Misplaced Pages

:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 March 13 - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion | Log

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Black Kite (talk | contribs) at 02:23, 13 March 2007 (←Undid revision 114696956 by Discpad (talk)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 02:23, 13 March 2007 by Black Kite (talk | contribs) (←Undid revision 114696956 by Discpad (talk))(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
< March 12 March 14 >
Guide to deletion Centralized discussion
Village pumps
policy
tech
proposals
idea lab
WMF
misc
For a listing of ongoing discussions, see the dashboard.

Purge server cache

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

The result was Redirect to Benny Hinn. —Quarl 2007-03-17 08:55Z

Suzanne Hinn

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

No apparent notability other than being married to multi-millionaire con-man, I mean "miracle healer", Benny Hinn. Saikokira 00:07, 13 March 2007 (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. Seraphimblade 09:53, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

List of fascists

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

As "fascist" is a pejorative term that no one uses to identify themselves, this list violates WP:NPOV. In addition, some of the people listed here are still living, which violates WP:BLP, especially given that the entire list is unsourced. Perhaps this could be replaced by a List of historical fascists, as there were political parties and people 60+ years ago who did call themselves fascist. As it is, this list merely invites the constant adding of right wing politicians and others who various editors don't like. Xyzzyplugh 00:15, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep. Maybe it should be renamed to self identified fascists, but that's not the concern in an AfD. Similarly, there may be some entries which should not be there, but that's not a reason for deletion. And people do use the term to identify themselves, just like they do use the term "neo-Nazi". -Amarkov moo! 00:27, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete The word "fascist", applied strictly, can only be applied to members of the Italian party founded by Benito Mussolini. If it is to be applied to any right-wing politician, from the Nazis down (or up) then the list is so hopelessly incomplete as to be totally non-encyclopedic. Why not add the name of every member of the NSDAP?--Anthony.bradbury 00:32, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Any reason not to use the definition in fascism? -Amarkov moo! 00:35, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Yes, the fact that it's a pejorative term. We don't have List of idiots or List of bastards, despite the fact that we could find sources on low intelligence or unmarried parents. --Xyzzyplugh 00:42, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
        • If there are a sizable number of people who honestly self-identify as an idiot or a bastard, and they are notable in relation to those things, then we should have those lists. Now, I don't think that this list, or any ideological list for that matter, should be applied to someone who does not self-identify as a fascist/libertarian/conservative/whatever. But it doesn't, so I see no reason to delete it. -Amarkov moo! 00:45, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge and Redirect to list of historical (self-proclaimed) fascists per nom. This could be a useful page, but it has problems. As can be seen from the edit history, it's controversial. Fascism is pejorative in many cases and could be used for a sneaky Wiki-attack. Also, the definition of "fascist" on this page is too loose - if the subjects were self-proclaimed fascists, that would be fine, but some of those on the list could equally well be said to be far right-wing or Neo-Nazi; that's not the same as fascism. As an aside, the page is also a target for vandals. EliminatorJR 01:29, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Redirect Self-indentified facists. --TeckWiz Contribs@ 01:31, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete List of communists, democrats, etc... I'm not sure of a policy ot cite, but I think nothing good can come of this article. NPOV does seem applicable enough. Paging Senator McCarthy... --Auto 01:31, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep since the reasons for deletion are flawed in a few respects.
    • "As "fascist" is a pejorative term..." is an incorrect statement because the term is used simply as a descriptive term to describe a political ideology. There is an article on fascism used the way you consider it at Fascist (epithet) but the list explicitly does not use that definition. Certainly, the original PNF were called, and called themselves, fascist but no one would say it is being used perjoratively. Any one adding someone who is not obviously a "fascist" ideologically (with references) is immediately reverted as the article's history shows.
    • "...that no one uses to identify themselves, this list violates WP:NPOV." this statement is incorrect since some people do refer to themselves as fascist or a related ideology (falange, national socialist, etc.). In fact, there was a recent Deletion review to allow the Category of Fascist Wikipedians to be re-created for those who do self-identify sa a fascist.
    • "In addition, some of the people listed here are still living, which violates WP:BLP". How so? If someone added George W. Bush to the list (and it stayed on it for more than a minute before being reverted) it would violate it but what about Pino Rauti? Some of the neo-Nazi's on the list could be argued I suppose but that is a separate issue that does not warrant deletion of the entire list especially since most people on the list are dead.
    • "...especially given that the entire list is unsourced." Actually, everyone of those figures does (well, should) have sources for them being a fascist in their own articles. To have the sources for everyone on the list page would clutter it up and is completely unnecessary. Do we have references for everything added to List of Atari 7800 games on the page with the list? No, and, therefore, we do the same with this list. - DNewhall 01:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
