Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 October 17
< October 16 | October 18 > |
---|
- 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 will reconsider if sources are found. W.marsh 15:22, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Chavurat HaMashiach[edit]
- Chavurat HaMashiach (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
An article about an organisation that was founded in 2005. Although there are a number of ghits[1] for it, I cannot see any that are independent or reliable sources in the meaning of WP:NOTE. Malcolmxl5 00:28, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as renamed Chavurat HaMashiach (Messianic Christian congregation). It qualifies for Category:Messianic and Hebrew Christian congregations. IZAK 12:39, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. IZAK 12:39, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletions. IZAK 12:39, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- delete while churches and synagogues may be notable, those that started only a few years ago likely aren't. Unless there are multiple, non-trivial works on the subject the article will go nowhere. Jon513 14:36, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- delete: nio evidence of notability presented. Mukadderat 04:14, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- keep please source its notability--יודל 17:16, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment As always, to survive a delete vote, sources are required showing evidence of notability. Best, --Shirahadasha 20:04, 22 October 2007 (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 The result is keep, since he's notable being an author of major books.--Alasdair 13:10, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Eric Abrahamson[edit]
- Eric Abrahamson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
WP:NN. Ghits refer to another person with the same name. Brewcrewer 05:59, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, W.marsh 23:46, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. This individual is more on the borderline of notability than most AfD's I see here. His two claims to notability are that he was an unsuccessful political candidate for Lieutenant-Governor of a US State (which doesn't confer much notability, AFAIK) and that he has written some books. His corporate affiliation is with a kind of "corporate history" company, where he is paid to research the history of a company and present it back to the company for consideration, and potentially to the public in order to develop a brand. Thus, his co-writing of "Entrepreneurship and the Creation of a Wireless World" was, I believe, done to order by a corporate sponsor and is a kind of self-publishing -- and that, I suggest, ultimately doesn't confer notability. His company is interesting and somewhat unusual but not really notable in the greater scheme of things. If there's more notability that could attach to him for whatever reason, I'd look at my "weak delete" suggestion again. Accounting4Taste 02:07, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]- Keep. I defer to DGG's accurate assessment of Harvard Business School Press/Cambridge University Press, which same tips the balance for me in the "keep" direction; not even a weak keep, but full-on. Accounting4Taste 21:05, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep His 3 most widely held books are major works, held in many hundreds of public and academic libraries, according to WorldCat. He is not "affiliated" with a corporate history company--he runs it. Some of his works may be sponsored, but clearly not all. Cambridge University press does not publish sponsored works without scholarly merit. Neither does Harvard Business School Press. this isn't self-publication--but publication by two of the most prestigious possible publishers in the field. DGG (talk) 22:14, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete Per Accounting4Taste. --Strothra 22:50, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep article asserts notability as a historian/author. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 23:03, 18 October 2007 (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 Nomination withdrawn. Espresso Addict 01:32, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Humayun Kabir Dhali[edit]
- Humayun Kabir Dhali (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Unsourced article. Have not been able to verified any of the awards online.[2][3][4][5] or the famous novel[6]. Note: this appears to be an autobiography but that is not ground for deletion. Nominating as fails WP:NOTE. Withdrawing nomination per comment below. Malcolmxl5 23:30, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. This entry required extensive research because each name can be spelled two or three different ways and the author has chosen an uncommon spelling of various words, it seems. I finally located this, from a Bangladeshi newspaper in 2007, saying that "Humyun Kabir Dhali" received the "Atish Dipankar" Gold Medal for literature. I found an on-line bookstore that seemed to offer four of his books, all fiction (as "Dali" instead of "Dhali"). I found what looked like other citations for other of his books but the language barrier defeated me. On the balance of probabilities, I think he has written a goodly number of novels and received what seems to be a prestigious award, thus meeting WP:Notable. He's not very forthcoming in his own blog, though. Accounting4Taste 02:25, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep- that explanation isgood enough for me, but this needs to be cleaned up badlyJJJ999 05:27, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Withdraw nomination. I thank Accounting4Taste for his work on this. There appears to be a problem with transliteration of the name and titles of books and I withdraw my nomination, which will allow the article to be cleaned up and notability to be more thoroughly established. --Malcolmxl5 21:47, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I've added the citation I found, cleaned up the language a little and left it as a stub. Accounting4Taste 22:16, 19 October 2007 (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. --Coredesat 04:34, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Exposed: The Climate of Fear[edit]
- Exposed: The Climate of Fear (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
This is a one-hour TV special which finished in last place in its time slot. Fails WP:N and WP:EPISODE, and is a coatrack for global warming skepticism to boot. Prior AfD closed as no consensus; since then, there has been no additional coverage by third-party reliable sources. This lacks any evidence of significant notability or impact, other than a couple of trivial one-time mentions in partisan sources at the time of its airing. MastCell Talk 23:07, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- delete as per nom, as last time William M. Connolley 08:32, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I do not disagree in substance, for now, with nom, but I think there are articles existing throughout WP that are far less notable topics than this which still passed the WP:N exam. I'm always concerned about consistency in the enforcement of rules. --Childhood's End 14:58, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I understand your position - this is far from the worst article or least notable topic covered on Wikipedia. However, the unfortunate fact that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS doesn't really affect the decision to keep or delete this particular article, which should be based on notability criteria. MastCell Talk 16:16, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This is what concerns me more and more with regard to such AfDs. Technically, yes, the fact that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS should not affect our decision, but that should be true only if policies are enforced with consistency (i.e. avoiding double-standards, blind to WP:ILIKEIT or WP:IDONTLIKEIT). I see that you also concur that there are worst articles than this one that are maintained throughout WP, and I would hate to see WP:N used again to delete an article that, for some reason, looks like a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT for some people. --Childhood's End 20:23, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You would "hate to see WP:N used to delete an article"? But that's the basis on which articles are supposed to be kept or deleted. I haven't seen anyone express an WP:IDONTLIKEIT argument thus far, so I'm not sure where that's coming from. I delete (and nominate) plenty of articles, so don't think this one has been singled out. And you're always welcome to help sweep up other non-notable articles, too. MastCell Talk 22:31, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This is what concerns me more and more with regard to such AfDs. Technically, yes, the fact that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS should not affect our decision, but that should be true only if policies are enforced with consistency (i.e. avoiding double-standards, blind to WP:ILIKEIT or WP:IDONTLIKEIT). I see that you also concur that there are worst articles than this one that are maintained throughout WP, and I would hate to see WP:N used again to delete an article that, for some reason, looks like a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT for some people. --Childhood's End 20:23, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I understand your position - this is far from the worst article or least notable topic covered on Wikipedia. However, the unfortunate fact that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS doesn't really affect the decision to keep or delete this particular article, which should be based on notability criteria. MastCell Talk 16:16, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- keep — Responding to the comment above: Keeping an article simply because there are examples of other articles that are less-notable but still have articles isn't a reason to keep an article. I don't know the link to the Wikipedia policy at this time, but I read it recently because it came up in the discussion for another article's discussion for deletion. So, this article can't be kept for that reason. However, I think that it would be valid to compare the notability of this article to typical (i.e.: above the bottom) articles about episodes.
