Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 February 21

February 21

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. dbenbenn | talk 20:35, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Permanent Autonomous Zone

This page has had a cleanup tag on it since November 7, and is now worse than it was when the tag was added. It's time for it to go. Taco Deposit | Talk-o to Taco 00:13, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)

• Weak keep, as you point out it is desperately in need of clean up, especially the format, it is also unclear from the article and google if any PAZs actually exist, there are however travelling, temporary and semi-permanent autonomous zones and instead of giving each of those concepts their own page, this would be the ideal place to discuss the various types of autonomous zone--nixie 02:41, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Comment, should this article have a section titled "INFO"? Major cleanup is needed, and then I would give it a Weak keep. -- Riffsyphon1024 03:19, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, as it may be better for this article to simply cease existing, and in case somebody creates it again in the future, it will certainly be better than this. HOWEVER, in case somebody cleans it up in a satisfactory way, I will change my vote to keep. --Sn0wflake 03:39, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• I believe the article would require a substantial rewrite, and a change of title. However IIRC the 'anarchic neighborhood' in Copenhagen is real. I don't recall its name though, can we get a Dane to substantiate? I would say merge there (or title change to there if said article doesn't exist yet). Radiant! 08:51, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. That would be Freetown Christiania. And it's not what it used to be anymore :( Preisler 09:17, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I'm willing to reconsider if the article gets rewritten in the next few days. Wile E. Heresiarch 16:52, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Seems like a neologism. Even if it's not, with no examples or research to reference, I think it slips under notability. --InShaneee 20:35, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete to make way for retitling ("move") of Permanent Autonomous Zones. I was going to do the cleanup requested above, but accidentally entered the plural and found the existing article that is in slightly better shape. However, this article has the appropriate name. I'll probably have already done some work toward merging by the time you see this. HyperZonk^talk 01:06, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Replace Permanent Autonomous Zone with the better Permanent Autonomous Zones. - TB
  • If kept, should remain singular, per MoS. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:50, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Replace. Gets surprisingly few Google hits, but I've definitely heard of it before, probably thanks to hanging around too many Hakim Bey readers. RadicalSubversiv E 13:36, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• I'm wondering about the reality of this. "Temporary Autonomous Zone" or "TAZ" is a common term among some types of anarchists, but I've never heard "Permanent Autonomous Zone". The article as it stands sure doesn't clarify the matter (no solid citations). Telling us to "Think Permanent Burning Man City" doesn't add much: it just says "think about making a TAZ permanent". Leaning toward delete.
• Yes: Replace Permanent Autonomous Zone with the better Permanent Autonomous Zones and rewrite and add more info.
  • This last comment was made by the same anonymous person who created both articles:[3] and [4].

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was KEEP. dbenbenn | talk 01:33, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

List of people believed to have been affected by bipolar disorder

Too speculative and Possiblly Libelous. Should be removed ASAP. Nick Catalano 01:45, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Delete Ejrrjs | What? 01:52, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Delete this list cannot be verified in any way (except for the living people on record as bipolar), so it really doesn't belong in wikipedia --nixie 02:29, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete -- Possiblly libelous Longhair 02:35, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Comment I'm sure this was on VfD before. Anyone remember? Dpbsmith (talk) 03:12, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • There's no record of vfd on the talk page, there have been similar lists up for vfd recently, like the list of republican celebrities etc --nixie 03:25, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, because it may cause problems. -- Riffsyphon1024 03:15, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless, prior to expiration of VfD, a) sources are provided for at least twenty people on the list, and b) no more than ten of those sources are from or closely connected to Kay Redfield Jamison's book Touched with Fire, and c) all names for which no sources are provided are moved to the article's talk page and not placed in the article until a source is provided. I think this page is a currently a mixture of rumor, speculation, and Jamison. Jamison's book is fascinating, respectable and credible, but speculative. We should acknowledge it as the source whenever it is the source, and we shouldn't base an article solely on her work. Dpbsmith (talk) 03:22, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete All the reasons above, and it has no encyclopedic value. --DaveTheRed 03:30, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and then undergo a verification proccess. Just a comment, though: because it may cause problems doesn't seem like an awfully good reason to remove something from an encyclopedia. For all we know, bread might cause problems with people who dislike it. --Sn0wflake 03:47, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • • • Dammit, on a topic as sensitive as this, this should be verify first. No entries should have ever gone onto this list without a verifiable source. Given that the list was created in July 2004 and has been slowly and continuously edited since then, I don't think it matters if it hangs around for another week or so, but the outcome of this VfD should be something that ensures that any "highly speculative and inaccurate" entries will be removed from the main namespace reasonably quickly. Dpbsmith (talk) 14:16, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Gee, I can't recollect any bread suits, but I can certainly remember a lot of libel suits over false and/or reckless charges of mental illness. --Calton 04:01, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • I once tried on a breadsuit and, man, was it a bad idea. Surprised I got out of the park alive. Anyway, delete this list. Any list that readily admits it's bullshit does not belong here. -R. fiend 04:04, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Here is a highly speculative and inaccurate list? People believed to have been affected? This is a reckless list atht should be deleted ASAP. --Calton 04:00, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. POV, non-encyclopedic. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:46, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Kaibabsquirrel 06:17, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, but if we must keep this article (which isn't likely right now), I strongly suggest we keep living or recently living people off. Just think of how much this would offend them, or their families. Plus there are some serious libel issues. Szyslak 06:26, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• "Believed"???. If someone has not been diagnozed with the BPD or admitted that they have it, everything is speculation and potentially derogatory. Delete - Skysmith 11:21, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. --BM 14:23, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

---

• Comment I have just made a bold and ruthless edit. The previous version of the article, which is the subject of the discussion above the line, is this revision. I have moved the unsourced entries to the Talk page. Since currently all of the entries are unsourced, that means all the entries. I have changed the lead sentence which formerly read "Here is a highly speculative and inaccurate list" to read "This is a list of people who have been cited by a credible source as probably having bipolar disorder. Each entry is accompanied by the source." Dpbsmith (talk) 14:28, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Wikipedia is not a celebrity gossip rag, and even a celebrity gossip rag would find itself slapped with a libel suit if they accused someone of having bipolar disorder without any proof. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:54, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete for reasons listed above. — RJH 17:46, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

---

• Comment On the main bipolar disorder page is a link to a list of famous persons with mental disorders from the national alliance for the mentally ill. It contains about 20 names which I will transfer to this list in the next few minutes. LukeSurl 18:49, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • I believe the page now is worthy of a keep LukeSurl 19:09, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • I've consulted a second source, namely [bipolarworld.net. I belive this gives the list extra validity. However, due to the nature of Bipolar disorder it is inevitable that this list is going to be questionable, therefore I have added in the article an admission of this:

"The nature of the condition means it is near impossible to obtain an definative list of bipolar persons, hence this is a list of those that are believed to be so. The fact that it contains many artistic geniuses can be interpreted in two ways, either that bipolar disorder occurs fequently in artistic geniuses or that people frequently associate mental disorder with genius in error, not understanding the nature of the gift."