      • The introduction to the article claims not to use the term as an epithet, but the actual items on the list shows that it is being used that way. The problem stems from the way the word "fascist" is used in multiple ways, which could include anyone from WWII Italian fascists to modern Neo-Nazis and white supremacists to simply conservative right wing politicians. Don Black (nationalist) and David Duke, for example. White supremacists and nationalists would generally claim not to be fascist, and being a white supremacist or nationalist does not imply one believes in dictatorship or totalitarianism. A few hundred years ago, most of the white population of the US held beliefs such that we would now consider them to be white supremacists; were they all fascists? The term "fascist" is too broad and too pejorative to make a List of fascists keepable. (And, not that this is reason to delete or keep, but your claims that any items on the list which aren't sourced are immediately removed is clearly not true, there are about 50 redlinks in the list, where are our sources on these? And most of the people on the list which we do have articles on, which I checked, I didn't see justification for calling them fascist) --Xyzzyplugh 03:38, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not due to the nom's reasoning, but because the subject of the list is a bit broad. Instead, a category would be better suited.--TBCΦtalk? 01:54, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. While I can see the ideal usefulness of this list, I'm concerned that out of eight people who I picked off the list (most at random), none had the work "fascist" in their Misplaced Pages entries. In other words, if they were so self-identified, why isn't this mentioned in their articles? (And some articles were quite long with extensive sources.) Yes, they all shared some characteristics of fascist philosophy but, as far as I could see, fascist was being applied to them externally and as an epithet for their Neo-Nazi/authoritarian/anti-Semitic/racist/etc. beliefs. I'm not one to defend such people but if I got a 0 for 8 result, I have little trust in this list. Pigdialogue 02:58, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Clearly a notable topic worthy of keeping.--Sefringle 03:02, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
    • No one has questioned whether it was notable, the criticism of it is that it's not NPOV. "Notability" is not our only requirement for keeping an article. --Xyzzyplugh 03:41, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete With a term that could be used pejoratively in the name of the article, we should be insisting on attribution with footnotes because the potential for libeling someone in an ugly way is enormous here, yet there is not one single footnote or reference of any kind in the article. Also, David Duke is a Hitler-loving racist according to the Misplaced Pages article on him, but I think it's inaccurate to call him a fascist in the terms of the Fascism article that was mentioned earlier in this discussion, because I don't think he adheres to all of the "integral" tenets mentioned in that definition (I don't think he's in "opposition to laissez-faire capitalism"). It does nobody any good to be inaccurate in identifying extremists. What we need are separate lists, with each item footnoted, and with a definition of the label at the top, including what criteria put people on the list or leave others off of it. Delete List of Fascists, then let someone, if they want, start the whole thing over along the lines I described, because I think the current list is useless and unsalvageable. We should have a List of racial supremicists, List of Nazis, and List of Ku Klux Klan members to cover the extremists who don't fit in the Fascists list. Noroton 04:11, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. A similar article, List of communists, seems to have been nominated as well, for those who are interested.--TBCΦtalk? 06:00, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep although many of the entries on the list should probably be taken away. The nominator's statement, "..."fascist" is a pejorative term that no one uses to identify themselves" is in part incorrect. That the term a perjorative term today is true, but Benito Mussolini for instance did refer to himself as a "fascist". Self-identification is a valid and verifiable criterion. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:07, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep While it needs some work and careful watching, I think that it is a worthy subject for Misplaced Pages. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by RaiderAspect (talk • contribs) 10:11, 13 March 2007 (UTC).
  • Delete, unmaintainable and unqualified criteria for inclusion Alf 12:57, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete List is indescriminate waste of server space, and furthermore, can an admin block the making of any "List Of (insert contraversial political/religious/racial term here)" page? I'm getting a little tired of seeing one up for deletion every day.--Lostcause365 14:53, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete - Violation of WP:NPOV adn WP:BLP...--Cometstyles 15:07, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Editing can deal with any who do not belong or whose fascism is not attested by sources satisfying in the primary article on the person. I see a number of well substantiated fascists such as Hitler, Goebbels, Himmler, and Mussolini on the list, and there is good reason for historical information to maintain such a list. Any editor can remove any unsupported entry (such as a prank listing of someone's high school principle or parent). Edison 16:21, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep If some entry in the list is questionable, someone can put a citation needed tag or still better, provide a reference or remove the entry. But having some questionable entries does not mean the list has to be deleted. Self-identification could be used as a criterion. And the scope is not as broad as List of communists.--Dwaipayan (talk) 17:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - If only because "no one" includes the members of Movimento Fascismo e Libertà and the American Fascist Party Lars T. 19:17, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
    • This is off topic, but - americanfascistparty.com, no alexa ranking. fascismoeliberta.info, alexa ranking 3,809,294. So these parties may possibly have membership in the double digits. --Xyzzyplugh 12:44, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete If for no other reason than how do you define membership of such a list? Comparison with the list of communists is invalid because there is a widespread network of communist parties. Last I looked there wasn't a similar network of fascist parties. I also disagree with the claim that term isn't perjorative --Spartaz 21:34, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete If this is kept, I'm going to create List of socalists, List of pilots, List of people who have seen Star Wars more than 100 times, and List of meat eaters. (I'm kidding.) --PatrickD 21:11, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Not useful, really, and can be controversial. People may try this , and even if that is kept a watch on, I don't see a real reason for this page. Just gives everyone more work. The Behnam 21:32, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete POV magnet. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:26, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: the criteria who's included here are obviously impossible to enforce. Czechoslovakia includes 4 names of which only Gajda fits here (leader of party named fascist, supporter of corporativism). Moravec was an opportune propagandist, Frank and Henlein mere nationalists and separationalists. Stříbrný, Kramář, Domin - leaders of fascists parties and groups are missing. The list looks degenerated into "list of every bad guy". Pavel Vozenilek 23:40, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Clearly notable.--Sefringle 04:35, 18 March 2007 (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 straight-out delete. Daniel Bryant 09:40, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Dean Roberts (criminal)

