 2007


Groups referenced must not have been named by reliable sources to independently exist prior to 1920 in their substantially present form of beliefs and earthly practices."
Since 1920+ is hijackable as a criterion, it needs to be moved into the title by renaming as follows:

Rename
List of groups referred to as cults
to
List of groups referred to as cults and founded 1920 onward
(Suggested discussion acronym "LOGRTAC20")
To relieve the pressure to list other kinds of cults in LOGRTAC, which caused this AfD – two more new articles are needed:

Create the following articles:
List of groups referred to as cults and founded 1919 or prior
(Suggested discussion acronym "LOGRTAC19")
List of groups referred to as cults following popular culture
(Suggested discussion acronym "LOGRTACFC")
Milo 19:05, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Is this an AfD, or a discussion on how to perpetuate a dispute that has its basis on arbitrary criteria in contravention with WP:NOR and WP:NPOV? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:43, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Since you've posted these theories previously, I've worked through your arbitrary criteria claims to their core consequences for all Knowledge (XXG) lists.
The WP:NPOV claim is based on a trivial demand-for-perfection fallacy. NPOV can never be perfect, so the fallacy is unsatisfiability. The proper response is to dismiss the fallacious claim, and make small NPOV improvements as opportunity arises. That's been done at LOGRTAC, most recently with cult-denial-links that were in process when this AfD began.
You have a theory which is not based on a plain-text reading of WP:NOR, and implementing it would require a rewriting of WP:NOR to be understandable to most editors.
But suppose that happened, what would be the result? The short answer is copyright violation, since not even public domain lists would be allowed.
(Take that, pesky criteria-less government cult lists!)
Knowledge (XXG) editors are currently required to inventively create header criteria for lists, then populate them with entries found in reliable sources. You claim that arbitrary or invented criteria are original research violations of WP:NOR, rather than required source-based research as presently understood.
Invented/arbitrary criteria as original research is your blue-sky personal interpretation of WP:NOR, stretched beyond the breaking point of reason.
Rightly understood, your claim would restrict all Knowledge (XXG) lists to conditions so stringent that most old lists would be deleted, and relatively few original new lists could be created, if any. All Knowledge (XXG) lists would have to publish inclusion criteria (specifications) copied from lists existing elsewhere. Since very few or no lists publish formal inclusion criteria, I think you would then claim that Knowledge (XXG) is too WP:NOR-helpless to have any lists.
Suppose though, that others began to publish formal criteria. Oops, they're copyrighted criteria. Knowledge (XXG) is still too helpless to have any lists.
Suppose the criteria were reworded to avoid copyright, but used synonyms to produced substantially the same list output such as existing Top-10 this or that. Oops, top-10 lists are copyrighted, and substantial similarity is copyvio. Did I mention that Knowledge (XXG) is too helpless to have any lists?
By reductio ad absurdum ,your theory requires Knowledge (XXG) to either supposedly violate WP:NOR (most/all public domain lists), violate copyright of any criteria'd lists, or, have few or no lists.
No lists is a WP:SNOWBALL. It's a done deal – there will be lists at Knowledge (XXG).
If there will be lists, then copyvio consequences are avoidable by following the originality requirement of copyright law:
Knowledge (XXG) must inventively create header criteria for lists
Do you still think inventively created list criteria violate WP:NOR? Copyright law trumps WP:NOR, and WP:SNOWBALL ('there will be lists') trumps what you think. Milo 02:08, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
That distinction between "cult" and "sect" in North American English is a bit of a joke. It may be how Stark and Bainbridge differentiate the terms (if all of that distinction is indeed citable to them), but it is simply not reflective of real-life media behaviour in the U.S., described for example by the scholarly statistical analysis of media reports quoted at length here. As the quoted paper points out, in the U.S. media, the terms cult and sect have often been used interchangeably and applied in an arbitrary fashion to one and the same group. The only effect I can see of using this artificial cult/sect distinction, which is demonstrably not reflective of actual media reporting, would be that groups "with beliefs traditional to U.S. culture" would be kept out of the List of cults, even if they have been subject to widely reported criticism. Is this, then, the intent, or is there another, better reason for wanting to apply this criterion that has escaped me? Jayen466 23:50, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. It's time to admit that we'll never make a good job of this article. The subject is too vaguely defined and the information value is negligible. Moreover I suspect that it attracts people to edit Knowledge (XXG) for the wrong reasons (particularly, to campaign against their favorite hate object). --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 21:11, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Speedy close - no deletion reason given in nomination; DRV discussion should not have been inserted here as DRV and AfD serve two different purposes. I would have no objection to starting a new AfD from scratch if there is a Knowledge (XXG) policy or guideline justification posited for deletion in the nomination. B.Wind (talk) 02:57, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Section break

  • Comment I would kindly ask user Milo, to try and be a bit more succinct, and to appreciate that there is no need to respond to each comment for delete with 3,000 bytes of text. I would also ask editors that may be confused about the OR violation claims made by me and others, to read Knowledge (XXG):Lists (stand-alone_lists)#Lead_and_selection_criteria, which states that (my highlight)In cases where the membership criteria are subjective or likely to be disputed, list definitions should to be based on reliable sources . In this case, the criteria and definition is obviously disputed, and it is not based in any reliable source, rather, it is the invention of some editors. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:49, 23 June 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 all. This seems to fall under the category of walled garden. Seraphim♥Whipp 17:24, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

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

No sources, Google knows nothing about the claimed chart successes. Has already been speedily deleted and recreated twice.

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:

For Those Who Care (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
One (Lethy album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Moderate (Lethy song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
A Kind One (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I'd Do It Again For You (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Closer (Lethy song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Category:Lethy songs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Catherine Davys (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Regards, HaeB (talk) 00:21, 18 June 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. Daniel (talk) 10:38, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

England vs The Big Three at rugby union (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Firstly, this article duplicates existing content at England vs Australia at rugby union, England vs New Zealand at rugby union, and England vs South Africa at rugby union, all of which should be adequately accessible from articles on the English rugby team.

Secondly, the concept of "The Big Three" is somewhat POV and not in wide use. Northern hemisphere journalists seem to use it as a space saver, but I've never heard it used in new Zealand. I found at least one rugby reference where the phrase meant something else. I see little benefit or logic behind separating these three countries from all England's opponents.

Note: This article was previously proposed for deletion and contested without reason after 6 days. dramatic (talk) 23:52, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Delete per the above reasoning. I agree that the title "The big three" is pretty POV, and I too have never heard it in NZ (where the term "Big three Southern Hemisphere teams" might be used, but only the most parochial fans are unlikely to regard them as inherently superior to either England or France. The term "Tri-Nations sides" is more likely). England's appearance in three RWC finals (only equalled by Australia, sigh) is further indication that naming a "big three" faces various problems. Grutness...wha? 00:34, 18 June 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 snowball delete.. Seraphim♥Whipp 11:46, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

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

Non-notable song by non-notable artists Esanchez(Talk 2 me or Sign here) 23:25, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete This is why I think that A7 should extend to songs so that we don't end up with orphaned non-notable song pages like this. Anyone care to speedy it per WP:IAR? I see no reason to drag this out for the full week. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • 23:36, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep: The song is a confirmed single User:SPBLU


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Chignecto-Central Regional School Board. Whether or not to merge the content there or possibly, at a later date merge/redirect to a new article at Education in Pictou County, Nova Scotia is an editorial matter. (non-admin close) RMHED (talk) 23:33, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

East Pictou Middle School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable middle school. My attempt at redirecting it to the school board was reverted, and attempts at communication and suggestions for sources were rebuffed. Corvus cornixtalk 23:23, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment May I ask for the user's definition of "suggestions for sources", as all I've gotten from them is AfD outsomes and Knowledge (XXG) policies. Cavenba (talk • contribs) 23:28, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Not true, not only have I linked Cavenba to the WP:RS page on their Talk page, but I've tagged the article for lack of sourcing, which also links to discussions about sourcing. Corvus cornixtalk 23:33, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. DoubleBlue (Talk) 23:55, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Please read the part of WP:OUTCOMES where it explicitly says that it can't be simply ignored just because it's a list of precedents rather than a binding policy. You need to provide a reason why this particular case should be viewed as an exception to it. And the reason there's an onus on you to find some sources is that you're the one who reverted the redirect. You don't own the article, true, but if you want to make an assertion that the school is sufficiently notable to have its own separate article, then you have to back that statement up with evidence. Bearcat (talk) 14:44, 20 June 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 --Anthony.bradbury 11:56, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

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

There are some sources here, but the individual still looks pretty minor and the only RS here is IMDB. According to the lead, his main claim to fame is working on The Simpsons, but according to his IMDB page he was only an assistant to one of the producers on the movie, which is nothing major. Fails WP:BIO easily and looks like a vanity page. It's also worth noting that the user that created this page has vandalized several other pages with what look like false stories about this individual. -- Scorpion 23:10, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete, production assistants fail notability standards. And IMDB is not a reliable source, since it's editable by anybody. Corvus cornixtalk 23:26, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. I was especially skeptical of the claim that he narrowly missed out on the role of Lone Starr in Spaceballs, which came out when he was 5 years old, given that the role actually went to the then-33-year-old Bill Pullman. (By the way, IMDb is edited by its paid staff; user submissions of data are reviewed by the staff before going live. It's not 100% accurate but it should not be considered an unreliable source either.) --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:05, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Can anyone find a criterion on which this article can be speedily deleted? I noticed that one of the claimed sources, a Wall Street Journal article, did not even mention the subject, and removed it from the article. Furthermore, the claim that he helped Paul Reubens develop the "Tequilla Dance" appears to be a reference to the movie Pee-wee's Big Adventure, which came out when the subject was 4 years old. I don't think this article has any credibility in terms of accuracy. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 13:58, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete no real assertion of notability in accordance with policies and guidelines seems to have been made. Seriously lacking in verfiability through reliable 3rd party sourcing (though I did note that it isn't just an IMDB reference anymore). Unless we have something from IMDB about their quality assurance processes somewhere that I'm unaware of I'm not willing to take it as a sole source (but, I'm sure that discussion has been had elsewhere). Jasynnash2 (talk) 09:29, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete no assertion of notability. Although he is in lists of credits, I cannot find any substantial coverage. I removed one of the references as it was unlikely to be about the same person. --Snigbrook 14:24, 18 June 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 per the snowball clause (non-admin closure) EJF (talk) 21:33, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

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

AfD following declined speedy. I declined a speedy on this article. Eastmain (talk) 22:52, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Favor. Speedy request ought to be approved. The small private school is of no special importance deserving an article, the article has no references, and it is total spam--just an advertisement for the school. Evolve17 (talk) 23:07, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. I'll agree that the article is a bit self-servicing (it used to be worse!), but it also provides several claims of notability, such as its football team being ranked 6th nationally by USA Today or the attendance of school sporting events by celebrities such as Will Smith or Wayne Gretzky due to their children attending the school. If we go by this proposed guideline, that should be sufficient to claim notability and therefore keep the article. --DachannienContrib 00:57, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep The USA Today ranking is good enough to indicate notability. Problems with the article can be solved through normal editing. If necessary, we can just reduce it to a stub and start over from there. Zagalejo^^^ 02:29, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
I actually wish more people would read it. People say "It's not true that all High Schools are notable." But when was the last one that didn't end up as a keep because it turned out that sources could be found. IMHO no (real) high school article should end up at AFD, it should be tagged as needing improvement/references.--Cube lurker (talk) 15:42, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't mind people reading it, just people citing it as if it were a guideline. CRGreathouse (t | c) 16:00, 18 June 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. This article was stubbed to a single sentence by its initial author, from a 9K page. I take that as almost a page blanking; and the sentence left fails WP:CSD A1 - not enough context to figure what it was about. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:33, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

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

Essay (see WP:OR) created by author (see WP:COI) to promote his book with website linked in article (see WP:SPAM). Declined speedy as spam (!!!). Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:00, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Related article: William Rogers, Persuasion. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:11, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Speedy Close Article is only a few hours old. An afd is innapropriate. Please read Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion#Before nominating an AfD. I fail to see how to other article is remotely linked to the main afd. Consider removing it to a seperate afd. The term itself is notable and often used --neon white talk 23:22, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
    • There is at all nothing unusual or inappropriate about nominating an article for AfD after a declined speedy (usually quite soon after an article is created). The use of the term "strategic campaign" as a phrase does not imply that this article is not OR and COI (and quite likely cut and pasted from the author's book). Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:52, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete The original author has reduced the original article down to one sentence, but it appears that it was a summary of his book, Persuasion: Messages, Receivers, and Contexts. Luckily, the world will little note nor long remember whether efforts to persuade us to keep this article failed. Mandsford (talk) 00:14, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. I'm rather surprised to find this article still here given its present condition. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:35, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per Delicious Carbuncle and Malleus Fatuarum. With the author reducing the article to what it is now, and if he doesn't want to do anything else to it, there's no reason to keep it. SunDragon34 (talk) 02:43, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Article as it stands meets speedy criteria for lack of context anyway. Related article is PROD'd at the moment but, if it came up here would be a delete as well.Jasynnash2 (talk) 10:04, 18 June 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 is a weak consensus for keeping this article but with a definite need for cleanup. There is some support for merging but certainly no consensus for it here. Davewild (talk) 18:23, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

PlayStation Portable homebrew (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The article is mostly just an changelog of different versions of PSP homebrew, and thus, in the format given, not encyclopedic. →AzaToth 21:57, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete, unencyclopedic. Some of it may be merged, but the whole changelog for a product doesn't need to be here. Nakon 21:58, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable. A paragraph or mention on the original PlayStation Portable page is sufficient →Nehle҉ 22:12, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Considering the pervasive nature of hacking/homebrew on the PSP (and the allegations that it's affected business in such a negative way that, despite outselling the Wii in Japan, developers are loathe to support it because of piracy concerns), I think a detailed article covering the phenomenon is warranted. It's obviously had an extreme effect on the device and how it's used. —Locke Cole • t • c 06:19, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep notable enough, but needs condensing to a much smaller size. I tried to keep a handle on it for a while, but it spiralled out of control. It might be beyond saving at this point, don't think I'd argue too much against deleting it, but it'd still be worth keeping if it was cut down. Thanks! Fin©™ 23:38, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep as per Falcon9x5/Fin. It's in desperate need of cleanup. I don't really see articles on other platforms' homebrew, but I still feel it's somewhat notable. Perhaps a small section in the PSP article may be sufficient. Λύκος 02:47, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete - Admittedly I don't understand everything the article is trying to say but, it has been tagged for improvement for a long time and has multiple issues which may make cleanup an insurmountable task. Perhaps a condensed, factual, referenced section could be included at the PlayStation Portable article. Jasynnash2 (talk) 10:10, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep Page is a small train wreck, which I assume prompted the AfD. It really just needs boatloads of pruning work. 83.203.175.207 (talk) 00:19, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Neutral: In a rush and don't have time to do a quick search, but I have a pretty good feeling that this topic has enough information in reliable sources to support it as notable. It's written in a really poor, unencyclopedic way. But there's merit in keeping this and cleaning it up, if it is notable. This article verges on violating WP:NOTDIR and WP:VGSCOPE guideline #8. That's a concern. Randomran (talk) 16:46, 22 June 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. Seraphim♥Whipp 17:19, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

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

No significant coverage in multiple secondary or third party reliable sources. Google search shows several ghits, but not all with the same name are musician. Fails WP:BIO. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 21:53, 17 June 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 --Anthony.bradbury 12:01, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

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

Doesn't seem to be a notable person. Founder of a non-notable org that doesn't have a page. No reliable sources. An IP tried to list this page but didn't do it right. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • 21:49, 17 June 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. Consensus seems to be that the club is not notable. In establishing consensus, I weighed heavily the Keep opinions of Govvy and ChristheDude. However, the former is undermined by the fact that the player he cites clearly does not meet the specified criteria. ChristheDude's argument is probably "Weak" because it doesn't really amount to multiple, non-trivial references per WP:N. Another article like the Four Four Two one would certainly be good grounds for an argument for reinstatement. Dweller (talk) 11:41, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


White Ensign F.C. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The club fails to meet generally recognised criteria of having played at Step 6 or above, and has never played in the FA Cup or FA Vase. I don't believe the fact that they were once mentioned in Four Four Two makes them notable. пﮟოьεԻ 57 21:34, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment Regarding the FA Cup, this team is a registered non-league level team, there for they qualify for the FA Vase non-league rounds. So your AfD statement sounds incorrect. That goes the same for all Essex Olympian Football League register teams. Govvy (talk) 22:20, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. GiantSnowman 02:44, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak keep based on news coverage and a full-length article (not merely a mention) in Four Four Two (I have the issue in question at home) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:13, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep I vote to keep the article based on the facts of additional citation in the article which supports the clubs existence with records of fixtures and results. Even if notability is small and the second fact is that they are a registered club with the FA. The club details are provided on the FA site which presents a club of non-league nature. To quote "Qwghlm" Clubs that a highly notable player (10+ caps for a top-level country, or 100+ appearances for a top-level club) has played for, for a significant period (e.g. one year or more). Well it not quite close enough, but they have help to produce Paul Benson who is known to a fair number of fans of league two. Which is what the BBC article is about. Which again is about the citation for the club and player. Govvy (talk) 20:46, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - for consistency with other recent AfDs of a similar nature. Never played at a notable enough level to establish notability, and appear to have nothing special about them to gain such notability for reasons other than their standard of football. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard Rundle (talk • contribs)
  • Keep - the fact that they are the 'unpromotables' due to their stadium issue, which is mentioned in the FourFourTwo article is quite significant itself. 116.197.246.203 (talk) 14:47, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - there are certain inconsistencies. For example there is the claim that they are 'unpromotable' from Division One but the Essex Olympian Football League article shows them in the Premier Division. I also don't accept that having fielded a notable player makes them notable. Notability is not inherited; if it were we would have to keep all manner of school teams since most players will start with a school team or a youth club. I see no particular reason to depart from the accepted standards of notability for football clubs. TerriersFan (talk) 02:06, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
    • To be fair, they were in Division One of the EOL when that was the name for the top division (they had divisions 1/2/3), and the only reason they are now in the Premier Division is that the league changed names (now having (Premier/1/2). - fchd (talk) 05:32, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete noting that the previously prodded team articles from this league have been deleted. Bettia (talk) 11:24, 24 June 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 Deleted as nom points out. I have tagged Clean sadness as a broken redirect, so it should be speedied as well. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • 21:37, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Clean sadness (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Contested speedy. I get a lot of google hits, so need feedback. –BuickCenturyDriver 21:04, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Deleted by Sandahl. As the nominator, I'll let someone else decide close this or restore the page and await further review. An article by this name was deleted before as the result of another AFD but this one was created with a lowercase S and totally unaware of any previous discussions, moved by me. –BuickCenturyDriver 21:33, 17 June 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. Soxred 93 22:05, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

The Simpsons DVDs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unnotable DVD releases from a single television series. Yes, The Simpsons is a huge show, however, its DVD releases do not need such an excessive list, which violates not a catalog and not a directory. This level of detail is appropriate for a sales listing of the DVD, not Knowledge (XXG). The pertinent information, such as release dates and regions, are already fully (and better) covered in List of The Simpsons episodes and the individual Simpsons season pages, as noted in the Television MoS. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 20:31, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Comments-I see where you are getting this from, but this does not violate WP:DIRECTORY as it is not a sales catalog, a list of non-encyclopedic associated terms, a directory, nor is it a list of loosely associated topics. Like WP:DIRECTORY#1 states, there is nothing wrong with having lists if their entries are famous because they are associated with or significantly contributed to the list topic, this list is associated with the famous entry, The Simpsons.SRXHeat 20:47, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
It is also extremely redundant, and giving extremely undue weight to a very common element of a television series. There is nothing striking, notable, or unusual about the Simpsons DVD releases that warrant such excessive and extensive coverage. Its already covered in the individual season episode lists, the main episode, and the main Simpsons article. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 21:05, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
I need to correct you on one part. While the DVD boxset information is in the season page, it is only a small portion of the article. The rest of these DVDs are not covered anywhere else on wikipedia, except for in a small summary section in the main The Simpsons article and a couple episode articles mention that that specific episode is in a certain DVD release. -- Scorpion 21:51, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
That's all that is really needed. Knowledge (XXG) is suppsed to be an overview, and not provide minute detail on a topic. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:16, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
  • That is true, Weak Delete per nomination and WP:UNDUE.--SRXHeat 21:27, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Obviously notable and easily sourcable. The AfD smells of WP:POINT. Dekkappai (talk) 23:31, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Further: DVD releases are notable information which should be included in articles on a TV show or film. What makes this particular article on DVD-releases exceptional is its size. When any one section of an article becomes too large, it is broken away. This is an article which breaks information away from a very large subject. To delete this article, or any similar article such as Looney Tunes Golden Collection: Volume 1, etc. is to declare that DVD releases are not information which should be included in any article. I don't think Knowledge (XXG) has yet declared this. Dekkappai (talk) 23:45, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
      • *ahem*. The Loney Tunes collection was considered an exception, due to their unusual nature. Deleting this article does not in any way say that DVD information doesn't belong on Knowledge (XXG), its saying don't give it undue weight, don't go into excessive detail about them, just not e it was released in DVD sets where appropriate, and that's that. It is extremely rare that a television series' DVD releases would require its own article to provide an adequate OVERVIEW, versus minute detail. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:15, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
        • You're saying it shouldn't be a stand-alone article. Then do we merge it into the main article? No, because the article is already too large. These DVDs can very easily be sourced, and the article can be expanded to include more information on them very, very easily. Dekkappai (talk) 00:18, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
          • It is already covered in the main article. It is also already covered in every last episode list. I'm saying this is excessive detail that rather than being shoved off to some other article, it should have been trimmed down and kept under control. This sort of detail would be like listing the page counts, number of images, number of sentences, number of words, etc for a book. Just because the information may exist and can even be sourceable does not mean it should always be included. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:36, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep: After checking into things I can say there shouldn't be too much more undead weight to be added to this site and based on my analysis of the most recent release dates it doesn't seem to be any further development on Individual DVD releases since it has been over 2 years since an individual DVD release was ever released. While the loss of the DVD Boxset page was surprising to me I consider it an acceptable loss, but for this page because alot of episodes from the individual episodes come from different seasons then I would have to consider this an unacceptable loss because these details have no where else to go on Knowledge (XXG) and as long as the the Boxset details are kept trimmed down or removed from this page entirely then it would do good for the page entirely. It is also like saying that every release in a book series, especially with comics is fully unacceptable to Knowledge (XXG) which is a crude way to stir up a hornet's nest in my opinion. Besides at least it is not at or greater than 32KB. -71.59.237.110 (talk) 07:11, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - nothing here that can't be included in the episode or season lists. No need to repeat it here --T-rex 15:57, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep as easily verifiable inoformation concerning a remarkably notable television series. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 16:25, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep:--SkyWalker (talk) 14:33, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Why? A reason or reasons must be given to show this article meets appropriate Knowledge (XXG) guidelines and policies for existance. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:13, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep: For any other DVD releases AfD, I would say "delete", but this article contains information on releases not mentioned elsewhere on Knowledge (XXG). Give it some time and Scorpion and WP:SIMPSONS will probably make it a featured list. –thedemonhog talk • edits 20:20, 22 June 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 Move to an article about the event and not the person. Will move the article to Murder of João Hélio Fernandes Vieites for now until/unless a different title is decided upon. Davewild (talk) 18:36, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

