Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 June 24

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

The result was delete. I need a rationale to SNOW close this? Really? I think not. I would suggest that the creator of the article seriously thinks about his

Barack Obama fly swatting incident

Barack Obama fly swatting incident (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This event should not be its own article. At most, it could be given a small mention in one of the other Barack Obama articles. SMP0328. (talk) 19:30, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It's noteworthy and well sourced. In future decades, people will still be talking about it. Grundle2600 (talk) 19:32, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In future decades, people will still be talking about it." How do you
    talk) 21:12, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]

• Delete It's an isolated, and insignificant, incident that only matters to PETA. SMP0328. (talk) 19:36, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, per
  WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Wikidemon (talk) 19:39, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Plus, it's kind of cool, and its presence here doesn't hurt anything, two more arguments we're not supposed to use in deletion discussions.... The tone of the article as it exists at the time of nomination is neutral and slightly humorous in a dry way, in that it is covering utterly trivial events with some degree of earnest seriousness. That can be cleaned up if necessary. The story has resonated with the press, and I think the reason runs deeper than mere fascination with celebrity. If someone in the same league of famousness as Obama (say, Oprah, Donald Trump, or Paris Hilton) swatted a fly nobody would care. There is a parable in there somewhere about the most powerful man in the world killing a fly, and some potential for this to become a cultural meme. I do think it adds something to the encyclopedia that people are interested in reading about. We aren't nannies here. If the reporters think it's worth reporting, the public wants to read about it, and we have reliable sources, we can't second-guess notability just because we consider the event unimportant. The more serious qualm about the article is
  WP:NOT#NEWS - if in hindsight this is no more than just a slow day's news story. But if Grundle's prediction is true and people talk about this in future decades, that's not an issue. Surely, someone will come out with a children's book - there's already a children's book about the search for a first dog. Wikidemon (talk) 19:39, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• But does that incident deserve to be its own article? SMP0328. (talk) 19:57, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I think there shoulda been a
  ؟ in there somewhere, Tarc (talk) 20:08, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• I agree that the above must be a joke vote-- all the arguments in favor of keeping come from Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. OfficeGirl (talk) 20:13, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete- Inane, stupid. Oh yeah, and
  WP:NOTNEWS. This isn't even worth a mention in the president's own article. Umbralcorax (talk) 19:47, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Delete - This incident is so insignificant it doesn't even deserve to be merged. If kept this article won't grow beyond a stub.
  talk) 19:54, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

As a comment, most of the above objections are certainly valid points (inane, stupid, notnews, insignificance, lack of available inormation), even if I personally disagree. Regarding information placement and organization, just as an FYI, most Obama-related articles do not merit a mention in his main bio. It's kind of the opposite of most situations due to his hyper-notability. Depending on how widely you cast the net, we have somewhere between 150-250 articles that are about some aspect of Obama, his career, family, events, election year stories, etc. Most, though notable in their own right, are simply not important or relevant enough to overcome

WP:WEIGHT concerns due to the limited amount of space available in a single article. In the (unlikely?) event that this article survives, it probably will not get a mention in the main bio or presidency articles. Wikidemon (talk) 19:56, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete - Honestly, I would urge a speedy delete as yet another in a long line of extremely bad faith article creations and/or article edits by
  notability guidelines, it is trivial, it is a piece of end-of-the-news-cycle fluff wholly unworthy of an article or a passage in any other article. Grundle2600 has already responded above with the "but its reliably sourced!" bit, and will no doubt do so again below. Despite numerous editors having told him that sourcing wasn't the sole justification for an article, or an edit, it just isn't sinking in. Because here we are. Again. Tarc (talk) 20:08, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Delete. Precisely what NOTNEWS is meant for. Every day there are stories about Obama in the press, and most of them do not warrant articles. Come back in six months and see if there has been persistent coverage in reliable sources.
  talk) 20:09, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete I get the impression that there's more at work here then I know about or care too. Ignoring all that and just focusing on the article itself I can't see it being worthy of an article. As for my reasoning, there are probably stronger policy arguements, but in my mind it's a matter of
  WP:COMMONSENSE. (This is my opinion, and is not meant to reflect on any who may disagree with me in good faith.)--Cube lurker (talk) 20:14, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete NOTNEWS indeed. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ⁽Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 20:21, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• STRONG Delete per Wikipedia:News articles. "Nuff said. OfficeGirl (talk) 20:22, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I would go along with deletion if it dies down in the media after a week. Bearian (talk) 20:25, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per
  WP:NOT#NEWS with a healthy serving of Wikipedia:Recentism on the side. Just because something make a news cycle does not mean it automatically becomes encyclopedic. --Allen3 ^talk 20:32, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete A clear case of
  WP:NOTREPOSITORY to change it up a little. Abductive (talk) 20:36, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Delete. We already have
  talk) 20:37, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

PS: Or maybe "

talk) 21:52, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete, may become interesting to a historian in 140 years, but there's nothing truly significant in this incident. If this happened to a nonnotable person, even if they got tons of coverage, we'd delete the article on the person by BLP1E — so how does it help the encyclopedia to have an article on a truly trivial subject? Nyttend (talk) 20:47, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This is the article as it appeared when I wrote it. Since then, someone has edited the article to substantially reduce the number of sections in the article. I disagree with that edit, because one major point of the article was to have lots of different sections. When you cast your vote on keep or delete, please look at the version that I linked to. Thank you. Grundle2600 (talk) 20:59, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Most of the comments and votes, including my own, are regarding the article as you originally wrote it and as it is currently. SMP0328. (talk) 21:02, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Dito, and I think we can assume that other editors took a look at the very short article history as well.--
  talk) 21:07, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Given the irredeemability inherent in the subject matter itself, the version of the article is irrelevant. Tarc (talk) 21:26, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Obvious Delete (should be {prod}, but I suppose that would be challenged). It's an amusing anecdote, and enjoyable tongue-in-cheek comments by various people. I'm sure I'd enjoy reading it on some blog, but it has no resemblance to encyclopedic content. LotLE×talk 21:21, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• It was prodded, Grundle declined and it was removed. Speedy was also declined, so, here we are. With any luck, there's a bit of
  snow in the forecast, though. Tarc (talk) 21:26, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Delete fails
  WP:NOT, is only trivia, and is not notable outside a slow news day. Brothejr (talk) 21:39, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete.
  talk) 22:15, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

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

The result was delete. No evidence could be found that this person passes any of the relevant notability thresholds. ~ mazca ^talk 23:31, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Timothy Stanley

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

Removed recently-placed PROD template, since this article has actually been deleted twice through PROD. The nominator's reason was: "Not a notable person; notability was queried 7 months ago with no update". Jamie^☆S93 19:26, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the
  talk) 00:01, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. Look, I have my own Wikipedia article, I've arrived......but still not notable. A side not, the last deprod was by a user who is now indef blocked for his disruptive de-prodding. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:18, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:28, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not WP notable yet but could be in the future. Sarcasm is not appropriate on these pages. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:36, 27 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete. Neither the article nor the various Google searches that I tried provide any indication of the academic impact that would lead to a pass of
  WP:BIO more generally. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:24, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

