Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 July 30
- 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. I'd say speedy keep, but this has been open for over a month. In that time, it has acquired a total of three bluelinks, making the nominator's reason for deletion moot. Rather than prolong the agony with a pointless relist, I'm just going to close this. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:51, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Robert Barrett[edit]
- Robert Barrett (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Disambiguation page with only one article... no redirect needed KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 19:24, 30 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 by the precedent that all villages are notable. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 12:44, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rengasamudram[edit]
- Rengasamudram (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This article seems to be copied and pasted from somewhere to be used as advertisement (see bottom of article for evidence). There are no verifiable references to be found in the article as well. Tavix (talk) 23:45, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. This article has a lot of issues, but none of them are fatal. The village does exist. However, the second half of the article should be deleted as WP:COATRACK. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 00:01, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 00:21, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. All villages are notable. --Eastmain (talk) 00:21, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and rewrite. Villages are notable. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!) 01:26, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to the containing municipality (taluka) article. Subdivisions of municpalities for people communities generally need an additional layer of secondary sourcing to merit a stand-alone article. --Polaron | Talk 02:40, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- keep, cleanup, add references. In wikipedia it is agreed that all kinds of permanent settlements are notable. Mukadderat (talk) 16:59, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge: Agree with Polaron.--Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 05:04, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment:I would have prefered to vote delete on this one , but based on experience , i know it will be fruitless to do so. Still I feel we should have some criteria for including a village in Wikipdia. India has approximately 6.5 lakh (650,000) villages. Are you sure you want an article for each one of them unless there is something notable? For instance, Rengasamudram does not show any notability. The same article mentions another village Tiruppudaimarudur(, which to me, seems to be more significant given the presence of an ancient Shivaling. I feel there should be some fixed critrea for Indian villages. --Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 05:04, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Lousy article that needs improvement, but it's a real village (apparently even with a post office) and towns/villages are inherently notable regardless of size. --Oakshade (talk) 05:39, 1 August 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 Russel's teapot --JForget 23:58, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ateapotist[edit]
- Ateapotist (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Neologism at best, derived from Russell's teapot. I declined the speedy deletion, as I did not feel it met WP:CSD G7. I redirected to Russell's teapot. Creator makes a case on Talk:Ateapotist for full restoration, but I think deletion as a neologism, perhaps something made up one day would be better. I find nothing for this term on google scholar, google books, It does get scant currency on forums, blogs, and I think myspace.Cheers, Dlohcierekim 23:25, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No relevant ghits. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 00:03, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. It's nonsense. It's a made up term, between a couple of philosophy grad students. Llamabr (talk) 03:14, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - no evidence of notability for the term. Only uses appear to be in blog posts and other unreliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 12:23, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Russel's Teapot – harmless, plausible search term. Skomorokh 12:53, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- delete, no redirect. Nonnotable coinagee. Mukadderat (talk) 17:01, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:42, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. It appears to be used on blogs, but no real discussion of the word (as opposed to using it as a synonym for atheist). It fails WP:NEOLOGISM, and even if it didn't, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. RJC Talk Contribs 23:01, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete because the very first version of this was 100% redundant to existing content at Russell's teapot. Then redirect because redirects are cheap and mostly harmless, and I can't see how this one would be harmful. GRBerry 01:45, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- OOps. Too true. Thanks. Dlohcierekim 02:14, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete There is no need for a redirect, just delete the thing. Tavix (talk) 15:26, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, per nom and User:Whpq. Fdp (talk) 08:52, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep the term is in use in disscusions about atheism, however it is definitely neologism --37uk (talk) 09:06, 2 August 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 summary deletion per Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff#Summary_deletion_of_BLPs. The subject may well be notable enough to justify an article but not a 100-word hatchet job in which two-thirds of the content is negative. Biographies should be a summary representing an individual's entire life - we cannot afford to be eventualist about this. No prejudice against creation of a new article compliant with the NPOV aspects of biographies of living persons policy. CIreland (talk) 14:42, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
James Archer (stock trader)[edit]
- James Archer (stock trader) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
A clear case of WP:BLP1E - a trader notable only for being barred and the son of a prominent politician and writer. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:22, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- STRONG KEEP Articles about people notable only for one event? "a trader notable only for being barred and the son of a prominent politician and writer." I think this is relevent because of his fathers criminal record - I find it informative, interesting and relevent. Chendy (talk) 23:49, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep; enough coverage in reliable, third party publications to write a decent, verifiable stub. Swift may be the death of the asinine BLP1E conjecture. Skomorokh 12:55, 31 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 a neologism that is not widely used. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 12:47, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Tech Coast[edit]
This article is of a topic that almost literally only exists on Wikipedia.org. The term is a neologism and lacks creditable notability, as even stated within the article itself. The basis of the article is also original research. --Fcsuper (talk) 23:10, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The term is a neologism which is essentially used solely by the Tech Coast Angels, a venture capital group, and no one else. In contrast, everyone uses Silicon Valley to refer to Silicon Valley. I have argued extensively in favor of deletion of this article at Talk:Tech Coast and I am pleased to see that Fcsuper has initiated the process.--Coolcaesar (talk) 06:17, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Formatting issues fixed in this afd. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!) 23:18, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- keep - very searchable term. It is used not only by "Angels". Of course, itr is heavily promoted, but for this reason people would like to read about it. The article must be heavily cleaned of "original research". Mukadderat (talk) 17:02, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Of course I vote for delete. It is not a searchable item at all, as suggested by another. Only company names come up on Yahoo! and Google. No supporting articles or sources (creditable or otherwise) establish this as an actual topic. This wiki article is almost literally the only place this topic appears, which makes this 100% original research. In other words, if OR was removed, there would be nothing left about this topic. It is promotional in nature for a particular company and blog and not an actual recognized term in use. The only article I did find was an editorial piece (likely written by that same Angel group) way back in 1998. If notability and creditability can be established at some later date, I invite the restoration of this article. Until this, it is not wikiworthy. — fcsuper (How's That?, That's How!) (Exclusionistic Immediatist ) — 02:47, 1 August 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 --JForget 23:57, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sayak[edit]
- Sayak (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
I've been looking at some of these articles for some time, and it's been tagged for notability since last year. No sources, and the only source it mentions in the article is a definition from dictionary VpnMG (talk) 23:01, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 23:11, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 23:11, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 23:11, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete A dictionary definition of a non-English word. Tavix (talk) 00:33, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: If this is the name of the weapon used by Kali, then it should be mentioned in that article. No need for a seperate article.--Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 04:51, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:RS and WP:V There are no sources for this article. Artene50 (talk) 06:45, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Agree with Deepak D'Souza.Redtigerxyz (talk) 14:16, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Deepak D'Souza. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 19:07, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete per Tavix PoliJunkie (talk) 01:49, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or Transwiki to Wiktionary since it is more suitable for a dictionary than an encyclopedia. GizzaDiscuss © 00:35, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above. Blackngold29 07:31, 4 August 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 Charlaine Harris, merge left to editorial discretion. lifebaka++ 17:33, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sam Merlotte[edit]
- Sam Merlotte (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable character (fails Wikipedia:Notability (fiction)). Maybe notable later when the book becomes a TV series but WP:FUTURE. triwbe (talk) 04:53, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —triwbe (talk) 05:04, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge new to me, but probably time to start an article on "Characters in ..." The series even as a book series seems important enough. DGG (talk) 08:35, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per DGG. Definately doesn't warrent its own article. Blackngold29 06:54, 29 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 22:48, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete andredirect. The base article has also been redirected to the author. I think we should have the series page before we have this. Hobit (talk) 01:24, 31 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:MUSIC and WP:CRYSTAL. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 12:49, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Kodomo[edit]
- Kodomo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
May not meet WP:MUSIC guidelines. 青い(Aoi) (talk) 04:17, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not notable at this point. If the album comes out and gets some press, that would be a different story. Right now, the quote unquote label is not even notable. Dlabtot (talk) 04:41, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, does not appear to meet WP:MUSIC standards. --Stormie (talk) 10:26, 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 00:50, 25 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 22:48, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and dabify, del per above. 70.51.10.29 (talk) 08:36, 31 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 - Now there is enough consensus but is it possible to expand the article - there is only one textual line besides the templates, lists, etc.--JForget 23:50, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Radiopuhelimet[edit]
- Radiopuhelimet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Fails WP:MUSIC, WP:N, and g-hits bring up little that is both secondary and reliable. Leonard(Bloom) 04:00, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: fails WP:BAND. -- Alexf42 16:35, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I admit that the article is quite poor, so go ahead and delete if you want. However, the group itself might merit an article on Wikipedia (which is why I wrote the stub in the first place). At the moment I don't have the time to improve the article. --KFP (talk | contribs) 16:05, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:52, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:52, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Two albums on Sonet/Polygram and two more just on Sonet would seem to meet WP:MUSIC on "Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels". They have also toured internationally repeatedly.[1] Bondegezou (talk) 10:21, 28 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 22:49, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. There is a book about the band, in Finnish: J. A. Mäki ja Juha Hurme (toim.) (2006). Radiopuhelimet. Like. ISBN 952-471-714-X. --Eastmain (talk) 23:45, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, meets WP:MUSIC#C5. Esradekan Gibb "Talk" 03:31, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Solid keep; two albums released by Polygram satisfy the sufficient condition of criterion 5; Eastmain is an editor in good standing who asserts there is a book-length reference work on the topic. No reservations here. Skomorokh 12:57, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No-brainer Keep; several big-label, major-circulation albums, tours and tons of other coverage. And on top of that, I don't really follow popular music trends and I've heard of them too. =) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 16:25, 3 August 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 all. Keeper ǀ 76 16:57, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Joint School Chinese Debating Society[edit]
- Joint School Chinese Debating Society (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
I am nominating this group of articles because none of these student organizations are notable. The articles contain either no references or only a primary source (that is, a link to the webpage for the society or team). Hong Kong Joint School Electronics and Computer Society recently failed an AfD, and this article is in the same set.
- Hong Kong Union for Young Leaders (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Joint School Chinese Debating Society (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Hong Kong Joint School Mathematics Society (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Hong Kong Joint Schools Debating Society (HKJSDS) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- New Territories Joint School Debating Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Fellowship of Evangelical Students, Hong Kong (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Mikeblas (talk) 03:07, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all Student clubs, no claims of notability. Articles like these are usually speedied without controversy. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:30, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge the last group with these articles: Inter-Varsity Christian Fellowship of Canada, Universities and Colleges Christian Fellowship, InterVarsity Christian Fellowship, Australian Fellowship of Evangelical Students, Tertiary Students Christian Fellowship, Austrian Student Mission, Kristeligt Forbund for Studerende, Norwegian Christian Student and School Association —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ottre (talk • contribs) 20:58, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:52, 25 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 22:49, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all the Hong Kong ones. Between them all there are only four Google Books hits, which are mere mentions. No Google News or Scholar hits for any of them. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 23:57, 30 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 tentatively to Edgar Allen Poe, though the exact target is open to editorial discretion. Consensus seems to indicate this is not notable enough to warrant its own article, however. lifebaka++ 17:38, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
School of Quietude[edit]
- School of Quietude (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Article whose subject fails to meet the relevant notability guidelines. SouthernNights (talk) 09:35, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I am proposing to delete this article because the subject fails to meet our notability guidelines. In this case, all the references in the article are to blog sites, and the term itself appears to have been created and promoted by a single blogger. It also appears this neologism is not in wider usage, having only a few thousand hits on Google, with this article entry being the first hit. While this subject is interesting and I'm a fan of Ron Silliman's blog (the poet who originated the term), this isn't worth its own article. Perhaps we could also consider merging this article with Silliman's article? --SouthernNights (talk) 09:35, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I oppose the proposed deletion. I read the article, found it uniquely informative, and it appears that the term has historical origins in Poe, although this reference does require a citation. Aletheon (talk) 15:05, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:48, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Ron Silliman. A Google Scholar search suggests that the term is in use but only in reference to Silliman's use of it. Chick Bowen 22:01, 30 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 22:45, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, sources in the article are all blogs. A book says it was invented by Edgar Allen Poe. Therefore it is safe to delete the article as nonsense, synthesis or vanity. No prejudice if recreated about Poe's concept. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 23:46, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep on the basis of the quote PhelgmR found. That such a notable poet invented the phrase is sufficient evidence, when found in a clear RS. That the term has been used by later writers just requires some rather extensive editing. DGG (talk) 00:47, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge/redirect to Ron Silliman regarding his use, mentioning the cited Poe origin. --MCB (talk) 07:33, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as verifiable content on a discrete encyclopedic topic of interest to our readers, and associated with an independently-notable figure. Merge to Silliman's article unless something longer than a stub can be written. Skomorokh 13:00, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Week Keep - If blogs are the way poets communicate with each other nowdays maybe an exception could be made to WP's general rule against them as sources in this case. The fact that Poe used the same expression does not help the topic of its modern-day use become more notable, however. Steve Dufour (talk) 17:11, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Phlegm Rooster's source says it all - this article is entirely incorrect. The term was not invented by Stillman - it was invented by Edgar Allen Poe. TruthGal (talk) 06:37, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- And if it to be merged anywhere, it would be to Poe. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 10:56, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge/redirect to Ron Silliman per MCB above. Seems to be a neologism specific to Ron Silliman (and irrelevant to Poe) in its current usage and as defined on the page. thither (talk) 19:53, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Current usage is attested by blogs. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 22:38, 5 August 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, notability sufficiently established by book and news sources. lifebaka++ 17:42, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ward Morehouse (activist)[edit]
- Ward Morehouse (activist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable. Don't confuse internet research with Ward Morehouse Kingturtle (talk) 07:42, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I have added an old Christian Science Monitor reference to the article; it's an approximately 1000-world profile of him for his work on Bhopal. I regard his notability as marginal; we certainly have less notable people with articles, but I don't believe in the lowest common denominator. Thus, I have no opinion on this AfD. RayAYang (talk) 00:52, 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, Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:50, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete notability not established. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 0:42, July 25, 2008 (UTC)
- Comment - I'm pretty sure he can pass WP:NOTE, but it'll take a little work to turn up the sources (and it sure doesn't help having that other Ward Morehouse!). Cgingold (talk) 09:24, 25 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 22:39, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I happened to have Kim Fortuin's Advocacy after Bhopal on the shelf, and he gets non-trivial coverage in this book, which is good enough for me. Mostlyharmless (talk) 12:42, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Plenty of reliable coverage in reliable sources here and here. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:20, 5 August 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. Nandesuka (talk) 18:59, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dark Woman[edit]
- Dark Woman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This article asserts no notability through reliable sources, and is therefore pure plot repetition and original research gleaned from the media from which the character appears. It is therefore duplicative and trivial, and should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:39, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete for the same reason I redirected earlier: non-notable, no citations to reliable sources. Redirect to Star Wars: Republic might be appropriate, since she appears most frequently there. --EEMIV (talk) 22:41, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 23:01, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 23:01, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Plot summary and in-universe information for a non-notable character which has not received substantial coverage from reliable secondary sources. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 17:25, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep in some capacity, i.e. regardless of the Star Wars character, duplicative information should be merged and redirected without deletion anyway, but the phrase "Dark Woman" ia actually the title of various other works of fiction, such as this and this, therefore suggesting at worst redirecting to an article on these works of fiction, being a disambiguation page, etc., i.e. doesn't seem justifiable to outright redlink here. Also, as does pertain to the character, for sourcing, look at page 120 of Power of the Jedi Sourcebook and page 153 of Star Wars: The New Essential Guide to Characters for example. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 01:03, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - no assertion of notability via reliable sources independent of the topic. Fails WP:NOT#PLOT for being entirely in-universe plot summary. sephiroth bcr (converse) 22:46, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia:SOFIXIT, i.e. use additional sources to expand the out of universe coverage. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 16:32, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This is a glib response that does nothing to advance the discussion here. "So fix it" (the phrase, not so much the "Be bold" guideline it redirects to) would be appropriate if, say, a body of work were sitting out there within reach to expand the article in an encyclopedic way -- which no one has asserted exist, let alone pointed toward (no, the links to in-universe plot summaries you offered don't provide fodder to offer an appropriate out-of-universe perspective on this topic). --EEMIV (talk) 19:18, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Your reply adds nothing to this discussion and does not help to improve the article, especially as I have indicated above suggestions as to how the article can be improved. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 19:39, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- And your comments do nothing to further the discussion or do anything constructive. All it's showing is that 1) you have no other argument to show 2) if your reply does not address my comment, which would be nothing other than "here are the sources", then you shouldn't bother to comment. sephiroth bcr (converse) 22:26, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You have not presented any coherent argument for deletion. You should not ignore sources when they have been presented. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 07:26, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I still marvel at your inability to get the point. You would save much more articles if you simply realized that your nonsense never convinces a closing administrator and you learned what type of coverage provides real notability. The sourcebooks are not independent sources, and they cover nothing but in-universe details; ergo, there is no critical coverage. sephiroth bcr (converse) 20:17, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yet another bizarre response that does not help the discussion, considering that I have probably saved more articles than you have argued to delete by now and that all reasonable administrators are convinced by my reasoning, but this isn't a contest. The coverage here provides notability by any reasonable standard for a paperless encyclopedia. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 21:54, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Uh, no. There's no notability asserted, and none of your arguments have shown so. Are you even aware of what is in the source books? It discusses nothing but in-universe details in the context of the Star Wars universe. I've read a few of them, and am quite aware of what they contain. That and the source books are not independent sources - they're official fanbooks more or less. Your failure to understand this elementary distinction gets more ridiculous every time it comes up. sephiroth bcr (converse) 22:08, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Your responses keep getting more ridiculous. If you don't want to have a constructive conversation with me, you don't have to reply just to make a point. There is a such thing as reliable primary sources and sometimes encyclopedic article can be written with those. Articles like this make for great spinoff and sub-articles, but even if we remove the Star Wars character from the table, other books have even been titled "Dark Woman", which is why I am not seeing a compelling reason to redlink here altogether. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 22:11, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I am not saying the sources are not reliable. That is not the point. Notability can only be asserted by sources independent of the topic. The source books are not independent of the topic; therefore, they cannot assert notability. If you want to create a redirect to somewhere else, then go ahead. sephiroth bcr (converse) 22:23, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- We don't need a deletion discussion to redirect, i.e. unless if the edit history is libelous, if something can be redirected, there's no urgent need to delete the edit history first. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 22:30, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I am not saying the sources are not reliable. That is not the point. Notability can only be asserted by sources independent of the topic. The source books are not independent of the topic; therefore, they cannot assert notability. If you want to create a redirect to somewhere else, then go ahead. sephiroth bcr (converse) 22:23, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Your responses keep getting more ridiculous. If you don't want to have a constructive conversation with me, you don't have to reply just to make a point. There is a such thing as reliable primary sources and sometimes encyclopedic article can be written with those. Articles like this make for great spinoff and sub-articles, but even if we remove the Star Wars character from the table, other books have even been titled "Dark Woman", which is why I am not seeing a compelling reason to redlink here altogether. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 22:11, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Uh, no. There's no notability asserted, and none of your arguments have shown so. Are you even aware of what is in the source books? It discusses nothing but in-universe details in the context of the Star Wars universe. I've read a few of them, and am quite aware of what they contain. That and the source books are not independent sources - they're official fanbooks more or less. Your failure to understand this elementary distinction gets more ridiculous every time it comes up. sephiroth bcr (converse) 22:08, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yet another bizarre response that does not help the discussion, considering that I have probably saved more articles than you have argued to delete by now and that all reasonable administrators are convinced by my reasoning, but this isn't a contest. The coverage here provides notability by any reasonable standard for a paperless encyclopedia. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 21:54, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I still marvel at your inability to get the point. You would save much more articles if you simply realized that your nonsense never convinces a closing administrator and you learned what type of coverage provides real notability. The sourcebooks are not independent sources, and they cover nothing but in-universe details; ergo, there is no critical coverage. sephiroth bcr (converse) 20:17, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You have not presented any coherent argument for deletion. You should not ignore sources when they have been presented. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 07:26, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- And your comments do nothing to further the discussion or do anything constructive. All it's showing is that 1) you have no other argument to show 2) if your reply does not address my comment, which would be nothing other than "here are the sources", then you shouldn't bother to comment. sephiroth bcr (converse) 22:26, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Your reply adds nothing to this discussion and does not help to improve the article, especially as I have indicated above suggestions as to how the article can be improved. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 19:39, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This is a glib response that does nothing to advance the discussion here. "So fix it" (the phrase, not so much the "Be bold" guideline it redirects to) would be appropriate if, say, a body of work were sitting out there within reach to expand the article in an encyclopedic way -- which no one has asserted exist, let alone pointed toward (no, the links to in-universe plot summaries you offered don't provide fodder to offer an appropriate out-of-universe perspective on this topic). --EEMIV (talk) 19:18, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia:SOFIXIT, i.e. use additional sources to expand the out of universe coverage. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 16:32, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Ugh. Just...ugh. This is the most complete failure of notability and WP:WAF I've seen in a very long time. This article completely fails to offer any sort of real-world context for any of this; it doesn't even mention the medium she appears in. If I didn't already know better, I'd have difficulty separating this from a fan character. While a merge is possible I guess, there's nothing here to save; there's plot with no information at all where this plot is coming from.
In short, this article would fail WP:V miserably even if WP:N didn't exist or apply. The only way I can imagine giving it any sort of real-world context, given the lack of real-world context in the SW readers' guides (such as the ones Le Roi links above), is to read every single Star Wars story that might be relevant and take notes. That's not a way to write an encyclopedia article, at least not on this project. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:39, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]- But again, think outside of the box, if the subject is titular of other works of fiction, then it shouldn't be redlinked. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 07:26, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Write that article, then. It can go under this title once we clean this mess up. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:40, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see a reason for the deletion discussion to prevent any kind of bold revision like that, but I wonder if that should occur on the talk page first. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 23:43, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If you want to write a different article, go and write a different article. It has no relevance to this discussion. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:41, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, what I am thinking is that Dark Woman should be a disambiguation page and that the current content of this article should be moved to Dark Woman (Star Wars) or something to that effect. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 16:27, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If you want to write a different article, go and write a different article. It has no relevance to this discussion. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:41, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see a reason for the deletion discussion to prevent any kind of bold revision like that, but I wonder if that should occur on the talk page first. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 23:43, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Write that article, then. It can go under this title once we clean this mess up. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:40, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- But again, think outside of the box, if the subject is titular of other works of fiction, then it shouldn't be redlinked. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 07:26, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to one of the Star Wars character lists. The references at the bottom were helpful, at least to determine the source of the character. (Until I saw them, I had no idea where she was from, and I'm a Star Wars fan : ) - jc37 02:54, 3 August 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 as he passes WP:ATHLETE. пﮟოьεԻ 57 08:30, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Julián Di Cosmo[edit]
- Julián Di Cosmo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Contested PROD, this player has never played at professional level, therefore failing WP:FOOTYN and WP:BIO EP 22:35, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. EP 22:39, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - the guy played for Igea Virtus (Serie C2), a Sicilian team from a fully professional league. He also played 31 matches, scoring 16 goals, being the Serie C2/C topscorer, so he meets WP:FOOTYN. [2] --Angelo (talk) 23:32, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - on the list of notable leagues, we've noted that Italian leagues are fully professional to Serie C2, so he meets notability. matt91486 (talk) 03:51, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, in addition to above, has clearly been signed to an Serie A club - and do we really think that as the top scorer in Serie C2 that he'll not be playing? Besides isn't the top scorer in C2 very notable? Do people read these articles before they AfD them? Nfitz (talk) 07:19, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Being signed to a Serie A club without making a single appearance is not really a proof of notability. Being a Serie C2 topscorer is. However, the article did not include any sort of reference to the player's past football experiences, it barely cited his spell with Igea Virtus before being expanded by me last nite. --Angelo (talk) 07:41, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It's the nominator's responsibility to search sources beyond Wikipedia for indicators of notability. Keep, by the way. Skomorokh 13:02, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Being signed to a Serie A club without making a single appearance is not really a proof of notability. Being a Serie C2 topscorer is. However, the article did not include any sort of reference to the player's past football experiences, it barely cited his spell with Igea Virtus before being expanded by me last nite. --Angelo (talk) 07:41, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Angelo - he has played in a fully-pro league, so passes WP:ATHLETE. GiantSnowman 16:15, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Juve10 - he has played in Serie C2, a proffessional league, and notibaly was last seaons top scorer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Juve10 (talk • contribs) 14:36, 2 August 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 the film and Renier's article - Peripitus (Talk) 03:18, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Living Dead Lock Up[edit]
- Living Dead Lock Up (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Renier J. Murillo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
(delete) – (View AfD) Fails WP:N and WP:V, at least as it currently stands. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 22:35, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails notability for films. Almost everyone involved is a red link, and there are no sources to back up the material. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!) 22:48, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Renier J. Murillo as well. Fails WP:BIO. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!) 01:27, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 23:26, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Created at a university on a $200 budget, I don't see its notability. --Porqin (talk) 00:11, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete. I managed to find a few reviews ([3], [4], [5]), but I don't think that's enough to establish notability. PC78 (talk) 00:16, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - also added article to this AfD on only blue-link bio within the group, which also appears to fail notability standards. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 00:17, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, as I have just added 6 film reviews to the article's EL list. Cannot help all the redlinks, as even newcomers have to start somehwere.. and I'll be hapy to clean them up, but the film itself does have a (strange) notabilty. I was amazed at the number of hits I found on Google. Must be a very popular torrent. Michael Q. Schmidt (talk) 04:56, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I do agree however to delete the artcile about Renier J. Murillo. Being a part of a (slightly) notable film does not make him notable. Michael Q. Schmidt (talk) 04:58, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete — Never heard of it. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 16:14, 31 July 2008 (UTC))[reply]
- Neither had I... until this AfD. Michael Q. Schmidt (talk) 17:13, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Ned Scott 06:43, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete since this fails WP:V and WP:RS. Cliff smith talk 16:19, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just because you have not heard of it does not mean that others have not. However, there is simply not enough information cited to show notability from what I observed. (Roodhouse1 (talk) 23:52, 5 August 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 Peter Symonds. Yet another perfect example of why albums should be a speedy category only if the artist meets A7 as well or doesn't have a page of their own. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!) 22:51, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Turn On EP[edit]
- Turn On EP (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
If the artist is not notable enough to have an article, then why do we need an article about the CD, which doesn't seem to meet notability anyway? KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 22:27, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- They might not be that notible, but I own a rare CD copy (it's also on iTunes, but I have a rather limited CD). I don't know much about the band, though. I've only met one member. Bramblestar (ShadowClan Leader) (talk) 22:31, 30 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 Osho. I've only carried out the redirect, and leave the rest to editorial discretion. lifebaka++ 17:51, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Guru of Sex[edit]
- Guru of Sex (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Appears to fail future film notability guidelines. No prejudice towards recreation when reliable sources can be found to show that shooting has already begun. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 22:24, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 23:26, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy. The quality and content of the article is such that it would be a pity to delete it outright. However, this does appear to fail WP:NFF. I can't find any sources more recent than those cited in the article. No evidence that filming is in progress, or even that the project is still a going concern. PC78 (talk) 00:02, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]- Keep. It is clearly evident that there has been significant discussion in multiple secondary sources that satisfy WP:RS and WP:V. The fact that the production caused a controversy and response from Osho centres is also notable. Cirt (talk) 02:19, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think it's fair to stay that it's in production. It's merely being developed, and it's been controversial like Toussaint (film), which is comfortably merged with production not beginning right away. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:35, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Unfortunately Toussaint (film) has not been comfortably merged, but instead was removed in its entirety from the article it was merged into. Cirt (talk) 19:54, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Which is why I put it at Danny Glover#Planned directorial debut with a note in that article's popular culture section. :) —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:08, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak KeepMerge to Osho. Well... i did find Sannyas World: In the News: Osho movie: "The Guru of Sex" by Gorach" and an article about Kingsley's attiude about sex in films ThaaIndian News: Ben Kingsley interview. I added them to the article's ELs. Michael Q. Schmidt (talk) 04:38, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- One link is from August 2007 and the other link is actually referring to Elegy (film). There's no indication that filming has begun, so it could be merged to Osho until we can verify that an actual film will result. No information is lost; there just won't be an illusion of a potentially full-fledged film article based on plans that never go through. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:35, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed my vote. Agree with your reasoning. If it is merged, nothing is lost. Michael Q. Schmidt (talk) 17:21, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep[reply]It is in production (as I understand it). The article though does seem to have some tone/wording issues that may need to be addressed. Jasynnash2 (talk) 10:17, 31 July 2008 (UTC)- Merge to a "Film adaptation" section at Osho since filming is not verified to have begun. Guru of Sex is not even listed at IMDb, and there is no such role identified for Ben Kingsley, who is supposedly in the lead. If production doesn't take place, we don't have the assurance of a full-fledged film article -- cast, production, reception, etc, leaving us with mere intents. Recreate if filming is verified to have begun. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:36, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The Ben Kingsley role appears to be well cited in the article. PC78 (talk) 13:54, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Right, but this was June 2007 casting. While I don't care for IMDb, I find it strange that there is no mention of this project. Based on what I've seen with films coming and going with the film industry, this may have been one that was never able to get "legs". The most recent mention of this film was that the script was being written, not "in production" as the Wikipedia article claimed, and numerous films often get stuck on the script issue. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:32, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- May not matter at all but, I'm reasonably sure the Ben Kingsley reference I remember from the BBC (the television news program they run in the morning) was from this calendar year. Jasynnash2 (talk) 15:55, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Regardless of how old the sources are, his involvement in the project appears to be a documented fact. PC78 (talk) 16:00, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Right, and it's not a fact to exclude. There is usually coverage for when a major actor joins a film, but there isn't usually coverage about an actor's continued involvement if the film is going nowhere. Thus, it's hard to determine if there is still involvement. For example, Frankie Machine (film) has DeNiro attached in November 2005, but the film hasn't been made since. Unfortunately for Wikipedia, we can't get a look at the contracts that go on. :) —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:29, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per above. Turns out I was finding stuff about the wrong film and I can't seem to verify the Ben Kingsley reference (though I remember definitely seeing something on the BBC news about it) as more than rumour that he will be in it. Jasynnash2 (talk) 13:46, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Ned Scott 06:31, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per Erik. Cliff smith talk 16:14, 5 August 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. Concerns over reliable sources, verifiability and WP:BIO. The neutrals notwithstanding, there is no evidence that this person meets the inclusion criteria, as indicated by the lack of sources provided. PeterSymonds (talk) 21:18, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Cautionary note: I moved Sarah Johns (singer) to Sarah Johns since the qualifier was no longer needed. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 21:21, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sarah Johns[edit]
- Sarah Johns (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
While the singer of the same name is no doubt notable, I see nothing that makes this voice actress with a permastub page notable. When searching for her name and various keywords I'm finding nothing of relevance. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!) 22:18, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note If this page is deleted, I will be moving Sarah Johns (singer) to this title, as the qualifier will no longer be needed. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!) 22:20, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep notable voice actress and reliable sources are found about her on a search (e.g. sara johns voice actress). If it is kept, I would suggest moving this page to "Sarah Johns (voice actress)" and making the "Sarah Johns" page a disambiguation Frank Anchor Talk to me 22:58, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If you've found a source, then add it to the article. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!) 23:05, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 01:40, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1518579/ IMDb.com says she did voice work for more than 40 episodes of Gundam Seed aka Mobile Suit Gundam Seed.--Eastmain (talk) 01:40, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- IMDb is not a reliable source. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 23:15, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 23:16, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I'm having trouble finding any WP:RS and WP:V sourcing for the voice actress, and I don't see any cited in the article or in this discussion. Unless that changes, delete and relocate the notable country singer to this title. user:j (aka justen) 23:27, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral, I guess. I wish I knew if this was a hoax or just inaccessible information. --Eastmain (talk) 23:48, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral. Even though I created the page a long time ago, I don't really have an opinion on whether it should be deleted or not. The original sources I got some of the information on aren't really citable, I suppose because they were credits from television (Class of the Titans) or from DVDs (Gundam Seed). EikaKou (talk) 03:14, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- delete I see no evidence of significant roles, cult following, significant contributions." I got Google news hits for a singer of the same name, but not for the actress. The external links provided do not help the cause. Dlohcierekim's sock (talk) 03:32, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Even supposing it is not a hoax, I don't think it's notable. --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 03:36, 5 August 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, the arguments of IPs on the keep aren't particularly convincing as opposed to those of the delete voters. --JForget 23:47, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cambridge University Students’ Union Lesbian, Bisexual, Gay and Transgender Campaign[edit]
- Cambridge University Students’ Union Lesbian, Bisexual, Gay and Transgender Campaign (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
A student society/grouping at an individual university is far from unique or individually notable. The article is entirely an internal description of what the group provides. Timrollpickering (talk) 22:03, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, Non-notable club or group. Rwiggum (Talk/Contrib) 23:21, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete 4 Google hits. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 00:01, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete non-notable student organisation without any independent sourcing Ohconfucius (talk) 10:12, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. See my long note on the talk page of the article. The article is purely a description of the activities of the organisation. It has no evidence to show that it has wider social, cultural, or historical importance, nor that it has enjoyed any significance outside the world of the university.--Oxonian2006 (talk) 10:31, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete non-notable and non-verifiable Jasynnash2 (talk) 11:40, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Wikipedia can be a NPOV, the page needs work and facts, not deletion. 193.171.84.30 (talk) 22:06, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Once the very existence of such a society would have been noteworthy. Fortunately the UK has become more tolerant. --Simon Speed (talk) 18:05, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:44, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:45, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep but get rid of if the page doesn't improve, I can totally see why people wanna get rid of it. 193.170.20.110 (talk) 16:11, 3 August 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 --JForget 23:44, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thomas Rockwell Mackie[edit]
- Thomas Rockwell Mackie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
No real claims of notability, no sources, has been sitting with a request for cleanup for over a year. Corvus cornixtalk 21:43, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 23:14, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 23:14, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. From the article: "He is a primary inventor and algorithm designer of the helical tomotherapy concept. He has over 150 peer-reviewed publications, over 15 patents, and has been the supervisor for dozens of Ph.D. students." I added several references. I think the article now demonstrates notability. --Eastmain (talk) 23:14, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep Having not been improved is not a reason to nominate for deletion, nor is unsourced a reason for deletion at all when sources can be found. DGG (talk) 00:52, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Did you read my deletion nomination at all? It's the lack of claims of notability that caused me to nominate it. Corvus cornixtalk 01:48, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Searching the Web of Science database on "mackie tr" shows 113 refereed journal articles (148 total hits, including meeting abstracts, etc.) on the subjects of radiology, nuclear medicine, biomedical engineering, etc. Though I did not check each individual entry, most all are traced to UW (where Mackie is on staff), which means these all likely are attributable to him (rather than someone else with a similar name). This person seems to be a well-established and notable leader in their field.Agricola44 (talk) 16:56, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per DGG and Agricola44. --Crusio (talk) 17:50, 3 August 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 --JForget 23:43, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Search engines Query Refinements[edit]
- Search engines Query Refinements (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Contested prod. WP:NOTHOWTO CultureDrone (talk) 21:02, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No references, how-to guide, inappropriate tone. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!) 21:32, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete How-to essay. Doc StrangeMailboxLogbook 21:39, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not encyclopaedic. --Porqin (talk) 00:23, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, unencyclopedic topic, article is of such low quality that even if an acceptable article were to be written on a related topic, none of this material would be of use. Skomorokh 13:05, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:45, 31 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 as not asserting notability. Dlohcierekim 22:59, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Bandulu Dub[edit]
- Bandulu Dub (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
non-notable band/artist (can't tell) whose only sources come from MySpace. Seems to be an advertisement. Tavix (talk) 20:53, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, article reads like an advertisement for a non-notable band. Rwiggum (Talk/Contrib) 21:02, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as non-notable. The stated label doesn't seem to exist outside of myspace. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:03, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- A7 Doesn't even assert notability. (I've never seen the "born" field used in an infobox for a band before.) So tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!) 22:15, 30 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 (G7) by J.delanoy. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 16:31, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Tyler McQuade[edit]
- Tyler McQuade (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This unreferenced article doesn't show any notability for this boxer - only 12 amateur fights. Incidentally, Google searches for "Tyler McQuade"+"boxer", or "Tyler McQuade"+"Golden Gloves" return no relevant results apart from this article, Wheelchair Epidemic (talk) 20:46, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - there is no coverage of a Tyler McQuade. So fundamentally, the article fails WP:V. Note also that the creator of the article vandalized National Golden Gloves Lightweight Champions, placing Tyler McQuade as the 2000 winner which is wrong as shown by the list from the Golden Gloves site. -- Whpq (talk) 12:49, 31 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++ 13:04, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Logos and uniforms of the New England Patriots[edit]
- Logos and uniforms of the New England Patriots (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
I came across the article while browsing some NFL topics. This article should be deleted for the following reasons:
- The subject of the article is not notable in and of itself. The New England Patriots are notable, but their uniforms and logos by themselves lack the notability separate from the team itself to be included as its own article.
