Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 July 22
The result was Bizarre adventure. The AfD is being closed many years later, because it was never properly closed back then, because it was never visible, because it was never transcluded on any of the daily logpages. Technically, it has still been open this whole time.
Nobody else could ever be admitted here, because this door was made only for you. I am now going to shut it. jp×g 22:53, 17 October 2022 (UTC)(non-admin closure)[reply]
Crusties[edit]
- Crusties (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Why would you delete this page? How does that fit the policy? Silverwood (talk) 13:05, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 October 17. —cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online 22:52, 17 October 2022 (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. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 16:17, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome To The Darkside[edit]
- Welcome To The Darkside (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
EP album from an artist whose article (R.O.C. (rapper) was voted unanimously to be deleted. EP thus is not notable per WP:ALBUM JForget 23:58, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Albums. Esradekan Gibb "Talk" 01:20, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
G6 I think this would be a non-controversial maintenance speedy deletion. Consensus has already shown that the band isn't notable in any way, so the album is clearly non-notable as well — there's no point in dragging this out for the full five days. 04:26, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Well, that's dumb. Why not just snowball this anyway. It clearly doesn't need the full five day spell, it's just a non-notable album by a clearly non-notable act. Ten Pound
HammerFarfel and his otters • (Broken clamshells• Otter chirps) 05:06, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply] - Delete per the nominator, it doesn't need to be speedily deleted but either way it does not meet WP:ALBUM or any other applicable guideline. JBsupreme (talk) 04:59, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete fails WP:N and WP:V. Jasynnash2 (talk) 08:50, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above. Artene50 (talk) 09:53, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per reasons above. Seddσn talk Editor Review 21:00, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above reasoning. LuciferMorgan (talk) 15:32, 24 July 2008 (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. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 16:18, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Before the Rains[edit]
- Before the Rains (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Contested PROD. Original reason was, "Article lacks sufficient Attribution for Verifiability of the WP:MOVIE notability criteria." SchuminWeb (Talk) 23:52, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep although I agree there is no assertion of notability in the article itself and having an IMDB entry as the only reference is ridiculous a simple Gsearch provides thisfrom the New York Times and from its LA twin. Jasynnash2 (talk) 08:54, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:39, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Easy Keep. With the NYT article above and an abundance of reviews at Rotten Tomatoes, notability seems easily satisfied. PC78 (talk) 18:48, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Suggest a re-prod asking for expansion and cites. No need to delete. Michael Q. Schmidt (talk) 03:26, 26 July 2008 (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. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 16:21, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
1/4 inch[edit]
- 1/4 inch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Fails to meet WP:N and verifiability (one search engine hit). Fleetflame 23:48, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete A Google search here turns up no hits which specifically connect the music article topic to Australia. Non notable at present and no reliable sources. Artene50 (talk) 09:51, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:40, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The author has failed to prove notability for this monthly get-together/meet-up in Wollongong. --Lester 21:14, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - notability not asserted - no independent references provided. (edit conflict) --Matilda talk 21:16, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No claim to notability and no citation or reference to support the article. Article relies on original research Dolphin51 (talk) 06:25, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Sounds like nothing more than an open mike night. WWGB (talk) 12:49, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete unsourced directory entry, no assertion od importance. Guy (Help!) 21:49, 26 July 2008 (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. PhilKnight (talk) 22:37, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Frenzy (World of Darkness)[edit]
- Frenzy (World of Darkness) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This article is nothing more than regurgitation of plot summary and game rules with no reliable sources given to demonstrate notability. I don't think there is any relevant content to be merged into another article. The "real world parallels" section, while seemingly logical, borders on original research with no references to support the statements made there. --Craw-daddy | T | 23:41, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. —--Craw-daddy | T | 23:41, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I would normally say redirect, but for this particular article I'm not sure there is really anything substantial and specific enough to redirect. DGG (talk) 23:58, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete lacks relevant and/or notable content. --Stormbay (talk) 02:22, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete even as a fan of the game I can't see why this particular game mechanic/state of being is notable enough for it's own article. Anything someone needs to know about this is covered in the primary source stuff. A brief mention in a relevant article about "loss of control", "blood rage", etc is all that is remotely needed. Jasynnash2 (talk) 08:57, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Vampire (World of Darkness). Not notable as an article of it's own, but still a well-known term within the games. Key elements of the article can be added to that article. --Jhattara (Talk · Contrib) 09:06, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Apparently, in WOD, a frenzy is when a vampire becomes frenzied! No reason we need this article on a game term that is roughly the same as the common English usage. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:13, 27 July 2008 (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. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 16:29, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Jahanara Foundation[edit]
- Jahanara Foundation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
No apparent notability. Speedy declined, so here we are. AndrewHowse (talk) 13:36, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. - House of Scandal (talk) 14:32, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:44, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Searches do not indicate sufficient notability. --Stormbay (talk) 02:20, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No third party sources. A website that fills the 'Mission Statement' boxes with weasel and wishful. No verifiable activity or program reports, no annual report, no Charity Commission application. Quite probably entirely legit but fails WP:ORG utterly. Plutonium27 (talk) 02:26, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete no assertion of notability within the article (that I can find), Ghits and GNews (all dates) provide bupkiss so probably fails WP:N and WP:V as well. Jasynnash2 (talk) 09:03, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:26, 24 July 2008 (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 Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 16:31, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Odd pop[edit]
- Odd pop (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
subject lacks any claims of notability. At best it is a neologism but there isnt really enough sources for even that. Seem to be entirely based on a joke made on a comedy show. neon white talk 15:35, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- delete - per WP:MADEUP. LonelyBeacon (talk) 20:12, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I think WP:MADEUP only applies to things made up by editors, this article is based on a brief convo in a comedy show and lacks secondary sources. --neon white talk 15:55, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You are correct, though I have always interpreted it to go beyond just a potential editor .... the policy states "freinds" also ... which I tend to interpret more loosely than I should at times. Based on the MySpace reference, I inferred that this article was written by a band member or someone cloasely associated with the band. LonelyBeacon (talk) 16:51, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:43, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article lacks useful context and lacks importance. --Stormbay (talk) 02:26, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - as a genre of music, it has not received coverage in reliable sources -- Whpq (talk) 16:06, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:26, 24 July 2008 (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 , though no valid target was suggested. I am redirecting to List of angels, further redirects and/or mergers are left to editorial decision. lifebaka (talk - contribs) 14:14, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Aristaqis[edit]
- Aristaqis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Mythological creature that fails WP:V. The article is unsourced since its inception in 2005 (and is entirely written in an in-universe style, to borrow a phrase frequently used in fiction AfDs). No on-topic search results. The sole Google Books search result seems to indicate that an angel of that name is mentioned (by name only) in the Book of Enoch, but that one mention doesn't support the content in this article. Sandstein 17:12, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I could see an article on fallen angels (provided it is reliably sourced, but as is, it is not notable. LonelyBeacon (talk) 19:59, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]- Redirect as above--same reasoning. I actually think we could find sufficient older printed literature, but I'm not able or willing to do it myself now. DGG (talk) 03:26, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:40, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect - to List of Fallen Angels. LonelyBeacon (talk) 00:17, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect Not enough information for a specific article on one angel. Artene50 (talk) 09:55, 23 July 2008 (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 , though this assumes the addition of more sources to the article. lifebaka (talk - contribs) 14:19, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Apollo Smile[edit]
- Apollo Smile (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable individual known only to attendees of various fan 'cons'. No refs, links to apparently orphan website. This appears to be a neglected vanity or cruftisment article. Prod tag removed by an ip so here we are Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 18:52, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep - barely notable but on the keep side of the notability bar. There is this review of her, and a minor bit here. -- Whpq (talk) 17:29, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not convinced - the first is a website and the second a student newspaper. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 21:08, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There's additional coverage that is hidden behind pay walls. " Apollo Smile, a New York-based actress and singer, says another advantage of Internet celeb status is that it's easier to keep your integrity intact. ... " from [1] which appears to be part of an overall piece on internet celebrities. Taken in whole with the voice acting and whatnot, it scrapes by. -- Whpq (talk) 21:15, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not convinced - the first is a website and the second a student newspaper. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 21:08, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- Ned Scott 03:04, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep - hardly notable... But with more sources... CindyAbout/T/P/C/ 03:24, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:40, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Restate Delete all the sources that have and can be dug up are not about her - she is mentioned in passing. This doesn't satisfy WP:BIO in my view. Added to this are my earlier comments. I suspect that the distinct lack of interest both in the article an in this AfD suggest lack of notability although that is just a comment rather than an argument. As a final note it does seem hard for somone to be an "internet celebrity" without a website. Ms Smile's no longer exists and according to the wayback macine stopped being updated in 2004. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 18:14, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - the lack of participation in the AFD is only indicative of the lack of participation in the AFD. I've seen AFDs relisted which have resulted in Keep, and I've seen AFDs relisted which have resulted in Delete. As for her website no longer being there, it is likely due to the fact that she is no longer promoting herself as the live action anime girl. But notability doesn't disapear over time so her current status is not relevant to notability. If you look at her activity in total, she scrapers by. There is coverage of her although a bit skimpy on her anime girl persona. As a musician, she has also had her song Thunderbox on the Days of Thunder soundtrack which arguably passes WP:MUSIC. So when taken in total, it clears the notability bar. Barely, but still above it rather than below it. -- Whpq (talk) 19:07, 24 July 2008 (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. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 17:00, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
S3M[edit]
S3M is a commercial venture rather than an independently recognized software development model or standard. This article appears to be a form of advertisement for the company and associated web pages with no independently sourced references from appropriate standards bodies. The cross-references with standards such as CMMI have been recently included and are also inappropriate. If S3M was worthy of mention it would be on a list of consultancies which specialize in software development and operational standards.—Ashleyvh (talk) 07:29, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - If the CSD category existed, this article would surely be under 'Software which fails to assert the importance or significance of the subject' Article contains no mention of why it is notable and there are no reliable sources to ensure verifiability - Toon05 00:07, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It is clearly a bogus commercial entry. The owner has created it, and then carefully and slowly added references to it in other articles over a period of time, and persists in doing so. It should be deleted. 78.110.168.138 (talk) 11:54, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - We are using the maturity model in Freescale USA and it has been published by Dr April and Dr Abran two reputable Ph.d. of Canada. The model is available Free online and was published in a 2008 Wiley-IEEE book, and Wiley is a reputable source. I vote to keep so that it continues to be available to all. 09:00, 18 July 2008 (UTC) - C.Milam - Freescale USA.
- I note that the above keep comment was from User_talk:66.131.80.237 please refer to WP:SOCK before making any further bogus edits on this page.—Ashleyvh (talk) 23:21, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It would be helpful if you could address the issue of no independently sourced references. The ISBN and page references for the book you mention and a reference and date for the publication by April and Abran would seem appropriate.—Ashleyvh (talk) 23:11, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Caroline informed me on the attack on the S3M maturity model. I lead the Spice User Group (ISO15504) and we have a proposal for a small software maintenance maturity model. This is both pertinent and valuable for the community. A.Dorling - Future of Spice standard. 13:00, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
- I note that the above keep comment was from User_talk:66.131.80.237 please refer to WP:SOCK before making any further bogus edits on this page.—Ashleyvh (talk) 23:21, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If the model is at proposal stage and is unpublished then Wikipedia:No original research would make it a clear candidate for removal from Wikipedia.—Ashleyvh (talk) 23:11, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - First of all, this is not a vote, it is decided on strength of arguaments determining consensus. Your subject doesn't appear to meet any of our notability guidelines requiring significant coverage from reliable sources to ensure verifiability. As developer of the product, you also have significant conflict of interest with regard to the product. As a general rule, if your product is notable enough, someone without a vested interest will create an article about it.
Also, calling this an "attack" on the subject is being overly dramatic, this is simply a process to determine if an article meets policy and guidelines for inclusion. - Toon05 17:50, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply] - Comment - It should be noted that a clone of S3M appeared, as a new page Software Maintenance Maturity Model, presumably generated by one of the sock-puppets of the original author. That doesn't seem a particularly responsible response to the discussion on the pros and cons of deletion. The new page has subsequently been redirected to S3M pending the outcome of this discussion. David Biddulph (talk) 11:53, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that the likely sock-puppet is User_talk:Dr.Pigosky and the account has been reported for breaching the username policy for real names. I don't have much experience in following the sock puppet reporting process, so would appreciate help in identifying any further abuses by this user under bogus accounts.—Ashleyvh (talk) 15:09, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:35, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete My research does not show anything of importance on the subject and it appears non notable. --Stormbay (talk) 02:31, 23 July 2008 (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 delete by Craigy144 . Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer Farfel and his otters • (Broken clamshells• Otter chirps) 02:38, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cody W Martin Radio Show[edit]
- Cody W Martin Radio Show (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Gsearch reveals trivial or self-referential hits, limited notability, advertising, COI Madcoverboy (talk) 23:30, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. -- Madcoverboy (talk) 23:31, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- Madcoverboy (talk) 23:32, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Not really sure if this falls under WP:CORP, but it would fail it if it did. May also fall under CSDs A1, A7, and G11. Fleetflame 23:34, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is the problem that i have created a page about myself/ Becaseu I will have someone else creat the page if necessary. I have a webpage and a radio show..What more is needed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Codywmartin (talk • contribs) 23:45, 22 July 2008 (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. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 03:36, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mobile pedestal[edit]
- Mobile pedestal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
per WP:NOTDICDEF Arx Fortis (talk) 04:56, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: WP:NOTDICDEF does not really apply to this, as the article includes significantly more than a dictionary definition. Also, dicdefs should be expanded, if possible, not deleted. However, this article has no sources and the notability is questionable.--Mars2035 (talk) 05:13, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I may not be a disinterested party, since I wrote this article - but what sources would be acceptable? I could probably find a number of commercial web sites of manufacturers of this item that refer to it, depict it, or describe it - but I seem to recall reading that commercial web sites are questionable as sources. Would that suffice? It might be difficult to find a source other than that - some things just don't get written about much, but may nonetheless be factual. As to notability: well, how do you decide what's notable? This is definitely a known and quite common item in the storage/furniture field, and notable doesn't necessarily seem to mean "well-known to people generally". I may not be entirely disinterested - but I don't see grounds for deleting this article. M.J.E. (talk) 17:03, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to filing cabinet since it is a small filing cabinet with wheels. -- Whpq (talk) 14:35, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:26, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per above: I'll do it if nobody else does it soon. Bearian (talk) 17:56, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - this is purely a dicdef, but the term may be unfamiliar, as it sounds like British usage. As noted above, it's just a wheeled storage cart, and they're made out of all sorts of materials. Therefore I don't think there's any value in a merge. MSJapan (talk) 20:34, 28 July 2008 (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. BJTalk 02:33, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Global H2O Resources[edit]
- Global H2O Resources (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Article about a company that shows no evidence of meeting our criteria for notability of companies Gwernol 13:13, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- WilliamH (talk) 14:14, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Only incidental coverage in a Japanese newspaper as far as media, google provides some press releases. Search on Lexis brought one incidental mention in a law review article. Nowhere close to criteria which requires significant coverage in secondary sources. Ray Yang (talk) 21:42, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. There are 19 Google Books listings for the company under its previous name, Global Water Corporation. Proof that it was previously known under this name can be found in this SEC filing. Gr1st (talk) 15:41, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep now.I've added one of Gr1st's sources to the article. Seems to establish its notability. Still just a very stubby stub, of course. AndyJones (talk) 19:00, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]- I've been trying to find out why there's very little information on the company at present (no website, for example). The most recent mention I can find of Global H2O is in this Christian Science Monitor article at the tail end of 2004, which seems rather odd since water has become something of a hot topic lately. A bit of digging finds that the company was acquired by one Nordic American, Inc. in September 04. Nordic American then changed its name to Stark Beneficial, Inc. in February 2008. They don't appear to have a website either. They do, however, have shares on the Pink Sheets which are classed as "caveat emptor" or "toxic", the suggestion being that they have failed to provide adequate current information about themselves. The whole thing's incredibly murky, which presents us with another problem besides notability - we really have no way of knowing whether this company is still in existence or not. Gr1st (talk) 19:43, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:25, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Changing to Delete in view of Gr1st's comments. Even though there is evidence of notability, if we're struggling to source basic facts such as the corporation's continued existence, I think it is better that it is deleted. That's without prejudice to recreation at a later date, though, if better sources are available. AndyJones (talk) 07:57, 23 July 2008 (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. Sandstein 17:48, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Physical appearance, health and diet of Michael Jackson[edit]
- Physical appearance, health and diet of Michael Jackson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Controversial and POV Craigy (talk) 23:07, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE TO CLOSING ADMIN: As of this version of the Michael Jackson WP:FA review. When all/the vast majority of this content was in the Jackson article, it had 5 supports and 0 opposes for passing FA. Reviewers concluded that the article (which included this info) was neutral, reliable, well written and two of the supporters belief it to be better than the "Britannica" version. This content has already gone through an extentive review by some of wikipedias best article builders and source checkers and it was endorsed. Some of the content was removed to trim the Jackson article not because it was of poor quality. Note, the deletion nomination was made just 8 minutes after I set up the article. That was insufficient time for the nominater to read the article, check the sources, do their own research or check my history. The deletion nomination was made on the grounds that it is "controversial and pov". FA reviewers has already determined it to be neutral and wikipedia is not censored to avoid controversy. There are books and pictures of Jackson's vitiligo, Jackson himself has admitted he has vitiligo. He has also spoken openly about his drug addiction. We are not exposing some forgotten, hidden secret that could result in us being sued. Jackson has been quite open about these controversies so there is no issue with "Human digity". Also as I don't have an anti Jackson agenda I don't intend on writing nasty untruths about him. The article has also been listed as "High" on the importance scale of the Michael Jackson Wikiproject (by another editor). I agree to move the article to Health of Michael Jackson or Michael Jackson's health and make any alterations needed to comply with that title. There has also been suggestion that the article isn't needed because there isn't that much new info here, comments to that direction fail to realize that I fully intend to expand the article with the number of books I own on the subject. The article could reach approximately double this size according to my written plan. There will be lots of new info arriving (after I get this darn FA review out the way) so it is worth a new article. — Realist2 (Speak) 00:44, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE TO EDITORS: There has now been a consensus that if the article does stay, it should be called Health of Michael Jackson or Michael Jackson's health. I am therefore writing and still adding to the article content according to these favored titles. — Realist2 (Speak) 07:30, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- STRONG KEEP - You do not sensor wikipedia because something is controversial! The article is well sourced!! A large amount of the material is from the Michael Jackson article which is on its way to passing it's FA review. The content is well sourced and is accurate. I needed to build a sub article because the main Jackson article needed trimming to pass it's FA review. All sourced, all accurate. You tagged the article within 3 minutes which leads me to believe you didn't even read the article. Take YOUR biases elsewhere. Oh, by the way it is me who is getting the Michael Jackson article to featured statues, I probably know more on the subject than anyone on wikipedia. If the article is deleted I will need to readd a lot of this to the main article which could cause it to fail. — Realist2 (Speak) 23:12, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, that wasn't too arrogant, was it? As for the article - random trivia on the edge of WP:BLP violations. Put the little that is encyclopedic back in main article and dump the rest. Delete. Wheelchair Epidemic (talk) 23:17, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm what BLP violations are those? — Realist2 (Speak) 23:18, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Uh, the whole article, practically all sourced from two books? I could argue that it hardly has any reliable sources. Wheelchair Epidemic (talk) 23:20, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- How can you argue that when the Taraborrelli book is the most acclaimed book ever written on the subject? — Realist2 (Speak) 23:22, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't hold any affection for Jackson, but you know as well as I that Taraborrelli's book (especially the later edition) was not exactly acclaimed for its attention to detail. Wheelchair Epidemic (talk) 23:29, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The latter version was released in 2004, all the stuff I have used in this article is the exact same info found in the 1991 edition. All the vitiligo and surgery stuff is the same in the 1991 edition (which was very acclaimed) and the 2004 edition, he didn't go back and rewrite the early chapters!! All the info used here is from when he was writing at his peak. Regardless, even the 2004 edition is way way way better than most books on Jackson. The article has some of the best sources available. Your reissue criticism doesn't hold water because the info used was written way before the reissue. — Realist2 (Speak) 23:35, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't hold any affection for Jackson, but you know as well as I that Taraborrelli's book (especially the later edition) was not exactly acclaimed for its attention to detail. Wheelchair Epidemic (talk) 23:29, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- How can you argue that when the Taraborrelli book is the most acclaimed book ever written on the subject? — Realist2 (Speak) 23:22, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Uh, the whole article, practically all sourced from two books? I could argue that it hardly has any reliable sources. Wheelchair Epidemic (talk) 23:20, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm what BLP violations are those? — Realist2 (Speak) 23:18, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, that wasn't too arrogant, was it? As for the article - random trivia on the edge of WP:BLP violations. Put the little that is encyclopedic back in main article and dump the rest. Delete. Wheelchair Epidemic (talk) 23:17, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- STRONG KEEP: Those source are without a doubt THE most reliable on the subject. Considering all the tabloid rumors about Jackson's health concerns, the main bio article and this sub-article are as factually accurate as possible. As far as BLP concerns, the article makes a serious attempt to give neutral, unbiased representation of documented facts and IMO does not violate basic human dignity or make any attempt to mock Jackson. The information is FA quality as it is a direct cut and paste from the main article and was only removed due to size issues, as were other facets of the article. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 23:38, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I have to say that the article is well-sourced and encyclopedic (though it could be improved to be less narrative). What about moving it to Michael Jackson's image? - Richard Cavell (talk) 23:44, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Either that or Health concerns of Michael Jackson. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 23:48, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Futher Comment: I have no objections to renaming it, however I tryly believe this deletion preposal was either made in bad faith or without knowledge or understanding of the content or strengh of the sources. The fact that people were/are supporting the Michael Jackson article going to FA with this info included speaks volumes. The FA review has concluded that some of these sources are the best of the best. The Jackson article has been praised for it's neutrality, accuracy and sources. Please read the Michael Jackson review to see what others think of its neutality before deleting. This info wasn't removed because it was bad, it was removed because there was so much. I fully intend to extend it and nominate it for GA at some point. — Realist2 (Speak) 00:02, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- STRONG KEEP. Article is well written and encyclopedic. Written using two books. Nom'ing Wikipedian questioning reliability of latest edition of one source of the article but material was in original acclaimed version. Additionally said wikipedian's argument on reliability is very flim flam, subjective and opinion, not based on anything substantial or objective. --Manboobies (talk) 01:22, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep The article has good refs and is encyclopedic. Although the title should be a little shorter.--Xp54321 (Hello! • Contribs) 01:55, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep — The article should be watched (and possibly protected; it looks like a great article for vandals). It deserves a keep. It is well referenced, most of the material can be seen here, and it is certainly notable. Leonard(Bloom) 02:01, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The article will always be on my watchlist, I edit for hours a day, I can easily keep it clean, with or without semi protection, I invite others to watchlist it too. — Realist2 (Speak) 02:03, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I should of put this in my post, but it should also be moved. Health concerns of Micheal Jackson sounds good. Leonard(Bloom) 02:05, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- What about just Health of Michael Jackson, his surgery has affected his heath physically (it actually improved his breathing but did have some negative affects) so it would be a health related issue but wouldn't be a "concern" as such. I think my suggestion allows for great inclusion of various info, whereas you heading is quite restrictive on any future inclusions I make. I also think my heading is a little more neutral if we avoid the word "concern". — Realist2 (Speak) 02:13, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Health of Micheal Jackson would work. As long as the title changes from your original title (which was long and bulky) I'm fine. Leonard(Bloom) 02:19, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I have the article watchlisted as well. I'm also highly active on Wikipedia. I agree with "Health of Michael Jackson". The current title is too long.--Xp54321 (Hello! • Contribs) 03:12, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- What about Michael Jackson's health? I think that his name should be the first part of the title. Also, it would appear when someone types 'Michael Jackson' or part thereof in a search box. Google might give it priority too. - Richard Cavell (talk) 05:03, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I have the article watchlisted as well. I'm also highly active on Wikipedia. I agree with "Health of Michael Jackson". The current title is too long.--Xp54321 (Hello! • Contribs) 03:12, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Health of Micheal Jackson would work. As long as the title changes from your original title (which was long and bulky) I'm fine. Leonard(Bloom) 02:19, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- What about just Health of Michael Jackson, his surgery has affected his heath physically (it actually improved his breathing but did have some negative affects) so it would be a health related issue but wouldn't be a "concern" as such. I think my suggestion allows for great inclusion of various info, whereas you heading is quite restrictive on any future inclusions I make. I also think my heading is a little more neutral if we avoid the word "concern". — Realist2 (Speak) 02:13, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I should of put this in my post, but it should also be moved. Health concerns of Micheal Jackson sounds good. Leonard(Bloom) 02:05, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The article will always be on my watchlist, I edit for hours a day, I can easily keep it clean, with or without semi protection, I invite others to watchlist it too. — Realist2 (Speak) 02:03, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge/redirect Most of these details are already covered in Michael Jackson adequately. WesleyDodds (talk) 05:17, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep but rename It's probably a worthwhile article, but the article title is ridiculous. JuJube (talk) 05:22, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep/Rename - Sorry, we don't delete articles just because they are controversial or POV. If there is some POV, then fix it, don't delete it. Subject is certainly notable, and reliable sources have been used. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 08:03, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Well referenced and no POV that I can see. Perfectly fine to have it as a separate article as the main Jackson article getting a bit large. Pawnkingthree (talk) 08:23, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This was already split off from a potential FA because of size issues, and it is still good encyclopedic information that is well-referenced. Gary King (talk) 17:42, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. If the problem was controversial and POV, it should have been rewritten more neutrally. But there seems to be no problem at all. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 21:03, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep because there is plenty of context to justify this article, as Jackson's health has been a topic of much media discussion as the article even points out. Rename also to "Health of Michael Jackson" for clarity as well. I'm glancing through this article & the main jackson article and agree that if this were completely merged then the Jackson article would go obese again.--Andrewlp1991 (talk) 03:44, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Too much detail for the main article, but a topic that has been the subject of much discussion and fascination. Most people don't merit an article on their appearance and health, but Michael Jackson is a special case. There are no POV or BLP issues that I see, but even if there were, that is a matter for cleanup, not deletion. Mangostar (talk) 00:30, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep but change the utterly ridiculous name. Well-sourced, but might go into too much detail. Is worthy of cleanup but not deletion. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 17:47, 26 July 2008 (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 per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:V Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 17:31, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Carter 4[edit]
- Carter 4 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Wikipedia is not a Crystal Ball, been prod'd but person who's adding the un-sourced 'leaked' tracklist removed it. There is no reliable source anywhere that officially lists this album as existing it is all speculation. Q T C 22:50, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Previously existed and AFD'd as Tha_Carter_IV, so might qualify as {{csd-g4}}. Q T C 22:52, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete CSD#G4. Shapiros10 contact meMy work 22:56, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I have boldly reverted back to a version of the article with some content. While OverlordQ was preparing the AfD, another editor (but not the page's creator) essentially blanked the page.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:31, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:31, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete. Not the first time someone tried to put up false information about the tracks on the album. An IP Address put up false information of the album on the producers' articles that claim to appear on the album. --Esanchez(Talk 2 me or Sign here) 02:00, 27 July 2008 (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. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 17:34, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Amway Children Charity Foundation[edit]
- Amway Children Charity Foundation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