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

The result was delete. Unanimous consensus that this is unsourceable and likely original research. ~ mazca ^talk 23:30, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Romanian Brazilian

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

Started by a banned user, and zero evidence in independent sources that these people actually exist. Biruitorul ^Talk 19:04, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete As either experiment or prank. Dahn (talk) 20:05, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per the above. The statistic for the alleged population is uncited. --
  Folantin (talk) 20:09, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 01:39, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 01:39, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 01:39, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Can't locate any non-trivial
  WP:RS with typical Google searches like "Romanians * in Brazil/Sao Paolo", "Romenos * em Brasil/São Paulo". This article and its alleged population statistic seem like yet another one of these hoaxes about migration to Latin America (Iranians in Venezuela, Afghans in Chile, Vietnamese in Mexico, etc.) which various users/socks like to pollute Wikipedia with. cab (talk) 01:39, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete for all the good reason mentioned. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:21, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Original research. Algébrico (talk) 17:48, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It is probably original research and does not present RS. I am brazilian and I haven't been able to find any previous work about the subject. Lechatjaune (talk) 15:57, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. There was obviously a lot to parse here, and a lot that was frankly off-topic, particularly from those who support keeping the article (several of whom very much have a vested interest in doing so, which is not irrelevant to the final decision). Ultimately this comes down to notability, and while Baker has been discussed in some reliable sources, the general read I get from most of the comments is that Baker's only real claim to notability lies in her purported relationship to Oswald, and that

I'd point out to the subject of the article who apparently commented below and to her supporters that this is in no way an attempt to censor information, but is merely part of a standard process on Wikipedia whereby we evaluate whether articles belong here or not. That process can be tricky, and sometimes we reverse ourselves later. It is entirely possible that once this book is published (and reviewed in mainstream sources) that the consensus will be that an article on Judyth Vary Baker should exist. Deletion is not necessarily permanent, and I imagine most everyone who supported deleting would be open to re-creation of the article if that seemed warranted. Several of those who commented below will not be happy with the decision to delete, but I welcome them to contact me on my user talk page with any questions or comments.

Suggestions were made below about possibly merging some of this to another article. If anyone wants to do that, I can userfy the article and someone can begin working on possibly moving some material into an existing article (there was no clarity about where it should go). Creation of a redirect was also mentioned and that might be a good idea, but again there was no consensus about where, if anywhere, we should redirect this to so I've not created a redirect. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:41, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Judyth Vary Baker

Judyth Vary Baker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article isn't verifiable using reliable sources. I checked when it was prodded and could only find websites and other self-published material. Briefly, the article presents the biography of Judyth Vary Baker, who it asserts was a young scientist who was Lee Harvey Oswald's lover, when they were both involved in a covert organisation. None of this can be substantiated, and the article further acts as a coatrack for JFK assassination conspiracy theories. Fences&Windows 18:39, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. —Fences&Windows 18:46, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. —Fences&Windows 18:46, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as nonnotable.--AuthorityTam (talk) 19:00, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:26, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:26, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:26, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - she does not seem notable as an artist. Can't see why she has been delsorted to Visual arts. What I can say definitively is that she has not ever contributed to anything of note in cancer research: Pubmed [7] has 16 records on a JV Baker, from 1983 on, and this is Jason V. Baker, not her.
  Enki H. (talk) 03:55, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep as she does have a tenuous connection to Lee Harvey Oswald, which in itself makes her notable due to the controversy surrounding the part he is alleged to have played in the JFK assassination; also there are many sites on Internet which discuss her at length. If Wikipedia can have articles on models whose sole claim to notability is having engaged in a bit of horizontal dancing with Mick Jagger, then it should have an article on Judith Vary Baker.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 11:35, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This argument contradicts the

Enki H. (talk) 13:58, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

please note J V Baker wrote this material herself, and she has severe eye problems. I have left it as she wrote it, however. Allan Mattsson truehistoryjvbaTruehistoryjvba (talk) 17:33, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I hope I am allowed to to defend myself. First, I did not place my own biography here: someone else did. However, it had many errors, so a Dutch friend (Wim Dankbaar) began correcting it, later aided by a Swedish friend (Allan Mattsson). I have been on many radio and TV programs, and decline many invitations.

Secondly, 'notable as an artist' is not the main reason for the listing, though my paintings are occasionally purchased by celebrities. One reason for the listing is because the my life story, an hour-long (with commercials) documentary "The Love Affair" is being viewed worldwide, beginning in November, 2003 when the History Channel aired it five times. In Europe, another documentary featured my story in 2006 on Dutch national television. Other documentaries and CDs exist, some furiously opposed. This is not a 'coatrack' article to defend Oswald. Me & Lee is a new hardcover book about my life (to be released in November, by Trine Day, it is already receiving a sales ranking, as it's being pre-ordered on Amazon.com). Two prior books about me were also published by others. Besides documentaries, CDs, and books directly about me, other writers such as Edward T. Haslam have devoted significant chapters in their own books to the subject.

Other events are upcoming which I am not allowed to divulge, for the 50th anniversary of the Kennedy assassination. If you google my whole name "Judyth Vary Baker" more than 1600 references come up, with a number of attack articles included. Googling "Judyth Baker" brings up many thousands, most about me. I urge you to visit the websites and references for yourself: they are not bogus. If you visit my official website, Judythvarybaker.com, you can view some of the evidence. Of course, if Wikipedia doesn't allow articles about people who have created controversy, though books and documentaries and fierce debates continue about that person, then so be it.

As for my being an artist, writer and poet, though my contributions have been minor, they are of interest to others. I have been unable to exhibit in galleries because my paintings get destroyed by vandalism. I was forced to flee the US and was in political asylum for over ten months. I now have to use other people's computers to keep my own from getting hacked, and my location undisclosed. I wouldn't mind some material being deleted from the article, over which I have personally had little control. The person who suggests that my references are bogus apparently believes you won't check this out for yourself. First this was listed as a 'hoax" --that I did not exist. Now it is being listed as so unimportant that it does not deserve to exist. I was in Marquis Who's Who online, and a hostile person convinced an editor there that I did not exist: the biography was removed. therefore, I thought I should at least state the fact that I do actually exist, and that the book Dr. Mary's Monkey, which has three large chapters about my life and my relationship (controversial though it may be) with Lee Oswald, has gone into several new printings. If you read that book, I believe you would agree that some reference to my name should exist.