João Hélio Fernandes Vieites (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

As I understand it, it is customary not to include biographical articles for people who may be notable for being involved in a single event. In this case, the only claim to notability the subject has is the event of his death. The article itself cannot hope to be more than an article describing the events surrounding his death, as there is no biographical information worthy of inclusion. Calgary (talk) 20:25, 17 June 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. Seraphim♥Whipp 17:46, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

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

A genus that only has one species doesn't seem to need an article. Unless there are more species, it should either redirect to Jamesoniella undulifolia or be deleted. SeizureDog (talk) 20:16, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

keep per Mangostar. Pete.Hurd (talk) 22:30, 17 June 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, lack of context, nonsense. Take your pick. TravellingCari 01:13, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

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

Non-notable, fails WP:MUSIC: Members of notable bands are not given individual articles unless they have demonstrated notability for activity independent of the band. Mdsummermsw (talk) 20:15, 17 June 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. (jarbarf) (talk) 23:17, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

The Moosepath League (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:FICT. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 19:39, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Merge/Redirect – to author’s page. (I’ll start a stub in the next day or two). There certainly is a enough information out there, as shown here for an article. ShoesssS 19:47, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I think this should be retained for the following reason . . .

It seems reasonable to add the Moosepath League series. I was surprised to find there was no existing entry. It is a popular book series published internationally by major publishers and a wiki entry should attract additional information from informed sources to build into a useful resource. The first book in the series was picked as a NY Times notable book of 1998. The series has a large following of fans and is an interesting series artistically since the characters parallel the Pickwick Papers of Charles Dickens. To exclude it based on the fact that you can google some information already implies that the wiki entries on series of books by most authors should be deleted from wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CaptainPea (talk • contribs) 20:30, 17 June 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 without prejudice to recreation. Seraphim♥Whipp 17:45, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

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

Football player who fails WP:ATHLETE as he has never played in a fully professional league. Was already prodded, but removed by article's creator with the rationale "Deletion objected because personality will have played in professional league within 60 days, so would just have to be re-added", which of course is a complete violation of WP:CRYSTAL. пﮟოьεԻ 57 18:57, 17 June 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 to delete, defaulting to Keep. Disagreement over whether this is notable or not. Davewild (talk) 20:30, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

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

I voted to keep in the last debate. I'm reopening the discussion and changing my vote to delete because the article is not verifiable. It has sourcing problems that can't be solved as I expected. EnviroboyCs 18:49, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Weak Delete – without prejudice. It seems to be gaining notability as a lawn game. However, do not believe it is quite there yet for inclusion here. There really are no significant third party – reliable – verifiable sources available. In fact, I could only find one and that is already referenced in the article. ShoesssS 19:12, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete That there's only one verifiable source is a clue to whether this is actually notable. It survived deletion last time on grounds that it could be improved. It's a combination of "SHuffleboard" and "gOLF" (hence, "sholf") with what looks like a 15 foot long mat that probably retails for $29.95 plus shuffling and handling. Mandsford (talk) 00:20, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak keep Seems to have a lot of blog/youtube/etc articles but only one RS. Seems notable and verifiable, but not the best. Hobit (talk) 00:04, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak delete Similar scenario to the swingball afd, its growing in notability, but not there yet.--Finalnight (talk) 20:36, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep But ignore my opinion, for I'm the game's inventor :-). Do what's right, folks. I'll try again in the future if you decide to delete it. Phauber (talk) 00:43, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. Is receiving media coverage and has a reliable source. Malinaccier (talk) 02:13, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete for now. Recreate if it survives long enough to be truly notable, and not just a local fill-in for slow news days.Yobmod (talk) 09:53, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Keep According to WP:NOTE the news broadcast about the game comes from a reliable source Knowledge (XXG):Reliable sources. That in itself makes it worthy of an article Atlandy (talk) 14:00, 26 June 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 as amusing but hoaxalicious nonetheless. TravellingCari 01:16, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

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

Unsourced, I can find no sources that mention this supposed person. Tiger Coolidges are a brand of athletic shoe. Corvus cornixtalk 18:32, 17 June 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  21:38, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

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

I do not believe that this is a notable chemical compound. A thorough search of the scientific literature (Chemical Abstracts, PubMed, etc.) results in no references in any scientific journal. The only mention of this chemical compound that I can find is in a German patent from 1974. The chemical compound is only one of many mentioned in the patent, and there was no follow-up, and there are no citations to this patent in any other patent or journal. Also, there is no use of the name "nippoqualone" in that patent, calling into question the existence of this name. Finally, a Google search on "nippoqualone" turns up nothing more than a couple of mentions in online forums related to recreational drug use. For these reasons this article fails Knowledge (XXG) criteria for inclusion based on notability and verifiability. -- Ed (Edgar181) 18:27, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete. Just being mentioned in one obscure patent is not sufficient to make a compound notable. There are tens of millions of compounds registered by CAS, and I think not all of them are "inherently notable". --Itub (talk) 20:49, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete as per the nominator's reasoning. Freestyle-69 (talk) 01:36, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Us wikichem editors tend to be rather inclusionist for chemical compounds, but there are practical limits. It does nothing for our being a verifiable, reliable reference to have unmaintainable articles which nobody can expand or discuss in any meaningful detail. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 02:20, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
  • comment since when are German patents "obscure"? And how is this unamintainable3, since, given the registry number, anything else that is published can be found and added. DGG (talk) 03:57, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Ok, I'll strike out obscure. I didn't mean it was obscure because it was German, but because it is old and no one has ever referred to it (at least to the title compound) in a publication indexed by CAS. But something more important is that in principle, I wouldn't trust anything's notability just because it is patented (I would see it as equivalent to saying that a company is notable just because it is incorporated). And second, the lack of notability is clear from the perspective of the the notability guidelines, which strongly suggests the need for multiple, preferably secondary sources. One patent satisfies neither of the criteria. --Itub (talk) 05:40, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per previous statements. Name only gives about 5 or 6 google hits, and they're all to obscure, recreational use blogs. This doesn't justify the article's existence at the present time. Dr. Cash (talk) 17:22, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep per Eastmain's comments, with his suggestions. Among the methaqualone analogues, it's notable for being patented *and* obscure. ;) (The patent information should be discussed here.) NoDepositNoReturn (talk) 23:51, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete due to a complete absence of reliable sources that can be used to expand this article. It may be verifiable, but that doesn't mean it should exist. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 22:36, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep there are hundreds of chemical compounds on wikipedia which are equally obscure, and every day there are articles in the scientific literature about old forgotten drugs which have been found to produce some new useful effect. Knowledge (XXG) is a perfect place to archive information about these kind of drugs. Also this compound is currently being sold as a "research chemical" and so there will be people searching for information about it, which in my opinion is enough to justify a wikipedia page. Looking at the votes I can see that I'm on the losing side though! Meodipt (talk) 07:59, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
    • If you could provide evidence that this chemical compound is currently sold and used as a research tool, that would certainly change my thoughts about whether we should keep this article or not. -- Ed (Edgar181) 09:56, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
      • I can't find any sources listed for it, but that doesn't mean its not on sale; since Operation Web Tryp the vendors have become a lot more circumspect about their marketing practices! "Research chemical" in this instance refers to "recreational drugs which aren't yet illegal" rather than the kind of real research chemicals that Sigma-Aldrich and Tocris sell. Made-up names for drugs annoy me anyway, and word is that this "nippoqualone" isn't a particularly great sedative so I doubt its going to be the new big thing, but still my feeling is that if kids are using it to get high then it is notable enough to warrant a wikipedia page. Meodipt (talk) 10:33, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
        • I agree that folks may be looking for this, but—if they come here looking for information, we've got to provide information! This isn't like most pharmacology stubs, where the literature is usually a couple of clicks or a trip to the library away and we're just too lazy to expand the article (I am, at least :) This is a situation where there are no sources, so the article can never be more complete or more reliable than it is now, unless somebody starts publishing about this compound. If and when they do, I'll be the first to fight for keeping the article :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 12:03, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
          • The relevant definition is here: research chemical; totally different from what us wikichemists are accustomed to. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 12:58, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
            • Thats my point, if this compound is, as reported, being sold as a designer drug, then surely that makes it notable? Meodipt (talk) 13:42, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
              • I agree. If there is a reliable source that we can verify that reports this compound being sold as a designer drug, then I think the article should be kept. -- Ed (Edgar181) 19:45, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
                • I'm not aware of this compound having been detected by the government drug lab that I've had dealings with, and it hasn't been reported in Microgram Bulletin. To be honest, I had seen this compound being talked about on the drug use sites, but personally I didn't think it was notable enough to make a page for it, and I wouldn't care too much if it gets deleted. However the fact that some chemical supplier seems to have found an old patent from the 70s, and simply on the basis that this compound was said to produce effects similar to methaqualone in animals, has manufactured the compound, labelled it with a snappy name suggestive of similarity to methaqualone, and started selling it to the public, is a real concern from a public health standpoint. This particular compound may well not be notable enough to be worth keeping, but the manner in which it has appeared does make me wonder how many more compounds like this are likely to come along. Meodipt (talk) 00:03, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment When I made a page for 4-Methylmethcathinone 6 months ago it was nominated for deletion for the same reasons as this compound has been, and I asked for a reprieve on the grounds that I believed it would become notable and verifiable soon enough. Last Wednesday, 4-MMC finally hit the newspapers as a "new designer drug" in Queensland, Australia, and so the 4-MMC article is now supported by reliable sources. This demonstrates how with these designer drugs, the availability of acceptable references may lag behind the initial appearance of the drug by a considerable period. However this "nippoqualone" looks more likely to just fade into obscurity without ever having suitable references published, so if the consensus of this vote is for delete then perhaps this is for the best. My Keep vote still stands though! Meodipt (talk) 04:22, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
    • That's all well and good, but your 4-MMC article should have been deleted in the first place. WP is not meant to be a crystal ball. Articles aren't any better off for having existed in some form before the subject becomes notable. if reliable secondary sources don't cover it now, then it doesn't matter what will happen in the future. Protonk (talk) 07:28, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
      • When hundreds of people around the world are taking a drug, going to hospital with overdoses, getting arrested by police who then have to decide whether it is legal or not etc, then in my opinion it is notable regardless of whether there are journal articles written about it. Lack of sources may make an article unsuitable for wikipedia because of problems with verifiability, but does not necessarily mean the subject is not notable. Meodipt (talk) 07:44, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
        • You may be confusing the Knowledge (XXG) definition of "notability" with the common meaning of the word. The Knowledge (XXG) definition is closer to the idea of verifiability than to the idea of importance. Of course this drug, if it is really being taken by hundreds of people and causing trouble, is important. But what can we say about it that is verifiable, when all we have are rumours, web forums, and an old patent, without falling into doing original research ourselves? --Itub (talk) 11:16, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
          • I was referring to Protonk's comment that the 4-MMC article should have been deleted; I felt strongly that one should be kept as the drug was being taken by hundreds of people, used in research etc. This nippoqualone on the other hand doesn't seem to be used to any significant extent. I just feel that the article should be retained because of my general inclusionist views when it comes to chemical compounds, since it has a known structure, known activity, a CAS number, and a patent for reference then thats good enough for me, but I can see why you guys feel that it should be deleted and I'll respect the consensus. Meodipt (talk) 12:05, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
            • We don't feel this way for grins or in a vaccuum. The WP definition of notability requires that an article have a secondary source imputing notability to the subject. You seem to think that we have come to some sort of consensus despite a proper reading of the rules. That isn't true. We've come to consensus based on a proper reading of the rules. If this drug has seen ANY published research (even in industry journals), then we can cite it and include it. If not, the policies and guidelines suggest that it be deleted. Protonk (talk) 15:19, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
  • While we're at it, what about the majority of those transcluding {{PiHKAL}} and {{TiHKAL}}? Most of them have only a *single* reference; I'd say those are arguably just as non-notable. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 14:25, 22 June 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. The substantial majority of participants that voiced "delete" opinions argued in essence that this list violates our policy that Knowledge (XXG) is not an indiscriminate collection of information, even if such information is verifiable and may pertain to notable subjects. They further note that the topic of this article, pizza delivery as a distinct cultural topic, is not covered as such in any depth in any reliable sources. Instead, they contend, it amounts to synthetic original research to construct such an article around various observations of pizza delivery in media and around sources that discuss media featuring pizza delivery. These arguments are persuasive. The "keep" opinions are not, or at least not to an extent that they make me doubt that we have an informed "delete" consensus. They point to reliable sources that do cover in detail specific media products that feature pizza delivery, but they do not seriously address the argument that is most important with respect to WP:NOR: that (as one contributor put it) "there are no sources covering the subject of pizza delivery in popular culture as a whole", and that as such an article with this title has little prospect of not being original research.  Sandstein  22:19, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Pizza delivery in popular culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The previous AfD, which was closed as delete. Given some improvements of the article during the discussion, a deletion review concluded that listing here for further discussion was appropriate. This is a procedural nomination; no opinion on my part. Tikiwont (talk) 18:25, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Merge to Pizza delivery. I've never had a problem with having a well-cited "in popular culture" section in articles, especially one on a topic like pizza delivery, which basically is popular culture (we don't have an article on topsoil delivery, but we probably should have one on telegram delivery). But there is no need to have a stand-alone pizza delivery in popular culture article when there is a suitable place to merge it to; the not overlong parent article. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 18:42, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete as per Knowledge (XXG) is not an indiscriminate collection of information. While the "improvements" have addressed some of the verifiability and original research problems that lead to this articles initial AfD deletion, no amount of sourcing will be able to overcome the problem that a list of every mention of pizza delivery made in a book, television show, or movie is an unbounded list of unimportant connective trivia. All useful information, such as the use of pizza delivery as a stag film MacGuffin, has already been merged back into the appropriate parent article. --Allen3  18:44, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. —Lenticel 18:57, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge to Pizza delivery, per precedent in many other articles. No reason for this to stand alone. Enigma 19:06, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete the vast majority of the article, which is original research, prior to merge, please. Corvus cornixtalk 23:31, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep as encyclopedic, notable, interesting, verifiable, and unoriginal topic. Page is just a few days old, so Knowledge (XXG):Don't demolish the house while it's still being built and Knowledge (XXG):Give an article a chance. Plus, trivia is encyclopedic. Even in a worst case scenario, I can't imagine why a merge and redirect without deletion would not be the route to take, but I see nothing to gain here from an outright deletion. By the way, pizza delivery is not merely "refeenced" in films, but is even the outright subject of some films, such as this one and this. In the case of other films, use of pizza delivery has been regarded by critics as "overly integrated product placement".See Heather Boerner, "Review of R.L. Stine's Haunting House: Don't Think About: Tween-friendly, ad-happy Halloween fright fest," Common Sense Media. See also Michele Cheplic, "Pizza Hut's Youngest and Most Famous Delivery Person... Maybe," Popular Culture Blog on families.com (13 Nov 2007). Also note from the New York Times: "Reviews/Film; A Youth's Salty Specialty On a Pizza-Delivery Route." See also The Pizza Guy Movie. Note all of these films of course have reviews and therefore coverage in secondary sources. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 00:10, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge to Pizza Delivery; encyclopedicity would be better preserved in the article Sceptre 00:12, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
  • What a huge mess. This article was split from Pizza delivery, as a list of random times someone delivers a pizza in a fictional work. That got sent to AFD, and people tried to save the article with some sourced, more-general prose about the role of pizza delivery in fiction (everyman job, porno cliche, etc.) That prose gets merged back to pizza delivery, and the first AFD gets closed as delete since this article didn't have anything of value that isn't in the parent article. The first AFD goes to DRV, and we end up back here.
    At this point, we might as well just redirect this to pizza delivery, since anything of value has already been merged there and any hypothetical improvements to this article could just go there. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:48, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - Simple regurgitation of anchovies and plot summary. No citations to a variety of reliable sources commenting on pizza delivery as a plot device, its development across genres and media, or anything else to offer an encyclopedic treatment. --EEMIV (talk) 03:09, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
  • keep as an obviously notable theme,based on the notable works which have used them. That's enough to justify an article--the use of a theme in a significant way in multiple notable works. GRC's refs are to the point. As A Man in Black notes, this is not a question of where to put the material, its a question of people attempting to remove the material altogether, whether as part of an article or elsewhere. The idea that in popular culture material is not encyclopedic has been rejected long ago. What someone above called "unimportant connective trivia" is actualy the thematic basis out of which works of fiction are constructed. Classic pictures of minor disasters do not add to the logic of the discussion. I don;t want to be the one to remove it. Guess it shows there are no words that can give a adequate argument for deletion. New way to win Afd--whichever side can find the most appropriate picture. DGG (talk) 04:03, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
    • It doesn't really justify a separate article; all this has that pizza delivery doesn't is every single time a pizza delivery guy or a delivered pizza or a pizza delivery chain appears in a fictional work. We don't need that.
    As for the train wreck, that's the godawful process mess here; nothing good ever, ever comes from "procedural relist". - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:35, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
    Using a Reductio ad absurdum argument ("every single time a pizza delivery" ) actually weakens the argument, not strengthens it. All I have to do is find one delivery not included and the argument logically collapses. — Becksguy (talk) 16:08, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
    The current scope of the article is "every time a pizza delivery guy or a delivered pizza or a pizza delivery chain appears in a fictional work." No, no list of this sort can ever be completely complete; that only makes this article weaker. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:42, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge to Pizza delivery as that article already has a section on this subject. Either way cleanup and discussion of real world impact should be part of the article/section. It shouldn't be basically a list disguised as an article. Heck given that I'd think a referenced list with short sentences is probably a better way to go. Jasynnash2 (talk) 10:37, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete No reliable sources that discuss the use of pizza delivery in popular culture. The article is just a collection of "this TV show had a pizza delivery guy" and so forth. If the theme of pizza delivery is notable, where are the sources that discuss the theme in any detail? What next - Acne-ridden teenagers in popular culture? Tottering Blotspurs (talk) 14:10, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
    • No reliable sources? Check the LGRdC comment above with several reliable sources, check the highly improved article, also with RS. Is the New York Times no longer a reliable source? Voting delete due to no reliable sources makes no sense when the pertinent reliable sources are clearly there. — Becksguy (talk) 15:38, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
      • Please read my post before replying, it saves me having to reply to you. None of the sources deal with pizza delivery as a theme or plot device, the Times simply reviews a film called A Youth's Salty Specialty On a Pizza-Delivery Route, it doesn't do either of the aforementioned. You show me a reliable source that deals with pizza delivery as a plot device (and I do not mean reviews of Big Sausage Pizza) and compares its use in different elements of popular culture, and I'll say "keep". But you can't do that, because nobody has written anything like that. Tottering Blotspurs (talk) 20:18, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete and don't bother merging into anything. Well almost everything here can be looked up just because it exsists does not imply that it is notable. Also sources have nothing to do with the topic as a whole, but serve rather as mere examples --T-rex 16:04, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete All but one of the "independent sources" are movie reviews. That is no better than using the primary source. --Phirazo 17:09, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete It's cruft and nonsense. Heh, cheese-filled cruft...never mind, sorry doktorb words 19:43, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
    • WP:ITSCRUFT is never an acceptable reason for deletion. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 19:55, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
      • Delete Okay then, with reference to the point in that policy which states "Please note that while declaring something to be "cruft" in itself is not a rational argument for deletion, actual cruft — vast amounts of specific information on topics of little notability — is not acceptable for Knowledge (XXG)" I modify my vote to this - This is cruft and nonsense, in that is an indiscriminate amount of information with no encylopedic merit or value which has breaks WP:LIST, and uses as its sources self-referential and irrelevant sources. The article content advances no argument, other than to satisfy the author's own trivial interest in minor facts and figures without any reference to a wider or global context. 20:25, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
        • "Cruft" is not used in serious arguments. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 21:08, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
            • Reply regarding my DELETE vote I take that point, although I use the phrase in passing to be fair, and consequently, alter my vote as follows. With reference to the quoted element of the deletion policy, above, I modify my vote to delete with regards to the unenclycopedic value of the article, the self-referential sources, and lack of advanced, credible, arguments or content. The fact that I mentioned "cruft" should not - indeed I feel does not, in any case, invalidate my point. doktorb words 21:14, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
              • The article has encyclopedic value to those who created, worked on, and are arguing to keep it here. The article actually shouldn't advance arguments as that would be original research. That the article merely presents referenced information in a straightforward manner makes it encyclopedic. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 21:35, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete in reiteration of my comment at DRV. This is indeed cruft as noted in the above excerpt from ATA. Eusebeus (talk) 20:33, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. It's a random list of trivia about a common occurrence. It is content which is not appropriate for the encyclopedia. I am also persuaded by the original synthesis arguments raised above. The fact that individual instances can be sourced does not absolve all WP:NOR concerns. The compilation as a list must also be independent of Knowledge (XXG). Rossami (talk) 20:40, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep or possibly merge (though is quite hefty) to parent article. Notable plot element for which there has been significant commentary Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:25, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
    • In what movie was this a notable plot element? --T-rex 23:19, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
      • See here, as well as Drivers Wanted, Fat Pizza: The Movie, this, and here. I find this list particularly revealing as it clearly indicates the crucial relevance of pizza and pizza delivery to the plots of the films in question. There's also this film, for better or worse... You have to love the product descripton: "Everybody orders pizza delivery. But when your pizza arrives who is it that you're opening your door to? Is it a nice kid looking to make a few bucks...or is it Monty? Montgomery Goth (Matt Nelson) is a gentle loner with a traumatic past trying to put the pieces of his life back together while working as a delivery boy for a local pizza place. He has no friends no life and no prospects for the future until one day he meets the girl of his dreams Bibi (Tara Cardinal) and life seems to finally change for the better. But a series of events will test Montgomery's sanity and awaken the demons inside of him unleashing a murderous rampage that will keep everyone from ordering delivery for a very longlong time..." Classic. Finally, we have this. So, we have movies whose titles and plots deal directly with pizza delivery and other lists on the internet besides Knowledge (XXG) that focus on pizza delivery scenes. Oh, also as far as television shows go, see . Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 23:22, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
This is an organized, notable, and sourced thematic article on the impact of pizza delivery on popular culture, rather than trivia. But even if it was, there is no policy that forbids trivia. — Becksguy (talk) 08:29, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
See WP:TRIVIA. --Craw-daddy | T | 09:57, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm familiar with WP:TRIVIA, which is a style guideline primarily on the presentation of what some people refer to as trivia in trivia sections. It is not policy and does not forbid trivia, rather it suggests organization and integration. It does not refer to WP:IPC articles. — Becksguy (talk) 01:51, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Delete, or merge into Pizza delivery and remove all but the most notable references to films, etc. A paragraph of prose is appropriate, but not a large list containing every single reference. Mr. Absurd (talk) 16:32, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