The article is essentially a press release by Amway about spam emails about a bogus charity scheme circulating on the net which falsely involve the company's name. No other source to establish notability of the topic. Knverma (talk) 22:19, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If independant WP:Reliable sources can be found to prove this scam and its impact, it could warrant a redirect and a couple of lines in the Amway article. This is NOT to be interpreted as a keep, as the article is an almost word-for-word reprocessing of the press release (and as such may be a copyright violation), and currently has no independant sources for the information. -- saberwyn 22:55, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, not an especially notable scam. Kaldari (talk) 22:58, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:33, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete not notable. User529 (talk) 23:26, 25 July 2008 (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, default to keep. Notability is not the issue here, verifiability is. But as long as this toponym is recorded in sources such as Google Maps, Encarta, the "Population Census of Pakistan, 1961" etc., I can't just hit the delete button and say that I know better than them. Computerised sources are not per se unreliable. As with print sources, it all depends on the publisher and editor, but the prima facie burden of verifiability has been met in this case. Remaining uncertainties, if any, may be noted in the article itself. Sandstein 18:13, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ahammadkati[edit]
- Ahammadkati (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Article makes no assertion of notability, indeed it provides no information other than the name of the village and it's location; Seems very unlikely to ever grow to more than a stub. There are no matches for the village in the Google News archive, and all the Google web matches seem to be auto-generated pages based on the village's atlas coordinates. Kaldari (talk) 22:21, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and close AFD. It's been firmly established that any real world location is inherently notable. Exxolon (talk) 22:40, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please show me where this has been "firmly established". If that is the case, why was the original GEOBot proposal so controversial (and eventually replaced by a dramatically scaled-back proposal)? Also, have you seen Wikipedia:Notability (Places and transportation), which proposes that "Inclusion on an atlas or in a census would not be sufficient to demonstrate notability". Why would they be proposing such a guideline if it flies in the face of what is "firmly established" on Wikipedia? Kaldari (talk) 22:52, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It's probably a reference to the common deletion outcomes, per the Places heading at WP:GEOG - "cities and villages are acceptable regardless of size". That said, it isn't a policy or guideline, but it is documentation of common practice. Fritzpoll (talk) 23:00, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you'd find that some of these nowehre places are actually very heavily populated. Many of the villages i started are in the Ganges Delta which is one of the most densely populated places on earth, many of the places are likely to be more populated than some of the smaller European towns. As it stands, no, the info on such place sis not on the web yet, but this isn't to say the place doesn't exist or is a nowehere, the country is very poor and like places in much of Africa haven't wide access to the web ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 10:23, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It's probably a reference to the common deletion outcomes, per the Places heading at WP:GEOG - "cities and villages are acceptable regardless of size". That said, it isn't a policy or guideline, but it is documentation of common practice. Fritzpoll (talk) 23:00, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Consensus has consistently found that towns/villages are inherently notable. --Oakshade (talk) 23:37, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The practical rule for what gets included in WP is what gets kept at AfD when challenged, and all villages and similarly inhabited locations are invariably kept here. This is sometimes justified as assumed sources under the general notability criterion, but in my opinion better justified, by the desirability of avoiding several million AfDs about exactly what size village counts as significant enough. The limiting principle is WP:V -- whether we have reliable information to write the article. The Geobot proposal was discussed because it was not initially clear there would b human input over what was in fact a village, rather than an artifact of the databases used. This need was satisfied during the discussion. DGG (talk) 00:17, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair enough. I would like to note however, that the same person who created this article has also created dozens (perhaps hundreds) of articles about villages and other geographic locations that include no sources or references, whatsoever. Would it be appropriate to nominate them for deletion? Kaldari (talk) 00:35, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I bet you can find few "useless stubs" without any references or external links. ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 10:25, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I would say that's fine, provided there are no available sources for these places at all, since that is an obvious alternative to deletion Fritzpoll (talk) 01:02, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- But wouldn't it be better if they were all deleted so that a bot at some point could recreate them all with proper info and sources (which is probably unlikely to happen if the articles already exist)? Kaldari (talk) 01:26, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes indeed it would Kaldari. This is why the BOT was established to improve quality too. I;d rather not do it manually if a BOT can create something better. I find it quite offensive that I spent weeks with Fritz to set up the bot and project because I care about wikipedia and what is missing and I believe it or not am striving towards a major world improvement in coverage and qualirt of information which you have not given me an ounce of respect for Kaldari. It isn't my fault many of the thrid world countries haven't accessd to the web to release more info on these places ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 10:29, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sure FritzpollBot can be adapted to retrofit these articles if necessary, or WP:GEOBOT can request them deleted as a non-controversial housekeeping speedy immediately before the new articles are created with sources. In the meantime, this small amount of coverage is not brilliant, not ideal, but at least it's there. Retrofitting the existing articles is one of the tasks WP:GEOBOT will have Fritzpoll (talk) 01:32, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "Not brilliant"? That's an understatement. Regardless, isn't it many times easier and safer to bot-create articles from scratch than "retrofitting" them? If the retrofitting is automated, there's a good chance it will mangle or duplicate existing info in the article. If it isn't automated, it will take countless otherwise unnecessary man-hours to review all the edits. The solution of speedy deleting them all isn't good either because you either have to waste a lot of time manually reviewing them all or risk deleting any that have developed into good articles. Wouldn't it be better to just wait until decent articles can be created (by bots or otherwise). I don't think the world is going to suffer if there isn't a Wikipedia article about Ahammadkati for another year. Kaldari (talk) 02:28, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, notwithstanding the verification failure below, I'm not sure the argument "it's not a very good quality article" has enormous weight as a deletion argument. If you want to list all of Blofeld's articles in a mass AfD, then go ahead. It looks like some will have verification issues, but we'll need to allocate more than five days, because we're talking tens of thousands. I'm not averse to checking them, it's just a procedural point Fritzpoll (talk) 07:43, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "Not brilliant"? That's an understatement. Regardless, isn't it many times easier and safer to bot-create articles from scratch than "retrofitting" them? If the retrofitting is automated, there's a good chance it will mangle or duplicate existing info in the article. If it isn't automated, it will take countless otherwise unnecessary man-hours to review all the edits. The solution of speedy deleting them all isn't good either because you either have to waste a lot of time manually reviewing them all or risk deleting any that have developed into good articles. Wouldn't it be better to just wait until decent articles can be created (by bots or otherwise). I don't think the world is going to suffer if there isn't a Wikipedia article about Ahammadkati for another year. Kaldari (talk) 02:28, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sure FritzpollBot can be adapted to retrofit these articles if necessary, or WP:GEOBOT can request them deleted as a non-controversial housekeeping speedy immediately before the new articles are created with sources. In the meantime, this small amount of coverage is not brilliant, not ideal, but at least it's there. Retrofitting the existing articles is one of the tasks WP:GEOBOT will have Fritzpoll (talk) 01:32, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Remember I have actually written several thousand good quality articles too. There is just so much missing that stubbing is often the best place to start ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 10:34, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sure it's notable to the people who lives there. If it's a real place, it's going to stay in, it's about time this was made a policy so these pointless AfDs are avoided in future. Nick mallory (talk) 01:18, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This particular location fails WP:V; does anybody have proof that it exists at all? Isn't maplandia a wiki? And the Encarta search doesn't find it. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 01:39, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- And the coordinates point to an area of farm fields. The nearest houses are quite a ways away, and might be part of any number of neighboring villages. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 01:47, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- [2] ofers a few sources. I'll verify it from the Geonames database in the morning Fritzpoll (talk) 01:48, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I looked through all 68 of those; all were computer generated. Not so much as blog mention. Worrisome. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 01:59, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The only information that Geonames gives is that Ahammadkati is a "populated place" located at 23° 03' 00" N 090° 11' 00" E. On Google Maps there is nothing there but empty fields, nor does there seem to be any other way to verify this place's existence, or whether or not it is in fact a "village". Kaldari (talk) 02:45, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- FallingRain lists it as a "city", but gives the exact same middle-of-a-field coordinates. It should also be noted that FallingRain is known to list places that no longer exist. Kaldari (talk) 07:24, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed, all the sources listed in the Google result are computer generated from a single source (fallingrain is notoriously unreliable over some things). Single source is insufficient to verify, since that's probably where it comes from. Wasn't advocating keep by posting the google results, just wanted someone to look them over before I went to bed. Fritzpoll (talk) 07:43, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I looked through all 68 of those; all were computer generated. Not so much as blog mention. Worrisome. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 01:59, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- [2] ofers a few sources. I'll verify it from the Geonames database in the morning Fritzpoll (talk) 01:48, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. We do delete settlements we can't confirm actually exist. We've done it before. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:26, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Precisely; we at Wikipedia should not be involved in the perpetuation/proliferation of a database mistake, unlike websites devoted to selling timeshares that need to do in order to capture as much web traffic as possible. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 06:30, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I have no idea what you are talking about. Doesn't exist????. ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 11:50, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please, indulge me. Read the last half of the debate; the concern is that this location might be some sort of mistake, given that all the sources seem to stem from one database entry somewhere in the past, but the town does not appear on aerial photos at the coordinates given, and there is not a whisper of human corroboration, not even on WikiMapia, nothing. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 12:33, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I have no idea what you are talking about. Doesn't exist????. ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 11:50, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The google map clearly shows that the area is inhabited. Although the map points directly to a rice paddy just look at all the buildings dotted around the place. It is likely to be a farming village and crops sold at Barisal which is about 16km away ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 14:18, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Farms and rice paddies do not necessarily make a village, half of the midwest is covered in farms and fields that do not belong to any town. What would be nice is if there were a single mention of this location in something other than a database. Even the coordinates for this location seem odd. The chances of a location falling right on the intersection of two arcminutes is 1 in 3600. And why does the article say 60" in the coordinates. That doesn't even make sense. 60" = 1'. Kaldari (talk) 15:08, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I was able to find 1 mention of "Ahammedkati" (slightly different spelling) in Google Books. It's from a 1961 census of East Pakistan (now Bangladesh). So it does appear that this place existed at least at some point. Kaldari (talk) 16:06, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No its a different place. East Pakistan is over 2000km from the Ganges delta its the other side of India ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 16:56, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, modern "East Pakistan" is on the other side of India, but in 1961, Bangladesh was part of Pakistan and it was called East Pakistan. So it seems likely that the two spellings are the same location. Kaldari (talk) 16:58, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please note that per WP:Verifiability, a policy, "burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material". Phlegm Rooster (talk) 17:41, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, modern "East Pakistan" is on the other side of India, but in 1961, Bangladesh was part of Pakistan and it was called East Pakistan. So it seems likely that the two spellings are the same location. Kaldari (talk) 16:58, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No its a different place. East Pakistan is over 2000km from the Ganges delta its the other side of India ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 16:56, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Gaurnadi Upazila. One can then make a table of villages there with geographic and population data instead of creating little stubs. This would make it easier for navigation too. Until cultural and historical information is found, this does not merit a stand-alone article. The same should probably be done to the rest of the village articles whose only information is their location. --Polaron | Talk 17:58, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no current population figure, and we are not sure it is a place. We know the location is wrong. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 09:06, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:34, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep verifiable real world locations are inherently notable. --Ragib (talk) 17:50, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The verifiability of this "village" is what is at question. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:31, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. This is from Columbia University, this is from KesKeCes, and this from fallingrain. There isn't enough web resources available for the agricultural villages in Bangladesh, a very low-tech country. But, if you need more verification, I am sure more can be dredged up. Aditya(talk • contribs) 12:29, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please dredge, those are all computer-generated and clearly flow from the same source. Again, WP:V puts the burden of proof on the creator of the article, not on those challenging it. Does anybody have a paper map/atlas of Bangladesh? Phlegm Rooster (talk) 12:47, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- And as for Bangladesh being a low tech country, if you look on WikiMapia for those coordinates [3], you will see that "Pradip Sarkar" has labeled his/her house less than a km away, and numerous other people have labeled towns, schools, their houses and other points of interest. They label nearby villages like Chandshi with someone commenting on how small the world is, and how such places can now be found by "google search". Yet nobody mentions Ahammadkati. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 13:28, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please dredge, those are all computer-generated and clearly flow from the same source. Again, WP:V puts the burden of proof on the creator of the article, not on those challenging it. Does anybody have a paper map/atlas of Bangladesh? Phlegm Rooster (talk) 12:47, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- For one, Wikimapia isn't a source at all. I can label Ahammadkati for you there, if you prefer. I hope that's not what we are looking for. And, for all those sources flowing from the same source, I think that is a clear wrong statement. At least one of them is a reputed university, and even for the other two it is highly surprising to see the claim of the information coming from the same source. What is that source? Can someone explain. It looks very much like a case of I don't like it. Please, show that I am wrong here. Aditya(talk • contribs) 13:09, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Anyways, here goes more - encarta map, reproduction of google map (google map proper), gospelgo.com, islamicfinder.com. Please, let me know how much more is needed? Nobody mentioning the village on Wikimapia can't be a measure for non-verification. Aditya(talk • contribs) 13:29, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- And, here is the link to Population Census of Pakistan, 1961: District Census Report. If you're still bent of lawyering, like the "burden on proof is not on me", remember that the burden of upholding the spirit of Wikiepdia is still on you. As history goes, East Pakistan of 1961 is Bangladesh of 2008 (see J. G. Lammers, N. S. Saksena, Imtiaz Omar, B. G. Ramcharan, or Judith Kidd). Aditya(talk • contribs) 13:40, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry for screaming above. But, when a real world place gets challenged first on the very premise of being inherently notable, and then on whether this place exists at all, with a bit of confusion of identity (East Pakistan/Bangladesh) and repeated quoting of a cherry picked piece of policy (the burden of proof), there is ample reason to see a lack of spirit. And, if anything, that hurts. Sorry that my hurt showed through. No harm meant. Aditya(talk • contribs) 13:51, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- What is needed is a non-computerized source. Where do these online sources get their data? Do you think that the "reputed university" sent a survey team to Bangladesh? No. All of the online sources are getting their data from ONE older source. And it is quite possible that that older source is wrong. It could be wrong it many ways. Perhaps the coordinates are way off. Perhaps the name of the town got confused with the name of the landowner. Perhaps the town depopulated. The only older source that mentions Ahammedkati's population is from 1961.
- As for you not assuming good faith on my part, I am greatly insulted. I just created an article for a small village in Nepal, Ringmo. I am all for accurate articles on tiny villages on Wikipedia. My concern is that using a single database mistake as the basis for a Wikipedia article fails WP:V. There is no other evidence for the existence of this place. Remember that Wikipedia has a reputation of being unreliable, see Reliability of Wikipedia.
- Finally, let's examine WikiMapia. To the north of the coordinates for "Ahammadkati" is a tag for Nabagram village [4]. Now if one does a Google News search for Nabagram, 18 recent news articles appear. As has been previously ascertained, no news articles for Ahammadkati under any of its spellings appear. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 14:16, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Cherry picking one of the five pillars? Since arguing WP:N is not allowed, I have no choice but to use WP:V. WP:N is a guideline. WP:V is a policy. Go argue there that the burden of proof lies on me. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 14:21, 27 July 2008 (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 per WP:WEB. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 19:25, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Bensbargains.net[edit]
- Bensbargains.net (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Uninformative stub about a bargain hunting website. Claims an October 2006 Alexa rank of 3,240, but this is a questionable claim to notability. Most of this article is concerned with forum members and the site's founder, this information is backed up by minor primary sources and an interview posted on a popular blog. I don't believe there's any coherent explanation of why this website is notable, nor is there any salvageable content here that might be useful in any other article. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 21:51, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Very bad article, with WP:BLP issues. In the olden days WP:WEB used to demand an Alexa rank in the top 10,000. I don't think it does so any longer, but this higher rank (around 4200 today, following the link in the article) may indicate that the site is notable. I'll report the WP:BLP concerns elsewhere and provisionally will say delete here for want of reliable sourcing. AndyJones (talk) 12:41, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete. WP:WEB gives three criteria for notability and this article meets none of them. Alexa rank is not part of the criteria. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:55, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No boobs, just n00bs. Gathering place for the socially disfunctional. CompWhiz17 is OK though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.162.0.44 (talk) 13:49, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:36, 24 July 2008 (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 good refutations of delete arguments were provided, and keep arguments do not back themselves up. lifebaka (talk - contribs) 16:54, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Simon Withington[edit]
- Simon Withington (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable TV producer - modest career culminating in work on a largely unknown lifestyle channel. No non-trivial ghits. Fails WP:BIO and in particular WP:CREATIVE - "known as an important figure or is widely cited", "known for originating a significant new concept", "has created... a significant or well-known work", "has won significant critical attention" etc etc. I.e. just a.n.other TV guy andy (talk) 21:49, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I think that the article demonstrates notability. Simon Withington is one of the senior people (executive producer) at a rather specialized television channel, and has a number of other accomplishments. --Eastmain (talk) 22:06, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not what notability means - read the policy. But if it matters, his "rather specialized" channel has viewing figures that are too small to be measured accurately according to official industry statistics. Being a big fish in a microscopic pond does not automatically confer notability! andy (talk) 22:26, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 22:06, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 22:06, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete agree with nom's reading of BIO. This guy is nn. Eusebeus (talk) 18:42, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Simon Withington was only one of 3 producers of 'Dennis Norden Laughter File' and 'It will be alright on the night' These programmes, at the time were some of ITV's flagship programmes. On one episode, his show managed to gain a 79% audience share. Under the [[WP:CREATIVE] - The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, which has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. - I think that it should stay. Wedding TV (although small) has recently won Broadcast Magazine's Specialist Channel of the Year 2008. A very high award in British TV (under Baftas). I think this should be kept. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Folkestoneflyer (talk • contribs) 23:06, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Nope - he didn't create the Denis Norden show, which has been running for many years, nor did he establish the TV channel nor is there any evidence that he is notable for making it a success. He's just a reasonably senior staff member with very few ghits. andy (talk) 23:12, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep He is visible on the British Television Producers page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:British_television_producers - Surely that is a reason to keep this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.133.46.150 (talk) 08:33, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - 85.133.46.150 may be related to Folkestoneflyer - anon IP SPA with same edit profile. andy (talk) 23:12, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions.
- This seems a really petty argument. Why don't you just leave it?, if your getting so worked up on it, just delete it. I don't have time for people that think they know what constitutes an inclusion —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.77.151.125 (talk) 23:00, 27 July 2008 (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.--Kubigula (talk) 19:11, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Phenomena (band)[edit]
- Phenomena (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
After a string of vandalism on this article, I decided to look into this further, and the band fails WP:MUSIC. Most tellingly, the article here on WP is hit #1. There is no discernible nontrivial coverage, as "phenomena" is too common a word for GNews. However, AMG lists no charted hits or gold certification (and no reviews, either). There is no indication of a tour of any size ever. The band only released one album on a major label (BMG/Arista) of the six or so they have (incl. comps). Most of the "famous musicians" involved with the project at various points were session musicians who did short stints in the secondary (or tertiary) lineups of famous bands like Whitesnake and Black Sabbath. Therefore I find this criterion of questionable validity here, because the other bands were famous before these musicians ever got there. This band is not representative of any style, as it is made up of session players. Lastly, no awards, no major competitions, no TV themes, no rotation, and no TV special. MSJapan (talk) 21:41, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep What a pointless nomination, not to mention a misleading one too. Neil Murray notched up a total of seven years in Whitesnake if you include his two stints, and also six years as part of Black Sabbath. Glenn Hughes was part of Deep Purple for three years, had a brief stint as part of Black Sabbath, and did two albums as lead vocalist on two of Iommi's solo albums. Cozy Powell did five years in Rainbow, and four in Sabbath in various stints. I could go on and on, but I don't need to. Calling the likes of Glenn Hughes "a session player" is total and utter bullshit - don't waste people's time with such pointless nominations. LuciferMorgan (talk) 22:59, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, passes WP:MUSIC#C6 & WP:MUSIC#C1. Esradekan Gibb "Talk" 01:32, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep Indeed, the nomination is misleading and defamatory. Phenomena has had worldwide record releases with BMG/RCA, with the first album released as a licence from Bronze/Ariola records. Glenn Hughes, Mel Galley, and producers Tom Galley and Wilfried Rimensberger are involved in all 4 original albums. And most other involved artists are featuring their participation in Phenomena an their web sites. Phenomena is featured on YouTube and and has over 100'000 hits on the "Did it all for Love" video and feature movie trailer. One has just to read the YouTube comments...no further explanation needed. However, Phenomena had a No1 hit single in Brazil, which spilled over to other South-American countries. Mel Galley's obituaries in serious newspapers like the Guardian or Independent, not to mention many of the serious music magazines, all refer to his work with Phenomena. Phenomena had cover stories in world-wide leading heavy metal magazines such as Kerrang! (The return of the concept album) and Metalhammer.
What is true is that there have been a lot of vandalism on this article. This is probably due to the fact that over the years several competing Phenomena bands or projects in various countries appeared. They had to change the name or abandoned the project after intervention by original rights holders Galley/Rimensberger. Their is also a legal wrangle between Tom Galley and Merve Spence, after Galley sold his rights in the first 3 Phenomena albums to Spence, who eventually was pursued by Galley for breach of contract. This was reported in various music magazine interviews featuring Tom Galley. However, Galley and Rimensberger together are currently working on a forthcoming 5th album to be released with a major record company[1]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Frank Renner (talk • contribs) 01:33, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply] - Strong keep. As others have said, a very notable rock project, clearly meets WP:MUSIC in terms of their album releases. The single "Did It All For Love" off the second album charted, including #1 in Brazil, I believe. The article has indeed suffered considerable vandalism for the reasons Frank Renner gives above, but that's not a reason for deletion. Bondegezou (talk) 14:12, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:36, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - article appears to satisfy various WP:MUSIC criteria, and as a group who released records in the 80s there's an understandable lack of web sources - I would encourage written sources to be added asap - i.e. biogs, even newspaper coverage from back in the day if there are any still around. (Apologies for my over-eager WP:NAC, boldness and ignorance) - Toon05 23:53, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Passes all the WP:MUSIC criteria. I agree with the person above me. Tezkag72 (talk) 20:46, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - WP:SNOW anyone? - Toon05 21:01, 26 July 2008 (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 speedily deleted per WP:CSD#G6 by Happyme22. –xeno (talk) 17:23, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
List of living philosophers and academics of philosophy/subpage[edit]
- List of living philosophers and academics of philosophy/subpage (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
"List of living philosophers and academics of philosophy" was deleted, so this associated "subpage" should also have been deleted. Leo Laursen – ☏ ⌘ 21:41, 22 July 2008 (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. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 19:36, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Rockin' 80s[edit]
- The Rockin' 80s (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
a non-notable syndicated radio show. PRODed for second time for failing to assert notability, so sending to AfD. Wolfer68 (talk) 20:24, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:36, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete zero 3rd party references. Fails WP:N--Rtphokie (talk) 17:57, 24 July 2008 (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.--Kubigula (talk) 19:17, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dick Cavett Meets ABBA[edit]
- Dick Cavett Meets ABBA (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable. I would not have nominated this had it been featured on an ABBA or other video in its entirety. However, this is a one-off band appearance on a show. Notability is not reliably sourced. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 20:22, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Tenacious D Fan (talk) 20:22, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Mamma Mia, here I go again...Keep Both ABBA and Dick Cavett are more than notable. If the program is not on DVD, it is probably due to music clearance and/or performance rights issues, not a perceived lack of notability. Ecoleetage (talk) 00:01, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I am saying because the program is not on DVD, it is less notable. I'm not speculating why it wasn't released on DVD/VHS. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 21:25, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm confused about this discussion. 5 of the 9 songs from this show are on The Complete Studio Recordings (ABBA album)#DVD 2 released by Universal; all 9 are on a poor-quality DVD called In Performance by "Classic Rock Productions", according to [5]. Was this entire program released on VHS but not DVD at some point? --Closeapple (talk) 22:57, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WeakKeep: Claims in the article probably make it notableif they are true. Bringing Dick Cavett over from the US was probably a big deal; it did show as a special on 5 different country's public TV channels in the 2 years after it was made. However, the major claim that would make it notable is that it was the last "concert" by ABBA. (The ABBA article, also unreferenced, says that they performed single songs together on a couple TV programs afterwards, at the end of 1982.) I'd upgrade to Keep if someone could find a solid source for this last-concert claim — it appears in 3 articles, the third being The Complete Studio Recordings (ABBA_album)#Live in April 1981 — but without citations on any of them. The referenced web page doesn't seem to make this claim. --Closeapple (talk) 22:46, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]- Found it: The Complete Studio Recordings release date and tracklist is an official Universal Music site and calls this program "ABBA’s final live concert". Changing from Weak Keep to Keep, and rearranged the article itself. --Closeapple (talk) 11:38, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:37, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep just echoing what Ecoleetage says above. WP:IAR if you argue notability isn't inherited; both subjects are notable, and a meeting between the two is notable. Might as well say the meetings between Regan and Gorby weren't notable, because notability isn't inherited. And the argument that the content is not available on DVD is a bit weak. How many films, recordings, etc, have been destroyed over the years, yet they still maintain notability? Take a look at List of lost films, shall we delete them because there is no media? Yngvarr (t) (c) 17:51, 24 July 2008 (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 per WP:N. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 19:51, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
George Pringle[edit]
- George Pringle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Declined speedy (though I still don't see any importance or significance asserted). Non-notable performance artist, fails WP:MUSIC. ukexpat (talk) 19:48, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- ukexpat (talk) 19:49, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I added some references. She passes the general notability guideline. -- Eastmain (talk) 20:25, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: With respect to the sources now listed, the second and fifth point to the same article, with only trivial coverage; the fourth and sixth are trivial. So, I don't think that passes muster per WP:MUSIC#Criteria for musicians and ensembles. – ukexpat (talk) 20:47, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I have corrected the link for the second reference. It now points to http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2007/nov/23/popandrock6 The use of the term "trivial" is incorrect. A listing under the heading "The Hottest Downloads" in a large-circulation quality newspaper such as The Sunday Times (the sixth reference) is analogous to a listing in a best-seller list, and is not trivial either. This is an artist who is taken seriously by the British press, and hence is notable. --Eastmain (talk) 21:05, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I added something from Pitchfork and an interview from BBC Oxford as references. --Eastmain (talk) 23:41, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep passes WP:MUSIC#C1 for the 23 November, 2007 Guardian article (the other is only a trivial mention, as is the 16 December, 2007 TimesOnline), the BBC & the Pitchforkmedia references. Esradekan Gibb "Talk" 02:21, 23 July 2008 (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. PhilKnight (talk) 22:46, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Afro Ninja[edit]
Simply put, Afro Ninja fails notability as described in WP:BIO and lacks the requisite non-trivial coverage from reliable third party publications to warrant an article. coccyx bloccyx(toccyx) 19:42, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, speedily if possible: no independent evidence of notability. Terraxos (talk) 21:53, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete borderline speedy ("popular" on a website is on par with "my mom says I'm cool" as notability claims go). After deletion, possibly redirect to Afro Samurai as a plausible mistake. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:39, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Notability is conspicuously absent. Ecoleetage (talk) 12:55, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:40, 24 July 2008 (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 Deleted (non-admin closure), housekeeping close. Protonk (talk) 16:42, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Won't Hold Back (album)[edit]
- Won't Hold Back (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Fails WP:MUSIC. Not notable without substantial coverage in reliable, third-party sources. None provided, none found. Mdsummermsw (talk) 19:30, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 19:58, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Links are links. If they are helping with page than nothing is wrong. Sheard has been uploading snippet songs on what will be on the album. They posted on her myspace. Usercreate (talk) 21:53, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Albums & WP:CRYSTAL. Recreate without prejudice once we have a confirmed track listing with references that establish notability. Esradekan Gibb "Talk" 01:36, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment 1st of all, this page was not recreated, stupid. 2nd, This page only sites one source and that pertains to when Sheard starting recording the new album. Usercreate (talk) 01:56, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply, First of all, please don't call me stupid. Second, "recreate without prejudice" means, if the page is deleted I don't have an issue with it being recreated in the future once the wikipedia notability criteria are met since it is a crystal ball issue we're dealing with here. And thirdly, your reference passes verifiability, yes she's doing a new album. Artists are always looking to do their next album. What hasn't been proven is, nor can I find by searching online, is why this album is notable per the guideline set out in WP:CRYSTAL & WP:MUSIC#Albums. Esradekan Gibb "Talk" 04:07, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The fact also that you've just been banned for being a sockpuppet yourself, and that you also accused me of being one on my talk page, means I'm now going to do this....HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAA....Ok, I've finished now. Thank you. p.s. if that gets me a 24hr ban for not being civil, it was worth it :-) Esradekan Gibb "Talk" 13:20, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete Created by Soccermeko sock: see checkuser result.
