Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 February 25

February 25

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. CSTAR 21:35, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Children of the Faith

Presented as factual, but upon research it turns out the book I am not Esther is a novel and the cult is fictional [1]. Google shows few results, so it appears not to be particularly notable fiction. Should be deleted. 195.167.169.36 09:50, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• I was going to vote for merging to the article about the book or its author, but since we have neither, I'd say delete for now. Radiant! 14:01, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete agree with Radiant Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:07, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, Move to I am not Ester. Seems to be a notable enough book, and I've added some info to the article. -- John Fader 18:07, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge & Redirect to Fleur Beale. Nice work, Theo. -- John Fader 12:22, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, book promo. Megan1967 04:05, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Does not look notable to me. Indrian 04:39, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Fleur Beale. --Theo (Talk) 03:00, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Fleur Beale. →Iñgōlemo← ^talk 06:27, 2005 Mar 2 (UTC)

Remark. 4 votes for delete, 3 for redirect or merge. 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. Rossami (talk) 07:30, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Comment: While I was able to delete the article, I have been unable to confirm that all the inbound links have been found and cleaned up. I suspect this is due to a page cache problem on my part. If someone could go to the now-empty page and check "what links here", I would be grateful. Rossami (talk) 07:50, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Execution of the September 11, 2001 attacks

Original research; conspiracy theory unsubstantiated by any reliable news source. — Dan | Talk 03:00, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Unsubstantiated? Every statement in the article is backed up with a verifiable source. Is there anything specific that you disagree with or can contend to? In not, there is no justification for removing this information. --Ghost of Jefferson
  • Every statement might be backed up, however the fact that they are all related to the execution of the 9/11 attacks is not. As it is, the article is a bag of statements with no real connection between them and the attacks. Also, there is no visible link between the first and the second parts of the article. The article looks too much like original research. Delete. cesarb 03:35, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Why does it seem that there is something like this on Wikipedia floating around already? You might also want to check the 9/11 category -- Riffsyphon1024 03:05, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Yes, check Special:Contributions/Ghost of Jefferson and Special:Contributions/69.202.14.140. cesarb 03:35, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Just found this very similar, almost identical article, on Wikipedia that he worked on: Planning and execution of the September 11, 2001 attacks. -- Riffsyphon1024 03:50, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Really interesting. Notice how different that article was before User:69.202.14.140 started editing it [4] compared with the current version [5]. It also adds a new reason for deletion -- duplicate article. Not that it's User:Ghost of Jefferson's fault; he did try to remove the contents from that article in the same day he created the subject of this VfD, but someone else reverted him (wrongly thinking he was removing whole sections in a feeble attempt to improve the quality of the article). cesarb 04:12, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Any useful information should be included in one of the many other 9/11 articles. This article also needs so much cleanup that it likely wouldn't be worth the effort. Carrp | Talk 03:41, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Please do not delete. I apologize for all the confusion. I originally included this material in the "Planning and Execution" section, however the page became too large. In order to clean it up I separated "Planning" and "Execution" into two separate categories. The "Financial Support" doesn't exactly fit the title but I believe the information is very relevant and should remain someplace on the site. I'll admit that it needs clean up, but I plan on improving and expanding both parts of the article in the near future. In response to this being original research, there are no "new theories" proposed in the text; it is all documented information. In response to CesarB, the war games are connected to the execution of the attacks for the following reasons: Officials at NEADS and the FAA originally considered the hijackings to be part of Vigilant Guardian and acting CJCS Richard Myers reported Vigilant Warrior as conflicting with fighter response. NORAD's already limited amount of fighters were participating in a bi-national live-fly exercise that pulled Air Force resources away from NEADS and towards Alaska and the North Pole. False blips had been injected onto FAA and military radar screens. A nuclear strike/retaliation was being simulated and planes were sitting on the ground armed with nuclear weapons. The NRO and the CIA were simulating a plane crashing into their headquarters. And there were other exercises that have yet to be investigated, such as Apollo Guardian and Crown Vigilance. This information is almost impossible to find, and I would argue that Wikipedia is the only place that it is fully and objectively documented. I am therefore issuing a plea to the community to keep this information available and accessible to all Wikipedians. --Ghost of Jefferson
  • Delete. The information may be documented, but the way it is strung together makes it original research. DaveTheRed 07:53, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Original research. RickK 05:54, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • I have reviewed the No Original Research Policy and revised my article to fully comply with the rules. --Ghost of Jefferson
• Merge the usable bits to the already extensive 9/11 pages, delete the rest. Radiant! 09:27, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, as per Wikipedia:No original research. --Pjacobi 10:39, 2005 Feb 25 (UTC)
  • I have reviewed the No Original Research Policy and revised my article to fully comply. --Ghost of Jefferson
• Delete At best the information could be merged with 9/11 domestic conspiracy theory. The title is very misleading in that the article is actually more about what exercises Norad happened to be running that day which some of the conspiracy theorists believe is significant. --Lee Hunter 12:19, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Why must one be a conspiracy theorist to believe the war games held significance?...

• 1. On 9/11, NORAD had 20 fighters -- 14 in the US, 6 in Canada -- an unknown number of which were participating in at least two of the war games -- Vigilant Warrior and Northern Vigilance -- both of which drew fighters towards Alaska and the North Pole.

• 2. Numerous military and FAA officials said they thought the attacks were part of Vigilant Guardian, including one who said "everybody" at NEADS originally considered the hijackings to be part of the exercise.

• 3. When the attacks were taking place, false radar signals were located on FAA and military radar screens.

• 4. When the attacks began, mobile command stations in the air were simulating an imaginary nuclear strike while planes on the ground were being loaded with nuclear weapons.

• 5. At 9:38, almost an hour after the WTC had first been hit, when asked about fighter response, acting Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Richard Myers stated, "Not a pretty picture...We're in the middle of Vigilant Warrior, a NORAD exercise".

• • The above remarks by User:Ghost of Jefferson.
    • Excuse me, but that is rather irrelevant to this discussion. You may be able to find your answer at Conspiracy theory. Radiant! 13:56, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)

• delete. at best, the financial information is interesting. however, it is insubstantiated. additionally, user has edited Ahmed Omar Saeed Sheikh extensively. This was just covered by Popular Mechanics including the datas regarding scrambling of jets. Bunk. Avriette 13:54, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

According to the Popular Mechanics article: "In the decade before 9/11, NORAD intercepted only one civilian plane over North America: golfer Payne Stewart's Learjet, in October 1999."[6] However the Associated Press reported on August 12, 2002: "From Sept. 11 to June, NORAD scrambled jets or diverted combat air patrols 462 times, almost seven times as often as the 67 scrambles from September 2000 to June 2001, Martin said.

In June, Air Force jets scrambled three times to intercept small private planes that had wandered into restricted airspace around the White House and around Camp David, the presidential retreat."[7]

Popular Mechanics also states "it took an F-16 1 hour and 22 minutes" to reach Payne Stewart's jet, however The Dallas Morning News of The Knight-Ridder Tribune reported on October 26, 1999 the following...

"according to an Air Force timeline, a series of military planes provided an emergency escort to the stricken Lear, beginning with a pair of F-16 Falcons from the Air National Guard at Tyndall Air Force Base, Fla., about 20 minutes after ground controllers lost contact."

Popular Mechanics also states: "Rules in effect back then, and on 9/11, prohibited supersonic flight on intercepts."' However ABC News reported in September 2002, after interviewing the pilots, that the fighters scrambled on 9/11 were traveling at "mach 1.2, nearly 900 mile per hour."[8]

All the other points made in the Popular Mechanics article refer to the ridiculous claims made on letsroll911.org, which never really required a debunking because very few people believe in such garbage. Most people questioning the government's official story don't believe in missile/pod theories. In fact, they have risen some very valid arguments, however such people are usually shadowed by-, grouped with-, or dismissed as-"conspiracy theorists". Incredibly, the points in the Popular Mechanics article that do refer to the topic I've been discussing, as shown above, are false. --Ghost of Jefferson

• Delete Original research, unencyclopedic format --InShaneee 15:53, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete based upon the No Original Research rule. 23skidoo 21:51, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I don't find Ghost of Jefferson's arguments compelling. Not encyclopedic enough for me. Katefan0 05:11, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Somewhere between off-topic and original research. DJ Clayworth 04:17, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Original research, rambling conspiracy theory. — Gwalla | Talk 03:40, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Original research, conspiracy theory. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:03, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Please do not Delete!! I have looked into the suspicous facts surounding 9/11 and this is the way it happened. The wargames threw off NORAD and it is important for people to understand this. It was an inside job, and the use of the wargames explains how so many good people operated for the execution of the ultimate crime.
  • Note: comment by user 4.65.88.109. --InShaneee 04:08, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. 37 Sources. Cleanup though. Conspiracies, like the supposed Moon Hoax, have their place too. --Irishpunktom\^talk 11:54, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: They need to be clearly marked as such, however. The title of this article clearly implies that it is a fully factual and uncontroversial account of the September 11 attacks. — Gwalla | Talk 03:30, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Don't Delete - It seems there are three parts to this entry: the title, an article on military exercises and another on the money trail. Both the articles are on topics of general importance and interest. When someone has taken the trouble to collect together the relevant sources on a topic it is a waste to just delete it all. I think the main problem with this entry is the title, which implies things unsupported by the evidence. Still a bad title is no reason for destroying the whole article. I say Reorganise. - Crosbie
• Merge text into 9/11 domestic conspiracy theory, redirect title of article to one of the more encyclopaedic articles on the subject of 9/11. Jdcooper 19:03, 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 delete. CSTAR 21:41, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Trevor (Harry Potter)

This is taking the Harry Potter mania a little to far. This is such a minor character that it only deserves mention on something like Minor characters in Harry Potter, if that. Delete Preisler 03:06, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Merge or delete--nixie 03:11, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• A three word article? Delete. Or maybe some redirect. Just get it out of my sight. -R. fiend 04:22, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. The Neville Longbottom article already states all the information this one had (which is simply that Trevor is a toad). I don't think someone will type "trevor" in our search bar hoping to find information about this, so I won't vote do redirect. JoaoRicardo 04:27, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. It's too specific. Also, too short for a redirect. Bratsche 04:40, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Covered elsewhere. - RedWordSmith 06:36, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)
• merge or redirect or keep, otherwise it will be a red link again. Do not delink to it, there might be something else to say about itKappa 08:15, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. Trevor is mentioned in the first book to introduce Neville ("The boy who kept losing his toad") and makes another appearance in the third book where it is shrinked by Neville's potion. Even minor characters are notable in enormous best sellers such as the Harry Potter series. Three words is a little short of course. 129.177.61.124 08:51, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Neville losing his frog might be notable, but that doesn't mean the frog itself is. Did the frog ever actually do anything on its own right, instead of being experimented on by wizards?
    This type of content-free articles about non-notable characters sets precedent to articles about every brick in the Hogwarts school wall. — JIP | Talk 11:29, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • If you want your votes to be fully counted, you will need a user name and an edit history. Kappa 10:36, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Neville's Toad is not significant enough for it's own article. He doesn't even have speaking lines. DaveTheRed 09:07, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Neville Longbottom. There really enough information to make a seperate article on this character. He can still be broken out later if more info surfaces or if he turns out to be incredibly important. Mgm|^(talk) 09:22, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and/or redirect to the most useful Potter-related person or category. Radiant! 09:28, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. No interest whatsoever separate from Harry Potter articles, only worth mentioning in that in passing. Average Earthman 11:11, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. This does not deserve it's own entry. --Bucephalus 14:29, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. So far below the threshold of notability that this must surely be someone having fun at Wikipedia's expense, or trying to make a point. --BM 14:35, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Merge as per Mgm, then brace for List of items seen on various shelves in Harry Potter. --InShaneee 18:08, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Obscure fancruft. Martg76 16:58, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Neville Longbottom. Redirects discourage recreation. -Aranel ("Sarah") 22:05, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete DJ Clayworth 04:13, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect,Merge or Delete --Paraphelion 01:54, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as too trivial. Joyous 02:35, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Neville Longbottom. --RMG 02:15, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Neville Longbottom. --Theo (Talk) 03:11, 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 redirect to Bell's inequalities Bell's theorem. Deathphoenix 14:02, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

(Bell's inequalities is a redirect to Bell's theorem). --Deathphoenix 19:37, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Bell inequalities

This article, started 2005-Feb-10, is a POV fork of the old article Bell's theorem. Please note, that Bell's inequalities, created 2004-Nov-27 by Charles Matthews is a redirect to Bell's theorem. --Pjacobi 09:58, 2005 Feb 25 (UTC)

• REdirect. -Sean Curtin 03:02, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)
• delete POV fork and redirect. -Lethe | Talk 08:07, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Bell's theorem. It's what a user would expect if (s)he searched for Bell inequalities. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 15:29, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• delete POV fork and redirect. Some sections might be subsumed in Bell test experiments, refering to specific experimental tests of certain inequalities. CSTAR 17:08, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Either keep or return to Bell's theorem. I am the main author of the page, and would like to point out that the material in it was formerly part of Bell's theorem. It was removed recently by CSTAR to the beginning of Bell test experiments (another page for which I hold the main responsibility). It is out of place there but could perhaps be shifted back to the Bell's theorem page. The material is necessary for a complete description of the theorem, the page at present concentrating on the quantum mechanics side of the story. Bell's actual contribution to physics consisted of the derivation using local realist principles of the first of the Bell inequalities.Caroline Thompson 18:25, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• This appears to be an actual POV fork, rather than a subtopic spun out to its own article. As such, I make no vote about what happens to the content, but I vote for the article itself to be made a redirect to Bell's theorem. -- Antaeus Feldspar 19:06, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC) Update: By the evidence on Talk:Bell's theorem and on this VfD, it's become very clear that the content is original research, and that Caroline is not even trying to deny this but instead to argue that it's correct original research and should stay. I am changing my vote on the content to delete. -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:28, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The present Bell's theorem page contains the description of only one of the Bell inequalities. This inequality is not the one Bell originally derived, is derived in an unnecessarily restricted manner, using non-standard notation, and is not accompanied by a clear description of how it is to be applied. To merely re-direct the current page to Bell's theorem is therefore not reasonable. As a source of information on the inequalities, the present page is totally inadequate. Caroline Thompson 09:39, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Nevertheless, this appears to be an actual POV fork in the correct sense of the term, where the information, if true, belongs in the main original article -- the very one to which you are suggesting the material might be returned. Creating a new article that has a different title but is actually on the same subject, so that you can get in information that consensus will not let you get in the main article, is a POV fork and it's not a legitimate way to deal with a failure to get your material approved by consensus. -- Antaeus Feldspar 15:15, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Right, so the material should be returned to the main article, Bell's theorem. The notation in the new sections of this introduced by CSTAR is non-standard, though, so somebody will need to do a considerable amount of editing to convert it. Alternatively (my preference!) let's delete CSTAR's new sections, effectively reverting to the edition of 16:24, 3 Jan 2005. Caroline Thompson 10:22, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

CSTAR: To say the material as now presented in the article is non-standard is ludicrous ...