See the "St. James Encyclopedia of Pop Culture" article on Pizza , in which it says that delivered pizza defines a part of popular culture. From there, in pertinent part: Delivery service combined this convenience and the desire for choice: people could call up a nearby pizza shop, ... and have the food delivered to their door within the hour. As such, pizza enjoyed a reputation for being a casual food meant for informal occasions, and, indeed, defined these occasions as such. People commonly ate the slices of pizza with their hands, right out of the boxes they were delivered in...
This isn't some obscure cultural element. It's deeply embedded into our popular culture, starting post WW2 when fast food and delivery became much more prevalent and normal, among other societal and cultural sea changes, popular and otherwise. I wouldn't be surprised if almost every person in America (and maybe in large parts of the world) knows what pizza delivery is, has seen it on TV, or in the movies, and experienced it, or some combination of those. These multiple representations of pizza delivery show the impact the phenomena has on pop culture. Claiming that pizza delivery isn't an encyclopedic quality cultural phenomenon is like claiming that terrorists didn't bring down the twin towers. — Becksguy (talk) 21:38, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Changing my vote to Keep per Becksguy. McJeff (talk) 23:01, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Pizza delivery is a common action modern human beings do. It is part of daily life so many films, books, etc. just describing a normal daily life can have this. It is similar to other normal human actions like "buying from the grocery's", "eating Chinese food", "having a massage", "waxing your legs", etc. etc. The pizza delivery article can have a reference for when pizza delivery become so popular and some of the first references to a film or a book but not a separate article, not a list and not more than 2 examples. -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:12, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Yes, it's a common daily life activity in America, and prolly large parts of the Western world. And that's exactly why it needs to have an article. Think of WP as providing an explanation for someone completely unaware of Western popular culture. Just because every one here knows exactly what pizza delivery is, and most, if not all of the cultural references, does not mean that others do, per systemic bias. One should be able to gain a basic understanding of anything and everything from WP, for which the core mission as stated by Jimbo is: ...free access to the sum of all human knowledge. Deleting this would be a betrayal of that mission. Secondly, this is a deletion discussion on this article only, not what might, or might not be merged back into the parent article from whence it came. That is a editing process to take place there. — Becksguy (talk) 10:45, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete this article could more accurately be titled "list of occasions when a book, video game, film or television programme has mentioned pizza delivery". Whilst the fact that these media have mentioned pizza delivery is verifiable, it does not make the topic encyclopedic, as there are no sources covering the subject of pizza delivery in popular culture as a whole. Hut 8.5 20:22, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. The topic lacks encyclopaedic value. Seraphim♥Whipp 18:20, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
    • It does have wikipedic value. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 18:30, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
      • That's such an unnecessary response. You don't have to try and dismiss everyone's opinions. Shall I say back, "It doesn't" so that you can reply, "It does!" Can you see how redundant that comment is? Can't you let people express what they want to say? For me, it's getting to the point where I don't want to bother expressing myself at all. Seraphim♥Whipp 18:34, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
        • Seraphim, I wouldn't say it, if I didn't think it worthwhile. It is a discussion, not a list of votes. In a discussion we engage each other. Anyway, by "wikipedic" I am of course referring to how wikipedia is a combination of general and specialized encyclopedias as well as almanacs and thus "unencyclopedic" is usually not a substantial reason for deletion as it is a somewhat vague and subjective term. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 18:39, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
          • If we keep that we can create millions of similar articles like "Phone calling in popular culture", "walking a dog in popular culture", "washing the dishes in popular culture", etc. -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:58, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
            • If multiple films have been made specifically on those topics as indicated above such films have been made about pizza delivery, then why not? If the pizza delivery guy in pornographic films, which is typically parodied on sketch comedy shows were also the case with phone calling, dog walking, etc., then again, why not. I don't think "in popular culture" is an all or nothing. In this case, more than just a few people have identified a clear cinematic use of pizza and/or pizza delivery in mainstream films, pornographic films, and television comedy sketches and we know people use Knowledge (XXG) for this particular article as a website has even been identified as linking to the article in question. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 19:04, 22 June 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.--Kubigula (talk) 19:32, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

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

Contested PROD - no explanation given. Player fails notability at WP:ATHLETE having never played in a fully-pro league. General consensus is that youth caps do not confer notability either. --Jimbo 18:17, 17 June 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 to Delete defaulting to Keep. There is a real disagreement over the notability of this article. Davewild (talk) 19:02, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

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

Personally I think this should be deleted as a {{db-repost}} but since one person has unilaterally overturned such a decision, I guess we'll hash this out once more. The subject continues to fail WP:BIO and lacks non-trivial coverage from reliable and independent publications. As before. coccyx bloccyx(toccyx) 18:05, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

  • I am sorry, I didn’t mean to imply that you were trying anything other than giving additional information. I, on the other hand :-), wanted to point out that there was coverage since that time period that probably would justify inclusion at this day in time. ShoesssS 18:48, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Adxp has provided the coverage from reliable and independent publications that the nom falsely claimed did not exist. Did the nom attempt to do a simple google search before bringing this to AFD? SashaNein (talk) 20:31, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete At least two of the articles mentioned above (Newsweek and MSNBC) are copies of the same article and all but one article is what I would call mentioned in passing - the subject was mentioned once and not again and the subject was not the actual subject of any of these articles. So I'm not convinced that notability has been established and must support deletion at this point, though I'm open to changing my mind if more info comes to light. Sarah 01:31, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete she doesn't have a sufficient level of independent notability away from Y Combinator that I can find. Even the references provided above are more to do with Y Combinator than they are to do with her. The whole series of articles needs cleanup BTW for anyone interested as even the Y Combinator page lacks reliable 3rd party sources. Jasynnash2 (talk) 10:52, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete it again, the references mentioned above have little to do with the actual subject, and I remain unconvinced that this meets the WP:BIO guideline. JBsupreme (talk) 05:01, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Google considered her notable enough to be featured in their Authors@Google lecture series. She's a published author and subject of numerous interviews related to her book. She's prominent in the high tech startup community. Herdrick (talk) 23:16, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment At time of writing, the vote is 5-4 in favour of keeping the article. When does the AfD nomination expire? --89.234.125.141 (talk) 00:22, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
    • This is not a vote. When an administrator is available, he or she will weigh the arguments presented and make a decision. JBsupreme (talk)
  • Keep. She's the author of a bestselling book -- in fact, it was the #1 book for her publisher that year. And a Google News Archives search finds dozens of articles for her. AaronSw (talk) 20:29, 24 June 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 Cenarium 01:20, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

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

Per WP:DICTIONARY. Millbrooky (talk) 17:51, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Merge/Redirect – At first glance I was going to say delete. However, after reviewing the article, and than looking at the main piece BDSM I have to say a category of “terms” would be informational and helpful. Let’s start it off with this one. ShoesssS 18:19, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,   jj137 (talk) 14:54, 23 June 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, consensus is that the article is currently a nelogism. Davewild (talk) 19:27, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

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

Per Knowledge (XXG):Avoid neologisms: The term is a neologism coined by the authors of the primary reference (all of whom are co-founders of a company in that name ). There is no other scientific usage (according to PubMed) outside direct reference to this paper, and a number of those are from the same authors. One of the SPAs that have contributed to the article puts it best on the talk page:Yes, the term proteostasis is a neologism and (so far) there is only one article in pub med to reference the term. It should be noted, however, that the authors are Giants in their field and the term is making is way in several international meetings and discussions in the field. It will be of great use for the scientific community to have a wiki page on this neologism to be able to follow its evolution. Delete without prejudice of future recreation, if and when it does become a term used outside one research team. Rockpocket 17:02, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Discussion noted at Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Molecular and Cellular Biology. Rockpocket 00:44, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: That is the sole source I refer to, and the others are all citing that source. Just because one coins a neologism in Nature does not make it a notable in the field. Rockpocket 19:07, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Here are two more that may help. , here . ShoesssS 19:20, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Not really. The latter is by one of the authors that made up the word (and one of the co-founders of their company) and is also, apparently, one of the SPAs that contributed to the article (Rickmorimoto (talk · contribs)). The former is in direct reference to the article where the it was first coined. My point is that the term has not gained any traction beyond those that coined it in the original paper and those referencing that usage. Scientists coin their own buzzwords all the time and then try and promote its use. I seen no evidence that it is yet an accepted concept in the scientific community, and the author of the article has admitted as such. Indeed the first usage of it was less than 4 months ago so its clearly a neologism (and again, the author admits as much). Should we really be creating scientific articles on the basis of single papers? I don't think so. Rockpocket 20:02, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

*Keep It's been used in several articles published in Nature, Science, and the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, which are the three highest-impact journals in general science. That's notable enough for me. --Itub (talk) 17:54, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment: Really? I would be grateful if you could direct me to the articles in Nature and the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences that use the term. The authors of the Science article (cleverly) put the word in the title of their article and thus most of the Ghits are to reference lists. I find a only single published use of the word by anyone, anywhere, (other than by those who coined it) and that is in direct reference to their paper. I note also that the preview of the primary source states Balch et al. (p. 916) now review the so-called proteostasis machinery (my bold), reinforcing that the term is not a established one, but a neologism the authors had coined. Rockpocket 00:34, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Original inventions. If you or a friend invented the word frindle, a drinking game, or a new type of dance move, it is not notable enough to be Knowledge (XXG) article material until multiple, independent, and reliable secondary sources report on it. Knowledge (XXG) is not for things made up one day.

There are not multiple, verifiable sources, AND the main editors on this page appear to be the authors that coined the word Proteostasis. Furthermore, the sentence written by one of the main editors that "The neologism will be adopted by the scientific community" gives the impression (whether right or wrong) that the editors are using wikipedia to promote use of the term and boost notability of the authors that coined it, which is also an infringement of Knowledge (XXG) policy on self promotion. Maybe once the word is used in articles independent of the original authors, this page will be needed in wikipedia, but I do not think it is notable enough yet.~ Ciar ~ (Talk to me!) 01:36, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Comment - but it is only published in ONE article. The other papers listed on the page cite that one paper but chose not to use the term proteostasis (unless you count the reference list!). ~ Ciar ~ (Talk to me!) 20:56, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Then delete. One publication is not enough.Biophys (talk) 02:02, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

KeepThis is a concept, perhaps not new, the idea that by maintaining the proteome one can ameliorate disease. It is an important concept. There is another peer reviewed Cell paper that appears Septemeber 5 that uses and extends this concept. It is is ridiculous to argue that a paper published in 2008 should already be highly cited, I am confident that if you leave this intact for a few months that it will in fact be highly cited —Preceding unsigned comment added by 5beta5 (talk • contribs) 22:23, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure the issue is about how often the paper becomes cited, it's more an issue of how frequently the term proteostasis becomes used. The science is not in question, but the word is just not yet in common use.

Citations reflect consideration of the acceptance of the word "proteostasis", especially if they use it in the newly published paper and acceptance and use of the concept of proteostasis as defined above, which is arguably more important. Given that it takes several months from the time of submission to the time of acceptance of a scientific paper, it will take some time to discern how widely accepted the term becomes in the scientific literature and in the literature at large. It seems a bit harsh to conclude that the term represents neologism when papers featuring the term and concept are being published in the top journals including Science (and one I know to becoming out in Cell) are not just using the term but featuring the concept as a new strategy for correcting some of the most important diseases of our era. These journals have very high standards and so should Knowledge (XXG) and this concept a term deserves a chance. One of the first arguments put forward to delete the term was that one of the authors started a company with proteostasis in the name. Neologism dosen't fly to raise tens of millions of dollars, this term and the concept has legs —Preceding unsigned comment added by 5beta5 (talk • contribs) 01:19, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment - WP:CRYSTAL: "While scientific and cultural norms continually evolve, we cannot anticipate that evolution but must wait for it to happen." When the scientific community use the term consistently (rather than Jeff Kelly and his collaborators, who, dare I suggest could be the authors of the forthcoming Cell paper you mention?) then this article can be recreated without prejudice. As you say yourself, "it will take some time to discern how widely accepted the term becomes in the scientific literature and in the literature at large." Our policies dictate that we wait until that time before writing an article on it. Rockpocket 01:27, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, in a few years this term may become as widely-used as "transcriptome" or be ignored and fall into disfavor. At present we don't know. Good luck with the Cell paper though! Tim Vickers (talk) 16:51, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect, new concepts that are articulated clearly and which change the way people think about important problems are important and will stick-I am done engaging in this "scholarly discussion", this seems like a clear case of a couple of individuals who are highly motivated to kill this at any cost and nothing is going to stand in there way. Knowledge (XXG) is supposed to be a place where you can quickly learn something, a rapidly evolving source of knowledge, the standard should be whether you learn something and not whether two people don't like the term. The reality is that 4 pages of one of the hardest journals to publish in thought this was an important concept and term, as did the reviewers–––are the opponents of this term more thoughtful and credentialed than the editor of Science, the reviewers and the authors ?. That is for an independent person to decide and hopefully not the opponents if wikipedia has a chance at being an unbiased source of scholarly information —Preceding unsigned comment added by 5beta5 (talk • contribs) 02:03, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi 5beta5, Please do not consider the suggestions to remove the proteostasis page as a personal attack, or an attack on the science. It really is not. There are several links added to this discussion (above) pointing out certain "rule and regulations" on wikipedia - please read them, they explain everything. Like peer-reviewed journals, wikipedia also has guidelines to stick to, and one of these is to only include things that are established and verifiable. As suggested above, there is no need to remove the entire content on proteostasis from the encyclopedia, but you may consider merging it into the homeostasis page and even introduce your term there. Right now, it is not well known enough to warrant a page of its own - that is all. P.S. Me thinks some the "opponents" may be thoughtful reviewers and credentialed authors of respected scientific journals - don't you? <friendly ribbing to break the tension> ;o) ~ Ciar ~ (Talk to me!) 05:00, 21 June 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 consensus to move, needs to be specifically discussed on the talk page for achieving consensus. Cenarium 16:00, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

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

I'm aware that it may be difficult to win support for deleting this article, since the topic is obviously rather a significant one. But the article itself is clearly "original research" (of the "Well, I know from everyday life that when people use this phrase, they sometimes mean it this way, so I'll add that into the article" variety) and doesn't discuss the topic or the concept in any substantive way. (There are three sources cited: two are types of dictionaries, and the third is Fyodor Dostoevsky's The Idiot, for a quotation plunked in the article with no discussion or context.) I suggest that it be deleted and that Real life (disambiguation) be moved to this title. Propaniac (talk) 16:56, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment - As I said below, I'm reasonably satisfied with the suggestion to move the article to Real life (reality) and redirect Real life to the disambig page, but as some of the "Keep" votes are rather vague about how they'd feel about that, I'm leaving this discussion to an admin to evaluate and close. Propaniac (talk) 13:27, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Real life moved to Real Life (reality)
redirect Real life to Real Life (disambiguation)
Add Real Life (reality) to the Real Life (disambiguation) page.
Tag Real Life (reality) for cleanup --Pmedema (talk) 17:39, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong keep - Emergent concept which is sufficiently well-documented and important to qualify for an article. This is not a good article, but the subject is notable. The concept of a division between "real life" and "online life" is relatively new, but obviously it looms over the internet, and you can frequently see reference to it here on Knowledge (XXG). It would be silly to shoehorn this concept into the "reality" article, as it's primarily a social phenomenon relating to the internet and has little connection to larger philosophical or scientific ideas. Here's my quick test: 1. Is this concept real and important? (Yes.) 2. Is this concept documented? (Yes.) 3. Is this concept known by the name the article is under? (Yes, pretty much.) 4. Is this concept covered in the article we are proposing to redirect to? (No.) 5. Is this concept ever going to be covered in the article we are proposing to redirect to? (Unlikely.) 6. If so, we may be semi-permanently removing any coverage of this concept from the encyclopedia, simply because the current article is not up to snuff. In cases like these, the answer is to improve the article, rather than directing it to another article which has no information on the actual subject involved. Mr. IP (talk) 03:23, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong keep per excellent rationale by Mr.IP. The reality article is no place for this topic, which concerns a term used to distinguish mediated experience from non-mediated (compare meatspace). It only takes a minute of research to discover that this topic is notable; see for example Jansen et al. (2000) "Real life, real users, and real needs: a study and analysis of user queries on the web ", Rasmussen and Jensen (1974) "Mental Procedures in Real-Life Tasks: A Case Study of Electronic Trouble Shooting", Byrne et al. (1970) Continuity between the experimental study of attraction and real-life computer dating.", Funk et al. (2004) "Violence exposure in real-life, video games, television, movies, and the internet", Bensley et al. (2001) "Video games and real-life aggression". I could go on. How anyone could conclude that this topic fails to meet the general notability guideline is beyond me. It appears that those looking to delete or redirect the article have neglected to do any research and have focussed mistakenly on the article's current, rather than potential state. Skomorokh 19:36, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment WP:POTENTIAL is an essay, not a guideline; I'm aware of the opinion it expresses and find it overly optimistic. That being said, I'm reasonably satisfied with the suggestion to move this article to Real life (reality) and redirect to the disambig page; I was mostly bothered by the fact that anyone searching for substantial information on a topic by the name of "Real Life" is first sent to this terrible article with no worthwhile information on anything. (The article may have boundless potential to be informative, as suggested by your references, but it's certainly not meeting that potential right now.) Propaniac (talk) 13:23, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
  • ```Keep```. Real life is /not/ the same as reality, but a notable concept emerging in the cyberspace era. It deserves an article. --Gerrit 13:17, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. I think Mr. IP did a great job opening up the strong justification for keeping the article, but I wanted to also oppose the rename. The second sentence of the reality article states that reality "includes everything that is, whether or not it is observable or comprehensible". The concept of real life and reality are completely separate: everything (real life or not) occurs in reality. The fact that I'm communicating with someone through a form of technology and not through spoken words while in physical eye contact with the other person doesn't mean I'm not in reality -- it simply means I'm not in "physical" contact with the person. I agree the article isn't well written and needs significant updating but this subject is significantly different than reality, it is noteworthy, and it is encyclopedic. Utopianheaven (talk) 05:46, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
    • I don't understand why you're opposed to renaming this article. The rename is an entirely separate suggestion than the merge to reality, and has nothing to do with what content is covered by the reality article. Is it just that you don't think Real life (reality) would be a good name for the page? In that case, could you suggest what other disambiguating parenthetical term would be more accurate? I find it poor logic to say that we should keep this article as the primary meaning simply because the suggested disambiguating title may not be the best one. Propaniac (talk) 12:32, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
      • You are right, my comment was very focused on the suggested rename to reality, but a number of the other pages that are titled with "Real Life" deal directly with this social idea that is what is known as "real life". Doing a Google Scholar search on this stuff, there's really two things "Real Life" can mean: existing in fiction or having a physical-world interaction rather than a virtual or virtual-world interaction -- and academics have explored these interactions quite a bit. As an AfD discussion, I want to ensure that his page is kept. As a disambig discussion, it's not as clear cut as if it's something like biology or Chicago -- but for now, I believe it is a theme strong enough that it shouldn't be a just another link on a disambig page. Utopianheaven (talk) 05:09, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. Reasons outlined above pretty well. I think the concept of the "real world"/"real life" is pretty well-defined, and we shouldn't kill this article just because it needs some editing. Jonathan (talk) 08:18, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep: Since we are on a website populated by webgeeks, this is a valid article. However, a little copyediting wouldn't be a bad idea.--Bedford 23:24, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Note that Real life was just moved. Enigma 06:33, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
    • WP:BOLD - In and effort to be bold, I actioned the suggestions that I made. I feel that this AfD can be closed and that efforts can now be made to make the moved article Real Life (reality) into a better article.--Pmedema (talk) 06:42, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
      • The trouble is, doing what you did was not the consensus at this AfD. Enigma 06:44, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
        • sooo.....then how do you feel that this should be handled... I was just trying to do what I interpereted as consensus and helping out... If you feel differently, by all means, go with it... I'm just an editor.--Pmedema (talk) 06:48, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
          • No big deal. It's a disputed AfD, so I suggest you let an administrator close it. ;) It's best to let the closing admin decide what consensus is. Just give your opinion and move on. Less hassle! Enigma 06:51, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep In addition to what others have said, I just don't think the problems listed in the nom are sufficient to delete. There are tons of books out there about internet culture, and copyediting is easy. Notability, you cannot improve, but this article can be improved, and it is clearly notable. L'Aqùatique 21:52, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep In addition to what others have said, I just don't think the problems listed in the nom are sufficient to delete. There are tons of books out there about internet culture, and copyediting is easy. Notability, you cannot improve, but this article can be improved, and it is clearly notable.BHOrchid (talk) 23:34, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I just wanted to note that most of the "Keep" votes don't include any objection to moving the article, so I would read the consensus as that Pmedema's proposal is acceptable (which is still my own opinion as well). Propaniac (talk) 01:13, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Redirect Real life (disambiguation). There is nothing attributed in the article that is more than the dictionary definition. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:09, 27 June 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. Non-admin closure by Skomorokh 19:38, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