Kww (talk) 12:39, 23 July 2008 (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. BJTalk 02:28, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
List of programs broadcast by Anime Network[edit]
- List of programs broadcast by Anime Network (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Nothing but a list of anime titles, with one line of OR. Purely a copy of the original [6]. Wikipedia is not a mirror site for other websites, nor is it an electronic programming guide. This is not a "historically significant programme list." -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:11, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:11, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Previous deletion discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lists of programs broadcast by networks - result: Keep —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheFarix (talk • contribs) 15:05, July 22, 2008
- Note: that discussion - closed 16:12, 17 July 2006 — was a massive (and I do mean massive) bulk nomination. :P -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:10, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Categorise. --Gwern (contribs) 20:29 22 July 2008 (GMT)
- Categorise Better as a category, and WP isn't TV guide anyway. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:44, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I seriously doubt that categorization is the best course, or even a good one. Several anime series have been aired on multiple networks around the world. If we categorize these types of lists, then it will result in over-categorization. For example, Dragon Ball has been broadcast by at least 47 different networks. Are we going to put that article into 47 categorize, plus the 24 it is already in? On top of that, these types of categorize often get deleted through WP:CfD. (example Category:Adult Swim anime) --Farix (Talk) 02:46, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Converting the list into a category is not an option since "categorizing TV shows on the basis of the networks to which they're syndicated is overcategorization". The list could be merged with Anime Network, but it'll end up being split again on account of WP:SIZE.--Nohansen (talk) 15:24, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Doesn't seem to fall into the "TV guide" area that we discourage. Lists can be used as content or as a navigational aid. -- Ned Scott 06:33, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: As Ned Scott says, this doesn't seem to be TV guide information, and is both a useful grouping and navigation aid. —Quasirandom (talk) 21:41, 27 July 2008 (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 Delete Jauerbackdude?/dude. 18:56, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Drew Devine[edit]
- Drew Devine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable comedian. Speedy-deleted and recreated today so bringing here. DCEdwards1966 18:52, 22 July 2008 (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. PhilKnight (talk) 22:46, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Crowborough Caves[edit]
- Crowborough Caves (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Hoax entry backed up by web-sites and Ghits that look plausible at first, but not at second, glance. I can find no independent confirmation: all the Ghits lead back to the two web-sites cited.
www.crowborough-caves.org.uk includes remarks from "Our resident geologist, Dr. SP Leo Logist", claims that the caves link to Holland and to Mars, an account of falling into a cave in Wales, after which "We walked and crawled for half an hour and to our surprise came out on Ashdown Forest." (about 160 miles away); and a claim that "Prof. Chapman has reported finding a pre-humanoid skull. He has named it Crowborough Man, it shows remarkable similarity to the controversial Piltdown man."
The second web-site listed, Campaign to reopen the Crowborough Caves, looks more sober, but there's a marked absence of hard information. The caves are "Unknown to even the most ardent of Sussex historians," and "it has been decided by the Friends of the Caves of Crowborough that the exact location of the Caves should not be published - for the time being." So they are certainly not a "well known local tourist attraction", as the article claims.
Reports show that the website crowborough-caves.org.uk is hosted in Horb, Germany. Once again implying a hoax! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.121.119.201 (talk) 21:54, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This has been in for more than a year; credit to an anonymous IP user for tagging it as a hoax, and adding "there are no Crowborough Caves - this is a well known 'fun' story / hoax" on the talk page. The joke seems to be maintained by the 1st Crowborough Scout Group whose web-site is very similar in appearance to www.crowborough-caves.org.uk. Good joke, boys (well, fairly good), but when misinformation leaks into Wikipedia we Delete it. JohnCD (talk) 18:51, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 20:00, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Hoax, fails verifiability requirement. Edison (talk) 20:37, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete Clearly a hoax, though SP Leo Logist (speleologist) is pretty clever. ukexpat (talk) 21:02, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete and salt -- the first website cited is an obvious hoax maintained by Crowborough or Soutron Scouts. The letter from Mrs Trellis of Tunbridge Wells (whose correspondence was regularly quoted in the BBC's I'm sorry I haven't a clue) also points to this. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:48, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete, G3. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 21:49, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, obviously, though the message board on the second website is mildly amusing (We are pleased to announce that the Caves are now a designated WI-FI spot, following a partnership deal with Orange Broadband.) Iain99Balderdash and piffle 22:23, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as hoax. G3 and block if it comes back. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:41, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete As per everyone. Isn't it snowing yet? Edward321 (talk) 05:45, 23 July 2008 (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. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 03:19, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yogiraj Bharat Bhushan[edit]
- Yogiraj Bharat Bhushan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Orphaned article on a religious leader that is not notable. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 00:20, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 00:22, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 00:22, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 03:47, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 18:47, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Does a Padma Shree recipient qualify as notable? If yes (and if this person is really a PS awardee) then I think we should keep it. --Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 07:20, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This is one of the many statements in this article that is not backed up by reliable sources in any way. As is, the article is about a non notable and has no reliable sources. As is, this article should be deleted. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 02:43, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Also, could not find any good sources. --Shruti14 t c s 03:22, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Searching here confirms that Shri Bharat Bhushan of Uttar Pradesh won a Padma Shri in 1991 in the field of Literature & Education (Yoga and Education according to our table of recipients).John Z (talk) 05:56, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I was about to close when I followed the links and now conclude the award is notable, so must be the awardees. Bearian (talk) 17:59, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Bearian, and notability of receiving the award for Yoga - though some reliable sources would help the article. ~ priyanath talk 20:59, 28 July 2008 (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 delete under CSD G7 given Sniperz11's comment below. lifebaka (talk - contribs) 17:47, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Frontier India Defence and Strategic News Service[edit]
- Frontier India Defence and Strategic News Service (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable. The Reuters quote looks impressive, till you see the disclaimer on the top of the reuters article, where it say, it is a blog and is in no way connected to Reuters... Most of the quotes or to it's own websites. ChiragPatnaik (talk) 18:48, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 20:01, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Non Notable. Advertisement. --Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 08:22, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As you wish guys... I don't have any issue either way. P.S. I didnt mean the page to look like an ad, and it certainly wasnt meant to be one. Sniperz11@CS 17:37, 23 July 2008 (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 . lifebaka (talk - contribs) 17:49, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yoga Shri Pith[edit]
- Yoga Shri Pith (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non notable ashram. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 00:04, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 00:06, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 00:06, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 03:46, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 18:38, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: as per nom. --Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 07:17, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. --Shruti14 t c s 03:25, 27 July 2008 (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 Merge to No Jacket Required.Tikiwont (talk) 09:51, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No Jacket Required: The Tour[edit]
- No Jacket Required: The Tour (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable tour. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 18:10, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 18:14, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. What makes it non-notable? Without evidence to the contrary, one might reasonably expect a tour by a major artist of a successful album to be notable. Since it took place over 20 years ago, one would not expect there to be an abundance of online sources. I'm not saying that it should necessarily have its own article, but I would think a merge into No Jacket Required would be more sensible than deletion. PC78 (talk) 19:42, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to either No Jacket Required or Phil Collins. the wub "?!" 19:57, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to No Jacket Required Sceptre (talk) 22:32, 22 July 2008 (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 to delete , default to keep all. Suggest nominating each individually after a few weeks. lifebaka (talk - contribs) 17:54, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Tony Thaxton[edit]
- Tony Thaxton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Articles about band members that haven't done anything notable outside the band. Rwiggum (Talk/Contrib) 14:34, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following related pages because they are pages about band members who have done nothing notable outside of the band.:
- Joshua Cain (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Matthew Taylor (bassist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
-02:31, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
- (This was meant to be posted on Joshua Cain's article for deletion page, my bad, so it's about Cain) Nothing notable? He was the co-producer of Metro Station's album which brought the top 10 single "Shake It". He's produced other music as well, Sing It Loud - an upcoming band that'll big big probably next year. I haven't really researched, but that can be done. Sure it's really badly written, but if you're going to go to the trouble of doing this you might as well of fixed the page up yourself, it's not like these pages have been stubs for a year like a hell of a lot of pages i've fixed in the past. And as he said we should just merge it, rather than deleting. But, stuff about his production would be totally out of place in MCS' article. kiac (talk) 15:18, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 17:34, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, seresin ( ¡? ) 07:14, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, saying that a band will be "big next year" goes against WP:CRYSTAL. Neither of these musicians have done enough notable things outside of being in MCS to warrant an article.
- Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb "Talk" 08:52, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: He produced two songs? That's a long way from performing on the album. RGTraynor 09:18, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I really couldn't be bothered arguing this, but i just don't get why you people go and delete articles like this, being a member of a band that is currently highly successful is a lot more notable than other things that are on wikipedia, things that are stubs and the like. God, you could create perfectly notable article on a piece of hair if you wanted to, all it takes is a bit of research. What is really the point in deleting it when there is hundreds of thousands of worse articles and stubs? Do what you like, but i think putting a bit of effort into an article is a lot more satisfying than going around deleting others' work altogether. I just don't get how so many people show up to affirm deletions but add nothing to the articles. All i'm saying is, you guys could at least aide in the contribution to merge the info into Motion City Soundtrack instead of wasting your time with a delete (and i'd just like to reassert i did not contribute anything significant to these articles, so it's not a bias account). Btw, Sing It Loud are definitely notably deserving of a Wikipedia page, they recently signed to Epitaph Records and released an EP through Epitaph, i remember reading something about Epitaph leading further towards the poppy side of rock and away from the classic Bad Religion-esque style. Yes this point is WP:Crystal, but what happens if Metro Station release one of Cain's singles and it becomes a top 10 hit? Definitely be a better article than any of the producer articles i've ever seen (all comprise of Jim is a producer. Jim has produced these 10 albums. The end). [Totally relinqushed my first sentence's meaning :P] At least help me merge it people. kiac (talk) 09:38, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a straw man argument. Just because there are less notable articles on Wikipedia doesn't make these articles any more notable. At the end of the day, they still fail WP:MUSIC. Rwiggum (Talk/Contrib) 16:04, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Matthew Taylor (bassist) got tagged for this group nom as well, but is not mentioned anywhere in the AfD. I have removed the AfD tag since this listing is already so close to closure as it is. -- Ned Scott 02:29, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge Since this is already a bit of a mess (as I note above about the incomplete nom), and the band itself seems notable, merging sounds like the best option. -- Ned Scott 02:37, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I have basically done a full makeover of Joshua Cain. Please re-read. Just on a side-note, is it possible to do an article on all of the members of a band? I never see this on wikipedia and i don't really get why, surely if one member can't gain notability - four or five would be able to, i mean every band has some sort of other notable past-time. When you people say merge, where to do you mean? kiac (talk) 15:05, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jauerbackdude?/dude. 17:58, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I relisted this discussion because Matthew Taylor (bassist) was originally meant to be a part of the nomination, but wasn't added until towards the end. I felt this was the best option rather than doing a no consensus. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 18:06, 22 July 2008 (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 Delete Jauerbackdude?/dude. 18:11, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Harp/Lange Vacations[edit]
- Harp/Lange Vacations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
CSD A7: Unremarkable people (Twinkle CSD tab still not working for me) Tckma (talk) 18:00, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Obvious CSD candidate. BALEET! Rob Banzai (talk) 18:08, 22 July 2008 (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. PeterSymonds (talk) 02:37, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Susan bayh[edit]
- Susan bayh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
I'm not convinced she is notable enough for her own article - some minor press mentions, but they are all regarding the effect of her job on her husband's position. IMO, merits at best a mention in her husband's article Wheelchair Epidemic (talk) 17:52, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Her status as a former First Lady of Indiana, and wife of a former presidential candidate/potential vice presidential candidate qualifies her for her own article. I would argue that her status as a director of several high-profile companies boosts her credentials to appear here. She is no different (and probably more prominent) than Ann Romney, Barbara Richardson, Mary Pawlenty, Jenny Sanford, or anyone else of that ilk.-Thirdreading (talk) 14:42, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
* comment - WP:WAX says that other articles can not be used for comparisons of the meritis of an AfD discussion. The discussion must be about this article only. --triwbe (talk) 19:16, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to her husband's article, since notability is not inherited or bestowed by marriage. Edison (talk) 20:39, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I think there is enough about her that's worthy of her own article. Thirdreading had a lot right about what he said.--Bedford Pray 03:23, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:43, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep ample reliable and verifiable sources to satisfy the Wikipedia:Notability standard as an independent article. Alansohn (talk) 00:18, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as per Bedford and Alansohn above--there is enough sourced info here to qualify her for both notability and and verifiability. --Eastlaw (talk) 00:31, 25 July 2008 (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 provided by she meets WP:ENTERTAINER or WP:N. lifebaka (talk - contribs) 17:58, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ariadne Diaz[edit]
- Ariadne Diaz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable actress, completely unreferenced. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 17:11, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. -- —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 17:12, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 17:12, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 17:55, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I added some references. --Eastmain (talk) 17:53, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Okay, it's referenced, but I don't see her passing WP:ENTERTAINER at this point- we only have her in one or possibly two notable productions. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 17:59, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, references prove verifiability, but fails to establish notability as per WP:ENTERTAINER. Esradekan Gibb "Talk" 01:52, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as nn, per the above. Eusebeus (talk) 18:42, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete non notable. Tosqueira (talk) 01:58, 25 July 2008 (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 as recreation of previously deleted article. -Djsasso (talk) 21:37, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
KevJumba[edit]
- KevJumba (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Re-created page of NN person Kevin Wu. Imhyunho (talk) 16:35, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The only independent reliable source is the single article from the San Francisco Chronicle (News Flavor is user-generated according to its description), and it only has a few paragraphs on the subject.-Wafulz (talk) 16:52, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This should have been taken to DRV before re-creation. Seems to assert notability, and have at least one non-trivial RS reference. I'm suspecting this is a keeper if someone does a bit more homework on it. Jclemens (talk) 18:58, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I just noticed that this was deleted as Kevjumba at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kevjumba.-Wafulz (talk) 19:15, 22 July 2008 (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. PhilKnight (talk) 22:47, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Louis Pappas[edit]
- Louis Pappas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Making a potato salad isn't something to make you notable, in my opinion. StaticGull Talk 16:33, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete because, um, making a potato salad really doesn't make you notable. Unless you are THE inventor of potato salad? -- Quartermaster (talk) 16:37, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
He was credited with adding it to a greek salad, not with making the potato salad. Also the article is more a chef bio than an article about the salad anyway. Jwither1 (talk) 16:53, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Besides, you allow bios of other chefs, Emeril, etc. They list family info and work history. The article is not finished and will include PUBLISHED articles that feature him and his company. If I need to take out the trademarked product, I can. This guy is well known in the tampa bay area. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jwither1 (talk • contribs) 17:02, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Just because other stuff exists, it doesn't automatically make the subject notable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia. StaticGull Talk 17:28, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 18:15, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Hoax? It smells of hoax to me, I'd like to be sure. Bought a restaurant in 1925, wrote a book in 2002? Possible, yes... likely, no. Any insight?--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:59, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. There's a Louis L. and a Louis M., which may explain the dates; however, neither satisfies WP:BIO. Now if one of them were a member of The Mamas & the Papas... Clarityfiend (talk) 20:19, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not really a hoax, but not notable either. There is local news coverage as there would be for any small restaurant, but come on, Wikipedia isn't the Tarpon Springs yellow pages. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:12, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: This is definitely not a hoax, as the former Pappas Restaurant was indeed a popular eatery in Tarpon Springs, Florida, at one time (it closed several years ago). Delete as local restaurateurs do not meet WP:BIO. JGHowes talk - 02:36, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No hoax here. Sadly, not much notability either. Ecoleetage (talk) 12:53, 23 July 2008 (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 keep (non-admin closure), subject confirmed to have passed WP:ATHLETE. - Toon05 23:03, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Jean-Francois Lescinel[edit]
- Jean-Francois Lescinel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Fails WP:ATHLETE - has been signed by Aberdeen, but has not played in a first team match other than a trial. ukexpat (talk) 16:25, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- ukexpat (talk) 16:25, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: What about the French teams he played for? --Eastmain (talk) 16:28, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Answer: If you check the infobox he apparently made no appearances for any of those teams. – ukexpat (talk) 16:45, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The infobox at that point was wrong/not fully completed, it has now been corrected -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:47, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- L'Equipe says that he played 12 times for Guingamp in Ligue 2. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 09:03, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: He has made no official appearances, and thus, he is an insignificant asset to his team(s) and insignificant as an athlete. Article should be recreated later when Jean-Francois makes an appearance in a game. Imhyunho (talk) 17:42, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- See my links below which confirm that he has in fact played 20 matches in fully professional leagues -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:16, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep: If it can be confirmed that he played in twenty matches, then he certainly meets the WP:ATHLETE criteria. Imhyunho (talk) 14:34, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If you are changing your !vote, you may wish to strike out your earlier "delete"....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:38, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep: If it can be confirmed that he played in twenty matches, then he certainly meets the WP:ATHLETE criteria. Imhyunho (talk) 14:34, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- See my links below which confirm that he has in fact played 20 matches in fully professional leagues -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:16, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:17, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Looks like he fails WP:ATHLETE. пﮟოьεԻ 57 08:17, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. He definitely played in the SPL for Falkirk.[7] I remember watching him! The page should also be moved to Jean-François Lescinel, his names are the wrong way round in the title. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 08:43, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep based on appearances for Guingamp and Falkirk in fully professional leagues, thereby easily satisfying WP:ATHLETE -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:09, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Has played in a fully professional league as Ligue 2 is a fully professional league. Therefore passes WP:ATHLETE.--Latouffedisco (talk) 09:59, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per previous posters. Punkmorten (talk) 10:02, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep passes WP:ATHLETE having played in a fully-pro league. --Jimbo[online] 12:30, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - clearly passes WP:ATHLETE. GiantSnowman 16:09, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep He is part of Haitis national team and has played 12 games for Guingamp in 2006-2007, for a total of 635 minutes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.42.116.112 (talk)
- Keep with confirmation of appearances. matt91486 (talk) 23:19, 23 July 2008 (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 Speedily deleted, A7, non-admin close. ukexpat (talk) 21:53, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Verbix[edit]
- Verbix (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
What makes Verbix, a piece of software/website, notable? Google News archives only returns 10 results containing 'Verbix' [8]. Some results are only trivial. Computerjoe's talk 16:24, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 18:16, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 18:16, 22 July 2008 (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 (non-admin closure), as per the consensus of this discussion. Ecoleetage (talk) 00:09, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Frunzensky District[edit]
- Frunzensky District (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Disambiguation page for which all targets are nonexistent. Tlesher (talk) 16:14, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep. This is not a disambiguation page. It is a set index article in the scope of WP:RUSSIA and subject to that project's governances.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:25, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "Governances"?! Just to remind you, WikiProjects do not have ownership of articles. the wub "?!" 18:19, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 18:17, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Umm, I do not claim ownership of this page, neither personally, nor via the WikiProject. I am merely pointing out that, a) since it is not a disambiguation page, disambiguation page guidelines do not apply, and b) since this is a set index article in the scope of WP:RUSSIA, the guidelines and practices set forth and followed by that project do apply. Since the nomination is based on the statement that the page should be deleted as MOSDAB-incompliant, my comment is simply a clarification of that misunderstanding. "Governance", perhaps, was too strong of the word, so if it helps, feel free to replace it with "guidelines". In the absence of a general guideline or when such a general guideline is, well, too general, WikiProject's guidelines take over. That's what WikiProjects are for. Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 18:30, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
*Delete. No blue links and its been here for what, 2 years? Create the articles first, then the article index. Synergy 23:16, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "No blue links" is not a valid reason to delete this page as it is not a disambiguation page and is thus outside of scope of WP:MOSDAB.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 01:34, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. These are notable districts. There is already an article of one of them on the Russian wikipedia. We can translate it to the english wikipedia. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 04:22, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Having lists of places with similar names, locations or whatever is a good thing; it's a starting point for new articles, and if you're looking for places named after someone/something this is a viable list to use. If current policy is against keeping such lists with redlinks, I suggest that we either move the list or change the policy! Another good example is List of peaks named Signal Mountain, which lists basic info about the places, which could be useful for some people. Bjelleklang - talk Bug Me 10:40, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, as per
policythe guideline: A set index article describes a single set of concepts. For example, Dodge Charger describes a set of cars, List of peaks named Signal Mountain describes a set of mountain peaks, or USS Enterprise describes a set of ships. A set index article is both for information and for navigation: just like a normal list article, it can have metadata and extra information about each entry. A set index article can be entertaining and informative by itself, can help editors find redlinks to create articles on notable entries, and finally can also help readers navigate between articles that have similar names. A set index article should not be restricted by Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages) as it currently stands, but instead should follow the relevant style described in Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists). link. I'd say this is a speedy close as keep, but as I've participated I'll leave the decision up to someone else. Bjelleklang - talk Bug Me 10:48, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, as per
- Keep. But I digress. I don't like keeping things like this in article namespace purely because its information. Its currently not being used to navigate one single article and its been this way since 2006. Its a problem when we retain a list of redlinks for the sake of information. And Bjelleklang: I read all of that, and its still not a policy. You representing it as one is a bit odd. Synergy 11:00, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- My bad, didn't spot the guideline bit :/ Bjelleklang - talk Bug Me 11:01, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- To address Synergy's concern regarding that this page is kept because it is "purely information"—when trying to find information about something called "Frunzensky District", where would you rather prefer to end up—on a page listing all of the districts with this name, even if it is all red links, or in the middle of nowhere with the "page not found" sign? The former gives you a starting point for further research (even if it's outside of Wikipedia), the latter does not. The page was not created for the sake of just being there, it was created as a starter with possible uses even in its current, red-linked form. It also catches undisambiguated links to and allows to disambiguate them, thus reducing maintenance overhead in the long run. The backlinks produced by this list are useful as a reference when writing future article dealing with the subject. All in all, the page is hardly useless.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 12:46, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I have provided references for each entry in the list, so it is harder to confuse this page with a disambiguation page now. Hopefully this alleviates some concerns.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 13:11, 23 July 2008 (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. PhilKnight (talk) 22:48, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Bir Banga Hindu Prajatantra[edit]
- Bir Banga Hindu Prajatantra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Fails WP:RS. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 16:06, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Fails WP:V, WP:RS. Note that, the article was prodded and deleted for non-notability back in 2006. --Ragib (talk) 16:51, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 18:20, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 18:20, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. ukexpat (talk) 21:21, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Can't find anything that shows this group even exists, and article creator has retired.John Z (talk) 23:20, 22 July 2008 (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. PhilKnight (talk) 22:49, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dani Planchería[edit]
- Dani Planchería (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Two sentence article on a young footballer who has never played in a fully professional league, therefore failing WP:ATHLETE. Was prodded, but as usual it was removed by an IP without explanation... пﮟოьεԻ 57 15:56, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. пﮟოьεԻ 57 15:56, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. GiantSnowman 16:34, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. -- Quartermaster (talk) 16:41, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. ukexpat (talk) 21:22, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per nom. --Jimbo[online] 12:27, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. The second choice goalkeeper of the reserve team? Non-notable. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:03, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. -- Alexf42 10:14, 24 July 2008 (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. Generally places are assumed as presumably notable even if no notability is actually established. Anyway, a closely related issue is currently on discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability (Geographic locations)#Using an Atlas as a source for notability, so I'm closing keep based on the overwhelming number of keep votes, and encourage you to participate there - Nabla (talk) 21:43, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Amity (hamlet), New York[edit]
- Amity (hamlet), New York (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
I am listing this here rather than continue to edit war with NE2, who seems to feel that any real place is notable and that it's OK if it remains a stub, rather at odds with my understanding of policy. This was created by a well-meaning new user a few days ago, yet completely fails the (admittedly under consideration) WP:NPT. There is absolutely nothing that would demonstrate this crossroads is notable: it does not have its own ZIP Code or fire district (two things most unincorporated communities in upstate New York that have articles tend to have; there are no schools or significant local roads named after it and it isn't a census-designated place so we can't possibly get a reliable figure on its population. There's nothing that can't be taken care of by a few lines in Warwick, New York and making this a redirect or getting rid of it entirely. Daniel Case (talk) 15:31, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm a real person. Am I notable because of that? No. Daniel Case (talk) 19:19, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep communities generally notable. --Stormbay (talk) 15:38, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep tremendous amount of precedent supports consensus of keeping articles like this one, even if it is a stub. Examples include Upland, Kansas, Detroit, Kansas, Yuma, Kansas, Rice, Kansas... yes, all Kansas but since that's where I live that's what I know. There are 109 articles in the "Unincorporated communities in Kansas" category alone. Further, there is nothing wrong with an article being a "stub" --lots of articles on Wikipedia are stubs! Unincorporated areas and even ghost towns all can be notable and worthy of inclusion.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:49, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There is a difference between unincorporated communities in Kansas, a state where the vast majority of land area is so sparsely populated that three houses is something to take note of, and New York, where even upstate a small group of houses in an area not otherwise distinguished by anything that automatically makes a place notable is not exceptional. The mostly rural Town of Warwick already boasts two incorporated villages (Warwick and Greenwood Lake), half of a third (Florida), and a significant unincorporated hamlet (Pine Island). Almost everybody there uses one of those ZIP Codes. I have yet to hear anyone say they lived in Amity or any of the other places not already rating articles. Daniel Case (talk) 20:56, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Addendum to above: WP:OTHERCRAP. Daniel Case (talk) 06:04, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Insulting? First of all, I find it extremly offensive that you refer to unincorporated communities in Kansas as "crap" -- you could easily have used one of the recommended tags like WP:OTHERSTUFF or WP:WAX or even referenced the essay WP:OSE to make your point but chose instead to be insulting. Yes, Kansas is more rural. No, it is not crap.
- I'm sorry, that was the only shortcut for that section I could remember on short notice. The fact that you chose to be insulted does not make it any less valid, as you seem to tacitly admit. And imprecating that I chose that to insult you because you're from Kansas, or that I chose that shortcut with the intent of insulting you, betrays a serious inability to assume good faith and an exaggerated estimate of your place in the universe.
In short, it's not all about you. Daniel Case (talk) 06:10, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- never heard of it? Have you ever heard of anyone from Sibley, Kansas? Probably not because the town doesn't exist anymore. How about Upland, Kansas?? It's a barn, a house, a field, and the former site of the Upland Mutual Insurance Company. There are lots of things that people haven't heard of that are notable. Remember, Notability is not fame nor importance.