- I also think that the episode that this article documents should remain because it is an episode of a television series that receives international distribution, it is a significant departure from the normal format of episodes from this program, and it covers a currently-highly-debated topic.
- Additionally, I have a personal policy: If it has not been at least six months since the last nomination for deletion, I will automatically vote against the deletion. This comes from an article that I was interested in being nominated for deletion, but failed. It was nominated for deletion again less than a month later, which also failed. It was then nominated again less than a month later, which is why I made this personal policy. It also failed the third deletion, even without my vote, but I think that this is a good rule. If not for my rule, I would have voted against the deletion as per my reasoning in the previous two nominations, as with this article. But my rule will still apply if I think that the article should be deleted, I will vote against the deletion if it has been too soon. I am currently holding up a vote for renaming an article (that I want renamed) because it has been less than six months since it has been renamed.
- So, for good reason as well as my personal policy, I vote to keep this article. — Val42 16:09, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: If your main reason for arguing to keep the article is that it had a prior AfD a few months ago, I should mention that the AfD was closed as "no consensus", and therefore a repeat attempt to gauge consensus is reasonable. MastCell Talk 16:16, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment But the "no consensus" finding of the previous AfD was at best dubious. The first AfD was a clear Keep... --Childhood's End 20:26, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That's funny, I saw it as a pretty clear delete. Many of the "keep" !votes were along the lines of "it's notable because it was on TV". Even more relevant, a number of "keep" !votes were based on the idea that "it needs a bit more time", "keep for now", "keep and improve", etc. But you can't improve an article without sources. The fact that there's been no improvement, and no new useable sources, since the "no consensus" a few months ago is actually a very strong argument in favor of deletion. MastCell Talk 22:28, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: <assuming good faith missing of what I said>As I stated above, I have good reasons for keeping this article, though I won't repeat them because you can read them above. However, if this hadn't been the case, I would have voted against the delete because of my personal policy, created for reasons also stated above.</assuming good faith missing of what I said> — Val42 18:36, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Again, I am somewhat sympathetic in substance to your proposal. But the fact that there's been no improvement lately is hardly an argument (shows the article is accurate perhaps), and the fact that there's no new useable sources may just show that this is too soon to call again for a deletion. Give it plenty of time, then you'll have a better case for deletion imo. This is rushed. --Childhood's End 14:47, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That's funny, I saw it as a pretty clear delete. Many of the "keep" !votes were along the lines of "it's notable because it was on TV". Even more relevant, a number of "keep" !votes were based on the idea that "it needs a bit more time", "keep for now", "keep and improve", etc. But you can't improve an article without sources. The fact that there's been no improvement, and no new useable sources, since the "no consensus" a few months ago is actually a very strong argument in favor of deletion. MastCell Talk 22:28, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment But the "no consensus" finding of the previous AfD was at best dubious. The first AfD was a clear Keep... --Childhood's End 20:26, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: If your main reason for arguing to keep the article is that it had a prior AfD a few months ago, I should mention that the AfD was closed as "no consensus", and therefore a repeat attempt to gauge consensus is reasonable. MastCell Talk 16:16, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- delete this episode had a brief "hour of fame" (albeith not one that could be seen in ratings), amongst the sceptics. I haven't seen it referenced since. So: delete per nom. --Kim D. Petersen 18:29, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- delete nonnnotable. Mukadderat 04:15, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- keep too soon. (SEWilco 03:03, 23 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]
- Keep for now See my reasons above. --Childhood's End 14:49, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, "keep for now" was the sentiment at the last AfD months ago. There's been no improvement, no new sources to incorporate, and no evidence of notability to turn up, so I'm not sure what keeping it "for now" will accomplish. MastCell Talk 18:04, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It will show what it did not have time to show now; i.e. that it is not notable. That no new sources to incorporate occured in the last weeks is not reliable evidence. But if this is still the case in 6 or 12 months from now, then I'll be the first to support an AfD. Right now, you risk deleting an article about a topic that already got some coverage, and that might or might not get some more later on. --Childhood's End 19:51, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The show aired in May. It generated a small amount of buzz at the time in a handful of blogs and partisan venues, which rapidly died away. It finished last in its time slot in ratings. That was 5 months ago. It is not notable, and the chance of something non-trivial coming along 5 months after an hourlong bottom-rated episode aired is negligible. I don't see this AfD as "rushed", but if anything, overdue. MastCell Talk 22:31, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- In the (unlikely) event that significant coverage of the episode pops up later, the article can be recreated. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:10, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd likely agree with you if this was the first Afd but it is not. Standard procedure would be to wait longer after the first AfD, and I dont see why you feel so urgently the need to have this article deleted now instead of in a few months. This brings me back to my first comment about how loosely WP:N can be enforced depending on the case. I will say no more. --Childhood's End 13:54, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry, but you're incorrect on the basics here, as well as what constitutes "standard procedure". The prior AfD was not closed as keep - it was closed as "no consensus". In such a setting, the "standard procedure" I'm familiar with is to wait a few months, give the article and issues time to sort themselves out, and then try again to achieve a consensus to delete or keep. There is absoluetly nothing "urgent" or "rushed" or "loosely enforced" about this, and your implications not only show a misunderstanding of basic deletion policy but also seem designed to cast doubt on my motivations as the nominator, neither of which is helpful here. MastCell Talk 18:40, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Just as a precision here, I did not meant to cast any doubt whatsoever about your motivations. No doubt this is good-faithed. What I said is since WP:N is a policy that is not enforced with consistency (you admitted yourself that there are clearer cases of non-notability throughout WP), and since over this, this article already survived an AfD not so long ago, I think that we ought to wait before a new AfD. WP:N is a blurred policy which can open the way to many subjective calls, and if only for appearances or transparency, cutting this article under WP:N should wait some more time. --Childhood's End 03:44, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry, but you're incorrect on the basics here, as well as what constitutes "standard procedure". The prior AfD was not closed as keep - it was closed as "no consensus". In such a setting, the "standard procedure" I'm familiar with is to wait a few months, give the article and issues time to sort themselves out, and then try again to achieve a consensus to delete or keep. There is absoluetly nothing "urgent" or "rushed" or "loosely enforced" about this, and your implications not only show a misunderstanding of basic deletion policy but also seem designed to cast doubt on my motivations as the nominator, neither of which is helpful here. MastCell Talk 18:40, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The show aired in May. It generated a small amount of buzz at the time in a handful of blogs and partisan venues, which rapidly died away. It finished last in its time slot in ratings. That was 5 months ago. It is not notable, and the chance of something non-trivial coming along 5 months after an hourlong bottom-rated episode aired is negligible. I don't see this AfD as "rushed", but if anything, overdue. MastCell Talk 22:31, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It will show what it did not have time to show now; i.e. that it is not notable. That no new sources to incorporate occured in the last weeks is not reliable evidence. But if this is still the case in 6 or 12 months from now, then I'll be the first to support an AfD. Right now, you risk deleting an article about a topic that already got some coverage, and that might or might not get some more later on. --Childhood's End 19:51, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, "keep for now" was the sentiment at the last AfD months ago. There's been no improvement, no new sources to incorporate, and no evidence of notability to turn up, so I'm not sure what keeping it "for now" will accomplish. MastCell Talk 18:04, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- delete. not notable. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:32, 23 October 2007 (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. Hut 8.5 10:47, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Forever The Sickest Kids[edit]
- Forever The Sickest Kids (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Contested prod - rather than think of anything new, I'll recycle the prod reason:
Utterly non-notable band. I've cleaned out the worst vanispam & nonsense but this still appears totally unsalvageable; sole "sources" are two myspace pages. Grand total of one release. The only reason I haven't speedied this is the number of people who've worked on it. — iridescent 23:05, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
dont delete this! this band is amazing and if you ever listened to them youd know that. the 'nonsense' was written by the guys in the band and it was funny to anyone who doesnt have a stick up their ass, kthnx. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AIM=Jessisgrowlyface (talk • contribs) 21:51, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you should delete this. First of all, you don't know how big this band will get - they can release more CDs, contribute more musically and tour more. Also, this is one of the only pages on here that made me laugh. So, if not taking it on purely enducational purposes, at least it makes you laugh. This band has enough fans and some will come here, see this, and laugh. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.19.188.71 (talk) 22:04, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't even like this band, but I appreciate the entry. One of the great things about WIkipedia is that you can find artwork, tracklisting, or release dates for records by completely obscure bands. In either case, even though I had never heard of this band, they're on a major label, so it's not like they're some dopey local band that just wants their name on the internet. If a band has put out a record, whether self-released or through an independent label, I think it warrants a place on Wikipedia. The fact that this record was put out by a major ought to close any debate whatsover on the subject as it means that there are at least a couple thousand copies of this thing in circulation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.232.72.213 (talk) 13:40, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete barring any evidence that it meets criteria in Wikipedia:Notability (music). CDaniel 19:13, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - no reliable sources -- Whpq 20:38, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete unless sources establishing notability per WP:BAND are provided. Nuttah68 20:57, 22 October 2007 (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 redirect. W.marsh 15:21, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
O. R. Edgington Elementary[edit]
- O. R. Edgington Elementary (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Totally average elementary school, nothing to make it more notable than any other elementary school. Nyttend 22:56, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete <sarcasm>That's amazing! It's one of seven schools in a district!</sarcasm> Jonathan letters to the editor — things I've written 23:03, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Northmont City School District per WP:LOCAL. Yamaguchi先生 02:33, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect per WP:REDIRECT and old fashioned common sense. RFerreira 06:53, 23 October 2007 (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 keep no consensus to merge evident, but it can still be discussed without the need for an AFD. W.marsh 15:20, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Gaius Julius Caesar I[edit]