Dean Roberts (criminal) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable London drug dealer. Article states his murder would be among the six gangland slayings occurring during 1999, so this isn't particularly unusual or noteworthy. Saikokira 00:20, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

  • I have no opposition to merging the article to an article on the gangland killings themselves, however the article has yet to be created. While the notability of his criminal career is is question, it is specifically his unsolved murder which not only occurred during a major underworld gang war but would eventually be used to convicted several major Yardie gang leaders during Operation Tridant most notably the life imprisonment of Rickey Sweeney. This is supported by several news reports and articles which have been provided. As many murder victims and minor criminals are similarly covered on Misplaced Pages I don't see how this would be any different from North American organized crime and street gang related killings. His murder was highly publicized in Great Britain and was the subject of an extensive investigation by Scotland Yard. Should articles such as Ferdinand Boccia or Eddie Cummiskey be deleted as well, simply because they criminal careers are deemed not notable enough despite the obvious effects of their murders ?
  • Comment. While I would agree the article does need expansion, the individual was also the victim of an unsolved murder (one of a series of unsolved killings) which eventually caused the downfall of one of the dominant Yardie organizations in North London. This point is supported by numerous sources provided in the article. I would think this alone would be enough to support his notability. MadMax 19:56, 13 March 2007 (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 (and little chance of deletion anyway). -Amarkov moo! 14:54, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Terry Shannon

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

It's been three weeks since the last AfD nomination, and the sourcing is still terrible. A few of the things are too short to be called sources, and most are from the guy's personal website. I'm sure he was a great guy, but he isn't notable. Amarkov moo! 00:23, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Withdrawn due to the article from the Boston Globe. The referencing is still terrible, but not enough for deletion. And meatpuppetry is still bad, but that was never a reason for deletion in the first place. -Amarkov moo! 14:54, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