[CHT: I did not say that. I said the notation was non-standard. In point of fact, though, CSTAT's section on correlations is irrelevant. Most of it is concerned with standard facts re the estimation of probabilities which, if it had been presented using, say, the probabilistic notation of Clauser and Horne's 1974 paper, could have been said in a couple of lines.]

CSTAR (continued): The current contents are the result of consensus, as the long record in the talk page clearly indicates ...

[CHT: That statement is open to question. From my point of view it seems a matter of just CSTAR and one or two others forcing through CSTAR's changes on the basis of appeal to authority. It has been assumed that because they looked sufficiently mathematical and were clearly written from the "accepted" point of view they must be superior to my contributions.]

CSTAR (continued): It also indicates a belligerent attitude on her part, full of personal attacks ...

[CHT: Methinks thou dost exaggerate! I queried at one stage, on your talk page, whether your qualifications were better than mine.]

CSTAR (continued) By non-standard of course she means that it mentions quantum mechanics and gives an example which uses spin operators. From the comments on the talk page for that article (and at various other places in WP and throughout the internet) one can see that her position has been consistently trying to claim quantum mechanics is a conspiracy (as is the theory of relativity!) CSTAR 14:10, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

CHT: It does not matter what my opinion is! I'm concerned with presenting an accurate and if possible comprehensible version of the facts. It is necessary for this purpose to make it clear that there is more than one Bell inequality and that they are not all equivalent. [The statement that a Bell inequality has been violated carries different degrees of weight according as to which Bell inequality was used (and, incidentally, what adjustments may have been made to the data before analysis).] It is also necessary to use consistent notation. Caroline Thompson 18:02, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• delete This does not add value.--DrChinese 15:00, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I fear the above opinion is made in ignorance of some of the facts. Dr Chinese has elsewhere expressed the opinion that all the various inequalities are equivalent. Though this is widely believed it is not true, which is why the page is necessary. Different inequalities involve different assumptions, over and above the basic ones of local realism. Some inequalities have been used in practical applications, some not. Can it really be the case (as recent discussions have seemed to indicate) that wikipedia is totally uninterested in expanding human knowledge and correcting misconceptions, only in regurgitating that which is (in the opinion of the few who take part) already "well known"? Are people unable to read for themselves and see from the page that what is "well known" is, in this instance, clearly wrong? Caroline Thompson 22:05, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Delete POV fork, original research. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:00, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

What part of Bell inequalities is considered to be original research? I, the main author of the page, did not invent any of the inequalities! I came into the picture in 1993, long after the inequalities had been discovered, and the page now contains no reference to my work. No, there is no original research there, so that is not a valid reason for deletion. It seems to me that there remain only the two options I suggested earlier: either keep or (after editing to standardise the notation of the existing page) re-insert in Bell's theorem. Caroline Thompson 10:00, 1 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 and redirect to Bell test experiments. Deathphoenix 01:42, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Bell test loopholes

This is a POV fork of Bell test experiments. It should be partially merged into Bell test experiments and redirected, but original research by C. Thompson and references to her papers should only be kept if editors other than Caroline Thompson consider it relevant. --Pjacobi 10:28, 2005 Feb 25 (UTC)

Remark. Dont' forget Loopholes in optical Bell test experiments. CSTAR 18:02, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Merge (or partial merge). Upon a Google search of Bell test loopholes, eight of the first ten entries (that is the 1st page entries) point to CT's contribution or references to it (one of the ten points to Real Estate loopholes). It doesn't get much better on te second page. What this proves is that CT's efforts have succeeded in converting WP into a vehicle for promoting her ideas.CSTAR 17:25, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• As the main author of the page, I say keep as it is. I created this page as a separate one so that it could conveniently be referenced directly from a general page such as Bell's theorem or from more specialist pages such as Bell test experiments or Bell inequalities.

Incidentally, CSTAR's interpretation of his Google findings is very misleading. As far as Google was concerned, I was an authority on the subject before I started contributing to wikipedia.

If the page were redirected, where would this be to? The page structure of the group of pages is logical as it is (apart from the fact that I'd forgotten that there was already a redirect from Bell's inequalities to Bell's theorem.) Caroline Thompson 19:47, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Authority? Oh really?

Cranks, Crackpots, Kooks and Loons on the net

CSTAR 20:14, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Redirect. -Sean Curtin 03:04, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)
• redirect -Lethe | Talk 11:54, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect and merge anything useful. Possible deficiencies in the Bell test experiments should be addressed there, not forked off into a separate article. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 15:31, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

That sounds a reasonable compromise, though it may then be necessary to say more about the loopholes in other pages. If the main material is incorporated into Bell test experiments, will a reference to my own papers -- at least to my 1996 Chaotic Ball paper -- be allowed, both here and from other pages, in particular CHSH inequality? It is widely acknowledged to give clear explanation of the fair sampling loophole. [See Google! I don't know why CSTAR thinks it a bad thing that wikipedia is on the top of the list for Bell test loophole information. He should be proud of the fact. Caroline Thompson 09:56, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Dunno if it's too late in the game, but anyway: merge and redirect to Bell test experiments. Wile E. Heresiarch 03:22, 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 Merge and redirect to Klingon. Deathphoenix 02:11, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Arbiter of Succession

This article spent more than 24 hours tagged for Speedy Deletion without any admin finding a case for it, or removing the tag as obviously inappropriate. I have replaced the Speedy tag with a VfD tag and am listing it accordingly. No vote. SWAdair | Talk 10:52, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Insignificant piece of Star Trek trivia. jni 11:35, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. For the same reason. Note, however, that there's a stomach turning amount of star trek trivia in the wikipedia that could be similarly deleted or merged or whatever. Avriette 12:09, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Merge or keep Star Trek stuff. Kappa 12:46, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete or at best compress down to a sentence or two and stick in with Klingon Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:54, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge into an article on the relevant episode. - SimonP 14:58, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Since the article for the episode doesn't currently exist, maybe Move it to Reunion (Star Trek) (that's the title List of Star Trek: TNG episodes is looking for) and tweak it so it's a start of the episode article, as that ep is the only time the 'Arbiter of Succession' is a major factor in Trek canon (the events of "Reunion" play a smaller role in the later ep "Redemption (Star Trek)", which already has an article)? Otherwise, de-link from Klingon and Delete, or merge/redir into Klingon. Niteowlneils 18:47, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Merge into Klingon. Kbdank71 19:32, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. What about all the other separate articles listed in Category:Star_Trek_politics? Should we merge each one into its relevant episode? Or combine them into one "Star Trek politics" article? Zzyzx11 20:45, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • In response to ZZyzx11, my answer is yes, if it's a minor or one-time reference such as Arbiter of succession. In the case of this article, merge with Klingon. 23skidoo 21:49, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• either Keep or merge to Klingon. Megan1967 23:18, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Merge into Klingon, Star Trek politics, or other suitable article. The Arbiter of Succession is a notable term in Star Trek but does not merit an article all to itself. — JIP | Talk 17:11, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Merge. Andrew pmk 04:13, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Merge to Klingon High Council rather than Klingon, since the subject's already mentioned there. Gazpacho 12:33, 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. jni 11:57, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

John Driscoll

A vanity page - this programmer has done nothing I can see that is particularly noteworthy of Wikipedia. Delete. Nick04 11:04, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• What if people want to look me up? I think the page is pretty honest. Leave it here for people to research me until another John Driscoll rises to significance and the page is needed. I vote for NOT deleting this entry.
  • Note: Comment by page author 195.134.12.229. --InShaneee 17:44, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • There's nothing wrong with having info about yourself on wikipedia, it just belongs on your user page. --InShaneee 17:44, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • I don't have a page about myself of Wikipedia, because I've done nothing particularly noteworthy. If people want to find out about me, they can Google and visit my own personal website, or visit my user page...hence this VFD, to see if other people agree with my viewpoint and think this page is not noteworthy enough to be included. Nick04 11:19, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. The usual sort of vanity crap. Author also removed the VfD tag. jni 11:33, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Approve! This guy rocks and I use his company every day
  • Note: Comment by page author 195.134.12.229. --InShaneee 17:44, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Vanity. Article creator has also vandalized this page. Lupo 11:56, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Approve, this guy's photo dating site helped me find my wife and we now have two kids. I owe everything to this guy!
  • Note: Comment by page author 195.134.12.229. --InShaneee 17:44, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Approve, this guy has been on TV, interviewed by the UK's Richard and Judy, as well as Des O Connor!
  • Note: Comment by page author 195.134.12.229. --InShaneee 17:44, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as clear vanity. andy 12:04, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• del. vanity. and the fact that i have to resubmit my edit because he keeps editing the vfd is irritating. Avriette 12:26, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• You know the headline that last night someone slept with Claire Danes? That was this guy!
  • Note: Comment by page author 195.134.12.229. --InShaneee 17:44, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete -- One more can't hurt. Longhair 13:09, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete phony. Gazpacho 13:31, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Strong delete. While I normally don't bother voting "delete" on vanity articles (they will eventually be deleted anyway), I hate the way the author desperately tries to astroturf the VfD. If you're going to masquerade as several different people, at least vary the style. Making every comment like "Approve, this guy cured world hunger" makes me not know whether to laugh or cry. — JIP | Talk 13:56, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, This fiasco. Inter 14:43, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Approve! (of deletion, that is) . Radiant! 16:49, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Nonnotable vanity (to say nothing of the vfd reversions and rampant sockpuppeting)--InShaneee 17:44, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as rewritten by the ever avuncular Uncle G. This subject has made me temporarily reverse my decision not to waste my time voting on vanity pages that are clearly going to make it to the trashcan without my vote. Frankly, this guy will never be notable as he has not even been smart enough to hide the fact that he created this page and every single keep vote on the VfD page. What kind of network programming guru would be that clue-free? Delete, please. HyperZonk^talk 17:42, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Leave it here for people to research me until another John Driscoll rises to significance and the page is needed. — Well that didn't take long to happen. Rewritten article about a John Driscoll who, looking at the list of publications on the Federal Reserve web site, his home page, and IDEAS, may well pass the average professor test. See what you think. Weak Keep. Uncle G 17:54, 2005 Feb 25 (UTC)
• Weak Keep as per Uncle G's rewrite. Incidentally, the original John Driscoll's vdf vandalism amused me. Childish vandalism, but amusing nonetheless. DaveTheRed 19:12, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. The edits by Uncle G are helpful, but still, what makes this figure notable and encyclopedic? Which barometer are we using this week? No vote. GRider\^talk 19:22, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. The correct thing for Uncle G to have done would have been to have (1) written the article about "John Driscoll (economist)" as a new article, if he actually believes the Federal Reserve Bank economist is notable; (2) redirected the article originally under discussion to "John Driscoll (programmer)"; (3) created a disambiguation page betweeen the JD two articles; (4) patched up the VfD so that we were discussing the deletion of "John Driscoll (programmer)". Better yet, he might have waited until after the original article was deleted, then written a new article on the economist, which would have saved effort on the disambiguation page and the patching up, wouldn't have changed the subject of the vote in mid-stream; and finally would have saved the admin who implements the vote some trouble. If he had done that, it might have occurred to him after the programmer article was deleted that the economist, although more notable than the other guy, isn't that notable either. What he has instead done has been to preempt the process for forming a consensus on whether the original John Driscoll article was vanity. Perhaps it was, but that is what we were in the process of deciding. Uncle G, who is in other respects a great Wikipedia contributor with whom I am almost always in agreement, thinks it is amusing to swoop in and change the subject of (alleged) vanity articles while they are waiting to be deleted. I can see why he thinks this is fun, but I don't think it is fair to do that until the original article has received its 5 days in court. If one person can decide that an article is vanity, then that person should be an administrator authorized to speedy-delete it. That authority was voted on recently and was not granted to administrators. The extra few days of waiting through the full VfD doesn't cost anything, and not waiting makes it seem as though the deletionists (which includes me, I guess) are in a big hurry to remove stuff from the Wikipedia. I realize I'm not making much headway with this argument. It is probably going to take Uncle G screwing around with an article that he thinks is vanity where others do not agree before he gets my point. And this is most likely not that article. Nevertheless, I make the point again. My vote: Delete the article. The original version on JD #1 was vanity. The current version by Uncle G on JD #2 is about a government economist who does not pass the average professor test. --BM 19:36, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • I agree on all counts. Whether this is a good article now or not, this was clearly crossing the line. This can't be allowed to become a trend. --InShaneee 00:58, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • The solution here would be to write the new article on the Talk page, so others can comment on or add to it. If the current nominated VfD article goes under, simply add the new article from the Talk page. If it is an entirely different individual/topic it can't really be classed as article recreation. I've done so below with the Hatchling article. Megan1967 03:16, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Neither Driscoll is notable. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:57, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - This guy is nobody, who will ever want to look up this old mothball?
• Delete - You all have managed to warp this article and VFD into a twisted pile of your own bile, that is at times cutting and nasty, and has no relevance to the original article this may or may not have been about, especially as it no longer exists.
  • Note: Above 2 comments by user 212.57.245.105. --InShaneee 04:13, 3 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. Rossami (talk) 07:52, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Mark Jensen

Non-notable guitarist of non-notable band Twisted (VfD entry) Delete. jni 11:44, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Not notable. utcursch 13:39, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Need more notable content than what is currently there, Zzyzx11 20:18, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, possible artist vanity. Megan1967 23:27, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete for not meeting the Notability and Music Guidelines. Tuf-Kat 04:37, Feb 27, 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 (anonymous and very new votes discounted). Rossami (talk) 07:56, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Skypin

Neologism or ad for sex site, take your pick. Google gives 42 hits for 'sex' and 'skypin'. --Lee Hunter 11:47, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Oh please, there are tons of sex sites over the web, and since they tend to be designed to google really really well, this one is obviously not notable with 42 hits. Radiant! 13:45, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as advert. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:53, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable website/neologism. jni 17:29, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Need more notable content than what is currently there. Zzyzx11 20:19, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Skype. Original author seems unaware that we have a site called Skype. This material could be asdded, but not by me. What makes Skype notable is the free phone calls. I think Skype are more notable for that than sex chat, and this is not purely another sex site.--SqueakBox 17:43, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Discussion Homeboy is also here at Wiki as well as any other words. This organization is about words and their meanings am I correct?

'Homeboy Pimp Dogging are in Wiki as well... Why not Skypin? There are over 2 million users online now as I reply this moment using Skype-- 21:56, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Improvement/Edit I am the author/creator of the term Skypin and would like to know why is this word not acceptable?