If you decide to erase my biography, I will certainly mention it in future interviews and documentaries: Sixty Minutes tried to film me three times (see Sixty Minutes' founder Don Hewitt in his C-Span interview complaining that "the door was slammed in our faces" --I can provide the URL, etc.) -- and I will be happy to answer any questions anyone has. It seems to me that because I'm a controversial figure (stories about me occasionally show up in tabloids) that I am not to be considered an honest person, a good person, or a decent person. This is not self-advertisement: ask yourself why my biography should be erased, but a 28-year old cricket player, James Anderson [8] is included. Since films and programs continue to be made about me as more evidence is found that I'm telling the truth, how long will it be before you would then restore my biography? The 50th anniversary of the Kennedy assassination is just around the corner. If I had said Oswald was guilty, I would have been a very rich woman by now. But because I tell the truth, my biography is to be wiped out? I am making this effort because I don't believe history should be censored. Sorry to take up so much of everyone's time. Here are just a few various references online--from almanacs and encyclopedia references to books and radio/TV... NOT ANY of these were generated by me, no art, literature or poetry references are shown, and these are but a few of those available. Whatever you decide, I do hope you will keep an open mind. Witch hunts, book burnings, and inquisitions don't allow much in the way of self-defense. I'm sorry, again, for taking up so much space and thank my friend Allan Mattsson for retyping this for me. JVB:

This the first time I've heard of anybody trying to keep their own biography on Wikipedia. Or atleast, somebody claiming to be a person trying to keep their bio article. GoodDay (talk) 13:24, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---Thank you for reading this.

A. M. truehistoryjvbaTruehistoryjvba (talk) 17:30, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for posting, but most of those sources are not of any use to us. We need reliable sources, not web forums, web pages, self-published books or the like. Fences&Windows 21:35, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have proofread JVB's comments for clarity, as they were difficult to read, and I have placed the references in a drop-down box. Fences&Windows 22:02, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - (however ...!). (Changing my analysis, see at bottom

• Enki H., thanks. Keep but heavily edit might be the right outcome, but we have to do it without breaking BLP rules. With the History Channel episode - which you can see on YouTube - we have significant coverage, also an article in the Herald Tribune.[11] We need to remove all the poor sources, and we can't use Baker's website or interviews as references to support facts other than non-controversial info about herself. I've also now found two more articles: [12][13]. If we are to use McAdam's detailed analysis of Baker's account, we need to have it cleared by the reliable sources noticeboard, and probably the BLP noticeboard. Fences&Windows 01:12, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like a plan. The website may be as reliable is it will get - it is unlikely that anything peer-reviewed would be published on a fringe- and conspiracy topic, journals are usually reluctant to touch such topics; it's a lose-lose situation in the academic world since any amount of attention implicitly validates the fringe. Are you going to take it to

Enki H. (talk) 04:18, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Keep. I attempt comment for Baker. (1)The books "Dr. Mary's Monkey" and "Me & Lee" are NOT self-published books. (2) The History Channel documentary "The Love Affair" is, you agree, a suitable reference. (3) John McAdams' 200 page website attacks Baker, but he and his listed informants never met or interviewed Baker at any time these past ten years. (4) Several large websites support Baker and unmask McAdams' mis-statements and errors, concerning his 'research', written by researchers who have written books about the JFK assassination (McAdams never did), including JFKMurdersolved.com and Edward T. Haslam's author website.(5)The Sarasota Herald Tribune front page article 2008 is not the only recent newspaper article: example: another front-page article in a big paper was The Bradenton Herald's 2003 article; dozens of newspaper and mazine articles overseas can be cited, including in my own country (6) you mention remove all personal websites: is this done with all other living persons? (7) there still remain radio, TV, DVD, CD, documentary trailers, witness interviews, interviews with authors who have written about her, incl. independent websites of quality that provide access online to her life story (8) Harrison Livingstone's 700 page book was not published by Baker. (9) Pam Ray's two self-published books were not published by Baker. (10) Livingstone's book mentioning Baker prominently was not self-published. (11) McAdams quotes from "Deadly Alliance" stolen from Baker in Holland and published online, with alterations. (12) Baker ran her own art gallery in The Netherlands and qualifies as an artist in describing her. QUESTION: who first removed Baker from 'living persons'? I fixed that. Immediately the person then said Baker was 'hoax." I deleted that. She is a living person and controversial. Who then brought up again for 'deletion' under a new excuse, that Baker's references were not real? Now it is admitted 'some' are worthwhile, with untrue comment making it seem all books referenced were 'self-published.' Who is continuing this string of false statements? I have been contributing, along with Baker, to many Wikipedia articles (she is better than me in English, I have better eyesight). We will resign if injustice continues in Wikipedia, and will support the academic community's verdict about Wikipedia instead of striving to make Wikipdia a better and more reliable source. A biography that has stood since 2003 should not be deleted simply because the individual is controversial and somebody here continues a vendetta. I say no more. Allan Mattsson, Stockholm, Sweden.truehistoryjvbaTruehistoryjvba (talk) 11:58, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep---this article on Judyth Baker is highly significant for those interested in finding the truth on the JFK assassination. The references are reliable and there is adequate documentation to support her statements. Unfortunately, in order to sell books or cause discourse, there are those that object to the JVB story and the saga continues. Jim Phelps---knowing the story on JFK since 1963 from Oak Ridge

Jim, please sign your posts. Also, we are not interested in "

verifiable. Fences&Windows 15:46, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete. Unsubstantiated self-promoting claims that have attracted little to no attention in the mainstream. A magnet for conspiracy theories and few legitimate sources available to fashion it into a reasonable article. Gamaliel (talk) 13:47, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Truehistoryjvba, please be careful what you accuse other editors of. "somebody here continues a vendetta" cannot apply to me; I had not heard of Vary Baker before I saw the article proposed for deletion. The History Channel documentary is evidence of notability, but cannot be used to verify fact, as interviews with a subject are not reliable sources. I have asked about McAdam's site here. Fences&Windows 15:46, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why we can't use self-published sources as references:

WP:SELFPUB. Another very relevant guideline to how we write this article and source it is Wikipedia:Fringe theories. Fences&Windows 16:39, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Keep - History Channel documentary and Herald Tribune article are enough for Wikipedia:Notability. Truth or falsehood is for courts to decide, all we are deciding here is whether reliable sources have covered her story substantially. They have. Also meets Wikipedia:Verifiability, which doesn't mean "we can verify that what they say is true" it only means "we can verify that they have actually said it". We can. --GRuban (talk) 16:03, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Baker appears to be notable solely due to her claims of an alleged relationship with Oswald and the resulting coverage of said claims. As

Keep - Judyth Vary Baker is a notable person in her own right - given the fact a) that she has been the focus of the forementioned Nigel Turner program episode - which Wiki references here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Men_Who_Killed_Kennedy [Additionally made even more notable by being banned - by the United States of America].