I believe the list can be interpreted as a mirror on popular perception of bipolar disorder and not necessarily a definative list and such warrent its ambiguous title.

Furthermore I have excluded any living persons from the list to avoid controversy LukeSurl 20:33, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Whatever the sources, it should still be deleted. I just looked at the pages referenced from which appear equally "highly speculative and inaccurate". For one reason or other most mental health pressure groups appear to collect spuriously referenced lists of highly speculative nature of famous people suffering their particular illness/condition. Probably worth an article...Beethoven turns up on every such list, whether autistic/ asperger, bipolar whatever, probably he was just an alcoholic, Schumann suffered from tertiary syphilis and not BPI(as per reference provided, etc, Again, please delete asap.Refdoc 20:42, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Yes, these lists are collected by those with a vested interest but doesn't that increase this articles validity on how Bipolar disorder is percieved? Perhaps the page could be moved to List of people claimed to have been affected by bipolar disorder with a brief discussion on the bias of said organisations?LukeSurl 21:05, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Furthermore, bipolarity and alcholism or syphillus are not mutually exclusive. Biopolarity, switching from depression to manic may be a cause, or an effect of alcholism, Schumann's syphillus may have caused a bipolar nature. "Bipolar disorder" was previously called "manic depression", and is therefore much easier to speculate on than first appears. For a person to have Bipolar II disorder requires only one major depressive episode in their lives. This is possible to determine with reasonable accuracy from historical records. Yes, if this is to be closer to a definate list then it should be reviewed on a case by case basis, but not deleted. LukeSurl 22:54, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This is possible to determine with reasonable accuracy from historical records This is wrong. While the criteria are laid out in stuff like [[ICD 10] ]and DSM IV, any such diagnosis requires huge medical skills, is often in doubt for a long time and may need to be revised at some stage. To make such a diagnosis form review of incomplete biographical data is presumptoous to say the least.Refdoc 00:10, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Nevertheless, it could be perfectly encyclopedic to say "Byron was profiled as a probable manic-depressive by Kay Redfield Jamison." It all depends on whether you think Kay Redfield Jamison's views rise to the level of encyclopedic authority. We shouldn't present our personal speculation as fact, but it's perfectly reasonable to present well-sourced, authoritative speculation as long as we identify the source and led the reader assess credibility. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:18, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hey, I just thought of one person who certainly can go on the list! Dpbsmith (talk) 01:24, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, as long as it lists only the people who, have admitted to having BD, such as Adam Ant or Vivien Leigh for example, and keeps out the more speculative ones. G-Man 00:07, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, as quickly as possible. This is grotesquely offensive, both to those on the list and to those who actually suffer from bipolar disorder. Non-encyclopedic, possibly grounds for libel. DocSigma 04:32, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)I didn't even notice the massive edits that have been done. When I first saw this list, it was completely unsubstantiated (which is why I found it offensive). I change my vote to Keep. DocSigma 04:50, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • This is false. It is not offensive to those who suffer from bipolar disorder. The sources for the current version of the article are all people with bipolar disorder (Jamison, the members of NAMI, the participants at bipolarworld.net). I have bipolar disorder, and I love lists of famous people with bipolar disorder. I'm sure that somebody with bipolar disorder is offended by such lists, but they don't speak for me! -- Toby Bartels 00:01, 2005 Feb 28 (UTC)
  • Agreed. I'm another bipolar Wikipedian who is not offended by this list. -- Karada 11:19, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. I would like to see the opinion of a specialist on this article. After the cleanup, the issue seems to be merely whether or not the list is speculative. I'm no psychiatrist, but one or two books I've read by very notable authorities on this field gave me the impression it is not really considered speculation to produce a diagnosis based only on historical data, or even in fictional material. By the way, Ben Stiller is still listed with no indication of source. vlad_mv 01:14, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm not very happy with the "cleanup." The so-called sources are web pages which themselves are very poorly sourced. The NAMI list is simply a list of people with "mental illness." The current page includes Faulkner, gives BPW as the source, but notes that Faulkner was "alcoholic." The BPW does list him as "bipolar" but really presents no evidence or sources at all. Being alcoholic and being bipolar are not the same thing! Dpbsmith (talk) 03:01, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• I've added "TWF" initials to all persons listed in "Touched with fire" as well as a few links to relavent biographies of a few individual persons. Kay Redfield Jamison includes many more persons on her list but I decided not to add any more names. I've also got a quote from Ben Stiller himself who is very open about his condition, making him the only living person on the list. LukeSurl 16:53, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • The only living person besides Jamison herself, that is. She's still alive AFAIK. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:20, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. It's perfectly without the mandate of an NPOV encyclopaedia to report that a famous person is commonly believed, or credibly cited, to have a particular medical condition. This goes for deceased persons as well, as long as we make it clear that the diagnosis is merely an estimate based on historical material. Everything should be sourced; random contributor's personal speculations are not verifiable. The current article meets these requirements. -- Toby Bartels 00:01, 2005 Feb 28 (UTC)
• Keep -- Darwinek 10:48, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, but tighten up on citing of source material: and yes, I believe Jamison to be a good source. As an aside, I wonder how many bipolar Wikipedians there are? With bipolar disorder affecting 0.1%-1% of the population (depending on your definition), there must be quite a few. -- Karada 11:01, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm one! I was offended by the list back when it was unsubstantiated, but no longer am. DocSigma 04:50, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep -- Zarkov 21:01, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Drw25 00:01, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was (apparently) Deleted, perhaps because of the copyvio, and possibly ignoring the late Keep votes resulting from GRider's posts on multiple User_talk pages. The admin who deleted the article did not close the VfD in the usual way. I am just adding the closure templates. --BM 22:59, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It was deleted as a copyvio on March 5 after being listed since February 20. dbenbenn | talk 13:27, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Geylang Methodist Secondary School