A neologism can also refer to an existing word or phrase which has been assigned a new meaning.Skypin or "Skypin for Sex" is not an existing word, phrase or existing meaning--Gtpadmin 23:07, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Keep - this place has listed terms like Cybersex and Phone_sex, clearly Skypin is just another way to encounter a virtual form of sex. What's wrong with explaining a term? Arguments like it only gets 42 hits may be invalid in 2 weeks.
  • Unsigned by 62.99.167.215; it is his only edit. —Korath (Talk) 06:23, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, basically an ad for a porn site--nixie 03:56, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, Re: basically an ad for a porn site--nixie The link to the site in question was not a porn site... it leads to a forum for individuals looking to meet and contact through a forum arena.
  • Unsigned by 212.41.84.159; it is his only edit. —Korath (Talk) 06:23, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - This term is new, made by the owner of the website, why wouldn't it be in wikipedia?
  • Unsigned by 81.70.123.254, and inserted above earlier discussion; it is his third edit. —Korath (Talk) 06:23, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, ad, neologism. —Korath (Talk) 06:23, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Advertising. Neologism not in any significant use. And not notable. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:51, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, I agree with Dpbsmith right there, above. Graue 10:33, 10 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. Rossami (talk) 07:58, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Ciphire

Non-notable company -- Longhair 13:02, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - Self nom. Longhair 13:02, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Self nom? Did you mean you vote do delete because you nominated it?
• Since it scores about 20000 google hits, I'll vote to keep it. Radiant! 13:42, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep reasonable but unspectacular Google score, a couple of notable products Changing to weak delete in light of Hyperzonk's considerable research on the subject. I don't put as much stock as he does in the Alexa rank in this case, as I believe that when one wants to download free software, one is just as likely (if not more) to go somewhere like download.com or something similar than go to the developer's own site. As a result, the Alexa ranking might not be as representative of notability of a software project as it would of, say, a blog. However, I fully agree with the rest of Hyperzonk's thinking on this one. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:46, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. It certainly does get a lot of Google hits, but they appear to be almost entirely self-promotional entries in open-authorship places and free download pages. Why did I look into this so deeply? Because this site's score on Alexa is the astonishingly low 3,790,861! I'm sorry, but truly notable software companies do not rank a million places lower than my own vanity web site. On its freshmeat entry, you will find that this software's vitality is only 0.03%, and its popularity is only 0.34%. Lastly, as I have said before, I don't care what marketing calls it, anything that has a version number beginning with zero is in alpha, not even in beta (call me old-fashioned if you must). As far as I can tell, the only notable thing about this software company is that it somehow managed to get a butt-load of Google hits without being either notable nor widely adopted. Kudos to their marketing team! HyperZonk^talk 17:20, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)

Comment: Hear hear! Do you want to write my VfD intros Hyperzonk, you seem more awake than myself :)~ Longhair 17:39, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Okay, you got me confused. It could be the case that they're spending more effort on marketing than on actually doing something (that's a viable strategy in the shareware market, I suppose). I browsed around in their forum (which is active, but not that active) and found out that their official release date is january 11th, 2005 (that's for CiphireMail, which is their only product but will have some add-ons later on). What struck me as peculiar is that this same post says they spent three years in development and a fourth in testing. However, all their software purports to do is encryption and sending of e-mail, which both consists of a bunch of mathematical or logical algorithms that are widely available in open source. This seems to support the idea that they're hyping up something relatively simple, in order to make money (their current product is free but they will release a commercial version later on). Clever, I guess.
  • Anyway. Since the software was officially released about a month ago, I don't think it deserves an encyclopedia page until it sees some widespread usage. Given its current Alexa rating that seems unlikely. So change vote to delete. Radiant! 17:45, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, unless someone gives some notable content. Zzyzx11 20:23, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, but with reservations. Article needs expansion. Megan1967 23:37, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - ad. -- Cyrius|✎ 15:19, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, ad, also completely lacking useful information--nixie 00:12, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, but the page should be extended 84.153.114.184 01:12, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete — Matt Crypto 15:07, 11 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. Rossami (talk) 07:59, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Ciphire Mail

Non notable software -- Longhair 13:02, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - Self nom. -- Longhair 13:02, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Ciphire, see above (or, if the latter gets deleted, delete this one as well). Radiant! 13:43, Feb 25, 2005

(UTC)

• Delete. Not notable. See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Ciphire for details. Zzyzx11 20:25, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to Ciphire. Megan1967 03:53, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per clear consensus at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Ciphire. —Korath (Talk) 06:28, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to Ciphire which should be kept but extended. 84.153.114.184 01:14, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete — Matt Crypto 15:07, 11 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 keep.

I count 13 clear "delete" votes and 19 valid "keep" votes. 2 votes were too ambiguous to call and 3 votes were discounted as either anonymous or trollish. Rossami (talk) 08:09, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Eyuboglu high school

Turkish IB high school with 'various facilities'. Radiant! 13:34, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable. Megan1967 00:17, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Even I, an ardent fan of school articles, can find little reason to keep this one. Delete unless verifiability can be found A link is good enough. GRider is right about the International Baccalaureate making it really quite worth an article - David Gerard 14:00, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable. Jonathunder 22:00, 2005 Feb 27 (UTC)
• When David Gerard says delete on a school article, there's no other argument needed. Delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:46, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • I've changed my mind ;-) - David Gerard 14:04, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Indrian 04:42, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and allow for organic growth. This Turkish school offers the International Baccalaureate which makes it distinctively noteworthy. GRider\^talk 01:02, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Move to Eyuboglu High School, --Ryan! | Talk 11:35, Mar 6, 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)

---

• • Many, many schools have IB programs. In my state there's probably about one per county. Gamaliel 20:01, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

---

Notice to AllyUnion: Seeing as I'm not a newcomer, bite me. My vote stands and I thank G-Rider for bringing it to my attention! I almost missed this one. —RaD Man (talk) 03:15, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

---

• Keep but expand.--BaronLarf 19:27, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Deletioncruft. I've categorised it to Turkey. Categorising such articles to improve their chances of evolving is a better use of time than nominating them for deletion. Wincoote 19:57, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable school. Gamaliel 20:01, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Single lines about unremarkable schools are unusable, uninformative, and a hindrance. This is not a Yellow Pages, and being IB is not that remarkable. I taught at an IB school, went to the conferences, heard the sales pitches. It's a good program, but by itself it doesn't make a school a vital entry to an encyclopedia. Geogre 20:02, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep but expand.--Oarias 21:34, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand.Drw25 21:36, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as I always say on articles on these matters. Non-notable (I've corrected the tally to 5 to 6 in favor of deleting) --Neigel von Teighen 21:39, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, BEEFSTEW score 1. (And just delete the tally next time. See here.) —Korath (Talk) 22:33, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, or meet your maker. RaD Man (talk) 22:38, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. --L33tminion | (talk) 22:45, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, high schools and beyond are inherently encyclopedic (and I shan't get started on all the video game nano-cruft that lurks around here). Wyss 23:01, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. Has potential to become encyclopedic. --Andylkl 23:33, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep all high schools with "various facilities", especially twin observatories. Kappa 00:54, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Interesting school stub, wikipedia is not paper. --ShaunMacPherson 01:44, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Very notable. -CunningLinguist 02:59, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable enough to me. - Mailer Diablo 12:19, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. JuntungWu 12:53, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. high 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' Yuckfoo 23:07, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Another time-wasting deletioncruft nomination.--Centauri 23:32, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. School. LukeSurl 23:39, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• KEEP all REAL places -RickK^h^h^h^h^h. Schools are inherantly notable and this belongs on Wiki.  ALKIVAR™ 03:43, 6 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)
  • Comment: In defence of GRider, I agree with what CunningLinguist has said. --Andylkl 04:47, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)
    • 'comment: echo what cunninglinguist said as well> Yuckfoo 23:26, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Not notable. --Carnildo 05:05, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - SimonP 17:47, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Interesting. Potential for growth. Useful link. Notable in having the baccalaureate. --cfp 18:26, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. It's a real place, Mark Richards 21:01, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• As per Geogre Delete. Uncle G 16:51, 2005 Mar 9 (UTC)
• Delete. WIth regard to the international baccalaureate, 1,468 schools offer this program, according to the IBO, including about 500 in the U. S. It's not unique or rare. It is not a college degree or even advanced placement. It is a "pre-university course of study that leads to examinations... [which] has earned a reputation for rigorous assessment, giving IB diploma holders access to the world’s leading universities." Those interested in the program are well served by the complete and up-to-date information available at the IBO website, particularly the IBO World Schools Directory. Wikipedia is not a directory. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:41, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• CommentThe stub label is there as an invite to any Wikipedian from the local community or the school who knows more about the school than is on the website to update the page using their personal expertise. It is not correct to delete articles just because they are currently stubs, this appears to be a summary of all the arguments to delete this page.

I would invite Wikipedians voting on this, and all schools in VfD to look at the many succesful school articles on Wikipedia to see what can be achieved. An example quite close to home for me is the development of Adams' Grammar School--LukeSurl 00:38, 13 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 keep with a very strong recommendation to remerge back into the main article (or otherwise refactor the article(s) in order to better achieve the mandatory neutral point of view. Rossami (talk) 08:25, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Comment: This discussion thread, however, is ridiculous. 95% of the discussion is raving and bickering unrelated to the specific decision at hand. I strongly recommend that the parties in this discussion seek mediation. Rossami (talk) 08:25, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Criticism of Prem Rawat

Is this the mother of all POV forks? For sure it sets a bad precedent, violates policy and in effect resulted in both Prem Rawat and Criticism of Prem Rawat to be in totally unencyclopedic style. Merge and redirect. --Pjacobi 16:31, 2005 Feb 25 (UTC)

• Keep and list on Wikipedia:Pages needing attention. This VfD is incorrect. There is no Wikipedia:Deletion_policy for what you call a POV fork. Pls note hat this article needs attention. Too many external references and mostly to one singular website. That in itself is inappropriate. The article needs to be re-examined and cleaned up if to remain in Wikipedia. In its current state it is not encyclopedic and sooner or late it will be up again on VfD. --Senegal 22:23, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• • Not entirely. An article named 'best foo' or 'reasons why xyzzy is bad' tends to be inherently POV. Especially if a NPOV article on the same subject already exists. It would make the most sense, both for an encyclopedia and for NPOV, to put all pro and contra information in the same article. Radiant! 20:58, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)

• I am wondering myself what is going on here? I remeber user:eloquence initiating the critics paragraph in the main article, pointing out that it is mandatory there and that it has to include the link to Criticism of Prem Rawat.Bit funny that is, that he never mentioned that article as being against any policy. But for germany i am sure, we have other rules. ;-) Thomas h 19:53, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  I vote NOT to delete. In my opinion, and the opinion of all former followers of Prem Rawat who have expressed an opinion, the main Prem Rawat article is 90% pro-Rawat POV. That is a natural consequence of the Wikipedia system, where articles will always reflect the opinions of those who are willing to dedicate the most time to editing. I and others were able to spend some time ensuring that the criticisms of Rawat were at least included on Wikipedia, and although I don't have the time and the inclination to police these articles full-time, after the work I put in to this article, I strongly object to it being deleted. If it was to be deleted, then all the criticisms would have to be included in the main article, which would, I understand, make it too large. --John Brauns 20:07, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This is total BS. The Prem Rawat article was developed over months of deliberations and give and take with the participations of senior editors until it achieved a concensus state that both sides could live with. --≈ jossi ≈ 03:39, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)

We're not talking about Prem Rawat. We're talking about an article called Criticism of Prem Rawat. Do the editors you speak of all agree that Criticism of Prem Rawat is NPOV? Or was some kind of a deal cut between two factions in which one faction agreed to tolerate Criticism of Prem Rawat in order to protect the Prem Rawat article? Dpbsmith (talk) 19:19, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

There was no such "deal cut". Pro and con factions as well as neutral editors worked on both articles and achieved consesus on both. There are two consesus versions clearly labeled as such in the articles' history: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Prem_Rawat&oldid=6365213 and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Criticism_of_Prem_Rawat&oldid=6403494. --Zappaz 05:53, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Is that why you created this article, Jossi, and said "Opposing views can go here"? I'm ashamed for you, Jossi. I pointed out that this VfD could set a bad precedent; if it passed, partisans would push first to isolate all criticism of their idols into seperate articles, and then hypocritically push for those subtopic articles to be deleted as "POV". But I never had the idea that you would lend yourself to such a dishonest scheme. -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:14, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Totally POV --Neigel von Teighen 20:10, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Keep I am not aware of any policy that the article violates; there is also an article Criticism of Wikipedia. There is too much criticism to go in the main article. The article has some problems but that is not a reason to delete it. Problems are too detailed, too much space for rebuttals (some of them are "made up" and flimsy and even ridiculous in the case of accusations of strong bias of respected Dutch scholars and scientitsts), and it contains irrelevant ad hominem attacks on the critics of Prem Rawat. Andries 20:48, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You found in your country one student (Win Ham) that was quoted Then a Van der lans was quoted by Schnabel. Rebuttals were needed given your tedious insistence to quote from obscure Dutch journals, pathetically trying agrandize their standing, when actually its a known case of circular reference. You and your ex-premie friends brought this onto yourselves. Specially you. --≈ jossi ≈ 04:11, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)

Your reply shows that you do not know what you are talking about. Haan was not quoted by van der Lans. I do not blame you for that because you cannot read those Dutch articles but I do blame you for thinking that you know and giving flimsy and even ridiculous rebuttals. Andries

OK. But face it Andries, your Dutch "scholars" are a student of religion in a small-town in the Netherlands that belonged to a Christian critical movement, a pastor that wrote a book for the KVG (a Christian group) without providing any citatcions to his asessments, and a person that wrote a PhD based on the book of this pastor. Give me a break. Helpless. --≈ jossi ≈ 15:41, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)

• • From what Andries says, the problem seems to be an ongoing revert war in the main Prem Rawat article. The proper way of dealing with that is asking for Moderation or Arbitration, not creating a new article on the same topic (because, if the new article is not locatable, it is rather pointless; if it is locatable, it merely provides a new ground for the revert war). As such, merge. Radiant! 20:58, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)

Radiant, the situation we have is that if a conscientious, independent, journalist were to write an article on Prem Rawat it would include all the negative aspects of his life so far. The article on Rawat is a whitewashed version of his life so far. What has happened on Wikipedia, is that we former followers of Rawat, who are most qualified to talk about those negative aspects, have been attacked, ridiculed, and marginalised. We don't have the time, inclination, nor respect in the Wikipedia process, to continously fight Rawat's supporters, so when the criticism article was created, a few of us did put the work in to ensure that readers would have the opportunity to read the information that Rawat's supporters are trying to hide. I would support merging the articles, but am loath to go through the arguments again. --John Brauns 23:04, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• That's exactly my point. You claim that the article is POV. Now the procedure to follow is to discuss this with the people that hold said POV, and if that fails, ask for mediation. Or arbitration. It is not appropriate to create a new article like this. Radiant! 09:48, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)