Further, b) given the role Baker played during a darker part of essentially secret US history which has little documentation or reference backing - HOWEVER - a substantial amount of research confirms and verifies that the Central Intelligence Agency of the United States did in fact pursue several different courses of action with respect to the elimination of Fidel Castro by means of assassination - this was not public knowledge and in 1963 no reference of any kind was available whatsoever - which makes your rule someone moot and self-defeating - considering the scale of data made available over the past 40+ years on the subject. Add the fact that Richard Helms gave the order for the destruction of all files related to the MKULTRA related projects in 1973 - good luck finding a reliable source to substantiate more than 5% of it through normal channels and methods. The 5% that does exist, btw, provides insight into process and procedure for projects - via use of cut-outs without paper trails, covert contacts, code names, etc. Reconsider the value of a person like Judyth Vary Baker for her experience in working directly with one of these cutout groups for the purpose of creating a bio weapon.

Lmforman (talk) 21:28, 26 June 2009 (UTC) — Lmforman (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• COMMENT-I'd ask people not try to argue whether her claims are accurate in this forum or use this as a soapbox to sprout other related theories and claims. This is about WP policy and whether Ms. Baker has sufficient independent notability outside of her allegation of a relationship with Oswald to warrant a bio. By her own admission, all of her coverage seems to be related to her claims and the fallout from making it. Her claim is indeed verifiable and notable, and should be in this encyclopedia in some form, the question is where. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 21:43, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vary Baker is not notable for her early science research, or for her subsequent work as an artist. There are only a handful of sources that I would call reliable that refer to her claims regarding Oswald. A section on these claims could be included under

Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories#CIA and anti-Castro Cuban exile conspiracy. Fences&Windows 22:13, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

--- =I see gamaliel has said Baker provided no evidence and some others say this. But references show filmed live witness from New Orleans who everyone knows, testifying Baker had a sexual relationship with Oswald. See Anna Lewis http://www.jfkmurdersolved.com/lewis.htm I really want to stay out of this, but live witness testimony does not count in Wikipedia? Anna Lewis and also Edward Haslam http://www.jfkmurdersolved.com/haslam1.htm but are not only ones on film or tape for Mrs. Baker. Mac McCullough of New Orleans is on tape. If someone has evidence they had an affair with accused assassin Oswald, and History Channel shows it, and then Mr. Haslam provides more evidence from 1972 (see his interview) then this is not fringe issue any more than biography of Carlos Bringuier is in Wikipedia really because he interacted with Oswald. As for Baker's cancer research, her young age made it remarkable and what was brought her to New Orleans while only age 19. She was first high school student ever allowed at national science writer's cancer research conference in 1961 and was guided by Nobel Prize winners in her research which is unusual age 17. There were hundreds of newspaper articles about her 1961. I am sorry Mrs. Baker got upset, but this has been a bad experience for her, be glad it not happen to you. I need her English skills to continue editing many articles so hope she will still help me. Allan M. truhistoryjvbsTruehistoryjvba (talk) 13:39, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. IMHO, this is a hoax article, it should be deleted. What's next? articles of every lover JFK had? GoodDay (talk) 13:52, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP. So you will delete Judith Exner biography then? How about deleting George deMohrenschildt, too, because he is only in Wikipedia because he knew Oswald and wrote a book that never got published about it. You need also to delete Chauncy Marvin Holt who only claims to have known Oswald, no evidence at all. I am finished. truehistoryjvbaTruehistoryjvba (talk) 14:19, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment you might not be aware of it, but there is a lucid essay on this argument:

Enki H. (talk) 20:15, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

DELETE. In the matter of Lee Oswald, the only Judyth Baker topic which would be of any public interest, Baker is widely believed in the assassination research community to be a fraud. And that is as nicely as I can put it. — Walloon (talk) 00:28, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And your are argument for this deleting the page is because you claim it to be "widely believed". By whom? Have these sources (you fail to name) interviewed or spoken to her first hand? Have the sources thoroughly evaluated the material she provides (e.g. (a) Bugliosi made up his mind on the case long before he heard of Judyth Baker and (b) he seemingly fall back on an ad hominem attack when it comes to her..).

"..to be a fraud. And that is as nicely as I can put it." The name calling you (or anyone else) retort to do not in any way increase the validity of the argument and it should be given zero weight when discussing deletion or alteration of a wiki page.

Schatz87 (talk) 22:10, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - there now exist evidence to support her claims e.g. she did indeed work on the Reily Coffee Company in the summer of 1963 (see copy of her W2 form from the Reily Coffee Company in New Orleans: http://www.judythvarybaker.com/docs/The%20Coffee%20Company.htm). Furthermore, there is at least one surviving witness who have attested LHO and JVB knew each other well: the wife of David Lewis who worked for Guy Banister in 1963, see http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2140352666545542746. Thus, hard evidence exist and it does not matter whether one uses the criteria of "

Schatz87, there has never been any doubt that Baker worked at the Reily Coffee Company in the summer of 1963. That is not the question. — Walloon (talk) 17:41, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Walloon". Go back and read again what I wrote: there is at least one living witness that has stepped forward and attested Lee Harvey Oswald and Judyth Vary Baker knew each other well. Thus, the page need to be kept.

Schatz87 (talk) 22:10, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep a properly edited short version of the article limited to published material. Since she does appear in a good deal of the JFK assassination fringe literature, it is reasonable that people might look for information here. If you want my speculation, she probably did know Oswald, and embroidered a myth around it. That the CIA might have tried to kill an immediately threatening enemy with the slowest acting known disease is typical. DGG (talk) 03:31, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP KEEP KEEP! Who are Fences&Windows and Enki to judge this article? They want to delete or re-edit based on the "research" and claims of John McAdams?

http://jfkmurdersolved.com/mcadams.htm

Can you read the article thoroughly, including all the references and sources? Otherwise I can't see how anyone can conclude that this is a story without references and evidence from backup witnesses, documentation and contemporary newspaper articles. By the way, I am largely the author of the article as it is today. A year ago I replaced the lone assassin propaganda that Mcadams and his minions put out here. It stood for over a year without any problems. If you have problems with it, you better specify EXACTLY what it is that cannot be substantiated or why the sources are not valid enough for Wikipedia. If a source like McAdams is only valid, that speaks volumes. One might ask why the the Discovery special about Judyth Baker was pulled, buried and removed from the public eye without ANY given argumentation, and after enjoying huge praise and succces from its viewers. Is Wikipedia going down this path too?