- Did I say I'd never heard of any of those places? Are you sure you're not refighting some other AfD? I have never said I never heard of it, just that it isn't notable enough for an article of its very own. Please don't put words in my mouth. Daniel Case (talk) 06:10, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Authority? The user above is not a reliable source to quote on the "absence of notability" on a location because "you've never heard of anyone saying that they are from there"
- WADR, I live a lot closer to it than you do. Daniel Case (talk) 06:10, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Conclusion I don't really think it's fair to use WP:APATHY as a reason to void WP:OTHERSTUFF--especially when there is a clear precedent and consensus supporting the inclusion. --Paul McDonald (talk) 15:48, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- My conclusion: Stick to what we're actually discussing here and assume good faith. Daniel Case (talk) 06:10, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Addendum to above: WP:OTHERCRAP. Daniel Case (talk) 06:04, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 15:53, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. It is a verifiable settlement, and editor consensus is that settlements are notable regardless of size. A stub is an okay place to start. I do not share the nominator's assumption that this article has no hope of further development. • Gene93k (talk) 15:56, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. "Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing." Wales, Jimmy (2004-07-28). ""Wikipedia Founder Jimmy Wales Replies"". Slashdot. Retrieved 2006-06-07. Why are so many editors hell-bent on deleting information that does not interest them? We'll waste more bytes talking about this than if we had just kept it.--Appraiser (talk) 15:59, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That's the sum of all human knowledge, not all human knowledge. Daniel Case (talk) 20:56, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It's ok if it remains a stub Plenty of fine articles will remain stubs forever because there is very little of note to report on. If you want to merge it to Warwick (and you seem to have a case to do so), then discuss that. Keep. Protonk (talk) 16:05, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That's what I mean by redirectifying it, the usual result of a merge. I would, as I have indicated, be happy with making this a redirect. I just don't think it rates a separate article. Daniel Case (talk) 20:56, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- So just go to WP:MERGE and follow the instructions there for proposing a merger. See if anyone responds yea or nay and if no one says anything after a week or so, merge the two articles. Protonk (talk) 02:34, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There would be nothing to merge ... everything noteworthy is already there. And if I did, NE2 would restore the article immediately, per his documented history of edit warring. I had twice made the article a redirect, and he reverted it and wasn't interested in discussing it beyond overly generalized oneliners (as he hasn't been in this discussion, either). Daniel Case (talk) 21:41, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to containing town. I've never understood the practice that simply because a place is found in a gazetteer, it should get an article. This has very little hope of being expanded. It doesn't even get its own census tract. Can anyone justify why it needs to have a stand-alone article? What's wrong with treating the topic in another related article? Non-CDP and non-post office hamlets in New York have always been merged into their towns where there is a section with a blurb on the communities in that town. If someone somehow does expand it in the future to include things other than it exists and where, then that is the time to split it off. --Polaron | Talk 16:07, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect to Warwick, New York. I'm in favor of small articles for small communities, but this seems to be a very different case from those in Kansas, for example. According to Administrative divisions of New York#Hamlet, a hamlet in New York is the rural equivalent of a neighborhood. It has no real independent existence and is dependent on the town it's located in for all services. Unless some other sources establishing some sort of independent notability are forthcoming, I don't think it should have its own article. Ntsimp (talk) 16:33, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Response the above mentioned unincorporated places in Kansas also are dependent on another town for services such as fire, police, etc. Now, a "hamlet" may be different from an unincorporated place, but I don't see exactly how at this point...--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:56, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Technically, we shouldn't be using the term "hamlet". In New York it is a term of convenience with almost no legal meaning. One day we will merge Category:Hamlets in New York into Category:Unincorporated communities in New York, as they're basically the same thing. Daniel Case (talk) 20:56, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep Any documented place is inherently notable, regardless of article size. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 16:56, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment My house is a documented place," included in government online databases of several sorts. Should I create an article about it? I know of no independent and reliable sources with substantial coverage of it, anymore than this neighborhood seems to have.Edison (talk) 20:44, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Huh? Your house is a documented structure, not a documented place. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 21:02, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment My house is a documented place," included in government online databases of several sorts. Should I create an article about it? I know of no independent and reliable sources with substantial coverage of it, anymore than this neighborhood seems to have.Edison (talk) 20:44, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep The fact that there is no census tract means nothing. It's entirely possible a local name exists for a "neighbourhood" in upstate New York right? In my mind, and public history is a familiar area, documented inhabitance of the subject area prima facie justifies the article's existance; over time, some amount of history has to develop. Ottre (talk) 18:54, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- My point was the census tract that includes the area is much larger than the area associated with Amity. In this sense, it is a sub-neighborhood. I don't think anyone is advocating deletion of the article at this point but merging is more appropriate for this case until such a time that more information is found on this topic that would cause the town article to become too long. --Polaron | Talk 19:28, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Read between the lines. If you agree that the article isn't going to be deleted, and that it is a culturally recognised area in a state of ~twenty million, we can expect some history to develop... regardless of whether it is reproduced or incorporated in the Amity article. Ottre (talk) 20:52, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect to Warwick, New York. A neighborhood like this certainly does not have any inherent notability, whereas a small town would. Edison (talk) 20:42, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep "Towns" in NY and NJ and some other states can be subdivisions of counties, not necessarily large villages. That's the case i think for Warwick, and this is an independent location--it even has a fire department of its own. This remains an inhabited place within our practices here. DGG (talk) 00:24, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If you read the article closely (like that's so hard with a sub-stub), you'll see that it doesn't. It's part of the Pine Island Fire District; Amity is just a station. Daniel Case (talk) 01:44, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect to Warwick, New York per several editors above. It's not notable on its own, but having a blurb in the (slightly) larger scheme of Warwick makes sense. Frank | talk 02:40, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- PS: A disambiguation page would probably be needed, since Amity, New York also exists. Frank | talk 02:41, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, in the unlikely event this is kept, we would need to move it to the existing redirect Amity, Orange County, New York, the preferred way to dab communities in New York (not with this silly parenthetical). Generally, we don't use disambiguation pages when there are only two. Daniel Case (talk) 21:43, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- keep - more than satisfies Wikipedia:Notability (Places and transportation). Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 16:30, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see how. Where's the significant coverage in reliable secondary sources? If you're saying it fits the requirements for "stubs on human settlements shown in atlases", note this sentence from the proposal: "A sub-section of a human settlement, such as a district of a town, should normally be incorporated in the article about the settlement it is located in, unless it has exceptional notability of its own, or unless it constitutes a unit of local government." Amity is a district of the town of Warwick. I realize what you linked to is only a proposal, but according to its recommendation we should not have a separate article here. Ntsimp (talk) 19:38, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- When we read the entire sentence, it reads as : "However, stubs on human settlements shown in atlases may be created, provided that some rudimentary information be provided, such as their population or a description of their location in relation to other human settlements." This seems to seems to fit nicely. Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 02:33, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Except this isn't a settlement; it's a sub-section of a human settlement. Like a neighborhood. Ntsimp (talk) 03:07, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe you're oversimplifying it. How many neighbourhoods have their own Fire Department? It would seem as thought this settlement predates the area/town/city that may have grown up around it. Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 15:32, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Just clarifying that this area doesn't have its own fire department as Daniel Case mentioned elsewhere on this page. One of the stations of the Pine Island F.D. is located just north of Amity, though. --Polaron | Talk 15:42, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It's entirely possible that "this settlement predates the area/town/city that may have grown up around it", or any of a number of interesting historical details that might lend it some independent significance, but without "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources", we may never know. Ntsimp (talk) 21:26, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe you're oversimplifying it. How many neighbourhoods have their own Fire Department? It would seem as thought this settlement predates the area/town/city that may have grown up around it. Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 15:32, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Except this isn't a settlement; it's a sub-section of a human settlement. Like a neighborhood. Ntsimp (talk) 03:07, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- When we read the entire sentence, it reads as : "However, stubs on human settlements shown in atlases may be created, provided that some rudimentary information be provided, such as their population or a description of their location in relation to other human settlements." This seems to seems to fit nicely. Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 02:33, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see how. Where's the significant coverage in reliable secondary sources? If you're saying it fits the requirements for "stubs on human settlements shown in atlases", note this sentence from the proposal: "A sub-section of a human settlement, such as a district of a town, should normally be incorporated in the article about the settlement it is located in, unless it has exceptional notability of its own, or unless it constitutes a unit of local government." Amity is a district of the town of Warwick. I realize what you linked to is only a proposal, but according to its recommendation we should not have a separate article here. Ntsimp (talk) 19:38, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - What's wrong with it being a stub? - Algorerhythms (talk) 18:54, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Nothing's wrong with it being a stub. Everything's wrong with carrying an article unlikely to be expanded beyond stub status. Daniel Case (talk) 21:41, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There are a lot of articles about various state highways that are unlikely to be expanded beyond stubs as well. Does that mean we should delete those as well, even though there's precedent against it? - Algorerhythms (talk) 22:31, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, the precedent for groups of unexpandable stub is to merge them into lists. Circeus (talk) 03:33, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Which, again, is preferable to having individual articles like this. I have said several times I wouldn't mind a redirect or coverage within another article. But I had to do this because NE2 just edit-warred in response to my attempts to make it one. Daniel Case (talk) 06:02, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Stubs are valid Please read Wikipedia:Stub. Stub articles are an important part of Wikipedia. Most articles get their start as stubs, and many stay as stubs for a very long time--maybe for all time. Once a stub article has been created, other editors will also be able to enhance it.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:58, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Stubs are valid as article starts. A stub is expected to have the potential to evolve into a full-fledged article. A stub that cannot do so is not legitimate and must be dealt with by the usual methods (a.k.a. deletion, redirect, merge, etc.) Circeus (talk) 19:28, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- as article starts? Where'd you find that? Please read Wikipedia:Stub. Yes, an ideal stub article will be expanded, but nowhere that I can find has consensus ever supported that a notable stub should be deleted just because the article is too short. You'll note the nutshell summary states "An article too short to provide more than rudimentary information about a subject should be marked as a stub by adding a stub template" -- nowhere does it say "stubs should be deleted"--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:16, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Just because the original conceptual relations have been somehow erased with the streamlining of the page doesn't eman they don't exist anymore. Look at Wikipedia:Glossary: "An article considered too short to give an adequate introduction to a subject (often one paragraph or less)." By definition, if an article cannot be expanded to "give an adequate introduction to a subject", it is not a stub, and if the "adequate introduction" to the subject is two sentences, there is absolutely no point in keeping the article separate. Circeus (talk) 21:02, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please Play Fair Here is the entire definition from the page you reference:
- Just because the original conceptual relations have been somehow erased with the streamlining of the page doesn't eman they don't exist anymore. Look at Wikipedia:Glossary: "An article considered too short to give an adequate introduction to a subject (often one paragraph or less)." By definition, if an article cannot be expanded to "give an adequate introduction to a subject", it is not a stub, and if the "adequate introduction" to the subject is two sentences, there is absolutely no point in keeping the article separate. Circeus (talk) 21:02, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- as article starts? Where'd you find that? Please read Wikipedia:Stub. Yes, an ideal stub article will be expanded, but nowhere that I can find has consensus ever supported that a notable stub should be deleted just because the article is too short. You'll note the nutshell summary states "An article too short to provide more than rudimentary information about a subject should be marked as a stub by adding a stub template" -- nowhere does it say "stubs should be deleted"--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:16, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Stubs are valid as article starts. A stub is expected to have the potential to evolve into a full-fledged article. A stub that cannot do so is not legitimate and must be dealt with by the usual methods (a.k.a. deletion, redirect, merge, etc.) Circeus (talk) 19:28, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Stubs are valid Please read Wikipedia:Stub. Stub articles are an important part of Wikipedia. Most articles get their start as stubs, and many stay as stubs for a very long time--maybe for all time. Once a stub article has been created, other editors will also be able to enhance it.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:58, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Which, again, is preferable to having individual articles like this. I have said several times I wouldn't mind a redirect or coverage within another article. But I had to do this because NE2 just edit-warred in response to my attempts to make it one. Daniel Case (talk) 06:02, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, the precedent for groups of unexpandable stub is to merge them into lists. Circeus (talk) 03:33, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There are a lot of articles about various state highways that are unlikely to be expanded beyond stubs as well. Does that mean we should delete those as well, even though there's precedent against it? - Algorerhythms (talk) 22:31, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- An article considered too short to give an adequate introduction to a subject (often one paragraph or less). Stubs are marked with stub templates, a specific type of cleanup template, which add the articles to stub categories sorted by subject matter.
- See also Wikipedia:Find or fix a stub and Wikiproject Stub Sorting.
- Readers will note that nowhere in that definition (nor the referenced articles in context with the discussion here) do the words "delete" or "no point in keeping" occur. The editor has taken a definition in Wikipedia and then added on his/her own argument.
- NOTE--not that there is anything wrong with the editor's stance, opinion, etc... heck, maybe it is a good rule and maybe consensus will change to support that idea--but that's not the argument presented. Please stick to the facts and separate out opinion from policy.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:23, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Since when "that's not written in policy" has been an argument to negate an actual long-established practice? Circeus (talk) 22:17, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- All I'm saying is that if you say something is policy when it is not, that negates the credibility of the argument. Remember, one person's "long-established practice" can be brand new to someone else. You quoted policy, it wasn't policy (or even in a printed guideline). Wanna make it a policy? Start working on WP:DeleteStubs and see what consensus comes up with.--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:24, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Since when "that's not written in policy" has been an argument to negate an actual long-established practice? Circeus (talk) 22:17, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: this point has been raised twice now, the burden of proof lies with you to show that the hamlet will not develop into a "full-fledged" article. It didn't take me much browsing to find that the town historian's summary: "During the 1800’s, Amity, Edenville and Pine Island became centers of population in the midst of the surrounding dairy, fruit and vegetable farms. Iron mining, charcoal burning and lumbering were occupations of settlers in the mountains from Sterling to Cascade; quarrying provided work near Mount Adam and Mount Eve. Greenwood Lake became well-known to hunters and fishermen and evolved into a popular resort and recreation area."
- Matches with the history of the Fourth Regiment of the New York Militia, as it is well-established fact that General Hawthorn drew "roughly one hundred men from round the Pine Island settlement."
- Yet the official history states that "After the Revolutionary War, the hamlet of Warwick became one of many hamlets that comprised the new Town of Warwick. It was overshadowed by neighboring hamlets of Bellvale, Florida, New Milford, and Sugar Loaf. All this changed dramatically with the construction of the Warwick Valley Railroad in 1860."
- And did you notice that Amity is specifically not mentioned here? Daniel Case (talk) 06:10, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Obviously biased coverage is reason to believe the hamlet has some cultural recognition beyond the information available on-line. Ottre (talk) 22:53, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That appears to be mainly about Pine Island. Yes, it is possible there is more history available that does not primarily refer to the bigger Pine Island settlement (of which Amity is a neighborhood of sorts). However, until someone writes a more substantive article, what is wrong with putting what is currently known in the Warwick town article? This merging is in fact what is done for the vast majority of non-CDP, non-post office hamlets of New York. --Polaron | Talk 23:08, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yet the official history states that "After the Revolutionary War, the hamlet of Warwick became one of many hamlets that comprised the new Town of Warwick. It was overshadowed by neighboring hamlets of Bellvale, Florida, New Milford, and Sugar Loaf. All this changed dramatically with the construction of the Warwick Valley Railroad in 1860."
- Strong keep A New York hamlet is clearly notable and suitable for a separate article, without any need to merge. Time and again we've held that small communities such as this are good enough for articles. Nyttend (talk) 21:12, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, list articles. Daniel Case (talk) 06:10, 26 July 2008 (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 (non-admin closure). I want to note that merging to ASAP (band) can still be appropriate. Please, discuss this separatelly. Ruslik (talk) 13:16, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Entire Population of Hackney[edit]
- The Entire Population of Hackney (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Fails WP:MUSIC, bootlegs are not notable without substantial coverage in reliable, third-party sources. None provided, none found. Mdsummermsw (talk) 15:31, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This recording is mentioned in Iron Maiden's official biography, and in other places. Clearly meets WP:MUSIC a lot more than these half-assed bands everyone is alleging are notable. LuciferMorgan (talk) 15:46, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. This article, while focused on the bootleg album, is something of a hybrid. It discusses both the album and the group referred to as "The Entire Population of Hackney", and if nothing else the group would appear to fulfil WP:MUSIC criterion 6. Although the sources cited in the article are poor, assuming LuciferMorgan's statement that it's discussed in Iron Maiden's official biography is correct I think this group/album can be considered notable. ~ mazca t | c 17:53, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 18:21, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - If the group is notable, make an article about the group. This is about the bootleg album. If the album is, in fact, referenced in the "official biography", that's nice. It isn't a third-party source, but it would be worth adding to the article. In both cases, the bootleg is not notable without "significant independent coverage in reliable sources" (per WP:MUSIC#ALBUMS). - Mdsummermsw (talk) 20:40, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- What doesn't make sense to me is why this is about the bootleg album, because the group is called The Entire Population of Hackney, and that is what is referenced in the official biography. There is zero mention of this bootleg - I just checked the biography, so my previous statement was misleading. I feel there should be an article about the group, but not about this bootleg. The article should be written to be about the group and not a bootleg. LuciferMorgan (talk) 23:06, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The thing is, the bootleg, the performances, and the group all kinda go hand-in-hand. When you have a group made up of notable members, but mostly all they did was produce one recording and a few concerts, I think discussing all three of those things together is the best way. I agree, though, that this article should be reworded somewhat to be "an article about the group that also discusses the bootleg" rather than "an article about the bootleg that also discusses the group". ~ mazca t | c 07:40, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- What doesn't make sense to me is why this is about the bootleg album, because the group is called The Entire Population of Hackney, and that is what is referenced in the official biography. There is zero mention of this bootleg - I just checked the biography, so my previous statement was misleading. I feel there should be an article about the group, but not about this bootleg. The article should be written to be about the group and not a bootleg. LuciferMorgan (talk) 23:06, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Without saying that the group is or is not notable, it seems clear to me that the chain of dependancy is upsidedown on this one. We can have an article on a band without mentioning performances, or one on the band and performances without mentioning a bootleg of the performances. What we have is an article about a bootleg that describes the band and performances because we do not have an article about the band. The current article on the bootleg cites blogs, forum posts, geocities and such. No reliable sources = no notability for the bootleg. There might be reliable sources for the band, but I didn't find them (I wasn't looking for them). If we're all in agreement that we have nothing on the bootleg, let's copy the existing article to a sandbox, delete the bootleg and build an article on the band (if we can show notability). Make sense? - Mdsummermsw (talk) 12:26, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge with ASAP (band) would seem to solve the problems. Bondegezou (talk) 16:27, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I've re-written the article to be primarily about the group rather than the bootleg (as per Mdsummermsw above), although basically the content is much the same. I think there is some valuable information here, but am myself uncertain whether it warrants a separate article. I was tempted to just cut'n'paste the whole thing and dump it in the beginning of ASAP (band) and set up a re-direct. Bondegezou (talk) 11:46, 27 July 2008 (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. --jonny-mt 05:46, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Irritant (band)[edit]
- Irritant (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This is an unsigned group who has since split up. Also, they only released two singles (both self-released), and no albums. The only alleged claim to notability is the fact that the group's second and final single charted at no. 70 on the UK singles charts, and the source given for this doesn't actually verify this. I really question whether this can be deemed a "charted hit" under WP:MUSIC's notability criteria - this is down to interpretation of the vague criteria (far as I am concerned, no. 70 is in no way or shape a hit), which needs to be more specific. If editors deem that this band is noteworthy due to having a track hitting no. 70, then I propose the WP:MUSIC guidelines be tightened up. LuciferMorgan (talk) 15:28, 22 July 2008 (UTC) LuciferMorgan (talk) 15:28, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 18:22, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Number 70 is a minor hit, though a fair achievement for an unsigned band, but borderline if that was the only claim to notability. There appears, however, to be sufficient coverage, including two BBC articles, to satisfy notability criteria. A better reference would be preferable to confirm the chart hit, but it's reported in several different places, so there seems no reason to doubt it.--Michig (talk) 19:10, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, passes WP:MUSIC#C1 & WP:MUSIC#C2. Esradekan Gibb "Talk" 01:48, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Whether they pass C2 is according to interpretation, such is the vagueness of the guidelines. Also, by proxy, should this article be kept, this AFD is saying that everyone who has ever had a UK top 100 single is worthy of a Wikipedia article (which is total rubbish). LuciferMorgan (talk) 02:43, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No it isn't. This discussion is purely about Irritant. Any other band would need to be considered on their own merits.--Michig (talk) 07:21, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, this AFD would be saying just that, so don't say it would not be - you're talking total horseshit Michig. Don't tell me what a discussion is about - I don't know who the fuck you think you are to be frank. LuciferMorgan (talk) 13:37, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ummm ... having a bad day? What's with the uncivil tone? I expect better from an editor as experienced as yourself. Michig is quite right here. An unsigned and independent band might be notable for reaching #70 on a music chart. That might not be the case for a band or artist that is signed to a major label. It's all relative and editors are not bound by precedent by this or any other AFD. The world is not going to end if this article is kept on wikipedia so chill out and relax. --Bardin (talk) 14:10, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I sincerely hope this appalling behaviour is out of character, but putting that aside for a moment, you may want to take a look at Wikipedia:Arguments_to_avoid_in_deletion_discussions#All_or_nothing, which is basically the crux of your argument. As I pointed out, a number 70 hit is quite significant for an unsigned band, and the significant coverage in reliable sources was also a factor in my view that the article should be kept. A similar article without such coverage may need to be treated differently. I am perfectly entitled to disagree with you (whilst remaining civil)- if you can't deal with that without this sort of behaviour perhaps you're working on the wrong project.--Michig (talk) 17:25, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, this AFD would be saying just that, so don't say it would not be - you're talking total horseshit Michig. Don't tell me what a discussion is about - I don't know who the fuck you think you are to be frank. LuciferMorgan (talk) 13:37, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No it isn't. This discussion is purely about Irritant. Any other band would need to be considered on their own merits.--Michig (talk) 07:21, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Whether they pass C2 is according to interpretation, such is the vagueness of the guidelines. Also, by proxy, should this article be kept, this AFD is saying that everyone who has ever had a UK top 100 single is worthy of a Wikipedia article (which is total rubbish). LuciferMorgan (talk) 02:43, 23 July 2008 (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 - Rationale for delete is inadequate, overwhelming support. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:53, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Violet Blue (author)[edit]
- Violet Blue (author) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Lets face it, this chick is really not notable at all. Flash in the pan, little better than an a myspace band. Delete, unless this chick can improve her lot in life sufficiently to warrant an encyclopedia article about her. Does this chick have an entry in Britannica? Brohans Dude (talk) 15:18, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator is a sock of banned user Wiki brah (talk · contribs). Thatcher 20:56, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Seems to mostly consist of various blogosphere events which, for the most part, have not made it into the mainstream press and are not reliably sourced (or sourceable). Per WP:BLP and WP:N I think deletion is a good idea. (I'd suggest the nom substitute "person" for "chick" - we shouldn't be denigrating people in noms, no matter of one's opinion on them.) Orderinchaos 15:24, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've discussed why I think that the subject meets our notability policy in my 'keep' below, but I'm curious what part of WP:BLP do you think is a problem for this article? -Chunky Rice (talk) 16:17, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It certainly did make it into the mainstream press. Nick mallory (talk) 01:22, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Let's see. She's a columnist for the San Francisco Chronicle, an extremely notable paper. She's an award winning editor [9]. She was named one of the top 25 web celebs by Forbes [10] (which describes her as a "best-selling, award-winning author of over a dozen books on sex and sexuality"). Add to that the whole BoingBoing controversy [11], and the lawsuit against Noname Jane [12], which have received coverage and I think this is a pretty easy keep. -Chunky Rice (talk) 16:10, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Nominator seems clueless. No need to vote. Potentially harassing nomination.Yeago (talk) 16:23, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep It'd be speedy if Orderinchaos hadn't chimed in (with an entry that Chunky Rice pretty much eviscerated, but if anyone else supports a nom, speedy keep is off the table, the way I read it) Jclemens (talk) 16:27, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Notable enough for me. -- Quartermaster (talk) 17:05, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete...As nominator. Brohans Dude (talk) 17:46, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]- As the nom, it's already assumed you want the article deleted. No need to duplicate your !vote here. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 18:36, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This isn't the Britannica. This is Wikipedia... Notable enough. Considering the kind of stuff we are keeping these days in Hindu saints section, She is by far a keeper ChiragPatnaik (talk) 18:05, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 18:23, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 18:24, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep (Pardon me: AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!) Okay, so first off, good point, ChiragPatnaik. If you check out the wiki traf stats page [13] you will note she is popular! Some 6000 hits a month. Service provided. All the other nonsense about notability should be thrown aside in this instance because apparently she interests a lot of folk. Also, some of her pamphlets and instructional guides may, in fact, deserve articles of their own. Maybe they are groundbreaking in some of the methods they pass on? Manhattan Samurai (talk) 19:22, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I was unsure about this one but, reading the article more closely, there's really nothing of substance here. The article does not meet BLP because there is really nothing about her here. After a brief mention of her writing career, the article becomes a coatrack for talking about the lawsuit and BoingBoing "controversy." For the points ChunkyRice brought up: 1) notability is not inherited, so being an employee of a notable company does not immediately make one notable; 2) doesn't qualify as a notable award in any capacity; 3) the BoingBoing flap is just blogosphere stuff, and does not establish wide notability for her; 4) out of all the cites in the article, the primary focus is on the lawsuit. While interesting, that's basically one event here, not enough to base the entire article around for notability. Overall, I don't find enough here to establish notability outside a very narrow interest, much less a WP:BLP compliant article. If the article is kept for some reason, it needs to be pared down dramatically to remove the coatracking and the non-notable books she's published. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 19:38, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You don't think that Forbes or the Chicago Tribune are reliable sources? Whatever you may think of "blogosphere stuff," it doesn't change the fact that it was covered by reliable sources. We determine notability based on what reliable sources cover, not what we think they should cover. -Chunky Rice (talk) 19:52, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I did not say that Forbes and the Chicago Tribune were not a reliable sources. I said that the "award" is trivial, not something that would qualify as notable. She gets a brief mention in a "top 25" list, that's it. The Chicago Tribune article is about the controversy more than blue; it would be more appropriate for a mention in BoingBoing. Really, her notability in this article hangs on a WP:BLP1E violation: the lawsuit is the only real claim to notability here. I do note that I completely misstated my intent by writing down that Wired was the only non-adult entertainment source about the lawsuit, and have refactored that. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 19:57, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you're being overly dismissive of the Forbes cite. While brief, it's clearly non-trivial per WP:WEB. -Chunky Rice (talk) 20:09, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- And you can't really call it a BLP1E article when it was created in 2005, long before the suit.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:11, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I did not say that Forbes and the Chicago Tribune were not a reliable sources. I said that the "award" is trivial, not something that would qualify as notable. She gets a brief mention in a "top 25" list, that's it. The Chicago Tribune article is about the controversy more than blue; it would be more appropriate for a mention in BoingBoing. Really, her notability in this article hangs on a WP:BLP1E violation: the lawsuit is the only real claim to notability here. I do note that I completely misstated my intent by writing down that Wired was the only non-adult entertainment source about the lawsuit, and have refactored that. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 19:57, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You don't think that Forbes or the Chicago Tribune are reliable sources? Whatever you may think of "blogosphere stuff," it doesn't change the fact that it was covered by reliable sources. We determine notability based on what reliable sources cover, not what we think they should cover. -Chunky Rice (talk) 19:52, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Forbes mention, awards for writing/editing.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:11, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Author won a 2006 Independent Publisher Book Award. Jclemens (talk) 20:12, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- And if the Independent Publisher Book Award is notable enough for an article, I think winning it goes a long way toward conferring notability.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:13, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Too much wikidrama, not notable enough. Notability as a writer is not inherited from whom one writes. See also WP:BLP1E. Bearian (talk) 20:21, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- While notability is certainly worth discussing, 'wikidrama' is not a good reason to delete any article. -Chunky Rice (talk) 21:11, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, along with the number of articles from reliable sources visible from a gnews search(LA Times, SF Chronicle, Chicago Tribune, NY Times etc...) and her winning a Independent Publisher Book Award, I also found two Library Journal reviews. All of this certainly bring her to notability. Here are the reviews I found via my libraries EBSCO database:
- Cornog, Martha. "The Ultimate Guide to Adult Videos: How To Watch Adult Videos and Make Your Sex Life Sizzle (Book)." Library Journal 128, no. 18 (November 2003): 110-110. Literary Reference Center, EBSCO,Abstract:Reviews the book "The Ultimate Guide to Adult Videos: How To Watch Adult Videos and Make Your Sex Life Sizzle," by Violet Blue.