The situation we have is that if a conscientious, independent, journalist were to write an article on the group of criticis of Prem Rawat that call themselves ex-pemies, it will place them in the correct light: a small, marginal group of obsessed ex-followers with a public agenda of intolerance and harassment. --≈ jossi ≈ 04:27, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)

Did you ever try the RfC, Mediation, RfA cascade? --Pjacobi 23:09, 2005 Feb 25 (UTC)

pJacobi, ask yourslerf why is John Brauns suddenly so interested? His contributiion to WP has been nil. Whay do you listen to him. He is only here to push his group's agenda of harassment that is so well documented. --≈ jossi ≈ 03:45, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)

Jossi, I thought I explained the level of my interest very clearly in my post. I check out the articles once a week or so, and intervene where significant changes happen or are proposed. Deletion of the article is clearly a significant change. I contributed significantly to the Criticism article. I haven't the time, the interest, nor the belief in the system to put any more time into Wikipedia. That should be clear enough for you. There is certainly nothing sinister requiring highlighting of the word 'suddenly'. --John Brauns 07:44, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Well documented? The only well documented case is John MacGregor case who was sued into bankrupcy for a small offense and is now suffering for a suicidal depression due to this. Andries 06:31, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Andries is right - none of the other allegations on Elan Vital's websites are documented at all, let alone 'well-documented'. --John Brauns 07:44, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

No, not for the Rawat articles. In the end I was reasonably happy that any readers would be able to do the necessary research to avoid being ensnared by Rawat's cult. I did try to get the mention of former followers ("ex-premies") as a "hate group" removed from the Hate Group article, but to be honest, the process is so laborious, and Rawat's supporters so dedicated, I gave up. All I do now is keep an eye (maybe once a week) on the Rawat and Criticism articles to ensure that nothing too inaccurate gets included. --John Brauns 23:28, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I tried a Rfc and very few editors responded. Andries 06:31, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

There is no ongoing revert war, i really have a problem with such superficial statements by now. Many people that give their comment about that thing don't even take their time to read the articles and talkpages, especially pjacobi . If you wanna see an edit war read the talkpages from august/september/oct last year. Too vigorous for you? Then please shut up. Thomas h 21:38, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I totally agree with Thomas_H though he could be a bit more polite. Please read the articles and possibly the discussion pages incl. the archives BEFORE voting here. Andries

• Keep. I believe that the VfD is founded on a mistaken notion of what WP:NPOV means and calls for; I do not believe that it even is a "POV fork", let alone "the mother of all POV forks" as Pjacobi calls it. A POV fork, to my understanding, would be if someone who didn't get his way at Criticism of Prem Rawat started a new article with a title like "[[Censure of Prem Rawat]]" -- creating a second article that is in every real respect on the same topic as the first, with no good reason to do so and with the bad reason of avoiding/defying consensus in this fashion, by filling the second article with that which he had been blocked from at the first.

This is not "forking" in that sense; it is instead separating out one aspect of a larger topic to be covered in detail in its own article. (If you try to edit either article right now, the editing screen will actually suggest to you that you do this -- that you find a way to spin some of the detail off to a new article.) Pjacobi seems to be arguing that that particular aspect is inherently POV, but he seems to mistake "people will clearly have strong POVs on the subject" for "the subject is clearly inherently POV". IMHO, it is difficult for a subject to be inherently POV; to do so it usually either has to incorporate an opinion directly into the article title or it has to commit the existential fallacy. Direct opinion-incorporation into the article title (like Radiant!'s "[[Reasons why XYZZY is bad]]" is usually so clumsy that NPOVing the title is easy and produces a better title, like "[[Criticisms of XYZZY]]". Of course, in theory the new title could be committing the existential fallacy -- but to do so, it must be making an assumption that something exists, and there must be serious dispute over that statement of existence. Is anyone actually seriously claiming that Prem Rawat has never been criticized??

A final note on the timing: this article was created eight months ago, by a self-described proud student of Maharaji. It was specifically created as a place for critical views of Prem Rawat to be aired (as can be easily verified). For eight months, it has served that purpose. Now it's being claimed that the subject itself is inherently POV and that this merits deletion of the article? I trust that Pjacobi nominated this VfD in good faith and that he does not want a bad precedent to be set, but I can think of a worse precedent that could be set, that of separating the sub-topic "Criticism of ..." out to a separate article when the main article gets too large and then saying "No, this article shouldn't exist, we'll have to merge those parts which fit back into the main article." -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:10, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This is about one of ten VfDs on POV forks, I participated in. Just today, by random chance, I put up four of them (thanks to Andries for pointing to Criticism of Wikipedia). Generally speaking, most senior editors tend to agree that all POV forks must be killed. This discussion is to clarify, whether the situation with this article is special.

But the most important things I've heard so far, is that the main Prem Rawat article is 90% pro-Rawat POV, that The article on Rawat is a whitewashed version of his life so far and that Rawat's supporters [are] so dedicated, I gave up. This strongly suggest to me, that the entire topic needs serious re-assessment, and merging the Criticism of Prem Rawat article into the main article would be a very important first step.

Pjacobi 00:26, 2005 Feb 26 (UTC)

This is an absolutely ridiculous statement. The Prem Rawat article was developed after a very long process of give and take and agreed by consensus. Read the abundant archives if yoiu want to check it. It is fully NPOV as agreed by many. many editors that participated in its development. The statement you quote is probably made by one of the critics trying to push his POV. You bought that complaint without checking. --≈ jossi ≈ 03:09, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)

Jossi, you created the article that you're now trying to delete. You created Criticism of Prem Rawat and the very first text you put in it was "Opposing views can go here." If we looked closely at the edit history of Prem Rawat, what would we really find? Would we find you making any effort to make and keep Prem Rawat an NPOV article or would we find you removing criticisms and saying "Put that over in Criticism of Prem Rawat, that's why I created it!"? And now you're trying to delete your own article as too POV?! -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:39, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Yes. Why not? How could I have known that the article such a stupid article? --≈ jossi ≈ 21:38, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)

• Well, if the main article is already NPOV, then this criticism should be deleted. If the main article is POV (as mainly the author of this criticism claims) then they should be merged. Either way this criticism has no real reason to exist.

The problem is, eliminating the article on Criticism of Prem Rawat is unambiguously and definitely a POV move unless the material is fairly merged into the parent article. Who is going to guarantee that "fair"? -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:08, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Merge and redirect. Is Prem Rawat that notable he has to have an entire article that exceeds quota? I find that very hard to believe. Megan1967 00:38, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • You don't think a controversial religious figure could possibly merit more than 32KB? -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:08, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The main article on Prem Rawat already includes a summary of the criticism. The critics pushing to keep this article are a tiny group of ex-followers that are using the Internet as a way to increase their perceived relevance. They do not deserve more than a short mention as already included in Prem_Rawat#Criticism. Prem Rawat is a remarkable teacher with hundreds of thousands of students in 80 countries. In 2004, 50,000 new students learned his techniques for finding peace within. Last year he spoke in front of 1.4 million people. In 2004, he received the keys to the Citiy if Miami and spoke at the Italian parliament and the Universal Forum of Cultures in Barcelona, etc. See http://tprf.org/media_press_room.htm. --≈ jossi ≈ 04:06, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)

"They do not deserve more than a short mention as already included in Prem_Rawat#Criticism." Oh, so is that why you created an entire article for their viewpoint? An article that you are now trying to delete as too POV (isn't the truth really "not the right POV"?) -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:39, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Merge and redirect. Obvious POV fork. Why are we suddenly getting so many of them? Criticism of Prem Rawat belongs in the Prem Rawat article. Those critical of Prem Rawat need to be able to state the case in a manner that is tolerable to those supportive of Prem Rawat, and vice versa. If the Prem Rawat article needs to be split because of size, it should be split on the basic of topic, not point of view. Dpbsmith (talk) 02:36, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Dpsmith, this is not an "obvious POV fork". There was so much criticism that it could not all go in the main article. The main article contains a summary of the criticism. The construction was agreed upon both by believers and opponents of the guru. If you do not have time to read and study the subject then DO NOT VOTE HERE. Andries 05:38, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Right, it's just an amazing coincidence that Prem Rawat is overwhelmingly favorable and Criticism of Prem Rawat is overwhelmingly critical. What we have here are two articles neither of which presents a neutral point of view. Why not split the article by topic? Prem Rawat's life and the movement he inspired? I'd add that the 32K guideline is just a guideline. Articles over 32K should be split so that a very small number of older browsers are capable of editing the article as a whole, but there's never any urgency about that. Sections over 32K should be split promptly, of course. My vote stands. Dpbsmith (talk) 13:19, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Dpbsmit, The article Prem Rawat is not overwhelmingly favorable nor is the article Criticism of Prem Rawat overwhelmingly critical. The opposing factions would both like to have sentences to be deleted in both articles. E.g. in the Prem Rawat article the students of Prem Rawat would like to see the statements by Mishler about the succession removed. And the opponents/ex-premies would like to see the rebuttals and the ad hominem attacks on them removed in the Criticism of Prem Rawat. I repeat ad hominem attacks. How can you say then that the article is a POV forks when there is such a strong mixture of negative and positive issues in both articles? Andries 20:58, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

(Shrug) I calls 'em as I sees 'em. To me the structure of the article is "critics say negative thing, critics say negative thing, critics say negative thing, supporters say brief rebuttal. Critics say negative thing, critics say negative things, critics say negative thing, supporters say brief rebuttal etc." Your mileage may vary. Dpbsmith (talk) 22:25, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Mr. Smith, a more accurate summary of the article would be "Wiki contributors give corroborated information about Rawat that Rawat supporters don't want in the main article, Rawat supporters give lame rebuttal..." Actually, I'm coming around to the view that we should merge the articles. I am willing to put the time in to ensure that only reliable sources are included. Any sources that are proven to be unreliable will have to be rejected, or quoted as such in each reference. For instance, I can prove that Elan Vital and TPRF are unreliable sources for information about Prem Rawat. The only other sources are independent media articles, and personal testimonies. Yes, let's merge the articles - should be an interesting exercise. --John Brauns 23:48, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

DpSmith, no you do not give a fair description of the article. A fair description is: Criticism followed by rebuttal and that ten time repeated. Please show me one criticism without a rebuttal. Andries 01:34, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It should be an interesting excercise indeed. Vote for delete and merge. I am ready for you. It will be fun. --64.81.88.140 00:22, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• delete , about time. total bigoted pov. --Phat grrl 04:52, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC) -- Phat grrl has eighteen edits.

• Keep and cleanup Abstain for now, it took us months and a huge effort to get to where we are now. (Discussions filled over eleven archives on this article alone: Talk:Criticism_of_Prem_Rawat). The article may need some cleanup, though. I do not think I have the stomach for another round. I'll have to think about it. If there are good editors that want to attempt this, I warn you it won't be easy. An opened can of worms is too poor of an analogy... --Zappaz 06:01, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC) --Zappaz 05:41, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• user jacobi hasn't until now, pointed out one single line of the article and explained, why it is POV,the same in the german wikipedia. Rename the Critics in "annoyances with prem rawat" or something else and he will have an argumentation problem. Tell me jacobi, is it that the POV-fork results in a buffer overflow of the wikipedain policy stack and therefore it has to be avoided? My advice: rewrite the library. Maybe you do better some programming. Your decisions based on your lack of your ability to read properly are proven, by setting the urv-flag in ther german article because you couldn't find the author's names in the head of the article. Thomas h 09:50, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - branching out criticism articles is not POV if the subject is summarised in the main article. Thus, the remedy here is to include a few summary paragraphs in the main article - David Gerard 13:58, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• David, a few summary paragraphs are already there: Prem_Rawat#Criticism. And it is more than enough. Why should Wikipedia allow a tiny group of vociferous critics with a stated agenda of harassment and intolerance to fill an article with their conspiracy theories, "testimonies", hearsay, innuendo and obsessions? --≈ jossi ≈ 15:27, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)

Why should Wikipedia be used to freely advertise a heavy drinking, smoking, adulterous, lying, greedy, religious cult leader, by a tiny group of vociferous cult members, with a stated agenda of harrassment and intolerance to critics, to fill an article with gushingly uncritical praise, and not a single objective critical analysis of Rawat's very flawed life???? Jossi, prove to these neutral people here that you are capable of objectively criticising Rawat, and list three mistakes you think he has made in his life. I will wager that you cannot. --John Brauns 19:51, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

If this is what you think, don't be surprised when people say you belong to a hate group. Prove to this neutral people that you are not doing this out of compulsive, obsessive hate. Your are the worst kind of bigot there is, insuferably self-righteous, and pathologically obtuse. --64.81.88.140 00:17, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Dear 140, this isn't an issue of what I think, but what are the facts. As a follower of Rawat for 25 years, I think that other followers, and prospective followers, have the right to know the truth about Rawat. Would you follow a diet from someone who was obese? Rawat clearly does not have peace in his life otherwise he wouldn't drink heavily, smoke, cheat on his wife, and demand the best material gadgets his followers' money can buy. All these allegations have been repeatedly corroborated, as well as the fact he lies about his past. The truth might look unpleasant expressed in the stark terms I did, but for someone who makes the claims he did and still does, it is clearly in the public interest that the truth about Rawat be known. And where have I been obtuse? Anyway, looks like the consensus is now to keep the articles as they are, so you will be spared months of arguing about the validity of every source for the Prem Rawat article. --John Brauns 07:38, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Don't call me dear, pleeeze! 25 years? So why did you stay with Prem rawat for 25 years? If you were so stupid to follow him for so long, what makes you now credible? The fact that you left him? How does that work? Sudden enlightenment?

• Neither the objective sociological researcher nor the court of law can readily regard the apostate as a creditable or reliable source of evidence. He must always be seen as one whose personal history predisposes him to bias with respect to both his previous religious commitment and affiliations, the suspicion must arise that he acts from a personal motivation to vindicate himself and to regain his self-esteem, by showing himself to have been first a victim but subsequently to have become a redeemed crusader. As various instances have indicated, he is likely to be suggestible and ready to enlarge or embellish his grievances to satisfy that species of journalist whose interest is more in sensational copy than in a objective statement of the truth. Professor Bryan R. Wilson, Fellow Emeritus at the University of Oxford.