- Gaius Julius Caesar I (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Apparently non-notable ancestor of the famous Julius Caesar. Might merit a mention at the article on Julius Caesar, but probably doesn't need his own article. I would gladly withdraw this AFD if someone shows me Gaius is indeed notable and backs it up with history books or journals. Plinth molecular gathered 22:56, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep- he was the great-grandfather of Caesar, a senator in his own right. Given the size of the article (which could be expanded), I think it easily covers noteability.JJJ999 00:56, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete We can't have an article about every U. S. senator, much less Roman senators who died millenia ago. Cyclopediafixer 14:22, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment — It's stating the obvious, but Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. So I'd say we can have an article about every U.S. senator. This doesn't seem like a valid reason to delete. — RJH (talk) 15:42, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment We definitely can and should have an article on every current U. S. senator. Should we have an article on an 19th Century U. S. senator who always toed the party line in his votes and who never made the news outside of his state? That's the question I think Cyclopediafixer meant to ask. Robert Happelberg 23:23, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with Robert, United State senators are notable per WP:BIO per defalt, maybe he meant state politicians? Jbeach56 01:24, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I meant U. S. senators but in retrospect, per Jbeach56, my comment makes more sense for state senators. Though Bob Happ also makes a good analogy to past U. S. senators. Cyclopediafixer 02:32, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment — It's stating the obvious, but Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. So I'd say we can have an article about every U.S. senator. This doesn't seem like a valid reason to delete. — RJH (talk) 15:42, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, because it's a notable relative of one of history's most important figures and is important to Roman historians. Because Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia we can afford to allow for such articles. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 15:43, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. If we are talking about him more than 2000 years after he died, there is at least some evidence of notability. And yes, we certainly do or will have an article about every U.S. Senator. Newyorkbrad 16:01, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Brad's reasoning. Anyone seriously think anyone will be discussing Jim Moralés, Sigel (Oh My Goddess!), or Selénia at the dawn of the fifth millennium? --Jack Merridew 16:45, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep although I am not 100% confident of JJJ999's designation. Partly because of the copious reuse of names in Roman dynasties it can be difficult to determine which Gaius Julius Caesar (for example) is meant in a given reference. If we have a definitive source that he was a senator that should be added. It should also be noted that not all scholarly sources use designations such as "I", "II", etc. because the Romans themselves did not. --Dhartung | Talk 20:27, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep We include members of major legislative bodies of all periods and countries. the very core of our encyclopedia is information about such people as US senators.We have all back to 1789. DGG (talk) 22:29, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No assertion or evidence of notability. --Strothra 22:48, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Plinth said he'd be willing to withdraw this AFD if someone showed him the appropriate "history books or journals". Any takers on that offer? Robert Happelberg 23:23, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note I made a comment on User:Yannismarou talk page, if he can't rescue the article, then there isn't much notabilty. Jbeach56 01:29, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete article has existed for more than a year, wouldn't it be much better by now? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 00:50, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Julio-Claudian family tree for now until more info is found, I see no proof that he was a Roman Senator so I don't know how people got that assuption. And also, about brad reasoning, the romans, greeks, etc normally list the geneology of a famous person in their records, so I see nothing special about that. Jbeach56 01:29, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect per Jbeach. A one-sentence non-referenced article isn't worth keeping. Majoreditor 02:07, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply vis Proof- off the top of my head, I can't think of the souce, but I've done a course in Roman History, and in the absence of the time to go research it in the next few days I'd say the following:
- a) I'm basically sure it is correct.
- b) Nobody really seems to be disputing correctness
- c) It would have been astounding if he wasn't a senator, given the way the family dynasties operated, since pretty much everyone else related to him, including Caesar's other g-grandfather, and all their sons, were senators.
- So, off the top of my head, I can't tell you if it was Livy or Suetonious or whatever, and I'm too busy to go look right now, but I don't think anyone is questioning the validity in a serious way, and if kept we can give the page to the Roman experts who can fix it up.JJJ999 02:59, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Just expand. Sure it looks pathetic now, but it'll get better as most articles given time do Carter | Talk to me 10:27, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, or merge and redirect as per flawed nomination ("merit a mention at the article on Julius Caesar, but probably doesn't need his own article") --SmokeyJoe 10:34, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep but not because of the supposedly "flawed nomination." The nominator has shown a willingness to admit mistakes, something which clearly sets him apart from fanatical deletionists who will do anything to get stuff deleted, including evidence contrary to their assertions. I will look on GoogleScholar, confident that I will find something contrary to the nominator's assertion that this Roman fellow is indeed notable. Anton Mravcek 23:04, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Normally, I wouldn't care about the