Watch it here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Ry3DrsN9PY

Wim Dankbaar - Netherlands - www.jfkmurdersolved.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wim Dankbaar (talk • contribs) 08:30, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Wim, I'm a Wikipedia editor. So I have every right to judge this article, as I have a right to judge every article. Please have some respect for your fellow editors. The problem with the article is that it is not balanced, and it rests far too much on self-published work, improper synthesis, and primary sources based on Judyth Vary Baker's testimony. Wikipedia articles must be neutral - giving due weight to different sides based on coverage in reliable sources - and must be based on secondary sources that are reliable - with a reputation for fact checking - and that are independent of the subject. McAdams is an academic who works on American politics, and I've checked on the
  battleground for you to continue a feud with people like McAdams. Fences&Windows 23:40, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

KEEP. Note, I am a Wikipedia contributor. Baker is interesting enough to have her hour-long biography aired on History Channel in US, Europe, Australia, etc. five times, before its suppression, and itis still being viewed on YouTube. Biological weapons are of interest to many, as well as the known contamination of the polio vaccine with cancer-causing monkey viruses, which Baker was trained to handle. Then she was also Oswald's lover. I add about witnesses below, because requested on BAKER'S TALK PAGE by someone who wishes to delete, asking who her witnesses are:
ANNA LEWIS is a living witness for Baker as Oswald's lover. Some peoole have even called for Baker's arrest as Oswald's 'co-conspirator." ANNA LEWIS, mother of ten children, Louisiana native, WITNESS: worked at Thompson's (Restaurant where anti-Castro activists met)known in Warren Commission and Garrison documents. Consented to be filmed only once, testifying before 6 persons in Jan. 2000 in New Orleans that she and husband, David Lewis, double-dated with Baker and Oswald in New Orleans in the summer of 1963, and that her husband and Oswald discussed assassinating Castro. Further, she stated Baker was Oswald's "mistress" and Oswald was "a dominating man" regarding Baker. Lewis took her four children and left her husband in 1965, disgusted because of his involvement with Jack Suggs Martin, an alcoholic, and with Martin's homosexual friends, such as David Ferrie, before Garrison subpoened David Lewis: he testified he did not know her whereabouts. She states she was pregnant, and even though they were estranged, her husband wanted to protect her, so never mentioned his and Anna's relationship to Oswald and Baker.
EDWARD T. HASLAM is a well-known New Orleans native, the son of a respected Tulane doctor who knew David Ferrie's friend, Dr. Mary Sherman (violently murdered the same day the Warren Commission came for unsolicited testimonies to New Orleans). Haslam also knew Sherman and was angry that the case went cold. He filmed his testimony about Judyth Vary Baker's involvement with Sherman and Oswald in 2003 and has repeated it in many interviews, especially concerning his being invited by "Judyth Vary Baker" in 1972 to discuss Oswald and Sherman (at this time, he had begun investigating Sherman's brutal death, a task taking three decades). He then decided to ignore rumors about Baker, until 1999, when Sixty Minutes asked him to research her (he refused due to his bad experience with "Judyth Vary Baker" in 1972). However, Haslam finally met Baker in 2001, when she visited Florida (where he had moved): he was shocked that she was was not the woman who had invited him to meet her in 1972. After Baker presented evidence, including information nobody had known but Haslam concerning Dr. Sherman, he went back to his old records, etc. After more evidence surfaced, he then rewrote his book (Mary, Ferrie & the Monkey Virus) adding three chapters about Baker and Oswald: published in 2007 as Dr. Mary's Monkey by Trine Day, it has gone to multiple printings. Haslam states Judyth Vary Baker worked in an underground lab with Dr. Mary Sherman and David Ferrie in a clandestine cancer project, where his own investigations had already placed Oswald. Haslam presents well-researched information and references.(I copy this from Baker's friend, S. W.) TruehistoryjvbaTruehistoryjvba (talk) 13:58, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not "

vote" twice in the same AfD. Your support of the article is duly noted. You do not have to state Keep each time you post. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 17:58, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

==John McAdams and freinds is ONLY reference you accept about Baker? The name calling here is shameful.
Note what McAdams posted in the talk section of Baker's biography:
McAdams: "Actually, the section that begins "Killers and the women who love them" was lifed from my essay on Judyth. I'm not exactly mad about that, but it still should not be used without attribution. I think I'll just go in an rewrite it, and list my page as a citation. -- John McAdams
Much more than this was used from McAdams, and by McAdams, to discredit Baker. He labels her the lover of a 'killer' making Oswald guilty when many think not, showing bias that makes me uncomfortable. Same people here keep adding new objections when prior objections got answered, or they repost same old argument again as if no answer was provided. Claiming a fraud, a hoax, over and over again after all this discussion, ignoring researchers on other side of controversy providing evidence supporting Baker that checks out. Claiming 'fringe' when people try to assist the editors to see the other side of the picture. So Baker will be removed after six years on Wikipedia. I now believe everything she said about being persecuted in the US. I see 'remove template' so this record of how Baker was verbally abused here will be erased. So we all wasted our time as you will do what you intended from the beginning? Discussion is just for the show? truehistoryjvbaTruehistoryjvba (talk) 20:20, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Please be calm and brief. Long and emotional paragraphs do more harm than good. --GRuban (talk) 20:25, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Truehistoryjvba, several points.

1. Clearly the Herald Tribune article is also a reliable source, and there is a Dutch news article, and possibly others.
2. Who is name-calling, exactly?
3. If a section was plagiarised from McAdam's site, that goes against Wikipedia policy.
4. I'd suggest that McAdams, along with you, Wim Dankbaar, and others personally involved, should not be editing Wikipedia articles on this topic of the JFK assassination, due to your
   neutral point of view
   .
5. Calling Oswald a killer is not neutral language, but Wikipedia must follow the consensus of reliable sources that he assassinated Kennedy. Wikipedia is not going to endorse a view that Oswald was innocent; if that's your hope, you don't understand Wikipedia.
6. Claims of conspiracies or Oswald being a patsy are fringe theories, as defined at
   WP:FRINGE
   , which you need to read. Fringe is not a perjorative, it is an accurate description. Oswald shooting JFK is accepted by the mainstream.
7. Whether Baker's story is true or not is irrelevant to whether Wikipedia should have an article about her. Editors should refrain from calling her a fruad or a hoax, as per
   WP:BLP
   . The decision on keeping the article rests on whether she is independently notable, and whether enough reliable sources exist to allow us to write a properly referenced article.
8. Nobody here is trying to persecute Baker. Don't get paranoid. First, nobody has a right to have an article on Wikipedia. You do not
   WP:OWN
   this article, neither does Wim. This discussion will remain as a record, even if the article is deleted, and you will be avble to request a copy from an admin if it is deleted.