• Others may ask, if the group is as transparently evil as he now contends, why did he espouse its cause in the first place? In the process of trying to explain his own seduction and to confirm the worst fears about the group, the apostate is likely to paint a caricature of the group that is shaped more by his current role as apostate than by his actual experience in the group. Bromley, Shupe, and Ventimiglia

I rejected Rawat largely because he, and Elan Vital, kept information about Rawat hidden from me. When I became aware of this information, I considered it, considered the good aspects of my involvement, and made my choice. I became active as I think other people should also be able to make the same informed choice. I partially agree with these statements about the bias of former followers, but I am sure everyone agrees that testimony from current followers is at least, but probably more, unreliable. I know my testimony as a follower was, although sincere, unreliable, as I wasn't aware of the facts. Being aware of my own potential for bias, I try to ensure that the facts on ex-premie.org are verified. Facts are facts - we might put different weight or spin on the facts because of our bias, but unless the facts are disputed (and Elan Vital have yet to dispute a single fact on ex-premie.org), they should stand so that interested readers can make up their own minds. The only argument I can think of for not publishing facts about a prominent person is that it could be an invasion of privacy. In the case of Rawat, as he claims to be able to teach a method of achieving personal peace, how he exemplifies this peace in his personal life is of utmost importance, and is definitely in the public interest.

The solution to the problem of current and former supporters having bias, is to have the article written by people who have never been involved, are not related to current or former members, and of course have not been hired by current or former followers. The flaw in this is that very few such people have any interest in the subject of Prem Rawat. The few independent newspaper articles that have appeared in recent years have no problem in including criticism of Rawat. --John Brauns 10:07, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• David, we're not talking about the Prem Rawat article, which arguably is NPOV because of the short "criticism" section. I don't say I think it's NPOV, but it's arguable. The question is with Criticism of Prem Rawat. Do you honestly think this article is neutral? Dpbsmith (talk) 19:19, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• DpbSmith, articles do not have to be neutral but they have to follow NPOV guidelines. The critical points in the article all follow the NPOV guidelines. If you think otherwise then please tell where. They are well documented and in some case voiced by objective, unbiased academic sources such as Haan, Schnabel and van der Lans. Some of the rebuttals to the points of criticism are flimsy and undocumented and sometimes even ridiculous and do not always follow NPOV guidelines. Andries 19:43, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Isn't it strange that now you're talking about why should they be "allowed" to fill an article with their views of Prem Rawat when you were the one who created the article and said "Opposing views can go here"? -- Antaeus Feldspar 19:00, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Antaeus for that one, i didn't know this, though i watched the talkpages intensively. That is indeed strange. In fact, a deceptive trap. I am still wondering with what kind of dubious characters i will be confronted here yet. 19:54, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)Thomas h 19:58, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Antaeus, you uncovered a worthy piece of evidence. Of course it is hard to assume good faith, when a contributor of the main article creates a "Criticism of..." article and advises critics to put their arguments on that page. --Pjacobi 21:12, 2005 Feb 26 (UTC)

Hold on. You are mistaken. The Prem Rawat article was not written by a group of supporters. See the history and the contributors. The article contains information that is not all supportive of Prem Rawat. This is not about being allwoed to do this or the other. The decision to add an article about the criticism as presented by the4 ex-premie group was made by consensus and by the mediation of User:Gary D. Problem is the article evolved to be this strange cocktail of hearsay, testimonies from apostates, and citations of obscure Dutch scholars. That is why thus article needs either a good cleanup or to be deleted. ≈ jossi ≈ 00:33, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)

• i agree with yossi, and i have already mentioned user:eloquence who started this paragraph. Although i hear those words that you use jossi, mostly coming out of your mouth, as if you are married to them; does repeating it like a parrot, make them become real one day? i once have had a friend who tried to solve his relationship problems that way, not very successful, unfortunately. No we have a german sysop here pjacobi who wants to play the sherrif. Makes a big mess and will then dissapear again, leaving us with the pieces.Thomas h 15:46, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Just for the record: I'm not admin on any wikipedia. --Pjacobi 21:07, 2005 Feb 26 (UTC)

Keep. The main descriptive information about Prem Rawat is at 32KB, and could be larger. The criticism/controversy information about Prem Rawat is at 32KB, and could be larger. Attempting to include both these aspects in a single 32KB article space would lead to condensation and omission to the point of unintelligibility. Larger articles are indeed to be broken out according to topic, and that is what happened here: the criticism/controversy article is actually a large break-out Prem Rawat subtopic article. It cannot be scattered into other articles because it fills an entire 32KB article space all by itself.

Prem Rawat is not one article, but actually a complex of several articles: a main introductory description/history article, one on his teachings, one on his support organization, one on his father, one on criticism/controversy, one on his yoga techniques, a few other minor ones. This complex of articles, and especially the main and criticism articles, are the product of hundreds of user-hours (no exagguration) and many real-time weeks of patience, research, delicate political negotiation, wading through invective, and carefully executed and justified editing. When the process was complete, the results were an example of a balanced and informative text crafted in a polarized atmosphere where everybody had the ability at any moment to press the delete button, but managed to compromise anyway. When it was finished, we specially marked those versions in the edit history as the final reference versions, so that they could serve as baseline versions if there was too much "info creep" or "POV creep" in subsequent editing.

Those final reference versions represent the best and most encyclopedic, readable, and informative work complying with the 32KB rule that could be produced on this highly polarized topic in the "mutually assured deletion" Wikipedia environment. I am weak at the thought of all the work they took. I am weak at the thought of it all going away. --Gary D 03:39, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)

Gary D, I appreciate all this effort, and I agree that splitting the article using factual subtopics (like teachings, organinzation) is the method of choice. But the having a separate "Criticism of Prem Rawat" (in its current state and with it objectives) is surrendering the NPOV. The Criticism article and all other P.R. articles give totally different views about P.R. - this is the core issue, why this is an undesirable POV dork. Of course, of the P.R. critcs themselves are notable enough, the "Criticism" article can be used to depict them. --Pjacobi 11:44, 2005 Feb 27 (UTC)

Critics notable? How can an tiny group of vociferous critics (approximately 20 of them) can be notable? I'll tell you how: by obsessively posting hundreds of thousands of posts about P R and spamming the search engines with it, that's how. Yes, a small group of obsessively dedicated people, can become notable ... but to allow them to use Wikipedia as a soap-box to become even more notable? That would be a travesty. Do they deserve a mention, of course! But a whole article based on hearsay and apostates' testimonies? Outrageous. ≈ jossi ≈ 21:41, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)

Jossi, you do realize that in the real world, the testimonies of the people you label "apostates" are considered more reliable than testimonies from current members? Former members may have some sort of vested interest in portraying the group in a certain light. But current members definitely have such a vested interest. The small number of supposed "experts" on new religious movements who claim that apostate testimonies must be discounted is dwarfed by the rest of the social science world who view such disaffected former insiders as their most valuable informants. -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:10, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Interesting your use of real world. What is the real world, Antaeus? Apostate testimonies are not all equal. I am talking about the group of apostates that have been labeled professional enemies. Note that most people, just move on, taking with them whatever experience they had. I have several close friends that no longer practice Maharaji's teachings. They learned what they learned, they did not see the need for a teacher anymore, and they stopped being students. No big deal. Then there is the few of those that make it their purpose in life to become professional enemies. Some of them make a career and a living out of it. They write books, become special "witnesses", etc. Others just become consumed with their hatred of their former love. Some of them become obsessed, bordering on the pathological. Do you know that these people come together online daily to check the latest news on Maharaji, day after day, after day, after day for years? Regarding your assertion about the "rest of the social world", note that Sociologists have studied the subject and most agree that testimonies of professional apostates is not reliable. There is abundant research in the subject. Apostates such as the ex-premies are not an exception. They are a minuscule group, and yes, in a free society they have the right to express their point of view, as long as their actions do not impinge on other people's freedoms. Their actions speak for themselves. Since we started working on these articles, I have received hate mail of the most disgusting nature, targeting me and my family, for the only reason that I post here under my real name. Tell me that this is also part of being the most valuable informants. ≈ jossi ≈ 04:09, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, Jossi, but you're committing the ad hominem fallacy from the moment you classify some critics as "professional enemies". You're right that most sociologists do not regard the testimonies of "professional apostates" as reliable. That's because real scholars don't commit such a fallacious pre-classification to begin with! Tell me, if you were the Better Business Bureau, and you were trying to find out who were the good companies to do business with, and who were the ones ripping off their customers -- would you automatically classify any former customer who says that a company behaved with complete disregard for their customers and for the law, and who is angry about that, and who lets people know about it, as a "professional unsatisfied customer" who is not to be believed?! Why on earth wouldn't someone who was cheated and tricked by an unethical company be rightfully angry, and why on earth would it be considered evidence of bad faith for them to blow the whistle on the goings-on? And yet you're claiming that the majority of the academic world (instead of a tiny minority disproportionately relied upon by cult-structure groups) takes any public announcement of "I was cheated and tricked by an unethical group" as not just evidence, but proof of bad faith, of being a "professional apostate". Any so-called scholar who decides that only those former members who are not angry enough to speak up are a truthful source of infomation on whether the group did anything to be angry about is a scholar not worth his salt. -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:25, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Are you a sociologist your self that you speak with such confidence about this subject? Really... Are you saying that Eileen Baker, Reender Kranebourg, Jeffery Haden, Gordon Melton, David Bromley, Irving Hexman, Anson Shuppe, and Douglas Cowan to name just a few are not trustworthy? Are you sure you know better? Have you read their books, papers and encyclopedias? Or maybe have you bought the buls*t spread by Anton Hein? The smear campain against them by the countercult movement is expected, but does not make it right, neither appropriate. Talk about ad hominem attacks! --64.81.88.140 18:53, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

All right, let's do that, let's talk about ad hominem attacks. As you know, though it is quite often conflated (accidentally or deliberately) with the general notion of any sort of identification of a person or any sort of critical commentary about that person, ad hominem actually refers specifically to trying to disparage an argument, not by finding flaw with the argument, but by imputing flaws to the person who holds the argument, or by suggesting some particular rewards that a person would stand to gain from the triumph of their argument, and arguing that such flaws or rewards, in themselves, somehow affects the validity of the argument. So, looking at this, we can clearly see that "the testimonies of apostates are invalid because they are serving some pathological inner hatred" and "the testimonies of apostates are invalid because they are making careers out of criticism" are exactly examples of this latter type of fallacy, ad hominem circumstantial attacks.

Now, sound academic scholarship is built on a foundation that includes a grounding in elementary logic. A college sophomore with a single course in logic under their belt should be able to see the flaws in discounting the testimonies of a whole class of persons based on ad hominem circumstantial argumentation. Thus, it is shoddy scholarship to adopt such a principle, and a "scholar" who adopts such a principle is a shoddy scholar. You have now introduced the names of specific "scholars" who do in fact advocate this fallacious filtering, and you are accusing me of ad hominem against them. But simply put, even if I was the one who had named all those people, even if I had said "they're shoddy scholars, and their position on apostate testimony is shoddy scholarship", it still wouldn't be ad hominem. If I had said "their position on apostate testimony must be shoddy because they are shoddy scholars", it would be ad hominem -- but the fact is, I didn't. The position is shoddy scholarship because it's founded on an elementary logical flaw. Asking "how dare you call these authorities I have now appealed to a bunch of shoddy scholars!" is the wrong question; the right one is "if these 'scholars' are promoting a position which has an elementary logical flaw as its bedrock, what right do they really have to authority?" -- Antaeus Feldspar 21:37, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. In short, what you are saying hat these scholars don't use "elementary logic" and that you know better than these scholars. It could have been said in just these last 8 words. I would kindly suggest that you break open one of their books and read them rather than dismiss their findings as shoddy scholarship. Chutzpah!--64.81.88.140 22:23, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I didn't just say it. I showed it. If there is some argument buried in one of their books which could actually make a case for dismissing the testimonies of an entire class of persons based on ad hominem circumstantial reasoning, I would suggest you show it; it's not really very convincing or impressive when you just sneer that I should read their books and then strut around as if you'd actually presented a rebuttal. By the way, I must tell you, it's very amusing that when I say "This is not a general truth of the sociological community, it's shoddy scholarship only promoted by a small coterie," Jossi's response is "It is so! This is something that most sociologists believe, not just a small coterie!" and your response is "How dare you accuse Eileen Baker, Reender Kranebourg, Jeffery Haden, Gordon Melton, David Bromley, Irving Hexman, Anson Shuppe, and Douglas Cowan of shoddy scholarship!" -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:43, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You did not show anything beyond your arrogance in putting yourself above highly qualified and respected scholars with a bit of rhetoric about the ad hominem fallacy, that by the way is a recursive fallacy in the way you are branding it against these scholars. Small côterie? Show me a group supportive of your position and then we talk again. --64.81.88.140 03:14, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Translation: "I am still appealing to authority to support my position, since I cannot support it myself. I do not understand the ad hominem fallacy, so I will continue to commit it myself by claiming that you are arrogant and poorly-educated and that accusing you of these flaws somehow affects your argument. I will also invent something new called a 'recursive fallacy', but it's really just the old double standard, where instead of actually presenting evidence that you are in error, I'll just blather that you are compounding your error by failing to fall in with my assertion that you are in error. Now, I am still basing my whole argument on appeal to authority, and I'm going to try to get you to fight on that ground, so start naming authorities so that I can start throwing accusations at them, too." -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:48, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Faced with lack of arguments and references to support your earlier ones, an astonishing response and not so clever a maneuver designed to avoid grounding your assertions. --64.81.88.140 19:55, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Translation: "More of the same." =) -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:27, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Suggested reading for Antaeus:'': Paper presented to the 2002 Society for the Scientific Study of Religion Conference "Boundaries and Commitments in NRM Research" 2002 by Douglas E. Cowan, Assistant Professor of Religious Studies and Sociology, University of Missouri-Kansas City. --64.81.88.140 23:18, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Jossi, I'm very concerned. If you have been the recipient of harrassing emails I strongly condemn it. I have been the harrassment target by premies who post online and who have created a website using my real name to harrass and libel me, so I know how awful and frightening it feels to be such a target, so I sympathize with you. It's never acceptable behavior. If you want to provide evidence of this, I would be happy to expose that unacceptable behavior and publicly condemn it on the ex forum with a strong demand to anyone who reads the ex-premie forum to stop it. Please let me know, because I can safely say that all the ex-premies that I know (especially the ones who post on the forum using their real names) would also protest anyone harrassing you, Jossi. It's simply wrong and very bad behavior, whichever side of this argument one is on.