Article fails to establish notability. Delete.-gadfium 05:44, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable - 350 Google hits. Megan1967 06:05, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, unless its the only Methodist school in Siagapore or something else that would make it notable pops up --nixie 06:20, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep this and all school articles. They won't get better if they don't exist, and it would be amazing to have a proper article about every school in the World. Wincoote 07:10, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Actually, it would be detrimental. The important words are "proper article". An encyclopaedia is not simply a directory. It contains knowledge, not mere information. To be worthy of a "proper article", an entity that is one of thousands (or, as in this case one of hundreds of thousands if not millions) has to stand out from the crowd for some reason. There has to be something more than can be inferred from the fact that it is a school (and thus has all of the things that that entails, such as enrollment, teachers, songs, crests, buildings, sports teams, and so forth). High schools in Connecticut, before its deletion, showed how large numbers of entities with lack of individual notability can be handled. But even that approach comes with caveats. Uncle G 15:06, 2005 Feb 21 (UTC)
• Delete. The vast majority of schools in the world are not notable. Make articles for the notable ones, put them in appropriate categories and Wikipedia becomes a better place. Carrp | Talk 07:13, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Gamaliel 07:14, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. The reasons why notable schools get deleted while articles about fictional bus drivers get kept is due to systematic bias. If this article get deleted than I hope the delete voters won't object to deleting Ernie Prang? But no, you would all be voting keep. VFD is broken. I have seen countless articles get deleted because of this problem and this is another example. Norman Rogers\^talk 09:29, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • No, most people are voting merge on Ernie :) Other than that, concur with Carrp, Delete. Radiant! 13:44, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
    • Why not vote merge for this article then? Norman Rogers\^talk
  • Is this one more notable than the average secondary school? Kappa 11:43, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • The reasons why notable schools get deleted while articles about fictional bus drivers get kept is due to systematic bias — That is a flawed argument that assumes the erroneous premise that the schools actually are notable. Out of the millions of schools in the world, the overwhelming majority are not notable (despite all of the efforts of academic boosterism to the contrary). School articles get deleted because there is nothing of importance to say about the schools and the articles are tantamount to directory entries. Wikipedia is not a directory. Delete. Uncle G 15:06, 2005 Feb 21 (UTC)

Notabillity is a POV, which is sculpted by systematic bias. You have the bias that schools are not notable as your POV, but realize that there are other people who think that they are notable. If you don't think that they are notable then don't read them, but getting them deleted and denying the people who do think they are notable to write about them is bad. Thats why deletionists are bad for the Wikipedia project and they must change their ways. Think KEEP, make Wikipedia more comprehensive and therefore useful, or a merge and redirect to an article in your POV is notable enough to include. For exmaple, a few weeks ago, someone wrote an article about MY former school! Instead of listing it on VFD, I merged and redirected it into the town that it was in, that is a much better soloution. See article about it. If more people kept or merged and redirected there will be less aruments on VFD and Wikipedia will be a better encyclopedia. Norman Rogers\^talk 15:39, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Copyvio - I normally vote to keep schools, but in this case the article is a copyvio from [5]. - SimonP 14:00, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, even if copyvio is resolved. Very few secondary schools are encyclopedically notable, and there is no reason to consider this an exception. --BM 16:56, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep if copyvio is resolved. Necessary to the coverage of its local area. Kappa 03:02, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• 'Merge information into article about the local community and delete - Skysmith 09:10, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Even if the copyvio is resolved, I'd need a LOT of convincing. Delete. --Calton 10:20, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Schools are inherently notable.--Centauri 12:42, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • That may be your opinion but it is far from consensual. Radiant! 13:15, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, if the copyvio is fixed. - Mailer Diablo 13:28, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• I vote keep. In my opinion schools are notable. --JuntungWu 14:10, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Realising that while my opinion is non-consensual, educational institutions of all sorts are still much more inherently noteworthy than the average Pokémon. May be persuaded to change my vote if we remove Pokémon-related boosterism but until then, keep and allow for organic growth and expansion. GRider\^talk 19:15, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Schools are not inherently notable. No evidence available that this one is notable. Delete even if copyvio is resolved. GRider has a good point but "Wikipedia is inconsistent." We must take these nominations as they come to us. Rossami (talk) 05:34, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable. Grue 13:51, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• I know people of good will have strongly held opinions about inclusion of school articles, but this is ridiculous. The article lacks any meaningful content and comes very close to qualifying for speedy deletion ("very short articles with little or no context"). Delete, add mention to some relevant local article if available. RadicalSubversiv E 13:24, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Ridiculous article, candidate for speedy deletion, exposes radical school inclusionism. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:58, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. The current non-copyvio version is almost nonsensical, and the copyvio version neither establishes (nor attempts to establish) notability. -Aranel ("Sarah") 00:51, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Like Aranel said. Delete.
• Delete. Not notable. 66.188.220.252 05:22, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Note: Unsigned and/or unregistered votes do not count on VfD. Please register an account with Wikipedia first and have some contributions before voting here. --Andylkl 23:43, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)

---

Notice to reviewing administrator: There was an attempt to vote stack on this article. See GRider's contributions. Votes beyond this point need to be reviewed carefully and considered carefully. -- AllyUnion (talk) 02:45, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

---

Users must consider all policies and former consensus before commenting for consensus: Please note, Wikipedia:Deletion policy, is not the only policy to consider.

• Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Precedents
• Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not
• Wikipedia:What's in, what's out

Considerations should also be made to the following as well:

• Wikipedia:Google test
• Wikipedia:Importance

Users should remember that the Wikipedia is not an experiment in democracy. -- AllyUnion (talk) 02:45, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

---

• Keep the article, rewrite it so it's not a copyright violation.--BaronLarf 19:32, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Abstain. Whats the point if it's a copyvio. RaD Man (talk) 22:44, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete for the copyvio, I'll vote to keep if original content turns up. Wyss 23:02, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Abstain. Willing to change vote if there's useful/factual content there. --Andylkl 23:43, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Interesting school stub, wikipedia is not paper. --ShaunMacPherson 01:44, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Keep Notable -CunningLinguist 02:59, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. JuntungWu 12:53, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep (if copy violation is fixed). schools are notable RustyCale 13:30, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I think schools are inherently notable. Further, "notability" is not listed in Wikipedia:Deletion policy (even though I wish it were, and have tried to include it), so isn't grounds for deletion anyway. Dan100 17:52, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. As others said, it has to be fixed first thou. But as a Singaporean, I have to point out that it is one of the few Methodist schools in Singapore, so it may be worthy for an elaboration on its history.--Huaiwei 20:04, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: In regards to claims of vote-stacking, their are large amounts of people who beleive well-written articles for schools are inherently notable. Merely bringing an article to someones attention is no more votestacking than providing a link for someone is. If you'll notice, GRider's contributions were far and wide and not concentrated on any bloc or mailing list group. Speaking for myself, I evaluated the article and voted to keep it out of sincere belief that it deserved to be kept and not out of any votestacking motivation. I have faith that the majority of the other voters did as well. Thank you for your time. -CunningLinguist 03:56, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. dbenbenn | talk 17:55, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Alleged U.S. war criminals now Allegations of war crimes against U.S. officials