Sheesh... Another one who is infected with the "if it's not on the `net, it doesn't exist" disease. That is why there are so few online references, save for his seminal book... Dan Schwartz, Expresso@Snip.Net Discpad 19:12, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep and improve the refs. - Kittybrewster 02:40, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
    • It's been three weeks. It's been advertised in the Inquirer AND Misplaced Pages Review AND a bunch of other random sites that we want sources. Is there a good reason to believe that the refs can be improved? -Amarkov moo! 03:06, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep and agree with EliminatorJR on the silly fact. Alex43223 03:06, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep for now Three weeks? Maybe if there were something negative in the article, but I don't see the current content as grounds for haste in deletion. Try waiting three months instead. FrozenPurpleCube 03:26, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
    • I might have waited longer, except that canvassing in defense of an article really annoys me, and the concerns addressed in the last AfD were never resolved, just meatpuppeted into closure. Advertising a discussion all over the Internet should not have the power to postpone it for months. -Amarkov moo! 03:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, I think if you are annoyed, the wise thing to do is back away. Misplaced Pages does not benefit from you succumbing to a personal grude and that's what annoyance means to me. If anything, you've given me further reason to say you should have waited longer. FrozenPurpleCube 06:11, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

The topic of deleting the Terry Shannon article has been debated and settled; and is also the subject of several stories in The Inquirer, including Terry Shannon nominated for Misplaced Pages deletion; Terry Shannon gets Misplaced Pages reprieve and Terry Shannon archive material wanted for Wikiporpoise

It is recommended that computer newbies, i.e. guys that think "it's not a computer `cause I can't plug my iPod in it" should search Google here and here for references to The Register and The Inquirer. Dan Schwartz, Discpad 03:35, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

    • That doesn't address the concerns at all. At the very most, there is one reliable, independent source. WP:N requires multiple reliable, independent sources. And your incivility certainly doesn't help. By the way, the topic was never settled, it was simply hammered into submission by meatpuppetry. -Amarkov moo! 03:39, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Comment To second that just because an article survive deletion debate does not mean it cannot be nominated again. Also try and be civil, an new editor throwing the word newbie around seems a little odd to me. --Daniel J. Leivick 03:43, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Daniel, I said you are a computer newbie. The fact that you are only 22 years old means I was programming a PDP-8 and an Altair 8800 (serial number 7) almost a decade before you were born.
Daniel, there's a lot to the history of computing besides just commodity boxes that have an "intel inside" sticker. In case you didn't know, over 90% of the ATM machines worldwide use OpenVMS. Anybody who writes a book on the subject that sells over a hundred thousand copies certainly is noteworthy.
Also, may I suggest you look at the Index of articles in The Register and anotherindex of articles in The Inquirer. Discpad 03:53, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep and clean up I voted to delete last time, but I think the article can be sourced. It will probably need to be shortened though. A lack of speed in a clean up should not mean that an article should be deleted it can take months or even years. Canvassing and bad faith actions are not reasons to delete an article either, although certainly I know how you feel. --Daniel J. Leivick 03:39, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
I can't give you one of those sources that ends an AfD debate like a independent biography case but I can see that most of the information can be sourced from the provided references although they do not all meet WP:ATT. If I were to make a policy backed argument I would point to the section of WP:BIO that discusses creative professionals. I think it is pretty clear that Mr. Shannon made a significant contribution to the computer world. The policy violations and sock/meat puppetry shouldn't cloud our judgment. If the article doesn't get a good make over in the next six months than I might consider voting delete, but there is no big hurry in the wiki world. --Daniel J. Leivick 03:52, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Okay then, just wondering if there was something obvious I missed. -Amarkov moo! 05:16, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep & Cleanup He is a published writer (not that is grounds for notability in all cases), but an investigation into his writings and any effects they have had on any community is worth note. A better picture (if any available) would better suit the article. --Ozgod 03:51, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep -- article appears to have a relatively decent number of sources at the moment, and the subject appears reasonably notable within the VAX/VMS world. --Elkman 04:16, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
    • But I never denied that there were a decent number of sources. The issue is that most are unreliable, from his own website, or don't really source anything, just tangientally mention him. -Amarkov moo! 04:20, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. A whole lot of helium inflating very little substance. --Calton | Talk 04:29, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notability seems well-established. --Carnildo 05:16, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. Also, in response to Discpad, please remember that consensus is not immutable and that it can be changed.--TBCΦtalk? 05:40, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. I did not know who the guy was before I stumbled on this discussion, but even the currently sloppy and poorly-sourced article, when combined with a basic Google search, is enough to convince me that Shannon is notable. Consider also that there is no direct relation between quantity of media coverage and notability. If much of this guy's career required him to operate out of the limelight, it is entirely plausible that he would generate far less media coverage than, say, a minor league baseball player, while his role in shaping the world we live in may have been far greater. I agree that irrelevant issues such as sock puppetry appear to be clouding the nominating editor's judgment. -Pete 09:41, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. The article needs improvement, cleanup and better sourcing, but that is not solved by deleting it. Pax:Vobiscum 09:45, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Let me talk about this as someone who has been working fairly heavily on sourcing over the last couple of weeks. Much of Terry's work was done offline, in the pre-Google days. Sourcing that stuff requires research beyond 'Google it'. I have been to libraries and have been requesting paper copies of Terry's work, but as you may know if you have ever used a library, this stuff takes time to pull up and research, especially given that it is older stuff. Right now I have magazines and books en route to me to source more of this article.