- The lack of notability is shown by the lack of sourced critical commentary on Logos and uniforms of the New England Patriots.
- This article is, at its core, a non-free content gallery, housing 16 fair-use images. This goes against the principle of a free encyclopedia.
- Overall, this is an unnecessary fork of New England Patriots. The main article covers the subject enough, and at the very least a separate section can be written in the main article to cover this very narrow topic (see Green Bay Packers for an example of this). Mainly, there just has not been any third-party reliable sources that focus on just the logos and uniforms. The sources in the article are not third party, nor do they just discuss the topic of the article. They discuss the Patriots as an organization and make passing comments about the changes in uniforms and logos. Thus this article should be deleted. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 20:44, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note:WikiProject NFL and WikiProject New England Patriots have been notified of this discussion. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 20:44, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Useless gallery, any useful information could be incorporated into the New England Patriots article. Rwiggum (Talk/Contrib) 20:50, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete non-notable gallery. Tavix (talk) 20:59, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all images could be used on the Pats main article, history article, or season articles; no need to repeat them again. Blackngold29 21:43, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. —Masonpatriot (talk) 22:25, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. - Masonpatriot (talk) 22:26, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, but incorporate into main article as it needs expansion anyway. Neonblak (talk) 02:35, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to New England Patriots although most of the information may already be there. Jasynnash2 (talk) 08:57, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge as above South-East7™Talk/Contribs 13:36, 6 August 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. --PeaceNT (talk) 16:22, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
News blog[edit]
- News blog (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Contested prod. Article is unsourced and appears to be a pure dictionary definition. TN‑X-Man 20:23, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Unsourced dic-def. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 20:30, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Lacks reliable sources. Doc StrangeMailboxLogbook 21:38, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as redundant. There is already an article on blogs Artene50 (talk) 06:48, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:46, 31 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. Wikipedia is not an indisciminate collection of information. The keep arguments presented below are spectacularly unpersuasive. Nandesuka (talk) 19:02, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
List of Cogs[edit]
- List of Cogs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
non-notable list of WP:FANCRUFT Tavix (talk) 19:30, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Unsourced trivia. How many of these have even made more than one appearance anyway? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!) 19:57, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 20:37, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Anything important is already in the main article. MrKIA11 (talk) 20:37, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Disney's Toontown Online. MuZemike (talk) 20:56, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to preserve the history, even though the term is unlikely as a reference. DGG (talk) 02:50, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: No reliable third-party sources exist that substantially cover "Cogs", so cannot meet the General Notability Guideline. Randomran (talk) 15:21, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per WP:JNN, WP:ITSCRUFT, and WP:PERNOM all being insufficient reasons for deletion. Plus, it is a legitimate search term per these readers and these editors. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 17:57, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- comment Have you noticed that 95% of those editors are IPs or bots? This article was created by and maintained by people who don't know the Wikipeida policies. Its not a reason to keep something just because some IPs are happy editing the article. Tavix (talk) 04:51, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That still leaves a percentage of editors who do know the Wikipedia policies and believe it meets them enough to edit the article. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 14:51, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- In addition, transwiki all information to either Wikia, StrategyWiki, etc. While information may not be useful to most users here, it may be in more specialized wikis. MuZemike (talk) 19:34, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- since when is the rule for notability being "useful to most users here" ? Very few articles will be read by "most users"-- almost everyone coms to read a specific article, and expects to find it. sure, some browse, but they too only look at some of the articles. To whom are the wrestling articles useful except wrestling fans? To whom the articles about classical music? About Japanese history? about any topic at all--pick one that "most" of our users will have have actually read. Anything with enough people to write the articles has enough users. If we decline to include something, we need another reason, like--in this case--possibly inappropriate detail. DGG (talk) 03:20, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Transwiki'd to StrategyWiki:Disney's Toontown Online/Cogs. -- Prod (Talk) 05:38, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If transwikied, then we should at least soft redirect to that location. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 14:51, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
-
- I've added a an external link to the main Disney's Toontown Online page. The cogs term is far too generic for a redirect to be useful. -- Prod (Talk) 18:20, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia shouldn't redirect to external sites. See Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2008 July 11#Akimichi clan. --Phirazo 16:44, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, a list of generic enemies lacks context of any sort. A textbook case of failing to meet WP:VGSCOPE. Nifboy (talk) 14:43, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It passes Wikipedia:Lists by being discriminate, encyclopedic, maintainable, notable, unoriginal, and verifiable. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 14:51, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, but it isn't notable, discriminate, or encyclopedic for that matter. Please show me how this "list" is any of those and then we'll talk. Tavix (talk) 17:09, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists)#Appropriate topics for lists: Even if we can, that does not mean we should. Nifboy (talk) 16:49, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and redirect to Toontown Online - no notability. no notability claimed. no out of universe understandability. only use violates WP:GAMEGUIDE. counter to WP:VGSCOPE. zero sources. --T-rex 18:34, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - no assertion of notability. Violates WP:GAMEGUIDE, WP:VGSCOPE. sephiroth bcr (converse) 22:30, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It passes What Wikipedia is. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 07:30, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Which doesn't matter in the slightest. A bunch of random essays don't trump guidelines and policy. So long as you continue to treat them like the holy grail, no one is going to take any of your arguments seriously. That and several of them aren't even related to the deletion of articles, which further convinces everyone that you have little to no clue of what you're trying to push through. sephiroth bcr (converse) 20:20, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The article meets Wikipedia:Five pillars (notability to a real-world audience, unoriginal research, consistent with a “specialized encyclopedia” concerning verifiable fictional topics with importance in the real world), which is why your argument doesn't seem serious. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 21:50, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Citing the most vague and broad presentation of our guidelines and policies does not make your argument serious in any fashion. Seriously, don't bother replying in the future unless your response is "here are the sources". You're never going to convince anyone with WP:5P or your collection of essay dribble. Presenting the same arguments over and over again to someone who has heard them dozens of times and is simply tired of the sheer absurdity and nonsense that you are espousing doesn't work. You're never going to convince me going down this route, and the only thing you are doing is wasting my time and lowering my respect for you down to basically nothing. At this stage, it's simply trolling. Don't bother in the future. sephiroth bcr (converse) 22:20, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Being incivil and making personal attacks is not how you are going to earn fellow editors' respect or convince anyone that there is a dire need to delete the article in question, nor is making the same inaccurate "arguments" over and over. I am not going to be baited by such unconstructive and misleading, possibly not even serious comment as the above. Thus, I urge you to work to help us improve these articles rather than attack other editors in the discussions and be open-minded to acknowledging when sources are presented in future AfDs. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 22:28, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've improved a crapload more articles than you have, and enjoy doing so. Trying to accuse me of not doing so is almost insulting. In any case, I've heard your arguments countless times. I don't consider them convincing or even relevant to the topic most of the time. I simply want you to stop replying to my !votes with the same collection of essays, links, and whatnot. I never reply to your !votes, and it's trolling on your part because you know perfectly well that I don't consider the arguments convincing and yet you do so anyway. Again, don't bother replying to my !votes in the future unless it's "here are the sources" when it is a question of notability. sephiroth bcr (converse) 22:36, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- But it's okay for you to insult or make laughable accusations at me? I don't consider your arguments convincing or relevant and in a discussion, we discuss, i.e. we hold each other's arguments to task and we try to work through them. We don't delete articles unless there is absolutely no realistic way the article can ever be improved, as there is almost always at least a redirect location in the worst case scenario and we do need to be courteous to those members of our community working to improve these articles. Wikipedia is a work in progress without a deadline. I see no pressing need to delete this article right here and now, i.e. to stop all work on it. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 22:51, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- ...I don't interact with you at all on AfDs until you post a reply to one of my !votes. I never reply to your !vote (so long as it is the same boilerplate as usual) because I am perfectly aware that the discussion will not go anywhere. Posting a reply to one of my !votes with the same arguments that you've posted to my !votes in the past doesn't work. Discussion doesn't head anywhere because I don't consider any of the arguments you are using to be convincing. It's trolling because you know that the discussion won't head anywhere, that I don't consider your arguments convincing, and that it's pointless, yet you do so anyways. My only request is that you stop commenting to my !votes with SOFIXIT, "What Wikipedia is", 5P, or anything that you usually bring up because it's pointless and it wastes my time. If notability is in question, then feel free to comment with "here are the sources" (with direct links to the sources), which addresses my comment and thus is constructive discussion. sephiroth bcr (converse) 23:05, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I can dig that if you are indeed willing to be open-minded to when sources are provided or when a respectable number of editors are arguing that they want more time to see what they can do with the article in question to give them the courtesy of the benefit of the doubt. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 23:10, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- ...I don't interact with you at all on AfDs until you post a reply to one of my !votes. I never reply to your !vote (so long as it is the same boilerplate as usual) because I am perfectly aware that the discussion will not go anywhere. Posting a reply to one of my !votes with the same arguments that you've posted to my !votes in the past doesn't work. Discussion doesn't head anywhere because I don't consider any of the arguments you are using to be convincing. It's trolling because you know that the discussion won't head anywhere, that I don't consider your arguments convincing, and that it's pointless, yet you do so anyways. My only request is that you stop commenting to my !votes with SOFIXIT, "What Wikipedia is", 5P, or anything that you usually bring up because it's pointless and it wastes my time. If notability is in question, then feel free to comment with "here are the sources" (with direct links to the sources), which addresses my comment and thus is constructive discussion. sephiroth bcr (converse) 23:05, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- But it's okay for you to insult or make laughable accusations at me? I don't consider your arguments convincing or relevant and in a discussion, we discuss, i.e. we hold each other's arguments to task and we try to work through them. We don't delete articles unless there is absolutely no realistic way the article can ever be improved, as there is almost always at least a redirect location in the worst case scenario and we do need to be courteous to those members of our community working to improve these articles. Wikipedia is a work in progress without a deadline. I see no pressing need to delete this article right here and now, i.e. to stop all work on it. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 22:51, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've improved a crapload more articles than you have, and enjoy doing so. Trying to accuse me of not doing so is almost insulting. In any case, I've heard your arguments countless times. I don't consider them convincing or even relevant to the topic most of the time. I simply want you to stop replying to my !votes with the same collection of essays, links, and whatnot. I never reply to your !votes, and it's trolling on your part because you know perfectly well that I don't consider the arguments convincing and yet you do so anyway. Again, don't bother replying to my !votes in the future unless it's "here are the sources" when it is a question of notability. sephiroth bcr (converse) 22:36, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Being incivil and making personal attacks is not how you are going to earn fellow editors' respect or convince anyone that there is a dire need to delete the article in question, nor is making the same inaccurate "arguments" over and over. I am not going to be baited by such unconstructive and misleading, possibly not even serious comment as the above. Thus, I urge you to work to help us improve these articles rather than attack other editors in the discussions and be open-minded to acknowledging when sources are presented in future AfDs. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 22:28, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Citing the most vague and broad presentation of our guidelines and policies does not make your argument serious in any fashion. Seriously, don't bother replying in the future unless your response is "here are the sources". You're never going to convince anyone with WP:5P or your collection of essay dribble. Presenting the same arguments over and over again to someone who has heard them dozens of times and is simply tired of the sheer absurdity and nonsense that you are espousing doesn't work. You're never going to convince me going down this route, and the only thing you are doing is wasting my time and lowering my respect for you down to basically nothing. At this stage, it's simply trolling. Don't bother in the future. sephiroth bcr (converse) 22:20, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The article meets Wikipedia:Five pillars (notability to a real-world audience, unoriginal research, consistent with a “specialized encyclopedia” concerning verifiable fictional topics with importance in the real world), which is why your argument doesn't seem serious. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 21:50, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Which doesn't matter in the slightest. A bunch of random essays don't trump guidelines and policy. So long as you continue to treat them like the holy grail, no one is going to take any of your arguments seriously. That and several of them aren't even related to the deletion of articles, which further convinces everyone that you have little to no clue of what you're trying to push through. sephiroth bcr (converse) 20:20, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It passes What Wikipedia is. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 07:30, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as there are no references to demonstrate notability, and this article violates WP:NOT#GUIDE by being (largely) a collection of game guide material. --Craw-daddy | T | 22:43, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- We can use previews and reviews of the game to find out of universe commentary to construct a reception section. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 22:51, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I looked through that preview, and it never goes into more detail than general discussion about cogs (which belong in the main Disney's Toontown Online article). -- Prod (Talk) 16:48, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- They are mentioned in other previews/reviews as well. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 17:03, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you please point some out? -- Prod (Talk) 20:05, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure. See for example this review, which has a couple paragraphs entirely on the Cogs in a critical fashion. Notice such comments as "In December 2003, Disney introduced the first Cog Headquarters (Cog HQ) neighborhood to Toontown and since then, there have been many more. The Cog HQs adds depth and complexity for experienced players," which tells us out of universe information about when this feature was added and why it is significant. That's why I think we can add sections on Creation and Reception using this kind of information. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 02:36, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you please point some out? -- Prod (Talk) 20:05, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- They are mentioned in other previews/reviews as well. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 17:03, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I looked through that preview, and it never goes into more detail than general discussion about cogs (which belong in the main Disney's Toontown Online article). -- Prod (Talk) 16:48, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- We can use previews and reviews of the game to find out of universe commentary to construct a reception section. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 22:51, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Textbook failure of WP:VGSCOPE and WP:GAMEGUIDE (the level ranges). The cogs do not seem to have received the considerable secondary coverage which would justify a separate article. Even if that was the case, you don't inform readers about a subject by offering them a list of componenents without context. The cogs are covered as much as needs be in the Toontown Online article. Someoneanother 00:23, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Adding the context is a fixable editorial effort and if they are covered elsewhere then that is a cause for merging and redirecting without deletion. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 16:29, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This name should not be a redirect to Disney's Toontown Online since this term is far too generic. It could also reference the Coalition of Ordered Governments, which was actually my initial reaction to this page. If this page is to be kept, it should be moved somewhere else, and this page turned into a disambiguation. -- Prod (Talk) 16:48, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This name should in the worst case scenario be a redirect as editors and readers believe it a legitimate article and search term. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 17:03, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- In that case I'd suggest it should be a redirect to the Gears of War COGs, since that is a far more popular game (based on google hits and overall media coverage). It is far more valid as an article and search term in that regard. -- Prod (Talk) 20:05, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair enough. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 02:33, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- In that case I'd suggest it should be a redirect to the Gears of War COGs, since that is a far more popular game (based on google hits and overall media coverage). It is far more valid as an article and search term in that regard. -- Prod (Talk) 20:05, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This name should in the worst case scenario be a redirect as editors and readers believe it a legitimate article and search term. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 17:03, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This name should not be a redirect to Disney's Toontown Online since this term is far too generic. It could also reference the Coalition of Ordered Governments, which was actually my initial reaction to this page. If this page is to be kept, it should be moved somewhere else, and this page turned into a disambiguation. -- Prod (Talk) 16:48, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Adding the context is a fixable editorial effort and if they are covered elsewhere then that is a cause for merging and redirecting without deletion. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 16:29, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This is just a list of enemies. It is game guide material and fails WP:VGSCOPE. Any material from reviews should be added to the main article. --Phirazo 16:44, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It is no more a guide than a list of winners of the Academy Awards is a guide and it passes video game scope as lists of this nature concern key aspects of games. Material that can be added to the main article should be merged and redirected without deletion in the worst case scenario. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 17:03, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 1.) Comparing this to the Academy Awards is apples and oranges. For one thing, the Academy Awards have a much larger impact on culture, so more coverage makes sense (see Undue weight). Most video games have enemy NPCs and I don't see what makes these enemies unique enough to warrant a seperate article. 2.)There isn't anything to merge at present time. I was saying that anything from reviews should go in the main article, not here. --Phirazo 17:59, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see any reason why not to cover this stuff, i.e. I don't see how if editors and readers want to work on and learn about these items, they do augment our coverage of the overall topic, they are not hoaxes, why we would just outright delete it. If we keep it and improve it, we can only benefit our coverage and help out those editors working on it. If we outright redlink it, we don't really gain anything from that. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 02:33, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The Oscars get a lot more viewers than this game. Each of the award winners is notable on their own. This has no relation to the current discussion. -- Prod (Talk) 20:05, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, it may get more coverage, but the purpose of an encyclopedia is to catalog information that people will go to that encyclopedia looking for and so some people are interested in the Oscars, others are interested in Cogs. So long as it isn't total nonsense, than I see no reason not to keep it. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 02:33, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 1.) Comparing this to the Academy Awards is apples and oranges. For one thing, the Academy Awards have a much larger impact on culture, so more coverage makes sense (see Undue weight). Most video games have enemy NPCs and I don't see what makes these enemies unique enough to warrant a seperate article. 2.)There isn't anything to merge at present time. I was saying that anything from reviews should go in the main article, not here. --Phirazo 17:59, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It is no more a guide than a list of winners of the Academy Awards is a guide and it passes video game scope as lists of this nature concern key aspects of games. Material that can be added to the main article should be merged and redirected without deletion in the worst case scenario. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 17:03, 4 August 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. --PeaceNT (talk) 16:23, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
XEngine[edit]
- XEngine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Advertisement for non-notable software by non-notable company. Beware the ghits, since a lot of other projects are called XEgine (this article is about a "build management" system) Damiens.rf 19:27, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The company that designed it is a red link, and the sources are primary. I see nothing that even asserts notability, but I don't think software is speediable. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!) 19:39, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:58, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete doesn't meet any notability requirements; only coverage appears to be a primary source. Shell babelfish 23:18, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Non-notable product. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 03:51, 1 August 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. --PeaceNT (talk) 16:23, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
AmySue Mertens[edit]
- AmySue Mertens (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Minor, local, would-be politician who did not win the position sought. Does not pass W:Bio - House of Scandal (talk) 19:01, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Definitely not notable as a politician -- did not even win the primary. May be notable as a community activist; however, there are no sources at present to support this. Notability unestablished. RayAYang (talk) 20:27, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. -- RayAYang (talk) 20:27, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- RayAYang (talk) 20:27, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:POLITICIAN and WP:ONEEVENT. Only RS attention came from running for office January-February 2008. • Gene93k (talk) 23:31, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - not notable as she failed an election and has never held an office. Pie is good (Apple is the best) 14:47, 31 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 List of Star Wars planets (W-Z)#Moons, merger left to editorial discretion. lifebaka++ 17:58, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yavin IV[edit]
- Yavin IV (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This article asserts no notability through reliable sources, and is just a repetition of the plot sections of the Star Wars stories where Yavin IV is featured. It is therefore trivial, duplicative, and should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 18:53, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to List of Star Wars planets for now. the article as it stands cites unreliable sources (one wiki and one directory of objects made by the company). Independent sources probably exist. Some "quasi" indpendent sources surely exist (meaning works produced under license that might be used for WP:V purposes where wookiepedia wouldn't work)--"the illustrated star wars universe" comes to mind. Also, the article currently is woefully incomplete. For one, Yavin IV is a planet in SWG, that, at least, should be included (rather than suspicions about the 'other Y-wing pilot' in New Hope). I anxiously await the howling and gnashing of teeth over the nomination of this article for deletion. I'll dig around for sources, but I suspect that notability will be (at best) marginal. In the case that we can't find sources inside of 5 days that assert notability per WP:GNG, we should redirect or delete this article. Protonk (talk) 21:40, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 22:00, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to List_of_Star_Wars_planets_(W-Z)#Moons (a subsection under "Yavin"). Would hesitantly endorse a very selective merge -- Yavin IV is excessive plot summary, and the List of... is a little spare. Might be better instead first to copyedit/prose-ify the List of... content before considering any cut-and-paste. --EEMIV (talk) 22:18, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Cleanup, or, failing that, Redirect per above. Fairly major setting from Episode IV, i would be shocked if there wasn't enough third party sourcing out there to make a competent out-of-universe article. Umbralcorax (talk) 00:08, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge if necessary to the list of planets, which didnt need coming here. DGG (talk) 02:29, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as I have made some revisions to the article to reference some information that was previously in a trivia section, but does anyone have such books as The Complete Locations of Star Wars: Inside the Worlds of the Entire Star Wars Saga and Star Wars: The Essential Guide to Planets and Moons as they seem like logical references for any articles on Star Wars planets, moons, and other locations. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 16:41, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Unfortunately, that isn't nearly enough referenced information to justify a whole article, and that second reference could be added to the first movie article. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:23, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Which would mean merge and redirecting then. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 23:26, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No, because it I proposed a merger, and then only merged a sentence of a whole article and left the rest effectively deleted, that would not be a merger. Since 90% of the content of the article will be deleted, then yes, deletion is the appropriate response. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:40, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Given the extent and nature of hits this term gets, I just can't see any valid reason for outright deletion and in any event, aspects of the Star Wars are encyclopedic. Few works of fiction have had multiple encyclopedias published dedicated to various aspects of them. What's good enough for multiple paper encyclopedias is surely good enough for the paperless encyclopedia. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 23:44, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As always, your rationale does not relate to the goals of wikipedia or its policies. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:55, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As always, my rationale is consistent with the goals and policies of encyclopedic and wikipedic tradition: "In truth, the aim of an encyclopédie is to collect all knowledge scattered over the face of the earth...All things must be examined, debated, investigated without exception and without regard for anyone's feelings." - Denis Diderot explaining the goal of the Encyclopedia "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." - Jimmy Wales explaining the goal of Wikipedia What is trivia to you is not to those who worked on and come here to read this verifiable content. And even duplicative content is redirectable content. I see absolutely no compelling reason for this article to be redlinked. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 00:04, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As always, my rationale is consistent with the goals and policies of encyclopedic and wikipedic tradition: -- Le Grand, you've been asked repeatedly by other editors not to parrot comments. There are any number of ways you could have phrased your response to Judgesurreal. No one thinks you're clever when you change one or two words to change the meaning of someone's wording -- but, as has repeatedly been pointed out to you, it is glib, irritating and provocative. Please stop. --EEMIV (talk) 00:22, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please stop making glib, irritating, and provocative replies that add nothing to the discussion. No one finds such comments clever. I am not going to legitimize or dignify nonsensical and off-topic comments. We are talking about a verifiable and notable article that should not be redlinked; not about each other and the lack of consensus the community has regarding coverage of fictional topics. I like others above have mentioned various reasons why the article should not be outright deleted. So far only one has argued for outright deletion. The article in question has existed for five years (since 2003). Obviously, that also means five years of scores of editors and thousands of readers who believe the article is consistent with what Wikipedia is. Therefore, we should be discussing how best to cover this information and not distract from the discussion by tossing in asides about the nature of each other's arguments in other disucssions. Stay on target! :) --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 00:30, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Not only did you not answer EEMIV's concerns, you did the exact thing he asked you not to do by repeating his comments. Then you went on an diatribe on your inclusion philosophy, when he isn't even commenting on the article but on your conduct. Can you be mature enough to answer someone's concerns in a clear, concise manner and stay on topic? You are (according to your user page at least) a professor at a university, and as such, I would hope that you do have the maturity necessary to do so. It's not a difficult request. None of us here care what deletion philosophy you have. We might disagree with it, but we respect it. All we want is for you to conduct yourself in a civil manner and stay on point. All you have to do is respond to this post with a simple affirmative that you will do so - I don't need a long message. Seriously, the path to acquiring others' respect is very easy, and the first way is your conduct, which I pray you can show here. sephiroth bcr (converse) 02:42, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't answer ridiculous or even insulting comments that do not merit a response. All I want is for editors to conduct themselves in a civil and mature manner and stay on point. I have no interest in feeding into efforts to derail the discussion or being baited. A comment such as this does not advance discussion about the article and as such I replied in the manner that that comment deserved. EEMIV responding to my comment in the fashion above without acknowledging that the comment I replied to was unhelpful similarlly was off-topic and thus unconstructive. I replied to his comment in the manner that it too merited and ended with trying to get us focused back on the topic under consideration and not on each other. I even did so by having Star Wars appropriate humor ("Stay on target" is quoted from the battle fought around the moon under discussion....) Instead of helping to get the discussion on topic, your post merely continues to keep the discussion off-topic. Where you have me baffled is you asked me not to comment to your posts and as you can see below I didn't and you said as well that you don't comment on my posts unless I comment to you, which I didn't do here, and yet you went ahead and commented to me anyway. Please do not send mixed or confusing signals. Either you want to discuss with me in AfDs or you don't. I'm fine either way so long as we don't distractingly personalize things rather than productively do what we can to improve the project. Now can we please get back to the actual article under discussion, which by the way I have improved further. Thanks! --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 02:57, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- *sigh* Your inability to interact with others on even this basic a level astounds me. I see now that discourse with you on this matter is pointless. Do whatever you want. sephiroth bcr (converse) 03:32, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Good, then we can get back to the actual topic under discussion, which has been improved since nominated and for which I believe has potential to improve further. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 03:33, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- *sigh* Your inability to interact with others on even this basic a level astounds me. I see now that discourse with you on this matter is pointless. Do whatever you want. sephiroth bcr (converse) 03:32, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't answer ridiculous or even insulting comments that do not merit a response. All I want is for editors to conduct themselves in a civil and mature manner and stay on point. I have no interest in feeding into efforts to derail the discussion or being baited. A comment such as this does not advance discussion about the article and as such I replied in the manner that that comment deserved. EEMIV responding to my comment in the fashion above without acknowledging that the comment I replied to was unhelpful similarlly was off-topic and thus unconstructive. I replied to his comment in the manner that it too merited and ended with trying to get us focused back on the topic under consideration and not on each other. I even did so by having Star Wars appropriate humor ("Stay on target" is quoted from the battle fought around the moon under discussion....) Instead of helping to get the discussion on topic, your post merely continues to keep the discussion off-topic. Where you have me baffled is you asked me not to comment to your posts and as you can see below I didn't and you said as well that you don't comment on my posts unless I comment to you, which I didn't do here, and yet you went ahead and commented to me anyway. Please do not send mixed or confusing signals. Either you want to discuss with me in AfDs or you don't. I'm fine either way so long as we don't distractingly personalize things rather than productively do what we can to improve the project. Now can we please get back to the actual article under discussion, which by the way I have improved further. Thanks! --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 02:57, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Not only did you not answer EEMIV's concerns, you did the exact thing he asked you not to do by repeating his comments. Then you went on an diatribe on your inclusion philosophy, when he isn't even commenting on the article but on your conduct. Can you be mature enough to answer someone's concerns in a clear, concise manner and stay on topic? You are (according to your user page at least) a professor at a university, and as such, I would hope that you do have the maturity necessary to do so. It's not a difficult request. None of us here care what deletion philosophy you have. We might disagree with it, but we respect it. All we want is for you to conduct yourself in a civil manner and stay on point. All you have to do is respond to this post with a simple affirmative that you will do so - I don't need a long message. Seriously, the path to acquiring others' respect is very easy, and the first way is your conduct, which I pray you can show here. sephiroth bcr (converse) 02:42, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please stop making glib, irritating, and provocative replies that add nothing to the discussion. No one finds such comments clever. I am not going to legitimize or dignify nonsensical and off-topic comments. We are talking about a verifiable and notable article that should not be redlinked; not about each other and the lack of consensus the community has regarding coverage of fictional topics. I like others above have mentioned various reasons why the article should not be outright deleted. So far only one has argued for outright deletion. The article in question has existed for five years (since 2003). Obviously, that also means five years of scores of editors and thousands of readers who believe the article is consistent with what Wikipedia is. Therefore, we should be discussing how best to cover this information and not distract from the discussion by tossing in asides about the nature of each other's arguments in other disucssions. Stay on target! :) --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 00:30, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As always, my rationale is consistent with the goals and policies of encyclopedic and wikipedic tradition: -- Le Grand, you've been asked repeatedly by other editors not to parrot comments. There are any number of ways you could have phrased your response to Judgesurreal. No one thinks you're clever when you change one or two words to change the meaning of someone's wording -- but, as has repeatedly been pointed out to you, it is glib, irritating and provocative. Please stop. --EEMIV (talk) 00:22, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As always, my rationale is consistent with the goals and policies of encyclopedic and wikipedic tradition: "In truth, the aim of an encyclopédie is to collect all knowledge scattered over the face of the earth...All things must be examined, debated, investigated without exception and without regard for anyone's feelings." - Denis Diderot explaining the goal of the Encyclopedia "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." - Jimmy Wales explaining the goal of Wikipedia What is trivia to you is not to those who worked on and come here to read this verifiable content. And even duplicative content is redirectable content. I see absolutely no compelling reason for this article to be redlinked. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 00:04, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As always, your rationale does not relate to the goals of wikipedia or its policies. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:55, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Given the extent and nature of hits this term gets, I just can't see any valid reason for outright deletion and in any event, aspects of the Star Wars are encyclopedic. Few works of fiction have had multiple encyclopedias published dedicated to various aspects of them. What's good enough for multiple paper encyclopedias is surely good enough for the paperless encyclopedia. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 23:44, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No, because it I proposed a merger, and then only merged a sentence of a whole article and left the rest effectively deleted, that would not be a merger. Since 90% of the content of the article will be deleted, then yes, deletion is the appropriate response. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:40, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Which would mean merge and redirecting then. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 23:26, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Unfortunately, that isn't nearly enough referenced information to justify a whole article, and that second reference could be added to the first movie article. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:23, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect - to List of Star Wars planets. The "real-world relevance" placed in the article is trivial. sephiroth bcr (converse) 02:32, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Plot summary and in-universe details of a non-notable fictional location which has not received substantial coverage from sources independent of the subject. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 04:18, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:JNN is not a valid reason for deletion, especially when the article contains out of universe commentary and has received substantial coverage from secondary sources as indicate above. For what it's worth, i.e. to toss an additional idea, secondary sources do cover the planets collectively in a critical fashion. Note the first two paragraphs here that seem perhaps relevant to a master article on the planets in Star Wars in general. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 04:21, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as I am sure there are SW commentaries in sic-fi magazines etc. or could be merged into a List of Star Wars planets, and that is expanded from each. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:42, 6 August 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 - Improvements were also in the article with sources added. --JForget 23:40, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Polish reggae[edit]
- Polish reggae (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
I added {{db-a1}} to the article earlier today, a template which the author then simply deleted and proceeded to add a few sentences to the article, although the lack of information, lack of {{WIP}} template (or anything else from Category:Under-construction templates) and bad grammar suggest that this might go under {{db-g1}}. However, I would rather bring this to the attention of others rather than go for speedy deletion again in case I'm wrong. It Is Me Here (talk) 18:41, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: nominator has changed to keep below. Skomorokh 13:12, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
G1 or G3 Vandalism/nonsense/misinformation, total rubbish, unsalvageable. You forgot to mention the lack of an AfD tag, though. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!) 19:07, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]- I don't see how this qualifies as nonsense or as vandalism. It looks to me like someone's good-faith attempt to begin an article that's akin to other similar articles such as Nigerian reggae. Let's not be in such a hurry to delete; let's see if some sources can be located. I removed the speedy tag. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 20:14, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Nothing to indicate notability. No sources or reliable sources. Artene50 (talk) 19:36, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, eh mon. No reliable sources, mon. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!) 20:22, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, doesn't seem to be any evidence of notability. The only non-redlinked band in the list of examples of the genre (Vavamuffin) seems to be a worthy deletion candidate itself on first glance. I can't see anything to suggest this subgenre is going anywhere at the moment.