Hopelessly POV, no way to make an encyclopedic NPOV article out of this. Also qualifies as "original research", since this person seems to be listing names on his own authority. -- Curps 08:37, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Take a look at all the REFERENCES in the article, at least one per every individual listed. That's more that can be said about Mass deaths and atrocities of the twentieth century, an article drawing on the work of a couple of rightwing libertarian ideologies like Rummel. GSherman 10:08, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

First of all, you added all these references just now, after this page was already listed here. In any case, the NPOV part remains. -- Curps 10:15, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

What part of "alleged" in the title don't you understand? We can report what other people are saying, and readers can decide for themselves. You apparently just want to report the views that you support. GSherman 10:17, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Using bold typeface is the equivalent of shouting on the internet and is considered impolite. Please avoid it in the future. If you have any other questions please refer to Wikiquette. -DaveTheRed

• Keep If you are not aware of the scores of scholars and human rights activists who accuse each of these U.S. officials of war crimes, then you are too ignorant to work on it. (I will add them, but this article for now, just like every other article on this site according to all the disclaimers that I have been reading, is a work in progress.) It is not "original research." Actually, I know that "original research" is not the real motive to get rid this article. I'm sure that this article (long overdue) will come under attack by many users who are the moral equivalent to Holocaust deniers. GSherman 08:46, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You seem to be a new user. You should read Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Wikipedia is not a place for polemical essays. -- Curps 08:48, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

No, you should read the NPOV policy. I am merely reporting what some human rights activists and scholars have written on a number of important U.S. figures; you are violating the NPOV policy by attempting to cover up their allegations (notice that the article deals with alleged war criminals). GSherman 09:09, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• DeleteThis article lists every U.S. President since Kennedy, minus Carter. Wikipedia is not the place for an POV indictment against U.S. foreign policy. DaveTheRed 09:10, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Without wishing to actually support this article, no it doesn't. It lists people who served in the administrations of those Presidents, but only Reagan, Bush the Elder and Clinton are mentioned themselves. TSP 09:50, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • I meant to say "presidential administration", not "president." Lazy grammar on my part. But my point still rings true. DaveTheRed
• Delete. This page is irredeemably POV. Morwen - Talk 09:33, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• I can just about believe that this COULD be NPOV, if exact details of who had accused that person of war crimes were included (and limited to formal sources). If it were, though, it would probably live somewhere like US Citizens accused of war crimes - or be incorporated into List of war crimes (which itself has issues with encyclopaedicness at the moment). On this page, I have to say delete. TSP 09:50, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Delete. Hopelessly POV. Such allegations could be (and probably are) mentioned on the individual pages of the "accused" if there's any basis for it. See Henry Kissinger for example Preisler 10:18, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: I don't like US foreign policy much, but this page is heavily POV and not really useful --- Chris 73 Talk 10:26, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment The same user has now created Category:Alleged U.S. war criminals, which I have listed in Wikipedia:Categories for deletion. -- Curps 10:39, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep but include details of who accuses whom of what. Burschik 11:08, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Hopelessly POV. Stereotek 11:14, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep A valid topic and relatively well-referenced. JMaxwell 11:22, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Heavy POV content. Delete unless rewritten. - Mike Rosoft 13:13, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Only keep if rewritten utterly. Only accusations made by notable international groups (e.g. Amnesty International, Reporters Sans Frontières, Human Rights Watch, Center for Constitutional Rights) should be listed, and the group making the accusation explicitly stated. Any group we don't have an article for doesn't count. Links to articles from the accusing organisation required, rather than second hand website reports. Average Earthman 13:27, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• I don't particularly care for an article that starts with 'alleged'. This one is too propagandistic imho. Delete. Radiant! 13:32, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete pov and unlikely to become npov. Wincoote 14:57, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)$
• One-way ticket to the trash can Inherently subjective. Phils 15:20, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. This is another list, and has all the usual problems of such, centering on the problem that the criterion for inclusion on the list is unclear and not agreed, and even when the criterion is relatively clear, it is still often a POV whether something should be listed or not. Unlike regular articles, where facts and arguments related to the matter can be presented, lists are binary: something is either on the list or it is not. Of necessity, if there is a dispute over inclusion, one POV gets to win, since an item can't be both on a particular list and not on it at the same time. That means that many lists inherently violate NPOV. People reacting negatively to this list might reconsider their support for a substantial number of the list articles. --BM 16:52, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete or rewrite and rename with sledgehammer --- If this were a "Perspectives on U.S. military actions, 20th Century-Present" article, it might stand a chance of being NPOV. Right now, even the title is slanted. jdb ❋ (talk) 18:01, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - should be speedy deleted as libel (note that putting "alleged" in front of an accusation has no legal effect as far as libel law is concerned), jguk 19:44, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete agenda-driven and potentially libelous — RJH 19:46, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Merge relavent info onto individual pages where appropriate. The article by itself is irredeemably POV. --InShaneee 20:58, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, cleanup and expand. Megan1967 22:35, 22 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete This doesn't belong in an encyclopedia, or any rational literature. 22:56, 22 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Note: Comment by Trampled. --InShaneee 16:17, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Created to further a POV. Szyslak 03:52, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Merge into Peace Movement and link to that section from War Crimes, noting the use of labelling individuals as war criminals as part of protests against war. Stirling Newberry 04:40, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with International criminal court if in fact indictments exist as examples of unheard potential cases, otherwise this needs a top-to-bottom reworking and rewrite. As it stands now, the article/list is POV. One of the first things I was taught in journalism school is that the word "alleged" is not a protection against libel, and should not be used to further an agenda. My biggest problem is the article itself reads like a criminal indictment document which renders it completely POV because there will be people wanting to argue the opposite. 23skidoo 04:45, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, Clean Up, Expand but rename to something more obective, like "U.S. officials accused of war crimes," and identify/document accusers and accusations in greater detail. --BD2412 05:21, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep/retitle or merge preferable Just make sure that none of these officials are indicted by any legitimate authority (a disclaimer that ought to be noted in the intro) but rather accused of a host of things by advocacy groups. Note that we have similar pages; they just are not as controversial on Wiki since they deal with regimes that are not friendly with the U.S. [6] 172 06:48, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Possibly rewrite, but shouldn't be deleted simply because most people don't agree. Should be expanded on though.
  • Note: comment by 129.97.234.46. --InShaneee 16:07, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, but clarify - I agree with BD2412's comments. - Mustafaa 22:13, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep but rename, Clean Up, Expand, just as BD2412 argued above. --Zero 22:21, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, agree with BD2412 too. James F. (talk) 23:06, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Abstain for now. Only people who have been accused by actual legal bodies ought to be included in lists of war criminals. "People who are popularly (falsely or otherwise) believed to be X" isn't encyclopedic. -Sean Curtin 00:48, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)
• The allegations can and should be discussed in the articles of the respective individuals. Those articles will be debated aggressively enough to make sure that the allegations are credible, verifiable and notable. This "list of" article is taking a hodgepodge of essentially unrelated events and presenting them in a way designed to imply a correlation. I think this represents an insolvable problem for the article. Delete. (Since GSherman is essentially the sole contributor to the article so far, GFDL can be preserved by attributing the merged comments in the edit summaries.) Rossami (talk) 05:54, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, obviously POV. Grue 13:59, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep only those allegations directed by notable, credible sources. Currently, among other outstanding issues, the article's emphasis needs to be placed on the responses to the allegations by those accused. The article is inherently one-sided unless the reader is provided with ... both sides. El_C 11:36, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Has potential but needs work. --Bucephalus 15:09, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Irreparably POV. There is no way this is ever going to be anything other than anti-American propaganda. -Aranel ("Sarah") 00:53, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • • Keep, but article should not be merely a list of the accused, with only blind external links to the accusers. In each case, it is relevant who is bringing the accusation. This could be an NPOV article if it were done that way. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:08, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and NPOV. Rhobite 01:44, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep but improve along the lines suggested by BD2412, El_C, and Jmabel. Although past VfD votes don't establish binding precedents, I note that List of Japanese War Atrocities survived VfD even without the "alleged" in the title. In voting to delete that one (see discussion), I said, "NPOV permits citation of attributed charges of atrocities . . . ." The article we're now voting on takes that approach. JamesMLane 05:02, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Delete hopelessly POV. --BenWilson 01:25, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, clearly not neutral and unlikely that it ever can be. There is room for Allegations of war crimes by the United States, but this should probably be written from scratch, and should make a clear distinction between war and war crimes, which this article does not.--Pharos 16:40, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Would do much to counter systemic bias to have a page detailing US war crimes as well as Japanese, German etc. Just because no American has been prosecuted for war crimes doesn't mean that they haven't occurred. GeorgeStepanek\^talk 03:24, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Well, obviously List of notable schools in United States shows that everything American should be out of Wikipedia (see also WP:VFU). Grue 05:45, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was no consensus to delete, adding merge tag. Rhobite 06:27, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)