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

Non-notable. Nuberger13 (talk) 16:52, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep per EJF. I encourage Nuberger13 to become familiar with deletion policy. coccyx bloccyx(toccyx) 17:13, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep It's notable though the article needs more sources, I dont see the N&O reference mentioned above.--Rtphokie (talk) 18:17, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. I am the original author of the article. There is a new reference here, from the Philanthropy Journal. I'd never heard of the Philanthropy Journal, but from looking at it and doing a Google search, it appears reliable, at least on the surface. The N&O article is here, but it includes only two paragraphs on Traction. If you look at my old version of the article, there was a Herald Sun article, but now I can't find it. That said, I could change my mind about keeping this article if someone convinced me that 1) The Philanthropy Journal is not as reliable as it seems at first glance, and 2) the Independent Weekly is not a big enough newspaper to establish notability. With respect to that last point, I seem to remember reading a WP guideline somewhere about not using very local news sources as stand-alone sources. Now I can't figure out where I read that, but anyway it seems like the Indy is probably big enough to be a stand-alone source. --Allen (talk) 18:57, 17 June 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 Cenarium 01:20, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

The Adam Carolla Show: Former Staff Members (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is a non-notable list of former "staff members" from The Adam Carolla Show. It painfully fails WP:N and is completely sourced by free websites, press releases, wordpress blogs and forumer.com. coccyx bloccyx(toccyx) 16:46, 17 June 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. Non-admin closure by Skomorokh 19:39, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Gun politics in Brazil (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Failure to find reliable sources, tagged since 2006. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:34, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment, I see Yaf's recently added references, but they do not really give reference to 'gun politics' in Brazil. Instead, they talk of gun law, gun violence, and gun ownership. Also the single paragraph on the 2005 referendum likely would be better covered in the article dedicated to that topic. SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:38, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, "gun law, gun violence, and gun ownership" are certainly elements of gun politics, no? Zagalejo^^^ 02:22, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. Article is still a stub. Reliable sources exist for this topic, but require Brazilian gun politics expertise on the part of the contributing editor, with additional Portuguese language expertise. Brazil has a strong history of firearms production and gun politics, so the source material exists. However, failure to have such an expert editor contribute to this article is not grounds for deletion of a stub article. Yaf (talk) 17:26, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Comment. Have attempted to add reliable sources and do a general re-write of the article. Doesn't look like a stub any longer. Looks like a definite WP:SNOW at this point, to keep it. Yaf (talk) 21:01, 18 June 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 Cenarium 00:49, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Küss mich (Fellfrosch) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable song, fails WP:MUSIC, composed of unsourced original research ≈ The Haunted Angel 16:14, 17 June 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, consensus is that the article fails the notability guidelines at this time. Davewild (talk) 19:34, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

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

Declined speedy. Article created by single-use account. Only references are to subject's website and publisher's website. Notability not proven. Thetrick (talk) 14:44, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Scientizzle 16:02, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak keep Delete with no prejudice for recreation if sources can be found later to establish notability I fixed the links and cleaned up the article. I suspect the creator had a conflict of interest. Nevertheless, he is quite a well-known translator and musicologist specialising in early music. Given his area, you won't find much in the press. But he has a reasonable profile as author, translator, and musician. Observe the search results Google Scholar and Google BooksVoceditenore (talk) 23:28, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
    Comment – I do appreciate your efforts in fixing the links. However, the first is a personal website of Mr. Collins and the second only thanks him briefly for research and never mentions him again. I’m sorry, though these websites allude to Mr. Collins talent, they do not prove Notabilty, other than to a select group of individual, which in and of itself does not bestow Notabilty, as the criteria here at Knowledge (XXG) calls for, with regards to Mr. Collins. ShoesssS 23:59, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
    Reply I wasn't basing the weak keep on the links in the current article. I was basing it on his published work and on others' citations of his published work as per the two Google searches above. But admittedly it's very borderline. Voceditenore (talk) 00:30, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
LOL , I have enough problems with English, just get by in my German and know enough French to be slapped. I am going to let my opinion stand. However, will be swayed by a good argument. ShoesssS 00:39, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete – This seems to be making three different, somewhat muddled claims to notability: as a musician, as an academic (musicologist), and as a translator. Clearly doesn't make the grade on the first, per WP:MUSIC nor on the second and third, as per WP:ACADEMIC. Nor does it seem any degree of article cleanup would change matters--the extremely small volume of published work is more indicative of an avocation than a profession. -- P L E A T H E R talk 15:13, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment On the whole, I think you're probably right. He has translated quite a few notable books on music, and a prolific number of liner notes for classical albums, e.g. these. But, I suppose it just shows he's good at his job. The publications under his own authorship are pretty thin on the ground and there doesn't seem to be anyone else who's written about him. Voceditenore (talk) 16:04, 25 June 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  21:44, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

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

Contested prod. Non-notable future film, fails WP:CRYSTAL. TN‑X-Man 11:42, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Scientizzle 16:02, 17 June 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.--Kubigula (talk) 04:26, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

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

Possibly non-notable entertainer. Google doesn't provide any proof of a claim to childhood stardom or current rising popularity. No assertion of published albums or references. 9Nak (talk) 15:51, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Scientizzle 16:02, 17 June 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. On the whole, the delete arguments are stronger and carry the consensus. Multiple editors searched to find sources to demonstrate notability, but no solid evidence emerged despite these efforts.--Kubigula (talk) 04:28, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

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

as per WP:BIO. Article seems to be written by the author about himself. No citations. gppande «talk» 15:56, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:38, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete – just not there yet, but getting close. I was able to find a few independent – verifiable – creditable – 3rd party sources about Mr. Sehgal, as shown here . Sorry to say, just not enough. Good luck to him and his company. I hope to see an article here in the not to distant future. ShoesssS 20:19, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep If there should be an article in the future, then that sounds to me like a "surmountable problem" and we should keep it. It's certainly not a bad article--not so bad that it should be deleted for harm anyway. I know that alone is not a reason to keep, but if experts close to the topic/subject area expect more, then just keep it.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:47, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Please read WP:BIO again. Just one or two internet citations are not enough to prove a person's notability to include in an encyclopedia. --gppande «talk» 07:30, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Please read WP:PROBLEM. An article that can be improved should be improved, not deleted. Oh, and WP:BIO states under basic criteria: "If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be needed to prove notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability." I'd argue that multiple means more than one, and two is more than one. I didn't say it was a good article, just that I'd rather see it improoved instead of deleted.--Paul McDonald (talk) 09:31, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree with you for the hinduforum.org link. Also look at the other external links too. They look like sheer advertisements and so do not qualify as credible sources to verify identity. Also the article does not have any citations for this bio. --gppande «talk» 07:12, 25 June 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. Don't let me forget to get it out of the navbox as well. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:50, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

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

Article lacks notability and contains original research. The article was prodded and the tag was removed by User:OldakQuill, so here it comes to AFD. Red Phoenix 15:49, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete The article fails WP:N (and WP:FICT etc, all the derivatives). Most of it violates WP:OR, WP:NOT#PLOT. It is duplicative of other articles on Sonic the Hedgehog characters and fictional universe (many of which are questionable themselves). Also, to clarify, the article was not only prodded but deleted (by an admin, after the prod was uncontested for 5+ days). The prod was 'contested' by restoring the article after deletion. The only reason the article has been around since 2004 (the reason for the contention, the restoring admin hasn't addressed any of the issues mentions mentioned above; hardly surprising, since it's impossible) is that the article is so ridiculously obscure as to pass unnoticed (there's been way less than 50 edits to it since that time). Bridies (talk) 16:07, 17 June 2008 (UTC) 16:07, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:39, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep combination articles of this sort are a good way of dealing with this type of characters, notable inthe aggregate but not individually. DGG (talk) 04:08, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Comment What characters? This article isn't even about a group of named characters. It's about a word used to describe the inhabitants of a fictional planet: Sonic Underground also depicts a Mobius inhabited principally by Mobians. Again, 'Mobians' are not notable 'in the aggregate'. Bridies (talk) 10:50, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per Fabrictramp. Character that aren't notable for a "List of minor character" should just not be here. JuJube (talk) 04:15, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete reference search showed up nothing to elevate this to an encyclopedia topic. Close to speedy for no context. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 14:32, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per above, and re-educate the kids who make this kind of stuff. There are wikis out there that try to make a comprehensive catalog of in-game-universe stuff. Knowledge (XXG) is not one of them. Our articles are meant to be written in a real-world context. Is there some project that can help with this? Seems like a recurring problem with video game stuff. Friday (talk) 14:38, 18 June 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 consensus. PeterSymonds (talk) 13:04, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

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

Contested prod. While a Myst will be notable if actually made (and the relevant info on that is already covered here), notability of the company at this time is not established. Majority of the references are primary sources, self-published or blogs - no major news coverage. Possible COI, as article creator's sole contributions have been to plug this company. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 21:23, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep - True, a large number of the references are primary, but there are a fair few secondary sources, some of which are fairly verifiable. Seems to me that notability has clearly been established (and this negates any COI problems - if the user in question has a COI, then appropriate action must be taken, but it's no reason to delete a notable article). TalkIslander 21:59, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Comment - while the third-party cites mention the "film" project, none of them actually mention the "Mysteria Film Group" - only the filmmakers and the film possibility. The references are borderline for an article on the film (and are used in the Myst (series) article), but the third-party references make no mention of the company, with the exception of Web Wire - and that is nothing more than the company's own press release. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 22:19, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Response - Not true: the 1up article mentions the company name in their interview. The Spokesman Review interview describes them as the "Mysteriacs", an alternate name for the company.
There are no conflicts of interest because I am not associated with MFG. I came across their web site just as other people have. I created my first Knowledge (XXG) article about them because there was no mention of their effort in the Myst franchise articles. I would love to create additional articles related to the Myst universe (e.g. Yeesha), but because it has been such a PITA to keep just one article alive I am reluctant to do anything further. So, please do not delete this article. Robert The Rebuilder (talk) 16:07, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
For the record, assuming that this is the same 'Robert the Rebuilder' that I know of from the MO:UL forums (and I'm guessing that his name is fairly unique...), I can confirm that there aren't any COIs - just a great deal of interest in all things URU :). Didn't look at the history before, hence didn't notice that it was RtR. TalkIslander 19:21, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Yep - it's me, Islander :-) Taking a break from age writing and trying my hand at article writing. Robert The Rebuilder (talk) 21:07, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheRealFennShysa (talk) 15:27, 17 June 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.  Sandstein  21:56, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Firearms in Miami Vice (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Excessive and unnecessary detail on a single element of a fictional series. The various guns used during the television series is not a notable element, nor something that needs to be its own stand alone article. At best, mention in the individual character articles where they are notable enough to have their own article. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 15:17, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

No, I'm not, I'm arguing for deletion. My response to DCG was to argue that if he felt those three sentences were relevant, they could be moved to another article. I personally don't think any of it needs to be kept. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 17:36, 17 June 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 and redirect to Miami Vice#DVD releases. Cenarium 01:14, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Miami Vice DVD releases (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unnotable DVD releases of the series. No significant coverage and excessive detail. Knowledge (XXG) is not a sales catalog. All pertinent information is already provided in the main article and the episode list -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 15:14, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

When I find them, I do, and most are deleted or merged. Knowledge (XXG) is not a sales catalog, and this page does nothing but list the contents of each DVD set, which is excessive detail and completely unnecessary. Its already covered in TWO other articles, as is appropriate by the guidelines set by the Television project. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:15, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Well here's two more then: Lost DVD releases and The Simpsons DVDs. El Greco 19:35, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
~sigh~ why not just stick to this AfD instead of being provoking? I'd suggest re-reading the AfD Wikietiquette guidelines, especially the "How to discuss an AfD" section. The claim of other similar articles is not a valid keep reason at all.
The Lost DVD is already in discussions (and consensus) for a merge back to the episode lists. This article is redundant and gives extremely undue weight to a very common element of a television series. There is nothing striking, notable, or unusual about the Miami Vice DVD releases that warrant such excessive and extensive coverage. Its already covered in the episode list and the main Miami Vice article.-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 20:24, 17 June 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, subject has been shown to meet WP:MUSIC criterion#2 (non-admin close). RMHED (talk) 19:53, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

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

Unknown rapper once worked for a band and is now about to release a single. Damiens.rf 15:13, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I put two billboard references on the page. Plus, his album with his group USDA debuted at number 4 on the billboard 200. ALSO, he has a page on Def Jam's website.Y5nthon5a (talk) 20:32, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
USDA have an article of their own. --Damiens.rf 16:29, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete without prejudice. The subject lacks reliable third party coverage, which prevents a reliable encyclopedia article to be written (at this time). JBsupreme (talk) 05:25, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Want a reason why it should be keeped? Because he has a single on billboard.com! Y5nthon5a (talk) 20:31, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure if you know this, but USDA is a rap group consisting of Young Jeezy, Slick Pulla, and Blood Raw.Y5nthon5a (talk) 08:03, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I noticed that. My point is that if his notability is so attached to USDA's, he shouldn't have an article of his own, but instead be mentioned on USAD's article. --Damiens.rf 15:26, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Read my comment at the end of this page I added a couple days ago. Y5nthon5a (talk) 18:17, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
  • May I ask why this is not closed yet? He has a charted Billboard song. He has a video that's been on BET. He has an album that is on the Billboards, with USDA and his own. He has a Def Jam website. What more is there to show?!Y5nthon5a (talk) 20:24, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Reluctant keep - subject is sufficiently notable, he is signed to a major label, is part of a notable group, and has achieved chart success. Reluctant, because I had to read the over-excited comment about blowing up the scene. PhilKnight (talk) 21:33, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
You know what I mean by 'blowing up' right? I didnt say blowing up the scene, I said he's blowing up ON the scene. He's getting famous is what I mean. And the reason I keep responding to people on here is because it makes me mad that even after just doing a tiny bit of research on google, you can find he's notable. As long as there is a decent amount of hits on google for what you make an article about on here, it can stay. Even before I had Blood Raw's billboards charts up there, that should've been referenced enough. You aren't supposed to AfD articles unless you did research and theres nothing to back it up.Y5nthon5a (talk) 09:37, 27 June 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. PhilKnight (talk) 21:36, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

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

Following precisely the same logic as to why the lonelygirl15 episode page was unnecessary, this page should probably be deleted as well.

As The Anome put it in that discussion: "This appears to have been created for the sole purpose of providing a directory of YouTube links. Not only is WP:NOT a web directory, but all the remaining information in this list is unsourced." - Shiori (talk) 15:12, 17 June 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. Bduke (talk) 11:12, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

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

No evidence of its own notability Laudak (talk) 15:03, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

yes I checked. Some references in local newspapers do not speak of musical notability, but you have rifgths to disagree Laudak (talk) 14:11, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Okay, thanks for clarifying. I would recommend that when you nominate an article for deletion that you mention what you did or did not find when searching for sources. Paul Erik 14:43, 20 June 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  21:55, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Popular 3D Techniques (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

WP is not a how-to or networking site. Is there a speedy cat that fits this? ukexpat (talk) 14:58, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Move This article is structured to move to a how-to. Even if how-tos were part of wikipedia's mission, which they are not, this topic could not be suitably handled in anything less than a full scale wikibook. I propose Move to Wikibooks and allow the subject to recieve full treatment there. Personally, for many topics, I think this would be a good resolution for a lot of discussions or article sections that are too in depth. HatlessAtless (talk) 15:14, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete or move. Perhaps I'm unsure about the mission of Wikibooks, but how does this fit into it? I would think this sort of thing more suitable to wikiHow (and yeah, I'm aware that that's not part of Knowledge (XXG)). Ford MF (talk) 15:41, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
This could rapidly morph into a pretty good treatise on the state of the art of 3d rendering. However, WikiHow might also work. HatlessAtless (talk) 19:51, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete - advertisement for non-notable website project; has been speedied before on this basis. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:46, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - the article is incomplete; the article only includes a few tips that make no logical sense; there are no sources or references whatsoever; there is no such experiment on the internet according to a Google search for 'popular 3d techniques'. In short, this article meets almost none of the criteria articles on Knowledge (XXG) have to meet, and therefore in my opinion should be deleted. gm_matthew (talk) 17:24, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom we are not a how-to guide. Sorry, there is not a speedy cat for this. coccyx bloccyx(toccyx) 18:06, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete as a how to. Anyone considering transwiking this might want to clear it with the target wiki first; it isn't vary useful as a how to. --Phirazo 01:11, 19 June 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. Article remains significantly undersourced by WP:V/WP:RS despite efforts by AfD participants to find sources. Pigman☿ 16:54, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Asian Tiger Capital Partners (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The article itself has improved substantially over the previously deleted version, but it still fails WP:NOTE. Their are two web references given about the company, and . Both sound like press releases to me, but IMHO fail to estabilsh noteability. The remaining links in the article are about the economic growth of Bangladesh, written by the managing director of the company, but not about the company. Amalthea (talk) 14:48, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment. But this is really not a huge amount of money. There are no cites to say this will have a big impact. It is only the company claiming this. does the money even exist?Yobmod (talk) 09:57, 26 June 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  21:42, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

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

A nonnotable expression with no reliable sources to define suffdicient encyclopedic content. May be used in numerous contexts. At best, to be moved to wiktionary Laudak (talk) 14:45, 17 June 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 per WP:HEY. Topic is the subject of a biography and has coverage in third party sources. Non-admin closure by Skomorokh 19:43, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Ethiraj V L (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete as per WP:BIO, no cite. gppande «talk» 14:38, 17 June 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 by nominator. The overwhelming concensus was to keep, and valid references have been added to the article since nomination (non-admin close). Hellno2 (talk) 16:43, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Burloak Canoe Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable local club. Article states clubs accomplishments, but has zero references, just a single external link to the club's own site. Hellno2 (talk) 13:46, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment: "Several notable members," without proper references, or any references for that matter, is not a free pass to notability. Even if JFK or Winston Churchill were members of a club, if an article about it was written like this one is, that would still not be grounds for keeping it. Hellno2 (talk) 01:37, 18 June 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 deletion. enochlau (talk) 13:11, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

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

Procedural nomination following speedy and hang-on request. Article is argued to fail on the basis that is an article about a company, corporation, organization, or group that does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject. --VS 12:47, 17 June 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. Bduke (talk) 10:43, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

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

Article tagged for speedy and contested - reason = an article about a real person that does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject. Procedural nomination but rticle does not appear to meet notability guidelines at this time. --VS 12:24, 17 June 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 (non-admin close) RMHED (talk) 21:25, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