I also want to point out to you that the particular sociologists of NRMs that are quoteed and referenced in the Rawat articles have been discredited as cult apologists by their peers -- other sociologists of NRMs. In particular, Gordon Melton has been strongly criticized by his peers because of how he dealt with The Family, which, as you know, is the child sex abuse cult that has been in the U.S. news so much in recent weeks. Introvigne is another controversial "scholar" of NRMs who has also been scrutinized by his peers because of his extremist views about "apostates." Melton was paid by The Family (Children of God) cult, and he also appeared in one of their promotional films/videos. Not all of these scholars paint former members as "apostates being automatic liars" -- Benjamin Zablocki and Steven Kent come to mind. Another Ex-Premie 13:55, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

There are no such "Rawat articles" that mention Melton, that by the way is a very respected scholar. Show me the "discredit by their peers". Bulls*t yet again. --64.81.88.140 18:53, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The "Prem Rawat" article, as well as "Criticism of Prem Rawat" that is the subject of this current discussion, both cite Gordon Melton in the Resources and Bibliography sections. One assumes that when an author and their material is cited, that they are a reliable authority, and Melton sets himself forth as an authority on the subject of NRMs, even though he has received strong criticism from his professional peers. Here is the link to a website called "Skeptic Tank" that published an article titled "When Scholars Know Sin," by Stephen Kent and Theresa Kreb. In this article, Melton's and his colleague's questionable activities when studying NRMs, is discussed. But, this is fairly old information that has been available for quite some time. I recommend you brush up on the subject of sociologists of NRMs and destructive cults, as well as psychologists and other professionals who also study NRMs and destructive cults, before you jump in and call it all "bs." IMO, one must become informed about all sides and pov's of a particular subject before one can make an informed conclusion or opinion.

http://www.skeptictank.org/wsns.htm Another Ex-Premie 20:19, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Do you really believe that smear campaign? Who the hell are Stephen Kent and Theresa Kerb? --64.81.88.140 22:23, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You make me do all your homework; that's okay. It's not a "smear campaign," but you don't have to believe me. On the Apologetics Index website, you can read Melton's, Shupe's, and Lewis's responses to the above-mentioned article and then there's a link at the bottom of the page where you can also read the response from Stephen Kent called "Clarifying Issues --A Rejoinder to Melton, Shupe and Lewis." It's a published debate online that's quite interesting. Also, there's proof Melton took money from The Family. It's on an IRS income reporting form and also available for viewing online. Again, you don't have to believe me, the copy of the form is linked below on the movingon.org website (a website that supports those poor kids from The Family cult that were so horridly abused). Yes, I believe those kids. Also, Melton has given favorable reviews (for money) to other destructive cults like the Scientologists and the Aum Shinrikyo cult (the cult that put sarin gas into the Tokyo subways). Draw your own conclusions. http://www.apologeticsindex.org/c34.html http://www.movingon.org/article.asp?sID=1&Cat=31&ID=987&searchTerms=gordon%20melton&qlid= Another Ex-Premie 23:44, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hein's site, Mon dieu!, Stephen Kent, oh non!!!: Suggested reading for you as well:: Paper presented to the 2002 Society for the Scientific Study of Religion Conference "Boundaries and Commitments in NRM Research" 2002 by Douglas E. Cowan, Assistant Professor of Religious Studies and Sociology, University of Missouri-Kansas City. ---64.81.88.140 00:43, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I inserted the polarized, major differences of opinion among scholars in a new paragraph at cult. It does not have to be discussed here. Andries 11:27, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Keep - After reading Gary's comments, I reluctantly vote to keep. --≈ jossi ≈ 04:54, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)

None of these articles should be allowed (Criticism of Wikipedia should be merged to Wikipedia). The best action when you find one of these is to merge it into the main article. If it's too complicated to do, just cut and paste and mark the article for cleanup. That's why Wikipedia is collaborative. Merge and delete DJ Clayworth 04:10, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Exactly ... and these two article are an excellent example of collaboration. Hundreds of hours of it and consensus achieved. --Zappaz 05:57, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• I am not commenting on whether or not any given version of the Prem Rawat article complex is neutral or not. But Gary's explanation about it being a set of aticles makes sense to me; a similar structure can be found at United States or other articles which cover huge topics (broken down into History of the United States, United States culture, etc.). keep. Meelar (talk) 06:14, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)

I just want to point out here that having an unsubstantitated, repeated allegation on Wikipedia (See Hate-Group article) that ex-premies are a hate-group (I know, I know, the wording isn't "just exactly like that") makes it mighty, mighty, uncomfortable to come here and write/edit on Wikipedia. The only source to support that allegation is the Rawat cult on it's FAQ webpages. Jossi Fresco has spent more time trying to discredit ex-premies than ensuring that an accurate writing of facts about Prem Rawat takes place. He gets quite cantankerous towards any ex-premies who've tried to participate in the "wiki process." All of the Prem Rawat articles are pure POV advertisements and promotional pieces for Prem Rawat, written by current cult members (yes, I know the word "cult" is censored and considered obscene here). I just wanted to point that out and say that which ever way this vote goes, I'll never recommend any of these articles about Rawat as anything more than novellettes or fairy tales, wishful thinking on the part of current "students" of Prem Rawat. The "Past Teachings of Prem Rawat" article is a particularly hilarious example of what happens when facts get in the way of writing about the truth. If I cared much about Wikipedia, I'd fight for the truth here, but, on the whole, all the Rawat articles present such a distorted and revised view of Prem Rawat, that they all need to be sent to the scrap-heap and rewritten. That is, of course, if Wikipedians are actually interested in anything factual. Yeah, that hate-group allegation is quite stunning -- it's there because a cult says so and no other reason. Hey, I call's 'em like I sees 'em. Another Ex-Premie 12:49, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You don't need my help to be discredited. The ex-premies hateful comments in these pages as well as in their forums against Maharaji and against people that are appreciative of Maharaji's teachings, their ill-will, their obsession, and their intolerance for people that believe differently, speak for themselves. You are most welcome to participate in Wikipedia. I am not stopping you: WP is open to anyone who cares enough about a subject to contribute to it. ≈ jossi ≈ 00:31, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)

Jossi, I don't need your approval or permission to work on Wikipedia articles, but frankly, I don't have time for your ankle-biting. It's tedious. Nobody is abridging your freedom to practice a religion, either Jossi. Anyway, Prem Rawat states right on his Elan Vital and Prem Rawat Foundation website FAQs that the practice of Knowledge is not a spiritual practice, philosophy or a belief system, but, you seem to want to have things both ways, otherwise you pout and point fingers. Fact is, Rawat has always claimed that what he offers is not a religion, so I don't really know where your "freedom of religion" complaint is coming from now. I didn't get selected by Prem Rawat's inner circle people to work full-time for him because I did not understand Maharaji, Knowledge, his message, or my own devotion to him. But, I do understand very well that you don't want me talking about that secret project. You and your premie friends are so adamant against my talking about it that you even try to tell folks that I was never even there in Miami Beach, Florida, from 1979 through 1981, and if I was there that I'm crazy, and so mentally unbalanced, that no one should ever believe anything that I say. And you have the nerve to accuse ex-premies of being a hate-group that dehumanizes people. Fact is, Jossi, I don't need Wikipedia, or your or Prem Rawat's permission in order to tell the truth about my past as a foot-kissing devotee, and my telling the truth about my life as a devotee of Maharaji is really none of your business, and it certainly does not take away your ability or your freedom to be a practicing premie now.

Another Ex-Premie 12:48, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

To clarify a few things:

1. The freedoms I referred to have nothing to do with religion. I spoke about the ill-will, hateful comments and intolerance expressed by ex-premies against me, my fellow students, and my teacher;
2. I have no idea who you are (nor that I care to know);
3. I have absolutely no idea about what you say is a "secret project";
4. I did not know you knew any of my friends;
5. You have the inalienable right to express your views, and so am I;

≈ jossi ≈ 17:14, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)

Jossi, may be you could do more effort to understand why ex-premies make hate full remarks about your teacher. I personally think that he has deserved them due to his dishonest behavior and false advertisements. Andries 20:40, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You are entitled to think whatever you want and to help these people as you have done so dutifully over the past months. But note, that whatever you "personally think" is inconsequential to this conversation. FYI, I have no intention to "understand" a group of people that think, speak and behave as they do. I know Maharaji close to 25 years, both as a teacher and as a person, and I can assure you that I have not been in the company of a human being that is more noble, impeccable, kind and inspiring as Maharaji. Through thin and thick (and this is not an analogy, I have been in a war as a soldier, for example), his inspiration and guidance have been there from me throughout all these years, consistently. I must admit that given my experience of Maharaji and his teachings, it makes me sad to see the hearsay, gossip and appalling remarks and actions by that small group of people, and see their ill-will, arrogance and attempts to be seen as credible as even more saddening. If that is the company you chose to keep, Andries, it is your choice, and so be it.

≈ jossi ≈ 00:45, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)

Jossi, it sounds like you're simply too emotionally attached to the subject matter to be involved in this article. You seem to be almost seething at the mere possibility that someone would disparage your beloved Maharaji, irrespective of the facts and evidence and their implications, large and small. This doesn't seem good for your own mental health and I'm sure it's unsettling for others who are trying to edit the article(s) from a different perspective. For example, I, personally, would like to add a couple of things to one of these articles. New evidence has come to light that Rawat once bragged to the Boston Globe about having millions of criminals as followers. These people would be willing to steal cars, hijack planes, even kill others or jump out windows and kill themselves if they thought it would please him. This was said just days before Mahatma Fakiranand tried to kill the reporter who threw the cream pie at Rawat. Furthermore, in the late 70's, Rawat claimed that Knowledge could give one supernatural powers such as the ability to make things levitate although, he warned, he could take them away in a flash if the devotee wasn't dedicated enough to him. I think these are key points that must be added somewhere, especially given Rawat's and EV's current attempts to characterize his past as they do. But, Jossi, even if these facts are perfectly documented, as I believe them to be, will you allow their admission to stand? Or will you just go ballistic and sabotage the editting as you have in the past? I'm glad some new eyes have taken a look at these Rawat articles. Perhaps they'll finally receive some real balance. I'm just not sure that you'll want to stick around for the process. I think it will pain you too much. --24.68.221.224 03:23, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

(Like you care about my mental health, Yeah right). You don't scare me, Mr. Anonymous, Try me... In any case your friend Andries has already done that for you. He shall get the credit. ≈ jossi ≈ 04:07, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)

What do you mean by "Try me", Jossi? Are you threatening to not allow those additions to the Criticism article to stand even if fairly stated and documented? See, for all I know, you might be paid to do this. I'm not. I can't get into an endless edit war with you. So tell me clearly, will you fight those edits providing they're fairly presented? Both are sourced to official DLM or Elan Vital publications. Yes, they're outrageous. Yes, they fly in the face of how Rawat presents himself these days. But they're legit and exceedingly relevant to the question of who this guy is. Can you handle the evidence or not?

--24.68.221.224 04:41, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• KEEP -- This is just silly. The Criticism section was "forked" off because the acrimony was making editing impossible, and a concerted effort from what fit the Wiki definition as a "hate group" attempted to fill the original article, in fact, swallowing up the whole. The best compromise was doing it this way.

The circus played out like defining something like "cherries." Instead of saying "cherries are a small round fruit," and having a parenthetical section that said "some people don't like cherries" these people tried to define cherries as "the foul-tasting seed of hell, poisonous to the touch" and then circular and anecdotal reasoning to say "I heard a guy who once looked at a cherry and he was turned to stone, so don't even LOOK at cherries." And for citation, see an anonymously maintained web page and chat room that no-one admits to running. And just look at the nasty language above.

Much ado about nothing, and having edited the pieces a lot I say KEEP. Richard G. 14:10, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Comment: Why not just merge and let it be oversized for a while? The 32K limit isn't important. It only affects people who a) have an old browser, and b) have a compelling to edit the article as a whole, instead of within sections.

IF, as claimed, the Criticism of Prem Rawat article is accepted as NPOV by both factions, THEN, there should be no objection to merging it into Prem Rawat as a section entitled (say) "Criticism of Prem Rawat" other than the size of merged article being over 32K, which is a minor issue.

When the article is deemed to be stable and people have an overview of the entire content, then there should be a discussion of how to refactor it into a series of <32K articles. Make a comment on the Talk page explaining why the article is being allowed to exceed 32K, and if there are actually any active editors who have affected browsers and are being prevented from doing some specific thing, I am sure they can make a polite request on the Talk page and some other editor will do it for them. Dpbsmith (talk) 15:08, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm....why not? Another thing is that at the german wikipedia the same process is going on. there the criticism article will be deleted probably. the arguments of david gerard and the existence of the critcism paragraph that points to that article are being simply ignored. i do not know what to think of it all, but most voters look at the article series, and i mean both the english and the german translation as a mess. So if you do not know the background of those articles and their history , just from a foreign standpoint so to say, people are disgusted of the unencyclopedic style.Thomas h 15:38, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I said go ahead, merge. I will have a field day deleting all the outrageous lies and testimonies your kind peddle. That will be great fun. --15:54, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Lies? I remeber your betrayal well, when you faked the guru article with the pseudo source from the Upanishads. You are the right guy to manage "outrageous lies". And jossi then referred to it. So, are you jossi? Same hate ,Same style. Thomas h 17:30, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I did not fake anything. You are the fake. --64.81.88.140 18:43, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Here the betrayal [20]and here Andries uncovered and removed it[21] it.Shall i also link where you as jossi referred to it and how we talked about it? Thomas h 08:13, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I vote to keep the Criticism page on Prem Rawat on Wikipedia and also to merge it with the main article on Prem Rawat. Jossi, who is one of the principal contributors to the Prem Rawat page argued for a separate page for any criticisms. Now he is requesting it's deletion because of its POV. The Criticism page is backed up by both verbatim transcript of Prem Rawat and by scholarly assessment. It seems rather transparent that the push for deletion is a calculated strategy to remove any viewpoint that does not adhere his and other followers' POV.Verification note: This user's vote is the one and only edit in Wikipedia.