- Cornog, Martha. "The Adventurous Couple's Guide to Sex Toys." Library Journal 131, no. 15 (September 15, 2006): 77-77. Literary Reference Center, EBSCO,Abstract:The article reviews the book "The Adventurous Couple's Guide to Sex Toys," by Violet Blue.--Captain-tucker (talk) 22:37, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep per her entry at http://www.forbes.com/2007/01/23/internet-fame-celebrity-tech-media-cx_de_06webceleb_0123land.html and all of her activities mentioned in the entry. And per Library Journal reviews. JohnRussell (talk) 21:05, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep Clearly notable ukexpat (talk) 21:25, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep - any concerns about the the BoingBoing flap should be dealt with within the article, not by deleting the article. Artw (talk) 21:55, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - notable author and newspaper columnist. -MBK004 21:58, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep sources provided here indicate enough notability. Sources should be added to the article so her notability is made clear. --Enric Naval (talk) 23:47, 22 July 2008 (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. PhilKnight (talk) 22:29, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Jeepers Creepers 3[edit]
- Jeepers Creepers 3 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
The article doesn't have any sourced information about the movie it's about. Edgehead5150 (talk) 15:12, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment.Keep if not a hoax, a quick IMDB or internet search can confirm or deny the existence of this project. If its true, the article should be kept, with or without sources. I'm busy at the moment however.Brohans Dude (talk) 15:21, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- New Comment. IMDB has confirmed the existence of this project, expected to be released in 2009, for whatever that's worth. Brohans Dude (talk) 17:43, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 18:13, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fails WP:NFF, as the film is only "about to enter pre-production". PC78 (talk) 18:19, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per failure to meet the notability guidelines for future films, as indicated by PC78's link. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:00, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The notability guidelines for future films recommends that a stand-alone article for a film should not be created until a project enters production. This is because many factors, such as budget issues, scripting issues, and casting issues can interfere with the project. Development hell can claim even the most likely projects. The article can be recreated when principal photography is confirmed to have begun. Steve T • C 19:14, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect the content to either Victor Salva's page, or a Jeepers Creepers film series page (if there is one). Content fails WP:NFF. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 04:16, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
MoveDelete. This article's single paragraph can easily go to Jeepers Creepers (2001 film) and be added to the section on sequels where this third installment is already mentioned. Does not need its own page at this point. Michael Q. Schmidt (talk) 03:35, 26 July 2008 (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. Sandstein 17:50, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Arian Catholicism[edit]
- Arian Catholicism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Advertising for small "Internet church," no assertion of notability or third-party sources. None of the issues from the prior nomination were fixed. Anything useful should simply be merged into Arianism. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:02, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, obviously. Tiny group with exactly zero coverage in independent reliable sources. In fact a borderline A7 speedy, no plausible claim of notability whatsoever. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:36, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This intrigues me, and the article survived AfD 18 months ago. I'm going to do some poking in here and see if this is salvageable. Please do not close prematurely--I'll report on my progress when I have some. Jclemens (talk) 16:45, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I'm just finding Wikipedia, the church's various websites, and blog postings under both "arian catholicism" and "arian catholic church"--I'm all for not excluding minority religious views, but I can't find a single reliable, independent source. Jclemens (talk) 17:15, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. —Jclemens (talk) 16:54, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete -- having looked extensively at the organisation's multipel website, I can see no evidence of any membership except one (probably self-appointed) primate and one archpresbyter. They claim to be holding services in certain Anglican Cathedrals, but I do not see any church even as liberal as them willingly tolerating the use of their buildings by heretics. There is a lot of information about Arianism on their website, but apart from that there is no substance to it at all. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:31, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Peterkingiron Ron B. Thomson (talk) 21:41, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Merge with the longer article on Arianism. This is a very small sub-set of Arianism generally. It is worthy of notice, but not worthy of its own article.Wikigonish (talk) 00:34, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - hardly meets WP:N and reads a lot more like some WP:SOAP. Shot info (talk) 04:10, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Still delete I repeated all the searches I did in December 2006 (easy, since I left links in the last AFD). There are still no independent reliable sources found by Google Web, Google Scholar, Google News (& Archives), or Google Books, and they still aren't listed as a denomination in the World Christian Database. GRBerry 04:21, 27 July 2008 (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 both per a lack of reliable sources and apparent failure to establish independent notability. --jonny-mt 06:04, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Futurestep[edit]
- Futurestep (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
non-notable sub-genre. appears to be entirely original research. neon white talk 20:57, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominating the following related article for the same reason as above : -
- Keep The topic is notable enough for inclusion. Besides AfD's are not supposed to be dispute resolution mechanism's. Nominator proposed a merger, which failed to gain a consensus at Talk:Drum and bass#Merger proposal. --Firefly322 (talk) 01:16, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jauerbackdude?/dude. 14:49, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Both articles have been unreferenced for several months, so I think it is valid to question whether they satisfy WP:GNG. Bondegezou (talk) 16:42, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Reliable sources not presented.-Wafulz (talk) 17:00, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 18:25, 22 July 2008 (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 - Nabla (talk) 21:47, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Kill All: The Rarities Collection[edit]
- Kill All: The Rarities Collection (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Bootlegs are not notable without substantial coverage in reliable, third-party sources. None provided, none found. Fails WP:MUSIC. Mdsummermsw (talk) 14:33, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete - Per nom. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 14:38, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Bootlegs are very rarely notable, and this one even says "its release is unknown". Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:41, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above. LuciferMorgan (talk) 16:26, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 18:26, 22 July 2008 (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 delete. Either a joke collection or a copyright infringement - either way, it's got a snowball's chance in Hell.-Wafulz (talk) 17:08, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Peenman Enterprises[edit]
- Peenman Enterprises (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Appears to be the false advertisements quoted in their entirety. Tckma (talk) 14:26, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete—Someone with speakers can check here and listen to the "Ass Purse" bit. If it is, as I expect, identical to this article, then the article needs to go. Copyvio and WP:NOT#LYRICS. Livitup (talk) 14:35, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete as copvio. As direct word-for-word copies of radio comedy bits, these are presumably under copyright. Even if the show itself is public-domain (I've never heard of it, but most radio shows are copyrighted), Wikipedia isn't the place to host scripts of radio gags. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:39, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete obvious copyright violation. -- Quartermaster (talk) 16:42, 22 July 2008 (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.
A new Peenman Enterprises page is being built at Hendriepedia.com.
- 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. PhilKnight (talk) 22:50, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Pieces of a Dream: Live at Rock in Rio Lisboa 2006[edit]
- Pieces of a Dream: Live at Rock in Rio Lisboa 2006 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable. A single concert. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 14:11, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Tenacious D Fan (talk) 14:11, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No justification given on why this concert is different from any other.-Wafulz (talk) 17:09, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. One night show, nothing came of it (i.e an album, DVD special, etc.), not notable. MrMarkTaylor What's that?/What I Do/Feed My Box 00:26, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Although this was a single concert, this concert was part of a promotional tour. I can list hundreds of wiki articles that were created from single concerts. Nothing here suggest that this article is non-notableDancefloor royalty (talk) 10:47, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Article's on single random concerts? I doubt even a tour is notable - Nabla (talk) 21:27, 27 July 2008 (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 , leaning towards keep. For the most part, the delete arguments do not discuss the subject of this article or do not back up assertions that the subject is not notable. The keep arguments are much, much stronger, but without some additions to the article about how Haywood is a leading expert on The Game (mind game), they don't hold much weight either (so improve the article, please). lifebaka (talk - contribs) 18:35, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Jonty Haywood[edit]
- Jonty Haywood (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
borderline notable; WP:BLP1E Sceptre (talk) 13:55, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Jonty Haywood is not just notable, but notable for two unrelated creations. His Porthemmet hoax was mentioned in many newspapers across the world (references), as well as the national BBC television news. His website LoseTheGame.com has initiated over 300,000 people into The Game and been mentioned in multiple publications by the Canadian Press. Rabidfoxes (talk) 14:02, 22 July 2008 (UTC) — Rabidfoxes (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Some more references:
- UK:
- BBC News: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/cornwall/7015882.stm
- The Guardian: http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/2007/sep/27/wrap.michellepauli
- The Telegraph: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1564295/Cornwall%27s-%27best-beach%27-is-a-cheeky-tourist-trap.html
- The Independent: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/this-britain/wish-you-were-here-website-lures-tourists-to-imaginary-beach-403661.html
- Channel 4 News: http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/science_technology/web+surfers+head+for+cyberbeach/852647
- The Metro: http://www.metro.co.uk/news/article.html?in_article_id=67768&in_page_id=34
- Daily Mail: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-484217/Hoaxer-lures-tourists-Cornwalls-tropical-beach.html
- The Times: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/travel/news/article2540977.ece
- West Briton: http://www.thisiscornwall.co.uk/westbriton/Tourist-trap-sign-times/article-218733-detail/article.html
- International:
Rabidfoxes (talk) 14:52, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Brief mention (i.e., trivial coverage) for the Porthemmet hoax doesn't cut it. Operating a non-notable website does not satisfy notability criteria either. (It's also worth mentioning that the website has been blacklisted here because of Jonty's repeat attempts to spam; Jonty himself has been blocked numerous times for spam and block evasion, and the website in question allows users to download a Firefox plugin for the purpose of vandalising Wikipedia). OhNoitsJamie Talk 14:55, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The Candian Press article about Jonty, his site and The Game was also published by a number of reliable sources such as:
- CTV.ca: http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/print/CTVNews/20080117/thegame_youlose_080117/20080117/?hub=Entertainment&subhub=PrintStory
- Yahoo Canada: http://ca.lifestyle.yahoo.com/health-fitness/articles/fitness/cp/home_family-teens_around_the_world_are_playing_the_game_-_if_you_think_about_it_you_lose
- The Daily Gleaner: http://dailygleaner.canadaeast.com/liveit/article/190560 (link down)
Rabidfoxes (talk) 15:00, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Jonty was mentioned for Porthemmet by almost every major UK newspaper throughout last summer, and was more recently mentioned in the West Briton last week: http://www.thisiscornwall.co.uk/westbriton/Tourist-trap-sign-times/article-218733-detail/article.html
- He's also been referenced for his unrelated creation, LoseTheGame.com, by a number of national Canadian newspapers. I don't think that this can really be described as a "brief mention" or "trivial coverage" and should satisfy Wikipedia's policies regarding notability and reliable sources. Rabidfoxes (talk) 15:11, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The creator of a truly notable hoax--and with other significant intent involvent--and with sources to show it = notable. DGG (talk) 00:28, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The nominator cites WP:BLP1E as the reason for deletion, however I count at least two separate events for which this figure is notable (three if you count the "Porthemmet" road sign event as a separate news event to the hoax site event, since it came a year later), all of which are well covered in reliable sources. As an aside, I do not believe it to be relevant (or appropriate) to bring up the personal reputation of the article's subject in a deletion debate (see WP:NEUTRALITY and WP:IDONTLIKEIT for reasons why). Some sentences in the article could probably use a little rewording to bring them up to Wikipedia standards though. I can also see covered in the sources more information about the subject which may improve the article if it is included (for example, the fact that the subject is a graduate of the University of Cambridge, etc.). In short, this article has room for improvement, but WP:BLP1E doesn't apply here and I really fail to see a valid reason for deletion. Wiw8 (talk) 19:22, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: User:Wiw8 is a recently-created account, whose 7th edit was a lengthy contribution to Talk:The Game (mind game)/Archive, and has shown a particular interest in The Game and this article's subject, with this edit [14] in particular being interesting. -- The Anome (talk) 15:40, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The user's history is quite interesting, with few non trivial edits bar this subject, but it has been registered for a few months. On balance, I personally decided to assume good faith and leave any judgement to the closer. Maybe in the interests of this not becoming personal, you might want to do the same. MickMacNee (talk) 15:46, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Guys, if you looked properly you'd see that my account has actually been registered for over 2 years. In this time I'd say I've gained a firm enough grasp of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines to comment constructively in deletion debates. I may not be a "power editor", not having a wealth of free time to spend editing Wikipedia, but I contribute in my own way however and whenever I can. The fact that I made a comment in an AFD on "the game" ages ago hardly makes it unusual that I should make the odd minor edit or comment on its talk page from time to time - it's on my watch list. I recognise several of the users taking part in this AFD as having been significantly involved in debates on the same issues in the past. In any case, making misleading comments about my editing history here doesn't contribute to this debate in any way, so perhaps we can end that here and go back to debating the notability of the subject. Cheers. Wiw8 (talk) 12:47, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- CommentWhat exactly are the other things he's notable for? The website isn't notable. OhNoitsJamie Talk 19:47, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Half a million unique views, first page Google ranking of a search for "the game", national media coverage... what would it require for you to deem the site as notable? Rabidfoxes (talk) 21:46, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Google hits don't count toward WP:WEB notability. The CTV coverage is quite trivial, consisting of a few sentences mentioning Haywood. OhNoitsJamie Talk 20:00, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Half a million unique views, first page Google ranking of a search for "the game", national media coverage... what would it require for you to deem the site as notable? Rabidfoxes (talk) 21:46, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: User:Wiw8 is a recently-created account, whose 7th edit was a lengthy contribution to Talk:The Game (mind game)/Archive, and has shown a particular interest in The Game and this article's subject, with this edit [14] in particular being interesting. -- The Anome (talk) 15:40, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per BLP1E, he is only notable for the beach hoax. The website is non-notable per WP:WEB, receiving only a single passing mention in one press article (all other links are reprints of the original Canadian Press story) whose main subject was the game, not the website, and uses owner provided facts about the site to boot. A Google of losethegame.com rather than generic search terms reveals plenty of web blog and forum chatter as you would expect, but no non-trivial coverage from third party sources. MickMacNee (talk) 02:59, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:BLP1E. The beach hoax is notable and widely reported, and thus article-worthy, but notability does not inherit from the event to the person. The other website is not notable, and does not qualify as a source of notability. -- The Anome (talk) 14:30, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Agreed. I don't dispute the notability of the beach hoax, and it's a reasonable addition to the Emmet (Cornish) article. However, the notability of the hoax and the creator doesn't extend beyond that. OhNoitsJamie Talk 20:02, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Does Wikinews comply with reliable source policies? http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Wikinews_interviews_manager_of_site_%27Lose_The_Game%27 Rabidfoxes (talk) 16:15, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I know of no such transferable policies between wikinews and wikipedia, so I can't think one has any bearing on the other. Personally, I would have thought their journalistic integrity rose above examples of such blatant free self-promotion - it reads more like a press release rather than a news story, but I know little of their activities to be honest so can't judge if that is an acceptable piece. I will drop a note to the journo that his work is being talked about here, he has a wikipedia account also. MickMacNee (talk) 16:33, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Since my editing history has now been nibbled at just because my opinion above was "keep" rather than (the much easier to choose) "delete", I feel the need to better explain the reasoning behind my opinion.
- I don't think this debate should be about whether the "lose the game" website satisfies WP:N and WP:V, because this AFD is not for an article about the website. The aim of this AFD is to establish whether the subject itself satisfies the inclusion policies and guidelines. For the most part, the information in the article is well referenced and reliably sourced, so we are left with debating whether the subject satisfies WP:N / WP:BIO. The reason my opinion remains "keep" is that I don't read WP:BLP1E as saying that we should go through every event mentioned in the article and debate whether each one satisfies Wikipedia's inclusion criteria (if they did then we'd have separate articles on each event), but rather that we shouldn't have an article on an individual if their only mentions in reliable sources come from a single event. In my humble opinion, this doesn't appear to apply to this subject.
- I certainly agree that the "lose the game" website is not sufficiently notable, nor is it well enough covered in reliable sources, to have its own Wikipedia article. However, I see the contribution to the notability of the subject in this context coming not from the hit statistics, google rankings or media mentions of the "lose the game" site he created, but from the fact that the reporters in question turned to the subject for primary information and advice regarding the "game" topic (a topic which itself has been deemed sufficiently notable for Wikipedia inclusion). Additionally we should consider whether the hoax beach website event is a separate event to the hoax road sign event, since the hoax road sign event is a separate news incident which was reported a year later. Again, reporters turned to the subject for their information on this topic. I'm not trying to suggest that the notability of the subject is a clear cut thing, or that it's not in need of some debate, but my point is that I think the debate goes beyond just outright saying the subject is/isn't notable.
- Lastly; I know that Haywood's involvement with Wikipedia has annoyed a number of us in the past for various reasons (I personally find his vandalism plugin distasteful and pointless), but every Wikipedia guideline and policy I can find tells us that we should rise above personal disputes, as well as a human subject's Wikipedia editing history (see WP:BIO) when discussing articles about said subject. Wiw8 (talk) 13:36, 25 July 2008 (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.
Google Watch[edit]
The result was keep. The actual discussion has been hidden from view but can still be accessed by following the "history" link at the top of the page. 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 as a non-notable person; no way to verify chief claims. Bearian (talk) 18:03, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
George Cleveland Duncan[edit]
- George Cleveland Duncan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Article constantly being edited to indicate person is a phony. The bio should pass WP:BIO if true, but there are no references. A search of the USMC database does not bring up a bio. Tassedethe (talk) 13:25, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 18:53, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Certainly would be notable if true (which I have my doubts), but no sources provided. A search of worldcat.org turns up none of the "many books" he's written. The USMC bio link (above, in the nom) does not include a bio on Duncan. The former claim (now removed) that he was one of 92 winners of the 1988 Nobel Peace Prize seems dubious at best. The 1988 award went to "United Nations Peacekeeping Forces" but the press release and presentation speech at the Nobel site do not mention Duncan (or anyone else, for that matter) by name. — Bellhalla (talk) 19:15, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Search of the POW link (in the main body) does not have a record of this Duncan.
- 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 but IMHO this does not make the notability issues go away. Maybe the possibility of a listification or a merger should be explored ... just an editorial suggestion. Sandstein 17:59, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Naming of Qantas aircraft[edit]
- Naming of Qantas aircraft (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This article fails notability guidelines as it is not clearly asserted in the article exactly why the naming of Qantas aircraft is notable. Qantas aircraft names have not been (after my own searches) the subject of any sources that are non-trivial in nature, nor is the subject covered by reliable sources (aircraft enthusiast websites are definitely not reliable sources). It is also concensus on WP:AIRLINES that fleets are generally not notable (with a minute number of exceptions) and hence not encyclopaedic, and it is my own opinion that such information on WP is nothing more than fancruft. It appears that this information may have been moved here due to article length issues on the main article, however, as oft quoted, the solution to horrible cruft is to delete it, not create a separate article for it. Россавиа Диалог 13:20, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- Россавиа Диалог 13:52, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Россавиа Диалог 13:52, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: I found it interesting. The naming of the newest A380 Airbus has got media coverage (Courier Mail). I remember the first Boeing 747-400 aircraft also got coverage, but that was back around 1989, so references get harder to obtain in that era. Maybe the Wikipedia article needs to be better referenced. --Lester 21:43, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and expand per Lester. Certainly I believe references from reliable sources that are not aircraft enthusiast websites can be found. At least as interesting as the naming of Pokemon cards - in fact of more interest to some of us - ie Australians who have from time to time noticed the name of the plane they are travelling on. --Matilda talk 22:51, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- For example this article originally from England's Daily Telegraph in 2000 refers to the name of the Qantas planes. The imagery and naming of some of the planes to celebrate International Year of the World's Indigenous People on which we have no article - see 1993 in International observance . For further refs concerning Wunala Dreaming see Powerhouse museum ref and artshub ref for two reliable sources not of aviation enthusaists. --Matilda talk 23:05, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I have now added a number of sources that would I feel meet the WP:RS guideline and would not be described as "aircraft enthusiast websites" --Matilda talk 01:44, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Unfortunately, none of the articles referenced 1) give notability to the subject in question and 2) are anything but trivial mentions. The Courier Mail article is about the A380, not the naming of the aircraft. The Daily Telegraph article is on the commercial use of Aboriginal culture to sell products, not on Nalanji or Wunala. The Qantas article itself doesn't mention this naming in any form other than trivial mention. Many airlines give their aircraft names, and there is no demonstration in this article why the names of Qantas aircraft are notable over all other airlines (for which is removed from articles for being trivial and unencyclopaedic). WP:INTERESTING is not a reasoning to use in AfD discussions, it needs to be done on policy and concensus based on policy. And not to mention concensus on WP:AIRLINES that individual aircraft details such as this are unencyclopaedic. --Россавиа Диалог 01:59, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Why do you think all those newspapers named the aircraft? Obviously the newspapers thought that the public wants to know. The newspapers could easily have omitted that information, if they thought nobody wants to know.--Lester 03:47, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment WP:INTERESTING is not a good reasoning to use in AfD discussions, but it could be said that referring to an article as "horrible cruft" is an "I don't like it" argument, which likewise should have little place in an AfD discussion, let alone the nomination. Saying that other airlines don't have articles on their naming schemes is also a point of argument to be avoided (WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST). --Canley (talk) 03:53, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- My fancruft comment is my opinion; it is my opinion it is fancruft; as much as most Pokemon articles are fancruft (with no apologies to Pokemon fans); there is probably good reason that WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST in this area of fandom. However, on this article there is no assertion of notability, which is not backed up by multiple, non-trivial, reliable sources is not opinion, but fact. Wunala and Nalanji are notable aircraft, and it is kind of odd that the main article mentions these aircraft only in passing (only once), and I wouldn't object to the main article going into detail on how the airline markets itself (without being advertorial in nature), and include details on Balarinji involvement with Qantas. This article offers absolutely no context at all, it is simply a list of names which offers no opportunity for further article development. --Россавиа Диалог 04:27, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment re Notability of aircraft - Россавиа states Wunala and Nalanji are notable aircraft - they are only notable because of their names and artwork - this article may be incorrectly titled but it seems the best article to deal with aircraft named after indigenous themes and the issues surrounding that naming. The sources in relation to these names and issues associated with them are reliable and the dealing with those issues is non-trivial --Matilda talk 02:39, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- My fancruft comment is my opinion; it is my opinion it is fancruft; as much as most Pokemon articles are fancruft (with no apologies to Pokemon fans); there is probably good reason that WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST in this area of fandom. However, on this article there is no assertion of notability, which is not backed up by multiple, non-trivial, reliable sources is not opinion, but fact. Wunala and Nalanji are notable aircraft, and it is kind of odd that the main article mentions these aircraft only in passing (only once), and I wouldn't object to the main article going into detail on how the airline markets itself (without being advertorial in nature), and include details on Balarinji involvement with Qantas. This article offers absolutely no context at all, it is simply a list of names which offers no opportunity for further article development. --Россавиа Диалог 04:27, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The names of all Qantas aircraft until at the earliest 1970 are verifiable from John Gunn's series of books on the history of Qantas: The Defeat of Distance, Challenging Horizons and High Corridors, published by the University of Queensland Press. After that, they are for the most part covered by media references. Notability (a guideline, not a policy) is by no means clear-cut for topics like this, and dismissing references as "trivial", coupled with the nominator's determination to delete what they personally see as "cruft", seems to me like a subjective attempt to dress one editor's opinion up as policy. Россавиа will no doubt reply, so can they please link to the claimed consensus on WP:AIRLINES that has been mentioned twice? I can't seem to find it. --Canley (talk) 05:04, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Wikipedia generally allows material which is verifiable and does not require original synthesis to produce to remain on the encyclopaedia for what I'd call abstracted subjects. Qantas is the 10th largest airline in the world, and this information has significant secondary sources documenting it. Additionally, it causes undue weight issues within the Qantas article itself, so makes sense to have it in a different article. Orderinchaos 11:41, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The Perth Yellow Pages is verifiable, easily done by ringing each and every number contained therein, however, we have various things that we do and don't cover. We don't list the entire contents of the Perth Yellow Pages because Wikipedia is not a telephone directory, even though it is entirely verifiable. Whilst verifiability is a policy for inclusion on WP, not all verifiable information out there in the world is notable for inclusion in Wikipedia, and as yet, there is not a single indication, either in the article or in this AfD which gives the subject Naming of Qantas aircraft any degree of notability. How is the name of a Qantas aircraft any more notable than RA-96005 "Valery Chkalov", an Ilyushin Il-96 of Aeroflot; Aeroflot once being the world's largest airline with 10,000+ aircraft? And lastly, the solution to getting rid of cruft is to delete it, not to create a separate article for it. --Россавиа Диалог 12:30, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The article is quite well-referenced (the quality of the references isn't an issue that should be resolved by deletion of the article), so I have a problem with deleting it. I think there's plenty of room for improvement that can move it away from being strictly a list. As Qantas (QANTAS) is one of the oldest airlines in the world it would seem proper to have an article on a fleet history that is probably the most diverse and extensive of any other airline that has ever existed, especially since the airline's fleet has had names for 80+ years. I am also fairly certain that the only consensus on Airline fleets reached by WP:AIRLINES is that airline registration tables are not notable. NcSchu(Talk) 12:42, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment WP:N states;
- If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable.
- In regards to this article, we no doubt have independent, reliable sources for some of this information, however, there is not significant coverage, again from WP:N;
- "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive.
- There are no sources which address Naming of Qantas aircraft directly in detail; there is no notability. Whilst there is apparently a book which gives the names of aircraft up until the 1970s, this should be used in the main article as an inline citation for prose, not split out into a separate list for reasons of space (as I said, the solution to cruft is to delete it, not create a separate article for it), particularly when the article subject is not notable. Refer to this Afd, which was a break off from the main article, which included as well as registrations (which WP:AIRLINES has concensus on in regards to notability), the names of each individual aircraft. There is also this Afd which had the same information. There is also the Thai Airways International fleet article which was merged back into the main article, minus the information which WP:AIRLINES does not regard as being notable or encyclopaedic (including getting rid of individual aircraft names). The only article which currently exists is Singapore Airlines fleet, however, this is currently the subject of a mediation due to multiple other issues regarding that subject's articles. --Россавиа Диалог 13:05, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I note that a Google Books Search for 'Qantas aircraft names' brings up several good resources regarding Qantas aircraft history, a few of which have tables of early aircraft names. I'm sure different searches might bring up different and more broad results. But it seems clear to me that Qantas's fleet has the history necessary to warrant this article. NcSchu(Talk) 14:58, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment And how many of those sources discuss Naming of Qantas aircraft in great detail in anything than just in passing? Google hits and the like are great at times, however, in this case it simply picks up different sources which discuss in only a trivial manner. --Россавиа Диалог 12:37, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I note that a Google Books Search for 'Qantas aircraft names' brings up several good resources regarding Qantas aircraft history, a few of which have tables of early aircraft names. I'm sure different searches might bring up different and more broad results. But it seems clear to me that Qantas's fleet has the history necessary to warrant this article. NcSchu(Talk) 14:58, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Sorry I cant see anything notable about the naming scheme or the individual aircraft that cant be a one-liner in the Qantas article. I know it is not an excuse but most major airlines have a naming scheme, none of them particularly notable. MilborneOne (talk) 21:16, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep:It has potential and should stay.Sparrowman980 (talk) 22:24, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep pers Orderinchaos reasonaing above - SatuSuro 00:31, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This is hardly a great article, but I don't see any reason to delete it. Nick Dowling (talk) 09:45, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment How about because it lacks notability, which is not backed up by multiple, non-trivial, reliable sources? In addition to concensus on WP:AIRLINES that registrations and names are not notable, not encyclopaedic? --Россавиа Диалог 10:59, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - the article is well referenced. But the references only verify the names of the aircraft. The topic of "Naming of Qantas aircraft" isn't actually being covered in any substantial way. As such, it doesn't meet the notability criteria of being the subject of multiple reliable sources. The naming scheme is a passing mention. -- Whpq (talk) 16:42, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, I normally hate "per X" explanations, but Orderinchaos has put it superbly above. A topic of obvious interest, cites provided... I don't see the problem. Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:44, 25 July 2008 (UTC).[reply]
- Keep Having flown on many long-distance flights, I'm very much interested in the identity of individual planes when incidents occur. This has come to the fore again today with the incident involving the "City of Newcastle"[15] (Longreach)[16] Melburnian (talk) 01:07, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The article is about a hole in the side of a Qantas aircraft, not about Naming of Qantas aircraft, and of course that article is indicative of why this is at AfD in the first place, because the mentions are trivial and not substantial.