I don't think anyone is debating notability any more - Terry's notability within the VAX/VMS community has been well established (fulfilling WP:BIO on the contribution to field criterion). If the debate is over the sourcing, it should be noticed that this, like every Misplaced Pages article, is a work in progress - if the problem is with sources, don't delete the article, contribute and help find the sources.

Unfortunately, the article has been screwed up by the Misplaced Pages editing community. One cranky editor went through and added citation needed's to every sentence in the article. I went through and removed most of what couldn't physically be cited and added in sources for the rest. Now the editing community says that it lacks meat and has irrelevant sources. Unfortunately, this is what happens when you get over-enthusiastic (misguided?) editors with personal quests.

Hope this helps.Pinkboy 10:26, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

    • comment Thanks, Pinkboy. Lack of notability seems like the only potential reason for deletion; I can't imagine that anybody would argue with your argument about poor sourcing not being a cause to delete the entire article. Put a {{unreferenced}} tag on it, and be done with it - is there still anyone around who would disagree with that resolution? -Pete 10:44, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, same as last time (wow! three weeks already? How time flies!) -- Atlant 11:47, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, While I do not have the time at the moment to find all of the citations, there are many citations to Terry's work. Terry was a regular presenter on the US and international speaking circuit in Digital/Compaq/HP community. I believe that the back issues of his newsletter are available online. The copies of his presentations may have fallen offline due to the re-organization of DECUS as Encompass, and the dissolution of Interex. His contributions to the field were extremely significant -- User:Gezelterrl 12:00, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, basically, agreeing with Pinkboy. The additions to this article are excellent; there is no lack-of-references argument anymore. Most of Shannon's work was done pre-Web, with magazines that never got digitized, so it's understandable that 22-year-old gamers don't know who he was (which is all the more reason for keeping the article). To those of us with a lot of experience in the technology industry, T. Shannon was one of the movers and shakers, back in the day. That's all the "notable" we need. Keep! -- User:info@kafalas.com 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Notable enough for a stub at the minimum based on the present sourcing, so why push for another AfD? There are better things we can spend time on then play shoot till we win. - Denny 13:04, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  • 'Keep - Very well sourced so passes notability...--Cometstyles 15:10, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - keynote speaker at major HP user conference --Amaccormack 15:27, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep No question on notability.--Dwaipayan (talk) 17:38, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep A very significant person within the VMS/OpenVMS community: Bclaremont 20:36 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep The "not notable" criticism is ludicrous and appears to be a dead issue. It appears that a consensus is building that more references (or "sources") should be added. Many references to document Shannon's contributions are available in print media only, and many of them are difficult to obtain, except from those who saved them from several years ago. Thus, they take more time to post here on Misplaced Pages. A request has gone out for old issues of Digital Review and other sources of articles written about Shannon. Harvard-style references to those will be added in due time. The Cape 23:56, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep This is an important point. It is not easy to obtain a lot of Shannon's writing -- and articles in other tech journals from the same period that discuss Shannon and his work. So it's not that us oldsters are slacking off in our efforts to find more references; it's that many of them are difficult to obtain.User:info@kafalas.com 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak keep -- the article has improved since I previously nominated it for AfD in February, and one source has been put forth for the biographical info: "Graham, Lamar B. (1992) The Nerd Who Came In from the Cold, Boston Magazine, February 1992, 52-55, 90-91." If that citation can be confirmed as being about Shannon, and not merely mentioning him in passing, then he does fulfill WP:BIO. Finally, I would again caution those who take an antagonistically protectionist stance in regards to material that doesn't follow our policy, that Wikipedians tend to look disfavourably upon personal attacks and assumption of bad faith. Yes, Discpad, this means you.--Leflyman 07:43, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Yes, personal attacks should be avoided; blasting contributors as "meatpuppets" and such like has no place in this discussion. Additional print sources added; varying degrees of Shannon content, including one that is more of a background piece, explaining the dynamics between Ziff and McGovern, which were the two largest tech publishing firms in the 1980s, an understanding of which is essential to putting Shannon's contributions in context.User:info@kafalas.com 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Is it snowing yet?