• Keep -- I vote to keep, but in my opinion the article needs a thorough cleanup, such as removing 75 external links to the critic's website (Wikipedia is not a link farm, nor should it be a marketing tool for any website), and I belive the article needs a thorough NPOV of the article, removing gossip, etc. --Chuck 21:12, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

are you sure you didn't mix ex-premie.org with elanvital.org and tprf.org and a couple of others in this article to get to the number of 75? We should then count the pro-rawat links at the main article and follow that through all forks.This is a brilliant idea. In the end we will all know what a linkfarm can be and who invented it in this case.Thomas h 23:00, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

ahem chuck, i found your mistake, you just took the number as shown in the article until a certain paragraph and thought this all must be links to critcs-sites. So what does that mean. 1. You did not read the article by no means, otherwise you would have noticed the piles of links that lead to pro-rawat sites as well. 2. You have no idea how much and how intensive your pro-rawat mates have collaborated in this special critics article 3. You come here and give a vote and a judgement solely because you are follower of rawat and want to silence critics Thomas h 11:29, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

As the Wikipedian who originally authored this VfD, please let me state a (strictly speaking off topic) remark: The discussion here just doesn't look sane to me (and all PR articles, pro and con, just doesn't look encyclopedic to me), so if there would be any chance of enforcement, I'd propose banning all premies and ex-premies from editing all PR related articles. --Pjacobi 12:05, 2005 Mar 2 (UTC)

Sir: I don't think it's appropriate for you to be characterizing the mental health of people who have made comments here as "not sane" or "insane." That goes for those on either side of this argument. I demand an immediate retraction and apology from you and Wikipedia. Btw, are you in any way officially paid by,or affiliated with, or employed by Wikipedia? Anyway,in reponse to your proposed ban of premies and ex-premies from writing/editing any Prem Rawat articles, would you also include in that ban-from-writing/editing, any and all of the PR article writers/editors who are being paid by Elan Vital or Prem Rawat (or any affiliated organizations) to write/edit on Wikipedia on their behalf, by requiring them to make a full disclosure of the same? Would you also include in that ban the "hate group" article (that characterizes ex-premies as a hate group) and the "Purported List of Hate Group" article, and all of the other articles in which people have also been involved in writing/editing, such as apostates, cults, anti-cult movement, etc.?

Another Ex-Premie 12:42, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I commented on the sanity of this discussion, not the mental health of the combattants. And I hope the former doesn't reflect the latter. And, as you may have guessed from my initial remark, I considered that ban to be practically unenforceable, so it's only an utopian solution. --Pjacobi 13:56, 2005 Mar 2 (UTC)

hello pjacobi, i see you have the same rough temper when it gets you as i have. I can understand that you want to have it simple, but unfortunately the interest of independend people in that matter is limited. I appreciate the effort of MBq concerning the "Lehre" Paragraph in the german scratchpage for example, but it is simply wrong and the content is indeed unencyclopedic. It takes time to do a research and you have to visit "physical" libraries to really cover a topic. Google research alone will never bring you close to an acceptable result.Thomas h 15:05, 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 keep as rewritten. (Some early votes discounted when it appeared that they had not returned to the article after the rewrite.) Rossami (talk) 08:33, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Bhagavad Gita As It Is

Seems like half book advertisement/vanity, half overlap with material in Bhagavad Gita. Delete, or merge if there's anything noteworthy in the second half. Good show, Andries, now that there's a better article and a clearer picture of the issue, I'm changing to Keep --InShaneee 17:25, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Keep the article was very biased but this translation of the Gita is famous and is the best sold. German Wikipedia also has an article about this translation. I removed the bias. Andries 17:17, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Good work, Andries. Antandrus 17:45, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete this extremely POV article about a non-notable translation which at most would be a footnote in the Bhagavad Gita article. RickK 22:19, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)

• RickK, This is the ISKCON/Hare Krishna version of the Bhagavad Gita which is noteable because it is the one that has been most sold outside India. Scholars probably do not have a high regard of this version. Andries 20:50, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Merge and Redirect. --BD2412 23:19, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, just under the bar of notability, POV promo. Megan1967 00:49, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, concur with Rick. Radiant! 09:37, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)
• I would recommend Merge and Redirect to International Society for Krishna Consciousness. I don't recommend merge or redirect to Bhagavad Gita. Having read this book and also the Bhagavad Gita in a couple of different translations, this is really more a commentary than a translation, and it's focused on a single author's viewpoint. On the other hand, there was a time when you couldn't get through any major world airport without the orange-clad members of ISKCON trying to sell you a copy, so maybe it does deserve its own article. DialUp 23:33, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Agree with DialUp that this would be better as a redirect to ISCKON than to Bhagavad Gita. This translation is closely identifed with that group and has little regard except as an artifact of that group. older≠wiser 03:10, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. The article could be improved and needs to be more NPOV, but this is a notable work, and is not the same as the Bhagavad Gita. Jonathunder 22:05, 2005 Feb 27 (UTC)
• Keep as rewritten by Andries; no longer a promo or POV piece. Notable translation of a sacred book in Hinduism; note that we already have a precedent set for allowing articles on different translations of the Bible (e.g. The Living Bible, American Standard Version, Contemporary English Version, etc.); the same may apply to sacred books in other religions. What distinguishes this translation of the Gita is its wide distribution, the elaborate "purport" given for each verse, and its use by ISKCON. (IMHO, there are much better renderings into English of this marvelous work). Oh, and for those who like the Google notability standard, 25,600 hits on "bhagavad gita as it is". Antandrus 17:45, 28 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. Rossami (talk) 08:34, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Bedhead (Ryan Adams bootleg)

Seems to be just another case of 'gee, I can burn my own CDs now, whose music should I bootleg and distribute via Yahoo groups and eBay?'. Less than 100 hits for Bedhead "Ryan Adams" bootleg, and some are other uses. Niteowlneils 18:27, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable, possible vanity. Megan1967 00:51, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete for non-notability. Tuf-Kat 04:39, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete It's not vanity because I did not compile it. Also, 'gee, I can burn my own CDs now, whose music should I bootleg and distribute via Yahoo groups and eBay?' is a snide yet invalid reason because the bootleg is well-known amongst Ryan Adams's bootleg collectors and is traded widely, therefore it is pertinent to Ryan Adams's history. No other compiled bootleg of Ryan Adams's is as well-known as this. Nonetheless, it would perhaps be best to create a "Ryan Adams rarities" page to list the known but unreleased songs. I concede the deletion. ShaneCavanaugh 05:42, 2005 Mar 8 (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 ambiguous.

I count 7 clear "delete" votes, 4 "merge" votes and one "keep as is" but that's from an anonymous users and must be discounted. While there is a clear majority to delete, there is not the necessary overwhelming concensus. I will attempt the merge and create this as a redirect. Rossami (talk) 08:41, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Ardan

Do I even need to ask? Are gym instructors from the Sootopolis City of the fictional world of Pokémon encyclopedically noteworthy? This character garners 137 unique google hits [22]. Jimbo Wales once said in an interview with the Washington Post: "It is our goal to put the sum of all human knowledge in the form of an encyclopedia in the hands of every single person on the planet for free." [23] -- Is this what our forefathers originally had in mind? GRider\^talk 18:48, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Brookie 18:59, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Pokemon cruft. jni 19:41, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Pokècruft. Fishal 20:51, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, GOOPTI. -- Antaeus Feldspar 21:34, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, pokemon fancruft. Megan1967 00:53, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Looks like we're finally getting somewhere in the cleansing of wikipedia of its Pokemon cancer. Is this the turning point? Shall we start the counteroffensive? Do we have momentum? Or shall we wait until their forces are weaker, after the fad wanes and no one cares anymore? -R. fiend 01:15, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • So I guess articles on stuff in the Star Trek and Star Wars universes fair game for vfd by your reasoning? Okay... kelvSYC 18:08, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Merge or keep "fancruft". Kappa 12:20, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• No vote - The information looks like it could be part of b:Pokémon wikibook. But as the guy in charage of that, I'd have to put that in limbo, as b:Pokémon isn't ready for it yet. However, note that not all Gym Leaders are in the same spot - Brock and Misty are good examples... kelvSYC 18:08, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Merge into something if you can figure out what, and get rid of the stategy guide stuff> (Who needs complete game statistics in an encyclopedia?) -Aranel ("Sarah") 22:12, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Merge first paragraph and the name information into Sootopolis City, or other suitable page. The remainder... delete I guess. Maybe we need a Wikigames? — RJH 02:17, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Merge into Sootopolis City, agree with RJHall. Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 03:21, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Very strong keep. How can you even think about erasing this???? 67.110.225.100 16:53, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Note: above anon has been tampering with votes on Pokemon articles, changing some deletes to keep. -R. fiend 18:05, 1 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 Keep. Deathphoenix 04:24, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Digivolution

Granted, this has been expanded beyond a mere dictdef, but what makes this term notable and encyclopedic? "Digivolution" garners 728 google hits. [24] Is this what Jimbo had in mind when he sought out to create the "sum of all human knowledge"? [25] GRider\^talk 19:24, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Surely Jimbo Wales would CSD'ed if he saw it! Just kidding. This is not a worthy topic for an encyclopaedia. --Neigel von Teighen 20:18, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, yes it was what Jimbo had in mind. Kappa 22:22, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• I expected to vote for deletion when I took a look at the article, but in honesty it's actually an example of what I think a breakout from a main article that's gotten too large should look like. This could use cleanup, sure, but it focuses on a high-level topic, of non-trivial complexity, which is present in varying forms through all incarnations of the series, and it discusses the incarnation of the topic across all the various Digimon series, and it's hard to think of a more important central concept to the series. I have to vote Keep and cleanup. -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:32, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, just under the bar of notability, digimon fancruft. Megan1967 01:17, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. An article cataloging all the wonderous ways by which Digimon transform to their wonderous higher forms is not encyclopedic. For one thing, Digimon characters are fiction; and encyclopedias are not fiction. Lets try to keep Wikipedia from to digivolving into the Encyclopedia of Digimon. --BM 15:52, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - the term is only one used in the dub (the original uses plain old shinka), although it's a central plot device to the series and universe. kelvSYC 18:20, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. This is at least marginally useful; the fact that a different term is used in the Japanese version is not all that significant, as we would want to use the English term anyway. (But if we didn't, we could always move it.) -Aranel ("Sarah") 22:14, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Part of the full encyclopedic description of the series which is too large for the main article. Google search clearly gets almost 5000 hits, not 728. Encyclopedias do summarize fiction; there are thousands of unchallenged articles about fictional items. Gururvishnu 21:22, 26 Feb 2005
• Keep. It seems marginally useful, as it explains one of the less-mentioned but important points in the Digimon series. --Andylkl 08:45, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, agree with others. Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 03:17, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to Digimon: Digital Monsters, which isn't so long that this needs to be broken out. — Gwalla | Talk 04:05, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect as per Gwalla. —RaD Man (talk) 04:34, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - Digimon article is too large. And I see no problem with it. Explains major concept in the show. Suggest that it remain in the encyclopedia. Unsigned vote by 143.200.225.151 (talk • contribs)
• Keep - Interesting article that provides insight on the show. Unsigned vote by 143.200.145.27 (talk • contribs), who has two edits.
• Keep - I worked long and hard with my experience to try and keep the facts acurate and besides with a good look as well as the right cleanup then it deserves to stay. Unsigned vote by 24.20.153.45 (talk • contribs)

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.

Peter Janssen is a Dubai based Dutch Global Hotelier and Hospitality Advisor. Advisory services include: Start up of new Hotel Management organizations, Interim General Management, Development of Policy & Procedures Manuals, Pre-Opening planning, Mystery Shopper Services, Asset Management and Owning Company Representative. Peter held executive positions in major hotel companies such as; Hilton, Sheraton, Sol Melia Hotels. InterContinental Hotels - West Africa. Intan International Bali. Past managerial posts in MENA and ASIA include Chief Executive Officer Landmark Hotels & Suites, Dubai. Director of Operations Safir Hotels Kuwait, Egypt, Syria, Algeria, Lebanon, Tunis & Morroco. Executive Director and General Manager Gloria Hotels Dubai.

Peter Alexander Janssen

Alleged writer of the "famous and universally acclaimed" "Alexander In Tomorrow's Wind", which gets exactly 0 google hits. Delete as hoax unless evidence to the contrary is given. Thue | talk 20:01, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as such. Radiant! 09:42, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. No evidence of notabiity, let alone universal acclaim. Jonathunder 22:33, 2005 Feb 27 (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 ambiguous.

Several people voted "merge and redirect" but gave no indication where this should or could redirect to. The best recommendation was to move it to the Wikibooks section for Pokemon but apparently that's not an option yet. Had I seen this earlier, I would have voted to consider this an unexpandable stub (by which I mean that the only possible expansions would have broken the rule that "Wikipedia is not a gameguide"). I am going to exercise my discretion and delete this for now. If someone can determine an appropriate redirect, please do so. If you need help restoring it in order to move it to Wikibooks when that's ready, please contact me. Rossami (talk) 08:51, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

S.S. Aqua

Are oceanliners from Pokémon-related video games inherently noteworthy and encyclopedic? If not, what makes this one in particular notable and worthy of inclusion on Wikipedia? GRider\^talk 19:41, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Okay. There have been a number of very short and seemingly trivial Pokarticles on the VfD list lately. Would you think it a good idea to set up a 'grouped discussion' on all of them, similar to those on Maltese nobility and Local politicians?
• Merge or keep "fancruft". 22:22, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect with the Pokemon article for the games where it appears (please tell me that there's one article for Pokemon Gold/Silver/Crystal and not three...) -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:25, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • There are two: Pokémon Gold and Silver and Pokémon Crystal. If redirects are cheap, does this article merit a redirection? Or would a merge and delete be sufficient? GRider\^talk 00:33, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, pokemon fancruft. Megan1967 01:34, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Comment, most of the stuff here would be good material for b:Pokémon (that's why the wikibook was created in the first place - the wikibooks is first and foremost a game guide and only a game guide). Again, as the guy in charge of b:Pokémon, the guide isn't ready for it yet. Anything that looks remotely game-guidey could be moved over and somehow integrated... kelvSYC 18:18, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• ... as of this stuff, delete. It's not of too much importance being here. kelvSYC 19:20, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. The Recycling Troll 09:54, 1 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 Redirect to Terfenol-D. Deathphoenix 04:32, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Terfenol

No references at all and unencyclopaedic. Obviously, if someone can make this article better, do it! --Neigel von Teighen 20:12, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

A quick Google search turned up the link I've included, and lots more. Maybe the article should be called Terfenol-D. I've made some minor mods (now I'm going to stub it). Not sure what "unencyclopaedic" means in this context. By the way, the time it took to make the minor changes and search out a link was probably not that much longer than it took to put a vote for deletion on it. I vote it is not deleted. Arcturus 20:24, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, cleanup and expand. @ Megan1967 01:38, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, I'm now interested in what else this alloy is about. I'd say it is encyclopedic. -- Riffsyphon1024 01:43, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• KeepRJFJR 00:10, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep in present form. Move to Terfenol-D (leaving Terfenol as a redirect. Dpbsmith (talk) 03:03, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  Redirect work carried out. Arcturus 12:15, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, merge histories, and make a new redirect Terfenol→Terfenol-D to fix the cut and paste move. Sigh. —Korath (Talk) 14:15, Mar 3, 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. Article is pending deletion with a block compress error. Joyous 00:18, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)