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

non notable band - no hits on google, no significant releases Roger Blitzen (talk) 12:13, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete - fails WP:BAND. Mostly self-released albums with little media coverage. D0762 (talk) 15:57, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:45, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete fails notability per WP:BAND.  Esradekan Gibb  01:11, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep two notable members (Richard Youngs and Neil Campbell), plus assertion of importance within improv scene by music magazine The Wire. Borderline yes, but just this side of it. Totnesmartin (talk) 10:04, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment A mention in an article in the wire doesn't fall under "multiple non-trivial published works". Also, just a comment - correct me if I'm wrong, but Totnesmartin, are you a member of the A Band? If this is the case, then perhaps Knowledge (XXG):COI is relevant here?Roger Blitzen (talk) 12:56, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - actually Simon Wickham-Smith played with them as well and Phil Todd of Ashtray Navigations has played with the reformed edition...I created the article as it was the place where more than one known and significant figure in current experimental music was a regular participant (their LP on Siltbreeze features both) and it didn't belong as such in either Campbell or Youngs' piece - neither was the founder but both appear on several releases with both also curating archive releases for different labels. It is significant to both musicians but does not belong solely in the piece for one or the other - WP:MUSIC does allow for the inclusion of early projects by latterly notable artists but suggests redirects; this feature can't be correctly redirected to either. Google isn't going to give you anything useful here because of their name; any unit that has ever been described as "a band" will come up as well so citing Google is a bit disingenous (there are certainly not "no" Google hits - adding any other reasonable search term proves that). There are other articles and mentions out there which could be added but my experience tells me that there's no point in doing that now (I retired from AfD some time ago). I have corresponded with Totnesmartin and he has told me he is not a member of A Band now or ever was in their first incarnation - even so, he didn't start the piece, I did. If this goes the way of anything else even remotely non-commercial, I would suggest a redirect to Campbell and would ask that the content be copied to my userpage for integration. Ac@osr (talk) 17:54, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep I think that the fact that searching Google for 'A Band' doesn't count in this case, since the terms 'a' and 'band' are commonplace, and even the phrase "a band" is going to be on a number of more popular sites before any hits are shown for this band, especially since they're not exactly headliners. Regardless of this, this point is a moot reason for deletion, since Googling for more specific terms actually brings up pages that mention the actual band in question: Google search results. Rohaq (talk) 18:59, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Notable members, past and present, meets WP:BAND criteria #6. The mention in The Wire is non-trivial, too. sparkl!sm 20:54, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment The top 6 google hits are blogs and myspage pages, and then it starts to refer to a brass band with the same name. However, if it passes the notable members section, I guess it may pass. Although it is worth taking into account the rest of #6 on WP: BAND, ie: note that it is often most appropriate to use redirects in place of articles on side projects, early bands and such, and that commonsense exceptions always apply. Roger Blitzen (talk) 10:32, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - Roger, I did address the matter of redirects in my response - if it naturally belonged with either Youngs or Campbell, then I would have set it up accordingly but A Band is in the unusual position of having been a starting point for more than one person whose paths have become notable of their own merit (as well as being a genuinly interesting creation of its own, although interesting and notable are not the same - to its occasional detriment, Knowledge (XXG) is not designed to be interesting). Obviously, as the originator, I say Keep but I'm not sure of votes by people who actually create the articles are considered valid - in my active days on AfD, there didn't appear to be a cogent policy. One way or the other, I feel that we have established that the piece is not in violation of WP:MUSIC. Ac@osr (talk) 16:55, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
  • You can't redirect a title to 2 articles, can you? Two notable members, mention in music magazine, apparently influential. I think that justifies a keep. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rdbrewster (talk • contribs) 08:47, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - The mention in wire asserts not only notability, but also importance. 78.86.18.55 (talk) 18:20, 24 June 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 --JForget 23:40, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

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

This is a trivial little Psychology stub of no scientific value, bordering on nonsense, which is better placed on Uncyclopedia Anonymaus (talk) 12:07, 17 June 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. The community discussion concluded that the subject does not currently fulfill Knowledge (XXG)'s inclusion criteria with respect to notability.  Sandstein  21:53, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

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

Contested speedy - originally marked as not showing the significance of the subject. I am posting to AfD as a part of process but offer no personal opinion on the article at this time. --VS 12:03, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


when i just logged in, i was met with "I have nominated Lars Ro, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Knowledge (XXG)'s criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Lars Ro."

so here i come to Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Lars Ro, and what is yr explanation? that it was "originally marked as not showing the significance of the subject." as i wrote on the talk page, how exactly do you want me to indicate the importance or significance? starting the longest-running peace demonstration in Danish history isn't IMPORTANT? isn't SIGNIFICANT?

then you write that you are posting this "as a part of process" despite the fact that you have "no personal opinion"? first of all, can you please explain to me how...

1. Person X seeing page Y questions its significance.
2. Person X decides to speedily delete it.
3. The maker of page Y begs to differ.

4. Person Z decides to non-speedily delete it.

...fulfills Knowledge (XXG) process?!? am i seriously missing something here? the guidelines here say "Editing - If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion." aha! can this page be improved? (or merged? or is it better suited for one of the Wikimedia sister projects?) my guess would be, that if you "offer no personal opinion on the article at this time," that precludes you having a STRONG sense that we might as well give up hope for this page because there's no way in hell it could be improved - OUT with it. it sounds to me like you don't really have a sense of whether this page merits inclusion in Knowledge (XXG) or not. you just noticed that it was "originally marked" as blah blah blah, so you might as well just tow the line for towing the line's sake.  :( Larsro (talk) 12:44, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment. Kind of. VirtualSteve's actions seem reasonable to me. The page was nominated for speedy deletion, which was contested by adding the hangon tag. VirtualSteve appears to have noticed that there was disagreement, and therefore he removed the speedy deletion tags (which he did not have to do) and sent the article here where the matter can be discussed by a number of editors, instead of leaving the issue to a single administrator. Your article actually will get a wider hearing here than it would via the speedy deletion process. As to whether the article belongs or not, I will have to take the time to read your sources. If you have reliable independent sources that show notability, your article will survive. I will say that at first blush, article may be OK - as I said, the sources will determine that - but the associated band and record label articles you created probably will fail our guidelines (and I see that they have speedy deletion tags as well). As a general note, your username makes it seem that you have a conflict of interest in these articles. This will often draw other's attention, and lead to requests for speedy deletion. Xymmax So let it be done 12:50, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
    Comment. i see. well, then VirtualSteve, thanks for removing the speedy deletion tags. i'm glad this article at least was sent to a place where it could be discussed, instead of some book-burning, autocratic, power-tripper deleting subject matter that they have no interest in. why? for kicks? the user who nominated virtually every page i have had anything to do with for speedy deletion is into horror flicks, mass murderers, and TV-shows! so what is it their business to be tagging articles for rapid destruction which have NOTHING to do with his or her interests? it seems to me that you have some serious design flaws here at Knowledge (XXG)...
    oh, yr up for taking the time to read my sources? wow!!! i'm glad to hear that happens here, and that not all users are impatient, instant book-burning addicts. i SINCERELY hope that yr right: "If you have reliable independent sources that show notability, your article will survive." insh'Allah!!! as for the other band and record label articles i've contributed to, i think it's already too late. speedily deleted... (shaking my head...) re: conflict of interest, as i mentioned on the talk page, i have written this page as neutrally as i possibly can. what more can i do? you administrators & Wikiheads are MORE THAN WELCOME to consult the sources, do your own research, and rewrite it from a drier, more 'objective' perspective. be my guest!!! this whole "ah, balanced reporting takes time & energy. show me to the speed delete button" i can't say i have much respect for. Larsro (talk) 13:58, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
    Lasro - firstly with respect you should read our conflict of interest guidelines. Secondly you should come to the editors talk page if you want to ask these questions as they would be better suited there. Thirdly you should go the history of the page and note that I did not speedy the article (as you note) but rather as the administrator faced with a speedy request; and you, an obvious editor who had a conflict of interest, and who had placed a hang-on request, I chose to give the article a chance at the debate which we call Articles for Deletion. That is why I removed the speedy and hang-on tags - indeed if I did not another administrator could have still speedily deleted the article. My moving it as a part of the process in this case gives you a period of about 5 or so days to improve the article, show us that there is no conflict of interest (which will probably be hard for you to do). You should also note that by using the words Procedural Nomination and having no personal opinion I am in fact also doing the article the courtesy of not giving it its first delete nomination. Finally you should probably read about how important it is to assume good faith rather than rant about a page being able to be improved - as I have no difficulty with the concept of a page being improved but I do have some difficulty with a page which appears at first glance to be a vanity page written by the subject of the article.--VS 13:00, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
    sure, i'll read them. as i wrote to CyberGhostface on the talk page, i was invited to "* Start the... article or add a request for it." it didn't say "WARNING! WARNING! THIS APPLIES TO EVERYONE BUT YOU! IF THIS PAGE REFERS TO YOU PERSONALLY, DON'T TOUCH IT WITH A 10 FOOT STICK!" it said i could start the page, and i started it. if you are SO concerned about the monstrous possibility that someone might write something that refers to themself, might have a - hold on to yr seats, folks - conflict... of... interest... - why don't you suggest that something about WP:AUTO and/or WP:COI be clearly written on "Knowledge (XXG) does not have an article with this exact name" pages? that would help avoid problems, wouldn't it?
    i tried searching for 'editors talk page' without success - i don't know what yr referring to. i repeat myself: VirtualSteve, thanks for removing the speedy deletion tags. thanks for giving it a chance at debate. thanks for not giving it a delete nomination. the way i see it, if yr 1st glance is that a page is more about vanity than substance, why not react in a way which calls into question the more vanity-ish elements to leave what is of substance intact? i really don't understand this impulsion to throw the baby out with the bathwater and just speedily delete knowledge instead of patiently whittling it down...Larsro (talk) 14:18, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
    I'm afraid your 10 Foot stick idea is the start of a slipery slope that ends with the page including the entirity of WP policies and guidelines, which would be overlong and unreadable. However, once you do click the "start the article" link, what it does include, is (as the first line) "Before creating an article, please read Knowledge (XXG):Your first article" in that suggested article, it does state as the first entry in a list of "Things to avoid", "Articles about yourself, your friends, your website, a band you're in, your teacher, a word you made up, or a story you wrote". We don't mean to judge you for overlooking it. This AfD is merely the process to resolve such mistakes. -Verdatum (talk) 16:27, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Vanity page written by the subject. I'm also the one who had speedied it before.--CyberGhostface (talk) 13:21, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
    yeah, CyberGhostface, yr the one who had speedied it before. feeling like you have done a sevice to humanity now? why not write yr observations on the page about how to improve it instead of rallying for quick destruction? oh, and that was you who speedied Sfu-ma-to, which has now been deleted. hmmm. was that you who got Purr_Mama_Resistor deleted too? and Purderous_Magina_Records? go team... Larsro (talk) 15:12, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
    Comment - Larsro, Knowledge (XXG) works by building consensus. One person cannot cause an article to be deleted. If articles have been deleted, it will be because consensus was reached that they should be deleted. If you feel that you are being "singled out" in some way, take a step back and look at the articles you create; they will have been removed because they broke one or more of the rules. Now this doesn't necessarily mean that the subject of these articles will NEVER be permitted on Knowledge (XXG), just that the articles as they stood were not. Have a look at WP:YFA (particularly the Things to avoid section) as well as WP:NOT, WP:CITE and WP:ACM, then see if you can craft an article that follows these rules (try creating the article as a subpage of your user space (such as User:Larsro\Purr Mama Resistor for example) then asking an Administrator, or other editor to review it. They will then be able to suggest ways to improve the article, or point out areas that may breach the rules.) Good luck. -- JediLofty 16:43, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
    i would like to challenge the holy cow of Knowledge (XXG) being a phenomenon which works by consensus. one person can apparently, devoid of any apparent interest in the subject matter, flag an article for speedy deletion. according to the Criteria for speedy deletion,
    there are "limited cases where administrators may delete Knowledge (XXG) pages or media without discussion." where's the consensus in doing that? furthermore, "in most cases reasonable editors will agree what does and does not meet a given criterion. Where reasonable doubt exists, discussion using another method under the deletion policy should occur instead." so 'reasonable doubt' is left up to the individual. not very democratic or consensus-oriented, is it? "Before nominating an article for speedy deletion, consider whether it could be improved, reduced to a stub, merged or redirected elsewhere or be handled with some other action short of deletion. If this is possible, speedy deletion is probably inappropriate." hmmm. CyberGhostface, did you spend many milliseconds considering whether the articles i had contributed to could be improved, stubbed, merged, redirected, or handled with some other action? pray tell. i do feel i was singled out & witch-hunted. someone notices that one page was edited frequently, sees reason to question its autobioraphical-ness or inherent conflict of interest, and then decides to nominate all the pages i initiated or contributed to, for speedy deletion. if i hypothetically ran Knowledge (XXG), if an article seemed to break one or more significant rules, i would explore how it could be modified so as to respect those rules. i wouldn't get an itchy trigger finger & think "aha! here's a chance to be inconsiderate & shut some pages DOWN. NOW."
  • Delete. I've taken the time to read all the sources (forced to use Google to translate I'm afraid), and I just don't see the notability. The Geiger.dk review of Sfu-ma-to is probably the best of the bunch, since it at least appears to be independent. Of the others, you have a couple of pages promoting FredsVagt ved Christiansborg, but they do not appear to be third party reliable sources, you have a press release, a article about your grandfather, and a review you wrote. You've done some interesting things, and clearly had some success as a performer, but I'm afraid I don't think you meet WP's guidelines. What I looked for and failed to find, but would help you out, is if Sfu-ma-to (or really any of your bands) had charted a song on any national chart. I looked for Denmark, but couldn't find anything. If so, the group would meet our music guidelines and you could at least recreate that article and include some of this information there. I'm afraid that's the only path to notability (for our purposes) I see at this time. Good luck to you. Xymmax So let it be done 13:38, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
    thanks for yr time. re: notability, starting the longest-running peace demonstration in Danish history isn't IMPORTANT? isn't SIGNIFICANT? trust me, if you were from Danmark, you would see things differently. FredsVagt Christiansborg has become an integral nexus of modern Danish culture. i would be willing to bet a substantial amount of money that, within the Danish context, Danish wiki-heads wouldn't be scratching their heads about whether there was sufficient notability or not. maybe that's a possible solution, to put this page up within the Danish wikisite? (not that the thought of meticulously translating the whole thing brings me much joy... arrgh...) i'm not arguing for inclusion here on the basis of "interesting things," or modest "success as a performer." i'm arguing it on the basis of having co-started the longest-running peace demonstration in Danish history, in fact, being FredsVagt #1, the first one who sat down & got the ball rolling 6 and a half years ago. i will do my best to get Danes in Danmark at the moment to scan in some of the first newspaper articles about FredsVagt, how is that? cheers! 18:18, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Article really doesn't assert any kind of notability. The fact that it was intially autobiographical doesn't bother me, as the article seems pretty NPOV, but, despite being fairly well written, it just doesn't seem like a notable subject.-- JediLofty 13:48, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
    here we go again. how (co-)starting the longest-running, permanent peace demonstration in Danish history can be interpreted as not asserting any kind of notability is beyond me.
  • Delete. No indication of real notability. Some vague connections to other things that may be notable, but if they are they should have articles and not this person. The subject/creator heaping abuse on people deemed not helpful. --Dhartung | Talk 17:35, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
    and here we go again again. if you have a suggestion as to how to best create an article or articles with maximum notability, shoot! i apologize if my responses come across as me "heaping abuse on people." that wasn't my intention. i (and i get the sense that i am far from the first Knowledge (XXG) contributor to experience this) am particularly frustrated at these reductive, eliminative, stress-inducing, "speedy deletion" style ways of decreasing the potential to share information here on the site. it seems quite counter-intuitive to me, and as something which runs directly contrary to the basic principals upon which Knowledge (XXG) was founded (according to my admittedly novice-at-best sense of what these basic principals are. Larsro (talk) 22:20, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete It's not a question of how to create an article, its a question that the accomplishments, though interesting, do not appear to have reached the level of getting sufficient 3rd party published notice to be appropriate in what is, after all, an encyclopedia. DGG (talk) 04:12, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - FredsVagten may be notable, but notability is not inherited. The cofounder of a notable event is not inherently notable. He instead requires evidence of (from WP:Notability) "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject" to establish notability. I can find no reason to believe that such coverage exists. Also, much of the content appears to violate WP:BLP. -Verdatum (talk) 16:39, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep From my POV Knowledge (XXG) should not only pass common knowledge. I am danish and assure you that Fredsvagten refers to Lars Ro as the very first activist honoured if you ask them. Without his efforts it would not have been. But his name is not known in the danish publicity, because of the way media is functioning; always reshouting what the spindoctors have already told us is important. Knowledge (XXG) can join this chorus of singing the tribute to the Emperor of his new clothes and the glory of war. Or Knowledge (XXG) can give room for a slightly alternative view of what is important, ie peace and sustainable humanity. So in Denmark there is an interest in the question: Who is Lars Ro.--130.226.71.190 (talk) 14:19, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
    Comment Your assertion that in Denmark there is an interest in the question: Who is Lars Ro leads me to suggest that maybe the Danish Knowledge (XXG) would be a better place for the article? It certainly appears that most editors who have contributed to this discussion are in agreement that the subject is not notable enough for the English Knowledge (XXG). -- JediLofty Talk 14:57, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment AnonIP, if what you say is true, and someone creates an English translation of the Danish FredVagten article, I would be willing to change my vote from delete to redirect to FredVagten. -Verdatum (talk) 16:37, 19 June 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, consensus is that the article fails the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 20:38, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

The Association of Policy Market Makers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

UK trade association of doubtful notability. Top hits on a Google News search seemed to be either passing mentions or publicity material. Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 12:00, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment by nom: I didn't think of it at the time, but one alternative to deleting this is to WP:merge with Endowment selling. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 12:10, 17 June 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, consensus is that the article fails the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 20:36, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Retro Horror Remix (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article was listed for speedy as a db-band (incorrectly) and author contested. However article does not appear to meet the notability guidelines and is probably nothing more than an advertising page. --VS 11:56, 17 June 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 to keep.  Sandstein  21:49, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Battle of Nuremberg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I am highly suspicious that this match deserves its own article since it is well covered in the group article already. Besides, even Zidane incident that happened in the final match of the tournament is included in the Zidane article. Tone 11:21, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

could be merged in valentin ivanovs page. The game itselve was not as noteworthy as the referee. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.125.130.12 (talk) 12:27, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Tournament finals are usually deemed notable. I don't really see this English-speaking bias, especially if you can see articles about the Battle of Santiago, Italy-Germany 4-3 and Poland v Hungary (1939). These articles, none of the being a football final, are notable because of their impact in footballing history. Is there some footballing history impact in this self-declared "battle of Nuremberg"? I don't think so. We deleted some time ago an article about a Premiership match which ended in a 7-4 result for a similar reason. A mention on 2006 FIFA World Cup is way enough. --Angelo (talk) 08:17, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
    Yes, there is a substantial "footballing history impact" in that the match holds a record of sorts, see above. And I certainly don't see the label "Battle of Nuremberg" as "self-declared". As with other such "battles" it was actually coined by journalists covering the event. --Ghirla 08:37, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
  • The 7-4 Premiership match I mentioned above was a record itself, but it was deleted after discussion. Otherwise, we should make an article for every single match where a potential "record" was established, starting from Austria vs Poland in the Euro 2008 (match with the oldest scorer in competition's history). And, personally, I don't think it's a good idea. --Angelo (talk) 08:50, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
    Being the oldest scorer does not make the match notable, but the person who scored. So there's really no comparison here. A national champtionship record and a sportwide record imply very different levels of notability. It's a pity (and a mark of systemic bias) that folks fail to see the difference. --Ghirla 09:33, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Again, nobody is disputing the fact that the match has certain notability. The question here is whether it is enough for a separate article or coverage in the cover article is enough. --Tone 11:54, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
If the article is kept, it certainly needs to be renamed. Battle of Nuremberg suggests a "a conceptual component in the hierarchy of combat in warfare between two or more armed forces" (from the Battle article) rather than a match between some hot-headed footballers. -- JediLofty Talk 12:00, 19 June 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. Carioca (talk) 00:14, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Andrew W Kelly (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Is this person notable? I can't see how he passes WP:BIO Xorkl000 (talk) 10:50, 17 June 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 Nominator requested close. Nick Dowling (talk) 09:56, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Cuban intervention in Angola (1975-1991) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The article was intentionally created as a POV Fork of the following established articles after the author was unable to reach consensus with other editors over his edits to those articles:

Consequently, this article is highly POV, as is evident from the extensive use of Gleijeses as a primary reference. There is also strong evidence of article ownership here as the creator has tried to maintain his non-neutral POV as well as prevent merging of content into existing articles. The Cuban view is perhaps under-represented in some of the other articles, however a consensus-dodging content fork is not the way to deal with this. Socrates2008 (Talk) 10:31, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment I agree.  Atyndall93 | talk  12:19, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Some examples of attempted POV fixes by other editors: At a higher level, this article departs from consensus in other more established articles such as Battle of Cuito Cuanavale (where the result is "Victory claimed by both sides") vs the result here (emphatic Cuban victory, release of Mandela, Namibian independence, end of Apartheid - all attributed to Cuba). Socrates2008 (Talk) 12:34, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. The current title seems to be a good title for a military event that seems fairly obviously worthy of an article. While I appreciate Socrates2008's concerns here, I'm not yet convinced that any of the other articles mentioned covers exactly the same subject. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:08, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. The Cuban involvement in Angola is 100% directly related to, and took place during, the Angolan Civil War. As an example; we have an article about the Vietnam War, in which of course the US played a crucial role, but there is no need for an article like the "US intevention in Vietnam" since their role is already coverd in the main article about the war. 13dble (talk)
coment. anyone deciding on this issue should go through the discussion page of the disputed article from the very beginning. i suggest they also have a look at the contributions of the very few people, mainly three or four at the most, who have been strongly opposing this article. this will give them an idea why they vehemently oppose this contribution. besides, an article "us intervention in vietnam" is indeed worth thinking about because it could shed light on issues never mentioned in the vietnam war article.Sundar1 (talk) 18:36, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Comment Please note that this AfD primarily concerns the content fork over the Angolan Civil War and related articles created by Sundar1 i.e. contrary to the comment above, no-one is opposed to him making contributions in the appropriate articles. However the guidelines for Knowledge (XXG) are clear - we move forward by consensus, not by starting new articles with a different POV. Socrates2008 (Talk) 22:44, 17 June 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 all Cenarium 01:18, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Ez math (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Carlos C. Estrella (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
EZ Math Learning Center (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Carlos C. Estrella, Ez math and EZ Math Learning Center all fail WP:NOTE, author hasn't added any independent sources yet and I couldn't find any myself. Amalthea (talk) 09:46, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I would like to inform you that I won't be able to provide you with Verifiable Sources about my math system. I was featured twice in Rated-K, a Sunday TV program in Channel 2, Manila Philippines. Rated-K is kind enough to provide me a personal copy of the interview but I signed an agreement with them that I can't use the video tape for commercial purposes without their permission except for personal use. I can upload to you the taped interview if that will verify my existence. I have registered the eZ Math Learning Center in the Department of Trade and Industries here in Makati City Philippines.
If you are looking for web links to independent press articles about this method, as of this moment I regret to inform you that I will be unable to provide you with any web links to independent press articles about my math system.
I just started my tutorial center in Pasig City, Philippines. I have taught more than 500 students and it is still growing. That is also the reason why ::I was featured because I am slowly gaining popularity compared with other math methods available in Manila, Philippines.
I can also send you pictures with my students who won the Battle of the Brains contest and the certificate that I have the copyright for the same title. ::I have also students who can subtract in billion digit very fast. I have also a letter from a parent who express her satisfaction about her daughter's improved performance especially in math subject.
I am still studying on how to set-up a website properly for eZ Math but as of this moment, I am partially successful. You can check my partially completed websites at http://www.geocities.com/ez.math and at www.ezmathlive.com.
At http://www.geocities.com/ez.math, I was able to upload a picture of my daughter Nicole Ann Louise Estrella during the interview with ABS-CBN reporter. I am also new to this type of "publishing in website" since I am a technical person.
You can also check my friendster address at ez.math@yahoo.com. Kindly follow this link: http://profiles.friendster.com/31287227 to view my friendter page. To view about my daughter's television interview with channel 2, kindly follow this link: http://www.friendster.com/photos/31287227/0/486052923 and http://www.friendster.com/photos/31287227/1/621549224.
This friendster address acts as a forum for my students to send me any messages they wish to express. It also acts as a way to communicate to each other personally. You can also see my pictures with my students, my interview and my student's comments.
Other than those I have stated, I will be unable to provide you with any web links to independent press articles about my math system.
I hope my explanations will be enough to merit me an article. This will be my first time to produce an article about a math system which I truly love to teach.
I can prove to you that indeed my math system is very easy and it exist if you will only allow me to show you my system. I am an Engineering graduate from the Mapua Institute of Technology but I shift my career to teaching because I saw that I can help students appreciate and love math through my system. I also envisioned that someday I can contribute changing the world through eZ Math, my own math system.
If you will allow me to improve my article, I will try to improve them except the web links you requested me to provide you. I may also ask you for an assistance e.g. tips on how to improve notability of my articles.
If you will be unable to process my concern and you still decided to delete my articles about eZ Math, its okey. I just pray that when the time comes that I will be again featured in any Manila based press article, I pray that you will allow me to be included in the Knowledge (XXG).
I really appreciate your time writing to me and giving me an opportunity to express my thoughts.
For further inquiries, you can also send me a reply at my email: ez.math@yahoo.com
Again, thank you for your time and understanding.
Sincerely,
Carlos C. Estrella
eZ Math system founder, a Math teacher
Amalthea (talk) 11:01, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete I'm sorry but we cannot include your articles here in Knowledge (XXG) if there are no multiple, independent and reliable sources that talks about you or your learning center. Rated K is a reliable Philippine program. However, I think that it is not enough to confer notability as we require multiple sources to establish notability. I suggest that you create an article in WikiPilipinas instead as they focus on everything Filipino. I don't know if they changed their notability standards lately but I think they're more lenient compared to Knowledge (XXG).--Lenticel 11:27, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete The system may have featured on Rated K but google news turns up no results, i'd check news.google.com.ph (G News Ph edition), but it doesn't exist yet, so without anything but the TV show to go by, I cannot conclude that Ez math meets ].  Atyndall93 | talk  12:26, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete Per the author's assertion that reliable sources will not be provided, unless independednt sources are provided, this is nothing but blatant advertising. At best this article should be changed to a redirect to the mental arithmetic article. HatlessAtless (talk) 15:13, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not enough to assert notablity, but congrats for being featured on Rated K. Starczamora (talk) 19:07, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete This is not an article about Ez math. It's about telling people just enough about Ez math to make them want to pay money in order to find out more about Ez math, or, put another way, an advertisement. I don't expect that Dr. Estrella would want to reveal the secret of something upon which he depends for making a living, so unless he is prepared to let another editor do just that, it's best that he let this go. Mandsford (talk) 00:31, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete all three articles. Not notable enough, at least even in the Philippines. And more importantly for me, knowing that it was Rated K who ---I have issues with Rated K showing segments which directly or indirectly featuring their advertisers (it once ran a feature about tongkat ali and how it fared better than other sex enhancers and, among others, interviewed an employee of a tongkat ali manufacturer whose advertisement ran immediately after that segment ended). Ez math was featured in Rated K because their staff "discovered" it and decided to run a "news" segment about it? I don't think so. --- Tito Pao (talk) 04:36, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Author's Comments: See Knowledge (XXG) talk:Articles for deletion/Ez math. --Amalthea (talk) 08:57, 19 June 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 nancy 18:46, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Enterprise: Temporal Cold War (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

There are three issues: WP:Crystal, WP:Notability and WP:Verifiability. The linked Modcast doesn't seem to mention TCW at all (being music from start to finish), leaving HailingFrequency as the only independent source presented. Marasmusine (talk) 09:09, 17 June 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. PhilKnight (talk) 21:56, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

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

This article was previously created by user:Gary WebTrain on this title and as WebTrain Communications. In both cases it was speedily deleted as spam. Gary has now persuaded another user to post it using the same text. Is the company and product notable? — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 10:37, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Whoa - I did not ask anyone to recreate the article. I do not know the person who did this. I was using my user page to get the content ready, once it was ready, I was going to confirm with Wiki admins BEFORE attempting to post. Gary WebTrain (talk) 23:54, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
It was user Micov (talk · contribs) who re-created it. — Athaenara ✉ 00:37, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Gary WebTrain (talk • contribs) 23:45, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Perhaps I jumped the gun, when I created the first article and it was speed deleted, it was blatant. No so much with the second, and the one that was reposted by someone else was a complete rewrite that is NPOV based. But I did not expect it to be posted, I was waiting until I had better references such as the links above.
Can someone PLEASE let me know which links above (non of which we host or created or had any influence and are on Google) are OK for references ? Note most are from .edu or govt sites. Thanks in advance Gary WebTrain (talk) 04:14, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
It's fine to have a discussion of references within an AfD debate. The list you provide includes no newspapers, magazines, or edited web sites that have a paid reporting staff, such as cnet.com or ziffdavis.com. You've offered us the web sites of individual firms or schools that have adopted your software, and you provide an award notice (in a government-hosted PDF file at bctia.org) that shows you received recognition in British Columbia. The WebTrain article links to a review of WebTrain at masternewmedia.org that is hard to evaluate; it appears to be a self-published personal site. How does your product compare to other products? Who are your competitors? Have any mainstream publications reviewed the product? You are not the first to think of doing conferences or training over the web. EdJohnston (talk) 17:15, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Ed, I've improved the links, the link (now) shows the product review was performed by a 3rd party web conferencing expert that performs reviews on all major products. Thanks for your feedback on that, it will help others to not conclude the same. GaryECampbell (talk)
Hi Ed. The masternewmedia.org site is not a self published site, we had no involvment in the review. The masternewmedia.org site documents most of the web conferencing platforms, it is an independent review site. I agree, we were not the first, but most certainly, not recent, we've been doing this for 7 years now, way ahead of Adobe, WebHuddle and many others. Note I changed my username as per Wikipedian comments. The subpage is fine, and note I did not know the article was posted at WebTrain, an admin?? did this on their own accord. Note that I was informed to add an impact section - See the new content at User:GaryECampbell/Sandbox, impact citactions will be available shortly. I will follow your advice regarding 3rd party paid reporting - newspapers, cnet, ziffdavis. If you can suggest any more it would be much appreciated. I intend to have the article ready for review by July 15th (if that's ok with everyone). :) Oops, I forgot to mention, should I create the new content at User: GaryECampbell/Sandbox or at WebTrain ?? GaryECampbell (talk) 20:17, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Note the improved content, better references, the review reference link shows it is clearly a 3rd party review. In comparison to other web conferencing vendors, this article is currently more compliant to Wiki policies than other web conferencing vendors who do not state references, display lists of their features, etc. This exercise is showing that the system works, the WebTrain article is getting better. BTW, I've submitted requests to 3rd party news / reporting organizations as suggested, I also have citations from notables pending. GaryECampbell (talk) 04:12, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
I suggest that you continue working on the article in your Sandbox, but post your changes in the WebTrain article until the AfD is over. Even if the AfD closes with Delete, you may still be able to get the material reconsidered when you finally finish it. I'm still not sure you understand what Knowledge (XXG) means by reliable sources. The proprietor of http://www.masternewmedia.org speaks only with his own authority as an individual, and he maintains what we call a self-published site. EdJohnston (talk) 04:29, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Being in this space for over 8 years, I believe the proprietor of http://www.masternewmedia.org (Robin Good) is in fact an expert. The articles are unsolicted, his group digs deep to review all contenders. Whereas magazines such as PCMAG, CNET, etc have an application process and decide who to publish, Robin gives organizations an equal chance, regardless of their power and influence. His team just just digs them up and provides an very very detailed analysis, complete with screen shots of all features. The site is the most prominant reviewer on the net for web conferencing. Not all he states is favorable either. Note he sells reviews to organizations that need the complete details and comparisons, but that does not make the articels biased, more so, the content must be valid and represent true 3rd party opinions in order to be marketable. The site does more than web conferencing reviews, it's pretty deep into reviewing RSS technology and Telecom articles as well. GaryECampbell (talk) 07:25, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Recent Changes

Since the article is AfD, I posted information here to ensure everyone participating in the AfD reads it. See User:GaryECampbell/Sandbox for current proposed content as the WebTrain article is outdated. Should the article at WebTrain be updated? I've received one yes and one no from admins so I am unsure.

See User_talk:GaryECampbell for efforts todate and my Barnstar of Diligence award! The Minister of Economic Development for British Columbia (Colin Hansen), various universities and government site references - these sources would be considered reliable? BNET Business Network and PC Magazine references are 3rd party? The PC Magazine reference compares a small private Canadian company to the $Billion dollar WebEx public company as a contender. This is notable. It also reflects how early the organization was in the web conferencing space from a historical perspective. Added a section regarding a failed reverse takeover reported by BNET (major 3rd party source). In regards to other improvements, content could be added about the CEO and chairman (many major 3rd party sources) - See User_talk:Micov about possible additions - Comments invited. Lastly, I was horrified that when changing my username (as suggested by Wikipedians) User:RHaworth reported that the previous username was a suspected sockpuppet of my current username and posted a notice on . Please note this was an error in judgement on his part, discussions and history show no such thing and the user name change was documented on numerous pages. Ouch but forgiven :) GaryECampbell (talk) 20:01, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I updated the content at WebTrain as per above recommendations. GaryECampbell (talk) 05:38, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Added 3rd party reference in lead section - Society for Technical Communication (stc.org) published a matrix comparison that compares WebTrain to other mainstream vendors. The addition was in response to the comment by EdJohnston that it lacks credible reviews in reliable sources to show its importance. GaryECampbell (talk) 07:11, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete as the source cited in this article fail WP:RS and can at best be described as Questionable sources. Overall this article is clearly a promotional piece, containing vague and unsupported statements such as "The WebTrain concept was developed in 1998 by Gary Campbell for the purpose of reducing training costs for off-site business clients". The article content and style fails WP:SPAM. The article itself does not contain any real-world content about the company's turnover, or capitalisation, so there is no real-world evidence that the company or its products are notable. --Gavin Collins (talk) 13:20, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment - Knowledge (XXG):Notability (organizations and companies) does not require any real-world content about the company's turnover, or capitalisation, so there is no real-world evidence that the company or its products are notable. What the guideline requires is that it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. An award from British Columbia Technology Industry Association, mention in PC magazine, comparisons with other products by the Society for Technical Communication, ...these all contribute to meeting the guideline and seem to me to be reliable sources. Could you please clarify how you see that they and the other sources cited are not reliable sources or in what way the Company guideline is not met. --Matilda 21:50, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
      • Comment It is strange for an article about a company that sells things not to say how much it sold. The company's website is coy about turnover and capitalisation as well. It seems to me what is missing from this article (other than promotional spin about its products) is real-world content, context, critisism or analysis of the company's development and market growth. It seems to me this article, like most WP:SPAM, puts the cart before the horse: there is an underlying presumption that the company has sold product, yet the article provides no evidence that it has sold so much as a sausage. What we have instead is an "Impact" section, which demonstrates certain organisations have used the product, but not actually bought it. Basically this article provides us with lots of promotional stuff, but is short on real-world information. A mention in a PC magazine is not evidence of notability.--Gavin Collins (talk) 07:57, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
        • Comment There are references to users of the product. The financials are none of our business and not part of the criteria for notability. At this point I think we need to agree to disagree as to whether the sources meet the criteria in terms of reliability and sufficiency of mention - thanks for coming back to expand on your views.--Matilda 08:03, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
      • Comment - I will limit my comments to the primary concept of the discussion (disclosure). Private companies do not divulge internal management figures (turnover, revenue and capitalisation) information to the general public, such information is limited to the private shareholders, the CFO and company directors. In WebTrain's case, it would need to release copies of all shareholder share certificates to a major reliable 3rd party for publication (for capitalisation). No private company does this. Not so with public companies. They must release this information, all trades and stock purchases are public information and revenue, expenses and the bottom line must be disclosed. It seems to me that the entire purpose of Knowledge (XXG) is to inform people about what they don't know about. That's why it is important to provide information about notable private organizations that have earned 3rd party attention and market space respect, especially when they do not have media influence. Gavin Collins's disclosure requirements would restrict all private organizations from appearing on Knowledge (XXG). GaryECampbell (talk) 10:02, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
        • Comment Regardless of whether the company is private or public, it seems to me that there is a complete dearth of real-world information about this corporation, and without it, it is impossible to tell if they have sold anything, employ anyone or has any physical existence per se. Although the company is listed as being active on 17th of June, 2008, it has not filed its annual return as at 20th of June 2008. This is the only real-world information know about its activities, other than it has a website, a registered office, and three directors. Together with the fact that none of the sources provide cited only promotional content about its products, this article fails WP:SPAM.--Gavin Collins (talk) 11:25, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep based on the satisfactory introduction of WP:RS. Ford MF (talk) 18:47, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep per Ford, Matilda, ref improvements. — Athaenara ✉ 19:15, 26 June 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 withdrawn as notability has been established. (non-admin close) RMHED (talk) 21:27, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

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

Lacks 3rd party references which establish the notability of this person. References given are to books authored by this person. Google news search brings up a number of articles but they focus on a 1994 doomsday claim. Is this person really notable? Rtphokie (talk) 09:01, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep. Yeah, I think he's notable. Subsequent to the doomsday stuff he appears to have advocated withdrawal from organized religious groups, and engendered a fair amount of controversy. Interestingly, almost all the independent sources I can locate are critical of Camping, and none are in the article, making me think that there probably are some NPOV issues to address here as well. I won't list all the hits, but this search will pull up a lot of privately produced content. What pushed me over the edge to notability was James White's book (not self published) refuting him. It may be negative, but it still speaks to notablity. Xymmax "So let it be done 14:07, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. Camping certainly is notable, in that he has a large following among religious believers around the U.S.A. and the world and a significant network of radio and TV stations and is listened to and watched by many people. Even if one thinks of him not as an religious figure but as a media presence, he is more notable than many pop culture and media figures who are covered in Knowledge (XXG) articles. The real problem with this article is that it of poor quality -- for example, the section on "Teaching and Beliefs" happens to mention only one of his beliefs, i.e. the most sensational one, about the end of the world, but does not even briefly summarize his entire theology and belief system (e.g. he is a strict predestinationist, has a theology of history that includes the "end of the Church age", and so on). Furthermore, people who are his cult followers or "true believers" keep messing up the page. So I think the issue is to produce a fair and high-quality article, not to delete it. Jjshapiro (talk) 14:16, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
    I'd suspect that the vandalism comes from both sides. I doubt it was one of his followers that introduced the erroneous claim that the lunar month is 44.53059 days instead of the correct value of 29.53059. This survived in the article for a month, so it definitely needs more established editor eyes. GRBerry 20:03, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Some of the misinformation may not be vandalism as per wiki's definition, but rather inaccurate information insufficiently investigated or confirmed by the posters/authors. Nevertheless, with that said, I too agree with your comment generally. Maybe it is helpful to note that data from the Bible, a Holy Book (spiritual), is confirmed by the Holy Bible itself, and consequently, false data is revealed by the Holy Bible itself. Secular sourced data may reflect or contain Biblical data, but such sources may be found lacking consistency, and reliability, particularly in comparison to authentic Biblical sourced data. The Holy Bible cautions people to trust only the Holy Bible to reveal the absolute truth by God's mercy (ref. Psalm 119, John 17:17 "...thy word is truth.") —Preceding unsigned comment added by