- Switched to Keep - I'm pleasantly surprised at the variety of references Paul Erik has found. Certainly appears to be far more popular and well-documented than I expected - certainly seems notable enough now; seemingly a good article could be built from these sources. ~ mazca t | c 22:25, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I had no idea before I started researching this, but it appears that articles about reggae's presence internationally will typically mention Poland within the first two countries mentioned outside of Jamaica. Anyway, I've added ten references to the article. None of the sources are articles completely about Polish reggae, but all are non-trivial mentions of the topic, and it allowed me to add a fair bit of verifiable content. Keep. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 22:05, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 00:19, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. —Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 00:21, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Interesting. Let me just reiterate that when I submitted this AfD the article did look like a joke, but now I would probably have to agree that it should be kept, albeit with a {{Underconstruction}} or {{music-stub}} template. It Is Me Here (talk) 09:23, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, credible topic, turns up in Google Books and News searches. A well-referenced stub on a discrete, encyclopaedic topic with coverage in reliable sources and no NPOV/COI/BLP concerns means this is a net positive for the encyclopaedia. Skomorokh 13:12, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - credible, added another band and refs. greg park avenue (talk) 23:54, 31 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 for many reasons. пﮟოьεԻ 57 08:30, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Paul Egan[edit]
- Paul Egan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Suspected vanity page, very few google hits for someone who was the "single greatest shot stopper the game has ever seen". Prod was deleted so bringing it here. TexMurphy (talk) 18:18, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete since I think playing in the Kerry District League is not sufficient to pass notability for athletes. --Eastmain (talk) 18:43, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete, maybe A7. No real claims to notability, no reliable sources, and he playes for a red linked league. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!) 19:20, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:23, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - seems to be little more than a pub player. Pictures like this one give something of an indication of the level the Kerry District League is at. "Egan attracted a lot of attention from big name clubs such as Manchester United, Boca Juniors and Italian giants AC Milan, a club Egan had supported as a boy. Despite many million pound offers, a loyal Egan decided to remain at his beloved ‘Ics’ during the transfer window, a decision he would later describe as ‘the biggest mistake of his [my] life’" is obviously just a load of bullshit -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:25, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - complete rubbish. Either a piss-take or an in-joke, either way something to be got rid off as soon as possible. - fchd (talk) 20:43, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete. Complete and utter bull. Nfitz (talk) 07:12, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not notable as evidenced by the lack of reliable sources. I can find none in google news[6] so fails to be verifiable also. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 08:15, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete per nom. I did notice he kept getting added to Goalkeeper (association football)#Notable goalkeepers, but this was before the article was created. --Jimbo[online] 12:18, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. GiantSnowman 16:14, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per others. Possibly speedy. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 18:53, 1 August 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. Ѕandahl 20:21, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Willie Anderson (rugby coach)[edit]
- Willie Anderson (rugby coach) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
There is some outside coverage on google, but it's stretching it to say multiple. I saw two BBC articles, one of which was an op ed written by this gent. Fails WP:BIO Traditional unionist (talk) 18:06, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Played 27 times for the Ireland national rugby union team (some of those as captain), thus passing WP:ATHLETE at a canter. Tons of significant coverage just on the BBC website. Gr1st (talk) 20:12, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually I didn't see those, I don't know why, Withdrawn as a result!Traditional unionist (talk) 20:18, 30 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. --PeaceNT (talk) 16:26, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
George Uribe[edit]
- George Uribe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This individual is non-notable. Article is strictly promotional; not encyclopedic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rainmaker2005 (talk • contribs)
- Comment - Procedural relisting from malformed nom.[7][8] -- zzuuzz (talk) 17:51, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No vote yet The person seems notable enough in his career. As of yet there are no sources however. Northwestgnome (talk) 18:00, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep Seems notable enough, it just lacks sources as Northwestgnome remarks. I think though such sources can be found. So#Why 18:08, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep also. I have a problem with the sourcing also, but since it's not self-promotional I'd say give the article a chance to flourish. --Quartermaster (talk) 18:19, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Take a look at this item: http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-63312712.html (and note that the George Uribe described in the highbeam item also has a master's degree from George Washington University). Sometimes what makes someone notable is the bad stuff. --Eastmain (talk) 18:20, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I see no evidence of notability. Deb (talk) 20:17, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep The article seems notable, it just needs sources. Definitely not a vanity page, if that is what you are thinking. Tezkag72 (talk) 21:42, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, none of those things listed in the bio adds up to notability. Corvus cornixtalk 21:51, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Solid keep as the topic is frequently covered, both in passing and substantially in reliable sources,:[9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24]. Notability not in doubt given the Keyes' and Jenkins campaigns and associated controversy. No concerns about writing a verifiable, neutral, non-stub article on the topic. Skomorokh 13:19, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:04, 31 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 --JForget 23:38, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Separation of males and females in Jewish law[edit]
- Separation of males and females in Jewish law (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Complete POV push. Article does not describe a mainstream point of view, but rather is an essay containing someone's own minority views of halakha (Jewish law) stated as fact, with no sources. Xyz7890 (talk) 17:47, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I am sure this does not represent the mainstream of Jewish practice. It makes the Jews look more extreme than the Taliban. I don't know if the author was serious or not. Northwestgnome (talk) 18:04, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Reads like an opinion article with no sources to back up their views.--patrick.c.knight (talk) 18:06, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Delete Although I think it can be written to reflect NPOV, as the topic itself would be encyclopedic, the problem is that it would need to be completely rewritten and nothing in the current article can be reused for that. Would be the job for a scholar in Jewish law to write again. So#Why 18:12, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Not only does this article have no sources (thereby failing WP:V), it also fails WP:NPOV, as can be most clearly seen with phrases such as 'many [Jews] who claim to be Orthodox [do not adhere to a certain rule]' and 'The Torah states that it is forbidden to "gaze at idols." "Idols" in this refers is a reference to women.' - again, a personal interpretation and is in breach of WP:NOR as it does not include any sources. It Is Me Here (talk) 18:16, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. —Jclemens (talk) 23:12, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep for later editing. Per SoWhy, the subject's suitable for an encyclopaedia. Per pretty much everyone, this article fails WP:NPOV but that's grounds for editing rather than deletion.--I do suggest that the whole article should be replaced with a brief stub, reading something like "Jewish law mandates segregation of males and females in certain circumstances," and tagged requesting expert attention.--S Marshall (talk) 00:00, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect as classic POV fork. the subject is indeed encyclopedic, and highly so, and it is appropriate to present fully the traditional point of view. And so we do: we have the very general Role of women in Judaism, an article talking more specifically but still as an overview, about the traditional law, Tzeniut, and the more specific ones Negiah and Yichud--none of them referenced here, though I cannot believe the author of this material does not know the terms. Not every aspect is treated as fully in the existing articles as they could be. We need to expand these & we easily can--there is no shortage of material. The specific points in this POV article are most of them a matter of long-continuing dispute even within traditional Orthodox Judaism, and a very full treatment from the Talmud and Responsa could be given for each individual sentence. There are accessible encyclopedic references to use. I note that the article does not even cite the literature--and that is because it would show that while the general principles are what most orthodox Jews generally follow, the details of observance show every possible variation. I notice also there is not even an attempt to show what particular group's interpretation is being followed. (The appropriate redirect for this is in my opinion the most general article Role of women in Judaism ) DGG (talk) 02:49, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Hu DGG: A redirect to Role of women in Judaism would not be correct because the topic here is about men and women in Judaism. A more appropriate merge and redirect would be to to Tzniut ("Modesty in Jewish law") which deals with the same core issues. IZAK (talk) 18:40, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:OR in essay style. As the article mentions it represents a POV that goes considerably beyond mainstream Orthodox Jewish behavior. It describes standards that go beyond the rules of modesty articulated in the codes of standard Orthodox Judaism. It includes elements and claims with which I am personally not familiar. --Shirahadasha (talk) 04:25, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and Redirect to Tzniut ("Modesty in Jewish law") which deals with the same core issues. The topic and heading are valid and serious but the contents of the article have been poorly written. Perhaps another editor will be able to do a better job with it in the future. IZAK (talk) 18:36, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Merge and Redirect If the article had citations, specifying which community/rabbi believed in this radical approach, it would be useful information in the context of an article presenting more mainstream opinions. Given that the author has contributed productively to Wikipedia previously, it may be worth moving the article to a staging area or the author's talk page, and ask the author for citations.Yudel (talk) 19:06, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Wouldn't object to userifying if the author believes it would be possible to source it and otherwise improve it before attempting to present it again. In addition to sourcing and ensuring the views expressed reflect established opinions, I would recommend that an article give more weight to mainstream practices and not offer editorial opinions on which view is correct. Because some of these issues and differences involve matters of custom, philosophy, and sociology, not just pure Halakha, there might be some additional perspectives as well. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 03:39, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete WP:OR problems, to put it mildly. Ecoleetage (talk) 20:50, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Shirahadasha — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 21:27, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete -- This one gets a "Wow" for daring. It not only reads like a diatribe, it reads like a ranting diatribe! The tzniut article can include this information, and it would probably be better to start over rather than use this even as a template, seeing its pointed, flowless, discrete format. DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 04:51, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Shirahadasha. OR essay. Jayjg (talk) 23:53, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Shukhan Aruk Even HaEzer 20 can be used as a source for some of this, but it goes so far beyond the shukhan aruk as to be close to OR. Jon513 (talk) 20:12, 4 August 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. --PeaceNT (talk) 16:28, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Straight Flush (horse)[edit]
- Straight Flush (horse) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This is a biography of a non-notable racehorse. It has been tagged for no sources and wikify for over a year with no substantial edits. The horse's only noteworthiness is being related to his half-brother secretariat. Rather than wikify I propose for deletion. patrick.c.knight (talk) 17:32, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete no independent assertion of notability. There is one citation to a very long article on secretariat.com a website dedicated to his brother but despite the articles length it does nothing to establish notability, there is nothing special in that story that you would not find in any of the hundreds of other horse adoptions that go on each year other than this one was published by the adopter. - Icewedge (talk) 17:56, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Agreeing with that, there is no reason to think this horse more notable than others. It would be different if it won prestigious races but I cannot find anything like that. So#Why 18:16, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Notability is not inhereted. Secretariat is clearly notable, but this horse doesn't seem to have done anything worthy of note except be vaguely related to him. ~ mazca t | c 20:28, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as non-notable and non-verifable. Jasynnash2 (talk) 11:51, 31 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. John254 03:15, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hendrik Hudson Hotel[edit]
- Hendrik Hudson Hotel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This building was conceived but never built. All of the information is speculative, and the building itself is over 100 years old. Nothing about it is particularly notable. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 17:27, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The proposed hotel was notable enough for The New York Times to write about, and the proposal may have had some influence on other hotel designs. --Eastmain (talk) 18:38, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The topic has been covered in multiple independent reliable sources. A verifiable non-stub on an encyclopaedic topic of interest to our readers, with no conflict of interest/spam/vandlaism/promotion etc. concerns; a net positive to the encyclopaedia without a doubt. Skomorokh 13:45, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:06, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:06, 31 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. John254 03:15, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Performance Institute[edit]
- The Performance Institute (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
US think tank. Only their intern has worked on the article so I would like a notabilty check. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 17:21, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - nonnotable entity written by a person with a serious conflict of interest. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 17:25, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The article already had adequate references, but they were hidden. I reformatted the references, and I think that notability is clear now. --Eastmain (talk) 18:10, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Agreeing with Eastmain, it needs some wikifying and copy-editing maybe, but is referenced now. So#Why 19:00, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, notable. I think therefore I tank. RMHED (talk) 23:02, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, notable. The Performance Institute came up in an internship search and I was trying to find more info on the think tank. Hopefully more people can build upon this page. Bluetrane86 (talk) 01:45, 4 August 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. Keep argument does not provide sources to establish notability. lifebaka++ 18:03, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
EzMess[edit]
- EzMess (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable defunct project by a new Wikipedian. 72 Ghits. Apparently, no independent sourcing. Damiens.rf 17:21, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed, the article mentions the project was initially called "EcMess", and that word has a lot more GHits. Maybe some independent coverage may be found, but I have seen none so far. --Damiens.rf 18:55, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. - House of Scandal (talk) 19:20, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I just added this article as a very early example of Comet technology. I really don't see a COI problem here, mainly because the project is inactive and it was added as a historical entry.
If you people believe that the description I gave is biased or poses a conflict of interests then I propose that the entry be reduced to just the historical data. Like so:
During 1999 an argentine team lead by Nicolás Echániz based in Buenos Aires developed EcMess[1] (later renamed to EzMess) which was an early example of event-driven web development, a technique later known as Comet. It consisted of a cross-browser web based instant messenger. The server side of the application was written in Python, based on Sam Rushing's Medusa[2] -an extensible Internet server framework which was also the codebase for the Zope server. The client side was javascript.
It might also be more appropriate to rename the entry to EcMess, considering the Ghits for each name. I don't find arguments or positions here that would need support, other than the fact that this thing existed and was created in 1999 which makes it a very early and quite complex example of Comet. It's just that. There were public uses of the group capabilities of EzMess in it's early years, if that data is relevant I may contact the people involved. This entry was created as a historical entry related to Comet. I added it separately in order to avoid adding more trouble to the already conflicted Comet article.
I'd rather modify this article and make it useful than delete it altogether.
Regards nicoechaniz —Preceding undated comment was added at 20:37, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: per nom. If this is a notable example of a technology, then merge the appropriate content to that article. RGTraynor 22:25, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Alright. If the majority here agrees to that then I'll add it to the Comet article.nicoechaniz —Preceding undated comment was added at 19:39, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you know about some discussion in some reliable source about this EzMess being a notable example of such and such technology? The comet article is still in the progress of removing some terribly unsourced/badly-sourced passages, and it wouldn't benefit from the addition of more of them at this point.
- Regardless of that, if you know about some reasonable amount of coverage of EzMess by reliable sources, it could stay as an article of its own (i.e., not be deleted). For instance, have it been reviewed in some (respectable) tech journal? Have its demise been noted by the press? Anything? --Damiens.rf 21:31, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- this is a notable example of Comet technology as it was developed when this technology was just being cenceived and didn't even have a name. EzMess was a fully functional web based Instant Messenger back in 1999 -still functional today-. Regarding reliability of sources I will quote you Damien and then add a proposal:
"Stop the presses! I've found some references for Meebo+comet on the official blogs for meebo developers." I was the head developer for EzMess and if you prefer me to add an entry to my blog about this matter so that you can add EzMess as a very early Comet example into the historical section of the Comet article, I'll have no objection to that. I'd like to make clear that the only thing I want to say is: "EzMess was an example of the early use of Comet technology to create a web based instant messenger back in 1999." This is the only affirmation there and you can verify it by asking me or the other developers involved or even by looking at the code if you believe that's necessary, I can make it available for review to anyone interested. Thanks to you all for taking the time to evaluate this.nicoechaniz —Preceding undated comment was added at 12:34, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "Comet" was never "conceived" as a technology. It is just a name invented to tell apart some techniques from others. And since "Comet" is a neologism created to describe something that already existed, there's not inherently notable in having used comet before its invention.
- Mentioning meboo on the comet article is ok because meboo is notable (of course, as long as we can show it uses comet). The same criteria may be applied to Ezmess: If it turns out to be considered notable, we can mention it at the neologism article. --Damiens.rf 14:02, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Damiens thanks for your deep insights on the Comet subject, I hadn't realized you were an authoritative expert on this matter, I thought you were just a guy striving for correctness and accountability of information. I'll leave this conflicted matter to you and Jacobs. It's been almost nice sharing with you.nicoechaniz —Preceding undated comment was added at 15:50, 1 August 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 new sources provided and old sources debunked. lifebaka++ 18:11, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sheraton Doha Resort & Convention Hotel[edit]
- Sheraton Doha Resort & Convention Hotel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
I need to prefix this nomination by acknowledging that a fine effort was made to salvage this article, which was up for Speedy Delete earlier today. Alas, I am sorry to say the article at this point in time (1.15pm ET on 30 July) fails WP:CORP and WP:RS. Don’t be misled by the quantity of the references – spend a few minutes reviewing their quality. Three sources cited in the article's References section (Peninsula On-line, Gulf Times and AME Info) appear to have rerun the Sheraton’s press releases verbatim – read the "articles" carefully, then see other hotel-related articles in these online sources. You can see they are just reposting press releases and they have no original reporting in regard to their hotel news. As for the references cited in the New York Times and Socialist Worker, in both cases the hotel is barely mentioned in passing as being the location of a meeting. As per WP:CORP: "An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability." Ecoleetage (talk) 17:16, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. AME Info has indeed run the hotel's press releases verbatim. Gulf Times and the Peninsula newspaper's articles appear to have been written by newspaper staff, rather than being press releases, so I think they are acceptable as references. I think the World Trade Organization's Doha Development Round is sufficiently notable that the fact that it began with a meeting at this hotel is relevant. --Eastmain (talk) 17:30, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The WTO's Doha Development Round passes Wikipedia's standards for notability. The hotel does not. Notability is not inherited. And please take a few minutes to read the contents of Peninsula On-line and Gulf Times -- all they did was rerun press releases. Ecoleetage (talk) 17:35, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 17:30, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete-yep, it's definitely strange how the works cited copy each other...--Forego (talk) 18:08, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The "sources" just restate the press release from the hotel. I still see nothing that comprises significant third party coverage. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!) 21:42, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: WP:N specifically says 2 third party sources, not repetetive copies of the same thing. Ironholds 16:50, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per below sources. A hotel of this size and nature is almost guaranteed to be notable, so if the sources below are not enough there are almost certainly plenty of others. Here are 76 hits in the New York Times alone[25] (one would have to check each one out, but at least some look like significant coverage). It does the encyclopedia no good to nitpick by poking holes in a subject area like this where most of the comparable institutions are covered. Wikidemo (talk) 23:01, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The references are crummy and the subject is not notable. Director33 (talk) 23:57, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Let's analyze the references and external links one by one.
- References
1. ^ Sheraton Doha Hotel & Resort Official Website - About Sheraton Doha Hotel & Resort Retrieved 30-07-2008 This is a primary source, and appears in the references only because there is an inline reference to the hotel's website. 2. ^ "Sheraton opens Irish restaurant", Peninsula On-line (Qatar) (2007-12-14). Retrieved on 2008-07-30. This is a newspaper article, identified as "Source ::: The Peninsula". The opening of a new (and perhaps expensive) restaurant is news. 3. ^ Callinicos, Alex (Tuesday 29 July 2008). "The WTO: trading in the rights of the poor", Socialist Worker. Retrieved on 2008-07-30. This is a newspaper column. 4. ^ Sharkey, Joe (May 11, 2004). "Business Travel: On The Road; Friendlier Skies on an Unfriendly Planet", The New York Times. Retrieved on 2008-07-30. This is a newspaper article from The New York Times. 5. ^ "QNH invests more than QR40m on renovations", Peninsula On-line (Qatar) (July 10, 2007). Retrieved on 2008-07-30. This also is a newspaper article, identified as "Source ::: The Peninsula"
- "Hotel Happenings: Sheraton’s Sweet Sleeper Bed", Peninsula On-line (Qatar) (Jul 15, 2008). Retrieved on 2008-07-30.
This also is a newspaper article, identified as "Source ::: The Peninsula"
- "Hotel wins seven travel awards", Gulf Times (Sunday, 27 May, 2007). Retrieved on 2008-07-30.
This is a newspaper article, credited to "Staff Reporter".
- External links
- Sheraton Doha Hotel & Resort Official Website
This is a primary source.
- Qatar National Hotels Company – Sheraton Doha Resort & Convention Hotel
This is a primary source (of the hotel's owner, rather than of Sheraton, the manager.
- "Summer mango treats at the Sheraton. Sheraton Doha Resort & Convention Hotel begun its month-long festival of Mango & Pancakes preparations.", AME Info (United Arab Emirates) (July 5, 2008). Retrieved on 2008-07-30.
Press release, distributed through AME Info.
- "Sheraton Doha launches the Link @ Sheraton", AME Info (United Arab Emirates) (Thursday, August 30, 2007). Retrieved on 2008-07-30.
Press release, distributed through AME Info.
Comment back First, that listing of New York Times hits is sloppy, with most of the stories having nothing to do with the subject at hand. As for the value of the Peninsula Newspaper -- I am sorry, but their "articles" don't look much like articles (what serious newspaper runs a piece without a byline about the installation of a fancy bed in a hotel?). No matter how you slice it, this doesn't add up. Ecoleetage (talk) 03:52, 1 August 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. Single keep argument is highly unconvincing. lifebaka++ 18:12, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Larry Johnson (bioethics activist)[edit]
- Larry Johnson (bioethics activist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Article very likely created by user with a conflict of interest (creating editor is an SPA devoted to pushing the belief that Ted Williams' remains have been mishandled). References provided do mention this person, but do not actually substantiate any of the material in the article, and once that's removed no claim of notability exists. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 16:24, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Even if everything claimed in the article is true, Mr. Johnson would still be only notable for one thing and the article would still be a coatrack. The material should be covered in Ted Williams. Northwestgnome (talk) 18:08, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. - House of Scandal (talk) 19:22, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I have it on very good intelligence that this particular activist’s name will be mention quite often after the first of the year, as he is currently stirring up politicians to back his cause. It would be nice if Wikipedia was proactive and had a little background information on their site about this individual. Delete if you want, but I think it’s a bad idea. Just my two cents. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.193.16.238 (talk) 13:27, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- See WP:NOTCRYSTAL on the merits of keeping him because his name will be mentioned quite often in the future. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 16:18, 2 August 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 Purple Line (Washington Metro) as delete and redirect arguments are the same and redirection is preferable to deletion. lifebaka++ 18:15, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Langley Park (Washington Metro)[edit]
- Langley Park (Washington Metro) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Future station stub, some argue that WP:Crystal applies. Dkendr (talk) 16:22, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Purple Line (Washington Metro). Until shovels hit the ground (and even that doesn't mean much given the 70-year history of the Second Avenue Subway), it seems very premature to have articles for individual station. Nfitz (talk) 16:36, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: While my own preference per WP:CRYSTAL (this is a proposed line, not one that has been officially put on the drawing board) would be to redirect, as I did a few days ago, User:Dkendr is the creator of the article, and has before now hotly maintained both in edit summaries and on talk pages that the article should be maintained, and has reverted redirects to it and similar articles. This strikes me, therefore, as a WP:POINT nomination. RGTraynor 17:02, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete/Merge & Redirect Until ground is broken this article fails WP:CRYSTAL. Lots of proposed lines for lots of transit systems exist. Individual station articles is overkill on a proposed line. -Djsasso (talk) 17:13, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge/Redirect I'm all in favor of having separate articles for planned stations, such as the Silver Line ones, but those plans are a lot more concrete than the Purple Line, which is still just a proposal at this point. According to The Washington Post last week [26], the Maryland Transit Administration is still studying "potential routes while comparing light rail and bus rapid transit options." Until it decides more specifically where these stations will be (if it still continues pursuing the Purple Line at all), I think it's best to hold off on individual articles. Dmp348 (talk) 17:35, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep or merge Stubs always have the ability to grow, and therefore are not grounds for deletion or forced merging. Many future rail stations have a lot of coverage before they reach groundbreaking. Sebwite (talk) 17:52, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or possibly merge per WP:CRYSTAL. A proposed station on a proposed line really is a bit too much. Its not too hard to recreate the article if it actually gets underway. Tavix (talk) 19:34, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:CRYSTAL Dbrodbeck (talk) 00:41, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 22:07, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 22:07, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Purple Line (Washington Metro). The proposed line itself clearly has sufficient coverage in reliable sources to justify an article, but there's no content here and no purpose for the article on the proposed station. --Stormie (talk) 12:35, 1 August 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 Purple Line (Washington Metro) as preferable to deletion. lifebaka++ 18:17, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
University of Maryland (Washington Metro)[edit]
- University of Maryland (Washington Metro) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Future station stub, some argue that WP:Crystal applies Dkendr (talk) 16:17, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Purple Line (Washington Metro). Until shovels hit the ground (and even that doesn't mean much given the 70-year history of the Second Avenue Subway), it seems very premature to have articles for individual station. Nfitz (talk) 16:33, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. If planning is sufficiently advanced that land has been acquired for the project (and I am not sure about this), then keeping the article as a "future station" probably makes sense. --Eastmain (talk) 16:39, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete/Merge & Redirect Until ground is broken this article fails WP:CRYSTAL. Lots of proposed lines for lots of transit systems exist. Individual station articles is overkill on a proposed line. -Djsasso (talk) 17:13, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge/Redirect I'm all in favor of having separate articles for planned stations, such as the Silver Line ones, but those plans are a lot more concrete than the Purple Line, which is still just a proposal at this point. According to The Washington Post last week [27], the Maryland Transit Administration is still studying "potential routes while comparing light rail and bus rapid transit options." Until it decides more specifically where these stations will be (if it still continues pursuing the Purple Line at all), I think it's best to hold off on individual articles. Dmp348 (talk) 17:35, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep or merge Stubs always have the ability to grow, and therefore are not grounds for deletion or forced merging. Many future rail stations have a lot of coverage before they reach groundbreaking. Sebwite (talk) 17:54, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or possibly merge per WP:CRYSTAL. A proposed station on a proposed line really is a bit too much. Its not too hard to recreate the article if it actually gets underway. Tavix (talk) 19:34, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: While my own preference per WP:CRYSTAL (this is a proposed line, not one that has been officially put on the drawing board) would be to redirect, as I did a few days ago, User:Dkendr is the creator of the article, and has before now hotly maintained both in edit summaries and on talk pages that the article should be maintained, reverting redirects to it and similar articles. This strikes me, therefore, as a WP:POINT nomination, as with the two similar articles he created and AfDed today. RGTraynor 22:06, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:CRYSTAL Dbrodbeck (talk) 00:38, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 22:06, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 22:06, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Purple Line (Washington Metro). The proposed line itself clearly has sufficient coverage in reliable sources to justify an article, but there's no content here and no purpose for the article on the proposed station. --Stormie (talk) 12:35, 1 August 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 Purple Line (Washington Metro) as preferable to deletion. lifebaka++ 18:18, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Riverdale (Washington Metro)[edit]
- Riverdale (Washington Metro) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Some argue that WP:Crystal applies. Dkendr (talk) 16:27, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Purple Line (Washington Metro). Until shovels hit the ground (and even that doesn't mean much given the 70-year history of the Second Avenue Subway), it seems very premature to have articles for individual station. Nfitz (talk) 16:34, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. If planning is sufficiently advanced that land has been acquired for the project (and I am not sure about this), then keeping the article as a "future station" probably makes sense. --Eastmain (talk) 16:40, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: While my own preference per WP:CRYSTAL (this is a proposed line, not one that has been officially put on the drawing board) would be to redirect, as I did a few days ago, User:Dkendr is the creator of the article, and has before now hotly maintained both in edit summaries and on talk pages that the article should be maintained, and has reverted redirects to it and similar articles. This strikes me, therefore, as a WP:POINT nomination. RGTraynor 17:02, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete/Merge & Redirect Until ground is broken this article fails WP:CRYSTAL. Lots of proposed lines for lots of transit systems exist. Individual station articles is overkill on a proposed line. -Djsasso (talk) 17:16, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge/Redirect I'm all in favor of having separate articles for planned stations, such as the Silver Line ones, but those plans are a lot more concrete than the Purple Line, which is still just a proposal at this point. According to The Washington Post last week [28], the Maryland Transit Administration is still studying "potential routes while comparing light rail and bus rapid transit options." Until it decides more specifically where these stations will be (if it still continues pursuing the Purple Line at all), I think it's best to hold off on individual articles. Dmp348 (talk) 17:36, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep or merge Stubs always have the ability to grow, and therefore are not grounds for deletion or forced merging. Many future rail stations have a lot of coverage before they reach groundbreaking. Sebwite (talk) 17:55, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or possibly merge per WP:CRYSTAL. A proposed station on a proposed line really is a bit too much. Its not too hard to recreate the article if it actually gets underway. Tavix (talk) 19:34, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:CRYSTAL Dbrodbeck (talk) 00:39, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 22:06, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 22:06, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Purple Line (Washington Metro). The proposed line itself clearly has sufficient coverage in reliable sources to justify an article, but there's no content here and no purpose for the article on the proposed station. --Stormie (talk) 12:35, 1 August 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. Transwiki to Wiktionary may also be in order, but not as an alternative to this article. lifebaka++ 18:22, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mandarin Chinese profanity[edit]
- Mandarin Chinese profanity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This is a list of translation of chinese profanities. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. A similar list, Singapore sexual slang was deleted. Laudak (talk) 16:14, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete WP:NOT. RC-0722 361.0/1 16:16, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Absolutely strong keep - Encyclopedic article (not a list, as it contains a great deal of explanatory information on a notable subject) about a category of linguistics in the most commonly spoken language in the world; highly useful to our users and carefully constructed over a period of years. An examination of the content explains very significant things about Chinese culture such as the use of such seemingly innocuous terms as "egg" or "melon" as curses, or the dearth of sacreligious humor, which cannot be found in any other place. See also the excellent articles Finnish profanity, Latin profanity, Spanish profanity, and Mat (language). Regarding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Singapore sexual slang terminology (2nd nomination), there was clearly no consensus there. Finally, the word "Chinese" is spelled with a capital "C." Badagnani (talk) 16:44, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Article has very strong potential. The nature of profanity in different languages is a legitimate topic, and the list is well organized. One could wish for a bit more discussion and a bit less listing, but that is a topic for the talk page, not AfD. RayAYang (talk) 17:16, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. -- RayAYang (talk) 17:22, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- RayAYang (talk) 17:22, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep AfD records: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mandarin slang (page was moved). Sadly, until we find a book on this topic, it will be really hard to make the article better (i.e. Latin profanity). Etymological research material is beyond the reach of average web users. --Voidvector (talk) 17:43, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: The article seems to have enough information (both on the expletives themselves and on Chinese culture) to pass WP:N, doesn't it? It Is Me Here (talk) 18:27, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Although I do understand where some "keep" arguments come from, I'm going to have to say delete per WP:NOT. Wikipedia is not a dictionary and this is about Chinese translations of assorted profanities and their short descriptions. Perhaps it could be cleaned up, but at its current state as a list this one is not worth keeping. Tavix (talk) 19:43, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Surely all it needs is a little more focus on aspects of Chinese culture? And so what that it's a list - surely it's little worse than something like this in that respect? It Is Me Here (talk) 20:02, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Using the Presidential names is an example of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Please refrain from that. Tavix (talk) 23:52, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I'd never seen that essay before, but let me just point out that it does state that: 'When used properly, a logical rationalization of "Other Stuff Exists" may be used in a perfectly valid manner in discussions of what articles to create, delete, or retain,' - and moreover, it seems perfectly logical to me to use precedent as well as the current "law", if you will, to argue a case. Do you not agree? However, I can see that my previous example was not necessarily entirely related to this article, but now that I have done some more searching, let me point out Category:Profanity by language, and the existence of the articles in that list (and, indeed, the encyclopaedic style of some of them) surely suggests that Mandarin Chinese profanity both deserves to be kept and has the potential to become as informative, encyclopaedic an article as some of the others in Category:Profanity by language? It Is Me Here (talk) 09:03, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Using the Presidential names is an example of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Please refrain from that. Tavix (talk) 23:52, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - this article is more than a mere dictionary definition of a few Chinese words. It contains encyclopedic information and is well referenced. I think WP:DICT is designed more to prevent us having an article on every individual word, than to suggest that well researched, well referenced and fairly comprehensive articles about a genre of words should be deleted. There is probably room for improvement to this article, but that's not a reason to delete it either. Wiw8 (talk) 20:40, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, I think it's pushing it to call this a violation of WP:NOT#DICTIONARY. It seems to me to be a valid article about a whole genre of words, with plenty of potential for more references to their usage in culture. Currently it does resemble a list of definitions in places, but there is more to the article and the future potential is good. ~ mazcat | c 21:43, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - This is not a dictionary entry. It is an article on culture. Subdolous (talk) 22:09, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I agree that the list is a subject unto itself, and "DICTIONARY" more properly applies to single dicdefs. This is a specialized well-defined lexicon, and listphobia is not a reson to delete. Squidfryerchef (talk) 05:14, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- delete / move to wiktionary - the article is absolutely nonencyclopedic list of translations, also completely lacks of footnotes. While there is some small texts here and there, the artile is just a meaningless list posing more questions than answers. Just two examples:
- "mazi (Chinese: 马子; literally "horse") a derogatory word for girlfriend." - what is so encyclopedic here and why "horse" is derogatory? I know quite a few animal words which a terms of affection. In particular, in steppe cultures "horse" is very respected and may be used as a positive epithet for many topics: fast, elegant, hard-working, devoted to her master, and many more. therefore this entry is useless.
- "One of the few insults connected to the supernatural is not used to damn but to compare the insulted person to a disliked god: wēnshén (瘟神) = troublemaker (literally "plague god")" -- it is just an insult. I don't see any proof that it is a profanity.