Happiness Pokémon

This stub reads as follows: "Happiness Pokémon include the following: Togepi Togetic Blissey" and promises organic expansion. Is google a fair barometer for determining notability of the Happiness Pokémon? If so, it receives 25 unique google hits [26] , is this enough for inclusion into the sum of all human knowledge? Please discuss. GRider\^talk 20:40, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Does this article cause you happiness? No? Well, I guess we can safely delete it then. There is a group of people dedicated to creating qualified Pokemon articles, rather than incomprehensible stubs like these. So I'm sure they'll categorize Togepi Togetic Blissey somewhere useful. Radiant! 21:01, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete this unhappy article. Article says: 'This list will be expanded as more Pokémon entries are added to Wikipedia'. I say: 'Do we need more of those articles?'. --Neigel von Teighen 21:04, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, helpful for organizing pokemon, even after they are all merged together. Kappa 22:21, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. More Pokecruft. It doesn't even say what a "happiness pokemon" is, or what make sthem happy. I'm sick of this sort of thing. -R. fiend 01:10, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not encyclopedic. ✏ OvenFresh² 01:41, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, pokemon fancruft. Megan1967 02:24, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Pokémon types or List of Pokémon by species. Deleting this as cruft would set a precedent that would legitimately allow the entire Pokémon types article to be VfD'ed. I hope those voting delete acknowledge this and will vote delete for Pokémon types in case it is ever submitted. Phils 10:52, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • I believe most people voting "delete" want everything deleted except pokemon itself and pikachu. Kappa 12:17, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • I would disagree. There are some other notable Pokémon characters than Pikachu, but that doesn't automatically make every Pokémon character, classification and term notable. I vote Delete on this article. — JIP | Talk 10:26, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. So-called "species" of Pokemon are already handled by List of Pokemon by species, which already includes the "Happiness" species. That article handles each species through a separate sub-section, which makes more sense to me than a separate article for each of the dozen or more different species. As for List of Pokemon by species article, and all the rest of the Pokemon stuff: it makes sense to have these articles in the Wikipedia only if we want it to be the online Encyclopedia of Pokemon, and Kappa is correct that there is strong objection to that, including from me. But it is a debate for another day. --BM 15:34, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Obscure fancruft. Martg76 17:04, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - the consensus, according to Wikipedia:WikiProject Pokédex members, is to phase out species pages (eg. "Mouse Pokémon", not "Sandshrew") both as separate articles and in the Pokémon infobox. kelvSYC 18:22, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. No potential to become encyclopedic. Not needed for good reasons given by others. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:44, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• I'm certainly a fan of Pokémon, but I don't think this is neccessary. Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 03:12, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable. Apparently, the relevant WikiProject is trying to phase out articles like this. — Gwalla | Talk 04:09, 28 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. By the way, voting to merge without specifying a target is not terribly helpful. dbenbenn | talk 17:56, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Trade Federation PAC

Apparantly this carries the Battle droid rack of an MTT. It was seen briefly in Episode I. While I'm usually pro-fancruft, this only gets 3 Google hits, from the same non-official site.-LtNOWIS 21:43, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Not remotely needed in a general reference work. Isomorphic 21:46, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• So this vehicle is not the MTT? Is this larger or smaller than a MTT? -- Riffsyphon1024 21:48, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Found what I needed to see after a Google search of "Trade Federation Platoon Attack Craft", which only pulled up two hits to Geocities sites. However the illustration of the PAC is from either the "Cross Sections" or "Inside the Worlds of" books. [27] -- Riffsyphon1024 21:53, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Damn, I was about to link that site, but you beat me to it. I don't own the Episode I cross section (yet). If it's mentioned in there, than there's a bit more notability, but still not enough for Wikipedia.-LtNOWIS 22:02, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Keep but with reservations. Article needs expansion. Megan1967 02:45, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Do you seriously want to keep an article with 3 Google hits? I would probably want it kept, but I'm really not convinced it's even a real vehicle.-LtNOWIS 03:10, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • If it's in the movie, and illustrated in a LucasArts-backed book, then it is notable, even if it makes a one second appearance. -- Riffsyphon1024 06:11, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

      In a general encyclopedia it's not. Delete -- Paul Richter 06:39, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

      • There's no consensus that wikipedia has to restrict itself to being a general encyclopedia, instead of a pan-specialist one. Kappa 12:15, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
        • Indeed. "The sum of all human knowledge" mission statement would necessarily imply being a pan-specialist encyclopedia. - David Gerard 14:33, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
          • The phrase "The Sum of Human Knowledge" didn't originate with Jimbo or the Wikipedia. It was the marketing slogan of the 1911 Edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica. Clearly, it didn't "necessarily imply" that EB 1911 was a pan-specialist encyclopedia, and it does not "necessarily imply" that Wikipedia is that now. --BM 17:06, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
            • That's 'cos they ran out of paper. We could ask Jimbo what he thought he meant when he said it, or would you not believe him either if he disagreed with you? - David Gerard 01:58, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
            • They described the EB that way after they published it in all its paper-imposed finitude. I'd believe Jimbo's statement as to what he meant, of course. Why wouldn't I? He's the world expert on what Jimbo Wales means when he says things, unless its his shrink (or his wife). As for whether I'd agree with his (current) definition, that would depend on what the definition was. It would be nice if he were clear enough on its meaning that it would have some operational meaning -- so that one could determine, for example, that the "sum of human knowledge" includes or does not include an article on the "Trade Federation Platoon Attack Carrier" from Star Wars. If "sum of human knowledge" means that Wikipedia is a "pan-specialist encyclopedia" with indefinite drill-down on specialized interests, then why do we have the statement in Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not that it is not a "general information base"? But I dare say that if Jimbo were ever clear on the subject, that would have more influence in forming consensus amongst Wikipedians than my opinion, or yours. --BM 12:46, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to an appropriate title. Incidentally, I read this and thought "Star Wars fans formed a political action committee?!"
• Merge and redirect - David Gerard 14:33, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. It is not encyclopedic to have a full article on every artifact or vehicle that appears fleetingly in one of the Star Wars movies. We don't have articles on every type of troop carrier that has carried real human soldiers into real battles. And we shouldn't: Wikipedia is not a general information base, and it certainly is not a general information base about the fictional universe of Star Wars. --BM 17:06, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• I will vote for it to be merged with an article that combines several (possibly many) vehicles that are not capable of maintaining their own articles, just like all the minor characters that have to be merged with the big list of minor characters. -- Riffsyphon1024 21:03, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Why not start up a Star Wars wiki? TheBattlestar Galactica Series has its own wiki. If we have a Star Wars wiki, then Star Wars fans can get do start or edit articles. Don't deleat the Trade Federation PAC article, just relocate it to the Star Wars wiki as soon as it starts. --

A.L.

• Delete. This article will never grow beyond one paragraph of fancruft; there just isn't sufficient information out there. (A merge into a suitable collection of Star Wars vehicles would be acceptable if such an article exists.) --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 16:30, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. The Recycling Troll 09:54, 1 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. Joyous 00:15, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)

Hatchite

• Slang dictdef for a group that is not encyclopedically notable. Someone else nominated it to be transwiki'ed but since that only solves the dictdef problem, I recommend deletion instead. -- Antaeus Feldspar 21:37, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and transwiki, if you want. --Neigel von Teighen 21:37, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Do not Transwiki. RickK 22:15, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable slang. Megan1967 02:48, 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 delete and rewrite -- AllyUnion (talk) 23:47, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hatchling

• Slang dictdef for a group that is not encyclopedically notable. I think the current content should be deleted. Isomorphic may have a point about making a redirect with the title but I don't know which article is most appropriate as a target. -- Antaeus Feldspar 21:37, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Idiosyncratic slang that definitely doesn't need an article. My first inclination is that this should be a redirect but I don't know to where. Newborn is already a redirect to infant, which is quite inappropriate... Isomorphic 21:43, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, and rewrite as the biological definition of hatchling, current article is unrelated non notable slang. Megan1967 02:54, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Comment I've placed a tentative definition on the articles talk page (since some users have objected to articles up for VfD being altered), perhaps move to Wiktionary after voting closes. Megan1967 03:38, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Egg (biology), and add a definition of the notable sense of hatchling to that article. The egg article could use a bit of expansion, and perhaps a link to incubate as well. -- Smerdis of Tlön 14:33, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and rewrite, or just rewrite immediately and then keep, using Megan's post on Talk:Hatchling as a first draft. There's more to be written about hatchlings beyond the bare meaning of the word, so it shouldn't be relegated to Wiktionary. The hatchling stage is post-egg so it should be a separate article, although with an appropriate link from Egg (biology). JamesMLane 05:41, 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 keep. -- AllyUnion (talk) 23:44, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Criticism of Wikipedia

What's that? Cannot we even assure NPOV in the article about Wikipedia itself? Partially merge and redirect to the Wikipedia article and death to all POV forks, BTW.

Note: There was a previous VfD 2004-Dec-23 but the discussion drifted away to question whether and which criticism of Wikipedia should be allowed, with statements like "Keep. It is POV not to have articles that are critical of Wikipedia". Ahem, the Wikipedia article itself should contain the critical POV. Also some contributors remarked, that Criticism of Wikipedia is much too pro-Wikipedia. Anyway, it's easier and suggested by policy, to put all aspects in Wikipedia an enhance that one article.

Pjacobi 22:02, 2005 Feb 25 (UTC)

• I think this VfD is ill-considered on several counts. For starters, I believe it is completely incorrect to call it a "POV fork" in the first place. If someone said "Hmmm, the article on Wikipedia is getting pretty large, why don't we make Sister projects of Wikipedia or Software and hardware of Wikipedia or History of Wikipedia its own article?" no one would call it a fork; why then is [[Criticism of Wikipedia]] a "POV fork"? As Pjacobi says, it is suggested by policy that all aspects of a subject go into that subject's article, but it is not only suggested by policy that aspects of a subject get spun out if the subject's article gets too large, it's a suggestion that's automatically made by the editing software every time the size of the article approaches 32K! It is definitely not the case that policy is unambiguously calling for a merge and redirect. I am voting for a keep unless some more convincing case than 'this is a POV fork (disputed) and "all POV forks must be killed"' is made. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:08, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep There's no reason why there can't be a reasonable analysis of criticisms of something important. Besides, this article is very good.-LtNOWIS 03:36, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Seems useful. Should be summarized and linked as a "main article" from within "Wikipedia". In the unlikely event that others decide this doesn't belong in main space, then it belongs in Wikipedia space. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:03, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • That appears to be the current situation. Kappa 08:38, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - Pjacobi seems to be on a chase of the dubious "POV fork". The vFd on this article is another of his victims, a royal PIA, and a waste of time. --Zappaz 06:09, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I thought this forksub-page was specifically created to allow the main article to have a pro-wikipedia POV. Kappa 08:38, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• While I'm not opposed to this article per se, isn't there something remarkably similar on here already? (arguments against WP, or something). If so, merge. And anyway shouldn't this be in the wikipedia namespace? Radiant! 09:42, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • There are other articles like [Wikipedia:Why Wikipedia is not so great]] and Wikipedia:Replies to common objections. I think the difference is that this page is supposed to be NPOV and not original research. Kappa 10:44, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Wikipedia is already too heavy, and doesn't need extra baggage. Very healthy for wikipedia to criticise itself. --SqueakBox 17:19, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep user PJacobi has misguided ideas about POV forks. If you vote to keep this one then also please vote to keep Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Criticism_of_Prem_Rawat The subject is more obscure but it has been listen on VfD for exactly the same reasons. Andries 18:46, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Looks too much like replies to common objections to me. Move to wikipedia namespace, and possible merge back into Wikipedia:Replies to common objections. cesarb 23:39, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. The article needs improvement perhaps, but the questions over content raised seem to be ones that can be fixed by editing the article. The different points of view can be discussed and should be attributed. (The Wikipedia namespace articles don't have to have such an attribution as they are from the voice of the Wikipedia organization itself.) If someone with these concerns wants to do a major rewrite, I'd encourage it. The topic has at least been newsworthy enough to be mentioned. "Article needs improvement", "Article is biased or has lots of POV", and "Dispute over article content" are all listed as Problems that don't require deletion. The reasons given so far seem to fall under those cases IMO. --Sketchee 02:32, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, but To what extent an article should speak about and quote current WP editors (in their capacity as WP editors) is a question that, I think, not nearly enough weight has been alloted to. The problem is the inter-Wikipedia nature of notability. We are likely looking at a host of problems here which should be noted in this seemingly concluded (to keep) VfD. El_C 02:50, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. If there's an NPOV problem, fix it. Eric119 04:24, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Uh, this is obvious navalgazing. This article properly belongs on meta. Move it there. →Raul654 07:33, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Not that I approve of terms like "navalgazing", but Raul is right. That said, meta (unfortunately) receives practically no use, and I don't think this article should be deleted... so... move or keep. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 15:50, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• 220.255.11.4 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=220.255.11.4] is a vandalising troll with a history and should not be listened to. I have removed his offensive comments as more vandalism. --SqueakBox 19:12, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep; there's a respectable precedent of Article X coexisting with a parallel Criticisms of X. Moving to meta is also acceptable, and the subject is already well-covered in the Wiki namespace, but I think keeping this version in the main namespace is OK. Antandrus 19:23, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Aren't we allowed to state our own case? Or should we expect critics to infer our defence from reading between the lines of our articles? -- llywrch 03:28, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. The Recycling Troll 09:54, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and Clean Up Seems to pretty much fit in with my experience of Wikipedia. If anything it is too pro-Wiki to be truly NPOV, although it's close enough for government work. --Stephenboothuk 12:54, 3 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 15:56, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

List of wars by historic epoch

The same as List of wars except split up into unnecessary articles that mostly don't exist. Not needed as a redirect because nothing links to it and no one would just type in the title. If this is deleted, its accompanying article Wars of the Ancient Era should be deleted too or made into a redirect to List of wars before 1000 since it just copies most of the content from that article. DopefishJustin (・∀・) 23:19, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)

• Concur, delete. Indexing is useful, but duplicate indexing is not, as they tend to become divergent. Radiant! 09:43, Feb 26, 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. Rossami (talk) 08:56, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Cutenews

Blatant advertisement for software. Delete. Android79 03:07, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Note that this article was listed as a copyvio of [28] on January 20. RedWolf 05:47, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, copyvio spam. --Idont Havaname 19:28, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, I have not seen the copyright violation notice (where can this be found?)- however I do know that Cutenews is used fairly extensively on various sites judging by the community. The article however, does require expansion. --Mosey 05:34, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Try checking the page history.
• Concur with Android, delete. Radiant! 11:05, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep but rewrite article to eliminate copyvio from cutenews website. —Brim 17:03, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Do we have a volunteer for the rewrite? :-) Android79 18:32, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and rewrite to emulate articles about similar software that has useful information about the software itself. JubbaG 19:05, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Advertisement+copyvio=spam. Please do not encourage spammers. —Korath (Talk) 06:37, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, anon removed the copyvio notice --nixie 09:06, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Insignificant piece of software. jni 15:59, 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.