age of an article nominated for AFD. But consider also that in the year since its creation, it hasn't gone beyond stating Gaius I's place in the Caesar family tree. Nor has the threat of deletion spurred anyone to expand the article or add citations (something which sometimes happens with unfair AFD nominations). I do have to agree with Anton that it's good to see the nominator acknowledging the possibility he could be mistaken. The fact that no one has taken up his call to show him the appropriate books or journals shows that Gaius I is not notable. I looked him up on Google Scholar, too. I only got two results: C. Iuli Caesaris De bello gallico libri VII.: Caesar's Gallic war by Caesar & Kelsey, and an article by J. C. Arias. Cromulent Kwyjibo 00:17, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Newyorkbrad as an historically notable subject worthy of interest. Yamaguchi先生 02:35, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or Merge. Not given in Roman Aristocratic Parties and Families by Friedrich Münzer under his more famous great-grandson. The ancestry given for Julius the Dictator ends at the son of the subject of this article. It's safe to assume that he was a senator, but that just means he was one of 300 men, and possessed enough land/property to qualify for the Senate. Michael Grant doesn't mention him in his biography of Julius Caesar. Suetonius's biography of Julius Caesar is missing the section on Caesar's ancestry, so he's not mentioned there. Not mentioned in Livy's books on the war with Hannibal, and the early history of Rome by Livy ends in 386 BCE. No mention of Caesar's ancestry in Plutarch. Not sure there is anything out there to add to this article beyond the fact that he lived and was the Dictator's great-grandfather. Ealdgyth | Talk 04:20, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Julio-Claudian family tree. At this point the article only states the name of his father and son. Nothing that could not be included in the family tree. Dimadick 16:04, 20 October 2007 (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. W.marsh 15:19, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Concord Poetry Center[edit]
- Concord Poetry Center (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Fails WP:ORG. Non-notable local organization. SashaCall (Sign!)/(Talk!) 22:53, 17 October 2007 (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 Keep B1atv 17:12, 23 October 2007 (UTC) (non admin closure)[reply]
Encyclopedia Titanica[edit]
- Encyclopedia Titanica (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Contested prod. Original reason for prod was "Next to no content. Only serves to promote the website in question", which I still believe to be the case. The reason for contesting deletion was "Created to serve the incoming links", given by the article's creator, who mistakenly believed I had nominated it for speedy deletion. This doesn't seem to be a good enough reason for keeping the article, so have brought it to AfD. RFBailey 22:44, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: having looked it up on Google, I don't believe it passes WP:WEB. By all means use the site as an external link, but that doesn't mean we need an article about the site. --RFBailey 22:51, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I count 88 internal links to it. See here: [7] Which of the three criteria for deletion from WP:WEB are you quoting from? Please always cite which rule and not just the concept page. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 00:20, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Those 88 "internal links" are mostly citations: I'm not sure how they demonstrate notability.
- As for "which rules", I can't see that it satisfies any of the three:
- Apart from "this" (PDF)., I can't find any evidence of the site being the subject of multiple non-trivial published works;
- I can't see that it has won a well-known and independent award;
- It doesn't appear to be distributed via a medium which is both respected and independent of the creators either.
- --RFBailey 02:06, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Suggest Keeping While specialized, the website in question is a non-profit website with significant trafic and with scientific significance. I added some content to the wikipedia entry as well.Kevin Borland, Esq. 22:59, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep Although it's true that there are links to the Encylopedia Titanica in other Wikipedia articles, it's an example of the type of research tool that became feasible with high-speed internet, like Wikipedia, or imdb.com, or so many others. As Kborland correctly notes, it's non-profit, although that shouldn't be the criterion. Frankly, I'd like to see a category for web-based encyclopedias, whether they're privately edited (as in this case) or user-edited (as in the Wikipedia and other wikis that follow the same format). There's no such thing as too many research sites. Mandsford 01:20, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Yes, but do we need to have Wikipedia articles about all of them? --RFBailey 02:06, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Yes, if it is used 88 times in Wikipedia as a reference, it should have an article so people can judge the reliability of the site. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 02:48, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep- as a stub at least. Has reference merit.JJJ999 05:27, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep A thoroughly extensive website that has been covered in this article with ample reliable and verifiable sources to satisfy the Wikipedia:Notability standard. Alansohn 06:42, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep notable and verifiable information from reliable sources. Pedro : Chat 12:16, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The article can use work, but then again, most of them can. "Almost no content" in an article created less than 2 months ago isn't a valid argument for deletion, the article can and will grow. It's a very well referenced and documented site which IS the source for reliable Titanic information and its notability is growing and will continue to do so. Personally, I'd much rather see WP time taken in expanding these types of articles than discussing whether to get rid of them. Wildhartlivie 03:11, 23 October 2007 (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--JForget 23:35, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Iraq War Crimes[edit]
- Iraq War Crimes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Unreferenced article that breaches WP:SOAP. The article also breaches the spirit of WP:BLP in that it makes a series of allegations against living people without adequate sourcing to back them up. Sources are cited but not in a manner that would enable them to be easily checked.