- I can continue this criticism for long, and my conclusion is it is just an arbitrary collection of dicdefs roughly classified by topics. It must be deleted from wikipedia and rewritten from scratch, and I believe there is sufficien amount of published materian to make a good encyclopedic article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mukadderat (talk • contribs)
- These are good arguments for improving the article, or changing its name (the Maledicta journal, the most authoritative on this subject, has long used the term "verbal aggression" in place of "profanity." Whatever the case, the above commentary does not address the actual comments above, showing that this is a worthy and highly notable subject, worth of details coverage in our encyclopedia, and not different from the other numerous, excellent articles about similar subjects in other languages. Badagnani (talk) 17:12, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with Badagnani - unless the vast majority of the entries are incorrect or dubious, the current state seems to be a good starting point for article improvement. Errors in the current version are a very poor justification for deletion of the article as a whole. ~ mazca t | c 19:23, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Dubious or spurious terms are added by vandals from time to time, and are speedily and expeditiously removed by the watchful native Chinese speakers who monitor this page. Badagnani (talk) 19:32, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that there are two conflicting issues in this discussion: the topic of the article and the content of the article. The topic of the article (Mandarin Chinese profanity) is certainly valid and notable -- it is a subject of interest to students of culture and language. However, much of the content of the article (the list of words/phrases and their translations) is probably more appropriate in Wiktionary. (I write "probably" since Wiktionary has its own inclusion criteria, about which I know very little.) Is it possible to keep and transwiki? –Black Falcon (Talk) 03:04, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Transwiki whether you keep this or not I fail to see how transwiki conflicts with this discussion. Whether or not it is transwikied (and it seems like a copy should exist on wiktionary) should not interfere with this process. 70.51.11.219 (talk) 06:05, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The topic of Mandarin profanity and slang is a notable encyclopedic topic, a reliable source or two other than the ones listed in the article can certainly be found addressing the subject, and this article is more than just a list of dictionary definitions, with the potential to be much more. And articles can be transwiki'd at any time whether they are nominated for deletion or not; that is orthogonal to whether this article should be kept on Wikipedia. DHowell (talk) 17:38, 3 August 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, keep arguments are extremely weak. lifebaka++ 18:25, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
State of society[edit]
- State of society (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Page is a WP:POVFORK, attempting to explain a concept found in political philosophy. More appropriate to discuss it in the articles on the philosophers for whom it is important than to synthesize their ideas into a single statement on what the "state of society" is. RJC Talk Contribs 16:10, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. someone's original idea. Laudak (talk) 16:16, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. - House of Scandal (talk) 19:22, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. -- RJC Talk Contribs 02:57, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. -- RJC Talk Contribs 02:57, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- keep it is important to classical republicanism idea --seventy3 06:48, 2 August 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seventy3 (talk • contribs)
- Delete per nom. See also WP:Articles for deletion/Political society (2nd nomination) - another weak article by the same author. andy (talk) 07:39, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep 'seems that understanding of state of nature idea is not fully possible without knowing what state of society is --37uk (talk) 09:09, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. While state of nature has entered into English and is a term used by a number of thinkers, state of society is not. Society, civil society, political society, government, etc. are opposed to the state of nature. In any event, the importance of what is discussed in this article to other articles (either classical republicanism or state of nature — what is it with these new accounts jumping straight into AfD discussions?) means that it should be discussed in those other articles, not that a separate article must be maintained as a venue for WP:SYNTHESIS.
- comment. i didn't know that hobbes and locke weren't english thinkers. however there are plenty of other classicist thinkers from whole the europe that use the term e.g. hume, smith, vico, rousseau, kant. --discourseur 07:16, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. A text search of Leviathan, the Second Treatise, the Letter Concerning Toleration, and Essays, Moral and Political at constitution.org does not turn up a single instance of the phase "state of society" (a fluke, since it is used once in the Second Treatise). Could discourseur be so kind as to say where these other thinkers used this phrase?
- comment. rousseau A Discourse Upon The Origin and The Foundation of The Inequality among Mankind, THE SOCIAL CONTRACT; Montesquieu the spirit of laws, ferguson An Essay on the History of Civil Society; FEDERALIST; kant The Science of Right; bentham A FRAGMENT ON GOVERNMENT. and two treatises of course. may add 'state of civil society' in grotius On the Law of War and Peace --discourseur 19:12, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I'm sorry, could you provide specific section numbers? And which French and German phrases in Rousseau, Montesquieu, and Kant do you suggest are translated as "state of society"? RJC Talk Contribs 00:29, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- i am sorry for putting that but you seem a bit lazy. État de Societe and Gesellschaftzustand --discourseur 07:19, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- comment. rousseau A Discourse Upon The Origin and The Foundation of The Inequality among Mankind, THE SOCIAL CONTRACT; Montesquieu the spirit of laws, ferguson An Essay on the History of Civil Society; FEDERALIST; kant The Science of Right; bentham A FRAGMENT ON GOVERNMENT. and two treatises of course. may add 'state of civil society' in grotius On the Law of War and Peace --discourseur 19:12, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. A text search of Leviathan, the Second Treatise, the Letter Concerning Toleration, and Essays, Moral and Political at constitution.org does not turn up a single instance of the phase "state of society" (a fluke, since it is used once in the Second Treatise). Could discourseur be so kind as to say where these other thinkers used this phrase?
- comment. i didn't know that hobbes and locke weren't english thinkers. however there are plenty of other classicist thinkers from whole the europe that use the term e.g. hume, smith, vico, rousseau, kant. --discourseur 07:16, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. While state of nature has entered into English and is a term used by a number of thinkers, state of society is not. Society, civil society, political society, government, etc. are opposed to the state of nature. In any event, the importance of what is discussed in this article to other articles (either classical republicanism or state of nature — what is it with these new accounts jumping straight into AfD discussions?) means that it should be discussed in those other articles, not that a separate article must be maintained as a venue for WP:SYNTHESIS.
- Comment: this sarcastic bickering doesn't help one bit. discourseur - you have been clearly asked for precise references, not just statements that one should read entire books or even an entire oeuvre. Please give proper citations or admit that your claims about these authors are merely your interpretation of what they say, not what they actually say. And how about providing precise citations from commentaries? There are no such references in the article and you're not providing them now either. Do they exist? andy (talk) 08:25, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- andy, you are wellcome to scan those works in the same way as rjc did with two treatises of locke. simple and easy way. --discourseur 09:00, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not up to other editors to prove your point. As the creator of the article it's up to you to provide adequate references, and contributors to this afd and the other one at WP:Articles for deletion/Political society (2nd nomination) will note that despite many requests you're not able to do so, and nobody else who knows the subject can either. The only logical conclusion is that they don't exist and both articles are original research (Hume said it better, but you get my point - if it walks like a duck...). andy (talk) 10:23, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- i did it. can you prove that i am wrong? --discourseur 11:03, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Did what? If you mean that you added references to the article, all you did was dump a reading list there. Please supply proper references per the official Wikipedia policy at WP:PROVEIT: "The source should be cited clearly and precisely to enable readers to find the text that supports the article content in question. Editors should cite sources fully, providing as much publication information as possible, including page numbers when citing books". andy (talk) 11:17, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- they are clear and precise. if you are not able to use them, i am so sorry --discourseur 13:10, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- delete per nom, and discourseurs all-too-typical failure to provide refs when asked William M. Connolley (talk) 19:13, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- comment. it's pity that some wikipedists do not recognize difference between original and secondary bibliographical resources. see as example in locke or in hobbes. --discourseur 20:19, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- there are some links to Using Primary Sources. especially at Then Again. you may also look at primary source --discourseur 21:39, 5 August 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. Most keep arguments weak, appears to have been some sockpuppetry to attempt to influence result (which it didn't, FYI). lifebaka++ 18:31, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Political society[edit]
- Political society (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Page recreated after deletion; speedy tag removed because the page looks different and, in opinion of CSD-tag remover, is notable. Originally deleted as bad WP:OR. Page is a WP:POVFORK, attempting to explain a concept found in political philosophy. More appropriate to discuss it in the articles on the philosophers for whom it is important than to synthesize their ideas into a single statement on what political society is. RJC Talk Contribs 16:08, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- delete. someone's original idea. Laudak (talk) 16:16, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. -- RJC Talk Contribs 02:56, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. -- RJC Talk Contribs 02:56, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep useful topic with an underdeveloped article. Not original research. See political economy for another example of original ideas developed into their own articles. --Ryan Delaney talk 16:47, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep important to political philosophy topic. should be expanded --seventy3 06:46, 2 August 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seventy3 (talk • contribs)
- Delete per nom. See also WP:Articles for deletion/State of society - another weak article by the same author. andy (talk) 07:38, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as Tocqueville is treating it as an important idea together with a 'political association' (there is whole chapter upon it in Democracy in America) --37uk (talk) 09:16, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I keep asking for clarification of this. Tocqueville does not discuss political society. He discusses political associations, i.e., parties, but these do not include the state or government, which the article does put under political society. If the article's primary emphasis is on Tocqueville, then it is incompetent WP:OR. If it is not, and Tocqueville was simply added by a confused editor, then its topic a) is discussed under state or b) belongs with whatever thinker's usage has a slightly different nuance. RJC Talk Contribs 16:27, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. —andy (talk) 23:55, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - The reference to Alexis de T looks good, superficially, but the chapter in Democracy in America, Political associations in the United States, deals with very specific activities (for instance, the "Great Convention of 1831 relative to the tariff") of very specific associations, not with the general concept of political associations. If one can talk of an article, it's OR, bad OR. -- Iterator12n Talk 05:08, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Better to read chapter on relations between political and civil associations. Best - to do it in original. english translations have some recurrent errors. --discourseur 07:11, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Happen to own "the Henry Reeve text, as revised by Francis Bowen, now further corrected and edited with introduction, editorial notes, and bibliographies by Phillips Bradley." Anything particularly bad about this version? -- Iterator12n Talk 15:12, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- for example completely misleading translation of 'sentiments' into 'feelings' instead of 'attidudes' --discourseur 19:44, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Given that we were all too ignorant to find the relevant chapters the first time around, could discourseur be so kind as to say precisely which chapter s/he means? Harvey Mansfield's literal translation, published by the University of Chicago Press, does not appear to have steered me in the right direction, either. RJC Talk Contribs 15:40, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- oh sorry. second volume, second part: Rapports des associations civiles et des associations politiques. at your service. --discourseur 18:06, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I missed that the first time around. Thank you. It speaks of how civil associations interact with what we would call parties, not political society. How does this relate to the article being discussed? RJC Talk Contribs 18:19, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- one may easily deduce relations between civil society and political society, and definitions of civil society and political society. tocq did not explain anywhere terms obvious to him, he wasn't wikipedist --discourseur 19:35, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- this is also the only chapter tocq is writing bout 'civil association'. that is why his book is not about civil society but about political society --discourseur 19:38, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- oh sorry. second volume, second part: Rapports des associations civiles et des associations politiques. at your service. --discourseur 18:06, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Happen to own "the Henry Reeve text, as revised by Francis Bowen, now further corrected and edited with introduction, editorial notes, and bibliographies by Phillips Bradley." Anything particularly bad about this version? -- Iterator12n Talk 15:12, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Better to read chapter on relations between political and civil associations. Best - to do it in original. english translations have some recurrent errors. --discourseur 07:11, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - discourseur, as per my request at WP:Articles for deletion/State of society please provide proper references. andy (talk) 08:28, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- there is already a good one --77.115.202.99 (talk) 10:51, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- conditional delete. See my remark in the earlier AFD; if this article is a translation of a copyrighted work without credit to the original, then it needs to be deleted; otherwise, it should be copyedited, expanded and cleaned up. As it stands now it is excessively abstract and, if I may say so, unclear. Bwrs (talk) 04:07, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. "Political society" is that part of a polity that is aware and actively engaged in political discourse and decision-making. As Richard Pipes observes, most citizens are too busy keeping themselves fed, clothed, housed and entertained to keep themselves informed about politics. That is effectively the domain of a minority in society. Nihil novi (talk) 07:40, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- your extreme lazyness, see this --discourseur 15:16, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This is unacceptably rude. Please read and follow WP's policies on politeness! andy (talk) 15:56, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- A Google search that returns the table of contents from Tocqueville's book? Where does Tocqueville describe what he means by "political society," as he does with "political associations," "social state," and the like, such that we can say that it is a determinate concept in his thought? And even if it were, why cannot this be adequately addressed in Alexis de Tocqueville? And given that primary source research is discouraged under WP:OR, what specific secondary sources confirm your interpretation? RJC Talk Contribs 15:32, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- y.e.l. 1. please read more ghits, 2. please go to library and check references given in the article. --discourseur 15:42, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- let me advice you something. when someone advice you to do first this and second that - do it that way. while checking ghits you had to meet this one. so journey in your case to library would be not so neccesary. second, there are books on tocqueville even in poland --discourseur 16:41, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This example completely fails to answer RJC's question: Where does Tocqueville describe what he means by "political society," as he does with "political associations," "social state," and the like, such that we can say that it is a determinate concept in his thought?. But let's go back to the original nomination. discourseur, can you give even one example, chapter and verse, to show that "political society" is a general concept in political philosophy such that it deserves an article of its own, rather than a term used in different contexts and with different meanings by different writers? Nobody else can find this evidence. andy (talk) 16:57, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- there are no definitions of political association or social state either. tocq did not define political society in the same way as nobody did it to civil society until end of xx century. thinkers in the past were not wikipedists, they did not define terms obvious to them. --discourseur 17:07, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not talking about Tocqueville or indeed any other writer. This is a general question. If we are to have an article called "Political society" then there must be a general concept or a range of not dissimilar concepts that can be brought together in the article. Otherwise what is the purpose? If nobody has defined it explicitly, which is fair enough, are there ostensive definitions? Did writers generally talk about "political society" as if it was a discrete thing? Without evidence the answer has to be no. andy (talk) 17:20, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- as above: please go to library and check references given in the article. --discourseur 17:30, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I'm through responding to discourseur's comments on this page. If the AfD results in delete, fine. If not, that's cause for a WP:CHECKUSER on Discourseur, Seventy7, and 37uk (WP:Requests for checkuser, under D: "Vote fraud, closed vote, fraud affects outcome." This was the suggested course at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Discourseur. Competence is required. RJC Talk Contribs 17:33, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I was thinking of going for a checkuser whatever the outcome - it seems to be allowed under the rules. andy (talk) 17:36, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- gents. nice talk, but apparently you reached end of arguments. however, could you please provide tocqueville's definitions of 'social state' and 'political association' - as you provided above? --discourseur 18:03, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- assume that you are unable to give answer to your claims because you were just cheating above --discourseur 14:38, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- of course above assumption is about content not persons, so don't take it personally --discourseur 15:40, 6 August 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. --PeaceNT (talk) 16:29, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sos file format[edit]
- Sos file format (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
I would call it a scripting language rather than a file format. Used in one version of a non-notable browser. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 16:05, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- delete no evidence of notability. Laudak (talk) 16:19, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No evidence of subject's notability. Artene50 (talk) 19:37, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No cites, no evidence of notability or any attempt to establish any. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 19:54, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, doesn't make verification easy. Looks like Scripting Language That Someone Came Up With One Day. Unless convincing sources materialise, I recommend deleting this before The Daily WTF notices. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 16:35, 3 August 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 (G11, blatant advertising) by Orangemike. Nonadmin close. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 21:42, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
InaTux[edit]
- InaTux (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Delete as non-notable computer vendor. Nothing in the article asserts notability. It's written like an advertisement. References supplied are mostly from the company's own web site; the one that isn't only mentions that InaTux reviewed something on its blog. Google search is not helpful in terms of reliable sources. Notability tag is constantly removed. ... discospinster talk 15:54, 30 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 --JForget 23:31, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unreleased Dannii Minogue songs[edit]
- Unreleased Dannii Minogue songs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable unreleased songs. Relying on ASCAP and BMI, royalties collection organizations, for sources, does not prove notability. Article is full of original research. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 16:29, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Tenacious D Fan (talk) 16:30, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:51, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - nothing but blogs, fan sites, and trade websites, no independent and reliable sources. Can you find anything else? Bearian (talk) 14:21, 29 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, — Scientizzle 15:50, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- delete nonnotable. unreleased is unreleased hence something not very notable. Otherwise someone will try to make money on them. Its notabilities must be strongly established in reputable sources. Laudak (talk) 16:21, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per consensus that unreleased songs generally aren't notable. This sources nothing but blogs, fansites and ASCAP listings, none of which are really reliable sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!) 18:20, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I must dispute the characterization of ASCAP's website as "not a reliable source". BMI and ASCAP are considered definitive sources in terms of songwriting and publisher information, as used by the industry. I'm still debate whether to support this article or not as I think there is precedent here, but I certainly will not support its deletion by in any way suggesting that ASCAP is not a reliable source! 23skidoo (talk) 22:33, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- ASCAP is reliable, but it shouldn't really be used as a source anyway. ASCAP can't tell you what stage a song is in development, only the copyright owners. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 10:39, 31 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. --PeaceNT (talk) 16:30, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mental Multiplication of Integers ending with 5[edit]
- Mental Multiplication of Integers ending with 5 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This is written like a how-to KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 15:23, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:NOT#HOWTO and not notable. DCEdwards1966 15:33, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Also unsourced and looks like original research. Hqb (talk) 15:39, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep — The method in question clearly exists. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 15:51, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:NOT#HOWTO - this is for a textbook, not an encyclopedia. JohnCD (talk) 16:14, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- merge into 5 (number). If there is reliable source, it may be easily shortened into an encyclopedic entry. Laudak (talk) 16:23, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- P.S: there is a whole article, Mental calculation, which also may serve as a target of redirect. Laudak (talk) 16:27, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom -- Darth Mike (Talk • Contribs) 17:10, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Even if it does exist, there's nothing to back this up. It's just a how-to guide written in inappropriate tone ("how about we..."). Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!) 18:43, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - an original research how-to guide. Also misses out the obvious methods. 15*35 = sqrt(225*1,225) = sqrt(275,625).... a trivial mental exercise now - Peripitus (Talk) 21:45, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or redirect to Mental Calculation. Purely original research; I started to laugh when I first saw the title. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 23:13, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Wikipedia is not a guide and it's not for original research. Reyk YO! 23:21, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete not an encyclopedia article. JuJube (talk) 23:26, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Written in a style contrary to every guide Wiki has, it is a guide which breaks WP:NOTGUIDE, it is written in the first person which is against I think every rule in the MOS. doktorb wordsdeeds 17:47, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The fact that the article is badly written is not a reason to delete. The fact that it disregards Wikipedia style guides in an extreme way is not a reason to delete. Those would be reasons to rewrite the article, not to delete it. But it is not clear that the topic is worth an article. Quite a lot could be written about how to do arithmetic that is not in the usual textbooks and that would be worth including here—indeed I think some of it already is. Perhaps one thing that could be said in this article's favor is that it tells you how to multiply half-integers and it seems more plausible that that would be worth writing than that multiplying odd multiples of 5 is worth an article. But so far it falls short of convincing me. Michael Hardy (talk) 03:32, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete non-notable, unsourced, poorly written with no content worth merging anywhere. The result is a trivial consequence of (10a+5)×(10b+5) = 100ab + 50(a+b) + 25. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:24, 2 August 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. For future reference "speedy" keeps are only for a few basic reasons. — Scientizzle 18:10, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Traceless Biometrics[edit]
- Traceless Biometrics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Article seems to be a combination of WP:OR and POV assertions ("Biometrics solution should be completely noninvasive with regard to personal privacy. Further, we hold that if these traceless biometric systems (TBS) are used..."). Probable WP:COI issues as well (article creator seems to be promoting the term "traceless biometrics" and appears to the founder of a company using the same term). A previously declined prod. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:03, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep — The subject of the article clearly exists. If you have problems with how it is written, deletion is absolutely not the proper solution. If you're not interested in fixing it yourself, then leave it alone so others can. Don't just be lazy and try to delete it outright. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 15:53, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure the subject actually exists except as a neologism coined by this company. Since I am, as you suggest, lazy, I prefer to exert my infrequent and feeble efforts where I see some chance of results. Thanks for your comment. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:05, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually it *does not* exist beyond a concept invented and pushed by one person, I can only assume Kurt votes "it clearly exists" without checking. it's a technical version of "stuff we made up in school", the concept is largely nonsense and is not supported or referenced or discussed by any mainstream sources in this area. the article itself is mainly coat racking about biometrics generally - it actually has no reliable sources about the concept itself and should be deleted on that basis alone. --129.11.76.230 (talk) 20:58, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:NEO. Original research, coatrack. Kurt clearly exists as well, but he clearly has trouble understanding WP:SK. This is not a speedy keep by any means, and "it clearly exists" is not a valid rationale. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!) 18:26, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Even worse, some of the references are other Wikipedia articles. Can't do that, I'm afraid. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!) 18:42, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Neologism. Raul654 (talk) 19:22, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - the article is unsupported by books or scholarly articles. It is based on this patent application and nowhere else...unnotable neologism created for a new invention that has not gained much attention. - Peripitus (Talk) 21:49, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - the article is now unsourced, earlier versions pointed to a non-notable neologism with some pretty blatant promotion. Review of the patent application further confirms that it is, as User:Peripitus points, "a new invention that has not gained much attention." - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 05:24, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi - I removed all of the references from the article - this is all documented in the edit summaries. Broadly, all of the references were a) self-published b) other wikipedia articles or c) sourced related to issues around the use of biometrics in the generic sense - material that is already covered in extensive detail in other articles. They have no bearing on this particular standard. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.11.76.215 (talk) 10:03, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I know, I saw the edit history too. However, for future reference, I'd rather see editors note that the references are bad rather than removing the sources altogether. Although I agree that they do not supply the article with actual references, a simple note would have done the trick. Also, I think this AfD would work better if you signed in to your Wikipedia account or created one. Moves like this creates certain problems in AfD and it's nice to be able to leave messages, etc. to the user (rather than to the next person who picks up this IP). Thanks. - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 10:35, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You are pretty much wrong on everything. - first, normal editing of article is a) permitted and b) expected during AFD. I have cleaned-up the article so it confirms to the MOS and our other policies on the use of sourcing etc. This is normal and permissible. A note to say "this should not be included" is redundant, editors are encouraged to be bold and perform normal editorial activities as required. I don't have an account, I don't plan to get an account. This is wikipedia, the encyclopedia anyone can edit - and I am editing it. If you have a problem with that - I suggest you lobby to change core policy. If you have any problems with my edits or feel they are in error, I suggest you outline those problems on the article talkpage. I have considered all of my edits carefully and can defend and explain all of them. So your "for future reference" is incorrect and your suggestion is against all core policies and normal editing practices. --129.11.77.198 (talk) 14:11, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Being unsourced is not a valid reason to delete. First, sources aren't even necessary anyway, except for direct quotations or for claims that are actually being challenged. Second, instead of deleting the article, perhaps it would be more constructive to go out and find sources yourself if you want them so bad, or leave it be so that others can. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 12:54, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There are no sources for this - it's a neologism and a piece of original research by one person. If you are going to make statements about articles at AFD - surely, YOU need to at least make the effort to do some basic research about the article and the subject under discussion. I've had a look at your AFD history and you seem to use this "it exists" arguments all the time - even when it has been demonstrated that the subject does not exist or is a hoax. Cutting and pasting the same keep vote into AFDs when you are too lazy to actually read the article and assess the sources is, in my mind, disruptive and you should be blocked for such actions - it's simply a form of trolling. --129.11.77.198 (talk) 14:11, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please don't make assumptions about what I've already done or my motives, especially when (as in this case) they're blatantly false. Try again, troll. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 16:17, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, the "Nuh-uh" defense. While most people might think that went out with 1st grade recess, Kurt has made it his Wikipedia specialty. Raul654 (talk) 16:33, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep -- as per WP:SNOW -- woah woah woah did anyone hre actually look for any sources? I found eight sources referencing the term "Tracless Biometrics" as it is used in this context. IT wasnt even that hard: [1][2][3][4][5][6][7] [8][9][10] -- and that's just a smlal cross-section of the sources I found covering this topic. I dont understand how all of you people can be so gungho about killing this article when you didnt even look at the sources it has! If we did this to all articles, we woldnt have any articles since no article starts out as a WP:GA the moment it is created. C'mon, folks!!! Smith Jones (talk) 14:17, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure about this, but I think that wikirage.com might not be considered a reliable source, because, you know, it just tracks what's active on Wikipedia at any given time. Ditto for the video links. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:48, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thats two links. I posted 8. Threes no way you can say that ALL of them re invalid jus tbecause two of them arent completely perfect. Smith Jones (talk) 14:52, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I just wanted to illustrate that you seem to have no understanding of WP:RS so that other editors don't need to their waste their time looking at the links you posted. Regards. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:14, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The first one, to biometrics.gov, doesn't use the term "Tracless Biometrics" or even "Traceless Biometrics" which this article's supposed to be about. Unconvincing. And if you want us to link to them, don't use ref. tags unless you're adding a reflist at the bottom. . .dave souza, talk 23:02, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Those sources were all complete junk - one of the ones he added to the article was an empty search box, another was to wikirage.com. All junk, all removed. --129.11.76.215 (talk) 12:02, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thats two links. I posted 8. Threes no way you can say that ALL of them re invalid jus tbecause two of them arent completely perfect. Smith Jones (talk) 14:52, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure about this, but I think that wikirage.com might not be considered a reliable source, because, you know, it just tracks what's active on Wikipedia at any given time. Ditto for the video links. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:48, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please don't make assumptions about what I've already done or my motives, especially when (as in this case) they're blatantly false. Try again, troll. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 16:17, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There are no sources for this - it's a neologism and a piece of original research by one person. If you are going to make statements about articles at AFD - surely, YOU need to at least make the effort to do some basic research about the article and the subject under discussion. I've had a look at your AFD history and you seem to use this "it exists" arguments all the time - even when it has been demonstrated that the subject does not exist or is a hoax. Cutting and pasting the same keep vote into AFDs when you are too lazy to actually read the article and assess the sources is, in my mind, disruptive and you should be blocked for such actions - it's simply a form of trolling. --129.11.77.198 (talk) 14:11, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - per nom and WP:NEO. --Chet B. LongTalk/ARK 16:02, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete a non-notable neologism . . . dave souza, talk 23:02, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete non-notable, per nom and WP:NEO. The image on the page seems to have a copyright, trademark, and a company name on it too. Verbal chat 12:27, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reflist for Smith Jones[edit]
These references were added by Smith Jones above; please note the discussion. None of these seem to be a good source. Verbal chat 12:48, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- ^ http://www.biometrics.gov/
- ^ http://www.biometrics.org/html/introduction.html
- ^ http://digg.com/security/Traceless_Biometrics_Technology_rlated_articles
- ^ http://www.wikirage.com/wiki/Traceless_Biometrics/
- ^ http://www.stat.tamu.edu/Biometrics/
- ^ http://www.biometrics.tibs.org/
- ^ http://www.hit.ac.il/mailExchange/sm.asp?idd=326
- ^ http://www.innovya.com/Innovya_Traceless_biometrics-Michael_(Micha)_Shafir.pdf
- ^ http://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2008/0005578.html
- ^ http://www.cnil.fr/index.php?id=2455
- 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++ 19:27, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
List of melodic rock bands[edit]
- List of melodic rock bands (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This article was created alongside the (already AfD'd) Melodic rock article. Melodic rock was deleted as a bogus genre and this list is just left-over waste built on self-refs and no real citations from third party reliable sources. Libs (talk) 14:24, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Very little context. The genre was deleted as bogus, and the refs don't even back up the "melodic rock" genre at all. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!) 18:22, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - per above. Leftover maintenance cleanup. Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 22:45, 4 August 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. Although that most keep opinions are of aparent single purpose accounts, it seems that more sources have been provided. Marcia argues that there are many more sources, allthough none are specified. All in all, there seems to be enough published to meet WP:N, and certainly WP:V. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 17:00, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rainer Maria Latzke[edit]
ATTENTION!
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus among Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. Nonetheless, you are welcome to participate and express your opinions. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}} |
- Rainer Maria Latzke (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
The painter has only got works in a few locations, can't find any writing about him outside of Germany/Austria. StaticGull Talk 14:19, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - unsourced, the 1 external link leads to a very short entry (on a nonenglish site), 0 g-news hits, does not seems very notable to me... - Adolphus79 (talk) 23:48, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. – David Eppstein (talk) 04:35, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Rainer Maria Latzke is a renowned European artist and I know his work from many books and articles in professional journals. His beautifully, extraordinary designed Murals and Trompe L’oeils helped many businesses (like restaurants, hotels, spas) flourish. He became very famous in Europe during the 1980’s and was written about by many admirers. Recently he developed a revolutionary and unique technique of removable frescos, where he can transform the interiors of any building, within days, into a dream-world. He helps young and talented artists create beautiful, classic landscapes and bring the outside inside, both inexpensively and quickly with his technique. There are over 200 designers and artists applying this method so far and the number is rapidly growing. If you would like to know more about his work please see www.dreamworlds.com or contact me at www.starsandart.com. - Marcsia Marcsia (talk) 15:34, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- — Marcsia (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Keep - I can only echo the sentiments of the last entry! Rainer Maria Latzke is a very talented artist who has made a lasting and marked contribution to the world of art around us! His reputation as a talented artist within Europe proceeds him and he has a profound impact on those amongst us looking to follow in his footsteps. The application of his sympathetic work on the Viennese Rathaus is but one of his major triumphs and has given inspiration to all worldwide, who have had the pleasure of viewing this masterpiece! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Margaret DunneSomethingto (talk • contribs) 14:22, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- — Somethingto (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Keep I'm an Art student at the University of Logan Utah, where Professor Latzke will be teaching this coming week. Me and the other students are VERY excited about this new, specialized class that has been created (the Art of Mural painting), and have heard only the best about Professor Rainer Latzke. I have already researched alot about this artist and his work, which is very impressive to say the least, and think that this article should definatly stay on Wikipidea so other people can find out more about him! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.27.108.119 (talk) 18:34, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- — 76.27.108.119 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- NOTE: To the above voters, you may like the guy, or are excited about him, or whatever, but you should read Wikipedia's notability and verifiability policies. The article as is stands is unsourced, and does not show much in the way of notability. Wikipedia is not a place to write articles on what you like, the article must follow policies set down. This is not a vote of popularity regarding the person, this is an attempt at gaining a consensus as to whether or not the article should be deleted. If you like the guy, then your best bet is to improve the article itself so that it passes the above concerns... - Adolphus79 (talk) 18:53, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- comment I went to the college website and could not find where he is listed as teaching. If he is a new addition I would think there would have been a press release. Perhaps that can be found and cited? (Roodhouse1 (talk) 21:11, 3 August 2008 (UTC))[reply]
- comment I've made a few changes to the article so it is not as choppy. I also did a few things so that it is a more neutral article. You can't make statements like "greatest artist" or whatever unless the specific paper is cited nor can you say that he one of the greatest fresco artists if it is not backed with a cite and even at that point it is just the opinion of the person who wrote that. Articles need to be neutral. Right? (Roodhouse1 (talk) 21:17, 3 August 2008 (UTC))[reply]
- comment As far as I know RML is starting this year, so I suppose the press release would be after the vacations? He was also asked to be a professor because of the invention stated in my wiki article (it is being tought simoultaniously with the fine arts of mural painting), which should mean theres something special about it as well as his artistic skills. Here is a link to his search on a name search engine which shows countless results http://www.yasni.de/index.php?page=search&search=1&sdts=&name=maria+latzke also if you type his name in google there is quite a lot to be found. You can also find out more on his companies website http://www.frescomaster.us (which is in english). I think one reason stated for deletion was the hits were all in german. I think an article shouldnt be denied just because the person it talks about isn't famous in the United States, but mostly in europe.. And I must mention the production technique RML invented again which is quite notable in the eyes of any mural painter I am quite sure. (mauriceamadeus (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 22:25, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- — mauriceamadeus (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- comment Here is another link to the Kölner Stadtanzeiger (Colognes daily newspaper), which writes about RML becoming a professor and his new mural procedure. The article is in german, but it clearly titles RML with Professor RML and also there is a link to picture showing RML with two memebers of the scorpions. (this link can also be found by googling "rainer maria latzke Michelangelo der Eifel"
http://www.ksta.de/html/artikel/1217410438732.shtml note: This article was published today- and the link is only the online version of the newspaper article --Mauriceamadeus (talk) 17:01, 5 August 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. --PeaceNT (talk) 16:32, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I Know What Boys Like[edit]
- I Know What Boys Like (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Disambiguation page does not link to any articles of the same title, only lists potential article titles. –Dream out loud (talk) 14:18, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. You've got a song and a film with no primary topic. There is no requirement that the entries on disambiguation pages lead with a blue link, just that they have a blue link in each entry, which these do. If it is bothersome that none of the entries have blue links for the topic, but only for the description, you could create I Know What Boys Like (film) (pointing to The House Bunny) and I Know What Boys Like (song) (pointing to Wasn't Tomorrow Wonderful). And now that I preview it, I see the first already exists, so I'll incorporate that in the dab. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:13, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. It's even better with the redirect to the film, but there's nothing wrong with links on disambiguation pages that refer to a song in an album; anyone could be looking for those songs. It just happens that all of the links on the page (well, all before we got the blue-linked film redirect). In consideration, it may be a stretch to say that articles could be written on all of those songs, but the disambiguation page is useful. -- Natalya 17:09, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep on the basis that I don't think AFD is the proper venue for discussing dab issues of this nature. There is in fact a Disambiguation Wikiproject so I would encourage concerns regarding this dab to be raised with them for possible improvement. I've seen enough ambiguity (pun intended) over the minimum number of active links allowed on a dab page for me to not support deletion in this venue. 23skidoo (talk) 17:44, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I think it is useful for this to be considered here in this case as it exposes current arguments based on policy and guideline for retention of articles of this class. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:24, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per all comments above. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:09, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and note that there really should be a "I Know What Boys Like (song)" since it had some chart success. JuJube (talk) 23:28, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I didn't really "create" the page; I redirected it to The Waitresses, the band that sang the '80s song of the same name. IRK!Leave me a note or two 21:04, 31 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. Shereth 18:10, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Habbo Big Brother[edit]
- Habbo Big Brother (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
A page about a virtual in-game competition, I don't see how this meets notability guidelines. StaticGull Talk 14:07, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep — Mhm, I contributed since I knew alot about the topic, didn't make it myself. I think it suits well to Wiki though, a big publicised event rolling out to eventually 30,000,000 online users? It's not just an "virtual competition" for a few people: it's for millions and millions and millions of people. --RofoUK (talk) 15:12, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm assuming that your opinion is to keep the article. (I'm asking because you didn't indicate, and I'm putting that in for you.) With that aside, what you said is a textbook example of WP:THISNUMBERISHUGE; that is, quantification does not determine notability, but the quality of the article's verifiable, third-party sources. MuZemike (talk) 18:24, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yep, it was a keep - sorry, not used to this sort of thing. I understand, yeah, so for what the article needs is more sources for it to stay? Not just ones from Habbo.co.uk/Sulake.com?--RofoUK (talk) 20:35, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't worry about it. I did it when I was new, too. Anyways, no, the website you mentioned would not work as the sources from there are not third-party and can possibly construe as original research. Read WP:V and especially WP:VG/S for what would count as reliable sources that help establish the article's notability. The latter contains some good websites that have been determined as verifiable. MuZemike (talk) 21:00, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 16:16, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I've failed to find any reliable sources from unrelated sites, so the event doesn't pass notability. Lots of forum posts, fansites etc., but nothing which would help the article. Someoneanother 22:20, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. If Pool's Closed don't get an article, but a certain in-game event does, then that sums it all. --PenaltyKillahJw21 01:25, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Not a viable excuse for a whole page about it. Perhaps a small mention on the actual Habbo page but not one solely for it. The information about it being rolled out to eventually 30,000,000 users is incorrect - Habbo UK have around 8m per month. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.45.160.30 (talk) 13:04, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You obviously don't know what your talking out - it's being rolled out internationally - with 31 hotels in operation, with an average of what... 8,000,000 per hotel... that totals to 240,000,000 (that's two-hundred and fourty million, if your not great with numbers). Nice try, though. --RofoUK (talk) 22:29, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- For now, Redirect to Habbo, let's try again if they do it multiple times. Not viable for an article of its own - yet - but I think whatever big verifiable facts there are here will fit just nicely as a section in the article. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 16:06, 31 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 by User:Orangemike and User:Dlohcierekim. ... discospinster talk 17:40, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
C. Lawrence Hansson[edit]
- C. Lawrence Hansson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This is a hoax. These do not read like the words of a Professor of Philosophy; and what we see here has been cleaned up by other editors - have a look at the initial version in which he was "on an impressive Financial Income" and was an "Ex - Australain Police officer and Medical Doctor" as well a philosopher.