Fences&Windows 21:25, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete contents as CFORK, redirect article to

Comment 6.Claims of conspiracies or Oswald being a patsy are fringe theories, as defined at WP:FRINGE, which you need to read. Fringe is not a perjorative, it is an accurate description. Oswald shooting JFK is accepted by the mainstream."
OK. You told me to read, so I did read. BTW, the word is 'pejorative.' Definition of mainstream: "•the prevailing current of thought; "his thinking was in the American mainstream" wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
...every poll I found shows mainstream America does not agree with you. You state belief in a conspiraycis 'fringe' without references. I looked for statistics. More American people by percentage believe there was a conspiracy than voted for your President. Despite your unsourced persoal opinion, mainstream belief is that Oswald did not act alone.. You asked me to read and here is what I find:
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn" ...polls are conducted among Americans and consistently reflect, beginning in 1998: (1) American majority believes Oswald did not act alone and that a conspiracy existed:
(20 in 2003: "-40 Years Later: Who Killed JFK? - CBS News Belief In A Conspiracy Remains Strong Among American People. ... A 1998 CBS News poll found that only 10 percent of respondents felt Oswald acted alone. .... www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/11/20/.../main584668.shtml -
More results from www.cbsnews.com »FOXNews.com - Poll: Most Believe 'Cover-Up' of JFK Assassination ...On the 40th anniversary of JFK's assassination, a recent FOX News poll shows most ... Kennedy's assassination was part of a larger conspiracy (73 percent to 58 percent)... www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,102511,00.html - -Majority believe JFK assassination a conspiracy 14 Nov 2003 ... Thursday, June 4, 2009, Morning Edition ... Majority believe JFK assassination a conspiracy. Poll: 57% reject government's ..."...Poll: 80% Believe Kennedy Conspiracy. Tuesday, 22 May 2007..." But YOU are mainstream, is that it, and the American people are not? truehistoryjvbaTruehistoryjvba (talk) 17:02, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

These are interesting numbers, indeed. However identifying something as fringe or not is not a question of having a majority in the general population. Please note that the guideline says: [A fringe theory] depart[s] significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view in its particular field of study. This means it violates a scholarly consensus in the field, usually because it is not backed up by proof. The field of study in this case is recent American history and professional historians do not appear to be supportive of these claims and writing about it. But once again - all of this is not really at issue; we are discussing here whether the article should be kept in accordance with Wikipedia's policies and none of this has anything to do with what my – or anyone else's – personal opinions on the truth of this matter are.

Enki H. (talk) 18:01, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

CommentNot to take this discussion too far off track, but I do have some experience with editors who believe that mainstream equals public opinion. Two things-- first you must go deeper than a general American belief in conspiracy. To wit, although most people do believe in conspiracy, there is no overriding conspiratorial narrative that has reached anywhere near the support to be considered mainstream. Most of those polled actually say "I don't believe the Warren Report, there was a coverup, but I have no idea what actually happened." That is far from an endorsement of any conspiracy theory. Second, the mainstream referenced here is not the general public but the mainstream of historians, researchers, and academics. They are the ones who give us reliable sources, and we are restricted on editing based on their verifiable claims. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 18:07, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I've found two more sources: an article in De Groene Amsterdammer:[14] and one in the Jewish Post in 1999,[15], which refers to an article in Publisher's Weekly, which would have been the first story about Baker and Oswald. That article is replicated here:[16]. I would now definitely support an expanded section on Baker in the New Orleans section of the JFK conspiracy article, but I'm not sure that this current article should be merged into it. Fences&Windows 21:19, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. While a reasonable argument can be made that a national television program that ran for multiple series should be notable; searches by multiple participants have failed to provide adequate sources to satisfy

Three's Company (1989)

Three's Company (1989) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested prod; I believe this fails

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- I'^mperator 18:34, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong speedy delete per Wikipedia:Notability_(media)#Programming, which says, "a national television program can be non-notable if it got cancelled too quickly to have garnered any real media coverage". This particular article is actually about three different programs in China, each of which lasted a single season (their so-called "popularity" notwithstanding).--AuthorityTam (talk) 19:14, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: "speedy" doesn't apply as it doesn't meet any of the
  WP:CSD criteria. Tavix |  Talk  19:40, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

I believe "speedy" would apply if the originator[17] sees the light and requests deletion, per

WP:2S, it says, "All articles that are only one or two sentences long should be either expanded or deleted. Wikipedia decision-makers are urged to make one sentence "articles" a speedy deletion category as there is no purpose for them." [emphasis retained from original]
Please pardon my enthusiasm for what seems a reasonable idea. --AuthorityTam (talk) 20:44, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete per AuthorityTam, no sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ⁽Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 20:03, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I deprodded the article. It was prodded on the basis of "Fails WP:GNG due to the lack of English language reliable sources" This is a totally incorrect reason, as it is not necessary to have English language sources at all. any language is good, and there are certainly enough people here who can evaluate a Chinese language source, though I am not one of them. There was what appeared to be such a source (if there had not been, i would have simply changed the reason to "lack of reliable sources"--as the nom did here. I see two or three articles a day being nominated for speedy or prod on the basis of the sources not being in English. I certainly intend to decline all such deletions. DGG (talk) 02:40, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Yeah, I used English to be more specific because I can confirm I no of no English language sources, however I can't read chinese so I can't do the same for that language. Simply saying "No such sources exist" may or may not be true depending if you can understand Chinese or not. I understand where your coming from and should have worded it differently, but the idea that there isn't any reliable sources (that I can read) still stands. Tavix |  Talk  03:33, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I don't understand why AuthorityTam believes it "got canceled too quickly to attract attention." The article asserts in ran for 30 episodes and then had a 40 episode spin-off. While, I can't confirm this fact, if it is true there are almost certainly Chinese language sources to establish notability.

A very rough translation of the one source in the article suggests that the "unrelated" 2001 show by the same name did indeed run for the claimed 46 episodes. (The article is about the first episode, but it seems to link to plot summaries of 45 additional episodes.)

The Chinese title of the the series (not surprisingly given the generic name of the show) returns tons and tons of results, which makes it extremely difficult for someone who can't read Chinese to find anything useful. What we need is someone who can read Chinese to figure out if there are sources or not. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:01, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Per

WP:NME#Programming, AuthorityTam believes it "got canceled too quickly to attract attention" because six weeks is "quickly". The program aired from May 22 to July 3, 1989: six weeks. The second program did not return the same actors or the same name, which doesn't exactly argue for the first program's "notability"; the second program lasted from June 21 to August 15, 1990: eight weeks. By what standard is six weeks or eight weeks anything but "canceled quickly"? I'd guess the originating editor saw that his article was insubstantial and made a desperate attempt to beef it up with a third program from left field.
I don't mind non-English sources, but the only ones I've seen are silly websites and trivia websites rather than substantive journals or scholarly works.--AuthorityTam (talk) 15:26, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Well, if true that is highly bizarre. A sitcom that airs daily? Weird! --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:39, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. -- ThaddeusB (talk) 03:08, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. -- ThaddeusB (talk) 03:09, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to previously stated Delete. Per