- Keep I consider the information notable as I was looking for information on Qantas aircraft naming. When I got to the page I was shocked to discover it has been nominated for deletion. Robert Brockway (talk) 01:27, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment If you consider the information notable, is there anything to back the opinion up with multiple, non-trivial, reliable sources which discuss the naming of aircraft in substantial detail? --Россавиа Диалог 01:37, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep but rename this is a list so suggest List of Qantas aircraft, include date it entered the fleet(if known) type, name, links to event articles, images. Qantas aircraft have been extensively involve in Australian history and some of the individual planes or groups of planes(aka Catalinas and C-class flying boats) have notability in their own right. Like this sourcing while you say its trivial for the naming actual Россавиа agrees it asserts notability for the aircraft Courier Mail article is about the A380. As per WP:LIST Lists are commonly used in Wikipedia to organize information. Lists may be found within the body of a prose article, or as a stand-alone article.. Gnangarra 10:10, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I don't agree that article gives any degree of notability to the issue of the names of aircraft in Qantas fleet; it merely asserts verifiability that the A380 will be operated by Qantas, it can be used as an inline citation in the main article for the entry into service of the A380, but for naming of individual aircraft as a whole, it is trivial. As to a list of aircraft, if it includes details on every single aircraft (registrations, names, etc), then it is clearly going against concensus which WP:AIRLINES has reached on this issue in the past, and which can be evidenced by past AfD's above, much as the list as it stands right now goes against concensus on WP:AIRLINES. Whilst WP:LIST says lists can be used to organise information, WP:N says that material must be covered by multiple, non-trivial sources and that material needs to meet WP:CONCENSUS, which has already been reached at WP:AIRLINES. What it seems other Australians here seem to be trying to do is to change concensus reached at WP:AIRLINES based upon the subject being Qantas, whilst ignoring that the naming of Qantas aircraft is not notable at all, evidenced by past AfD discussions, and I believe that non-notability of this subject has been more than demonstrated in that no-one has supplied anything but trivial sources for the naming structure. I would not object to an article being re-created in the future which details the history of the Qantas fleet, so long as the notability of the fleet as a whole is established by the use of non-trivial reliable sources. Take for example, User:Russavia/SU fleet which I am working on as part of a complete overhaul in the future of Aeroflot, which will totally omit the registrations and names of aircraft....do we really need to have a list of all the tens of thousands of aircraft which Aeroflot has operated throughout its history. Would a complete breakdown of all 91 Antonov An-10 which Aeroflot has operated, includings names/registrations, give anything to the overall table? It is the concensus on WP:AIRLINES that it would not, and is not encyclopaedic and is somewhat fanboyish (that last part is my own opinion, and perhaps the opinion of other editors), and the notability of the Aeroflot fleet can be established by the multitude of books, journals, magazines, etc devoted entirely to the fleet itself; no doubt Qantas is the same, however, this article as it stands now should go. --Россавиа Диалог 11:22, 27 July 2008 (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 withdrawn by nominator. A lot of work went into the article after it was nominated. PeterSymonds (talk) 15:09, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
ThefucKINGFUCKS[edit]
- ThefucKINGFUCKS (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Was proposed for speedy. I felt that was overreaching but it does belong here and probably should be deleted. None of the sources work, and the bank seems to be arbitrary. No releases of its own, a supposed fleeting connection to some actual band, and a "future" album with no info and no notability. Article tries to excuse this with some nonsens about "oaths of silence." Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@ 13:12, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Change of position to Keep - I feel the article has been altered and fixed to the point that it now satisfies WP:MUSIC's notability requirements, and while the article itself still has issues of quality that need to be worked out, I feel notability has been established and it is comprised of (mostly) encyclopedic content. I urge the closing admin to consider the changes that have been made since editors stated their original positions on this, and I also ask that editors who spoke out in favor of a delete before now to revisit the article and see if they still feel the same way about it.--Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@ 13:24, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
*Delete Fails WP:MUSIC, but the "oaths of silence" mumbo-jumbo was pretty funny. Shapiros10 contact meMy work 13:17, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- as stated the group is based on the Acéphale collective of georges bataille. it is not strictly a band, nor a dance group nor a performance art group but they are presenting work in each media. the oath of silence is only in terms of the research and not the performance work. very respected group with a serious cv. Insidoubt (talk) 13:20, 22 July 2008 (UTC)insidoubtInsidoubt (talk) 13:20, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That's nice but, can you provide any actual evidence (meaning a verifiable outside source regarding its notability?--Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@ 13:25, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral Article has improved heavily, but too many statements need sources, and there is still presence of original research in the article. Shapiros10 contact meMy work 13:39, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not notable. rootology (T) 13:29, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- the group has performed at the centre pompidou in paris, the very important electronic music festival 10DAYSOFF in gent, the audiovisual CIMATICS festival in brussels, depuryluxemburg gallery in zurich to mention only a few. all mentioned in the footnotes Insidoubt (talk) 13:42, 22 July 2008 (UTC)insidoubt[reply]
- Delete fails both WP:MUSIC and WP:ORG. Probably should have been speedied. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:49, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy deletion in relation to those policies is only for articles that do not assert notability. This article did attempt to claim the band is important, though the reasoning is flawed.--Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@ 14:22, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:MUSIC. Insidoubt fails to make a good argument to even consider keeping.Tavix (talk) 16:01, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:MUSIC, but it deserves some praise for incorporating the United Nations Security Council into its list of references!Keep The article has been updated substantially and is no longer deserving of deletion. Good job! Ecoleetage (talk) 16:06, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]Delete. I don't see much evidence that it fulfils our notability guidelines. Little or no coverage in any non-primary sources. ~ mazca t | c 18:46, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Switched to Keep after improved sourcing and referencing. Due to this group's varied activities and insistence on using huge numbers of different names, it was very hard to evaluate their notability. At this point it seems to have enough sources to warrant a keep, but it really still needs more coherence about the group's actual activities - the current state of the article is still pretty vague about what they actually do. ~ mazca t | c 12:32, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 18:54, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. More of an art collective than a band, and should be judged as such, but the presence of Kendell Geers and Patrick Codenys of Front 242 make them clearly notable in my view. Not sure what is meant by 'none of the sources work' - they look ok to me. Easily verifiable that they have performed at or contributed to several major art events around Europe. A search for "Red Sniper" reveals further coverage, e.g. [17]. I would urge those who have !voted Delete to reconsider.--Michig (talk) 19:37, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I have corrected the links, footnotes and made the notability of the group more clear. the presence of highly respected artist Kendell Geers and Front 242 musician patrick codenys makes the group noteworthy. indeed not a typical music group or band and something more of an artist/music/dance/performance group but nontheless with standing international reputation - france, canada, italy, united kingdom and belgium on their list of performances. This is a group that is taken seriously by the international press, museums, galleries, rock fstivals and hence is notable. Insidoubt (talk) 11:21, 23 July 2008 (UTC)insidoubt[reply]
- The article has come a bit from its original quality. Notability seems somewhat established and I would consider withdrawing my nomination (do note that alone will not close the discussion, as other delete views have been registered), but I feel the article still needs more work. Much of the article's notability is seated in section 2, which needs sourcing still, and section 3 while not core to its notability really should be sourced or removed. If section 2 (members) is thoroughly sourced, I will change my position to that of keep but not before then, as without reliable sources for it I am not fully convinced of notability yet.--Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@ 14:17, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I have tried to make more clear and coherent the details about the group's actual activities. The members are listed and explained in section 1 but i have addressed concerns about old sections 2 and 3, updating them and paying more attention to the nature of their performances and shows. Insidoubt (talk) 18:42, 24 July 2008 (UTC)insidoubt[reply]
- Comment. Playlist added - i hope that this clears up the questions of notability, reputation, sources and international standing Insidoubt (talk) 10:26, 25 July 2008 (UTC)insidoubtInsidoubt (talk) 10:26, 25 July 2008 (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 to Area-7. lifebaka (talk - contribs) 18:38, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mad Not Madness[edit]
- Mad Not Madness (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable tribute band. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 12:53, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Tenacious D Fan (talk) 12:54, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Area-7, second choice delete. I'm a big fan of Madness, but this tribute band (like most tribute bands) doesn't pass WP:MUSIC. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:00, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Area-7, whilst the band is NN, redirects are cheap and someone might come in via that route. FatherJack92 (talk) 13:05, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect To Area-7 rootology (T) 13:29, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge with Area-7. Bondegezou (talk) 16:25, 23 July 2008 (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 (non-admin closure). Ruslik (talk) 13:06, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Machine (band)[edit]
- The Machine (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable. Only inline cite is a self-published source. Minimal media coverage. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 12:48, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Tenacious D Fan (talk) 12:49, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I've supported the deletion of the other PF tribute bands, but this one may be more questionable. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:58, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment We went through a mass deletion of Pink Floyd tribute bands last year. This one, and the other 5 or 6 remaing, were the ones that "passed the test" for notability and were given a pardon when all the others were being AfD'd. The list of Pink Floyd tribute bands used a be a long list of nn's. The few that are left, including this one, were deemed as keepable. See no reason to change that now. Libs (talk) 13:41, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Has done international tours so satisfies WP:BAND. The article needs a lot of work though but I believe the band's name is reasonably well known on the live music/tribute scene Godfinger (talk) 12:31, 24 July 2008 (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. Wizardman 03:14, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanh Thuy Vietnamese Actress[edit]
- Thanh Thuy Vietnamese Actress (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Trying to look beyond the awful formatting of this article: there's claimed notability but I have been completely unable to prove it. I'd welcome anyone else to try, otherwise this can probably go. ➨ ЯEDVEЯS has wasted eight of nine lives 12:45, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - searching for "Thanh Thuy" brings up many g-hits, but I could not find any that prove notability, and the news hits seem to be of someone else. Searching "Le Thi Thanh Thuy"+actress brings up one single blog site. -Samuel Tan 13:14, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - not sure how well Google copes with the odd Vietnamese diacritical marks. The article seems to make a fairly strong case for notability: an actress that's been in seven or eight Vietnamese movies would seem to notable. On the other hand, the formatting suggests that this is cut and pasted from somewhere, though if Google did not find it, it may not be on the web. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 13:58, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 18:56, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete- This person has to be demonstrably notable, and nothing suggests that she is. Reyk YO! 01:40, 28 July 2008 (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 Delete per WP:CSD#A7. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 18:05, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sandeep Tripathy[edit]
- Sandeep Tripathy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Appears to fail both WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC. There may be a WP:COI issue, too. Ecoleetage (talk) 12:25, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Its about real person who is not at all significant. It should have been erased speedily. Hitrohit2001 (talk) 17:13, 22 July 2008 (UTC)Hitrohit2001[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 Merge (non-admin closure), per emerging consensus and nominator consent below. WP:BOLD. Protonk (talk) 06:24, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Discrimination in Japan[edit]
- Discrimination in Japan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Reflecting personal view. Attacking a group or society. Exceptional claims should have exceptional sources. Hitrohit2001 (talk) 12:04, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: much of this article appares to be an indirect recreation of material in a previously deleted article: see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/VAIBS for discussion -- The Anome (talk) 23:33, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
no 'exceptional sources' in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vaibsvaibs (talk • contribs) 12:09, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - only a very borderline case of WP:SOAP, and reliable, secondary sources are out there. Needs a good NPOV and grammar edit, but not a delete. "Lack of exceptional sources" is not a reason for deletion. -Samuel Tan 13:24, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
KeepArticle could use academic sources to be more reliable but topic is real. Needs to be cleaned up to present other viewpoints but this is a valid topic and should not be deleted. --Polaron | Talk 14:28, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]- Redirect per The Anome. Given that a significant chunk of the article appears to be from a previously deleted article. Merge any useful information, if possible, to Racial issues in Japan. --Polaron | Talk 23:20, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Discrimination depicted in the article may be real but it does not hold an encyclopedic significance. Every country has its own law and procedures, in the section,Discrimination in bank, it says that an American was not given home loan because he did not have permanent citizenship. According to me its not a discrimination its just a policy that a bank follows. The section Minorities in Japan, does not become encyclopedic or factual only because it has infringement from U.S. department of state.Hitrohit2001 (talk) 15:19, 22 July 2008 (UTC)Hitrohit2001[reply]
- It may be policy but that does not make it non-discriminatory. I agree that the article is not written well and parts of it may even be "unencyclopedic" but the topic is worthy of getting an article. In the future, this article may even go in depth as to why such practices are in place and are widely accepted by Japanese society as "normal" and "fair", and the socio-economic implications of having an anti-immigration policy. --Polaron | Talk 15:38, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It would be an anti-immigration policy, if that American would have been officially migrated to Japan and was being barred of the Home Loan. Most of the Local bank grants loan to those who holds permanent citizenship of that country where loan is being originated. However, apart from Suruga bank issues, this article does not place any other substantial evidence of discrimination. NPOV on such article is must as it may harm the image of a particular group or society. =>Hitrohit2001 (talk) 16:02, 22 July 2008 (UTC)Hitrohit2001[reply]
- Keep those "exceptional sources" exist. Xenophobia in Japan is well known and studied extensively. Obviously an article linke this needs to be cleaned up but the subject has been covered in plenty of scholarly journals. Also many good modern histories of japan cover the subject. Protonk (talk) 16:08, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with the Xenophobic nature of Japanese people, however, this article does not deal with Xenophobia in Japan directly. It, more or less, looks like act of imputing blame of racism on Japanese people.
I would like to know, which of those sources are exceptionally substantial.
Hitrohit2001 (talk) 16:35, 22 July 2008 (UTC)Hitrohit2001[reply]
- Well, xenophobia is largely indistinct from racism. But let's do some sources:
- Xenophobia and Racism are two different thing. However, I don't think these sources verifies the claims made within the article under consideration, if it does then it should be included in article.
We are not discussing the natural tendency of japanese. This article attacks on a particular community with no solid verification of the event, which is being used as an example of discrimination.
There should be atleast one strong point within the article which makes Discrimination in Japan an encyclopedic subject. I find none.--Hitrohit2001 (talk) 18:05, 22 July 2008 (UTC)Hitrohit2001[reply]
- I disagree on the xenophobia bit, but that is too nuanced an issue for here. Basically my point is this. The article appears to not be about discrimination in Japan, but discrimination is a well covered subject in the sourcing there. I can find more articles (especially ethnographies of non-japanese workers) about discrimination but there is enough in the sources I cited above to fill out a reasonably large article. So remove the COATRACK content and keep the article. Protonk (talk) 02:31, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Xenophobia and Racism are two different thing. However, I don't think these sources verifies the claims made within the article under consideration, if it does then it should be included in article.
- I agree with the Xenophobic nature of Japanese people, however, this article does not deal with Xenophobia in Japan directly. It, more or less, looks like act of imputing blame of racism on Japanese people.
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 18:56, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The content of the article is largely identical to the recently deleted "VAIBS" article, namely regarding one bank's discriminatory practice of demanding alien cards of foreigners before doing business with them. The only thing added is a more general overview with citations, and the complaint of a certain non-citizen regarding a home-loan from a different bank (i.e., not Suruga) - an action perfectly understandable, if perhaps indeed discriminatory(I doubt any bank in the world would give a home-loan to a non-resident without a permanent adress, but I grant that OTHERSTUFFEXISTS shouldn't apply here). This seems like nothing more than a VAIBS-led attempt to recreate content that was already deleted, using the vehicle of a broad sociological phaenomenon, and indeed, the article was largely created by an editor with the name "vaibsvaibs". If the article is to stay, it should be completely rewritten, and the VAIBS content should be inspected under the light of the recent deletion. I'm leaning towards outright deletion, however, since I believe we have plenty of "discriminatory Japan" articles as it is, and I see no reason to create new ones, rather than improve the existing ones. TomorrowTime (talk) 20:34, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Either delete as WP:COATRACK recreation of VAIBS (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/VAIBS), or merge and redirect to Racial issues in Japan. One way or another, the unreferenced VAIBS references must go, unless proper cites can be produced to support them. -- The Anome (talk) 23:10, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment As of this revision, the COATRACK accusations are removed. Introduction of any of the source material provided above should be sufficient to merit retention. Protonk (talk) 02:32, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I shall be supporting the proposal of merging the current version of article with Racial issues in Japan. Hitrohit2001 (talk) 05:44, 23 July 2008 (UTC)Hitrohit2001[reply]
- Merging that looks like a consensus to me. I'm going to merge it to Racial Issues in Japan. Protonk (talk) 06:20, 23 July 2008 (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. BJTalk 20:09, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
ICab[edit]
- ICab (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
A not notable web browser that fails having reliable sources.--Pmedema (talk) 11:35, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not particularly notable, and one of many such projects. rootology (T) 13:30, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. MattieTK 14:25, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Articles in Time magazine and The Independent. Also in the New York Times. This Macworld review notes it has been around since 1999, so not some minor startup, plus it's the only browser that is "still actively supported not only on Mac OS 9, but as far back as System 7.1—and even on 68k Macs". A fact that gets it recommended by Mozilla. Tassedethe (talk) 14:51, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Tassedethe has pretty clearly demonstrated that good sources exist.-Wafulz (talk) 17:14, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 18:56, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep given the sources presented by Tassedethe. the wub "?!" 18:58, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per citations & because it is the most recently maintained browser for the classic Mac OS (per Mozilla's recommendation). --Karnesky (talk) 22:51, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep huh??? It was reviewed at least twice by Ars Technica. It had one of very few independent CSS compatible rendering engines, as shown in the comparison of HTML rendering engines article. It's still the #1 browser on some platforms. Potatoswatter (talk) 07:50, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep In addition to the sources mentioned by Tassedethe there are plenty of articles on Mac-specific sites. It was one of the first browsers to pass the Acid2 test and has been featured in several other speed/rendering tests. Tasnu Arakun (talk) 12:19, 27 July 2008 (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. Apparent WP:POINT nomination, will look into it. Sandstein 17:54, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Tierkreis (Stockhausen)[edit]
- Tierkreis (Stockhausen) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Seems not to be notable. Could always be merged if there is support for this article not to be deleted. Rob Riv (talk) 11:39, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep. Don't understand the nom. Well-known piece by very famous composer. Could do with expansion and a few inline sources, but apart from that ... FatherJack92 (talk) 13:10, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, strongly. Well referenced article about a piece by a well known composer from the Age of Charlatans. Not sure what's up with this nomination, either. The music sounds dreadful, but that was the kind of effect they liked back in the Dark Ages. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:02, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep. Referenced, ample notability. Needs improving, not deleting. WilliamH (talk) 15:22, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I couldn't find any specific guidelines regarding composition notability, and obviously there is a great distinction from song notability that needs to be made, this I accept. However the sources all seem to be about the artist himself, and not at a greater picture of the composition's impact etc. It doesn't seem to be linked to by many articles, most seem to be user pages from this AfD. Applying the guidelines as well as possible, I see no reason why cannot be merged into the main article or his [List of compisitionsh|List_of_compositions_by_Karlheinz_Stockhausen] at best. I just don't see how this can warrant its own page, how is it distinct specifically from other compositions that are without pages? Rob Riv (talk) 16:01, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thinking about this, we could apply the Pokémon Test here, as there shouldn't be a page for every single composition unless they are as distinctive as Pikachu. Please, set me right if I'm in the wrong here though. Rob Riv (talk) 16:08, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- (Edit conflict): In regard to some of the references, Kompositorische Tendenzen bei Karlheinz Stockhausen seit 1965 translates as Compositional Tendencies of Karlheinz Stockhausen since 1965, and Tierkreis: Einführung und Hinweise zur praktischen Aufführung translates as "Tierkreis: Introduction and details for practical performance." Neither Pokémon or compositions are inherently notable, but this certainly has coverage, and a Google Scholar search is quite fruitful. WilliamH (talk) 17:25, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That's fair enough. To what extent can we give any composition its own article though? Perhaps I'm using this article to demonstrate a bigger point. Rob Riv (talk) 17:54, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Generally, it isn't a good idea to nominate articles for deletion to make a point. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 21:21, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That's fair enough. To what extent can we give any composition its own article though? Perhaps I'm using this article to demonstrate a bigger point. Rob Riv (talk) 17:54, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep. There is no question about the notability of this composition: it is Stockhausen's most popular, most-often performed and recorded piece. I agree with FatherJack92 that this article needs expanding, but I have only got two hands. Merging this into the list of Stockhausen compositions is not a good idea, since that would imply the other articles on specific Stockhausen works (Gruppen, Hymnen, Amour, Mikrophonie I & II, Licht, Kontakte, Gesang der Jünglinge, Aus den sieben Tagen, Helicopter String Quartet, Kreuzspiel, Klavierstücke I–XIX, Kontra-Punkte, Stimmung, Zyklus, Telemusik, etc.) should all be merged there as well, which would make an overly long article—not to mention unbalanced, since there would then potentially need to be similar entries (of from three to ten paragraphs, plus references) added to each of the 200 or so other titles listed there that do not at present have such individual articles. Merger into the main composer article is problematic, in that that article has already been criticised for being too long and detailed, with a suggestion to divide it into parts (though it has not been proposed how exactly that might be done).—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:23, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If you can cite in the arcticle that it is "Stockhausen's most popular, most-often performed and recorded piece" that's fine, but as it stand the article doesn't even claim to be as notable as you've said. It needs to assert notability to warrant its own article, it currently does not. I'm aware you've only got two hands, but if this information is actually of notable interest, one would assume there exists more than one person to help work on the article. Rob Riv (talk) 17:54, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- We're not working to a deadline here. This is a work in progress. I did find this. I'm sure there are more out there. If sources are out there but just not added, deletion won't add them. WilliamH (talk) 20:07, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You're making the assumption they do exist however. The basic point I'm making is the article itself doesn't assert notability as a composition, at least no more than any other composition by Stockhausen. I know there's no deadline - by that logic, all articles could improve eventually, that doesn't meant we wait for them to improve. Rob Riv (talk) 20:27, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well we don't have a choice since they aren't going to improve themselves. There is a reasonably clear emerging view that this should be kept and there are sources - the ones that need to be added need to be added, and that deletion will not address that. WilliamH (talk) 21:26, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, so I have added a statement about notability with three citations in support, and a discography which also ought to lend some evidence on this point. Does that help?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:50, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I think this amounts to a SNOW KEEP by now. A major musical composition by any standard. Yes, for major composers of some forms of music it is quite likely that every published work will have sufficient critical attention to be notable. DGG (talk) 00:30, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:47, 24 July 2008 (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 close - some kid advertising his future record. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 11:44, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Accomplishments[edit]
- Accomplishments (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
The article was created by a Wikipedia user trying to self-promote an album that they say is being released by "Hollywood Records" while the Hollywood records website mentions nothing of the "artist" or "album". Edgehead5150 (talk) 11:18, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No evidence that this not yet released album will be notable once it is released, let alone now. Kevin (talk) 11:29, 22 July 2008 (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. PhilKnight (talk) 21:18, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Joe Dirt and the Dirty Boys[edit]
- Joe Dirt and the Dirty Boys (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non notable tribute band. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 11:13, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Tenacious D Fan (talk) 11:14, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. They're a cover band, not a tribute band, not that that makes them any more deserving of an article. To be a notable cover band you have to be Me First and the Gimme Gimmes, and they aren't. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:11, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Fails WP:BAND; non-notable band. Not released any albums, in music charts, or subject of a media network broadcast. Jезка (talk) 12:13, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails WP:BAND - not notable by what is in the article, no releases etc. MattieTK 14:27, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- According to WP:BAND the criteria for notability is satisfied if the band : 'contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable' As the band clearly satisfies this criterion it therefore satisfies WP:BAND. Therefore the article is keepable Godfinger (talk) 12:20, 24 July 2008 (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 - default keep. Okiefromokla questions? 02:51, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
List of songs about or referencing Elvis Presley[edit]
- List of songs about or referencing Elvis Presley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable fancruft. Any notable song referencing can be discussed in the Cultural impact of Elvis Presley. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 11:12, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Tenacious D Fan (talk) 11:12, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep. This is not fancruft, this is Elvis, a vital part of American cultural history and Americana. We have many lists of songs about a topic, and this is more deserving than most. It should be linked to from Cultural impact of Elvis Presley, but it should not be merged there, as long lists like this are better kept as separate articles. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:17, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Elvis Presley has had more impact on music worldwide than any other individual, save maybe Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart and Michael Jackson. This is a well-done list and I'm proud to see it a part of Wikipedia!--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:09, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I have to side with the nom on this one, this list strikes me as highly trivial in nature, and I fail to see the encyclopedic value. RFerreira (talk) 17:47, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 20:04, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Paul McDonald's rationale. Very few artists would qualify for this kind of list but Elvis would due to his continuing influence for the last 50 years and because of the sheer volume of songs that reference him. The list/article is well referenced and wikilinked, further demonstrating the ability to establish notability of the subject matter. While linking this list in Cultural impact of Elvis Presley would be beneficial, a stand alone list is more useful and doesn't appear to violate any policies. PHARMBOY (TALK) 22:11, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom and Rferreira. Eklipse (talk) 12:17, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Just out of curiosity, exactly what policy does the article violate? You quote Rferreira as the reason, yet I don't see any policy reason given, only "I don't like it" or "it isn't encyclopedic" which are clearly not valid reasons for deleting any article. PHARMBOY (TALK) 23:30, 24 July 2008 (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 Withdrawn by nominator (non-admin) - view that subject is notable; no !delete comments. WilliamH (talk) 14:02, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Publius Enigma[edit]
- Publius Enigma (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Promotion for The Division Bell. Not notable as a free standing article. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 11:09, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Tenacious D Fan (talk) 11:09, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Notable as a puzzle, as an early Internet phenomenon, and as a manifestation of the Pink Floyd subculture. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:51, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep. Per Wasted Time R. The Publius Enigma internet buzz was a huge thing and, within the Pink Floyd fan realm, remains one of the most discussed bits in the bands history. Not quite up there with the Pig... but pretty close. Libs (talk) 13:35, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Week Keep - it got its own New York Times article [19] which is more notability than a lot of things on here... -Hunting dog (talk) 13:43, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Withdraw - The New York Times article does it. However, I think ad campaigns (and this was one, albeit a jazzy affair) should be scrutinized for notability. The whole point of ad campaigns is to grab media coverage. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 13:46, 22 July 2008 (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 are absolutely no signs of reliable secondary coverage, so the article fails basic criteria of notability and is unlikely to meet verifiability standards. Despite limited participation, relisting is unnecessary. Okiefromokla questions? 03:06, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The All Saints Church Hall Concert[edit]
- The All Saints Church Hall Concert (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable concert. Fails WP:N, WP:RS and WP:V. Fancruft. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 11:06, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Tenacious D Fan (talk) 11:07, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment looks like a non-notable concert by a very notable band. If this article is to survive, some one needs to alter it to explain why it was notable. Furthermore, the title needs to be changed to something making it more obvious what it is about. UNless these issues can be addressed the article must be deleted. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:34, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or merge -- single NN concert by notable band. Bearian (talk) 18:00, 28 July 2008 (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. PhilKnight (talk) 21:20, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Anderson Council[edit]
- Anderson Council (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable tribute bands. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 11:05, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Tenacious D Fan (talk) 11:07, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Tribute bands aren't notable, indeed by definition they sacrifice any attempt at their own notability to bask in the reflected glory of their target. The number of bands using the name formation bit is interesting, and if this had been Sociology of Pink Floyd tribute bands it might have merit, but it isn't. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:56, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. None of the bands mentioned satisfy WP:BAND.Godfinger (talk) 12:34, 24 July 2008 (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. PhilKnight (talk) 22:51, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
El Monstero Y Los Masked Avengers[edit]
- El Monstero Y Los Masked Avengers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable tribute band. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 11:05, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Tenacious D Fan (talk) 11:07, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete: No question here, is there? Non-notable. Rob Riv (talk) 11:29, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The references list is bogus. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:40, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Libs (talk) 13:43, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Contains some members of notable bands and so may satisfy WP:BAND-but band itself is probably not notable to merit an individual article-but some sort of redirect and mention in another article Godfinger (talk) 12:39, 24 July 2008 (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. PhilKnight (talk) 21:22, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Pink Floyd Experience[edit]
- The Pink Floyd Experience (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable tribute band. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 11:05, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Tenacious D Fan (talk) 11:07, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete: No question here, is there? Non-notable. Rob Riv (talk) 11:29, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. "Tribute band" is almost synonymous with "non-notable". Wasted Time R (talk) 11:38, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect - to List of Pink Floyd tribute bands. Jезка (talk) 12:15, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, meets WP:MUSIC#C4 for their tours in Australia, [20], [21]. Esradekan Gibb "Talk" 13:06, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is not coverage during a tour, but it's certainly non-trivial and they indeed have toured nationally. WilliamH (talk) 21:34, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Struck. WilliamH (talk) 23:07, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That's the wrong Pink Floyd cover band. The Australian Pink Floyd Show is a completely different (and legitimately notable) cover band. Doc StrangeMailboxLogbook 01:59, 23 July 2008 (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. PhilKnight (talk) 22:52, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Jack Wilshere[edit]
- Jack Wilshere (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Young footballer who fails WP:ATHLETE as he has never actually played in a fully professional league. Article has already been deleted once via prod for the same reasno. Was prodded again, but removed by an IP making their first edit with the rationale "This player is a hot prospect and one of the most well known Arsenal reserve players, this article should remain on Wikipedia as the player is predicted to become a leading star in England", which of course is a WP:CRYSTAL violation). пﮟოьεԻ 57 10:56, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. пﮟოьεԻ 57 10:56, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom and all the previous AFDs. --Angelo (talk) 11:00, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE, and no reliable sources found to get him through the more general criteria either, just lots of blogs, forums (fora?) and Arsenal fansites. Having enormous potential means nothing, they said the same about Sonny Pike -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:03, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you name the last Arsenal player who had a professional contract with the club but never made a first team appearance in a fully professional league? Anyway the irony is, if this guy were playing for a Championship club right now he would have made his first team debut already (he looks like a left-footed, shorter version of Aaron Ramsey) so we are essentially penalizing him for having too much potential at too young an age... ugen64 (talk) 15:33, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sure there are plenty. Off the top of my head I can think of Terry Bowes (signed for Ipswich from Arsenal, but never played for them either). пﮟოьεԻ 57 16:00, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- My 1990/91 NotW Annual lists a John Bacon as being a member of the Arsenal first-team squad, he doesn't seem to have ever played a professional match for them or anyone else. And if we expand the criteria to other clubs of a similar standing, the same annual lists a Mark Black in the Liverpool squad, who similarly appears to have disappeared without a trace. Like you say, there's probably others........ -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:02, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Just for information, and as stated in the article, this is a 16-year-old boy who doesn't have a professional contract with Arsenal; they expect him to sign one next year when he turns 17, and becomes old enough to do so. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 17:57, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sure there are plenty. Off the top of my head I can think of Terry Bowes (signed for Ipswich from Arsenal, but never played for them either). пﮟოьεԻ 57 16:00, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you name the last Arsenal player who had a professional contract with the club but never made a first team appearance in a fully professional league? Anyway the irony is, if this guy were playing for a Championship club right now he would have made his first team debut already (he looks like a left-footed, shorter version of Aaron Ramsey) so we are essentially penalizing him for having too much potential at too young an age... ugen64 (talk) 15:33, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:11, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - recreate this page if and when he makes his competitive first team debut... friendlies don't count! Bettia (rawr CRUSH!) 12:00, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as he fails WP:ATHLETE. Recreate if and when he plays in a fully-pro competition or league fulfulling the criteria. --Jimbo[online] 12:23, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Once he has seen professional action or gets enough coverage beforehand, recreate. rootology (T) 13:30, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. GiantSnowman 16:33, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails WP:Athlete. References are very poor too, two blogs and the club's website. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:09, 24 July 2008 (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. Lack of significant secondary coverage, and it's a demo, which is generally not notable anyway. Limited participation is not sufficient reason to relist in this case. Okiefromokla questions? 02:21, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Early Avenged Sevenfold releases[edit]
- Early Avenged Sevenfold releases (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Self-released bootlegs. Non-notable fancruft. The article name is arbitrary. No reliable sources (fails WP:RS), no inline cites, no verifiable tracklisting, and bootlegs are rarely notable anyway. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 10:31, 22 July 2008 (UTC) Tenacious D Fan (talk) 10:31, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Tenacious D Fan (talk) 10:33, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - lack of significant coverage in reliable sources independent of subject. PhilKnight (talk) 21:23, 28 July 2008 (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. Wizardman 22:26, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fanny pak[edit]
- Fanny pak (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
There is no evidence that this dance group is notable. A news search shows a couple of passing mentions only. Kevin (talk) 10:23, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and redirect to Fanny pack. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:45, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 20:05, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Bearian (talk) 22:19, 28 July 2008 (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 to delete , default to keep. Consensus appears to be that an improved version of the article would be kept. lifebaka (talk - contribs) 04:19, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Zodiac Records[edit]
- Zodiac_Records (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Although this is a disambiguation page, none of the listed record labels seem notable in the slightest. There aren't even external links for all of the labels listed.