76.247.115.33 (talk) 21:09, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment if the information cant be sufficiently referenced in reliable 3rd party sources, it should be removed. If sufficient references cant be found to support the notability of this person, then the article needs to be deleted. Currently there is one reference that isn't either one of his books or a press release from his company.--Rtphokie (talk) 01:42, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
CommentA valid point you make and yet the unbiased, sufficient references are found in the Bible as Camping's publications identify explicitly. Wiki policy/guidelines help determine whether or not being the founder and owner of approx. 160 broadcast outlets broadcasting to the world (vitually all continents) is sufficient notability. My view is this alone, Camping is notable, regardless whether or not a person or some people may like or dislike the message being conveyed by the network founded and run by Camping. Yes i still sayKEEP because Camping is notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.247.115.33 (talk) 15:14, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Comment It's pretty clear that the concensus is that Camping is notable, however there still seems to be a lot of misunderstanding about Knowledge (XXG) reference policy. The current article is not sufficiently referenced. As Campings writings are his interpretation of the Bible, references to the Bible should be considered a convenience to the reader and not something that fullfills WP:BIO. Sources other than Camping or the Bible itself should be added to this article to avoid any concerns with WP:RS or WP:POV. While view that the Bible is fact is a point of view shared by many people, but it is just that, a single point of view. There are many other points of view across the spectrum, especially on this topic. Knowledge (XXG) publishes all significant points of view which are verifiable with reliable 3rd party sources. Please read WP:NPOV.--Rtphokie (talk) 16:28, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
  • As you've indicated, this article doesn't have an abundant number of references, but the number may be sufficient. A person who spends life not promoting oneself, but rather proclaiming the message of Christ Jesus, will have the Bible as support for every aspect of life. Intrinsically, the Biblical messages Camping proclaims are not subject to multiple interpretations, though our nature often attempts to deny this fact. It is probably best to include a few reasonable references (i.e. reasonably balanced, accurate, biographic/encyclopedic in quality) rather than seek to build this article in other ways. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.247.115.33 (talk) 01:08, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. The controversy generated by his publications is notable. However, there is also considerable bias against him personally as a result. Understandably, anyone in the churches will not like Camping's findings, and other individuals not understanding Biblical testimony will be troubled by his publications. Personally, I have studied the Bible sufficiently to know the conclusions he reached are Biblically accurate and factual. Note, it is not in accordance with Wiki's purpose or policy, as I have read, to have advocates against Camping's work attempt to use Camping's Wiki page as a platform for promoting their arguments against his works and/or person. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.247.115.33 (talk) 14:43, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Question. This is a question, rather than a vote, because I don't know enough to know where and how to raise this question. Camping's notability is based on his distinctive views, his following, and his network of radio and TV stations. It seems that for this reason, he should be covered by Knowledge (XXG), I would say much more so than many people of questionable notability who have articles about them on Knowledge (XXG) (e.g. members of minor rock bands, bit-part actors on TV, and so on). Although the present article is really lousy, and doesn't even have a summary of his views, it wouldn't be hard to produce such a summary, because he presents these views all the time on TV and radio and in his publications. And there are easily accesible critiques of his views, especially from various Christian churches (given that Camping says that now all churches are under the rule of Satan and people should leave them). Currently the article isn't even written from a POV or the POV of his following, since it doesn't even state his views; nor does it really represent his critics. Wouldn't it be legitimate to have an article that had a minimum of biographical information and that summarized both his teachings, available precisely from his documents and broadcasts, and the criticisms thereof? I've looked at one or two other Knowledge (XXG) articles on televangelists, and they are full of "citation needed" editorial comments. Shouldn't we just do the same thing with the Camping article? Jjshapiro (talk) 05:14, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. He is definitely notable, but I agree that the current article is of fairly low-quality. This is a start in finding independent sources. PSWG1920 (talk) 05:26, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Comment if the concensus is to keep this article (and it's looking that way so far), then this article shoudn't be treated any differently than any other. It will have to meet the same standards for citation and verification. It's currently very poorly referenced. WP:PROVEIT suggests that the right thing to do isn't to tag unreferenced material, it's to remove it. This will eliminate a large part of the article as it stands. Can those indicating that the article should kept add a reference or two to the existing article?--Rtphokie (talk) 11:55, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Comment In response to your concerns, stipulations, and question, I have started the process of referencing the information with reliable 3rd party sources, especially stories about Camping from Associated Press and the Wall Street Journal. There is quite a bit more to do, but I probably won't be able to return to it for a week or so. Jjshapiro (talk) 02:48, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Comment Wall Street Journal is not a credible source for evaluating a Bible teacher, but it can evaluate commercial or business aspects of the Radio Media industry. Associated Press also lacks credibility in matters of spiritual teachings, as does any denominational church in this Biographical Wiki site (since they will simply label Camping's Biblical findings a "wrong" or "heretical.") Object, unbiased citations of encyclopedic nature suitable for living person biography are the references needed. Third part "slanders" or ed/op opinions, no matter the sources, are best suited for publications and forums promoting such views. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.247.115.33 (talk) 06:48, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Comment I don't understand what you mean by "evaluating" a bible teacher. Encyclopedia articles shouldn't be evaluating people. Evaluation is a point of view. Wall St. Journal and Associated Press are there simply for fact-checking, i.e. to provide precisely, as you say, "objective, unbiased" material. The articles I cited are simply documenting facts, in response to Knowledge (XXG) editors' concerns that material from Family Radio is biased and under the control of Harold Camping or from those who attack him, and Knowledge (XXG) needs objective, third-party fact checking, which is what responsible journalism puts a lot of time and effort into. The whole point of this article, as with others on Knowledge (XXG), is to present material about Camping in a neutral mode, which of course should include both his beliefs and, at least briefly, some major criticisms of them. But the article shouldn't be written either from his perspective or attacking it, just reporting on what his perspective is and what major attacks there are, as with all Knowledge (XXG) articles. For example, the Wall St. Journal and Associated Press don't consider Camping heretical, they merely report that some other people do. That's the same perspective from which the Knowledge (XXG) article needs to be written, except that the Knowledge (XXG) article needs to be more serious, substantive, and faithful to the actual content of Camping's views (and, although only briefly, those who criticize him). If you eliminate reliable 3d-party references, the net result is that the article will be deleted. Assuming good intentions on your part, I will assume that you are not a Camping enemy who is deliberately trying to have the article deleted through eliminating the references. I prefer to believe that you are a responsible Knowledge (XXG) editor who is trying to make a good article. In that case, leave in references from reliable sources and try to find additional ones. Jjshapiro (talk) 07:06, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Comment I agree completely: Encyclopedic material should not evaluate but this Camping site is the most "non-encylopedic" site I've ever encountered. It evaluates, measures, casts aspersions in ways that are amazing. If anyone had read his books objectively, they would see much of the 3-rd party "perspectives" are not noteworthy even from the "respectable" sources. This also is quite a phenomina. I am still look for a balanced, well articulated viewpoints or counterpoints but the Bible (the basis of Camping's conclusions)has supported the conclusions of Camping and refuted the "perspectives" of all critics posted here or I can find. I wish you the best in finding some good reference and I think you efforts are sincere but we can't force "good" references. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.247.115.33 (talk) 07:23, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


Comment Please excuse my typos...I am typing late into the night without my eye-glasses. The best to you in your hunt...maybe this site can be improved. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.247.115.33 (talk) 07:27, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:36, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. —Xymmax So let it be done 19:08, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - being the other side of the Atlantic, I am not qualified to comment on the subject's notability. However, assuming that is established. The question becomes one of providing reliable sources on his views. Since his POV is the subject matter, his own publications become a PRIMARY source (even if self-published); there could hardly be a better source! Newspapers are potentially a reliable secondary source, though one cannot believe everyhting that one reads in the papers. This of course begs the question as to whether his views are right; for that I would suggest that published condemnations by other theologians should be cited. However, the correctness of his views (which I consider heretical - my POV) is hardly in point. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:32, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
    • From one of the two sides of the Atlantic, I propose we conclude the rightness of Camping's teachings can only be affirmed or denied by the Holy Bible. As you've recognized and identified, theologians are human beings. Consequently, theologians also cannot assist in assessing "correctness of his views" beyond expressing another POV respectfully. This biographical site, in the past, has been treated often as a "forum" for expressing counterviews and other interpretations not of Camping but of other's POV of Camping. Emphasizing controversy and disagreement, I suggest again, is not the purpose of a biographical site generally. In this particular case, the debate, controversy and contention is really directed to findings revealed in God's Word, not actually Camping who is just another notable human being. Encyclopedic texts -- quite well at times -- tend towards being as objective and neutral as possible based on verifiable and balanced facts available. I do see there may be hope that this wiki site will be preserved as a biographical/encyclopedic site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.247.115.33 (talk) 02:27, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
      • Actually, you are very wrong here; fundamentally missing the purpose of this project and the article in specific. Knowledge (XXG)'s mission is to be an encyclopedia. One of the key content rules here is that all articles are to be written from a neutral point of view. This means that we are required to include the views to which you are objecting, provided that they are significant views from reliable sources. We are explicitly not allowed to have an article written solely from the perspective that Camping is correct. If you want something like that, either go create a page on Camping's website or go write an opinion article at wikichristian - but even they won't let that be the primary article on Camping; the Information article will have to cover the criticism from other Christians. I won't take a position on whether or not we will have any article, but in the long run I can guarantee you that we won't have an article written under the assumptions you are using. GRBerry 03:49, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
        • This is a biographical site and encyclopedic. I sense you maybe overlooking the biographical nature of this site. Objective biographical data is only possible if the source actually knows the person. Camping, to be an authentic Bible teacher, would have to be a Holy person (by Biblical reference, we know this). Therefore, only a Holy person, a fellow brother or sister in Christ (i.e. "saved soul"), is qualified to provide an objective (NPOV) of Camping, biographically speaking. Note: Some believe a theological degree or a church membership is all that is needed to be assumed "saved" which is another matter of contention and dispute but not really biographical data. As a notable person, Camping is in Wiki. As a Holy person (Bible teacher), he is in this world. From the Bible, we know all souls God redeems are to testify and proclaim the Gospel of Christ Jesus whether people like or dislike, agree or disagree with the message. Camping does this and many don't agree, but some do agree with the message; this is an Camping wiki site, biographical fact. I appreciate your comments and the opportunity to bring this fact to this forum.
  • Keep. He's one of the single best known figures in the evangelical subculture, owns tons of radio stations, and has been around for decades. How is notability even a question? Carlo (talk) 22:31, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep His voice is heard daily in most major radio markets in the United States. Frankly, the submitter that suggested that this be deleted should be embarrassed for not doing more research about this. -Nodekeeper (talk) 08:03, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep: The subject of this article pertains to a wide segment of United States mass-media for a specific sub-genre of broadcast programming. This deletion proposal suggests a basic unfamiliarity with the purpose and application of WP:N. dr.ef.tymac (talk) 16:22, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Withdrawn notability has been established sufficiently in this discussion. Recent edits have improved the article significantly as well, especially improving it's WP:NPOV. It could still use some additional 3rd party references with 3/4 of the references in the current article coming from Camping's books or press releases from his company.--Rtphokie (talk) 11:11, 24 June 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 REDIRECTED to Spore (video game). Article history is there if there's something worth merging, but I didn't see anything. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:53, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Massively single-player online game (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable neologism protologism. Had been Prod'd, which was removed (no reason given) Ratarsed (talk) 07:53, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

  • I personally trust our ability to discuss more than our ability to generate rules. Adding a section to ATA likely wouldn't actually stop people, and we seem to be doing fine by pointing problems out on a common-sense basis, so I'm fine with the current state of affairs. --Kizor 14:40, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Actually, I brought forward those links discriminately because I felt that they would add to the discussion, so please comment on them instead of calling me blind; that's a bit ad hominem. Notwithstanding I am inclined to agree that since this term is not very extended, keeping it in Spore (video game) is probably the best way to go. WilliamH (talk) 19:23, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Sure. The definition of notable is WP:N, one of the most enthusiastically applied ones in our barrel-o-rules, and it requires external coverage. Personally I liken it to Knowledge (XXG)'s teenage identity crisis: certainly it has been used en masse to delete inappropriate or unencyclopedic content without generally accepted definitions of appropriate or encyclopedic.

    Anyway, something can be both useful and best off covered somewhere else than its own article, which is why I'm in favor of merging. --Kizor 08:16, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

86.158.141.139 (talk) 20:57, 19 June 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 (non-admin close) RMHED (talk) 21:11, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

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

Zilla Parishads schools are in thousands in number In India. They are not at all notable. Also the article looks like newbie's try to edit Knowledge (XXG) or test new page creation. Article has no theme, no centralized topic and no cite. --gppande «talk» 07:49, 17 June 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. May be restored for merging purposes if there's consensus to do so.  Sandstein  21:41, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

UEFA Euro 2008 controversies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article contains only details of a few extremely minor mildly controversial refereeing decisions, which to be frank occur in all football tournaments. All can be mentioned in the articles which cover the specific matches, eg UEFA Euro 2008 Group C or in the main tournament article, there is no need for an article listing them. ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:47, 17 June 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, consensus is that the article fails the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 20:41, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

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

I believe the subject is barely notable. This person was candidate in a hotly-contested an election in which he came a long way behind the 2 front-runners - in other words, he was an 'also-ran'. The references are but trivial mentions or election coverage. While he may just escape disqualification under WP:BLP1E for being Chairman of a transporters' lobby group, I do not believe the group itself fulfills WP:ORG. Ohconfucius (talk) 07:33, 17 June 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 CSDG4 and Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Tommy Smith (soccer). пﮟოьεԻ 57 16:38, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Tommy Smith (footballer born 1990) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Player fails notability at WP:ATHLETE having never played in a fully-professional league. Contested PROD stated he had player England U18 games, however I am led to believe Youth caps do not make a player notable --Jimbo 07:17, 17 June 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, WP:NOT#HOWTO. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:30, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

How to set up the carberettor of a glow engine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Knowledge (XXG) is not a how-to guide. See WP:NOT#HOWTO --pbroks13 06:54, 17 June 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, see final comment below. TravellingCari 02:45, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

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

Article has no real cited sources and is a POV mess stuck in 2006 Gront (talk) 06:47, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Right, but show me what part of the current article is not original research or total crap? Yes, there should be an article about FEMA Trailers, but not this article. Maybe taking everything out but the introduction (or a merge) would be a good start, but c'mon, did you guys read the article? Gront (talk) 16:36, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
AFD is not cleanup. If you have a problem with a notable article, fix it. SashaNein (talk) 20:34, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notable subject with outside references. Obviously could be improved but this is an editing issue best dealt with on the Talk page. --Dhartung | Talk 17:38, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Speedy Close "Yes, there should be an article about FEMA Trailers, but not this article."....and thus the nominator has completely invalidated his deletion rationale. The subject is notable and should be improved. Deleting an article to solve problems that aren't resolved by deletion is abstract to say the least. WilliamH (talk) 20:07, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep The subject matter has been covered thoroughly from countless reliable sources. If the article is in need of clean up, fix it. AFD is not cleanup. SashaNein (talk) 20:34, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep – multiple reliable sources are cited, meeting the verifiability and no original research core policies, and also meeting the notability guideline. Part of it may be total crap, but that is a reason to improve it—not delete it. Cheers, EJF (talk) 20:42, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Withdrawn. Gront (talk) 21:36, 17 June 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. PhilKnight (talk) 21:54, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

This album is the music album equivalent of vaporware. It fails both WP:CRYSTAL and WP:MUSIC as it has yet to be released and has not been noted by any reliable third party publications. JBsupreme (talk) 06:12, 17 June 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 other issues aside, this was a copyvio complete with only the partial name. TravellingCari 02:37, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

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

Fails WP:BIO. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 05:27, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

If the person has no significant coverage in multiple reliable sources, then he does not meet notability guideline according to WP:BIO, no matter which movie he directed or not. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 07:16, 17 June 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. The option to merge and redirect is beyond the purview of the Articles for deletion noticeboard. (jarbarf) (talk) 23:28, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Matthew (given name) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Per WP:NOTDIRECTORY this list of people with the first name Matthew should be gotten rid of. There are literally thousands of notable people with that first name. It would be as ridiculous as listing every person named John in the John article. The list of people with the Matthews surname is different. Firstly, there are far less people with the surname Matthew, than with the given name Matthew, making the list somewhat manageable. Secondly, and more importantly, the justification for having the surname list is that people who are looking for someone specific and can't remember the first name of the person, will find the person through the list. However, it is far less probable that someone would remember the first name of a person and forget the last name of a person. Matthew (name) covers the background and history of the name. A redirect would be pointless becasue the parentesess makes it an improbable search term. Therefore, Delete. brewcrewer (yada, yada) 04:59, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. --Phirazo 01:34, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Redirect. I think it's a plausible search term for someone familiar with the parenthetical article title system but not innately familiar with what goes within them (i.e, someone knows enough to put something in parenthesis, but not what). "Given name" is a perfectly valid substitute for name, although the US-centric systematic bias in Knowledge (XXG) may be against its use. Celarnor 07:43, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
It is plausible, but not very. I can't see why someone wouldn't just type "Matthew", and see what they find there. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:11, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Not everyone searches that way; especially people on slow internet connections. When I'm in Maine with my family (where a page on dialup can take 30 seconds to load), I try to be as exact as possible; if I'm looking for a list of states by population, I'm going to go to "List of states by population"; I'm not going to screw around going through the list of states hierarchy. Same with names. I'm not going to go through a series of disambig pages from "Matthew". I'm going right to the source, and if I happen to be someone not brought up in the US, then "Matthew (given name)" is exactly where I'd go for information on the name. It's probably a little difficult to grasp for a monoglot or someone brought up in the US, but it's certainly a viable search term. Celarnor 21:08, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Only people known by the name "Matthew" on its own should be on the disambiguation page Matthew. Disambiguation pages are to help with ambiguous links. Nobody should link to Matthew if they are referring to a specific individual. This Given name page is a useful index, but that's different from disambiguation. - Fayenatic (talk) 08:19, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep This page is in keeping with guidelines on WP:MOSDAB. This page is especially important because there are entries (such as Matthew of Kraków and Saint Matthew) who are known by their given names only. Even if this were not the case, no stipulation of what constitutes a "manageable list" has been provided. This page should not be deleted if guidelines remain as they are. Neelix (talk) 19:22, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Right, it's not a Disam' page; it is an anthroponymy page, so...
  • Merge (selectively) to Matthew (name), and redirect following merge to retain page history in accordance with GFDL. Please allow the relatively young WikiProject Anthroponymy time to manage these articles. Nominator said, it is far less probable that someone would remember the first name of a person and forget the last name -- just wait until you're older; believe me, it happens! Personally I prefer the more selective lists such as this version of "Sarah" to a comprehensive list; the comment at Talk:Matthew (given name) is just right: The given name list need not be exhaustive, but rather representative, supportive of a view of the breadth over geography and time of the use of the name. The WikiProject has not yet reached a consensus on how long a list should be in the case of a common name, but there is consensus that there should be a list. Editors who come across other name articles in poor condition are invited to bring them to the project's attention at Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Anthroponymy#Articles needing attention, perhaps noting that they will be recommended for deletion unless action is taken by X date. - Fayenatic (talk) 23:05, 24 June 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. (jarbarf) (talk) 23:19, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

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

Tagged and deleted CSD (G11), restored and sent to AfD by deleting admin following clear consensus at DRV. Fails WP:BIO. Gwen Gale (talk) 04:13, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment Gee, I live in Kansas, not Connecticuit... I'm a Libretarian, not a Democrat... I generally don't give a hoot on this particular election... I don't know anyone involved in the election in question... and I think the article reads more like a resume than an encyclopedic entry... but seriously, how is the subject not notable? This is a case where the article should be improved and not deleted.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:29, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Reply - per WP:BIO#Politicians, Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.", and I see no significant coverage. -- Whpq (talk) 18:35, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Comment But this isn't a "local" election--we're not talking about a county water board post here. Please don't ignore the first part of the section you referenced: "People who have held international, national or first-level sub-national political office, including members of a legislature and judges" -- state legislature certainly is a first-level sub-national political office. Yes, the person in question does not hold the office yet (and may not ever), but being a candidate for one of the major parties in the US for the elected position certainly is notable. Couple that with the second part of the reference, "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage" (which I believe the subject meets or is at least close enough to for me) and I'm sticking with Keep on this one.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:56, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Reply - the statement about unelected officials does not restrict it to localised elections. The references provided in the article consists of his own site, blogs, and party information. My own search of Google News didn't turn up any articles about him. I see no reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 21:24, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Reply to reply --- Once again... it's not a local election. Plus I found plenty of articles from both Google and Yahoo search--but even if I didn't, Google is not the only test for notability.--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:24, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Comment - I said that the statement for unelected candidates does not have a qualifier that says it doesn't apply if an election is national. And as for the search results, I see blog posts and whatnot. What I am looking for are reliable sources. I checked Google news, and the Matt Lesser showing up there appearws to be football player. Qualifying the search further with "Democrat" gives nothing. -- Whpq (talk) 23:00, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Reply - Would yet another article from the Hartford Courant (that is America's oldest continuously published newspaper) or an article from Newsday fit the need for already present reliable sources? Your right in saying that 2 of the 7 sources are blogs, but neglecting to mention major newspaper articles and CT General Assembly reports written by the Office of Legislative Research does not make an article un-notable. You are also right in saying that Google and Yahoo do not present very copious results, but proper research in a topic doesn't end after failing to find results when adding "democrat" to the search terms. Maybe searching individual sites, such as the homepage of the DNC, as referenced in the article, will return a greater number of hits. Lastly, the use of political campaign sites for biographical information is not frowned upon in the wikipedia community as entries for politicians from Joe Biden to Tom Vilsack cite the aforementioned candidates campaign websites. Yet they are regarded as notable. Go Figure.Willorbill1 (talk) 23:43, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Reply - I looked at the article from the Courant. I could find no mention of Matt Lesser anywhere in the text of the article. And as I said earlier, the references provided are for facts, but do not represent reliable sources for establishing notability as they are not independent of the subject. -- Whpq (talk) 01:03, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Comment I found no less than 40 articles on him specifically in a yahoo search. Yes, many were blogs and that also included his home page... but the bottom line is that it doesn't matter. There is a difference between "verifiable" and "verified" -- meaning that a web search is not the only yardstick that we use. Sure, it's an important one, but for specialist topics such as a state legislature election, it is perfectly valid to use other measures. This candidate has enough chatter, is on a major ticket, for a major party, in a major election, that I contend that notability requirements are met.--Paul McDonald (talk) 01:18, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Comment - How is an election a specialist topic? -- Whpq (talk) 01:26, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Answer by being a specific election in the state of Connecticut--those most familiar with that election would be specialists and people from, say, Canada (you) or Kansas (me) might not be in a place to best assess it.--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:15, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Comment - or perhaps newwspapers which are considered reliable sources rather than blogs which aren't -- Whpq (talk) 02:27, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Comment Yes, perhaps. But newspapers searchable online are not the only reliable sources. Anyway, I'm landing on keep and you're landing on delete. Cheers!--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:38, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Update Im sure you will be pleased, especially Whpq, that I have added two more references to the article. One is an article from the Baltimore Sun and the other from a local paper, The Town Times. Both pertain directly to the election and explicitly mention both Matt Lesser and the opponent Ray Kalinowski. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Willorbill1 (talk • contribs) 05:44, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
I would further suggest you put the article in context by creating something similar to California State Assembly elections, 2008. Flatterworld (talk) 16:39, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Actually, the two memtions are in fact the same thing as the one is an excerpt of the other. And in fact, one of them is published int eh letters to the editors. All things considered, that really doesn't hit the nail for me. -- Whpq (talk) 16:58, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Hold on for now. I don't think a political person who hasn't held office yet deserves an article just yet, but he might win soon. If we delete now, and he wins, we'd just have to recreate the article, which is a waste of time. If he loses, I suggest deleting it per above. DA PIE EATER (talk) 16:59, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak keep - even though he's not won, there appears to be some evidence of notability by way of attention in the media. Bearian (talk) 21:43, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Propose Closing Looks like all but one are landing on some version of Keep. It's been over a week, I suggest we close this as keep--any objections?--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:00, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