• Comment on the title of that sitcom: the American sitcom
  WP: TITLE requirement even if the article is fleshed out. Madalibi (talk) 03:07, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment on Chinese sitcoms in general. All the Chinese sitcoms I know air everyday, and most of them even air two episodes a day. My Chinese friends who watch American series on Hong Kong television find it really weird that they have to wait an entire week for the next episode! In other words, the show we're discussing was not "cancelled": it just aired all its episodes in six weeks, like all other Chinese TV series do, so I don't think this should be a factor in the AfD's decision. Otherwise I'm not familiar enough with notability requirements for TV series to judge whether this wiki should be deleted, and I don't have time to look for reliable sources. I say let the creator of the article
  PROVE IT! Cheers, Madalibi (talk) 03:07, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • There's a problem in terminology here, I think, because most Chinese "sitcoms" are closer to what Westerners (or at least Americans) would call a "soap opera", and Western soap operas do run every day, although usually for years on end, not just 6 weeks.--Aervanath (talk) 06:54, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I can read some Chinese, and looking through the webpages I got from a Google search only provided one hit in an actual newspaper, and that was promotional material. The other sources I could find were all copies of the channel's press release. So I don't think these are particularly notable in China or Taiwan, either. (If someone wants to point me towards some sources which look reliable, I'll be happy to re-evaluate my opinion.) Cheers, --Aervanath (talk) 06:54, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: The creator was not notified of this request. I have remedied this.--Aervanath (talk) 07:00, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:42, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of musicians who died before the age of 60

List of musicians who died before the age of 60 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. —Algébrico (talk) 18:12, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No definition of "young" (I'm gonna live forever if the good die young). Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 18:30, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- I'^mperator 18:34, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but rename I don't see OR as a problem here, as the list has a clearly defined criteria - musicians who have an article on Wikipedia who died before they were 60. I do agree that the title could better match the actual list - "young" being vague and rarely including people in their 50s. I don't see any requirement for all lists to have a main article - see List of accidents and incidents involving general aviation and List of national decorations to foreign recipients for example. I see no reason not to keep this at a better title. Thryduulf (talk) 18:34, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment 60 is an arbitrary cutoff. Old age is also not clearly defined. And even if someone is not old, it doesn't mean that he/she is young. Algébrico (talk) 20:43, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep The only problem with this one is the lack of sourcing, and I'd favor a delete if it doesn't move in that direction. However, it is has the level of detail that one would expect from an online encyclopedia, and there has been enough written about musicians who died young for the subject to be sourced. Yes, I'm sure we'll get a bunch of lawyering about "define 'young'", "define 'musician'", "define 'died'", etc., and the title will probably change to something awkward. There are some persons who die before they have become has-beens, and they attain legendary status. Kurt Cobain, Janis Joplin, Jim Morrison, Buddy Holly, etc. etc. etc., fall in that group, and it's a logical topic that an encyclopedia user would consult. Mandsford (talk) 18:37, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as an indefinable trivia collection. Might be better presented as a set of categories for various age ranges. Mangoe (talk) 19:02, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and rename- "too young" is subjective. Retitling and refocussing so that it instead reads something like "before age 40" (for example) would, with the proper sourcing, make a personally acceptable list. Umbralcorax (talk) 19:49, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete List not viable. What's the definition of "young"? I guarantee you won't find one which will meet our policies on
  Folantin (talk) 20:06, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete see this AfD. Lugnuts (talk) 20:17, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - This is Listcruft is it not? Dvmedis (talk) 00:08, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - 50 is young?? As per a similar afd. Artyline (talk) 01:57, 25 June 2009 (UTC) Struck comments of a banned user. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:36, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Listcruft with no definitive end and subjective listings. Relies on
  WP:OR. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:25, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete due to the lack of strong definition of Young. -- Luk ^talk 08:32, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep - However needs better focus and sourcing. Surv1v4l1st ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 21:28, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep I took the liberty of renaming the page and AfD, and added some citations; it is far less of a liberty than to delete an article because it has a bad title and/or no citations.

As for Listcruft, here is the relevant text showing that this article is none of that:

There is an article for each and every one of the elements of this list. Moreover, there is a value to this article that greater than the sum of its parts. You cannot find all of the musicians who died before the age of 60 by looking at any one of the articles, only this one. Anarchangel (talk) 12:43, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That the modern life expectancy has increased from 70 to 80 can hardly fail to have been noticed by the great majority of editors here. Many here have used the word 'arbitrary'; I ask you, what is your definition of arbitrary, and what is the alternative? In any article at all, the creator has decided upon a topic to discuss. In many articles, there are parameters applied that limit the article to a manageable size. This is a virtue of the article, or at the very least, necessary, and yet it is being portrayed as a detriment, even to the point of being a reason to delete. I believe that it is the inexperience of those responding in creating articles, that leads them to this conclusion, but of course I do not know, and it could be for any number of reasons. It is particularly irksome that, with seeming disregard to the fact that they have called into question the necessary limiting factor of the title, that sometimes the same editors have also claimed that there is no limit to the article, that it is doomed to become too large. The irony is really quite thick. I have added the preceding to my assertions, in the hope that if these arguments are placed higher on the page, people will read them. Anarchangel (talk) 03:03, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another addition:

The cutoff for the article is as I have clarified in the lede; it must now carry the burden of elucidation that the original title did: these are untimely deaths. A death of old age at 30 in the middle ages, for example, will never be a problem for this article because it was a death by natural causes. Anarchangel (talk) 10:17, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • While I agree with many of your points, dying at age 59 or 57 is not particularly notable, and you cannot find anything close to all the musicians who died before age 60, because despite the title the list only includes certain types of musicians, and expanding to genuinely include all musicians who died before age 60 would be an incredibly large undertaking resulting in a list too long to be very meaningful. Rlendog (talk) 21:03, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I think a list like this can be of use, but it needs to be much more focused, say on rock musicians who died before age 40. Many, many musicians died before age 60, to the point that such a list would be meaningless. I mean, dying at age 59 is not particularly notable. And I don't see any classical musicians here, such as
  Wolfgang Mozart, who died in his 30s. And what about violinists, session musicians, blues musicians? So as currently scoped, even with the improvement in removing the arbitrary term "young", I am still tempted to think that deleting is appropriate. But, since I think this information in a more focused form is very useful, I would prefer to see the scope narrowed and kept in that form. Rlendog (talk) 20:59, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