- Delete none of the companies mentioned seem to pass WP:CORP. The article with its current external links seems to function more as a sneaky advert for the swiss company (though I'm guessing that is probably unintentional). Jasynnash2 (talk) 10:56, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as written, Keep if rewritten. At present, the article is either (a) a faux-disambiguation page which doesn't actually point to any articles, or (b) a sneaky excuse to cram in an external link or two. However, there was an undeniably notable 70s Chicago soul label of that name we certainly can/should have an article on (they had a number of chart hits and sourcing should be easy). I might try rewriting it before the end of AfD if I can find the time, otherwise I may just make a new article later. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:22, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I tend to think of as adiquately notable any company that succeeded in mass producing records in the era of the shellac 78rpm disc, as that was a technological and economic achievement at the time, hardly as easy as starting a "record label" more recently. Giving information on such historic companies is an encyclopedic endevour. Old record companies is a specialist topic of interest to more than a few people, and over the years I've seen several Wikipedia record company articles going from similar sketchy starts to informative fleshed out articles thanks to additional research. Some of the other more recent "Zodiac" companies also mentioned here may not be notable on their own, but a passing mention to disambiguate is of potential use and no harm IMO. If Wikipedia's coverage of a topic is poor, it should be improved or at least not made worse and prevented from any chance of improvement by removal of such information as we have. -- Infrogmation (talk) 14:40, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete People seem to be attributing their own standards of notability to this article. The companies have not even claimed to meet notablity guidelines. It can always be recreated when someone has got the time. This is a clear delete for now however. 92.4.63.157 (talk) 15:44, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The user 92.4.63.157 submitted the AfD, see here. I don't think you can have two votes. Tassedethe (talk) 16:00, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As unregistered users don't get to complete the nomination process, I didn't think the nomination would count as my vote, would it? 92.4.63.157 (talk) 16:15, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As WP:NOTDEMOCRACY raw votes don't really count, my comment was just to make it clear - sometimes AfD will only attract a few comments. I think nomination for AfD is clear vote for deletion :) Tassedethe (talk) 16:25, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I know WP:NOTDEMOCRACY, I just thought the merit of my comment was really important. Shoulda put it as a comment really, sorry. 92.4.63.157 (talk) 16:53, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As WP:NOTDEMOCRACY raw votes don't really count, my comment was just to make it clear - sometimes AfD will only attract a few comments. I think nomination for AfD is clear vote for deletion :) Tassedethe (talk) 16:25, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 20:06, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. This article requires editing, not deletion, to satisfy all of the concerns listed. There is nothing patently wrong with the subject of the article as far as I can tell. There is no deadline. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 03:12, 29 July 2008 (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 by Zedla. Non-admin closure. Jезка (talk) 12:30, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A good ass job[edit]
- A good ass job (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:BAND#Albums this should not have an article until there is confirmation from a reliable source. PROD removed without comment by an IP. JohnCD (talk) 10:05, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: I think it's vandalism or just fan rumours! Good Ass Job? That's pity!Olliyeah (talk) 10:07, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete: No question here, is there? Vandalism. Rob Riv (talk) 10:18, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - non-notable unreleased album. Fails WP:NOTE and WP:CRYSTAL. Jезка (talk) 11:10, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete as vandalism. --I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 11:54, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep deleting anything that exists is apparently vandalism in itself. Sceptre (talk) 15:14, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. LuciferMorgan (talk) 16:28, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 20:07, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete per nom. ukexpat (talk) 21:34, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - the author has now blanked this article and it has been deleted; he has introduced a new version Good-Ass Job which I have taken to AfD here as although it does now have a source, it is still too early for an article, per WP:MUSIC. JohnCD (talk) 10:30, 24 July 2008 (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 (non-admin close) RMHED (talk) 00:09, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Deadheads for Obama[edit]
- Deadheads for Obama (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Not-notable. One concert. One band. Fancruft. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 09:25, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Tenacious D Fan (talk) 09:26, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- How big & notable was this concert, do we know? That should be the deletion critera not it's length, as concerts like Self Aid and Rock for a Cause were only one day for example. Rob Riv (talk) 10:42, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge Actually, can this not just be merged into the Grateful Dead article? It's fairly notable, just may not warrant its own article. Rob Riv (talk) 10:51, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If it went anywhere, it would be to The Dead (band), where it is linked from. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:13, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- A merge into Grateful Dead was already discussed at Talk:Grateful Dead#Deadheads for Obama and it was decided that both articles would be better if left separate. See that discussion section for why. Also, Deadheads for Obama should not be merged into The Dead (band) because they are two different things, i.e. it was not The Dead who performed the Deadheads for Obama concert, although there's a lot of overlap between the band members. — Mudwater (Talk) 11:21, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I'm looking at Wikipedia:Notability and I don't see anything about one concert not being notable. On the contrary, the article satisfies the Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable." This is well documented in the References section. There are quite a few notable single concerts that meet this guideline and have articles in Wikipedia, including the two that Rob Riv mentioned above. Other examples include Woodstock Festival, Altamont Free Concert, The Concert for Bangladesh, and Monterey Pop Festival. — Mudwater (Talk) 11:22, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I agree that individual concerts can be notable. Having this as a separate article also allows better categorization and linking from both music and political articles. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:28, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This was by one band only, unlike some of the concert/festivals you mentioned. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 11:45, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, how does that relate to whether we should keep it or not though? Rob Riv (talk) 11:48, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- We have articles about the one concert by (primarily) one artist case too, such as Ahmet Ertegün Tribute Concert and The Supremes' farewell concert. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:07, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Some concerts are notable, especially ones that attracted this much attention. Meets WP:RS, and how is it fancruft?--I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 11:56, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as per Mudwater and our previous discussion. Addionne (talk) 12:21, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. This generated a good bit of media attention at the time, outside of the usual entertainment press, and the context was quite unusual. — Gwalla | Talk 22:38, 22 July 2008 (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. BJTalk 20:07, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Llama (computer culture)[edit]
- Llama (computer culture) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Now, before anyone actually claims there are a ton of reliable sources please read the text of the article and what these sources are actually sourcing. I'm nominating this on the grounds that this is a non-notable topic. 7 months have been given since the previous nomination and nothing has changed. Very clearly read WP:NOTE. This article is nothing more than a giant trivia list of every time a llama appears in relation to something software related. Which even from the list really isn't that much. There are no articles written on the history of llamas in computing, or anything like that on which to base an article. No reliable source has found this topic notable enough to devote coverage to it and doing so on wikipedia violates numerous policies and guidelines including Notability, and WP:NPOV. There isn't a single source out there that would indicate that this topic would meet WP:NOTE and having an article on it places undue weight on the subject. Too much focus is given to the subject. If reliable sources don't give the topic this much focus, it is certainly not wikipedia's place to do so. Editors drawing that conclusion and putting forth that theory are committing original research. Third parties have to draw the conclusions for us. During the previous Afd there were numerous opinions on WP:ILIKEIT extolling what a fantastic article it was. Unfortunately it being a super keen article doesn't give it a pass on WP:NOTE and WP:NPOV or any other policy and guideline on wikipedia. This also violates WP:NEO. There is no coherency to this article. Crossmr (talk) 09:21, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 11:10, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete basically a collection of times a llama is seen or mentioned in various video games, most of them exceeedingly minor/trivial and not necessarily part of a "culture" at all. With the thousands of video games released in the past 30+ years there's bound to be numerous references to any common animal, and llamas aren't even particularly prevelant even by this flimsy standard: monkeys, horses, dogs, rabbits, cows, spiders (etc etc etc) all appear in video games far more than llamas. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:08, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Seems to be almost entirely WP:TRIVIA. I'm also amazed that the article was kept during it's last AfD despite the fact that almost every argument to keep the article was purely because they like it. --.:Alex:. 15:22, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Transwiki origin of "Llama" to wikidictionary, Trim and Merge rest to Llama article, "In Popular Culture" (most is unnecessary trivia, but Llamasoft and the prevelence of Llamas in SimGames can probably be cited). --MASEM 16:04, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete With regrets, since the article is very well referenced. Alas, the writing is too incoherent to have any impact, let alone prove a point. The illustration of the llama only adds to the confusion. Ecoleetage (talk) 16:13, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment — The scope of this AfD discussion needs to be expanded to other areas, such as to computer-related deletion discussions. MuZemike (talk) 16:17, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. —MuZemike (talk) 16:19, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Llama for the same rationale Masem explained above. MuZemike (talk) 17:19, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete Clearly list cruft and verging on WP:CB. ukexpat (talk) 21:36, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep significant internet and computer memes are notable. WP is the prime reliable reference for this sort of material and, for many of us, established its reputation as an important website on that basis.DGG (talk) 00:40, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There is little evidence that this is a significant internet and computer meme. No reliable source has covered it as such. Taking the meager mentions that are provided and synthesizing that to reach that conclusion without a reliable source doing so is original research. Wikipedia is never a reliable source for anything. That is why we link to reliable sources outside the project to establish the notability and reliability. This article has been given excessive time to shape up and it has failed to do so.--Crossmr (talk) 03:43, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Crossmr is absolutely right. When literally ANYONE can freely edit WP, there is no way that WP itself can be a reliable source for any article within it. Otherwise, I could edit Earth and say it's flat and disprove thousands of articles written here because my claim on here is reliable. MuZemike (talk) 06:41, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or merge out. The examples in the article are unrelated. The use of "llama" as a homonym for "lamer" has nothing to do with the recurrent inside joke at Maxis. These incidents do not point to any sort of actual trend, and as such the article is OR based on a collection of trivia. The constituent parts could be merged out to appropriate contexts, such as Lamer and Maxis or Will Wright. There's no good redirect target for the article name, however. Ham Pastrami (talk) 10:59, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - this is more than just a typical 'in popular culture' article. There are long running jokes and easter-eggs involving Llamas in many, many computer products and systems and is the official Mascot of several companies, most notably (as the article points out), Maxis, Nullsoft and Llamasoft. Darksun (talk) 15:03, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- But are there verifiable, third-party sources to establish said notability? MuZemike (talk) 15:46, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You know this is up for deletion. We did this last time and, as is often the case on some AfDs, people make all kinds of spurious claims about notability, verifiability, etc yet don't provide any sources. This was muddled in to a no-consensus last time around. If you have reliable sources which refute the above problems provide them because they do not exist in the article as it is and more than enough time has been provided to allow them to be found.--Crossmr (talk) 17:28, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes there are sources for notability within Maxis. Yes there are sources for the LLama/Nullsoft connection. The connection between Llama's and Jeff Minter's Llamasoft is pretty self explanatory. I think perhaps the main focus of the article needs to be shifted from the llama/lamer connection, but the Llama is a cult icon within several software developers. Darksun (talk) 10:25, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually no. That is a trivial mention in a much larger article about something else. No reliable source has dedicated coverage to the Llama as a cultural icon in the computer industry. All you've done is further prove my point. If the CNN coverage and some trivial mentions in a BusinessWeek article are what you are going to hang your hat on, there is nothing to serve as the foundation for this article. Neither of those trivial mentions remotely meet WP:NOTE as providing significant coverage to the subject. They're name drops and little more.--Crossmr (talk) 16:41, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, that is right. Sources coming from Maxis are not independent of the topic and hence are not verifiable. Please read (or reread) WP:V. The other two articles only establish the fact that the llama is used for Maxis' and Nullsoft's mascot; nothing is mentioned or implied about the llama being a cult icon within the community. MuZemike (talk) 20:51, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes there are sources for notability within Maxis. Yes there are sources for the LLama/Nullsoft connection. The connection between Llama's and Jeff Minter's Llamasoft is pretty self explanatory. I think perhaps the main focus of the article needs to be shifted from the llama/lamer connection, but the Llama is a cult icon within several software developers. Darksun (talk) 10:25, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as incoherent trivia. Wiki is not an indiscriminate collection of information.--Boffob (talk) 06:47, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, a pile of name-drops without coherence or a real tie between them. Nifboy (talk) 21:58, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge with Llama —Preceding unsigned comment added by UltraMagnus (talk • contribs) 10:09, 27 July 2008 (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. PhilKnight (talk) 22:53, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mike Fowler[edit]
- Mike Fowler (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Although he started his career at Crystal Palace, he does not appear to have actually played a competitive match at a fully pro level (only a friendly)[22], therefore he would fail WP:ATHLETE Bettia (rawr CRUSH!) 09:17, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Bettia (rawr CRUSH!) 09:23, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as clearly fails WP:ATHLETE. пﮟოьεԻ 57 09:36, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per above. I could only find evidence of him playing for Wrexham in a friendly (here). --Jimbo[online] 12:34, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. GiantSnowman 16:33, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete clearly fails WP:ATHLETE ukexpat (talk) 21:37, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete if he did not play league football for Wrexham. Punkmorten (talk) 09:57, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. -- Alexf42 10:15, 24 July 2008 (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. Synergy 07:35, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sales and charts achievements for Mariah Carey[edit]
- Sales and charts achievements for Mariah Carey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Highly POV. Any notable chart or sales achievements should be in the Mariah Carey main page, or respective album, but not in this non-neutral article. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 09:04, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Tenacious D Fan (talk) 09:05, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: a lot of interesting information- it should be kept!Olliyeah (talk) 10:02, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:INTERESTING is an argument to avoid. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 10:11, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The Mariah Carey article has been able to become FA, and stay FA, partly because long lists like this one were spun off into subarticles. Folding this back into the main article is thus impractical. Distributing this information into album articles is also impractical, since many of the achievements span multiple albums and singles. I do not see the article overall as non-neutral: like it or not, she does hold a lot of sales and charts marks. If certain parts of the article need better sourcing or less fannish language, the solution is editing, not deletion. Wasted Time R (talk) 10:46, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Wasted Time R. By the way, I don't remember creating this page... Orane (talk) 13:52, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Wasted Time R. David in DC (talk) 16:35, 25 July 2008 (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 Result : Speedily deleted as patent vandalism
Pokénon[edit]
- Pokénon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Hoax. Search for pokenon/pickanose brings up nothing relevant. No references. TrulyBlue (talk) 09:00, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete as vandalism per deliberate misinformation. Jasynnash2 (talk) 09:02, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, hoax. --Anna Lincoln (talk) 10:29, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete Vandalism. 92.4.63.157 (talk) 10:35, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - tagged as CSD G3. Jезка (talk) 11:07, 22 July 2008 (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 as original research.
The Stairway to Heaven Project[edit]
- The Stairway to Heaven Project (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Unsourced original research; anything useful should be merged into Stairway to Heaven. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:11, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete. There is a merge proposal in process, so I would normally suggest that an AfD is inappropriate until that discussion has run its course. However, in this case, it is clear that this article is inappropriate, so it should be deleted sooner or later. Bondegezou (talk) 16:44, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I put the merge on there. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:20, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 20:13, 22 July 2008 (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. PhilKnight (talk) 22:57, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Amanda Blank[edit]
Contested prod. This artist fails WP:MUSIC, has yet to release an album, and lacks non-trivial coverage by reliable third party publications. JBsupreme (talk) 07:44, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom as fails WP:N and WP:V. Weak Keep and cleanup don't know how I missed the huge amount of coverage. Although not all the GNews stuff is about this person a reasonable amount is and is from reliable 3rd party sourcing. I'm gonna grab a couple and add them to the article. Jasynnash2 (talk) 09:01, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 20:14, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Which of the deletion criteria does the nominator think this article comes under? Mostlyharmless (talk) 04:50, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep. A very cursory search finds non-trivial coverage in The Guardian, the New York Times, and the International Herald Tribune. I'm sure if I looked for more than 30 seconds (literally, that is all it took me to find them - Google News, "Amanda Blank", all dates), I could find a bunch more. Mostlyharmless (talk) 04:50, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep. Substantial non-trivial musical collaborations mean she would sail past the spirit of WP:MUSIC even if not the letter. Fortunately, because of the rakes of press coverage, she aces the latter too. Strong candidate for improvement, not deletion. tomasz. 17:37, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep. As per the others, and yes - her collaborative efforts are pretty well known and with major artists, and she does have a solo EP out (for "Get It Now"). And with that album coming out... --Grahamdubya (talk) 18:14, 27 July 2008 (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. PhilKnight (talk) 22:55, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Never ending guitar solo[edit]
- Never ending guitar solo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Spurious original research —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:49, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - WP:NOR and non-notable.-Samuel Tan 06:58, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've actually seen this term used twice in the past day, once in relation to progressive rock and again in relation to 80s metal. However, it just happens to be a criticism, such as "annoying sounds". The article appears to be WP:SYNTH. 83.203.183.112 (talk) 07:11, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, fails notability per WP:OR. Esradekan Gibb "Talk" 07:44, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Fails WP:NOTE and WP:OR; non-notable phrase. Jезка (talk) 11:04, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 20:15, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per everyone. JuJube (talk) 05:19, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per all the above. I can think of numerous guitarists that have performed a guitar solo longer than 17 minutes. Think free improvisation. --Bardin (talk) 13:44, 23 July 2008 (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. PhilKnight (talk) 22:56, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Tams ONE[edit]
- Tams ONE (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable music entity per [23] ,[24], and [25]. Fails WP:MUSIC and basic WP:NOTE guidelines as nearly all references to the group are unreliable or short mentions. Wisdom89 (T / C) 06:41, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Wisdom89 (T / C) 06:41, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC. Poss WP:CSD#G4, since it seems we've been here before. Esradekan Gibb "Talk" 07:45, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete fails WP:MUSIC and secondarily there are some very clear COI/SPAM problems here too. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:16, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above. Themfromspace (talk) 00:59, 25 July 2008 (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. BJTalk 02:24, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Taverncast[edit]
- Taverncast (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Article makes claims that evidence does not support. A google search only turns up a little less than 5,000 hits, many of which are entries in podcast directories. So far, I have yet to find any coverage of the podcast in any reliable, third-party sources to back up the articles claims of notability. Rwiggum (Talk/Contrib) 01:06, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No coverage in reliable sources. Kafziel Complaint Department 06:43, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Compared to contemporaries already on Wikipedia, there are plenty of reliable sources-(see discussion page and article) - also, podcast is well known in MMORPG gaming subculture.Albertlentz (talk) 17:37, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- None of the links on the article's talk page meet the standards. In fact, most of them are blogs. Kafziel Complaint Department 18:47, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The links are simply in blog format - for example, wowinsider.com, virginworlds.com, lubbockonline.com and zoom-in.com are all using the format to update pages, a la WordPress or other CM interfaces. This should not negate the worthiness of the link.Albertlentz (talk) 18:57, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, it does. Self-published sources are not reliable. Kafziel Complaint Department 19:10, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps I don't understand the meaning of "self published", but zoom-in.com, wowinsider.com and lubbockonline.com are not self-published blogs as if they are one person running an op ed. Zoom-In is a content and news site, Wow Insider is part of Joystiq and the Lubbock Online is a newspaper, of which the blog listed is one of their columnists, both online and off. Virginworlds.com is another gaming show, and definitely is self published.Albertlentz (talk) 19:19, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WeakDelete:I looked at the references provided for this version[26] of the page.
- Blog post about how much the blogger likes this podcast.
- Post on WoW Insider about an experiment by one of the podcasters to play WoW like an addict.
- Blog post on Lubbock Online about the addiction experiment.
- Post on WoW Insider about the podcast no longer being about WoW.
- Page on Edge-Online about a thing called the Xfire Debate Club, in which someone from the podcast will apparently be part of the first debate. This isn't about the podcast at all.
- Another thing about the Xfire Debate.
- A transcript of an Xfire debate. I'm sensing a theme here.
- One of the Taverncast people blending something, on YouTube.
- A blog by an "MMORPG player, armchair designer, and former programmer" in which he spends a paragraph saying he likes Taverncast in and among a dozen other paragraphs about podcasts he likes.
- Zoom-In Online (who?) says that this is one of the top 10 Warcraft podcasts on the planet.
- The article is written in an entirely unencyclopedic tone and it's full of trivia. If it's going to be kept at all, it needs to be stripped down to a very small stub. As it looks now, I recommend deletion. Our criteria for keeping are:
- The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. The references here are either trivial (someone from the podcast was part of a debate that was unrelated to the podcast, that sort of thing), or not independent of the site (a podcaster blending things on YouTube), or small references (the Lubbock Online blog post).
- The website or content has won a well-known and independent award from either a publication or organization. The award it has won doesn't look well-known at all.