Shouldn't this AfD be close via the Snowball clause?

Atlant 12:50, 14 March 2007 (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 Bryant 09:41, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Paul Luscher

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

Delete as not establishing notability per WP:MUSIC and WP:BIO. RJASE1 18:14, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Coredesat 00:42, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. Seems to be mildly notable in that he worked on the soundtrack to a film (Abby Singer) that seems to be at least somewhat notable (imdb entry, apparently has made several film festivals, and includes appearances by numerous big-names in film) and also on the music for a notable video game (Amped — Xbox release that was apparently successful enough to spawn two sequels). That seems to meet the notability requirement of WP:MUSIC, if just barely. Mwelch 02:19, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Like Mwelch, I think the composer technically meets minimal standards of WP:MUSIC. However, I don't think that's quite enough to tip my opinion in favor of inclusion. Achievements still seem low to me. Perhaps I'm being stricter than I should be but that's my opinion. Pigdialogue 03:38, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep - Does have a listing on IMDB, so he does at least have a quasi professionally established career, although search results were few. --Ozgod 03:48, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Fails WP:MUSIC and WP:BIO. I have a listing on IMDB (I've been on a few film crews), so it really doesn't mean anything to be on IMDB -- I'm certainly not notable enough now to be on Misplaced Pages. And the music he scored was not for a notable film (the film itself isn't even on Misplaced Pages). Needless to say, allmusic comes up with no info (though he's there, not a big feat either) and there are very few ghits and even less credible sources (or at least so I can find). All points to delete for me. Rockstar915 05:55, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak delete. A somewhat obscure songwriter, who's work has only appeared in one video game and in one mildly notable film.--TBCΦtalk? 08:17, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Questionable notability, delete per WP:MUSIC and WP:BIONenyedi Contribs@ 13:32, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - As per Nenyedi...--Cometstyles 15:11, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable. --Lockley 21:26, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Merge to Iraqi legislative election, December 2005. —Quarl 2007-03-17 08:57Z

Justice and Future Coalition

Justice and Future Coalition (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Listed due to no info on what happened to this party in the Iraqi election in 2005. Author created this article and I think others too on Iraq but they have not been improved on since June 06. Fail to see any notability and there is no content explaining policitial membership, reason for party creation etc. PrincessBrat 18:18, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Coredesat 00:42, 13 March 2007 (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. —Quarl 2007-03-17 08:58Z

Bill Arthur

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

Commentator on TV with a focus on Rugby only. Not notable and article is made up of one sentence PrincessBrat 18:28, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Coredesat 00:43, 13 March 2007 (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 Bryant 09:42, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Moses mayfield