The article also appears to me to be original research by synthesis, where a series of claims, linked are then used to support a further unsourced claim. Mattinbgn\talk 22:43, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Mattinbgn\talk 22:44, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete As per nom foreverDEAD 23:39, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Bollocks from beginning to end. Nick mallory 00:14, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Gist of the article-- Australia attacked Iraq two days before the deadline set in the 2003 ultimatum. Author argues that Australian prime minister, foreign minister and defense minister may have committed war crimes and that they lied. Sources are listed for statements, although author hasn't learned the < ref > and < /ref > form, quotes are taken from interviews. Looks argumentative, POV and beyond cleanup Mandsford 01:40, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. While a useful article could well be written on Iraq war crimes, it should be based on relevant tribunals rather than editors own opinions. Capitalistroadster 02:22, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- delete- hoax, or nonsense. Either way.JJJ999 05:26, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Completely original research and synthesis, this article argues views that, as far as I can tell, are completely ridiculous and not worth of mention in this encyclopedia. Pablo Talk | Contributions 07:55, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, Wikipedia isn't for your original research, and this article contradicts that. ~ Sebi [talk] 08:14, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Nicholas Perkins (T•C) 10:58, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Original research based soapboxing; even if it could be cleaned up and the opinions could be sourced (which I doubt could be done) it would still be essentially a POV fork of 2003 invasion of Iraq or similar. Iain99Balderdash and piffle 12:20, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Seems to not be very credible and unlikely. At the most, if it had credible sources and was worth an inclusion on Wikipedia, I would say to merge somewhere in Iraq War or 2003 invasion of Iraq. Kevin 14:40, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Hard delete - Unless an NPOV can be found, this can be in neither mainspace nor in userspace, so if the author chooses to userfy this, there it should be deleted forthwith as well per nom and per WP:SOAP.--WaltCip 03:53, 20 October 2007 (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 no consensus. See also the closing statement by Xoloz of the most recent Wikinfo AFD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikinfo (5th nomination), which I feel is closely related. W.marsh 15:17, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WikiChristian[edit]
- WikiChristian (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Article on same topic was prodded back in July. Only cites one independent source, the wikimedia list of largest wikis. Is being the 63rd largest wiki notable? I don't think so, and I'm not sure citing wikimedia falls under WP:RS. There is no other independent media coverage cited. No awards or recognitions. Fails WP:WEB. Andrew c [talk] 22:42, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I agree that it fails WP:WEB. Notable idea, and great and all, but not notable by standards here. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:44, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Like Marshall McLuhan once said, the medium is the message. Whether you realize it or not, you're living in the Golden Age of Wiki, an informational system that came about only after the technology was in place. Arguably, all of the offshoots of the original concept --- good, bad and ugly --- are notable without somebody taking a popularity survey. There's a lot more data storage involved in creating and maintaining a wiki- than posting a personal webpage, and their notablility grows in time. We're living through history and 90 percent of you aren't aware of it. Mandsford 01:51, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, so what does this explanation of your !vote have to do with our standards? --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 02:17, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete- Mansford votes to keep it, I think I'm going to die of not-surprise. Not one thing he said addresses notability.JJJ999 05:09, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Your delete rationale consists solely of an ad hominem attack on another contributor and is exceedingly unhelpful. Pablo Talk | Contributions 06:47, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Please, Jembot, don't die on account of me... :P Mandsford 15:07, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep- I think this is a valid article. There are plenty of other wikis (see List of wikis) that exist including A Million Penguins, WikiFur, International Music Score Library Project, Lostpedia, LyricWiki, Memory Alpha, Wookieepedia, ZineWiki, Wikia, Wiktionary, Scholarpedia, Wikibooks and so the list continues. So, why should the WikiChristian article be deleted? If it should, then for consistency, so should all of the others. --Graham Grove 13:25, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It is generally understood that "other crap exists" shouldn't be a valid deletion argument. I personally do not have control over all of wikipedia content, and I suggest that each article be discusses on it's own merit individually and in isolation. Saying that other wiki articles exist does not address my WP:WEB notability concerns regarding this specific article. -Andrew c [talk] 14:42, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Well, the other articles aren't crap, so good articles can indeed be written about notable wikis. This one is sufficiently well established to keep. DGG (talk) 22:34, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That other crap should go too, and if this is kept it is a condemnation of wikipedia. The people in favour have not one iota of merit to their arguments, they just like/are involved in the self aggrandising content. Ugh.JJJ999 05:20, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well some of those cited articles DO cite sources, and DO establish notability. I wouldn't mind keeping this article at all if it was at the same level as some of those other ones. That said, just because it is possible to write an article about a notable wiki and bring it up to wikipedia standards does not mean EVERY wiki qualifies. Like I said, each wiki needs to be examined individually, and no one has addressed the notability and sourcing issues of THIS particular wiki. If other users believe this article can be brought up to the same caliber as Lostpedia, which sites 25 sources, that sites multiple, independent sources such as businessweek.com, the St. Petersburg Times, wired.com, and ABC.com, has won awards like the Hugo Cup, been featured on Sci-Fi.com, etc, then I urge these editors to quickly mention the awards this wiki has won, and mention the multiple independent sources that confirm the notability of this wiki. If not, this individual wiki does not meet WP:WEB and should be deleted. Not every wiki is equal in notability.-Andrew c [talk] 14:33, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That other crap should go too, and if this is kept it is a condemnation of wikipedia. The people in favour have not one iota of merit to their arguments, they just like/are involved in the self aggrandising content. Ugh.JJJ999 05:20, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete due to the lack of reliable third party sources about this website. If others have the same problem they may be nominated for deletion as well. Yamaguchi先生 02:35, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete uinless independent reliable sources establishing notability per WP:WEB are provided. Nuttah68 21:06, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Biggest of its type, which alone makes it notable. Wikimedia is a WP:RS for stats. Bearian 23:58, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. No reliable and significant third party sources, a stats page doesn't cut it. So far as I can tell, none of the keep arguments are based in policy at all, and some of them practically quote arguments to avoid. RFerreira 06:33, 23 October 2007 (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. Hut 8.5 10:52, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Robert Kent Brewer[edit]