Watching music videos muted

This might merit a merger into music videos. It's not encyclopedia-worthy, for obvious reasons. jdb ❋ (talk) 08:31, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Merge with music video (at the end of section "Modern Era") and delete article. -- Brhaspati (talk, contribs) 08:40, 2005 Feb 21 (UTC)
• Delete A worldwide phenominon, I'd think, yet no more notable than any other teenage masurbatory habit. --InShaneee 21:01, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable or encyclopaedic. Megan1967 22:45, 22 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was Merge. --BM 00:14, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Justin Kirk Nevins

Vanity page. The guy's sole claim to fame is that he has made a toy similar to the cryptex described in the Da Vinci Code (we even get to read what street he was on when he thought of it), and sold 67 copies. Maybe when he's sold 67,000 copies he should have a page. Securiger 12:54, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Delete -- Vanity page, created by a local of Tacoma. Not notable enough. -- Longhair 18:46, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep -- I'm the author of the page. While it's true I live in Tacoma, I have no interest in the person or product, do not know them, have not seen them, indeed no know one who has -- I know of them only through the cited newspaper article. On 'vanity pages' we read in the guidelines: "Usually, vanity authors write about themselves, their significant others, or their high schools. Articles about start-up businesses or musicians are not vanity pages and are considered acceptable, but it's preferable that the initial author not be someone affiliated with the project." I have no affiliation whatsoever. Thus the label of 'vanity page' does not apply, as I have no connection of any sort (except as a subscriber to the rather undistinguished paper where the article appeared) and indeed will not feel that my "vanity" is wounded in the event of deletion, as my motives in writing it were purely altruistic (as far as I can divine). The Da Vinci Code is a work of great popular interest (though not to me personally, by the way -- I haven't even read it, so no 'vanity' there either) and the devising of a 'cryptex' is an accomplishment of note, IMHO. Perhaps the readers on the 'Da Vinci Code' page might be polled. -- Naturally I accede to the wisdom and outcome of this process, but wanted to set forth my disinterestedness. Mark K. Jensen 06:29, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Cryptex. The fact that he makes cryptices makes him very relevant to that article, but most details given in his own article are too detailed to be very interesting. Radiant! 09:23, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was Keep --BM 00:36, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Fiddien

Wikipedia is not a genealogy database. Radiant! 15:31, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)

The discussion Wikipedia:Deletion_policy/Maltese_nobility has been started to deal with this article and the half a dozen related ones. Please do not vote below, but go to that discussion so that a consensus can be reached on the group, rather than having to repeat arguments on each individual article.

• Delete -- Genealogy research article Longhair 18:40, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep — article about nobility family line; notable. — RJH 20:18, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• More of the original research Maltese nobility stuff created by User:Tancarville. We need a standard policy on all of his articles. RickK 21:29, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Concur with Rick. Tancarville has made dozens of similar pages, although they seem copy/pasted from his webpage. Should we create a subpage at VfD to discuss his work, and whether it belongs here, or in wikisource, or neither? Radiant! 09:05, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep. Important historical data. --Centauri 12:36, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Rhobite 06:26, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)

Ivo Hugh

A character from a series of children's books, I believe. (It isn't very clear.) But the article itself says this character isn't significant. A hoax, or a joke, probably. Delete --BM 16:15, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Gamaliel 16:49, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, the article says Ivo only appears on one page so a merge would hardly be useful even if the actual book were specified. Radiant! 09:07, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and allow for organic growth. Surely this is worthy of inclusion if it garners over 7,000 google hits? [13] Is the Google test not applicable in this instance? If so, why not? GRider\^talk 00:38, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, but with reservations. Needs expansion. Megan1967 00:39, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. I would say that essentially all the Google hits are on-line retailers selling Thomas the Tank Engine model trains, of which Ivo Hugh is one. It is a very large line, and the manufacturer includes Ivo Hugh in order to have an engine pulling zoo animals in the line. As the father of a five-year old, I am an expert on Thomas the Tank Engine characters, and I didn't even recognize this one. --BM 13:02, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not every character from every book is sufficiently noteable for a Wikipedia page. Martg76 19:14, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Rhobite 06:31, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)

Logarithmic timeline of current events

For the prior VFD discussion of this article, see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Logarithmic timeline of current events.