The author Lawrencehansson (talk · contribs) was asked four weeks ago for proper references, and has provided only Myspace. Google finds profiles on Myspace and Yahoo answers, and this article, but nothing else relevant. Google Scholar doesn't find any publications by him. The article closely follows his Yahoo answers profile written in the first person, so even if the author is not the Prof. himself, he is using his words.
He lectures at "one of Queenslands most prestigious Universities" - wouldn't a real prof. tell us which one? He "grew up in Oxford," but the Myspace profile linked from the article says he was at Brisbane Grammar School from 1967-79. And while he was growing up in Oxford, his father was "a Counter Intelligence Agent in the British Embassy"??
Tagged as a hoax by user:Studerby who has documented the problems in more detail on the talk page. Delete. JohnCD (talk) 14:00, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Good grief. Winner of that world-renowned "Philosopher of the Year" award three times running, from Masters degree to professorship in just two years... truly a Confucius for our times. Delete as obvious hoax. Gr1st (talk) 14:32, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete as vandalism/hoax. So tagged. ... discospinster talk 16:09, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I was one of the users who cleanup it up, but it is a hoax. -- American Eagle (talk) 17:03, 30 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 he fails WP:ATHLETE. пﮟოьεԻ 57 08:30, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dilaver Güçlü[edit]
- Dilaver Güçlü (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Fails WP:ATHLETE as has never played in a fully pro league. Bneidror (talk) 13:39, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:51, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. GiantSnowman 16:32, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per nom. --Jimbo[online] 12:20, 31 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. --PeaceNT (talk) 16:32, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Kosuke Kato[edit]
- Kosuke Kato (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Isn't funny! rubbish Bneidror (talk) 13:30, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm thinking Speedy Delete as hoax as being born in 1993 and being 18 today are mutually exclusive. Jasynnash2 (talk) 13:37, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete absolute garbage. JuJube (talk) 23:29, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fictional "official" website. Yawn. -- Hoary (talk) 10:19, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Appears to be a hoax. External links don't work. -- Taku (talk) 11:48, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. There is no "Setagaya Prefecture". That, and multiple other reasons (such as WP:V) lead me to believe this is a hoax. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 03:43, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No reason to believe this is real Fg2 (talk) 06:06, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Since I've participated in this AfD, perhaps I shouldn't close it. Recommendation: close it (WP:SNOW), and then indefblock the creator of the article as a vandalism-only account. If you don't happen to know Japanese, you won't realize that an English equivalent of his name "Unchigoro" would be "Shitbert", "Shitfred", or similar: a clue as to what might be inside his head. -- Hoary (talk) 06:42, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I think this user has no idea, or its a hoax. Yes unchigoro does mean the nasty stuff. There are no articles to back anything. Yama88 (talk) 17:50, 1 August 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 List of dog hybrids. Keep arguments are weak, and do not establish notability. lifebaka++ 19:35, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dorgi[edit]
- Dorgi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Not a 'notable' hybrid. No reliable sources--WaxonWaxov (talk) 04:14, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:33, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. This was my first nomination for deletion (but it will not be the last) :)--WaxonWaxov (talk) 03:42, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep. Reliable sources clearly exist (see e.g. [29], or the citations to the Daily Mail and the Guardian in the article. However, most of the mentions are pretty trivial. What tips this over the edge into a keep for me is the fact that the Spectator apparently considered Dorgis notable enough to use them as the basis of a poetry competition ([30]). Scog (talk) 14:22, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Why are we considering this topic for deletion? The grounds appear to be that the subject is not 'notable'. Surely, even if it is not bred in huge numbers, or is a particularly noteworthy breed, the fact that it was "introduced" or first bred by a reigning Monarch gives it sufficient notability to be worthy of a mention? In 'dog' terms it might not be notable, but it is an item of 'trivia' related to a current Head of State, and 'dorgies' are frequently referred to in newspaper articles about the current Queen. I would suggest that there is sufficient public interest in the topic to warrant inclusion in this encyclopedia. The term 'Dorgi' is well known enough for people to want to seek information on the topic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Butcherscross (talk • contribs) 23:05, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- To answer your first question: see WP:POINT and Corgi-Chihuahua... Calliopejen1 (talk) 07:20, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I do not believe I am distrupting Wikipedia per WP:POINT. I am merely taking the reasons used to delete the article Corgi-Chihuahua and asking that they be used equally and fairly. If I was trying to disrupt Wikipedia then I'd being asking the ridiculous like deleting Beagle or something like that.--WaxonWaxov (talk) 21:08, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- To answer your first question: see WP:POINT and Corgi-Chihuahua... Calliopejen1 (talk) 07:20, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reason for nomination The fact that one of Elizabeth II's Corgi's got silly one day and decided to do the 'hibbity-dibbity' with a daschund does NOT make it a notable breed. It has been established here Corgi-Chihuahua that if a hybrid breed is not 'notable' then it needs to be deleted.--WaxonWaxov (talk) 03:40, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge/redirect to List of dog hybrids. All the mentions I can find are trivial and say the same thing--it was bred by the queen. This could easily be contained in the list article (adding another column for "breed" notes). No prejudice toward recreation as a stand-alone article if more sources are found. Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:26, 3 August 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++ 19:38, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Informatist[edit]
- Informatist (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Article does not seem to meet the general notability guideline, and the article has been tagged as such since last year. Article is also very much written like an advertisement. I also could not find any verifiable sources establishing said notability. MuZemike (talk) 09:18, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MuZemike (talk) 09:20, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:33, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment (From the article) "Informatist has been recommended for students as an educational business simulation[31] and is used in several schools as a part of Business Studies and Economics.[citation needed]" if the second part of this sentence can be proven, it sounds notable to me. -Verdatum (talk) 14:35, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, if a verifiable, third-party source can be found to back this up, then I say notability will have been established, and I'll consequently withdraw the AfD nomination. MuZemike (talk) 20:11, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - there is no coverage of this game in reliable sources. With respect to its use as a teaching aid, I see no evidence of it. The link provided is a teacherweb entry which looks like a laundry list of resources that teachers might want to use. -- Whpq (talk) 13:13, 31 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 and REDIRECT to Julius B. Richmond. — Satori Son 13:17, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Julius Richmond[edit]
- Julius Richmond (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) - (View AfD)
This is an orphan stub while there is a full article concerning the same individual under the title "Julius B. Richmond." The orphan stub with almost no biographical information should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Magottlieb (talk • contribs) 2008/07/28 20:40:56
- This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:33, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Should be a simple case of redirect to Julius B. Richmond, this article has no additional info to be merged in. Gr1st (talk) 12:45, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect agreed. Not an AFD, don't delete the page, just re-direct it. I'm going to be WP:BOLD and do just that... however, I've never closed an AFD and will need someone to do that for me.--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:56, 30 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. Tan ǀ 39 20:53, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sols[edit]
- Sols (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Was listed for speedy deletion under A-7, but A-& is for articles where importance is not asserted, not for articles where notability is in question. The article asserts importance for the subject in stating the person produces a comic strip. Therefore I removed the speedy tag but feel honour bound to bring the article here. Suggest it needs better sourcing, but if the person in question is a newspaper comic strip artist, see no reason why we should not have an article on the person in question, be it a stub or a small but well written article. Hiding T 11:58, 30 July 2008 (UTC) Hiding T 11:58, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete fails WP:BIO particularlly WP:CREATIVE. lacks any independent sources to establish notability. Even if the comic strip is notable, case for merging this person into comic strip article. Michellecrisp (talk) 12:01, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If you are looking for a merge then a simple redirect would solve the issue and we wouldn't need to be here. Deletion is not the solution to every problem with an article. Have you done the necessary research to discern if the person does indeed fail WP:BIO or are you basing it on the text in the article? And notability is a tremendously subjective topic for discussion. What we should really be debating, in all these sorts of debates, is whether we are here to replicate Britannica or to push the boundaries. Whether we are here to inform and serve, or to censor. Are we abolishing the elite, or simply replacing it? Wikipedia was set up to avoid the traps of previous encyclopedia, why are we now seeking to import their problems? Have we lost sight of our original intentions? Hiding T 12:06, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- My strong preference is delete. As another admin once told me, the onus is on those wanting to retain an article or info should justify it, not those challenging it. Being an Australian with some interest in comics I've never heard of this person or this comic strip. In fact, it could almost be verging on the artist using Wikipedia as an self advert. Michellecrisp (talk) 12:08, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- <edit conflict. Comment by Michellecrisp above has been amended since this reply> The other admin was merely offering an opinion, not speaking the gospel truth. The onus is on doing the right thing. The comic strip has been collected in the past, and the author has an entry at Lambiek, [32] and the dictionary of Australian artists, [33]. I've never heard of such and such is not the best argument to make in a deletion debate, as per WP:IDONTKNOWIT. Hiding T 12:15, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Given the contribution history of the creator of this article, I would suggest MichelleCrisp strike her comment regarding self promotion, which could be seen as libellous and is certainly ill-advised. Hiding T 12:17, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Quite simply this person fails WP:CREATIVE, I don't see how they have met:
Simply being a comic artist of a newspaper is not sufficient. the person in question is a newspaper comic strip artist, see no reason why we should not have an article on the person in question is not a criterion for WP:BIO or WP:CREATIVE. There needs to be a substantial and well documented recognition of achievement. Michellecrisp (talk) 12:24, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors. 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. The person's work either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums, or had works in many significant libraries
- Person does not fail WP:CREATIVE, as my recent edits to the article will show. The artist has been the subject of an exhibition, and is credited as the "first new Australian comic since the 1930's" and also as "the start of a different era in Australian cartooning" by the Queen Victoria Museum and Art Gallery. I apologise that you have never heard of this person, but, as I said earlier, did you base your opinion on the text of the article or upon the research you performed? Hiding T 12:49, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Given that your edit history reveals a liking for comics, does the person in question is a newspaper comic strip artist, see no reason why we should not have an article on the person in question suggest WP:ILIKEIT? Michellecrisp (talk) 12:52, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, you can do better than that. I pretty much define I Like It and I Don't Like It and how I feel about them in User:Hiding/Points_to_note_regarding_deletion_debates#I Like it and I Don't Like It. It doesn't matter whether I like them. I've edited the article to meet all our policies and guidance. That's what matters. The simple fact of the matter is that this article should now be kept, and people should do a tad more research before they list something for speedy deletion. Hiding T 13:01, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- you basically invented a new criterion for WP:CREATIVE. Having participated in a few deletion discussions in my time, I've never seen this. Please keep to the subject in hand rather than debating whether deletion criteria are good enough for Wikipedia. Michellecrisp (talk) 13:05, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm staggered by this accusation. WP:CREATIVE states, I quote you above, "The person is regarded as an important figure" and "has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition". I think the quotations show how the person is regarded as an important figure, and the fact that the person's work formed the basis of the exhibition Art and Sols at the Queen Victoria Museum and Art Gallery upon which they base an education kit for schools should show that he has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition. I too have participated in a few deletion debates, I hadn't realised that was important. Does that help sway the debate? Perhaps you would care to explain your assertion that I created a new criterion for WP:CREATIVE, as well as your assertion that the subject of the article is seeking to self-promote. Yes, I would much rather keep to our policies. This article passes WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. Since admins are supposed to close in keeping with policy:
“ | Wikipedia policy, which requires that articles and information be verifiable, avoid being original research, not violate copyright, and be written from a neutral point of view is not negotiable, and cannot be superseded by any other guidelines or by editors' consensus. A closing admin must determine whether any article violates policy, and where it is very unlikely that an article on the topic can exist without breaching policy, it must be respected above individual opinions. | ” |
- I have to ask, why do you think this article should be deleted, noting I have already also satisfied the guidance at WP:BIO, which, per the above quote, doesn't matter since it can't supersede policy? Hiding T 13:18, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I will no longer respond to your queries. this is not a place for lecturing other users in Wikipedia. I will let the deletion discussion run and welcome others to vote. Michellecrisp (talk) 13:23, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I have to ask, why do you think this article should be deleted, noting I have already also satisfied the guidance at WP:BIO, which, per the above quote, doesn't matter since it can't supersede policy? Hiding T 13:18, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- Hiding T 13:02, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. —Hiding T 13:03, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Delete It is easy enough to see why the article was tagged for speedy as simply being an artist isn't an assertion of notability. The subject appears to fail verifiability issues as well by not being covered in multiple reliable 3rd party sources in a non-trivial manner. Searches on his real name produces very little information and searching on his "nickname" doesn't help much at all. Jasynnash2 (talk) 14:06, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability is not a speedy deletion criterion. Subject does not fail verifiability, since all information is verifiable and third party sources have covered the subject. You seem to be conflating notability guidance with the verifiability policy. Our verifiability policy states that we should have an article on all subjects covered by third party sources. The sources exist. They are cited in the article. If I had access to an Australian newspaper library I am sure I could find a lot more, but we aren't biased towards google or online sources. The subject is stated by an Australian museum to have created the "first new Australian comic since the 1930's" and also representing "the start of a different era in Australian cartooning". We don't perform original research on Wikipedia, we source opinion. There is the sourced opinion. Ignoring that is bias, something we also don't do per WP:NPOV. WP:CREATIVE and WP:V all state we should cover this person. Hiding T 07:40, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "Notability is not a speedy deletion criterion". No but, lack of an assertion of notability is. Simply saying that he is an artist isn't an assertion of notability. If you'd care to help clear up my confusion about notability and/or verifiability etc. Let's discuss it in a civilised manner elsewhere. Accusing me of ignoring the references in the article is ridiculous and doesn't help the article itself in anyway. The index confirms existence (not the same as notability), the ArtInsight confirms that his work is on show (again not the same as notability), the bio (again confirms existence not notability), Lambiek.net (same). Existence doesn't equal notability. Verifying that he exists is not the same as verifying that he is notable. BTW all the sources use his real name so if the article is ultimately kepted it should probably be renamed. Jasynnash2 (talk) 09:24, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you show me the speedy criteria which states "lack of an assertion of notability" is a reason to speedy delete? The only related one I can find is A7, which states it is a lower standard than notability. I am accusing you of nothing. You seem to accuse me of simply saying he is an artist, when I am patently not, the article states he has been the subject of a national exhibition and described as having initiated "a different era in Australian cartooning" satisfies notability. I'm interested in why you think that doesn't confer notability, given it satisfies WP:CREATIVE. Hiding T 09:48, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please forgive my ignorance on the exact wording of A7. I was confusing it with the edit summaries that I've most often seen associated with it. The article does imply that he may be "important or significant". My "accustation" comes directly from your nomination of the article where you say "The article asserts importance for the subject in stating the person produces a comic strip" and that is because lots of people produce comic strips (that doesn't automatically make them important). I still have to stick with my other comments though at least until some reliable 3rd party sources that cover the subject in a non-trival manner come to light. Jasynnash2 (talk) 12:15, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The article as it now stands seems to clearly satisfy notability criteria. Esn (talk) 17:55, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - he is a comic strip artist with his strip in syndication world-wide, and his work has been exhibted in art galleries -- Whpq (talk) 13:26, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - seems to be a reasonable start on nailing down notability. Needs more work though but there must be some interviews out there (although the long run of his comic strip might mean some aren't available online). Also on Snake Tales, it might be worth merging that into Sols and then expanding it to a point where it is looking solid enough to split off. (Emperor (talk) 19:42, 3 August 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. --PeaceNT (talk) 16:33, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Enspire Learning[edit]
- Enspire Learning (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This is a small non-notable company in a non-notable field. Almost all edits are by its creator, a sole use account. Was listed for speedy but that was removed by another user. Dmol (talk) 11:05, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Notability not established. Looks like an advert. I wouldn't be surprised if the article creator is a company employee. WMMartin (talk) 13:53, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, no notability established: e-learning program for the executive education market, vaguely written and fits the profile. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 13:57, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete it's a spam article. no explanation at all given for the speedy removal. Jasynnash2 (talk) 14:12, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete per nom and WP:SPAM -- Darth Mike (Talk • Contribs) 17:13, 30 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. Tan ǀ 39 21:12, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cool Herders[edit]
- Cool Herders (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
contested prod. article on game that lacks a claim to notability and lack significant secondary references Duffbeerforme (talk) 10:34, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Notability? The game is listed on: http://dreamcast.ign.com/objects/763/763406.html, http://uk.gamespot.com/ds/action/coolherders/index.html and http://www.gamestats.com/objects/763/763406/index.html to name just a few —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.148.36.103 (talk) 08:41, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 14:02, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The sources given above establish that the game exists, but don't have any actual reviews or significant coverage. Just being mentioned or listed on a site doesn't come close to satisfying WP:N. Also, this game was never ported to the DS despite expectations that it would happen over a year ago. -- Atamachat 17:20, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Also saw attempt to canvass outside of Wikipedia in a forum thread warning people that this article was up for deletion. We may get more single-purpose accounts from anon IPs trying to protect this article. -- Atamachat 17:32, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I added this exact message with the GOAT Store's notability thing, and I think it also applies here so I will just copy and paste it -- I've never wrote anything before, but I was browsing all independent games and saw this so I thought I would try. From what I have read, according to the standards of Notability, this company would be notable based on the fact that their games are listed on a number of web sites with reference to the official releases for the Dreamcast in the United States. If this entry is removed, it calls into question all of the entries in the Independently Developed Dreamcast Games, as they would all fail notability for the same reason. And, if all of the Independently Developed Dreamcast Games entries are removed, it would call into question a lot of the other games released for earlier consoles, such as the Panesian NES games which is where I started my reading tonight. I was looking for games not made by the original manufacturers, but were still considered complete releases. Many of these games may not be famous or even well known, but the fact that they were produced in a different way to standard releases makes them more notable for the sake of history than many of the standard releases, as not many consoles experienced such releases, so I vote for keep unless it is determined that no independent releases would ever be notable, which I think many people would disagree with. —Preceding unsigned comment added by D3l8 (talk • contribs) 06:18, 1 August 2008 (UTC) — D318 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Comment - I added this message in reply so I'll copy and paste it as well: The fact that other stuff exists is usually not a good reason to keep an article, just FYI. And again, merely being listed on web sites isn't sufficient for notability. You make an unusual argument that something is notable because it is obscure, that's one I've never heard before. Also, I'd like to point out that my prediction of anonymous people showing up just to defend these articles because of off-site canvassing is coming true. -- Atamachat 15:50, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment- Also copied and pasted, since I think it still works here: While I understand what you're saying, the exact article you reference states, "If someone were, as part of their reasoning for keep, to say that every other main character in Star Wars has an article, this may well be a valid point. In this manner, using an "Other Stuff Exists" angle provides for consistency." For consistency, the Dreamcast also has List_of_commercially_released_independently_developed_Dreamcast_games, and after doing more searching last night, every single Dreamcast independent release that I could find was on this list, but only the Cool Herders entry and this one were up for deletion. I would understand the notability reasoning if all articles were up for deletion, but deleting only random ones would be inconsistent according to the Wikipedia policy. I don't understand your off-site canvassing comment, as I was looking to find out more information abut these games yesterday and found these pages through that search. I just thought I could add something to the comment that as a collector I think is legit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by D3l8 (talk • contribs) 16:37, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Inclusion is not an indicator of notability. If other such articles meet criteria for deletion, they shall be dealt with in due time as they are discovered. Keep in mind that there is only a small number of editors compared to the tens of thousands of video game articles out there. It is not right to lay blame any inconsistencies in deletion policy on said editors. MuZemike (talk) 17:53, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It is not an WP:ALLORNOTHING choice. The status of other articles has no bearing on this article. Notability of an article is established with verifiable, third-party sources. The websites that are cited must be reliable (e.g. from reputable sites such as IGN, GameSpot, or Joystiq, see WP:VG/S). I recommend you read (or re-read) WP:N and WP:GNG for what is needed to establish notabilty, and argue based on that. MuZemike (talk) 16:18, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I think that I demonstrated in my first response that according to another portion of the Wiki guidelines (which can be interpreted in different ways, of course) that the WP:OSE article provides a basis for keeping it. Having said that, using your interpretation, I searched for Cool Herders on all three of the sites that you provided, and it came up on all three of them. GameSpot only had the DS news, but the others had news on both the Dreamcast and DS versions. Also, I think that is is worth noting that as I tried to state in my first comment, according to Notability, "The topic of an article should be notable, or "worthy of notice." Notability is distinct from "fame," "importance," or "popularity..." I interpreted this as meaning that they don't have to necessarily be on those sites to still be notable, but what they did has to be notable for some reason. This game would also be noticeable specifically because it was an unlicensed game that was picked up for publishing on a viable system, even if it has not yet appeared on that system. I have not found one other case that an unlicensed game was noticed due to an independent release on a console system, therefore making this particular release perhaps the most notable of all of the List_of_commercially_released_independently_developed_Dreamcast_games.
- Comment - You missed that coverage of the article's subject must be significant to establish notability. A mention on a web site isn't significantly notable. I know why you think it's notable, but it still doesn't fit any of the WP:N criteria. -- Atamachat 17:13, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - According to the definition of the term 'significant' by the entry in Wikipedia, it needs to be more than just a passing mention but can be less than a huge book. It needs to be enough to write a short, verifiable article. Since many of the findings about this game are news articles that are short, but are specifically written about this title (such as [[34]], [[35]], [[36]], [[37]], etc.), it would establish that the coverage is more than trivial since it is not a passing mention in another article, but articles of it's own -- although at this point the coverage is far less than exclusive. (As a side note, being involved in this is fascinating and makes me want to participate in the rest of the site, which I had never considered before. Great community, and I respect whatever result is chosen and think its has been fascinating to be part of the process). —Preceding unsigned comment added by D3l8 (talk • contribs) 17:41, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Good to have you around, D318, and I hope you stay. In fact I'd recommend that you check out the Wikipedia Video Games Project to see if there might be something interesting for you to get involved in. As to the links you posted above, all of them but the first one amount to a brief description of the game and an announcement that it was coming out. The first link is the only substantial coverage of Cool Herders I've seen on a site that might be considered a reliable source (though I'm not sure, see the Pocket Gamer article). The other three links aren't articles, in fact the GameSpy link (which is for a game that doesn't even exist, the DS version of Cool Herders) says that Cool Herders has no actual articles on the site. -- Atamachat 04:47, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - There was also an article about it at joystiq [here] Darksaviour69 (talk) 12:11, 4 August 2008 (UTC)— Darksavior69 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Comment - Good to have you around, D318, and I hope you stay. In fact I'd recommend that you check out the Wikipedia Video Games Project to see if there might be something interesting for you to get involved in. As to the links you posted above, all of them but the first one amount to a brief description of the game and an announcement that it was coming out. The first link is the only substantial coverage of Cool Herders I've seen on a site that might be considered a reliable source (though I'm not sure, see the Pocket Gamer article). The other three links aren't articles, in fact the GameSpy link (which is for a game that doesn't even exist, the DS version of Cool Herders) says that Cool Herders has no actual articles on the site. -- Atamachat 04:47, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - According to the definition of the term 'significant' by the entry in Wikipedia, it needs to be more than just a passing mention but can be less than a huge book. It needs to be enough to write a short, verifiable article. Since many of the findings about this game are news articles that are short, but are specifically written about this title (such as [[34]], [[35]], [[36]], [[37]], etc.), it would establish that the coverage is more than trivial since it is not a passing mention in another article, but articles of it's own -- although at this point the coverage is far less than exclusive. (As a side note, being involved in this is fascinating and makes me want to participate in the rest of the site, which I had never considered before. Great community, and I respect whatever result is chosen and think its has been fascinating to be part of the process). —Preceding unsigned comment added by D3l8 (talk • contribs) 17:41, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - You missed that coverage of the article's subject must be significant to establish notability. A mention on a web site isn't significantly notable. I know why you think it's notable, but it still doesn't fit any of the WP:N criteria. -- Atamachat 17:13, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I think that I demonstrated in my first response that according to another portion of the Wiki guidelines (which can be interpreted in different ways, of course) that the WP:OSE article provides a basis for keeping it. Having said that, using your interpretation, I searched for Cool Herders on all three of the sites that you provided, and it came up on all three of them. GameSpot only had the DS news, but the others had news on both the Dreamcast and DS versions. Also, I think that is is worth noting that as I tried to state in my first comment, according to Notability, "The topic of an article should be notable, or "worthy of notice." Notability is distinct from "fame," "importance," or "popularity..." I interpreted this as meaning that they don't have to necessarily be on those sites to still be notable, but what they did has to be notable for some reason. This game would also be noticeable specifically because it was an unlicensed game that was picked up for publishing on a viable system, even if it has not yet appeared on that system. I have not found one other case that an unlicensed game was noticed due to an independent release on a console system, therefore making this particular release perhaps the most notable of all of the List_of_commercially_released_independently_developed_Dreamcast_games.
- Delete Doesn't meet WP:N. Nintendo DS version was never released. Game too unknown. 91.89.109.219 (talk) 20:51, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep per Joystiq source mentioned above. However, it's going to need more such verifiable sources to keep the article from being nominated again for deletion. MuZemike (talk) 19:58, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Although I think the articles listed above help it to meet verifiability criteria, it falls just short of notability, even with the joystiq source. It may be there if more reputable sources can be found, however it appears as though that is not going to happen. If the DS version comes out, this will likely become notable and the article can be rewritten then. Addionne (talk) 13:06, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Not as big/reputable as joystiq but there is also [1],[2] [3] [4]. But also Edge-online which is listed under WP:VG/S Darksaviour69 (talk) 13:45, 5 August 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 --JForget 23:27, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
ComFin[edit]
- ComFin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
No asserted notability, some advertorial cruft has been removed since it was speedily deleted twice but it still reads like an advertisement. TrulyBlue (talk) 10:26, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete. Several times CSD'd as the article was nothing more that a puff piece of advertising for the company and a particular piece of software. It's slightly less crufty, sure, but fails on notability grounds. The article has been created by several SPA's too, which is never a good sign - someone wants their company advertised, but wikipedia ain't a business directory. Minkythecat (talk) 11:23, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete another spam article about a company that fails our notability and verifiability policies/guidelines. Jasynnash2 (talk) 14:14, 30 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 as a copyvio from http://theblogofmichael.blogspot.com/2008/07/bolf.html. I would have rewritten out the copyvio, however, this seemed destined for deletion as something made up in school and which the creator had hoped to gain attention for/promote via the article. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 22:32, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Bolf[edit]
- Bolf (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. ➨ Ʀƹɗѵєɾϧ collects very sharp bread knives 09:49, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Perhaps Michael is the creator of the article? Parts of the 'Bolf' article here was copied from this blog page. The blogger says the Bolf article has just now been added to Wikipedia. I'm uncertain of its notability. Artene50 (talk) 10:04, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete non-notable and non-verifiable by reliable 3rd party sources. Jasynnash2 (talk) 14:21, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Just another madeup game. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 21:31, 30 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 Deli Creeps, redirecting rest. Merging left to editorial discretion. lifebaka++ 12:40, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dawn of the Deli Creeps[edit]
- Dawn of the Deli Creeps (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
I doubt this band meets WP:MUSIC. There's one album released on a minor label, and two demo tapes. I am also nominating the album articles.
- Deli Creeps (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (this is the band article, main nomination is the album article, sorry for the confusion)
- Deli Creeps Demo Tape 1991 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Deli Creeps Demo Tape 1996 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
--B. Wolterding (talk) 09:48, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Deli Creeps based on Bucketheads membership.