An administrator will be along to close this in due course. Oh, and presumably the people who want to see the article deleted would object to that ;) Alex Muller 22:19, 26 June 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 Akira Toriyama. (non-admin close) RMHED (talk) 21:17, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

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

Article makes very little sense. Appears to be some kind of comic, but isn't very notable and hasn't received coverage from independent, reliable sources. Google results. Enigma 03:21, 17 June 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 nancy 18:39, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Horse Ranch Mountain (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Not notable Ratagonia (talk) 02:32, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Horse Ranch Mountain is the highest summit in Zion National Park, but - it is on the northern border, has no active trail to the summit, is rarely climbed and not particularly photogenic. That it is the highest point is covered in the Zion National Park article. A road goes close to the summit, but goes through posted private land and thus is not open to the public. All said, not notable. Ratagonia (talk) 02:39, 17 June 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 --JForget 23:43, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Mario Party 7 Courses (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Trivial WP:OR article about the courses of a popular video game. Knowledge (XXG) is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Mizu onna sango15/水女珊瑚15 02:18, 17 June 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, but needs improvement by adding content from the article on the German Knowledge (XXG). Bduke (talk) 08:58, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

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

Article is unreferenced, badly written, contains possible original research, subject probably not notable. — Jack (talk) 02:06, 17 June 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. There was certainly some interesting discussion going on here, but in the end the great majority of those arguing to keep this material are not rooted in policy, ie. other stuff exists or reasons based on opinion. When the arguments not rooted in policy are discounted there is a clear consensus that this is not notable enough for inclusion. Shereth 02:34, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

The Miracle of Geneva (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
  • Keep: The Euro Cup is the third most watched sporting event in the world, and certainly deserves an entry for such a fantastic comeback under such pressured conditions.
  • Delete: Unless the match takes place in a World Cup, then I don't think it deserves it's own page.Virusbluemage
  • It's way to early to determine the historical notability of this match to deserve a separate article. And plus it's almost all copied from UEFA Euro 2008 Group A. Do U(knome)? |or no · 01:49, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment it is not uncommon practice for significant games, seasons, etc in other sports to have an article page before the game is played, especially with the media hype that can be generated by certain games and sporting events. As for it being a copy of another article, that's a reason to "fix it" not "delete it"--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:17, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
    • I disagree, it's not too early. The match, viewed from a separate point of view (than the tournament), should be allowed to stay. Yes, parts of it were taken from other articles, since they clarified it well. I hope this stays —Preceding unsigned comment added by Reisender (talk • contribs) 01:57, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete I don't think this match has a historical significance. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 02:00, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep The match will, in all eventuality, carry the exact same notable and historic context of any other number games in European Championship and World Cup history that have their own pages. The precedent has already been set that extremely noteworthy football games get their own page. To disallow the page to continue merely because it doesn't YET have historical relevance is the definition of stupidity. By acknowledging that it one day will, but does not now, you are saying that Knowledge (XXG) should never create ANY articles until we know of their exact relevance in history. This is why we have editing capabilities in the first place: to expand or shrink articles in accordance with their perceived historical relevance. To get rid of it entirely is to not only ignore precedent, but to call into question the creation of ANY article shortly after the event in question takes place. Frank Anchor (R-OH) 02:27, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, but someone store the code. Just because a journo coins a phrase, it is not notable. If that name for the game gains some permanance, and spreads to become widely recognised as a reference to this game, it can be resurrected. But I suspect that most people will think of it as "that game where Cech goofed and Turkey were lucky not to face a shot after their goalie got sent off". Kevin McE (talk) 06:41, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
    • The title absolutely isn't notable, but the game itself is due to the fact that the Turks were facing elimintation down 2-0 with 15 minutes to go and came back not only to draw but to win. NewYork483 (talk) 14:40, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete... Or maybe keep... hmm, Ok, it was a great game. And the last minute turn around worthy of Man U '99. But I don't think the game will hold importance. If Turkey go all the way, this match will not be singled out as extra important over all their other matches, and it will instead be called "The Miracle in Austria" or "When Turkey finally conquered Vienna" or something. If they crash out directly, everyone will forget about this match anyway. At most these could be some extra info added in the Group article. Along the lines of UEFA Euro 2004 Group C which hold a memorable match (probably as much for all Swedes, Danes and Italians as this match for Turks) — chandler — 06:57, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
  • This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:14, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, this is just another match like any other where a team has made a comeback. There are hundreds of such games, this one is no different or as irrelevant as those multitude others are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Buzzyear (talk • contribs)
  • Delete Aritajustino (talk) 07:40, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, as wrote Buzzyear, it's just a match. And it's not a miracle (well, it may be, if Turkey beats Brazil in the final match of World Cup). Abdullais4u (talk) 07:57, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete One mediocre side beat another mediocre side in a group stage match. See miracle on ice to see a real sporting miracle.--Berkunt (talk) 08:50, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Miracle?? I've seen plenty of other better comebacks. пﮟოьεԻ 57 09:56, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete and merge content into the the existing article for all the matches in that group. The name was coined by one journalist which merits it being a redirect and perhaps a mention on the existing article. The reference is to the miracle of bern which was another surprise victory but that was in a world cup final - not a EURO group match. This content can be easily incorporated into the existing article and, in any case, the title is by no means consensus or NPOV. Witty Lama 11:11, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. For one thing, the nae miracle is a biase towards Czech who probably don't call it like that. As well, the mentioning in the Group A article is enough, some commentary fits there. --Tone 11:15, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete It has no special difference from respective part of UEFA Euro 2008 Group A. The "miracle" is NPOV - there are enough (or too many (from other POV)) similar matches in football history. Alex Spade (talk) 13:06, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. GiantSnowman 13:10, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep...for now This game is currently notable given the fact that it just happened and was deemed important. If history in a few months or even after the tournament is over, parts from the article can be copied onto related articles and this article deleted. VarunRajendran (talk) 13:31, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. This seems to be another article about a soccer game given a title that seems bound to mislead and confuse. Is there some sort of standard about referring to notable soccer games by dates and competitors? - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:11, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - no need for this article above all other games. Limited content best placed in main Euro 2008 article. - fchd (talk) 14:32, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment See WP:OTHERSTUFF-Knowledge (XXG) is far from complete. The absence of another similar article at any given time does not negate the need for this article.
  • Delete per above. no establishment of notability <Baseballfan789 (talk) 14:35, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep but rename to 2008 Turkey vs. Czech Republic football match or something like that until a name for this match surfaces. The match and the comeback are absolutely notable and article-worthy, given the situation the Turks put themselves in before they started their comeback which put them in the knockout stage of the tournament NewYork483 (talk) 14:42, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, obviously. user:Dorftrottel  14:50, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep: Many things make this game notable, memorable and significant. The comeback, substantial number of yellow cards in a game, a sub receiving the yellow, goalkeeper receiving a red, the goal being defended by a midfielder (?), etc. etc. etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.232.14.187 (talk) 15:12, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep: The other reason for this deserving a keep status is because Turkey haven't beaten the Czech(oslovakia) since 1956! It is worthy of mention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.107.238.16 (talk) 17:18, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:41, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - Define miracle, is it a miracle for a large group of people or is it just a miracle for the turks?, no offens to the turkish people. I can come up with more matches that have ended in similare way so i dont think its a miracle, just a match that containd excitment from start untill end --> Halmstad, Talk:Halmstad 21:41, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep: but rename Broonsparrow (talk) 22:46, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. From the Czech point of view I can assure you it is quite notable for many reasons outlined above by other users. Keep but rename. - Darwinek (talk) 10:31, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep I don't personally care for futbal/football/soccer/whatever because I'm a silly American... but I want to draw a parallel: Knowledge (XXG) College Football is a project on American football at the college/university level that has guidelines that considers all regular season games, conference championship games, and bowl games deserving of an article. The logic is that when two notable teams play each other, the result is a noteworthy event. Why should this be any different? -- That said, I'd encourage the project to work on some standards for article names for single games. I think the article should be re-named to a standard style (something like 2008 Turkey v Czech Republic World Cup Match--whatever the Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Football comes up with) But I'm okay with keeping the article, and I think it is nicely done. It's a significant sporting world event. I'm glad it was restored and I hope the result of this discussion is keep.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:13, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Wow, that's a seriously inclusive guideline!! If that was applied even just to the English professional club game, it would mean that 175,671 matches to date could be said to deserve their own articles...... ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:45, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
      • It's the kind of thing where the project allows for the articles to be created, but does not insist on their creation. The purpose is to create guidelines for format and naming of the articles and make for a more clean approach to the project and to allow for lists of games and seasons. Certainly not every game has an article, far from it. BUT just because that would give a large number of articles does not in itself negate that the articles can or even should be created.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:53, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete A tidy bit of editing, but makes no attempt to explain what makes it notable, other than one side beating another after being behind, which is hardly unusual. No cites and appears to be entirely original research with clear and heavy-handed bias. Would need a complete re-write and re-naming to be acceptable. --Escape Orbit 19:55, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Knowledge (XXG) is not WikiNews. Not every sports match is inherently notable and no convincing evidence has been presented that this one is unusual. This level of detail vastly exceeds the appropriate level of scope for an encyclopedia. If we have other articles with this same level of coverage, the right answer is to clean them up too, not to perpetuate the problem. Rossami (talk) 20:28, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Highly subjective article title and it was one group match whic hasn't decided the winners of the compeition and simply resulted in Turkey qualifying for the quarter-finals. Whilst it is definitely worthy of mention in the main Euro 2008 article it is not worthy of inclusion on it's own.♦Tangerines♦·Talk 20:30, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. They'll be talking about this match ten years from now, and not just in Turkey and the Czech Rep. See Category:Football (soccer) matches for many more matches, few of as great importance as this.  slυмgυм  20:38, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Most of those matches were finals of tournaments, or remarkable for record scorelines or other major historic interest. This one is a fairly run of the mill tournament group game, enlivened by five minutes at the end. In the great scheme of things, of limited notability in its own right. - fchd (talk) 20:43, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment - Talked about for 10 years?... It will be forgotten after Croatia beat Turkey. If Turkey go and win the whole thing, this match won't be singled out, if anything the Final will be the match in history — chandler — 04:06, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - if some writing about this match can be found that discusses it outside a match summary, I think it should be kept. If not, there shouldn't be. Right now the article is not properly referenced, and that desperately needs to be done. matt91486 (talk) 00:28, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - The article has now been properly referenced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.107.238.16 (talk) 03:44, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. it has a name attached to it now, and there will be detailed published discussion. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:27, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. An run-of-the-mill game in a tournament, that happened to be quite exciting. It wasn't "greatly important" (there will be precisely 7 games of greater importance in this tournament alone), it wasn't a "miracle", despite some tabloid headlines. WP:Recentism applies here, I think. Just because there's been a few press articles about the game doesn't mean it warrants an article. Every game at the tournament recieves significant press coverage. Some other issues vaguely related to the tournament receive tons more. The Cristiano Ronaldo transfer saga has received (8122 mentions on Google News versus 1378 for this game - note Italy-France has 3176 mentions ). A footnote, and any necessary information belongs in the Group A article. Neıl 龱 07:55, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment Interesting you reference WP:Recentism... that article itself states "Recentism is not by itself an argument for article deletion — lack of attributability and notability are — but it may make it more difficult to judge whether notability actually exists. Maturity, judgment and the passage of time are sometimes required to provide proper perspective." So I would agree that the content and title of the article may be subject of point-of-view embellishments, but that doesn't make it non-notable. I suggest we follow the recommendation of the article you reference and keept the article, allowing the passage of time to help clarify judgement.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:08, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete as stated above, the only notable thing about this match was that the last twenty minutes or so were quite exciting, other than that it was no more significant than any other match in the group stages of this tournament. Comebacks from two goals down (or more) happen all the time (there was a Football League match in the 20th century when a team, I think it was Huddersfield, came back from 5 goals down to win, I can hardly see anyone creating an article on that), and the keeper getting sent off and an outfield player spending 30 seconds in goal without ever touching the ball does not in any way make a match historically significant -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:00, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. it has a name attached to it now, and there will be detailed published discussion, being talked about as one of the greatest games in Euro history a couple days after the match, notability is established.--Zentuk 08:18, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
    You appear to have copied Casliber's comment and added a bit. Where is it being talked about as "one of the greatest games in Euro history"? People keep saying this but nobody has any reliable sources. Neıl 龱 08:33, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. If "http://en.wikipedia.org/Miracle_of_cordoba" (The Miracle of Cordoba) can have can article, so can this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.107.238.16 (talk) 14:45, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - This was an excellent game, but no more or less noteworthy than any other group match. Just become someone's attached a name to it (in the vein of the Miracle of Bern, which carried massive significance beyond football) doesn't mean it deserves its own article. Dancarney (talk) 10:25, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete There were many interesting and entertaining games for all sides, this is no different and deserves no special mention. The match is only being discussed in a few small circles, the majority of football people do not really care about this match. As for the title "The Miracle of Geneva", that is a misnomer, as there was no miracle, only a few lucky goals. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Exactmonth2008 (talk • contribs) 11:32, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete It was a reasonably entertaining group game with an exciting finish; that's all. It has no historical significance. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:50, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Move to an article called Turkey at Euro 2008 (or something like that) - tonight's game was almost as ridiculous. To have two (arguably three) major comebacks in a row in a major tournament is notable. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 21:51, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Move Per User:Jmorrison230582. Drizzt Jamo 22:37, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - I think it can be renamed, but should not be deleted. This match deserves to be an article.--Cfsenel (talk) 22:58, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep/ EXPAND - Why is this still being debated? Turkey have done what no Team has done at an Euro competition.. 3 Wins at the last seconds straight (thus why this needs expanding). Also, if this were England this article would be long approved. Lets not forget, this is HISTORIC since this is the FIRST TIME Turkey enter SEMIFINALS!!!!!!!!!
  • Keep This does not happen every day and will be valued once. However, Wikinews is better place for such article. Yet it does not harm anything on wikipedia, let it be as it is. --Aktron (t|c) 22:29, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I moved it to The Comeback Kings, as this is what Turkey is known for in this euro. I will expand the article soon, adding all the matches they played thus far. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Reisender (talk • contribs) 04:39, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment - where's the evidence that they are known as "The Comeback Kings"? That's a fairly generic title. - fchd (talk) 07:25, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
      • Name change made with no consensus, and very little logic. A few people, talking in the context of the current tournament, might have refered to Turkey by this cliché, but does anyone seriously believe that, in 10 years time, use if that phrase will automatically make people remember this game? Nonsense. Kevin McE (talk) 20:12, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Like the article, hate the title.--Paul McDonald (talk) 05:31, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment still delete it, there existed a similar article for the Greece 2004 campaign, but it got deleted/merged into the nft article, the same should be done here. — chandler — 06:33, 22 June 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, due to verifiability and notability concerns. Davewild (talk) 07:36, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

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

Though this may be a topic in Rendering, it does not require it's own article. Also, in over a year of existence, it has not had a single reference. Jimmi Hugh (talk) 01:28, 17 June 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 nancy 18:34, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

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

Egyptian effects artist. Suspected self-promotion. Is he notable? — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 01:25, 17 June 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 nancy 18:32, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Rune Word Entertainment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Some sort of video game sweatshop. Could not find anything that makes this company notable. All the current sources are dead or not correct. Google only turns up this article. Coasttocoast (talk) 01:22, 17 June 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 nancy 18:29, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

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

A god in the game Runescape, no notability for its own article. Coasttocoast (talk) 01:14, 17 June 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 not yet notable. Eastmain, if you'd like the article userfied, please let me know. TravellingCari 02:32, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

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

Unnotable actor(?), doesn't meet WP:ENTERTAINER notability standard. Nadda in Google News. brewcrewer (yada, yada) 15:54, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

  • It looks like you understand Albanian. I don't. Is the link that you provided about a documentary that he was involved with or is it about him. Basically, has he satisfied the "significant coverage" requirement of WP:BIO?--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 00:46, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:46, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:13, 17 June 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 WP:CSD#G3. UltraExactZZ ~ Evidence 20:21, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Texas Spinning Hound (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Hoax dog breed. Google has never heard of it. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 01:10, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I am not a master of internet coding, but I am a master of genetic composing. The goal of this article is to introduce a new breed to the Dog family. I have spent years trying to validate its importance. I was hoping to find a more scholarly forum...not restricted to the finite realm of "Google." But, then again...what can one truly expect to affect on the Internet... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spinninghound (talk • contribs) 05:29, 17 June 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 RESULT: merge with locality article. Matilda 00:58, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Woodford Primary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

A non-notable primary school. No reliable sources asserting notability have been provided. Mattinbgn\ 00:42, 17 June 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. The last "keep" opinion was discounted for the lack of an actual argument.  Sandstein  21:46, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

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

Very fringe theory that has not received critical review nor notice. The sources it is based on are unpublished. So it's neither notable in the scientific community nor is it notable by means of recognition by any mainstream press. ScienceApologist (talk) 00:33, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd recommend searching for "process physics" cahill, rather than process physics cahill, since using quotations gives more specific results. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:34, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
What you might better explain is why these specific results by multiple independent authors do not establish notability. My impression is that this topic has made more impression upon philosophers than upon physicists. But this is fine since Knowledge (XXG) covers all branches of knowledge. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:49, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
The first two are by Cahill. The only mention in "Exploring Randomness" is in a footnote on page 27, with no mention of "process physics" in the main text. The section in Probabilistic Treatment of Gauge Theories is written by Cahill, in Physics and Whitehead: Quantum, Process, and Experience Cahill is only again only mentioned in a citation and his "process physics" is not a topic discussed specifically in the book. The only one of these that discussed Cahill's work specifically is in the philosophy book Whitehead's Pancreativism: The Basics. This one book that briefly discusses the topic is not enough to establish this approach to "fundamental physics" as a notable scientific theory. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:15, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Process physics: modelling reality as self-organising information Author: Cahill, R.T.; Klinger, C.M.; Kitto, K. Source: Physicist|Physicist Volume: vol.37, no.6 Pages: 191-5 Published: Nov.-Dec. 2000
However ISI web of knowledge shows one citation of the 2000 journal article, and this was by the 2002 article - which was written by the same author. The 2002 article has not been cited by any other journal articles. Looking at other sources that turn up on Google scholar (search), most of these seem to be preprints and most of these are self-citations by the same author. I think this fails notability since it does not have multiple citations by other sources independent of the author. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:11, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
We do have multiple references to sources independent of the author as shown by my search above. Your own searches seem too narrow. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:51, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. It is not currently notable as a physics theory, nor has it apparently had any appreciable impact in the non-academic world. The existence of a criticism page gave momentary hope, but I do not find it sufficient. I would not be opposed to a mention at Process philosophy (subject to the judgment of people who know more about formal philosophy) or at a page devoted to universe-as-information-theory or whatever that school is called. - Eldereft (cont.) 14:51, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Process physics is self-evidently notable (ooh what a controversial statement on wikipedia!). Danwills (talk) 13:53, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
It would be good if you could add some sources to the article to support that opinion. Tim Vickers (talk) 15:02, 19 June 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. For the merge advocates, there's no verifiable material to merge, which is the reason it needs to be deleted anyway. Happy to reinstate if RS are found. Dweller (talk) 15:03, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


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

I can't see any notability for this song side from being featured in a couple of DDR games and the fact that, yes, it is used in a whole ton of AMVs. It seems popular, so I'm bringing this to AFD...it's possible notability can be demonstrated (but regardless, the stub that's there is a mess). UsaSatsui (talk) 00:14, 17 June 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 no reliable sources evidence that he's notable per WP:BIO. If an interested party would like the article to work on in userspace, please contact me. TravellingCari 02:28, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Chidi Anthony Opara (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Apparently self-published internet poet. Only claim of notability is inclusion in "World Poets Society", which appears to be a nothing more than a blog (and allows anyone to become a member). Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:51, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

It is not true that World Poets Society is a blog anyone can join, I discovered that one must be a published Poet, either in book form or on the Internet,to join. I also discovered that part of the requirements for joining the Society is that(1)one must submit atleast five of one's poems,(2)submit one's profile, e.t.c. The society is a literary organization of over seven hundred award winning Contemporary Poets from more than one hundred countries, who write in different languages. It only uses a blogsite as its website.

Other notable references about Chidi Anthony Opara which I came across are(1)NigerianWiki(2)(3) (4)AfricanWriter(5)OnlineNigeriaI recommend keep for this article.(Ijele (talk) 12:11, 12 June 2008 (UTC))— Ijele (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

It is true that I have made little or no edits outside this topic. Truth is that, I had just registered and immediately came across this topic, and as a Nigerian, familiar with the careers of most Nigerian contemporary writers, especially Poets, I decided to contribute.In any case, my registration was before this topic.Ijele (talk) 09:33, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Skomorokh 05:50, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
  • What???? Delete, we don't care what country you're from, or about your civic service project, or your poetry club among other mundane minutiae. Make a difference in the world and someone who doesn't even know you will add you to WP. Potatoswatter (talk) 12:47, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Article doesn't even make a claim to meeting the WP:BIO notability standard. He writes poems. Wow. That's more than I do, but that isn't sufficient. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 16:01, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Unpublished poet except on internet sites, as far as I can determine. External links are all Blogspot sites apparently authored by the subject of the article. World Poets' Society membership available free by emailing in five of your poems. Fails WP:N. --Karenjc 21:07, 17 June 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.

↑