I put this up before and the article is kept, but I feel the decision should be reconsidered. The timeline is pure POV; while it's a fascinating idea, I feel any selection of the "the most important events in the last ten years" is inappropriate because it requires a judgment on what the "most important events" are. Perhaps for Wikinews. Neutrality^talk 16:36, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Neutrality^talk 16:39, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. NPOV violation, no matter how interesting it is. Phils 17:11, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• While this is the coolest concept for an article I've seen in a while, I'm afraid it isn't very encyclopedic. Delete. Radiant! 18:16, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. No clear criterion for inclusion. Inherently violates NPOV, since an event about which there is a dispute as to its importance can't be both on the list and not on it; so inevitably one POV gets to win, and the other gets to lose. --BM 20:49, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep or move to wikinews. Also abolish "deletionism" as inherently POV (see BM's argument above). Kappa 02:55, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Deletionism is a wikiphilosophy, and therefore needn't be NPOV. A selection of "the most important events in the last ten years" is a POV selection of events, and therefore isn't a NPOV encylopedia article. Neutrality^talk 22:13, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)
    • The wikiphilosophy of deletionism results in a wikipedia that is POV, in violation of one of its founding principles. Kappa 21:37, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. By BM's logic, this VfD is also inherently POV because one side gets to win and others lose. I see no reason to reconsider last months voting. jni 09:21, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • VfD is not an encyclopeda article. Radiant! 13:12, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Obviously, the point of VfD is to determine which POV concerning the retention/deletion/etc of an articles represents the consensus of the editors. The contributions and the outcome are inherently a POV. That is why it is in the Wikipedia namespace and not in the article namespace. --BM 19:19, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. We already have Logarithmic timeline to explain the concept and provide an example (albeit it spans a much longer period of time). I see no reason this should be kept here, since any relevant info can be found in Logarithmic timeline; we're not losing anything. Logarithmic timeline of current events is just one POV example of such a timeline. Phils 10:39, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, possibly transwiki, for reasons already given. -Sean Curtin 00:44, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)
• In the prior discussion, several "Keep" voters wanted to see how the page would "pan out" (seemingly unaware that it had already been "panning out", rather badly, for 10 months), opined that "people are maintaining it", and called for better explanations of the idea (seemingly unaware of the existence of logarithmic timeline that does exactly that). As Phils points out, we already have the encyclopaedia article. This article, by contrast, is no more than an example of the idea. And it is an example whose edit history speaks for itself. In the month between the VFD discussion closure and the renomination, the page saw exactly four edits. And it really hadn't been maintained very effectively before that. Moreover, the article still states that the election in Iraq took place "last week". Yes, this is an intriguing idea, especially if it were done well (which it hasn't been, and, if the past 11 months are anything to go by, probably won't be — especially given that Wikipedia is not a news service). Wikipedia is the encyclopaedia. Wiktionary is the dictionary. And Wikinews is the newspaper. This idea would be an very interesting one to try out as an alternative means of presenting the Wikinews digests of past news reports. That is where something like this belongs — in the newspaper's "archive room". I suspect that Wikinews would be grateful for the concept, not for the article, so rather than Wikinews I vote Delete. Uncle G 18:27, 2005 Feb 24 (UTC)
• Delete. Poorly maintained and POV version of a concept already covered. --G Rutter 22:55, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Agree with UncleG in all points. It would be pretty cool in WikiNews. vlad_mv 02:32, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete or transwiki. Inherently-and-permanently unstable pages do not belong in the main namespace. If nothing at all happened in the world for a month, no other pages would need updating (improving and correcting, but not updating); but this page would need changing just to keep the relative dates current. Joestynes 09:01, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. dbenbenn | talk 03:21, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The Friends of Ireland (Raleigh)

Nonnotable organization. Note that this page is specifically for a group named Friends of Ireland in Raleigh, NC; there may be notable groups by the same name elsewhere. Wile E. Heresiarch 07:00, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• This stems from a disambiguation page, Friends of Ireland. If others can be grouped together in an article, then this should merged into it. -- Riffsyphon1024 07:03, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Google sees eight incoming links to their website, and eleven mentions of it. "Friends of Ireland"+Raleigh gets 68 displayed hits. I'm going to say delete, non-notable. —Korath (Talk) 00:50, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was No consensus to delete. Rhobite 06:34, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)

Faxrush

Nonnotable software. Delete. Wile E. Heresiarch 06:42, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Keep and improve. 4000 Google hits suggest it is notable. -- RHaworth 07:04, 2005 Feb 23 (UTC)
• Keep, but with reservations. Article needs expansion. Megan1967 08:50, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, platform for an external link. 4100 google hits isn't overwhelming for software, particularly when only 404 are displayed. —Korath (Talk) 18:49, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was no consensus to delete. Rhobite 06:37, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)

Dan Biocchi

Are members of the Green Party of Canada who have two children from two seperate mothers inherently notworthy? If not, how is notability currently being illustrated in this article? GRider\^talk 19:50, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. A bio of elements of his personal life. Apparently hasn't even been elected to anything. Has he even run? Zero content. -R. fiend 20:02, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, he got 2,699 votes in the 2004 Canadian election. - SimonP 21:12, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • ...and came in 4th out of 4 people, with less than half the votes that the #3 guy got. Lots of elections have minor candidates, who run as a political exercise instead of a serious attempt to win. They don't all need articles. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:30, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Running for what? Parliament? So we're going to have a page on every person who's ever run for any office? <3000 votes isn't a hell of a lot anyway. Clearly not notable. -R. fiend 21:19, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Do we not have bios for everyone who has run for President of the US or Congress? --Spinboy 21:21, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm pretty sure we don't, actually. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:30, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • President, yes (or at least probably), Congress? You've got to be kidding, right? We're not even close to having biographies for everyone who's ever been elected to Congress, much less run for it. Running for an office and losing (especially being 4th out of 4) is about as unremarkable as it gets. And have you read the article? It reads like high school vanity. -R. fiend 21:43, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • We don't have articles for everyone who's ever run for Congress, and running for President is a false analogy which sets no valid precedent here. Bearcat 06:50, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep: Actually, winning 2699 as a Green is notable, but the article should be expanded to say that, and identify where he ran, what % of the vote he got and how far behind the big three candidates he was. Kevintoronto 21:33, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete I don't think that people that belong to a political party and have run for some kind of office and failed are notable enough for wikipedia--nixie 22:02, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete not notable enough. cannot have a page on every candidate running for every office. kaal 23:17, 22 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, but with reservations. Article needs expansion. Megan1967 23:52, 22 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry Megan, but are you voting to keep a guy who once ran for Canadian Parliament, placing 4th out of 4, while voting to delete Adrian John Flook, and actual member of British Parliament? I'm just trying to figure out where you're coming from here. -R. fiend 05:18, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Hmm, I agree... that does seem a bit strange. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:06, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, according to the link he was an Olympic athlete. Kappa 02:49, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep 2,699 votes warrants notability in my books. Earl Andrew 06:13, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• I don't (and won't) subscribe to the notion that Wikipedia should have an article on every single person who's ever run for any political office whatsoever. I can support minor candidates when they (a) got a significant amount of media attention, (b) are already notable for other reasons and their losing political campaign is just an extra fact about them, (c) are leaders of minor parties, or (d) are notable specifically as perennial candidates. This guy fits under (b), as Kappa notes, so keep, but make sure the article notes his Olympic history. Bearcat 06:35, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Concur with Bearcat, those are good criteria. Radiant! 09:08, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. All candidates for public office are notable.--Centauri 12:33, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• 1) Not all candidates for public office are automatically notable. Bearcat's criteria are a good start. 2) Not all athletes, even Olympic athletes, are automatically notable. Here is the description of his Olympic career [14]. Biocchi was also a part of the Canadian contingent competing at the 1976 Montreal Olympics. He was one leg of the Canadian 4x100 metre relay team that finished eighth. Politely, delete. By the way, my dentist was an Olympic figure skater for Czechoslovakia. He has great stories but he's not encyclopedic either. Rossami (talk) 23:45, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. The idea that all candidates for office are notable is completely absurd. To carry out this idea to its logical conclusion, we'd have to include anyone (living or dead) who has ever been a candidate for any public office at any level in any country. I think the number of people who fit that criteria would be slightly higher than the number of Pokemon. Carrp | Talk 23:53, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable enough. ComCat 08:56, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: He can come back when he's famous. Giano 15:39, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not everyone soundly trounced in a Canadian election is notable. —Korath (Talk) 18:54, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep--ZayZayEM 01:34, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. He was an also-ran in the election, and an also-ran at the Olympics. Neither one is notable. -- James Teterenko (talk) 05:26, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was no consensus to delete; redirecting to Smalltalk. Rhobite 06:44, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)