If Deli Creeps is keptKeep Dawn of the Deli Creeps. Merge relevant info from the demos into Deli Creeps. Duffbeerforme (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 10:47, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep 2 entire articles, in the absence of substantial sources, only because the group had a certain member? That seems to defy common sense. As per WP:MUSIC, "[...] it is often most appropriate to use redirects in place of articles on side projects, early bands and such", so if you want a redirect to Buckethead, that's fine for me, but I don't see that the band as such warrants an article, and even less their album. --B. Wolterding (talk) 11:42, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sometimes a redirect is appropriate. In this case my (most likely biased) opinion is that is not so in this case. I have also modified my position on Dawn of the Deli Creeps. That article should be kept as a Buckethead album regardless of wether or not Deli Creeps is kept or becomes a redirect (if Deli Creeps is not kept it should become a redirect to Buckethead). I have also updated the Deli Creeps article. Duffbeerforme (talk) 15:08, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep 2 entire articles, in the absence of substantial sources, only because the group had a certain member? That seems to defy common sense. As per WP:MUSIC, "[...] it is often most appropriate to use redirects in place of articles on side projects, early bands and such", so if you want a redirect to Buckethead, that's fine for me, but I don't see that the band as such warrants an article, and even less their album. --B. Wolterding (talk) 11:42, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As I understand WP:MUSIC if the band has a notable member they count as a notable band. For this reason Keep Deli Creeps and merge the album information there. Jasynnash2 (talk) 14:25, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep main page for meeting WP:MUSIC#C6 and merge the albums. Esradekan Gibb "Talk" 15:10, 30 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) 18:42, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yin & Yang: Might and Magic School[edit]
- List of Yin&Yang: Might and Magic School Characters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- List of Yin&Yang: Might and Magic School Episodes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Yin & Yang: Might and Magic School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Possible hoax, not yet notable per WP:CRYSTAL Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 05:09, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete As well as being a non-notable future event, google news, google etc turn up 0 results, I think it fails notability guidelines. —Atyndall [citation needed] 06:47, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete WP:CRYSTAL problems, indeed. Ecoleetage (talk) 11:57, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all as well as even I had a hard time finding any source to verify the content in this article. Please also note these related articles that really should be considered in conjunction with this discussion: List of Yin&Yang: Might and Magic School Characters and List of Yin&Yang: Might and Magic School Episodes. If sources do turn up during the course of this discussion, these short sub-articles should be merged and redirected to the article in question for the time being. Also, the article needs a lead. If it is a television show, it should say that in a first sentence. I did what I could style and format-wise with these three articles, but sources are key here. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 04:30, 29 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, Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 09:04, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete WP:HOAX. This is supposed to be a new season/spin-off of Yin-Yang-Yo!, but doesn't show up in Google at all. If this were real, Disney would be promoting it, and there would be Google hits. --Phirazo 15:02, 30 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 he fails WP:ATHLETE. If he ever plays, drop me a message and I'll restore it. пﮟოьεԻ 57 08:27, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Danny Galm[edit]
- Danny Galm (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Fails WP:ATHLETE as has never played in a fully pro league. Bneidror (talk) 09:05, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - it appears as if he currently is on the roster of FC Energie Cottbus, a professional club. BWH76 (talk) 09:18, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:47, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete being in a roster is not enough, he must play a competitive match. --Angelo (talk) 13:48, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. GiantSnowman 16:31, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- He had played in the highest amateur league while signed at VfB Stuttgart II. According to WP:ATHLETE it's enough to make it. -Lemmy- (talk) 16:51, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - signed for, and will clearly play in Fußball-Bundesliga. Technically could be removed for 3 weeks until the season starts, but this is a waste of everyone's time to go through this AfD, and then a DRV. If he drops dead in the next 3 weeks relist the AfD. Nfitz (talk) 18:37, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "will clearly play" which of course is a WP:CRYSTAL violation. "Quotendeutscher", I don't thinking that he will play. Bneidror (talk) 19:03, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not a WP:CRYSTAL violation - it says "Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place."; we've established that a match between two professional teams in league play is notable - and that this player will almost certainly be playing; WP:CRYSTAL isn't violated. Nfitz (talk) 23:09, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Is there anything more reliable than gut feeling to confirm that he will "almost certainly be playing"........? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:45, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not a WP:CRYSTAL violation - it says "Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place."; we've established that a match between two professional teams in league play is notable - and that this player will almost certainly be playing; WP:CRYSTAL isn't violated. Nfitz (talk) 23:09, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. 217.93.42.152 (talk) 11:39, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "will clearly play" which of course is a WP:CRYSTAL violation. "Quotendeutscher", I don't thinking that he will play. Bneidror (talk) 19:03, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as he fails notability at WP:ATHLETE having never played in a fully-pro league. No sufficient media interest for him to pass WP:Bio. --Jimbo[online] 12:24, 31 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 he fails WP:ATHLETE. пﮟოьεԻ 57 08:29, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Juvhel Tsoumou[edit]
- Juvhel Tsoumou (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Fails WP:ATHLETE as has never played in a fully pro league. Bneidror (talk) 08:46, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:47, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. --Angelo (talk) 13:48, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. GiantSnowman 16:32, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per nom. --Jimbo[online] 12:20, 31 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 he fails WP:ATHLETE. пﮟოьεԻ 57 08:30, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
David Vržogić[edit]
- David Vržogić (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Fails WP:ATHLETE as has never played in a fully pro league. Bneidror (talk) 08:38, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:48, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. --Angelo (talk) 13:49, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. GiantSnowman 16:32, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per nom. --Jimbo[online] 12:20, 31 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 - author blanked. nancy talk 12:03, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Clarence Smith (actor)[edit]
- Clarence Smith (actor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
hoax Transcendence (talk) 08:10, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as a likely WP:HOAX The article's creator removed the content but I restored it for people to view. Artene50 (talk) 09:41, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I have CSD`d it as VANDALISM Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 09:45, 30 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++ 20:38, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OpenWine Consortium[edit]
- OpenWine Consortium (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
WP:COI article written largely by the founder of this organization. As a member of WP:WINE, I looked into rewriting the article until I realized that I had hardly anything to work with because this organization hasn't received any mainstream coverage by independent, third party sources. The only things on the web are less than reliable blog entries written mostly by people that are members of this organization. Right now there is little to establish notability or to even verify it claims of membership and purpose. The organization is fairly new (Feb 2008) so it may eventually achieve notability and receive mainstream coverage by reliable sources. Hopefully then we'll be able to craft an article from scratch that was not written as an ad by the founder. AgneCheese/Wine 07:27, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- So your criteria is Public Relations? We haven't spent an time creating press releases and are known mostly in industry circles. Producing a conference for wine bloggers. Have mentions and discussion in prominent industry blogs (hardly considered "less than reliable"), have been referenced by and given educational talks at industry conferences (WITS and Inertia Beverage Direct To Consumer Symposium). Of course the people who've written about the organization are members of the organization because it has an open membership. Even the mainstream media that has written about the OWC are members of the site. Your reference to this article as an "ad by the founder" isn't appreciated because that was not the intention at all so you appear to be condescending when you say that. I think its important for you to understand this was meant as a legitimate entry. So we'll give this time and revisit later. With a better understanding of what needs to be done in order to have the article written I'll make sure you have what you need. Joel —Preceding undated comment was added at 18:46, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I apologize for my tone. Re-reading it, it does seem to come across as WP:BITE-ish. But there is a disconnect between the article and Wikipedia's policies. I recommend reading our policy on reliable sources to see why blogs (especially those written mostly by members) are considered "less than reliable" compared to mainstream independent, third party sources (like Wine Spectator, New York Times, San Francisco Chronicle, etc). I would also recommend reading our policies on conflict of interest and guidelines on how articles can end up sounding like an advertisement rather than an encyclopedia article--even if that is not your intent. One of the benefits of having editors without a COI edit the article is that their detachment adds to an objective and neutral portrayal. As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia has broader intentions beyond being simply a listing of organization and we are dependent on mainstream independent, third party sources to help establish notability and "encyclopedic-ness" of our article topics. As you noted, your organization hasn't had time to establish notability. That is fine. When it does start to garner notability and reliable sources become available, Wikipedia will be glad to have an article on it. But right now it falls outside our policies on several levels. AgneCheese/Wine 20:30, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Whether the founder appreciates it or not, I will say it: This article appears to be an advertisement, written by someone with a clear conflict of interest. And this blog by the owner makes it abundantly clear that the purpose of having this article on Wikipedia is for publicity purposes. Wikipedia doesn't exist for that purpose. Wikicompany may be a better venue. This article should be deleted, and the author should follow this guideline for re-creating it. =Axlq 23:26, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Utterly fails WP:CORP. Where are the reliable secondary sources about it? - Merzbow (talk) 00:36, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - there is no coverage in reliable sources to establish notability, and the article as it stands is essentially an advertisement -- Whpq (talk) 13:36, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Not notable (at the moment) Camw (talk) 02:08, 1 August 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 independent coverage.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:05, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Big Bug Man[edit]
- Big Bug Man (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This film doesn't seem to be set or a go anywhere. Most of the links given in the references section are dead, or are very early simple press releases, all related to Marlon Brando's allegedly voicing a small part. There is no listing at the IMDB for the film, or in any filmographies of supposedly connected actors. The actual film website is a very basic, seemingly amateurish site and no distribution company is noted.
The article fails WP:NF in that there is no distributor attached and it fails to meet any of the other qualifications in general principles of film notability. It should be deleted based on WP:NFF. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:39, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep. It's a film that fails the film notability subcriteria, but that's irrelevant, since the refs (which I checked to make sure) pass this article under the primary notability criterion. Indeed, the film does seem to be headed nowhere, but that only means it needs updated references. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:02, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. —Esn (talk) 18:05, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, or merge if this is not possible. There's enough coverage about the film for it to be notable even if it is never released, I think. My primary concern is that if it were merged into Marlon Brando, only a small amount of the detail in the article would make it through for stylistic reasons. The details of Brando's last acting role are notable enough, and have been covered in enough secondary sources, so I think it's better to leave it up. Esn (talk) 07:55, 4 August 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. Tan ǀ 39 21:40, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Seventeen Minutes In The Cheap Seats[edit]
- Seventeen Minutes In The Cheap Seats (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Article is for album mistakenly attributed to band MGMT. This album is by an unrelated band who predated MGMT in use of the name "The Managment". All the sources from MGMT article indicate that the band was formed in December 2001 while the founders were in their first semester of college. This album is listed on Amazon as being published in July 2001. William Graham talk 06:37, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Right; MGMT's official website also gives the 2002 formation date, so this is plain wierd. It's worth also noting that neither this other band nor the label have articles, so notability is doubtful and not asserted aside from the false claim. Google hits are unconvincing and few from a quick search. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:13, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think this article should be kept so future readers have a reference to the previous band, and don't confuse it with MGMT. User:Jmckinley talk 17:11, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It just seems that would be a kind of strange reason to keep in article in consideration of the notability criteria. It would be like adding the criterion that having the same name as a notable entity automatically gets something an article. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:19, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Should it simply be mentioned on the main MGMT page then? User:Jmckinley talk 19:54, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, no, and for the same reason. Just change "gets something an article" to "gets something a mention." For the same reason we don't have a list of cybersquatting copycats at every article on an online company, and this is what prevents me from starting my own "The Management" band and getting it a mention on Wikipedia merely by existing. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:00, 30 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 into D2: The Mighty Ducks. Most people seem to favour merging into te Mighty Ducks article. I am assuming that they mean to merge it into the sequel's article (which is the movie it seems to appear in).TigerShark (talk) 22:39, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Knuckle puck[edit]
- Knuckle puck (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Physically impossible hockey shot from a single movie (the sequel to The Mighty Ducks). Does not have any relevance outside of its use as a plot point in that movie. — Gwalla | Talk 05:57, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge with The Mighty Ducks. That should be obvious; I don't see why this warrants an AFD nomination. =Axlq 06:11, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into Knuckleball which seems to be the inspiration. Note that the topic is wider than the Mighty Ducks since the article explains that novice players in the real world often try this. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:07, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to The Mighty Ducks. BWH76 (talk) 09:20, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge with The Mighty Ducks, though part of me, the part of me that is a hockey fan, wishes we could remove the Mighty Ducks from history, but that is another matter... Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:32, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This should not be merged with The Mighty Ducks, it has nothing to do with that movie. I have no opinion on merging it with the movie article over Knuckleball, but if it is merged to the movie article, it should be D2: The Mighty Ducks. -Verdatum (talk) 14:43, 30 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, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!) 18:24, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ligase chain reaction[edit]
- Ligase chain reaction (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
The context doesn't make it clear what this article's about, it seems far too specialized, it has no listed sources or references, and the last sentence makes me suspect it's a copyvio of a textbook. Reyk YO! 05:26, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw Nomination - DGG's salvaged it. Well done. Reyk YO! 11:34, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
SPEEDY DELETE. Blatant copyvio. Article has been tagged accordingly. =Axlq 06:16, 30 July 2008 (UTC)Good work. =Axlq 14:14, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]Speedy delete. Yes, and the first paragraph of the article is pulled straight from here.Someguy1221 (talk) 07:27, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- keep as rewritten certainly notable, and very far indeed from being overspecialised, so i rewrote the lede completely, deleted the rest, and added some references to get things started. EC with Someguy suggesting that on my talk page. DGG (talk) 07:54, 30 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 Charles S. Cockell, there was nothing to merge except to add a source. --JForget 23:23, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Forward to Mars Party[edit]
- Forward to Mars Party (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Contested PROD (twice removed by anon editor). The party has stood once in British elections. It achieved less than 0.5% of the vote. It has not been heard before or since. Whilst minor parties may be credible and notable, this party's tiny vote share and lack of credible, or notable, campaign work prior or since suggests they are a non-notable party. This is contary to WP:N and associated policies on organisations. See Money Reform Party for another recently removed example of non-notable one-failed candidate parties doktorb wordsdeeds 05:06, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge & Redirect to Charles S. Cockell, who was the leader of this party, and it seems relevant to his article. Reyk YO! 05:33, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per Reyk. Jkasd 06:39, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge & Redirect At the time it stood there was no formal registration of parties and any candidate could use whatever label they liked so this "party" may never have been anything more than a description for one candidate standing against a high profile politician. Timrollpickering (talk) 10:44, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge & Redirect There isn't a Notability policy on political parties, is there? Шизомби (talk) 13:54, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There is a draft notability guideline for political parties at Wikipedia:Notability (political parties). Road Wizard (talk) 17:18, 2 August 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 g11, advertising. NawlinWiki (talk) 14:28, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hindu Sangam[edit]
- Hindu Sangam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Possible notable term, but as is, the article is an advertisement for hindusangam.org. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 04:53, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 04:57, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 04:57, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 05:06, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 05:07, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete there seems to be an article on Tamil Sangams, with a redirect from Sangam. Some potential for a merger, perhaps? The article as it stands is pure pork (I apologise in advance for any offense), and it's pretty much beyond redemption, and one might be better off starting from scratch. Ohconfucius (talk) 05:44, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This one is definitely an advert. Tried searching for some secondary sources to improve the links. Couldnt find any. Prashanthns (talk) 06:09, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete total Spam -- Darth Mike (Talk • Contribs) 06:10, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete CSD-G11 refers to articles of blatent advertising. GizzaDiscuss © 07:19, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhapns
notblatant enough for a speedy. Prashanthns (talk) 07:57, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]- Per the two users below, I have proposed a speedy delete. Prashanthns (talk) 12:47, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhapns
- Speedy Delete:It was advert tagged in November 2006 itself[38]. The article is an advert for an event that is long over and does not seem to have generated much interest outside the Hindu community in US(I wonder how much interest it genereated inside the US anyway).--Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 09:57, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete per above. Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:33, 30 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. --PeaceNT (talk) 17:13, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Raftaar[edit]
- Raftaar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Explicitly fails future film notability guidelines. No prejudice towards recreation when reliable sources can show that shooting has already begun. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 04:25, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 10:20, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Will not start filming until September, according to the sources linked in the article. PC78 (talk) 10:22, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete without prejudice article is welcome to return once filming has actually began. Fails Wikipedia:NFF. Article was premature. Michael Q. Schmidt (talk) 17:30, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Hasn't started filming. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 23:37, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Ned Scott 06:47, 1 August 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 Alien Quadrilogy to Alien (franchise), delete rest. For future reference, it is easier on closing admins to list these separately. lifebaka++ 12:53, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Christopher Reeve Superman Collection[edit]
- The Christopher Reeve Superman Collection (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Wikipedia is not Amazon.com - while limited discussion of DVD releases of material is certainly relevant and welcome within the articles about a film series, a complete catalog-style explication of every detail is trivial information. Packaged releases generally are not independently notable in themselves and are only relevant in context to their source material. (One can imagine the consequences of allowing this to continue - across all media - unchecked.) Suggest Merge and extensive scaling down of trivial release details. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 03:35, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following related pages:
- Superman Ultimate Collector's Edition (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- The Complete Superman Collection (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Alien Quadrilogy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- List of DVD film franchise collections (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Omen pentology box set (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- The Exorcist - The Complete Anthology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 10:20, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge the useful content from Alien Quadrilogy ("Origins and production", "Reception") elsewhere, but delete the rest due to indiscriminate detail from the primary sources themselves. We're not Amazon.com, are we? :) —Erik (talk • contrib) - 10:56, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy close and Relist as inappropriate AFD. These articles are about completely different topics - one's a list, the rest are indivdiual articles on different productions. This is as bad as citing WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS as a rationale for supporting an article. No prejudice against renomination separately, although for the record I do plan to vote Keep for these as there is no prohibition regarding major releases of this type. If my suggestion to close and relist is not supported, then consider this comment to be a Keep all vote. 23skidoo (talk) 17:47, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It follows that if the individual articles are deemed unnotable, then the list would be equally so. (At least it does to me.) Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 18:24, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The fact the a package of DVDs is offered for sale could be mentioned in the articles of the individual movies, or in an article on "Superman movies." Northwestgnome (talk) 18:14, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Close and relist individually. The articles listed here seem too distinct in their merits to bundle into one AFD. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:21, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The principal for listing here is identical across all articles. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 22:30, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm well aware, but the articles are of greatly varying quality, so they should be listed individually to make for a less complicated decision. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:42, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Which would be relevant were this a quality question; it is not - it is a notability one. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 22:43, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Alright, let me be clear. The quality of the articles, not only in terms of how well they are written, but also in terms of how well they demonstrate their notability...Alien Quadrilogy actually asserts notability via independent coverage. And asking whether a list is notable is not the same as asking whether specific elements are notable, so still, I say that it you would be better off listing these seperately. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:07, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Independent coverage (ie reliable sources) is not the sole criterion for the appropriateness of an article. No doubt several thousand DVD titles from the past 10+ years of the format have obtained similar levels of press coverage, and their number swells every week. Truly notable information is worthy of the film article; the rest is simply trivial information (in the context of an encyclopedia) which should remain on the online marketplace description pages. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 00:10, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge anything relevant from Alien Quadrilogy per Erik, delete the rest. Notability rests with the franchise, not individual dvd releases. These are all just catalogue-style listings of special features and such – this is not Amazon, as others have pointed out. The level of detail in Superman Ultimate Collector's Edition is obscene – it even tells the reader how to obtain replacement discs. Not what Wikipedia is here for. The existance of these articles sets a bad precedent, one that needs to be nipped in the bud. PC78 (talk) 23:48, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as non-notable/advertising. These are repacagings/rereleases of products and do not justify articles.--Bsnowball (talk) 12:08, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete/Merge to Superman (film series), Alien (franchise), etc (to the extent that there's any useful information). if we wrote a new article every time a series of movies (or similar products) was repackaged, we'd end up with a host of fragmentary, useless articles. Repackaging is almost never notable. HrafnTalkStalk 18:01, 6 August 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, actually the content was removed due to copyright infringement so G12 applys. --JForget 23:17, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Inclusionality[edit]
- Inclusionality (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Contested PROD. The entire article is based on a single primary source and has been tagged for OR since May. PROD contested once before (see talk page) but with no change made to improve verifiability. Googling gives no new secondary and verifiable sources. Prashanthns (talk) 03:50, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per nom. Lots of jargon, no real assertion of notability. RayAYang (talk) 03:52, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom.-- Darth Mike (Talk • Contribs) 05:11, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete. Copyright infringement. Article has been tagged accordingly. =Axlq 06:23, 30 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. John254 03:14, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Arthur Rubin[edit]
- Articles for deletion/Arthur Rubin
- Articles for deletion/Arthur Rubin (2nd nomination)
- Articles for deletion/Arthur Rubin (3rd nomination)
- Articles for deletion/Arthur Rubin (4th nomination)
- Articles for deletion/Arthur Rubin (5th nomination)
- Articles for deletion/Arthur Rubin (6th nomination)
- Articles for deletion/Arthur Rubin (7th nomination)
- Arthur Rubin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Notability criteria also must be met for a person to be included in a list or general article; in this case, however, the criteria are less stringent. (Wikipedia:Notability_(people)) This person deserves to be on the list, as he already is, but noone has provided references to support significant coverage in reliable secondary sources, even though reference was asked for almost two years ago. I don't know what notability guideline was like in the time of the first deletion discussion, but current notability guideline doesn't justify this article's inclusion. Lakinekaki (talk) 03:16, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
:Update: Author does not have Erdos Number 1. Talk:Arthur_Rubin#erdos_number_1.3F_American_Mathematical_Society_dosen.27t_think_so.216.80.119.92 (talk) 19:55, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- He's there. The anon IP happens to be Lakinekaki.... -- Fyslee / talk 20:59, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please see Erdos Number Project datafile Erdos0, entry RUBIN, ARTHUR L. Also see P. Erdős, A. L. Rubin and H. Taylor (1979). "Choosability in graphs". Proc. West Coast Conf. on Combinatorics, Graph Theory and Computing, Congressus Numerantium XXVI: 125–157. AfD hero (talk) 20:16, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- In regards to bad faith nomination discussion by some below, I would really appreciate people don't use ad nominem arguments trying to guess my motives, but that they try to discuss the facts instead. I have requested reliable secondary sources more than a year ago, but none has been provided, and since I happened to interact with the User:Arthur Rubin recently, I took a look again at his WP page, and have noticed nothing has been done in regards to secondary sources, and have nominated article for deletion in accordance to WP:N_(People). I would have done it before if I had seen that sources were still missing. Lakinekaki (talk) 17:06, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 03:39, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. There's a possible pass of WP:PROF #5 (known for originating an important new concept) from his 1979 paper with Erdős, “Choosability in graphs”: it has 241 citations (quite high for a pure math paper), and choosability is an important subtopic of graph coloring theory. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:12, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Delete. Really sorry to do this since the Arthur Rubin is a valued member of the Wikipedia community and an excellent admin (and the previous AfD seems to have been a bad faith nom), but I do not see this article as passing either WP:BIO or WP:PROF. Putnam is a student competition and the victories there do not really confer either biographical or academic notability. Same goes for the Erdos number 1: having co-authored a paper with a famous person does not make an academic notable. As for AR's own academic record, I did quite a bit of searching in MathSciNet and the WebOfScience. MathSciNet lists 12 papers by him, the last one in 1997. Of them the only one that shows high citability is the joint paper with Erdos and Taylor "Choosability in graphs" from 1980 which does have 103 citations in MathSciNet (GoogleScholar gives 241 citations for this paper[39]). The other 11 papers (that are not joint with famous mathematicians) show either zero or low single digits citation hits in MathSciNet and WoS (similar results in GoogleScholar[40]). Sorry, but in my view this just does not add up to academic notability per WP:PROF. David Eppstein is correct that one can possibly argue here for passing criterion 5 of WP:PROF, being known for originating an important new concept. But since the paper in question is joint with two other people, one of whom is a really famous mathematician (Erdos), and none of the other papers show significant citability, I am not inclined to accept the criterion 5 argument in this case. Nsk92 (talk) 04:37, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I have added citations which demonstrate some real-world notability. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:31, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you explain what this reference you added[41] shows, or cite a relevant sentence from it? Lakinekaki (talk) 08:08, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Never mind, I had javascript disabled. Here it is: The Charleston Gazette- Tun.. May'21.1974 MATH GENIUS Arthur Rubin, whose days are numbered at Cal Tech, is the 18-year-old son of professors at Michigan State University. Capabilities Undetermined When a problem in math arises, even the gray- haired professors at the California school say without hesitation, "Ask Arthur." In Cal Tech Asks Arthur FATHER'S DAY GIFTS Tools Trains FOUNTAIN HOBBY CENTER Comer W. Wash. St., Bigley Ave. Phone 344-1441 By Jim Stingley The Los Angeles Times PASADENA, Calif. Ar- thur Rubin is to the mathe- matics world what Pegasus...
- Lakinekaki (talk) 08:43, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per the astute analysis of Nsk92 and the added reference from Colonel Warden nothwithstanding. --Crusio (talk) 09:13, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete -
I've found very fewindependent, third-party sources in which Mr. Rubin is the subject of the article. Doesn't appear to pass WP:Notability nor WP:PROF. BWH76 (talk) 09:29, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If you have found sources in which Mr Rubin is the subject then he thereby meets our test of notability. That the sources are few in number is not relevant because notability explicitly does not require that the subject is important. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:10, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Clearly a notable academic, per CW and previous AfD discussion. The article seems well sourced and can be easily improved. Verbal chat 09:49, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: One source provided actually writes about his mother[42] and his name is mentioned in only one sentence:...survived by her son, Arthur Rubin of Brea, California... Another source[43] is accessible only to people who pay subscription, so there is really no way for me to tell how significant coverage he received. Third source is cited above in part, and it seem to talk about a AR while he was a college kid, so that's hardly something that establishes Academic notability. Here is an example of a young mathematician who did establish academic notability. Finally, book source[44] presented is just a duplicate of already existing source[45] that lists Putnam winners in time. If a person is notable, one shouldn't need to go through these pains and subscription services to eventually find one or two articles about the person. In regards to publications, Nsk92 quite said it all. Lakinekaki (talk) 10:18, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- An article topic is not required to establish academic notability. Articles are not even required to establish any kind of notability as the concept is just a general guideline to assist us in the creation of articles. If you want to delete some sourced content like this, rather than keeping it or merging it, then you really need a policy to support your opinion. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:59, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That's the first time in an AfD that I hear that notability is not needed! As for academic notability, WP:PROF is actually designed to make it easier for academics to become notable, because for several reasons they often fail to satisfy WP:BIO even if they have major accomplishments. Rubin seems to fail both WP:BIO and WP:PROF to me and as Lakinekaki shows, the references that you added only show this person exists, not that he is notable in an encyclopedic sense. --Crusio (talk) 11:07, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It doesn't really matter because Mr Rubin is evidently notable but FYI be aware that WP:N is comparatively new, being less than two years old and is not a Wikipedia policy nor a core policy. Per WP:PG, "Policies are considered a standard that all users should follow, whereas guidelines are more advisory in nature.". Colonel Warden (talk) 11:23, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I suspect that User:Lakinekaki's opinion is influenced by other articles at AFD such as Process equation and this nomination might be a case of WP:POINT. User:Lakinekaki's !vote is also misleadingly redundant to his nomination. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:47, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above is rather disconcerting and suggests that the nominator has an axe to grind with Rubin, instead of just being concerned about Wikipedia's content. I will maintain my delete vote for the moment because I am not convinced that Rubin is notable (and he certainly is not "evidently notable" as Colonel Warden asserts), but if this really is a case of WP:POINT
I'll change my vote to neutral and will wait to vote delete in a future third nomination. Lakinekaki, please comment on the POINT accusation. --Crusio (talk) 12:35, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Excuse my persistence but we should be clear about the facts of the matter. I did not simply assert that Mr Rubin was notable but provided evidence of same. Do you dispute that the LA Times and Charleston Gazette are "reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject"? Colonel Warden (talk) 12:51, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No, of course I do not doubt that these sources are reliable and independent. Unfortunately, I have no access to these archives so I cannot see the articles for myself. Presence of sources is a necessary but not sufficient condition for notability and I just don't think that notability in an encyclopedic sense has been established. I may be wrong, but that's my opinion and there we are. --Crusio (talk) 12:58, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You've got it backwards. If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable. AfD hero (talk) 13:09, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I would only have it backwards if one would omit the word "significant" from your quote above. I agree that this topic has received coverage from reliable, independent sources, but I don't think this coverage is significant... As far as the remarks further below concern, up until this AfD (which I saw because I have "the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions" watchlisted, I had never even heard of Rubin. --Crusio (talk) 14:56, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above is rather disconcerting and suggests that the nominator has an axe to grind with Rubin, instead of just being concerned about Wikipedia's content. I will maintain my delete vote for the moment because I am not convinced that Rubin is notable (and he certainly is not "evidently notable" as Colonel Warden asserts), but if this really is a case of WP:POINT
- Keep. I think the significance of high-scoring the putnam and having Erdos number 1 may be lost on people who are unfamiliar with the world of mathematics. That is like having the all-time college 100 yard dash record, and then running a relay race in the olympics with Maurice Green. AfD hero (talk) 12:56, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ignoring the significant coverage in the LA Times and Charleston Gazette already mentioned above (which automatically demonstrates notability), I think a lot of the problem here is that people here are comparing A. Rubin to professionals in the field and trying to apply WP:Prof, even though it doesn't really apply (hes not even an academic at this point). He might meet WP:Prof due to his collaboration with Erdos and his work on set theory, but this isnt really the right test to apply. A better test, IMO, would be the would be the subsection of Wikipedia:ATHLETE directed at top-level ameture athletes. He passes this as he has won the most prestigous event in a non-athletic competitive field (math competitions). AfD hero (talk) 13:42, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. His Putnam results are covered in that topic/page. I did note the word "Genius"[46] in a quote... Mmmmmmmm and after all these years... 12 papers. The problem I see is this, using this level of distinction to get a wiki page, would mean just about every Uni Grad at his age (52) should then have a wiki entry. If I could see more news public domain references then that would be a OK... but winning a prize? Vufors (talk) 03:08, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Despite his comments and actions as an admin and editor that have led to Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Arthur_Rubin_desysop and his editorial talk page comments informing us that he has at least a 160 point IQ [47]!!! [1]
- Anyway, I strongly believe that based on his accomplishments outside of wikipedia he is notable. And I believe that because of the perception about his poor behavior as an editor and admin that much of this AFD is motivated by ill-will and possibly even revenge. None of which should have anything to do with an AFD. Editors and admins of wikipedia should avoid even the perception of such pusillanimous behavior. [2] --Firefly322 (talk) 13:58, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- ^ Surely he must be joking?!! To honestly think that's effective, efficient behavior... Too funny for words without libel, let me just say.
- ^ Up until last fall, wikipedians had a really good reputation. And perhaps even Rubin's recent poor behavior has more to do with his environment and the deletionist Zeitgeist--that so many editors and admins have gotten themselves caught up in these days-- than with how he might act outside such a posinious environment.
- Keep topping the Putnam and having an Erdos no. of 1 would be enough Sceptre (talk) 15:08, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep bad faith nomination by user due to Arthur's !vote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Process equation. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:06, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I am sorry to see that much of the discussion concerns AR's role here on Wikipedia. Whether people have positive or negative feelings about him as a Wikipedian should really not be a factor in their decisions in this AfD and both grudge votes and sympathy votes should be avoided. The nom may be bad faith (I am not sure), but there are in fact valid policy-based reasons for deletion here. On the substance, let me address some of the above comments. In terms of academic notability (in the sense of WP:PROF) student competitions like Putnam do not count (academic notability refers to notability for one's research). Erdos number 1 is not an indicator of academic notability either. It is a well-established general principle in the application of all the notability guidelines that notability is not inherited (being a co-author, a child, a parent, a spouse of a notable person does not, in and of itself, make one notable). Neither is the Erdos number 1 indicative of particular importance of one's research. In terms of mathematical importance, Erdos was a somewhat arbitrary point in the mathematical universe and his name gave rise to the notion of an Erdos number not because of some special importance of his work but becuase he had a very large number of co-authors (I think over a 500 of them). There are many other modern mathematicians whose work is arguably more important and influential than that of Erdos, e.g. Andrew Wiles, Grigory Perelman, Mikhail Gromov, but having a small collaboration distance from either of them is not, by itself, an indicator of academic notability either. In terms of biographical notability under WP:BIO, I don't think there is a convincing case either. The same "notability is not inherited" considerations apply to the Erdos number 1 arguments. As for Putnam, I can't really seriously accept applying WP:ATHLETE here. Putnam is manifestly not an athletic competition, but a student academic contest. In terms of analogies with WP:ATHLETE, however, college sports participation is generally not enough for passing WP:ATHLETE either. One is required to either compete at the professional level in professional sports leagues or at the highest level of non-professional sports, such as world championships, olympic games, etc. The same logic applied to this case would imply that victories in college competitions of any other kind (academic contests, debate teams, singing contests, whatever) are not, by themselves, indicators of notability (they could be if there is significant coverage of such victories by independent reliable sources, but that is not the case here either). The bottom line is, I don't see either the requirements of WP:PROF or of WP:BIO being satisfied here. Nsk92 (talk) 16:08, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:Athlete may be applied to nonathletic competitive events such as poker, chess, even "Magic: The Gathering" the card game. The notability criterion for amature non-athletic competitors is that they have ranked very highly in one of the most prestigious competitions, which the Putnam certainly is.
- The Putnam is not just some random club. It is the highest level of math competition. As you might say, the world championship of competitive math. Winning the Putnam is probably harder than winning a gold medal at the olympics. The median score is often 0 out of 120, and the only people who take it are already hardcore undergrauate mathematics majors. People who do well (not even necessairily winning) get instant access to basically do whatever they want in math - any graduate program will take them, top mathematicians will work with them (such as Erdos...), their college will put their names in the promotional literature, etc. The reason it gets less newspaper coverage than, say, a big sports event (and by the way, it did get coverage, see the LA times article and the Charleston Gazette articles) is not because its any less unimportant, but rather for the same reason that you don't see math competitions on ESPN. AfD hero (talk) 16:28, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I am a professional mathematician myself and I have to deal with Putnam exams fairly frequently, as students from my university regularly participate in them and as faculty members we are regularly asked to help them with the preparation. So I know what Putnams are better than most. Trust me you are quite mistaken when you say that Putnam competitions are comparable to the olympics in terms of the kind of excellence, talent and preparation that is required. There is simply no comparison. Unlike say, poker, chess or other bona fide sports, competitions in math do not exist other than at a student level and in this way math contests are more similar to spelling bees. There are no professional or high level "adult" competitions in either math or spelling, so comparing math contests with amateure sports that do have a well-defined system of national and international competitions at both junior and adult level is rather misleading. Nsk92 (talk) 17:18, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please see Category:Spelling bee champions. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:35, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I have seen it and I must say that I am not a fan of that category either. Most spelling bee champions do not have separate articles about them and in fact WP:BLP1E should apply even to those few cases that do have such articles. I would, perhaps, be willing to accept that some spelling bee champs are notable but only if they receive significant coverage that goes beyond the of around the time when the spelling bee takes place. It is also true that spelling bees are in fact much more high profile events than Putnams, National spelling bee competitions are televised, they are usually covered in the national press and on TV etc. That is not the case for Putnams. Nsk92 (talk) 17:48, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS seems to apply here. --Crusio (talk) 17:56, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You do have a point about there being no adult equivalent, but in terms of excellence required I think you are wrong. Just look at the list of winners... It's filled with Fields medal winners, Nobel prize winners, many top mathematicians of the 20th century. If you wanted to win in 1948, for example, you had to beat Robert Mills... Not going to happen unless you have incredible skills. I also don't know what goes on at your institution, but where I did my undergraduate people did take it seriously like a sport. Finally, its not like this guy just did well or won it once - he was one of the winningest competitors in the history of the competition and won it 4 years in a row.