- The content is distributed via a medium which is both respected and independent of the creators. The article says that the podcast is distributed by two of the people in the podcast. So it fails this criterion. Brilliant Pebble (talk) 04:19, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As far as the distribution issue goes, my earlier edit may have made this unclear, as the show is actually hosted by Future pnl's PC Gamer - Snapdragon is referenced as the source of production funding. It probably doesn't matter at this point, but I can clean this up. As far as the article being non-encyclopedic, can you point me to a style guide of some sort on Wikipedia to walk me through how to write it more to the site standard? As to whether to delete or not delete, obviously I felt the article was notable in the first place, and have stated my case for it as clearly as possible on the discussion page, so I don't want to beat that horse to death. Appreciate you comments and will work to alter the article accordingly if there's any chance of it being maintained. Albertlentz (talk) 05:35, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I have serious problems with the reliability of some of the statements made about the podcast. The statement that it gets a million downloads strikes me several orders of magnitude out of agreement with reality, when the Guinness world record for downloads in 2007 is 261,000[27]. However, if you believe that the article can be saved, I recommend you should pare it down severely, removing the references to injokes and other things that are unencyclopedic, and stating what the podcast is and why it's notable in simple, logical strokes. If I were rewriting it, I would strip the article back to a few good, clear sentences. Good places to learn about making an article are Wikipedia:Reliable sources, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Your first article. I hope this helps! Brilliant Pebble (talk) 06:03, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The number of downloads was misunderstood - at one point the show listed that it had near 1 million downloads over the entire course of the show...not PER episode, that's crazy. I apologize for the miscommunication, but didn't add download numbers to the actual article anyway. I'll work to re-write the article per Wiki specs within the next 24 hours.Albertlentz (talk) 20:24, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I have serious problems with the reliability of some of the statements made about the podcast. The statement that it gets a million downloads strikes me several orders of magnitude out of agreement with reality, when the Guinness world record for downloads in 2007 is 261,000[27]. However, if you believe that the article can be saved, I recommend you should pare it down severely, removing the references to injokes and other things that are unencyclopedic, and stating what the podcast is and why it's notable in simple, logical strokes. If I were rewriting it, I would strip the article back to a few good, clear sentences. Good places to learn about making an article are Wikipedia:Reliable sources, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Your first article. I hope this helps! Brilliant Pebble (talk) 06:03, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As far as the distribution issue goes, my earlier edit may have made this unclear, as the show is actually hosted by Future pnl's PC Gamer - Snapdragon is referenced as the source of production funding. It probably doesn't matter at this point, but I can clean this up. As far as the article being non-encyclopedic, can you point me to a style guide of some sort on Wikipedia to walk me through how to write it more to the site standard? As to whether to delete or not delete, obviously I felt the article was notable in the first place, and have stated my case for it as clearly as possible on the discussion page, so I don't want to beat that horse to death. Appreciate you comments and will work to alter the article accordingly if there's any chance of it being maintained. Albertlentz (talk) 05:35, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- After a week on AfD, the article is still a mishmash of inside jokes and lots of unsubstantiated statements without good reliable sources. References in what are said to be reliable sources are either trivial or not about the podcast itself. Changing my recommendation to Delete. Brilliant Pebble (talk) 09:20, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kafziel Complaint Department 06:16, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Makes claims that aren't supported by the sources given, most of which are irrelevant and very few of which are reliable. Doesn't assert notability in any meaningful way. FatherJack92 (talk) 07:46, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per the excellent research by Brilliant Pebble. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:55, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep evidence that a podcast is widely downloaded should be sufficient to justify an article. Brilliant Pebble, as I usderstand it, recommends rewriting it, not deleting it. DGG (talk) 00:38, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see the evidence that it's widely downloaded, though. I've gone through the references list again just now, and one of the links given in the article describes their production schedule as "extremely erratic", while several of the others are talking about that Xfire debate thing, which the links seem to show may be notable...but the links don't seem to show that the Taverncast podcast (which is unrelated to Xfire) is notable. Brilliant Pebble (talk) 01:09, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Brilliant Pebble 69.242.109.19 (talk) 00:42, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:49, 24 July 2008 (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 withdrawn by nominator. the wub "?!" 20:16, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hornby Virtual Railway[edit]
- Hornby Virtual Railway (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
No evidence of notability, contested prod, so here we are. Crossmr (talk) 05:42, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
'WITHDRAW I'll withdraw this. If the person removing the prod felt it was notable they probably should have tossed up some sources instead of saying "Try AfD". I interpreted that as it probably isn't notable but I'd like to have it sit here for 5 more days.--Crossmr (talk) 14:28, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per nomination. Not a hint of notability, no linked reviews, etc, etc. RayAYang (talk) 05:59, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom; could not find secondary sources -Samuel Tan 06:45, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete same reasons as above, no notability. Rob Riv (talk) 10:36, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 11:09, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This game is obviously notable since there are multiple third-party sources such as reviews and newspaper articles. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:38, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep It's OK, Colonel Warden, I'll do the work for you. Review Review Review Review Amazon review (not user-supplied) and even a write-up by Alan Coren in the London Times - here. Poor state of the article is no reason to delete it. FatherJack92 (talk) 13:25, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep — The Times article seems like the only article in the bunch that show any trace of verifiability. MuZemike (talk) 16:25, 22 July 2008 (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 Speedily deleted, G11, non-admin close. ukexpat (talk) 21:46, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Select Staffing[edit]
- Select Staffing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
- Is an advertisement. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:37, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete it. In fact, probably Speedy Delete -- I see no portion of this article that isn't self-promoting corporatespeak, with nary a useful fact (owners? starters?) in sight. Would require a complete rewrite to be Wikipedia worthy. RayAYang (talk) 06:03, 22 July 2008 (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. BJTalk 02:23, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Seeds of Time Online[edit]
- Seeds of Time Online (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
No evidence of notability per WP:WEB from reliable sources. Only claim is number of subscribers, which is not an indicator of notability. Oh, and the link provided (complete with "referrer" information) indicates that this might be WP:SPAM. --Kinu t/c 05:00, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom; could not find secondary sources. -Samuel Tan 06:47, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- A whopping 9 players online and a one-man dev team? Mentioned in a few web-game blogs. Mostly message-board posts, but an occasional self-published site ([28] and [29] and [30]). It is unclear how many of these are user-submissions, but many spots and posts are or have been responded to by Josh, the game's creator. I do not see any reliable coverage as required by WP:GNG. 83.203.183.112 (talk) 06:59, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 11:09, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
*Speedy Delete — Meets criterion G11 (blatant advertising). MuZemike (talk) 16:27, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete - A7 (non-notable web content), borderline spam. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:44, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete Ridiculous that it was declined - A7 and G11. ukexpat (talk) 21:40, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- A7 does not apply and is quite frankly dramatically abused these days. To quote: "A7 applies only to articles about web content or articles on people and organizations themselves, not articles on their books, albums, software and so on." Worse, the article even makes some suggestion of notability by saying "Seeds of Time Online has recently passed ten thousand members." And for G11, there is no reason to believe that it is advertisement aside from the player-referral reference (which can easily be fixed -- in fact, I just did so now) -- the article addresses gameplay, the game system, and player interaction, all of which can be seen in other MMORPG entries, such as World of Warcraft and Ragnarok Online and Lineage 2. The problem of the article is notability, and that can only be addressed in AfD discussions. Please keep this in mind in the future when suggesting Speedy Delete. 81.51.89.187 (talk) 09:53, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I respectfully disagree that it deserved to a Speedy Delete fate. However, the failure to confirm notability in this discussion would suggest it will be meeting erasure sooner rather than later. Ecoleetage (talk) 12:57, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Naturally I will say this, as I wrote the article. But:
1) Yes, ten thousand plus people is a lot. Quite frankly, I believe it is enough.
2) In response to the statement regarding the amount of players online. . . The nature of the energy system of the video game does not allow anyone to play it for large amounts of successive time.
3) Also, one of the key factors in the decisions of several people here seem to be the small amount of information it gives. As far as I recall, this is not a reason for deletion. I admit the article is. . . incomplete. It should therfore be expanded, not deleted. Goingkeeps (talk) 21:00, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please read WP:NOTE for what constitutes notability. I have three videos on YouTube I created with more than 10,000 views each and more than 100,000 views among them. None of them deserves its own Wikipedia article. 81.51.89.187 (talk) 21:54, 23 July 2008 (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 Withdrawn. triwbe (talk) 05:55, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comparison of Shopping Cart Software (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Fails under WP:NOTGUIDE triwbe (talk) 04:58, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per WP:BITE. Judging from the contributions, the editor who created this article is starting out and has been a valuable contributor thus far. Page history shows that triwbe prod'd the article a mere 3 minutes after its creation, while the creator was still working on it. Considering how it's improved (then and now) I'd say we should give it a bit more time. Oh, and on the merits of the article, this is a perfectly legitimate offshoot of Shopping cart software; that article would become unwieldy if this information were merged. -FrankTobia (talk) 05:28, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Withdrawn - although I think WP:ISNOT clearly frowns upon WP:OR (which most of these things can be argued to be) I now see that WP is full of comparison articles. Who knows how they will be kept up to date. But in the interest of WP:AGF (I do not bite nuggets!) I will withdraw and stop the AfD. --triwbe (talk) 05:55, 22 July 2008 (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. PhilKnight (talk) 22:35, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Andezoo[edit]
- Andezoo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
The article is just advertising without relevant content. There is no reference as to the product's notability. Most of the article (the Toy Biographies section) has been taken straight from the manufacturing company's website (see "andezoo's llama pets" at http://www.andezoo.com/. The article was created by a single-purpose account (User:Patucani) and has already been deleted before for these same reasons, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andezoo and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AndeZoo (2nd nomination). See also its deletion log Victor12 (talk) 04:31, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete it. And some admin, please salt this one, too. Evidently AndeZoo is salted, but not Andezoo. RayAYang (talk) 06:06, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete, salt and block creator(s) if it shows up again under yet another title. Blatant and unredeemable spamming attempt. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:48, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete spam spam spam spam. -- Quartermaster (talk) 17:46, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete and SALT ukexpat (talk) 21:41, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete crap. JuJube (talk) 05:16, 23 July 2008 (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 Speedily deleted A7, salted, non-admin close. ukexpat (talk) 22:14, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Alex Maine[edit]
- Alex Maine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Doesn't appear notable to me. Trivial coverage in local paper. Speedy deleted before but recreated. Leivick (talk) 04:31, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as lacking verifiability, as well as notability. Needs more than one local newspaper as a source; cursory Google news search turned up nothing. Not opposed to changing my opinion if more than one third-party reliable source is asserted, but notability looks like it will be difficult to show. -FrankTobia (talk) 05:41, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete it, as per nomination. RayAYang (talk) 06:07, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete non-notable and non-verifiable through multiple reliable 3rd party sources which cover the subject in a non-trivial manner. Jasynnash2 (talk) 09:04, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The subject's notability is not well served by the article. There may be some WP:COI and WP:SPA concerns, too. Ecoleetage (talk) 12:38, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, actually should probably be a Speedy delete but I must say I actually laughed at the following: "References: Maine, Alex (2008), Alex Maine's Blog" Wow. Just... wow. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:58, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above. This article has been deleted 4 times and counting (created 7 minutes after its deletion the last time), and the editor still creates the article yet again. The last time this article was nominated, the editor even blanked the AFD page. The editor is clearly a spammer as the only edits by the account are creating this article over and over, so duly block him. LuciferMorgan (talk) 15:42, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per all of the above and salt. Sockpuppetry involved in article history, too. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 17:09, 22 July 2008 (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 and redirect (non-admin closure). Redirecting to Beliy Plaschik seems the best solution. Ruslik (talk) 12:55, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hyperion-Plate[edit]
- Hyperion-Plate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Contested prod. No independent notability for this project under this name. At best, should be a redirect. Delete --Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth-timed 01:19, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Beliy Plaschik as information about this is already there. Also, on its own, this article does not fit WP:MUSIC notability criteria.--Finalnight (talk) 05:54, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,Synergy 04:02, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Beliy Plaschik. Bondegezou (talk) 16:38, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:51, 24 July 2008 (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.
Jacopo Zamporri[edit]
The result was delete. Okiefromokla questions? 21:19, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Jacopo Zamporri (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Appears to fail WP:ATHLETE. Ecoleetage (talk) 03:04, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE.--SRX 03:47, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Per nomination , article fails WP:ATHLETE AlbinoFerret (talk) 04:07, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Hasn't participated at a major league sports level. Artene50 (talk) 09:49, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Has not distinguished himself at any major level. Incidentally, major league sport is actually unnecessary: American college football is bigger than most foreign sports leagues. If he transfers to a major program and becomes notable (AA, etc) that would help. --Bobak (talk) 21:05, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:51, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Community college players are not considered notable by Wikipedia:WikiProject College Football and no other project has offered to pick them up or reach a consensus as to notability. Had the player won a major award or otherwise achieved notabiliyt outside of community college play, that would be different.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:59, 27 July 2008 (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. PhilKnight (talk) 22:32, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Zachary's Pizza[edit]
- Zachary's Pizza (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This article is basically about a local pizza parlor, and its claim to fame appears to come from being included among lists of pizza parlors that very occasionally turns up in food and travel media. I am not convinced of its notability (though maybe I could change my mind if Zachary sends over a pepperoni and mushroom pie). Ecoleetage (talk) 02:54, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete- in my opinion violates WP:INDISCRIMINATE, and no free pizza will change my opinion, not even if he puts anchovies on it. Reyk YO! 03:11, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete looks tasty, but nn. Every restaurant gets some local "BEst of..." coverage. JJL (talk) 03:19, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - mmm, but violates WP:INDISCRIMINATE, WP:ADVERT, and WP:NPOV.--SRX 03:49, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete non-notable, non-verifiable Jasynnash2 (talk) 09:06, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete violates WP:ADVERT Rob Riv (talk) 10:37, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, violates WP:IINFO. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 16:58, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Satisfies WP:COMPANY, specifically "An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources." Plus, this is a very famous pizzeria, which has been credited with introducing Chicago-style pizza to the region. 66.92.14.198 (talk) 02:35, 23 July 2008 (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.
Zhongshan Memorial Middle School[edit]
The result was merge/redirect. Because there are some signs that this school could be the subject of non-trivial coverage in Chinese secondary sources, and per precedence for middle schools, I am merging and redirecting to Zhongshan#Education. Okiefromokla questions? 19:53, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Zhongshan Memorial Middle School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Chinese school whose notability is not confirmed. If notability can be determined, please let me know. Otherwise, it would appear to fail WP:N. Ecoleetage (talk) 02:46, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete - could not find secondary sources in English, and my Mandarin is not very good, but there appears to be no secondary sources on the Chinese Google either. Hopefully a Mandarin language expert can come along to confirm this. -Samuel Tan 06:52, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. 119 entries in Google Books. http://books.google.com/books?q=%22%E4%B8%AD%E5%B1%B1%E7%BA%AA%E5%BF%B5%E4%B8%AD%E5%AD%A6%22 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.103.92.247 (talk) 07:19, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Middle schools have not generally been kept in AFDs, and the Chinese language Google Book hits could be about anything. We need some bilinguial input here: How many of the claimed Google book hits are about this particular institution, with substantial coverage, as opposed to passing reference or directory listings? Edison (talk) 20:53, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —TerriersFan (talk) 21:04, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment There are a decent number of hits on Google under its Chinese name (中山纪念中学), but you're right: almost all of it is random listings and postings. Its [Chinese Wikipedia page] only contains a brief history and a list of principals. --Jh12 (talk) 03:54, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, no notability. American middle schools generally redirect to their district, UK equivalents to their towns; I'm not sure what is appropriate for Chinese middle schools. If a target is found I would support redirection. CRGreathouse (t | c) 04:33, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge/redirect to Zhongshan#Education, where the school is listed. Since there's only one sentence involved (the school history), we could add it there. --Jh12 (talk) 21:03, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge/redirect to Zhongshan#Education as suggested above. TerriersFan (talk) 21:31, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:52, 24 July 2008 (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 nancy talk 16:48, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Zuam da Leze[edit]
- Zuam da Leze (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
A sad tale, to be certain, but notability appears to be lacking. I was unable to locate anything online about this doomed player. If anyone can find material, please share it. Otherwise, I would say that poor Zuam fails WP:BIO. Ecoleetage (talk) 02:36, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete- Article neither asserts notability, nor provides any sources that establish it. I also can't find anything online except Wikipedia and its mirrors. Reyk YO! 03:40, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Not notable. I feels like it may be a joke. Northwestgnome (talk) 03:47, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Smells strongly of hoax, and let's face it, even if the story is true as written it isn't notable in the least. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:52, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails verifiability.Additionally, Wikipedia does not have biographies of everyone who committed suicide. There is nothing in the article that would satisfy WP:BIO even if every statement were proven. Edison (talk) 20:56, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:52, 24 July 2008 (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 delete (non-admin closure) Protonk (talk) 03:57, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fast Web Media[edit]
- Fast Web Media (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This page needs to be deleted: The subject is not notable, the page was created by an employee of the company it is about, and the links are just the same kind of chaff that every web company's marketing department makes sure are around in case they get googled. You can see the wikipedia page is 3rd on a google search of the company's name and their site brags just about marketing, visibility and search engine optimization. Jack Fool (talk) 01:50, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete under ((db-ad)) and tagged as such. Reyk YO! 01:56, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Was speedy deleted---SRX 03:50, 22 July 2008 (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. Synergy 07:24, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dogs in religion[edit]
- Dogs in religion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Violates Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of informatio. The opening sentence of the article is: "Dogs (Canis lupus familiaris) , humankind's first and most common domestic animal, have featured prominently in many religious traditions." However the article itself does not back this up. It is a collection of trivia from various religious traditions which ends up showing how minor the role of dogs is in religion. Northwestgnome (talk) 01:38, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and fix - Meets notability guidelines, though I see where the nom is coming from this, though the article just needs to be fixed and expanded more to rephrase the article and refrain from the trivia.--SRX 03:51, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Maybe the solution is to remove that sentence then? As the nom says, the article shows the minor role of dogs in religion. Maxamegalon2000 05:21, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That one sentence is the entire introduction. If you take it out the article is just a collection of subsections. Northwestgnome (talk) 05:38, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Why don't you write a better introduction, then? SYSS Mouse (talk) 18:35, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Because there is no central point to the article about which to write an introduction. Northwestgnome (talk) 00:21, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- strong keep- article as it stands is dire, but there's no reason why the subject couldn't make a perfectly valid article. Sticky Parkin 13:49, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. This seems a perfectly valid compilation on the subject. The grounds alleged for deleting this are almost entirely subjective. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:12, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Valid subject of an article. SYSS Mouse (talk) 18:35, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- strong keep. The page just needs a little work, but the subject matter is valid and deserves a Wikipedia page. Tuxraider reloaded (talk) 19:59, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 20:22, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The difficulty with this article is it doesn't seem to have any sources at all -- independent or otherwise -- demonstrating that the topic as such has been previously researched or been the subject of publications. Some people have noted that dogs have a role in particular religions or expressed religious ideas and feelings about or involving dogs, but so far as the sources identified so far tell us, nobody before this editor has written a comparative study of the role of dogs in religion or examined the general subject in anything like this article's attempted scope. I believe we need sources telling us that the subject itself has been previously researched to demonstrate notability and avoid WP:NOR issues, particularly WP:SYN. So far as I know "validity" (the idea that a topic could or should or really ought to be the subject of research and publication) is not one of Wikipedia's inclusion criteria. The policy inclusion criteria require that the topic must have actually been the subject of actual previous research and publication. I believe we need sources demonstrating this to justify a keep. There are noncontroversial popular-culture subjects where this kind of issue isn't enforced strongly, but religion is a controversial subject with a lot of scholarly interest, and for this reason the core policy inclusion criteria have been enforced more strictly. We might be liberal about guideline issues like what we call a reliable source and so forth, but SOMEONE must have previously written about this subject or else we bump squarely into WP:NOR, which is core policy. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 20:37, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge back to Dog. I worked on this article when it was a section of Dog, although I didn't start the section. Back then it was like a collection of trivia, which I think is okay within an article. (The Islam section does have some important information for Muslim kids who want to talk their parents into getting a dog.) Steve Dufour (talk) 20:55, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep sufficiently distinct topic, and sufficient material. DGG (talk) 00:41, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Notable. Suggestion rename as Cultural depictions of dogs like Cultural depictions of spiders as topics like those discussed in "Chinese tradition" are not related to religion.Redtigerxyz (talk) 14:18, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As I understand it the 12 animals in Chinese astrology were supposed to be the ones who greated Buddha at his birth, so that is related to religion. Steve Dufour (talk) 14:40, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep -- This is a legitimate compilation. Merging it with dog would probably unbalance that article. However, the section on atheism at the end adds nothing useful and should be deleted. The Byron quotation is off-subject. The Richard Dawkins item is merely an attack of Bishop Usher's chronology of the Bible and adds nothing useful. The lack of referneces should be dealt with by tagging, not deletion. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:46, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Interesting article. It is notable, and its sourced. Every religion has a view about dogs. Lehoiberri (talk) 18:45, 25 July 2008 (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 Speedily deleted, A7, non-admin close. ukexpat (talk) 22:14, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mitchell Winery[edit]
- Mitchell Winery (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This winery doesn't seem that notable. When visiting the site listed for Mitchell Winery the site only lists two products which are both ciders and not wines. Since the company doesn't even make wine I don't see how this is a notable enough to be listed on its own separate page. The rate beer source page does list the two products made by this winery/brewery, but neither product have been rated.
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wine-related deletion discussions. —Wineguy64 (talk) 01:41, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment -
I went to the website and found six wines and two ciders. I don't think it establishes notability, but it does open it up a bit. LonelyBeacon (talk) 02:48, 22 July 2008 (UTC)egads!!![reply]- Nomination was a bit messy, so I cleaned it up a tad. Seems to share its name with a South Australian winery, and is not to be confused with Mitchell Katz Winery. In fact, the Winery doesn't seem to produce wines at all: the note on the site says "While none of these products are available on the shelves yet, we hope one day they might. They are all in the "R&D" phase as we work to perfect the recipes and find out if they are commercially viable. Check back later for more information." Notability is a pretty hard sell here; I can't find a single press release about them, their products do not exist, and the place is a recent startup (seems their website has all of 400 hits). Anybody had more luck finding information or is this a shoo-in for deletion? 83.203.183.112 (talk) 02:50, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - for now .... after its gets going and there are sources supporting notability, it can come back. LonelyBeacon (talk) 03:21, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep - while slightly COI due to my writing the article, I do have a couple questions in an attempt to clarify. While I understand notability being a concern, why would whether or not cider is wine be one. The government (ATF/TTB) as well as many other national and state entities considers cider to be wine, why doesn't Wikipedia? Is this a consensus, or just the nominating editors opinion (no offence, nom)? I fully understand if this AfD comes to a delete consensus due to WP:N, but I don't think the cider itself should be an issue. - Adolphus79 (talk) 03:24, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It was a response to the other editor's note that there were 6 wines produced; rather, they only produce the two ciders. It just happened to be at my fingertips when the edit conflict popped up. 83.203.183.112 (talk) 03:33, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete- I think our friend with the IP Address said it all, "I can't find a single press release about them, their products do not exist". Reyk YO! 03:29, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Put a cork back in it and delete Notability is not confirmed; the winery appears to be strictly local, with no national fame. Ecoleetage (talk) 03:34, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - fails WP:COMPANY and WP:N.--SRX 03:52, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete it. Non-notable new company. RayAYang (talk) 06:09, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete it. This company doesn't warrant an entry. If wikipedia should be a collection of useless pages, this article should stay. Otherwise, it clearly should not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Notepad47 (talk • contribs) 08:19, 22 July 2008 (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 nancy talk 16:47, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ringfield (Mathematics)[edit]
- Ringfield (Mathematics) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
There is only source given and a bit of digging shows that the creator of this theory has a similar name to the username of the article's author (Simon Jackson and Jacko561 respectively). This indicates that it's nothing but original research. I'd prod it, but typing ringfield mathematics into Google gives so many hits for rings and fields that I can't be certain this new concept hasn't been mentioned anywhere else. Reyk YO! 01:35, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - unless it can be shown that this was the subject of a peer reviewed article or some such. Otherwise it could be WP:OR and WP:COI. LonelyBeacon (talk) 02:49, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - violates WP:OR and has no references to verify the content.--SRX 03:53, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Single reference is a self published source WP:SPS. Looks to be original research. AlbinoFerret (talk) 04:12, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete In June this year, a user named "Jacko" posted what looks like an early draft of this article to the usenet group sci.math. There was no reply. Also to be clear, the topic is non-notable. To get better search results, put ringfield in quotes. One can also use commercial databases such as MathSciNet, where there are no hits. JackSchmidt (talk) 14:51, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment If the article is kept, the "m" needs to be made lower-case. Capital clearly violates WP:MOS. Michael Hardy (talk) 15:50, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:52, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Unable to find reliable scholarly sources on google scholar [31]. There appears to be one passing mention of this in the computer science literature, but that is all I could find. Clearly not notable. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 18:35, 24 July 2008 (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 delete as vandalism. ... discospinster talk 01:16, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Anti-Harris Coalition[edit]
- Anti-Harris Coalition (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable organization, possibly a hoax. Fails WP:V, as well. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:55, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Lacks sources; Google, Google News and Google Books don't show any reliable sources, either. Looks like a hoax, the stub also reads like a hoax. Noroton (talk) 01:01, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- G3 The lack of hits for a coalition of this sort seems very suspicious — suspicious enough for me to call it a hoax too. So tagged. Ten Pound
HammerFarfel and his otters • (Broken clamshells• Otter chirps) 01:13, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply] - G3 as a hoax. ThuranX (talk) 01:14, 22 July 2008 (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 nancy talk 16:42, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mikey Chan[edit]
- Mikey Chan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Article's alleged claim to notability is the fact Mikey Chan has collaborated with several musicians, yet none of these musicians actually have their own Wikipedia page. Currently, the article's text asserts no actual signs of notability in any shape or form. Delete. LuciferMorgan (talk) 00:26, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - notability not established. Very few ghits are Myspace-y and blog-y rather than news-y. No gnews hits for "Mikey Chan" +guitar exist at all, even in archives. Frank | talk 01:46, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete no references. no releases shown. noartists he has worked shows notability. Duffbeerforme (talk) 09:38, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Non-notable per above, and only mentioned in self-published sources. —97198 talk 10:30, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:MUSIC. Primary claim-to-fame is having worked with a bunch of redlinks who also aren't notable, and no reliable sources to verify any of it anyway. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:01, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 20:24, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per everyone else. Bondegezou (talk) 16:26, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Search results on Mikey Chan hasn't shown me notability of this person, also lacks reliable sources reporting about this person. --Kanonkas : Talk 10:40, 25 July 2008 (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 nancy talk 16:45, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
MindSHIFT Technologies[edit]
When will this page be taken down?
- MindSHIFT Technologies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable corporation per WP:CORP, no assertion of importance, obvious advertising Madcoverboy (talk) 00:24, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Madcoverboy (talk) 00:25, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I want to find some reason to keep among these hits, but I'm just not sure they're quite notable enough. Frank | talk 01:52, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Article appears to be spam, article created by user MindSHIFT Technologies, a single use account that has only created this article, possible WP:COI. AlbinoFerret (talk) 04:17, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Spam. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 23:43, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Hello,
I'm not sure if this is where I'm supposed to respond... I was originally tring to create this page to link off the MindAlign entry, but wasn't sure how to do that. mindSHIFT Technologies is a notable company and will be supporting Apple's product line in the future (please see article below).
http://www.foxbusiness.com/story/mindshift-technologies-announces-support-apple-product-line/
Additional links: - Financing Announcement(PR Newswire) http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-28615689_ITM - New Office Opening(Washington Post) http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-558322.html - Merge w/Invision(PR Newswire) http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-32918980_ITM
Please let me know if there is anything else I can provide.
Thanks, Kim —Preceding unsigned comment added by MindSHIFT Technologies (talk • contribs) 13:27, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete Blatant advertising. Themfromspace (talk) 01:15, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as pure spam, cut and paste word for word from a press release. Nuttah (talk) 10:01, 27 July 2008 (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.
- ^ YouTube Phenomena Comments