You weren't looking very hard. Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart is on the list. Anarchangel (talk) 01:11, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• You are right. I missed that. But people will be much easier to miss once this list - if it truly includes all musicians - are included. And the general point I was trying to make still stands. For example, Ludwig van Beethoven is missing, as well as virtually all other classical musicians. And what about Latin American musicians, East Asian musicians, African musicians, etc.? To try to include all musicians who died before 60, or even 40, would be unwieldy. But I still think that a List of rock and pop musicians who died before 40 would be very useful. Rlendog (talk) 23:22, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I considered Beethoven yesterday, and ultimately rejected it, as his death seemed far too much like what would normally be called 'natural causes'. He was a heavy drinker, and there is some speculation he died of lead poisoning, but there just isn't room to put all that in. 56 was probably pretty late in years, in the time that he lived. I don't suppose I would object to him being included, but I won't do it myself. There is a short list of other classical musicians proffered on the talk page, and I will be pursuing their inclusion if appropriate. It's a fun project, and I look forward to being able to do it. Anarchangel (talk) 02:09, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rejecting Beethoven because is death is too much like 'natural causes' is one of the problems with using 60 as the cutoff age. I suppose if enough people are working on this article we ought to (weak) keep it to give it a chance to develop and see what happens. I am still concerned that the scope is way too broad to be meaningful though. Rlendog (talk) 15:36, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that you have to use a solution to fix a problem is not a problem. The problem -was- the problem. It's fixed now. Using death by natural causes and old age as a counterindicator for inclusion isn't a problem. It's the solution. Anarchangel (talk) 10:17, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Even when you stabilish 60, it's an arbitrary cutoff (like this AfD). Why 60? Even if it is changed to 59, 87, 22, 48 or whatever, it would be still arbitrary. It's also unlimited and unmaintainable. Algébrico (talk) 01:23, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"List of people who died before the age of 30"? The only proper reason for listing that is the sheer size of the entry: all people who have ever lived who were notable and died aged 29 or below? I myself would have voted to delete such a list.

All dead notables aged 29 or below would not fit within a 100k article; this article, with focus of only musicians, is currently 21k.

I would estimate it to be half complete, and it is easy to maintain. Only Top 40 artists or better can make it on. Heavy rotation keeps most on for months. The number is severely curtailed by the 59 or below rule. 90% of the 60 or so deaths are from 10 years ago or more. That's about a death every 2 years, and if you consider that the rap/gang culture that lead to Tupac and B.I.G.s deaths is now split into musicians and gangs, then it is a death every 3 years. The article can then be split into music categories, or time periods. Can you honestly say that once every three years, someone can't come along and maintain the article? I already removed a recent entry, myself.

Arbitrary cutoff? Please show the WP rule that requires the scope of articles' subjects to be confined to Universal Constants, so I can delete that rule, too. Anarchangel (talk) 05:35, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The rule against making arbitrary cut-offs is called

Folantin (talk) 09:05, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Nah. But you do win the prize for most ingredients in a WP rule Mulligan Stew. Anarchangel (talk) 13:36, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unless you rename it "List of contemporary popular musicians who died before the age of 60" or something equivalent, since it's obviously intended to be a popular music only list. It's bizarre to include only Mozart for the thousand years of documented music-making before the 20th century, and as the only representative outside of the popular music realm. At least half, if not most, musicians died before the age of 60 prior to modern times. Shall we add them all? Antandrus (talk) 15:56, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have heard many editors declare other editors' intentions. Hence the

WP:AGF rule. But what is it called when one asserts they know the intention of an article? If the documentable musicians that died before modern times truly were as numerous, which I very much doubt (verifiability, less drug use, no airplanes, no automobiles, and WP:N applied, because life expectancy was lower), there would still be room in the article. It is 21kb at the moment. Deleting an article because material has not yet been found to round it out, is just crazy talk to me. And the arguments to delete are contradictory to a certain extent. First, there isn't enough material in the article, which is obviously fixable by finding it and putting it in the article, then there's obviously too much material out there, which is obviously fixable by leaving some out. Take heart, mon brave ami. It will be fixed. Anarchangel (talk) 02:09, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

"Crazy talk?" "Assume good faith"? Have you even read the article you are defending with a

WP:BLUDGEON? Have you? The opening line is, and I quote, "Rock, pop and blues music has a long history of premature deaths of influential musicians." That's "rock, pop and blues music." I'm not making that up, it's there. Read it! If that is not a statement of what the article intends to be about, then what is it exactly? I wrote in my comment that the article would need to be renamed; else it is an exercise in absurdity. You would need to compile the names of the majority of musicians who ever lived prior to the time that the average age of death exceeded 60. Anarchangel, that's one hell of a lot of people. Antandrus (talk) 02:08, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Thank you very much for bringing that phrase to my attention. It's gone. It was a fluff sentence in any case, I usually zone out when reading those. And your point about life expectancy earlier in history goes to the argument for calling the article its original title "Musicians who died young". You can see above how popular a name that was. Editors will have to use their discretion on this article. Anarchangel (talk) 03:03, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reading over my sentence "I have heard many editors declare other editors' intentions." again, I feel I should point out that I was not referring to this discussion. It was by way of introducing the concept of AGF to show the futility and inappropriateness of ascribing intent to an article, when even persons are given the benefit of the doubt. No one had said anything up to that point resembling AGF. And this incident does offer an object lesson about the usefulness of the process of assertions backed with reasons backed with citations faintly outlined in

WP:EQ and in the Disagreement Pyramid. Had you quoted that phrase in the beginning, to clarify your reasoning and back up your assertion, this would not have been an issue. Anarchangel (talk) 10:17, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete. Is dying before the age of 60 really an achievement in anything but the past thirty or so years? It is not, and this is a list which will never be complete, for there are too many questions: Is 60 classed as young? How does a musician become notable enough for the list (does the drummer of a band with a sole minor chart hit in 1963 count, for example)? And, as Antandrus suggests, how about all of those early musicians where it would actually be rarer to die after 60 years old? I don't see any encylopedic value to the list, either. Esteffect (talk) 16:39, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • In terms of who is notable enough for the list, the answer is that anyone who is notable enough for their own Wikipedia article is eligable - no article, no entry. The title can easily be changed to reflect the actual policy of the list in terms of rock/pop/etc musicians. This is not a reason to delete. Thryduulf (talk) 19:46, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As shown above, Esteffect, the concern of

WP:N for reasons of life expectancy being lower in earlier history, is applicable to individual entries on the list. Because the problem is dealt with by the article's editors, and is part of the normal process of crafting an article, it is unnecessary to make it a part of an AfD. For example, I left out Beethoven, who was in his 50s when he died, not only because of seemingly natural causes, but partly because people died earlier in his time. AfD should be concerned with problems that cannot be solved with the normal editing process, but this is not such a one. Anarchangel (talk) 02:09, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete as arbitrary listcruft. Eusebeus (talk) 21:35, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See

WP:ITSCRUFT. That the article is your peeve is irrelevant. Anarchangel (talk) 23:50, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete it is impossible to maintain this list to be even close to completion. There are millions of musicians in the world and I'm not seeing a criteria that would trim this list to a useable size. Also, why 60? Seems like an arbitrary number... Note to
  WP:BLUDGEON before you comment on my (and other's) posts simply because you disagree with them. Tavix |  Talk  16:45, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  

See Response Anarchangel (talk) 03:03, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - this simply has no encyclopedic value. -WarthogDemon 02:59, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:04, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Xbox 360 controller compatible PC games