- Robert Kent Brewer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Article about pastor and writer was despeedied as asserting notability. Unless the connection with the Phoenix Lights incident conveys notability, I don't see how he meets WP:BIO. I don't see notability in the book offerings. Postmodernism: What You Should Know and Do About It ranked ~1,900,000 at Amazon UFOs: 7 Things You Should Know ranked ~1,800,000 at Amazon. There are many people of the same name. I did not see anything among Google web hits and Google news hits that would support meeting WP:V and WP:BIO. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 22:32, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Non-notable autobiography. UFOlogists are bad enough but evangelical UFOlogy seems distinctly unscientific to me. -- RHaworth 06:49, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete nn per WP:BIO. Carlossuarez46 04:08, 19 October 2007 (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 speedy deletion. --Ed (Edgar181) 12:29, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Underground tribal retro fusion punk techno christian blues[edit]
- Underground tribal retro fusion punk techno christian blues (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
I suspect this article is a rather silly hoax. Even if it is genuine, there are no independent sources asserting notability; in fact there are no sources at all. Name dropping of bands such as Operator Please does not suffice. Mattinbgn\talk 22:25, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Mattinbgn\talk 22:26, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as hoax. No sources, and a quick look turns up nothing at all. SilkTork *SilkyTalk 22:35, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: obvious hoax/joke. --RFBailey 23:45, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as unverifiable and probable hoax. Capitalistroadster 02:28, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete as an obvious hoax/joke and unverifiable. Probably acceptable for speedy deletion per CSD G1. Alexbrewer{talk} 02:30, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete- hoax, not even a funny one.JJJ999 05:28, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete as G1: nonsense. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 06:14, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete junk. JuJube 07:53, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, oh please. Obvious hoax, and shouldn't stay. ~ Sebi [talk] 08:14, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:HOAX. Funny though. ~ | twsx | talkcont | 09:00, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete, I'd tag it as G1. This is bad, bad, bad. TheLetterM 12:16, 18 October 2007 (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 Keep. Hut 8.5 10:55, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Jason Robertson[edit]
- Jason Robertson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
No real assertion of notability. Tossing for AFD instead of A7 speedy in case I am missing something. TexasAndroid 21:28, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete There may be more to this, there may not be. I found this, but I'm not 100% on how important this case was in the history of AIDS-related events. I'd be willing to hear other arguments.--Sethacus 21:59, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep A news search brings up quite a lot of results, and they're spread out over 1988, 1992, and 2003. They're nearly all pay-per-view, but this AP story claims that "Robertson's struggle made him a symbol of the fight against AIDS discrimination". He won a legal battle to be able to attend regular classes, and while he wasn't the first (that would seem to be Ryan White, whom he befriended), it looks like there's enough coverage to say his case was of enough significance to justify an article. Thomjakobsen 22:20, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletions. —Espresso Addict 22:24, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep, per news stories found by Thomjakobsen. He also has a brief obituary at The Body, one of the major HIV/AIDS patient sites: [8]. Espresso Addict 22:51, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as passing WP:BIO and per above sources found by others. Stub that can be improved and expanded. Bearian 13:56, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I'd like to see some more sources, but this guy seems to be relatively important. - Che Nuevara 20:48, 18 October 2007 (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. W.marsh 15:15, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Barry A. Johnson[edit]
- Barry A. Johnson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Can't see as notable, even though he was US Army Public Affairs officer in Iraq. There are several Google News archive hits, that I don't see as related to the Colonel. One related Google Web hit out of 47. Almost forgot. was deprodded February of 1996 without comment. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 21:24, 17 October 2007 (UTC) Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 21:24, 17 October 2007 (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. W.marsh 14:06, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neel Burton[edit]
Non-notable figure; autobiography; advertising Valproate 20:54, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:BIO and WP:SPAM. STORMTRACKER 94 21:25, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment He has apparently authored a medical textbook, Clinical Skills for OSCEs, used by medical students taking their practical exam and I am wondering if he is then likely to be notable in a similar way to Wikipedia:Notability (academics), Example one, An academic who has published [...] a widely used textbook [...] is likely to be notable as an author... --Malcolmxl5 21:29, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and stubify to remove spam. Meets with notability for academics, per above, and I highly suspect Psychiatry is a widely used textbook as well.--Sethacus 02:37, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- delete the books are not notable . Psychiatry is not a major textbooks: it's only 181 pages long ; appropriately, it is held by only 34 libraries out of the hundreds of medical schools. Clinical skills is in only 31. This is below the level for a widely used textbook. Writing elementary textbooks and review books for medical students is not significant authorship. This isn.t notable work in any subject, academic or popular. a writer of a whole series of widely used review books for exams--maybe; a writer of two little ones like this--nonsense. we shouldn't just "wonder" if someone is likely to be notable or "suspect" that something is a widely used textbook, we have sources for notability, like worldCat. DGG (talk) 04:08, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletions. —Espresso Addict 11:39, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep. Clinical Skills for OSCEs is ranked 33,530 at Amazon.co.uk [9] & Psychiatry is ranked 85,681 [10] and has received one or two independent reviews, which suggests that they are widely used textbooks, even if not widely held in medical libraries (DGG, is your library listing international?). Espresso Addict 22:29, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I use worldCat, it includes the UK universities & many elsewhere--the holdings listed for Clinical skills are 4 Canadian, 9 US, 7 UK/Ireland, 1 Europe other, 9 Asia/Africa/Australia. It's easy to tell, as if you enter where you are, they come out in order of the geographic distance from there --it does not include most public libraries outside the US and Canada, though, so wouldn't have been valid for an non-academic book of UK interest. DGG (talk) 16:15, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that there was a recent AfD where an Amazon ranking of 17,746 (for a book about as old as Clinical Skills) wasn't persuasive, though that was for the book rather than the author. --Groggy Dice T | C 17:29, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Espresso Addict 22:31, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KrakatoaKatie 21:16, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment (in response to Groggy Dice above). I'm not sure that Islam and Terrorism: What the Quran Really Teaches About Christianity, Violence and the Goals of the Islamic Jihad is a sufficiently similar type of book to act as a comparator. Espresso Addict 