- As for WP:othercrap, 1 or 2 articles, or a larger number of randomly assorted articles is othercrap. A whole category is evidence of community concensus.AfD hero (talk) 18:06, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe things were different in 1940s and 1950s but now Putnams are not viewed as that big of a thing. I work at a large public research-oriented university and our team always does fairly well on the national Putnam competition. But, as far as I know, people don't really train for it during the year as everybody is too busy with their own studies. Each year around the end of September we get an e-mail reminding us that Putnams are coming and that we should encourage our better students to participate. There is a bit of advertising and then there is a meeting in October where interested students and faculty meet. Then there is a bit of training for about a month, but certainly nothing like professional sports or olympics. After the Putnams in early December everything goes back to the usual routine until the next October. That's how it works here and, frankly, I don't imagine things being very different at other departments. Students, especially good students, have too much on their plates anyway to take this stuff too seriously. Nsk92 (talk) 22:46, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS seems to apply here. --Crusio (talk) 17:56, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I have seen it and I must say that I am not a fan of that category either. Most spelling bee champions do not have separate articles about them and in fact WP:BLP1E should apply even to those few cases that do have such articles. I would, perhaps, be willing to accept that some spelling bee champs are notable but only if they receive significant coverage that goes beyond the of around the time when the spelling bee takes place. It is also true that spelling bees are in fact much more high profile events than Putnams, National spelling bee competitions are televised, they are usually covered in the national press and on TV etc. That is not the case for Putnams. Nsk92 (talk) 17:48, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please see Category:Spelling bee champions. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:35, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I am a professional mathematician myself and I have to deal with Putnam exams fairly frequently, as students from my university regularly participate in them and as faculty members we are regularly asked to help them with the preparation. So I know what Putnams are better than most. Trust me you are quite mistaken when you say that Putnam competitions are comparable to the olympics in terms of the kind of excellence, talent and preparation that is required. There is simply no comparison. Unlike say, poker, chess or other bona fide sports, competitions in math do not exist other than at a student level and in this way math contests are more similar to spelling bees. There are no professional or high level "adult" competitions in either math or spelling, so comparing math contests with amateure sports that do have a well-defined system of national and international competitions at both junior and adult level is rather misleading. Nsk92 (talk) 17:18, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- neutral While I agree with Nsk92's analysis, I just can't get past the role that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Process equation clearly plays in this nomination. Pete.Hurd (talk) 17:12, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy close I have to agree with those above that this is in retaliation for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Process equation (which I also didn't think to be valid). People, this is not how you resolve disputes. I question the notability here as some have, but this is not productive. An editor without prior involvement can bring it back in a month if they're still worried. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 20:28, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you're right. This debate has been poisoned by too many extraneous things. --Crusio (talk) 20:56, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep 103 citations for a paper he wrote on mathscinet is fairly humongous. Even if it's in collaboration with a more famous mathematician, I think Mr. Rubin meets criterion #3 of WP:PROF -- he has published a work which is significant, to put it mildly, and has been widely cited. I don't think two other coauthors is sufficient to dilute the notability there. Now if this had been one of those gigantic collaborations with 500 co-authors .... RayAYang (talk) 20:44, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note The nominator Lakinekaki (talk · contribs), who had a possible CoI in bringing this AfD, claims to have left wikipedia, at least as a named editor, on their talk page. Is this relevant? Their reason is given as... deletionism. Should this be closed/withdrawn in that light? Verbal chat 21:08, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You are misinterpreting what the nominator gave as a reason.[48] It seems that he was referring to some editors here as being hypocritical about deletions. This should not be closed, but further discussed. 216.80.119.92 (talk) 21:18, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This anon IP happens to be Lakinekaki, who is "the nominator". The comment above is deceptive. -- Fyslee / talk 20:59, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep There appear to be news articles about him. I don't see how he doesn't meet WP:N. And being in the top 5 in the Putman exam certainly adds to notability in my mind. Lots and lots of people take it and it's a very big deal. We used to use its results to judge which students to recruit for summer research projects. Hobit (talk) 01:35, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The repeated success in the Putnam plus the news articles is sufficient.I wouldn't want to argue that coming in the top 5 one time only is automatic notability, but this extraordinary record certainly is. DGG (talk) 03:00, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I know nothing about the subject of the article aside from the article itself (and what has now been written in this AfD). I'm a bit surprised, though, that many editors have the opinion that two newspaper articles constitutes "significant coverage." I must admit that I cannot access these two articles, so I can't even judge whether Rubin is even the focus of either one. I may be missing something, but how does this pass for significant coverage in independent, verifiable sources? BWH76 (talk) 09:58, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:N defines its terms: ""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.". The newspaper articles seem to satisfy this and it seems that there are likely to be others from that era that are more difficult to locate online. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:29, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Right, I understand this. At the same time, though, only two independent sources (particularly if we cannot verify if they in fact do cover this subject in depth, relating to the claims of notability, etc.) that cover any individual is generally not enough to establish that individual's notability. Assuming that there may be more sources out there that cover this individual is no good, either. Again, I have no real interest in this article one way or another. If we can dig up more verifiable independent sources, it would be a no-brainer keep. Until then, it would appear that we're assuming notability of the subject instead of demonstrating the subject's notability; this doesn't meet our guidelines. BWH76 (talk) 10:40, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure if it is spelled out anywhere but my understanding is that the existence of two sources is usually considered enough. Please bear in mind that notability is just a guideline, that Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy and that no-one has pointed to any policy or commonsense reason to delete this article. My impression is that such nominations are mostly a matter of petty jealousy or spite rather than any more useful consideration. Elsewhere we have some moaning that we have many thousands of professional footballers with articles. The consensus seems to be that this is not a problem. Readers who don't care for such articles should just move on. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:58, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Outstanding Putnam record and Erdos number of 1 both clearly establish notability under the "has received a notable award or honor" criteria. Gandalf61 (talk) 11:39, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Erdos number 1 is neither an award nor honor; nor is it a sign of notability, per the well-established "notability is not inherited principle". Nsk92 (talk) 11:46, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Response to Nsk92: Of course it is an honour ! Erdos was prolific but he didn't collaborate with just anyone ! And would you dismiss Nobel laureates (incidentally, a group of similar size to those with Erdos number 1) as only "notable by inheritance" ? I don't think so. Gandalf61 (talk) 12:42, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, but what are you talking about? Being a Nobel prize winner is, of course, an honor, but having co-authored a paper with a Nobel prize winner is not an honor or award. There is a well-established principle "notability is not inherited" in application of all the notability guidelines which says that having a close association (e.g. being a co-author a family member a friend, etc) of a famous person does not, in and of itself, make one notable. Moreover, honors and awards are awarded (usually by some notable organization or society); an Erdos number or having a small collaboration distance from any other famous person is not awarded. So in this technical sense it is not an award or honor either. Nsk92 (talk) 12:50, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Response to Nsk92: I believe that a Erdos number of 1 is a significant honour and is prima facia evidence of notability. You do not. We can agree to differ on that. But there is no need for an uncivil response such as "what are you talking about ?". Such rudeness can only weaken your arguments. Gandalf61 (talk) 13:15, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't believe I was being rude (I did start with "Sorry"), but if you found my comments rude, I apologize, I certainly did not mean them to be. On the substantive issue, it is not simply a matter of agreeing to disagree. If you have valid arguments for your position, I'd like to hear them, and I think others would too. As I said, in my opinion, your comparison with the Nobel prize winners is flawed for two reasons. First Nobel prizes are in fact awarded (an Erdos number is not). Second, an Erdos number is more like having co-authored a paper with a Nobel Prize winner rather than like having actually won a Nobel Prize. There is a long standing consensus on the "notability is not inherited" principle which applies to both people who co-authored papers with Nobel winners and to people who co-authored papers with Erdos (or any other famous scientist for that matter). The fact that one has co-authored such a paper is not, in and of itself, an evidence of notability. Nsk92 (talk) 13:45, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with Nsk92's (really not very uncivil) response. A co-author of a Nobelist is not by that single fact notable, neither are their cousins, nieces, or parents. The same goes for Erdos and people who published with him. --Crusio (talk) 13:26, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I find Nsk92's argument that co-authors of mathematicians far more influential than Erdos (eg. Andrew Wiles, Grigory Perelman, Mikhail Gromov) aren't considered automatically notable for that act alone to be a perfectly sensible refutation of Gandalf61's point, and just can't see any uncivility from him in the exchange above. Pete.Hurd (talk) 21:46, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Response to Nsk92: I believe that a Erdos number of 1 is a significant honour and is prima facia evidence of notability. You do not. We can agree to differ on that. But there is no need for an uncivil response such as "what are you talking about ?". Such rudeness can only weaken your arguments. Gandalf61 (talk) 13:15, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, but what are you talking about? Being a Nobel prize winner is, of course, an honor, but having co-authored a paper with a Nobel prize winner is not an honor or award. There is a well-established principle "notability is not inherited" in application of all the notability guidelines which says that having a close association (e.g. being a co-author a family member a friend, etc) of a famous person does not, in and of itself, make one notable. Moreover, honors and awards are awarded (usually by some notable organization or society); an Erdos number or having a small collaboration distance from any other famous person is not awarded. So in this technical sense it is not an award or honor either. Nsk92 (talk) 12:50, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Response to Nsk92: Of course it is an honour ! Erdos was prolific but he didn't collaborate with just anyone ! And would you dismiss Nobel laureates (incidentally, a group of similar size to those with Erdos number 1) as only "notable by inheritance" ? I don't think so. Gandalf61 (talk) 12:42, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - his accomplishments in the Putnam was covered by mutliple reliable sources inluding the LA Times which isn't small potatoes. On this alone, I'd !vote keep although some might argue that it might be WP:BLP1E. But when you combine this with a highly cited paper, it takes it beyond a single event. -- Whpq (talk) 13:53, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you provide links/references to the multiple sources you mentioned? I see the LA Times article, though can't read it. What others did you find? BWH76 (talk) 14:01, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep well-referenced article on an encyclopaedic subject of interest to our readers. No spam/promotional/blp concerns. It would be nice to have a little more basic biographical information, but this is definitely a net positive for the encyclopaedia. Skomorokh 14:35, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Notable enough. -- Levine2112 discuss 01:11, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- STRONG D3L3T3/K33P. This AFD is already a farce, by the way. Close the discussion. I hate to see the nominator get the satisfaction of getting back at Arthur Rubin, even if it's in a minor way like this one. --C S (talk) 03:50, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Notable subject, adequate sources for encyclopedia article, and no reason to deprive our readers of information about a notable scholar. DickClarkMises (talk) 08:10, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Seems notable by wikipedia standards. Mathsci (talk) 09:24, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Obviously notable per the evidence given above. --Crossmr (talk) 10:42, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Winning the Putnam the maximum number of times establishes notability, in my view, per criterion #6 of WP:PROF. Would anyone like to track down the other six? The list is here. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 13:38, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry but your logic is quite incorrect here. It does not matter for the outcome of this AfD (it is clear that the article will be kept and the AfD should probably be closed per WP:SNOW), but WP:PROF is a guideline that deals with academic notability, that has always been understood as notability for one's academic research. Victories in Putnams and other types of academic student competitions do not establish such notability. Such vicitories could go towards notability under WP:BIO as User:AfD hero argues above, but certainly not under WP:PROF. Nsk92 (talk) 14:03, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree with your interpretation. The Putnam is a prestigious academic award, and there is nothing in WP:PROF indicating that the awards need to have occurred after some point in the academic career. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 15:45, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The issue is not about a point in one's academic career when an award takes place but rather what the award is given for. It is possible for an academic to prove a great theorem, to make a significant discovery or to make another valuable research contributions while still a graduate student or an undergraduate student (or even without having gone to college at all) and awards and honors for such achievements would be perfectly relevant for WP:PROF (the recent proof[49] that deciding if a number is prime can be done in polynomial time, which involved a team of Indian researchers including several undergraduate students is a good example of such an achievement). However, WP:PROF as a guideline is about academic notability, which means notability for the person's research and innovations. Awards and honors that are not related to such research and innovation but are given for other kinds of achievements do not contribute to academic notability but rather to general biographical notability under WP:BIO. Nsk92 (talk) 15:58, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand what you are saying, but there seems to be no textual support for this particular point of view. Perhaps you should make a case at WP:PROF that the award must be given for research, and not for other sorts of academic achievements. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 16:02, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That is completely correct, the current text of the guideline does not spell it out. However in my experience this is how the guideline has been consistently applied and understood, so I would argue on the basis of the "spirit of the guideline" here. However, the point is largely academic -:) for the purposes of this AfD anyway. It seems clear that the AfD should be closed as keep per WP:SNOW. Nsk92 (talk) 16:09, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand what you are saying, but there seems to be no textual support for this particular point of view. Perhaps you should make a case at WP:PROF that the award must be given for research, and not for other sorts of academic achievements. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 16:02, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The issue is not about a point in one's academic career when an award takes place but rather what the award is given for. It is possible for an academic to prove a great theorem, to make a significant discovery or to make another valuable research contributions while still a graduate student or an undergraduate student (or even without having gone to college at all) and awards and honors for such achievements would be perfectly relevant for WP:PROF (the recent proof[49] that deciding if a number is prime can be done in polynomial time, which involved a team of Indian researchers including several undergraduate students is a good example of such an achievement). However, WP:PROF as a guideline is about academic notability, which means notability for the person's research and innovations. Awards and honors that are not related to such research and innovation but are given for other kinds of achievements do not contribute to academic notability but rather to general biographical notability under WP:BIO. Nsk92 (talk) 15:58, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree with your interpretation. The Putnam is a prestigious academic award, and there is nothing in WP:PROF indicating that the awards need to have occurred after some point in the academic career. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 15:45, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
-
- I'm not voting (I hate deletion debates) but I think that the position that WP:PROF does confer notability on the four-time Putnam champs requires a little too much wikilawyering to be really tenable. That notability guideline lists five conditions which are clearly dependent on the person actually being a researching academic, and a sixth which is not clearly so; the intent, however, is clear, and it rather harms the argument for notability if the main support is a technicality. Better, as Nsk92 said, to test against WP:BIO, though I note that there, persons notable for only one event are suggested not to be worth their own article, and it's been suggested that the athletics notability guideline doesn't cut it for the Putnam either. However, again, going by technicalities is the wrong way; the guy is nearly unique in a pretty prestigious competition, he has a well-cited paper with a big mathematician, and someone called him a genius in the paper when he was 18. As it is, his accomplishments as given in the article are not much by comparison with, say, Gregory Chaitin (another former teenage genius), but trying to argue that it falls just on the bad side of notability because of the exact prestige status of the Putnam or his particular relationship with academia is too petty to really take seriously. Again, that's not a vote; it's just a comment on the debate. Ryan Reich (talk) 01:30, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Referenced reliably. Verifiably notable. End of story. Antelan 14:53, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- keep - notable enough. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 17:39, 1 August 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. None of the arguments for keeping address the WP:OR and lack of WP:RS brought up by the nomination. Shereth 18:17, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Faux Greek[edit]
- Faux Greek (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Made up term by a single editor. Absolutely no sources at all support this "faux greek" typography, and editor noted in my talk page that it was a name they came up with for "this phenomen" and gimmick.[50] Google search produces all of 6 results for "Faux Greek" typography. Pure WP:OR. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:21, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - pure WP:OR -- Darth Mike (Talk • Contribs) 05:13, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete- Fails WP:NFT and WP:OR. Reyk YO! 05:21, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep It clearly needs to be cleaned up, and explained more thoroughly, but I see it as a companion article for Dog Latin —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.46.46.131 (talk) 06:24, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as someone's WP:OR Artene50 (talk) 09:43, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep -- I started this article. The phenomenon of using Greek letters in Latin contexts -- especially Σ for E -- is real (see Greek (TV series) and My Big Fat Greek Wedding; cf. also Faux Cyrillic). I totally agree that "Faux Greek" is an arbitrary name, and I would be happy if we could find a better one (especially if there is an established one). Under WP policy, the correct remedy for that is to move the article, not to delete it. I also agree that the article is currently at a near-stub level of development. Again, under WP policy, the correct remedy is to expand the article, not to delete it. --Macrakis (talk) 12:33, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - if you agree that this is an arbitrary name, something you made up, it does not belong here, that is OR. Non notable as well. Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:36, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Macrakis has renamed the article to Greek letters used in English text. It does not negate the article being pure unsourced personal opinion. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 15:08, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - If Faux Cyrillic can stand without complaint, so should this. The article does need a bit of help, but the phenomenon is very real. Roman à clef (talk) 14:34, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I wouldn't say it has stood without complaint. Its been tagged as OR since April and while longer, it is also unsourced. It does produce more google hits than Faux Greek (690), but quick scanning those results, most were from Wikipedia mirrors. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:09, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. This is by analogy with the faux Chinese typefaces sometimes associated with cheap Chinese restaurants in the United States and Canada, with Roman characters made up of strokes of varying widths, designed to resemble Chinese ideographs. The term may be uncommon, but the typographic usage is well-documented, as shown in the article. --Eastmain (talk) 16:47, 31 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. --PeaceNT (talk) 17:09, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Counting in Fiji Hindi[edit]
- Counting in Fiji Hindi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
No content that's not already duplicated on Fiji Hindi, other than an extensive table which should basically read "Counting in Hindi (with two numbers difference)". Wiki Wikardo 03:10, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fiji Hindi is a good place to merge this info If Wikipedia:Reliable sources can be provided/added to the article - then the info and table could be merged. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 03:18, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 03:39, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 04:00, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete OR and not really suitable for an encyclopedia, even with reliable sources. I don't think WP:SS can be sustained if this quite big table is moved to the Fiji Hindi page. Maybe only the differences with Standard Hindi can be mentioned in writing. GizzaDiscuss © 10:37, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As they are—if you look at that whole table, the only numbers that differ are 2 and 6. Also, the table contradicts information already written in the Fiji Hindi article. —Wiki Wikardo 19:18, 30 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 but I would strongly suggest a quiet editorial merge. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:46, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mid-State Conference of Indiana[edit]
- Mid-State Conference of Indiana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non notable conference DimaG (talk) 23:10, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - fails WP:N.--SRX 01:14, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 10:22, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 10:22, 26 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, Tiptoety talk 03:08, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails WP:N -- Darth Mike (Talk • Contribs) 06:15, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Suggest merger of all the conference articles with Indiana High School Athletic Association or a new catch all article about all the conferences. There are a fair number of stubs for individual conferences listed at Template:Indiana High School Athletic Association (IHSAA) and Category:Indiana high school athletic conferences. All of these conferences would appear to potentially meet base notability guidelines, being the regular subjects of third party commentary in reliable sources. That said, the stubs individually are rather repetitious and uninformative standing alone. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:06, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and merge for now per User:Ihcoyc. We did this for another midwestern state (Ohio?) and kept two of the conferences as sourcing was strong enough. Hobit (talk) 01:37, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge for the state as SofT suggests. A good solution. DGG (talk) 01:49, 31 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. Keeper ǀ 76 19:48, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Gar-Wei[edit]
- Gar-Wei (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
just one of many compound chinese given names, which is listed here in cantonese pinyin. There is really nothing special or notable about it. The permutations are endless, so this entry could be considered indiscriminate. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:40, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. -- Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 03:40, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, not clear why we should have this. Punkmorten (talk) 08:40, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The article's been around for a while, but has remained a stub. No objection to re-creation later if someone could write something that took it up to the standard of some other "given name" articles, but nobody's done that despite plenty of time and opportunity. WMMartin (talk) 13:45, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - There must be millions of permutations of Chinese given names. I do support articles on Chinese surnames, however. We also have articles such as John (first name), but I think such articles on given names would be unworkable for the Chinese language, given the fact that any one or two characters could be combined. Badagnani (talk) 17:25, 30 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 consensus also the individual doesn't seem to be notable beyond the murder and also there are hundreds of officers killed each year in the line of duty. --JForget 23:14, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Joe Carruthers[edit]
- Joe Carruthers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
WP:NOTMEMORIAL, primarily. Unfortunately we live in a society where police officers are killed in the line of duty, and this was the case even in 1933. He wasn't the first killed and Wikipedia is not a memorial. He does not appear to be notable for anything other than sadly being murdered. Does not appear encyclopedically notable. TravellingCari 02:40, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -- TravellingCari 02:41, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- TravellingCari 02:41, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete As it stands now, it is a very unencyclopedic, POV memorial. If sources exist to make an encyclopedic article, then it should be created but this article isn't it. DoubleBlue (Talk) 03:25, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Esradekan Gibb "Talk" 03:51, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. The subject is known only for one event, sad though it may be. His demise did not result in any consequences for Canada or Calgary. Ohconfucius (talk) 05:33, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Wikipedia is not for memorials. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 18:57, 1 August 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 consensus and improvement (total rewrite). Decent stub. --PeaceNT (talk) 16:48, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Brockford Street, Suffolk, UK[edit]
- Brockford Street, Suffolk, UK (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Can anyone say non notable street? The article gives it away by including things such as "not much happens there" and "The only facilities in Brockford street are a post box and a garage."
This article has been severely cleaned-up since nomination and I have found out that it is actually a hamlet and not a street. Please discuss accordingly. Tavix (talk) 02:36, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- TravellingCari 02:49, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Article has POV and original sources; It's probaly not notable due to the fact it has no references --Antonio Lopez (talk) 02:56, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete looks like some kid who lives nearby wrote it just for fun. "Nothing much happens there" pretty much sums up what we should do with the article. Ohconfucius (talk) 05:50, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, doesn't seem to be notable, POV, prose reads like someone's cat wrote it.Keep per Mazca et alia, article has been cleaned up and all my objections have been addressed. -- B.D.Mills (T, C) 07:13, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - its a village / hamlet unfortunately not a street see [51] I'd be in favour of delete but unfortunately I'm not sure if prevailing consensus is that every damn village is inherently notable? -Hunting dog (talk) 07:21, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've removed some of silly bits and stubified it -Hunting dog (talk) 11:00, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - it's a village, not a street. There seems to be consensus that verifiable, legally recognized, populated settlements are inherently notable. This is certainly one of these. Now that the article has been cleaned up (thanks Hunting dog!) it really seems that this is keepable. ~ mazca t | c 20:24, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that this place has no legal existence. It is an area smaller than a parish, the smallest legally recognized area in the UK so I'm not sure where you're getting that this is legally recognized.
- Strong keep All verifiable places are inherently notable. Thanks to recent cleanup, it's a perfectly legitimate stub. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 20:37, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Mazca and Juliancolton.--S Marshall (talk) 00:04, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Create a list of the more notable hamlets in the Mid Suffolk article and merge content there. Subdivisions of local authority units need to have additional secondary sourcing to merit a stand-alone article. --Polaron | Talk 02:59, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Hamlets are notable if distinct, as this one is. DGG (talk) 03:02, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not quite sure what you mean by that. A place isn't a hamlet if it's not distinct. So you're effectivel saying that anything that has a name is notable. --Polaron | Talk 03:10, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Possible keep -- As a hamlet it may be notable, but it is difficult to judge this when it is only a stub. It would be helpful, if it was stated what parish it is in: do we have an article on that parish? Peterkingiron (talk) 18:41, 31 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 (no consensus). With this few comments I would normally relist, but it has been listed on two deletion noticeboards so there is no reason to believe a relisting will obtain more information. TigerShark (talk) 22:24, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Andrew J Lewis[edit]
- Andrew J Lewis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
A non-notable writer, musician, & artist with no verifiable sources to be found. Tavix (talk) 02:26, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- TravellingCari 02:49, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- Hiding T 10:15, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep Andrew Lewis did start Zarjaz which has gone on to be one of the breeding grounds for new talent (given the collapse of the British comics industry this is one of the highest profile publications for creators looking to eventually get into 2000 AD, in fact Simon Spurrier started in Zarjaz, is still writing for 2000 AD and is now getting some work at Marvel) and it did win an award (and nominated for a second), which certainly helps his case. While at Zarjaz he was also the recipient of a letter by Pat Mills. He also did start Top Notch Tosh. Both of these are reviewed at Bugpowder, the leading site for the British small press [52] [53]. He has also written for 2000 AD but I can't currently prove that online as 2000 AD have just revamped their site and not put back the issues database. I haven't heard of his other endeavours and can't prove them despite Googling. So while it looks a bit shaky at the moment I think it should be possible to knock it into better shape and starting the award-winning comic and pro comic work should at least be a start and if we can find sources for radio appearances and the like it would start shaping up. So it is worth giving it some time to shape up and then return to it and see how things stand. (Emperor (talk) 14:53, 30 July 2008 (UTC))[reply]
- Weak keep per Emperor. Hiding T 08:50, 31 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. --PeaceNT (talk) 16:45, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ansar-ul-Islam (Pakistan)[edit]
- Ansar-ul-Islam (Pakistan) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
a not notable Islamic group in Pakistan. A Google search provided sources for Ansar-ul-Islam, but not this group. Tavix (talk) 02:22, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. -- TravellingCari 02:48, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. -- TravellingCari 02:48, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. An earlier version of the article with substantially different text can be found at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ansar-ul-Islam_%28Pakistan%29&oldid=222730171 --Eastmain (talk) 15:41, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: I don't think the article is notable. SholeemGriffin (talk) 19:07, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Without any verifiable sources, it fails notability. --Porqin (talk) 00:13, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 19:11, 3 August 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. --PeaceNT (talk) 16:42, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
List of historical effects of nationalism[edit]
- List of historical effects of nationalism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This is a tendentious list that, while well-intentioned, obscures more than it clarifies. Some of this information should be incorporated (in summary form) into the Nationalism article, and the rest should be incorporated into articles on the other subjects it refers to. – SJL 02:17, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- TravellingCari 02:48, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete ugh! This is just a list, without any attempt to define it. However, I would guess any further precision would result in an identical article to list of wars. Don't need another WP:POVFORK Ohconfucius (talk) 05:55, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Every conflict must have had some nationalistic reasons to incite people to fight. Eklipse (talk) 12:56, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Eklipse. This list would be huge if it were to ever become comprehensive. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 15:33, 30 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. --PeaceNT (talk) 16:42, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
X & Hell[edit]
- X & Hell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This is a band that fails WP:N, WP:V, and WP:MUSIC. The few Google hits I could find were mainly from Myspace, Facebook, and YouTube. Tavix (talk) 02:11, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Band was nominated for an aria (non-referenced) and has gone on tour with notable bands (non-referenced). The article needs to be reference. – Jerryteps 04:08, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, although Jerry you might want to add those into the article so that the article then passes N and V. Ironholds 11:15, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- keep I've referenced the aria awards, and support for g unit (not necessarily the best source, but if press release seems to be from 50 cent, not x and hell). The article name may be misleading, as the article says they record under the name "Weapon X & Ken Hell", and that is the name the award nominations are for. Silverfish (talk) 11:46, 30 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), The nominator has withdrawn the request for deletion and there is a good consensus to keep this article as notability has be shown by reference number four. Seddσn talk Editor Review 13:56, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Maurice Frydman[edit]
- Maurice Frydman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Bio of a non-notable author. Also, no reliabe sources. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 01:50, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 01:53, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 01:53, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 01:53, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 01:53, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 01:54, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I count five references, and a number of claims to notability. --Eastmain (talk) 01:57, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep Ism is over-reaching by quite alot with this one. 274 Google Books results, including some interesting references in books by notable authors, such as Ved Mehta. 34 Google Scholar results. Obviously notable, and arguably a bad faith nomination. ~ priyanath talk 02:02, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep No reliable sources? There're five of them. As a frequent visitor to AfD, I assume that Ism just had a misfire here. Sometimes it happens to me too. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!) 02:04, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply I also saw these sources listed and claims that were impossible to verify. The problem is that the four sources listed in the article are personal websites of different groups. The only other source has not been shown to be relevant. Also, the book he authored is non-notable per past Afd discussion in which it was deleted as a non-notable book. Also, the claim that he founded the Polish-Indian Library is not verified, as another person founded this library - Wanda Dynowska. The claim that she founded this library is possible to verify. In all, these claims to notability are only claims and they have no reliabe sources to back them up. As such, these claims to notability are impossible to verify. This article is about a non-notable person and has no reliable sources to back up claims to notability. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 02:09, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment If reliable sources are provided that back up claims to notability, I will gladly change my vote to keep. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 02:21, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Here's one that makes for interesting reading and confirms some of the claims in the article.[54] Between this (University of Pennsylvania Press) and the Mehta book, there is no doubt this article should, and will, be kept, no matter what your vote. ~ priyanath talk 02:34, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It would not hurt this article if reliable sources and claims to notability were added. The source above is a start. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 02:46, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability has been proven. Speedy Keep for that reason alone. If someone wants to also improve the article by adding information from these sources, all the better. ~ priyanath talk 03:46, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As you stated above - if anyone wants to improve the article - this is a good place to start. Of course, stating that notability has been proven - and proving notabilty - are two seperate things. Hopefully, these will be established in time. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 03:51, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability has been proven. Speedy Keep for that reason alone. If someone wants to also improve the article by adding information from these sources, all the better. ~ priyanath talk 03:46, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It would not hurt this article if reliable sources and claims to notability were added. The source above is a start. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 02:46, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Here's one that makes for interesting reading and confirms some of the claims in the article.[54] Between this (University of Pennsylvania Press) and the Mehta book, there is no doubt this article should, and will, be kept, no matter what your vote. ~ priyanath talk 02:34, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep A good faith nomination, perhaps. But, the present list of refs (with a book included) and the discussion above illustrates notability for me. This is also a good secondary reference regarding a discussion with a notable Indian philosopher, J Krishnamurthi. I vote to keep. Prashanthns (talk) 04:03, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Of course. There was already a solid, reliable source in the article for the claims to notability in the article, which have been corroborated by Priyanath's book citation (among many others at google books) - Lives of the Indian Princes. One can verify that Frydman's name appears in this book, unfortunately on a restricted page. There is no requirement that statements be verifiable instantly on the web. That the claims in the article would not prove notability, once verified, as they have been, is absurd. If one doubts properly cited statements, then proper courses are to tag them or check them with other sources or to go to a library and get the source provided, not taking things to an AfD. There is no reason to suspect the Nisagardatta book is not an RS either; notability is not the same thing as reliability, and the websites have to be examined on a case by case basis to determine reliability -two of them are just convenience links for print sources. AfD is supposed to be the last resort, not the first one.John Z (talk) 05:54, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - sources listed are good; passes WP:Notability. BWH76 (talk) 09:33, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Is notable, and has reliable sources. Pie is good (Apple is the best) 14:53, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Notable as per [Ref 4]. Forefather of Indian Constitution as our Independence Proclamation undersigners once in 1776 were. Never heard of him before, but until this ref is contested we must assume good faith as per WP:AGF. greg park avenue (talk) 17:59, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note to closing Admin Per greg park avenue's comments above, nominator changed vote to keep. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 22:03, 30 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. --PeaceNT (talk) 16:41, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ted DiBiase and Cody Rhodes[edit]
- Ted DiBiase and Cody Rhodes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable tag team. -- iMatthew T.C. 01:21, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Redundant to the existing articles on each member of the tag team. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!) 01:26, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per previous AfD on the same subject. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 01:29, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Just because articles exist for the members doesn't mean all tag team article should be deleted. The articles on the team provide more in-depth info to prevent the main articles from being bloated. In this case, they've done nothing notable as a team, however. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 01:29, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete Non-notable tag team. Tavix (talk) 02:13, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ultra speedy delete only because the very first line in the article is patently wrong. They formed at Night of Champions, and didn't even appear at Great American Bash. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.46.46.131 (talk) 06:27, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete non-notable tag team. WWF (oops excuse me WWE) has been putting teams together for years not all of them are notable and this one definitely isn't. No prejudice against recreation when they achieve something notable though. Jasynnash2 (talk) 09:23, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- They have won the Tag Titles. Darrenhusted (talk)
- Can We just have it up for a month or two please? i will do any thing!! Dmanskater11 (talk) 15:09, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Anything you say? Are you familiar with that episode of the Brady Bunch when Peter was Greg's slave for a week? Darrenhusted (talk) 13:46, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom 1362talk 15:52, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, just deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Simply Priceless. Nikki311 19:31, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete should have been CSD under recreation of deleted material. Darrenhusted (talk) 13:46, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. PCE 1 August 2008
- 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. TigerShark (talk) 22:28, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Chadwick Airport[edit]
- Chadwick Airport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Fails WP:N. The only listings about this airport are the FAA indicator and the airport code. No independent sources means non notable. A good example of a notable airport would be Wichita Mid-Continent Airport. It is well sourced, but can still be improved, and there are multiple independent sources too. Chadwick Airport is a private airport minus the proper sourcing. Delete Undeath (talk) 01:12, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Is there a notability guideline for airports besides the WP:N standards? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!) 01:19, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Response Not to my knowledge. WP:N applies to everything. To have an article, the proper sources must be provided. Undeath (talk) 01:24, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Bleah, that didn't come out right... Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!) 01:41, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 01:45, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 01:45, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The nature of airports is that verifiable information in reliable sources about every airport exists, but is not always immediately accessible. Local newspapers and radio will have covered the decisions leading up to the construction of the airport and its continuing operation. Every airport is notable, and the fact that this article is a stub does not change that fact. --Eastmain (talk) 01:45, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The airport exists, has flights coming out of it and an airport code. Easily meets WP:N. Nate • (chatter) 02:19, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I agree with Eastman. Airports are inherently notable, and the only issue with lack of sources is whether this article is a hoax. If it can be proven to be a hoax (and I'm not being snarky as that has happened before), then this can be speedied under applicable wikipolicy. But if it's got a verifiable code, then that's enough for verify this facility. 23skidoo (talk) 02:42, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I will explain this as easy as I can. An airport code means nothing other than the fact that it proves the existance of the airport. Flights do fly in and out of them, but only for private pilots/people with permission to use this PRIVATE airport. This is not a public airport, it's private. If it were public, this would be different, but it is not. It fails WP:N because it lacks third party sources. Flights flying in and out of it has nothing, I repeat nothing, to do with WP:N. And please quote to me where airports are inherently notable. That is not stated anywhere at all. Note to closing admin - Please review the policy of WP:N and judge if the private airport is notable. You have my opinion. Any article in the english wikipedia must provide reliable third party sources for notability to be established. Undeath (talk) 02:54, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Question Why would "private ownership" of an airport (or anything for that matter) automatically exclude it from notability?--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:08, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Privately owned or not, by law, extensive FAA records alone exist on every operating airport in the US. Just because there's not FAA hyperlinks in an article doesn't magically mean they don't exist. Even WP:N's heading makes a case of common sense. --Oakshade (talk) 05:32, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Once again, it's not got anything to do with the fact that it hs an FAA code. That means nothing to WP:N. That just says that it's an airport. But, it's an airport minus any coverage thus it's non notable. We can't give a blanket notability permission for all airport stubs. Undeath (talk) 05:36, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- My case wasn't just because "there's an FAA code." Government records count as reliable sources. --Oakshade (talk) 05:47, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. This is a private airport, not a public airport, and I can find no evidence that the owner attempts to market this airport to the general aviation market as a place to take off and land from. (Note that there are many publicly owned airports in the United States which are used for general aviation as opposed to scheduled airline service, but many of those are still notable -- they don't need to have scheduled airline service as Wichita Mid-Continent Airport does. But I don't see evidence that this private airport is notable.)