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

Notability Kntrabssi 01:02, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete per the norm regarding notability. Kntrabssi 01:03, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete Not notable, WP:BAND Nenyedi Contribs@ 13:37, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete with prejudice against re-creation until they pass WP:BAND, which at the moment this band doesn't. Moreschi 13:42, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete- not notable...--Cometstyles 15:14, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. WP:BAND says that the central criterion is that the band "has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable." The references sem to indicate that the band meets the criterion. Having only one full-length album is not a reason to exclude a band if it passes on other criteria, such as the multiple independent reliable non-trivial published works and the national tour. I would encourage people who consider that the band fails WP:BAND to carefully re-read WP:BAND which states, as do most other Misplaced Pages notability guidelines, that passing a single criterion is enough to establish notability, even if other criteria are not met. --Eastmain 02:41, 14 March 2007 (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 and rewrite. —Quarl 2007-03-17 08:59Z

Dark Ages (computer game)

Dark Ages (computer game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Section 1 is directly copied from the game's website. A majority of the remainder of the article fails WP:Not#Info, as it is minutiae and descriptions of how to play the game. Also, it fails WP:WEB as it has no non-trivial sources. It is my opinion that this article is an non-expandable stub at best. Faladine 01:09, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Update - I've done a copy-and-paste dump for the game to Encyclopedia Gamia here. Don't know if it helps, but it does preserve the information better. Guroadrunner 20:54, 15 March 2007 (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. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 09:02, 23 March 2007 (UTC) --Asgar arshad (talk) 16:59, 15 February 2009 (UTC)--Asgar arshad (talk) 16:59, 15 February 2009 (UTC)===Mohammad Badshah Qadri-ul-Chishti Yamani Raichuri===

Mohammad Badshah Qadri-ul-Chishti Yamani Raichuri (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Exactly three Google hits for the page title, all derived from the Misplaced Pages page, which is less than I would expect for a "great" saint. (May be due to variations in spelling.) Unsourced, and tone gives me the impression of being a hoax. (May simply be problem with writing style.) No improvements in four months since being tagged for notability concerns. I am unsure if the person was real or notable, so I am putting it up for discussion. Saligron 01:17, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete no reliable sources or proof of notability.--Sefringle 02:36, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

--Asgar arshad (talk) 17:31, 15 February 2009 (UTC) == strongly keep == anyone want any information regarding the article i can provide them.thanks.i have some links and inshallah ill try to add more information.


I am convinced now of his reality; his notability I leave to the community.--Anthony.bradbury 10:37, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Quarl 09:02, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak keep: per User:Bejnar still I think the article is likely a WP:COPYVIO. (→Netscott) 09:07, 17 March 2007 (UTC) Struck the weak and copyvio part of my view per the fact that the article has been heavily updated and improved. (→Netscott) 04:08, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete despite Bejnar, I think that it does not definitively refer to the same person as the links provided. And even so, unsourced and if Bejnar is right, it's the wrong article title. Bejnar, I live near Florida State University library, I'll try and get to doing a quick search by the end of this AFD (no guarantees though) has now been cleaned up, changing to KEEP⇒ SWATJester 15:30, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for volunteering to check the hard copy, unfortunately neither book is at FSU; in Florida copies are at UofF, UofCF, and UofWF even has one, see WordlCat. The problem with his name is that honorifics are stacked at the front, and descriptors are stacked behind. His base name is "Mohammed Badesha Qadri" or "Mohammad Badeshah Quadri" and varients inbetween. He is the same person, Sufi saint, born 1903, active in Karnataka state, Chisti order. --Bejnar 20:36, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
See above for ID info. --Bejnar 20:36, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
After this AfD, I suggest renaming the article to Mohammad Badshah Qadri or something similar. --Bejnar 20:53, 17 March 2007 (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. —Quarl 2007-03-17 09:02Z

International Wrestling Cartel

International Wrestling Cartel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Notability not established, no outside reliable sources listed. Prod removed by anon, so sending here for consensus. NMChico24 01:24, 13 March 2007 (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.