22:35, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The subject's sole claim to notability is to have written a popular course book. That would suggest the course book itself should be the topic for the article rather than the author. And for the book to be notable we would need reliable sources showing that the book has been significantly written about. WP:BK expressly forbids situations where "self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book", such as book sellers like Amazon. Also, as we all know, WP:BIG is not an argument to use in AfDs. Where is the claim to Neel Burton's notability - and where are the reliable sources to back up that claim? SilkTork *SilkyTalk 22:50, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- comment It would have been notable to write a really major textbook--it is another to write a less than 200 page "book" covering all of psychiatry and a exam review book--which is all he has accomplished. I'm sometimes partial to academics but this is below the bar. DGG (talk) 02:54, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep popular textbook--certainly we can't review its merits based on page length. JJL 13:38, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No independent secondary sources discuss the person or either of the books he has written. If the textbook is popular, please show evidence. (Amazon reviews are not sufficient) --SmokeyJoe 13:49, 25 October 2007 (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. W.marsh 15:14, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fireland (band)[edit]
- Fireland (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Fails to meet notability guidelines, and may very well be self-promotion. If a band of this fame is entitled an article then I can think of about 5000 other metal bands that qualify. (5000 is not an exaggeration, see metal-archives.com) Let it be noted if the band releases a few significant albums that it can be recreated, but as of now Fireland is non-notable and the page is self-promoting.-RiverHockey 21:09, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete- self promotion all right. Scrub it. Now.JJJ999 05:29, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, Wikipedia is not myspace.com. TheLetterM 12:30, 18 October 2007 (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. Having examined both sides of the argument presented, I've concluded that the strongest argument lies for closing this debate as "Delete". However, I have taken into account the "Merge" argument, and I believe it could (possibly) be an alternative to deletion, but not at this time. Anthøny ん 19:02, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sailboat 4 logo[edit]
- Sailboat 4 logo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Content fork. There's a proposal to merge it back with WTMJ-TV, but who's gonna search for that term? Exactly ONE hit on Yahoo--Wikipedia. Blueboy96 20:33, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, W.marsh 20:47, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge the fork back into the WTMJ-TV article. There is no reason for the fork. I am familiar with the television station and this logo. Royalbroil 04:04, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This is the first time I noticed this, and I agree that this isn't needed as the main WTMJ-TV article covers it well enough. The term in the title isn't used casually at all. Nate 06:21, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as completely non-notable, no Ghits, no references, not currently in use, no evidence it would be useful for searches nor outcomes, and appears to be spam. Bearian 01:24, 24 October 2007 (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. W.marsh 15:14, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
THIS ARTICLE WIL NOT BE DELETED
- 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. W.marsh 15:13, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
SingSing[edit]
Band that fails to establish notability; article doesn't even mention if they had an album or not. Wizardman 19:03, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The claims in the article with respect to touring would be sufficient under WP:BAND if some citations can be found. Bondegezou 14:11, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, W.marsh 20:44, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing but OR claims of notability with no independent citations to be found. Cap'n Walker 14:31, 18 October 2007 (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 keep. 10 days and no one agrees with me, I think that's a consensus. Wizardman 15:47, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Parc Omega[edit]
Does not appear to be notable, though it may be if sources are added in. Wizardman 19:02, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep as a possibly notable, but very real place. Independent sources can be added later. Bearian 23:22, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, W.marsh 20:42, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Google gives over 23,000 hits; I'm sure there's something useful in there that could be used for a source. It might have to be trimmed a bit, though. GlassCobra 21:36, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletions. --Gavin Collins 00:13, 21 October 2007 (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 result was speedy deleted by The undertow (talk · contribs) as spam. Non-admin closure. --Dhartung | Talk 03:56, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Nodongle[edit]WP:SPAM No independent sources establishing this software's notability Cap'n Walker 20:25, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Anthøny ん 18:57, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Sacramento County Public Law Library[edit]
The result was delete. W.marsh 15:12, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] University of Windsor Baja[edit]
Possibly nn team - suggest merge to University of Windsor or delete. Probable WP:COI: main contributor is User:UWBaja Written like an ad and in a non encyclopedic manner. (excessive use of < br / >, uses terms like "our", "we".) Update: User:UWBaja removed COI and wikify tags from article. OSbornarfcontributionatoration 03:20, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Update: Cleaned up most of the COI/non wiki formated stuff, now just NN. OSbornarfcontributionatoration 21:39, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep and Rename to CALPHAD (method) B1atv 17:21, 23 October 2007 (UTC) (non admin closure)[reply] Calculation of phase diagrams[edit]
Unwanted fork of the phase diagram article. (Note. There is an academic journal called CALPHAD which has been on the wanted articles list (as Calphad) for a long time. However despite my advice, the author of this article does not seem to want to create an article about the journal.) -- RHaworth 19:22, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. W.marsh 15:07, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Evergreening[edit]Cotested prod. A dic def with no scope for referenced expansion Nuttah68 19:21, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete--JForget 23:38, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Wolfboo[edit]Fails WP:N; a Google search turns up no relevant hits, and the article has no references. Most likely is something made up in school. --TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 19:12, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. W.marsh 15:06, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Sandy Walkington[edit]
Contested speedy and prod. A non notable local politician who may one day have a chance at notability if they win an election. Nuttah68 19:12, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep--JForget 23:40, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Elsie Ivancich Dunin[edit]AfDs for this article:
Delete. Fails WP:PROFTEST and just not notable. Eventhough there are a large number of publications by this individual, there is no evidence that this individual has made a notable or important substantive contribution to their field - quality over quantity. Strothra 19:10, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. 14 days and no objections... if anyone does have a good argument against deletion, let me know on my talk page. W.marsh 15:06, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Swathi Music Festival[edit]
festival that really does not assert notability, but I did not feel it suitable for CSD Phgao 13:04, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
|