Dan Ingalls

Just what is so outstanding about this 9-word substub? Should it be deleted? Merged? Kept? GRider\^talk 20:29, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, and expand. 10,500+ Google hits. Megan1967 23:28, 22 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete or redirect. Right now he's listed as 1 of 4 named creators of smalltalk, as well as anonymous "others". If this is his only accomplishment then a redirect to smalltalk does the trick just fine. If he's otherwise notable for some reason and the article is expanded to establish this I may change my vote. -R. fiend 00:13, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Gamaliel 00:19, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, the small talk page already cites him as a creator, unless he's gone on to do something else notable there really isn't much to say about Mr. Ingallis. --nixie 00:23, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, founding smalltalk makes him notable, the article is a marginally useful start, not worth the time to delete. Kappa 02:34, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: He didn't "found" Smalltalk, but developed (and still develops) the definitive implementations. Apparently he was the first to implement pop-up (e.g. right-click) menus and overlapping GUI windows [20]. I'm not sure that's enough for an article. Gazpacho 04:16, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Merge to SmallTalk. Radiant! 09:13, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, or at most redirect to Smalltalk; there's nothing whatsoever to merge. —Korath (Talk) 19:19, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. dbenbenn | talk 03:49, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Dan Reed Olsen Jr.

Vanity, professor-cruft, or notable individual? How is notability being demonstrated within this article? GRider\^talk 20:52, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. A clear cut case of vanity, given that it was created by User:Danolsen and an edit summary says "this is my father and for a class we are supposed to write an article someone we know that has made contributions in their field." Even without this, he doesn't pass the average professor test for me. Gamaliel 21:58, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, but with reservations. Needs rewrite and expansion. Megan1967 23:10, 22 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Fam-van. Doesn't seem a notable professor to me. It's hard to tell what those publications are; if many of them are books or anything substantially beyond the basic publications all professors are required to do I may change my vote. -R. fiend 00:08, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Doesn't seem to pass the professor test. Delete, with the same provision as R.fiend. Radiant! 09:14, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - much more notable than any Pokemon - David Gerard 14:47, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Despite being more relevant that a Pokemon character, he does not meet the recommended criteria for inclusion of biographies. Wikipedia is inconsistent. By the way, the picture in the article sure looks like a copyvio from [21]. Rossami (talk) 00:18, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was no consensus to delete - nobody voted. Rhobite 06:46, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)

Dara Shakoh

Honestly, are these types sub-stubs really beneficial to our visitors or are we better off without them? Is there a clear policy on this? How does this help the reader looking for information pertaining to this individual? GRider\^talk 20:58, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC) This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. dbenbenn | talk 03:52, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Dario Martinelli

Keep	Delete
2	4

If you discount this individual's full name, the article then stands at 3 words in length: "Dario Martinelli is a zoomusicologist." End of substub. Is there a minimum length for articles on Wikipedia, or should this be kept? GRider\^talk 21:13, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I do not believe there is a minimum length for articles. It would be silly, just write more. Hyacinth 21:37, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, just under the bar of notability - 270 Google hits. Megan1967 23:00, 22 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, unless article is rewritten and can establish some sort of notability. Writing substubs like this is basically forcing someone else to write an article that the original contributor can't be bothered to write. That's what requested articles is for. This is just useless, and likely not encyclopedic anyway. -R. fiend 00:17, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Rewrite, prompted by this vote, delayed by downtime. Hyacinth 03:45, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• That's good, but Dario seems to fail the professor test. Delete unless he's done significantly more than already mentioned on the article. Radiant! 13:05, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • What is the professor test? Hyacinth 23:24, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - a published professor is more notable than Pokemon - David Gerard 14:53, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Sayng "published professor" is somewhat redundant. Basically all professors are forced to publish if they want to keep their jobs. Are you saying all professors belong in wikipedia? Or that Pokemon don't (I agree with you there)? -R. fiend 20:52, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, I assume he's notable within the crowded field of zoomusicology. More notable than the average pokéologist. Kappa 21:32, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: Professors who have published a significant number of scientific articles and several books are definitely notable. But Martinelli really is a borderline case, in my eyes. He seems to have a post-doc position and his publications are limited to his PhD thesis (published in an Acta series and not by a major publisher), a co-edited book, and just a handful of scientific articles. Three (!) mentions of his name in the Zoomusicology article might be enough until he has had some more work published. I'll abstain for now. Alarm 00:26, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• No evidence yet presented that he passes the "average professor" test (see Wikipedia:criteria for inclusion of biographies). Delete unless further evidence can be presented. Rossami (talk) 23:29, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. Hyacinth 00:06, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was no consensus to delete. Rhobite 06:50, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)

Dave Sifry

Is this an instance of vanity, or are blogosphere icons truly encyclopedic persons? Is the Google test a fair and accurate barometer for inclusion in this case? Is it ever? GRider\^talk 21:28, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, cleanup and expand. According to Google he has done other things besides blog - 20,000+ hits. Megan1967 22:57, 22 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Rhobite 06:54, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)

Offbeat_magazine

Advertising for a non-notable local magazine. DS 18:08, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, advertisement. Megan1967 22:52, 22 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Borderline keep - worthy of an article, could do with expansion and verifiability - David Gerard 14:55, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Commercial ad, delete. Radiant! 12:18, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)
• Not only is it an ad, it's a copyvio, but if they grant permission to include this, delete it anyway. —Korath (Talk) 19:41, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Rhobite 06:55, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)

Ragtime (Tribal Celebration)

Hoax. When deleting, note that Ragtime (disambiguation) links there already. Rl 21:46, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, original essay, possible hoax. Megan1967 22:48, 22 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I cannot find reference of this Curzi tribe. JoaoRicardo 00:32, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I cannot find reference of JoaoRicardo.
    • The above remark by 68.6.77.7, all of whose edits are related to this article.

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was KEEP. dbenbenn | talk 03:54, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Aerys Targaryen

Baffling. Not encyclopedic / original research, if you need a reason. Rhobite 22:12, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)

• Comment - This appears to be a timeline (partial) of a series of fantasy books I'm not familiar with. There's precedence on Wikipedia for this sort of content I believe, but I lack any knowledge of this book series. We need more information from someone who's read them, and more info on how popular they are. Certainly should probably be listed at something like 'Timeline of X' or 'Royal House of X' as it covers more than just the titular character. Meanwhile Abstain Djbrianuk 23:16, 22 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Nonsense/Fancruft is my guess. It has something to do with A Game of Thrones book/cards/board game. --Henrygb 00:53, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and wikify. The author George R. R. Martin (not of this article but of the books to which this article refers) is well represented here. -- RHaworth 07:31, 2005 Feb 23 (UTC)
• Keep but check to make sure its not a copyvio. Looks suspicious to me. DaveTheRed 07:35, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• The book series, while not on par with Lord of the Rings, is notable. This article is very messy, though, and would require some extensive rewriting, possible splitting, and definite renaming. Keep. Btw not copyvio, it's a summary of events in the book with some citations, a bit like a TV episode capsule. Radiant! 09:17, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, but with reservations. Needs cleanup. Megan1967 00:34, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Merge. This is actually very good material, and just needs clean-up. Sorry for being a bit late with my comments, but there have been some discussion about related issues before, and I was asked to try to merge some of the character material about Song of ice and fire into larger, encyclopaedic entries. I hadn't realised that this nice article came up, but with some trimming it would sit really well on House Targaryen, together with some other (shorter) articles about other Targaryens. If and when any single character "explodes in size" he or she can have their own page devoted to him or her (or it, as it happens!). Thore 10:02, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC) -- Actually, after reading this thing through, I will change my vote to keep. There is an amazing amount of work put into this page, and I would like to keep most of it. I will put a brief summary of the page under House Targaryen, and link to it. Still needs cleanup and wikification, of course. Let me get right to it. Thore 10:10, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC) -- A somewhat longer discussion of issues related to characters from this series, including my own views, can be found at Talk:List of characters in A Song of Ice and Fire. I would be happy if you had a look at these meandering, so that a VfD won't be necessary in the future. Thore 13:36, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• keep:ChrisG 20:00, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was MERGE to Vegan. Rhobite 06:57, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)

Criticisms of veganism

And another POV fork in ignorance of our policy. Merge, if necessary, no redirect. --Pjacobi 22:11, 2005 Feb 21 (UTC)

• Merge and redirect to vegan, which already has a section for it and has not reached the 32kb limit. By the way, vegan could use some criticism towards those many external links. JoaoRicardo 23:56, 22 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• I agree with Joao, merge and redirect--nixie 00:30, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Unless there is a policy that we should only make separate pages for subsections when the article itself is over a certain size, I would prefer to have the criticisms of veganism not completely merged into the article. The criticism is already fairly big, and if it were fully merged into the vegan article, it would dominate nearly half the article (not counting external links). Eric Herboso 03:52, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia is not and internet directory, and the vegan page sure has an extensive (perhaps too long) section deveoted to external links, cut out the repetitious content externally linked and there'd be plenty of room to add the criticisms to the main article if you're worried about page length.--nixie 05:20, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to Vegan. I would agree there are a substantial number of external links on that Vegan page. Megan1967 05:55, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to Vegan. POV fork. --Viriditas | Talk 09:46, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect - can be broken out again when the main article is long enough - David Gerard 14:54, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect. Death to POV forks. Dpbsmith (talk) 15:05, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• M&R, also cut the excess weasel words (and the vegan external links). JFW | T@lk 15:08, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. This article was pulled from main vegan article to reduce the size and because a fair amount of redundancy had appeared. There was no objection offered before the severing of the two articles. --Ahc 04:23, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • And the solution to repetition within an article is to make two articles that say the same thing? --nixie 04:34, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • No by removing it from the main article, the editors have been able to find and strip out a fair amount of text that should not have been part of it to begin with. Since the article is no longer a debat, the information can be cleaned up in a less charged environment. It has reduced the repetition in both articles as a result. --Ahc 16:23, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect. Criticisms should be discussed in their proper context, not shunted off to the side. If the Benefits of veganism (and perhaps other sections of the main vegan article) are broken out into separate articles and maintain a parallel structure, I will change my vote to "keep separate". Rossami (talk) 23:40, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • I don't see why that couldn't be done as well. --Ahc 16:23, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect Criticism should probably remain within the same article, unless filesize is exceeded at a future date. As it stands, why split them? bodhisattvah
• Merge. Let's have all the pro-and anti-vegan material in one article (says this vegetarian who'd never become a vegan) Zantastik 00:09, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I think it's better that the criticisms be here rather than on the same page as the article, since this page has the potential to become somewhat longer than it already is, which I think would detract somewhat from the veganism article. Better that the veganism article say that the criticisms are out there, and you can read them on the separate page if you want. I think this is a legitimate article and should be retained, at least by merging if not by keeping it here, which I think better.

Vote given by Glasperlenspiel. Please remember to sign your votes on VfD pages. Eric Herboso 01:27, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Merge, in keeping with WP tradition.jdb ❋ (talk) 07:33, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was already speedied - clearly not suitable for WP. Rhobite 06:59, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)

Stolenelection

Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Thue | talk 22:13, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Delete copyrighted agitprop. The subject is already covered in another article. Gazpacho 03:49, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Concur, delete. Radiant! 12:18, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.