What's more, we don't even seem to have accurate coordinates for this airport. The listed coordinates, 45°37′59.4050″N, 126°10′04.3990″W, appear to be in the Pacific Ocean, about 100 miles west of the Oregon coastline.--Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:25, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]- So Fix It if the coordinates are wrong, that is a content issue not a notability issue.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:04, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You're right. The inaccurate location is not a strong argument. I'm going to rely on the "no evidence of reported operations" argument instead. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 14:07, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- So Fix It if the coordinates are wrong, that is a content issue not a notability issue.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:04, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep there is a huge precedent of keeping all airport articles. Government records, published weather patterns, radio call signs--you name it. Consensus would have to change, and I don't see any reason to think that it has. The folks at Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation have done a great job at this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulmcdonald (talk • contribs) 11:23, July 30, 2008
- Government records don't count for anything in reliable sources. If it did, convicts would all have their own pages because the government has information on them. And to the above keep, a huge precedent to keep all airport articles only seems to apply within the wikiproject. There are no reliable sources given on any of the private airports. A private airport is just that, a privately owned and operated airport used only by the owner and his/her friends. That is non notable. It fail WP:N in every way. I quote WP:N for you now, "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable." The government is NOT secondary source, it is a primary source. The airport is non notable. It is undeniable. Undeath (talk) 13:19, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Hmmm... The Wikipedia:WikiProject Airports considered the Federal Aviation Administration and the National Aurnautical Charting Office to be reliable sources. And since it is a private airport, then unquestionably the federal government would indeed be an independent source...--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:02, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Looking at the site (Airport IQ 5010) which we use in many other articles about airports for FAA data, it appears that Chadwick Airport either has no operations or at least doesn't report any operations to the FAA. See [55] and click on "Based Aircraft & Operations", which reports only one plane based there and zero operations. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 14:04, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- But records indicate it has been around since "before May 1959" or over 49 years which indicates long-term operations. Current use may indeed be very low, but it's long-term presence gives a strong indication of notability. It's a well-established airstrip. Small? Yes. Private? Sure. Low air traffic? Apparently. Notable? As the day is long.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:20, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Looking at the site (Airport IQ 5010) which we use in many other articles about airports for FAA data, it appears that Chadwick Airport either has no operations or at least doesn't report any operations to the FAA. See [55] and click on "Based Aircraft & Operations", which reports only one plane based there and zero operations. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 14:04, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Undeath, according to WP:RELIABLESOURCES, primary sources are "writings on or about a topic by key figures of the topic." The government and specifically the FAA aren't Chadwick Airport (key figure of the topic). This should be especially obvious as it's a private airport. --Oakshade (talk) 16:09, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Hmmm... The Wikipedia:WikiProject Airports considered the Federal Aviation Administration and the National Aurnautical Charting Office to be reliable sources. And since it is a private airport, then unquestionably the federal government would indeed be an independent source...--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:02, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Government records don't count for anything in reliable sources. If it did, convicts would all have their own pages because the government has information on them. And to the above keep, a huge precedent to keep all airport articles only seems to apply within the wikiproject. There are no reliable sources given on any of the private airports. A private airport is just that, a privately owned and operated airport used only by the owner and his/her friends. That is non notable. It fail WP:N in every way. I quote WP:N for you now, "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable." The government is NOT secondary source, it is a primary source. The airport is non notable. It is undeniable. Undeath (talk) 13:19, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - If we delete this one, I can easily type in airport in the search and 1000s more articles like this one would have to be deleted. Pie is good (Apple is the best) 14:49, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed at the risk of sounding like WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, I think we should review other airports and see if there is a precedent that is supported by consensus... which I believe that there is. Hillside Airport, Abilene Municipal Airport, Strother Field, Blosser Municipal Airport, Cessna Aircraft Field, Clay Center Municipal Airport, Colonel James Jabara Airport, Hamilton Field (Kansas), Lloyd Stearman Field--some of the 42 articles in the category "Kansas Airport Stubs" -- one state, some private, some municipal. It's worth considering.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:59, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Also check out List of private-use airports in Oregon and let us know...--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:03, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed at the risk of sounding like WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, I think we should review other airports and see if there is a precedent that is supported by consensus... which I believe that there is. Hillside Airport, Abilene Municipal Airport, Strother Field, Blosser Municipal Airport, Cessna Aircraft Field, Clay Center Municipal Airport, Colonel James Jabara Airport, Hamilton Field (Kansas), Lloyd Stearman Field--some of the 42 articles in the category "Kansas Airport Stubs" -- one state, some private, some municipal. It's worth considering.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:59, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Broad consensus on WP:Inherent notability of airports . Alansohn (talk) 20:37, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- comment How about a bit of consistency on Wikipedia? Are we agreeing that if: (a) Something exists and (b) a National government recognises it exists; therefore it is notable? If so, all the AFDs we get on here about schools, for example, will automatically fail? Is this the NEW policy (WP:N) for notability being agreed? somehow, I doubt it. Markb (talk) 23:18, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Statement Here comes a long one so read it carefully. If the government recognizes something, that does not make it notable. The government recognizes that my house is in Goddard, Kansas so that they can tax me etc..., but you don't see my page on wikipedia. Just because there are a few FAA numbers for a private airport does not make it notable. There is no broad consensus of airports being notable. I'm up for finding all non notable airport stubs and nominating them for deletion or merging them with other areas. Also, Jabara Airport is definitely notable. A simple google search would confirm that. (Same for strother, stearman, and cessna aircraft field) You cannot dodge around the opening line of WP:N There are no If's, And's, or But's about it. A private airport is like a private pool. It is only open for to certain people. The ONLY reason it contains a FAA code is for safety reasons. (You don't want planes to collide in mid air). There is no consensus that all airports are notable, and to even try and get that is beyond ridiculous. That would be like saying all buildings are notable because they are proven to be in existence. A lot of buildings are notable, buy the locaally owned convience store would not be. This is the same situation with the private airports. I'm not saying that they cannot be notable, but they must have reliable independent sources. A weather map of the area is not that source, nor is the site with the FAA code. Undeath (talk) 23:40, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "Undeath, according to WP:RELIABLESOURCES, primary sources are "writings on or about a topic by key figures of the topic." The government and specifically the FAA aren't Chadwick Airport (key figure of the topic). This should be especially obvious as it's a private airport." I disagree with this completely. The government and the FAA are not OUTSIDE OF THE TOPIC. The source needs to be unrelated to the airport business. I.e. a local newspaper, or a couple listings on other sites describing the airport. This airport does not contain this so it is non notable. Also, that little statement about WP:Inherent notability is also false. That is an essay, not a guideline. IT DOES NOT TRUMP WP:N. WP:N is a guideline, it is what all articles must abide by. This article fails and fails hard. Undeath (talk) 23:49, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Just as your house in Goddard, Kansas is not the government (or the FAA - but I think you knew that), Chadwick Airport is not the government or the FAA. The topic of the article is Chadwick Airport, not United States Government or the Federal Aviation Administration, which as you see by the wikilinks and the text of those articles are DIFFERENT TOPICS. (I can't believe I needed to explain that) WP:RELIABLESOURCES clearly states that sources from key figures of the topic are "primary", not "secondary." If sources were published by Chadwick Airport Inc. they would be "primary" as Chadwick Airport Inc. is a "key figure of the topic," not the US government or the FAA as they are external entities of Chadwick Airport. By the way, there is no "MUST" in WP:N. As you seemed to have missed above, WP:N states in its heading (not buried deep in a a sub-clause) "It is a generally accepted standard that editors should follow, though it should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception." --Oakshade (talk) 00:10, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Undeath's statements I will address your statements in order (read in a cordial and friendly voice):
- "If the government recognizes something, that does not make it notable." Of course.
- "The government recognizes that my house is in Goddard, Kansas so that they can tax me etc..., but you don't see my page on wikipedia." If it were, I would nominated for AfD.
- "Just because there are a few FAA numbers for a private airport does not make it notable." ummm... see next point
- "There is no broad consensus of airports being notable." Actually, there is.
- "I'm up for finding all non notable airport stubs and nominating them for deletion or merging them with other areas." You are certainly welcome to disagree with consensus. I'd recommend instead you start a discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Airports and work to clarify/set/re-set guidelines or whatever instead of nominating many articles for deletion. If you believe consensus should change, that it the place to do it (and maybe you're right).
- "Also, Jabara Airport is definitely notable. A simple google search would confirm that. (Same for strother, stearman, and cessna aircraft field)" agreed, that's why I used them as an example.
- "You cannot dodge around the opening line of WP:N There are no If's, And's, or But's about it" It says, "Within Wikipedia, notability is an inclusion criterion based on encyclopedic suitability of a topic for a Wikipedia article" which is what we're doing here.
- "A private airport is like a private pool. It is only open for to certain people." Not in the slightest. A private pool isn't registered with the FAA. A private pool doesn't show up on aviation maps. A private pool doesn't serve as an emergency landing field for aircraft. A private pool isn't a designated entry and exit point for the flow of air traffic. And a private pool does not fall under the auspices of Wikipedia:WikiProject Airports. This type of argument you are making is called Ignoratio elenchi or "Irrelevant conclusion" and is one of the many arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. Many other differences exist, including the fact that you shouldn't go swimming in an airport... But, if you want to start up Wikipedia:WikiProject Swimming Pool be my guest.
- "The ONLY reason it contains a FAA code is for safety reasons. (You don't want planes to collide in mid air)." Important safety tip, thanks. Maybe we should make a note of that... because... it... might... be... notable.
- "There is no consensus that all airports are notable, and to even try and get that is beyond ridiculous." You already said that several times... WP:WABBITSEASON recommends avoiding repeating arguments.
- "That would be like saying all buildings are notable because they are proven to be in existence. A lot of buildings are notable, buy the locaally owned convience store would not be. This is the same situation with the private airports." Another fine example of both WP:WABBITSEASON and irrelevant conclusion
- "I'm not saying that they cannot be notable, but they must have reliable independent sources. A weather map of the area is not that source, nor is the site with the FAA code." A weather map of the area would be good supplemental material, as is the other information. Oakshade and other's arguments clearly show that the information does meet the reliable source standards and is an accepted practice--a practice accepted by consensus.
- ""Undeath, according to WP:RELIABLESOURCES, primary sources are "writings on or about a topic by key figures of the topic." The government and specifically the FAA aren't Chadwick Airport (key figure of the topic). This should be especially obvious as it's a private airport." I disagree with this completely. The government and the FAA are not OUTSIDE OF THE TOPIC." Sorry, they are outside the topic. The federal government and the FAA are not wholly owned subsidiaries of this private airport in question. They are separate entities.
- The source needs to be unrelated to the airport business. I.e. a local newspaper, or a couple listings on other sites describing the airport. This airport does not contain this so it is non notable. I believe you are dramatically mis-interpreting the relable sources rule/guideline/whatever. By that guideline, ESPN could not be used as a reliable source for sporting events because, they are after all the "Entertainment and Sports Network" -- your argument doesn't wash.
- "Also, that little statement about WP:Inherent notability is also false. That is an essay, not a guideline. IT DOES NOT TRUMP WP:N. WP:N is a guideline, it is what all articles must abide by." Yes, it's an essay--but it's an essay for a reason. You can read about why this argument shouldn't be used in AFDs at WP:ONLYESSAY, but essentially it states that "Essays, in general, serve to summarize a position, opinion or argument. Frequently, this is done with reference to policies and guidelines, so to glibly brand them as "only an essay" may be misleading."
- "This article fails and fails hard." Sure, if you ignore all that annoying consensus stuff...--Paul McDonald (talk) 00:59, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Refutation As I think this now looks like a debate, I will treat it as such.
- The airport in question is private. As such, it should be subject of multiple third party sources to confirm notability.
- The government confirming the existence of the airport is not good enough, but it is mearly a safety issue. As you can see with private helipads, this is purely a safety issue.
- An essay is not a generally accepted guideline. An essay is something someone wrote down one day because he/she thought of a cool idea. Some of the times, other editors vehemently reject it, as I do with "airports being inherently notable".
- On the topic of inherent notability, there is no where, in either the guideline or the essay, where an airport is even mentioned. (thank you control + f)
- The government, being used as a reliable source, is not enough. While it is a good tool to prove the existence of the airport, it offers no other meaningful information. There is no press coverage of this facility, other than the government's proof that it does exist. Existence, by itself, is not enough.
- I would love to see an essay where certain facilities are given a blanket term in notability. There exists no such thing. WP:N is the basis for most, if not all, of the deletions that occur in AfD. It is widely accepted and widely known. The essay is not. It is not widely accepted, nor widely known. If it were, it would not be an essay, but it would be guideline.
- Also, my comparison to a private pool was taken out of context. I know a pool is not FAA registered. The only reason a private airport would be registered with the FAA is for safety. If a plane is taking off of a private strip, but no one else knows of it, there is a possibility for an accident. Another reason why the FAA has registered private airports would be for emergency settings. I.e., a plan needs to make a crash landing/emergency landing and the HUB/main landing zone is not within reach. Other than that, there is no coverage of the airport in any source.
- Proposal If deletion is not the best option, and, in my opinion, a keep is way from the best as well, I propose a merge. Since the airport is so near Banks, Oregon, why not put a section in the article for the airports around it? This could be done with all non notable private landing strips/airports/helipads. This article is non notable. There is no denying that. There is no web coverage. There is no local coverage. The only thing out there is the FAA code, which is done out of safety reasons only.
- ""There is no broad consensus of airports being notable." Actually, there is." Yeah, that is a double quote. Anyway, I would like to see where this consensus is. Give me the exact link to it. (no, this afd is not it)
Also, please don't think I'm becoming hateful, I'm not. (I actually enjoy a good argument every now and then) Undeath (talk) 02:18, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- One last thing The sites presented do not even show a chart for the airport. That means, no one has even mapped out what the thing looks like. Most/all notable airports have their runways mapped out. This one does not. Undeath (talk) 02:23, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cool! I'll take a swipe at those!
- The airport in question is private. As such, it should be subject of multiple third party sources to confirm notability. Why? Why should the type of ownership--public or private--have any bearing on how we treat it in Wikipedia?
- The government confirming the existence of the airport is not good enough, but it is mearly a safety issue. As you can see with private helipads, this is purely a safety issue. Why wouldn't such a safety issue make it noteworthy, as I asserted above?
- An essay is not a generally accepted guideline. An essay is something someone wrote down one day because he/she thought of a cool idea. Some of the times, other editors vehemently reject it, as I do with "airports being inherently notable". And some essays are used widely across Wikipedia, especially for specialist topics such as this one.
- On the topic of inherent notability, there is no where, in either the guideline or the essay, where an airport is even mentioned. (thank you control + f) But there also is a significant number of airports (large and small, public and private) claimed by the project. This repeated use and acceptance is indicative of consensus
- The government, being used as a reliable source, is not enough. While it is a good tool to prove the existence of the airport, it offers no other meaningful information. There is no press coverage of this facility, other than the government's proof that it does exist. Existence, by itself, is not enough. I don't know, I see a lot of meaningful information on the article--location, elevation, owner, nearest city, runway information, approximation of age, services (or lack of) available, etc.
- I would love to see an essay where certain facilities are given a blanket term in notability. There exists no such thing. WP:N is the basis for most, if not all, of the deletions that occur in AfD. It is widely accepted and widely known. The essay is not. It is not widely accepted, nor widely known. If it were, it would not be an essay, but it would be guideline. Okay, how about CFB:STADIUM??
- Also, my comparison to a private pool was taken out of context. I know a pool is not FAA registered. The only reason a private airport would be registered with the FAA is for safety. If a plane is taking off of a private strip, but no one else knows of it, there is a possibility for an accident. Another reason why the FAA has registered private airports would be for emergency settings. I.e., a plan needs to make a crash landing/emergency landing and the HUB/main landing zone is not within reach. Other than that, there is no coverage of the airport in any source. Again, a reason to take note... as in noteworthy.
- Proposal If deletion is not the best option, and, in my opinion, a keep is way from the best as well, I propose a merge. Since the airport is so near Banks, Oregon, why not put a section in the article for the airports around it? This could be done with all non notable private landing strips/airports/helipads. This article is non notable. There is no denying that. There is no web coverage. There is no local coverage. The only thing out there is the FAA code, which is done out of safety reasons only. Well, if you're just asking me I wouldn't want to go with it. But what I think doesn't matter much--what matters is consensus. So far. only two editors support deletion and six supporting keeping. Yes, it's not a "popular vote" but at the same time, it's helpful to look at. And one of the "elete editors" gives the reason that there are no current operations--to which I would say that at least 49 years of operation provides a long-term notability factor.
- ""There is no broad consensus of airports being notable." Actually, there is." Yeah, that is a double quote. Anyway, I would like to see where this consensus is. Give me the exact link to it. (no, this afd is not it) Again, I have to go with the List of private-use airports in Oregon for starters and show how the project has continued to support and add articles just like that one. "It's not what's inside me, but what I do that defines me."--Bruce Wayne
- Also, please don't think I'm becoming hateful, I'm not. (I actually enjoy a good argument every now and then) no problem. It's just good to make sure that issues such as these are about the issue, the topic--and not the person. It always pays to be nice.
- One last thing The sites presented do not even show a chart for the airport. That means, no one has even mapped out what the thing looks like. Most/all notable airports have their runways mapped out. This one does not Actually, all it means is that those sites don't have charts, it does not mean that no one has charted it. Offline sources are perfectly valid, and there is a difference between "verifiable" and "verified" --Paul McDonald (talk) 04:15, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I would be reluctant to support a guideline that all airports are notable. Maybe all airports which currently have or formerly had passenger air carrier service, and maybe even all airports which currently have or formerly had regular general aviation operations. (Preferably there should be sources to indicate evidence of such use; I would accept the 5010 as such evidence as long as it actually did indicate such operations.) But this airport, which has 49 years of existence, has not actually had evidence presented to indicate that any planes have taken off or landed there in recent years, or that they did so in the past; it is apparently unattended and no services are provided there. Just looking at the satellite image of the airport (now that its coordinates have been corrected), I don't see anything that looks like a runway. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:21, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It is a grass landing strip in someone's backyard, the aerial photos still show that. There are literally thousands of unattended grass landing strips in the State of Alaska alone and an uncountable number worldwide. Many airports are notable, but this is an unattended grass landing strip that I'd have trouble calling an airport. Someone named Chadwick living in or near Banks Oregon owns a Cessna 180, N2879K. A number of other planes are registered in Banks, OR as well. I'd say its not a coincidence that a person with that name owns an airplane registered in the same county. I'd bet at least one airplane uses it, but I don't think that means it's notable. --Dual Freq (talk) 11:42, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - there is no coverage of this airport to establish notability. Existence is not sufficient for coverage. All of the references are directory entries. -- Whpq (talk) 14:03, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Although there's not a lot of meat in this article, imagine a WP that had this level or better of information on every airport. That would be an uber-encyclopedia. I do think that UnDeath's admonition that: Government records don't count for anything in reliable sources. is really a pretty scary thought. I am sure both sides of the global warming debate would really freak out if they couldn't use those phoney government studies to make their case.--Mike Cline (talk) 22:57, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 2nd comment - This article article talks about the identifier number. Basicly, all airports regardless of if its used or not has to have an identifier code, so such codes may not indicate notability. Note:You don`t have to trust me on this as the article mentioned isn't cited. Pie is good (Apple is the best) 23:08, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- List only Basically delete. I don't really know that there's that much to say about the place other than that it exists. Other than a list entry, what is there to say about the place? From the standpoint of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, I'd have the same opinion for most of the things on the list. I think the best comparison is your average city street: it is mentioned in many government publications, the public knows it exists, but aside from places like Bourbon Street, your average patch-of-pavement just doesn't merit an encyclopedia article. SDY (talk) 23:47, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Article has now been sourced. It easily meets standards. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 14:48, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The article is verififable through reliable sources. It's pointless to discuss notability with no aiport specific notability guidleine. One of the worst aspects of wikipedia. MickMacNee (talk) 23:44, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- comment Wikipedia:WikiProject_Aviation/Style_guide#Notability is where notability rules should be established before this action is taken. I would argue for deletion of articles like Willamette Falls Community Hospital Heliport as something that could be well served in a list, but perhaps not on its own page. Unfortunately, there has been no action on the aviation page Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aviation/Style_guide page since I requested it about three weeks ago.
Yet, I have to add that I chafe at the suggestion that it is notable. this raises the question, if it's so notable, why are there nothing but government documents on the topic? By the same standard, every building (who files public paperwork with the government), and even every voter (who has an official, verifiable file) should have an entry. If the local paper has not mentioned the airport, I don't even see it having local interest and the only reason to have it appears to be as a repository / a place to link to for all airports (see WP:NOTREPOSITORY . Pdbailey (talk) 21:04, 6 August 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 (no consensus). TigerShark (talk) 22:27, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dhyanyogi Madhusudandas[edit]
- Dhyanyogi Madhusudandas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable religious leader. No reliable sources found to establish notablity. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 00:42, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 00:44, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 00:44, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 03:52, 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. 18:31, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: as per nom. --Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 07:16, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not notable. Raymond "Giggs" Ko 09:53, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete not notable. ChiragPatnaik (talk) 10:48, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This SUNY press book calls him a "major indian guru".John Z (talk) 15:21, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply The above reference list guru's in India with female disciples who took their place upon retirement/death. If this individual is indeed a "major indian guru," there must be some references that do not mention him in passing (so far the only one is in relation to a female disciple who took over his religios organization). If this was a book on him, or an article devoted to him, or even a substancial part of a text - but one brief mention is far from the notability requirements of wikipedia. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 16:19, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply - agree with Ism schism, the (single) source fails to meet Wikipedia's requirements for notability. --Shruti14 t c s 03:20, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply I agree, this source does not go far towards satisfying the general notability guideline, which is not how I meant it. But it does go towards satisfying the less restrictive, and relevant WP:CREATIVE - in particular The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors. One can find similar brief mentions in a couple more books. In any case extensive reliable source(s) exist, which I didn't have the time to explain then, see below.John Z (talk) 05:06, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:N and WP:RS Artene50 (talk) 01:30, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom, WP:N, and WP:RS. --Shruti14 t c s 03:18, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment According to The New Age Encyclopedia: A Guide to the Beliefs, Concepts, Terms, People . . . "prominent teachers of a form of kundalini yoga include Yogi Bhajan, Yogi Amrit Desai, Swami Chidvalasanandaji and Dhyanyogi Madhusudandasji." The South Asian Religious Diaspora in Britain, Canada, and the United States says "In 1976 the leader of Kundalini Maha Yoga, Dhyanyogi, brought a leading disciple Anandi Ma with him on an extended tour of the United States. Although he returned to India permanently in 1980, she stayed to build up support for the movement in America." These books refer to the chapter of Daughters of the Goddess: The Women Saints of India By Linda Johnsen which is devoted to Dhyanyogi and Anandi Ma. I note that the article on Anandi Ma was recently speedy deleted; the article on her less notable husband remains. Also, there already is the biography of Dhyanyogi by Anandi Ma as a reference in the Dhyanyogi article. The logical thing it seems would be to make the article on her husband Dileepji a redirect to a recreated article on her, and to keep the Dhyanyogi article; or perhaps have a combined article that all three redirect to.John Z (talk) 05:06, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per John Z's references. ~ priyanath talk 21:07, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete While Dhyanyogi Madhusudandas may be associated with a notable person, this does not confer notability on him alone. By himself, this individual is still a non-notable. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 04:25, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment From what I glanced at, the chapter in the book is roughly as much about Dhyanyogi as Anandi Ma, which only makes sense as he is the guru, and part of the notability of both is that he named her his legitimate successor. If we deleted, we would be in the odd position of saying a (presumably) notable person Anandi Ma wrote a book about a non-notable person, her guru Dhyanyogi. Perhaps an article (this one?) covering both would be best. It seems to me that what is most important is that we keep at least one article on a notable lineage of gurus. The ones that are harder to find references for can be shoe-horned into articles on their successors or predecessors or lineage. Splitting can always be done later if more references are found. By the way, if one nominates an article for deletion, it is not necessary to vote to delete also. Cheers,John Z (talk) 12:24, 29 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, Wizardman 01:06, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. — relisted per Wizardman's relisting. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 01:27, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment From this search he seems to be a real person but there are no notable sources for him. Note: was he 116 years old when he died? Artene50 (talk) 10:10, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment There are several sources, some books, some from university presses, given above concerning him.John Z (talk) 11:38, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Sufficient sources now. I accept John's argument about their significance. DGG (talk) 03:06, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep References cited by John Z verify subject's notability and confirm real potential for development. --PeaceNT (talk) 16:40, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment He is also cited as an expert source on the activity of kundalini in Brain, Symbol, and Experience by Charles D. Laughlin, Jr., John McManus, and Eugene G. d'Aquili, 1990, Columbia University Press, New York. Here's the amazon book link.[56] ~ priyanath talk 18:16, 4 August 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/merge/rename/etc., default to keep. Merges and moves can be worked out on the article's talk page, and are suggested before another nomination. lifebaka++ 13:02, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Meridian Park Hospital Heliport[edit]
- Meridian Park Hospital Heliport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Fails WP:N It is not covered in multiple independent sources. I vote for delete, but, a merge to the hospital page, if available, would be okay. The only sources that have this listed just list the FAA and airport code, which is standard for all airports/heliports. This is a private heliport, which does not deserve it's own article. Undeath (talk) 01:04, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - fails Notability guidelines. The FAA source (database) does not confer notability on any airport as this is not "Significant coverage" as it is one of many (thousands?) airports listed. This and the 100 other private airport stubs need Significant coverage in WP:RS to confer notability. Merge would be fine. Aboutmovies (talk) 01:30, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 01:47, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 01:47, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The nature of airports is that verifiable information in reliable sources about every airport exists, but is not always immediately accessible. Local newspapers and radio will have covered the decisions leading up to the construction of the airport and its continuing operation. Every airport is notable, and the fact that this article is a stub does not change that fact. --Eastmain (talk) 01:47, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I disagree with you completely. 1.) If local areas cover the event, provide the proof. 2.) Not all airports are notable. There is no way they could be. To pass WP:N an article MUST have multiple third party sources. If that is not present, regardless of the airport, it is non notable. That is the case with this airport. It is a private heliport, not a public heliport. It is to be used by one group of people only, not the general public. That tells me that local coverage was probably not present because it did not directly affect the public. This article is non notable. No sources. Those are the facts. Undeath (talk) 02:49, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I agree that not all airports are notable. Private airports like this are often not open to the general public and do not receive press coverage. Some are notable, but not this one. Aboutmovies (talk) 03:21, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and rename - change to article about hospital: There does not seem to be an article on Meridian Park Hospital, but articles on major hospitals are far more likely to be notable. By renaming this article to the hospital's name, and then creating at the very least a stub on the hospital, the heliport can then be mentioned in the article. Sebwite (talk) 17:59, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename to Meridian Park Hospital or Merge/Redirect to Clackamas County, Oregon--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 21:59, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep notability of permanent transportation facilities is a general principle here. We could of course change it. See the much fuller discussion above for Chadwick Airport There's a peculiar idea we are bound by the general WP:N as if there were immutable policy for all articles. Its just a guideline--we are explicitly or by general consent in practice adopt whatever guideline we choose for whatever types of articles we choose. There is no "MUST" about needing third party sources for notability. I would not necessarily oppose a guideline that hospital heliports are generally an exception and not notable the way other airports are, since relatively insignificant structurally and operationally. But it should be a general discussion on those terms. Insisting for specific sources for these is fruitless, because when found the discussion will be whether the discussion is significant, or whether they are primary or secondary, and we will lend up disputing all thousands of them individually here, with essentially random results. DGG (talk) 03:26, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This is not the same as an airport. It's a helipad for a hospital. Non notable. Undeath (talk) 05:10, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Sources provided are all primary. I could not find any secondary or tertiary sources among its 31 Google hits. The article fails Wikipedia:No original research#Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources -- a policy. Also, in my opinion, not every helipad is notable. What's next, every wharf? Every navigational buoy? Phlegm Rooster (talk) 04:46, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- PS. Look at the photos; it's a patch of concrete near the parking lot. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 05:06, 7 August 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. WODUP 03:23, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Michael Valdes[edit]
- Michael Valdes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Has already been speedied and prodded. I now bring it here for closure. Does this person meet the WP:BIO notability standard? brewcrewer (yada, yada) 00:57, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete Fails WP:BIO in every sense. Undeath (talk) 01:25, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I agree - article fails to assert any degree of notability. The person would appear to be an expert in their field, however the passing mentions and quotes do not really do it per WP:BIO.
- Speedy This one is pretty obvious Tavix (talk) 01:57, 30 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. TigerShark (talk) 22:53, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Irislene Stefanelli[edit]
- Irislene Stefanelli (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
She is a former Big Brother Brasil contestant. She was deleted once on pt-wiki: pt:Wikipedia:Páginas para eliminar/Irislene Stefanelli. She is under AfD again on pt-wiki: pt:Wikipedia:Páginas para eliminar/Íris Stefanelli. She hosts a TV program, but she isn't even the main host ("she is the third host"). The main host is pt:Nelson Rubens. No results on IMDb. The only source is a blog. No notability per WP:ENTERTAINER. Tosqueira (talk) 17:29, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. —Tosqueira (talk) 17:33, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Defer to results of discussion on Portugese Wikipedia. I know that's a bit strange of a vote, but our fellows over at the Portugese site, being people who speak the language, will almost certainly have a better handle on the merits of the article than we would. RayAYang (talk) 21:11, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment On pt-wiki they keep anything depending on the number of votes. They don't have any notability criteria. But, most of people on pt-wiki are voting in favor of deletion. However, on pt-wiki it's necessary that 2/3 of the votes in favor of deletion. We have to decide according to en-wiki policy, not pt-wiki policy. All we can do is call people who understand portuguese to decide. That's why this debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Tosqueira (talk) 23:05, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Tosqueira (talk) 01:51, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The voting in Portuguese is 19 the 17 to keep signed peerypedista (in the wikipédia in Portuguese) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.59.144.127 (talk)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Skomorokh 00:38, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, because she is not a relevant personality. She was eliminated 3 times in pt/wikipedia before. --Nice poa (talk) 05:15, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Realty TV show contestants' articles are usually deleted or redirected to the relevant season's article. This article should be no exception. No reliable sources are provided, and the article is full of rumours, speculation (thus violating WP:BLP), and weasel words that it should be scratched. Ohconfucius (talk) 07:35, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I do not know if I can vote if he can vote for keep.She is a presenter and not a "ex-bbb"(in portuguese).Votation in portuguese wikipedia 21x19
Peerypedista (talk) 17:03, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The article has not been improved, it lacks of independent reliable sources. Also, there are a lot of articles which are kept on pt-wiki but don't meet any notability criteria (Which are usually deleted on en-wiki because they violate en-wiki policies, for example: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christina Magalhães Herrmann). Certainly this is one of them and should be deleted. The article is full of non eciclopedic Big Brother stuff and rumors, speculation, gossip (violating WP:BLP). In addition to these, on the show she "hosts", she would be as relevant as a non notable "weather girl". Tosqueira (talk) 20:03, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The way the article is right now is {{db-nonsense}}. Tosqueira (talk) 19:15, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, because she is not a relevant personality. She was
eliminated 3 times in pt/wikipedia before. Fred Xavier (talk) 18:08, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Leiam pt:Wikipedia:Páginas para eliminar/Íris Stefanelli Peerypedista (talk) 21:34, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry
read pt:Wikipedia:Páginas para eliminar/Íris Stefanelli
Peerypedista (talk) 21:36, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It means nothing. See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christina Magalhães Herrmann and pt:Wikipedia:Páginas para eliminar/Christina Magalhães Herrmann. Or Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carlos Botelho and pt:Wikipedia:Páginas para eliminar/Bottelho. Tosqueira (talk) 03:46, 6 August 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. --PeaceNT (talk) 06:45, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Lakshmana Swamy[edit]
- Lakshmana Swamy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Bio of a non-notable religious leader. Also, no reliable sources. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 00:26, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 00:28, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 00:28, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 00:28, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Non-Notable. --Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 10:01, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No reliable sources to establish notability. GizzaDiscuss © 00:37, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom, WP:RS, and WP:V --Shruti14 t c s 16:33, 4 August 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. Rjd0060 (talk) 23:00, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Louisiana Airways[edit]
- Louisiana Airways (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Airline that never got started, fails WP:N as it has no reliable sources. Pie is good (Apple is the best) 00:25, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Bring it back when it is flying. Forego (talk) 00:29, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: per nom. – Jerryteps 00:31, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete peripheral mentions only ([57]). JJL (talk) 00:53, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete unless it actually gets started. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Tavix (talk) 01:58, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Tavix. Wait until it's actually started, or until there's more to say about it (i.e., more reliable source coverage). This is a perma-stub for something non-notable. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!) 02:05, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]- Neutral per Eastmain. Only one of the sources is substantially about the article. But I usually trust Eastmain's judgment, as they're really good at WP:HEY. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!) 17:29, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I added a reference. Even if the airline never flew, it was once notable, as shown by the media coverage it received from multiple sources late in 2004. And once notable, always notable. I can't find anything that explains when or why it went out of business. --Eastmain (talk) 05:20, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- To reply from my talk page, sorry, 3 cites isn't enough to establish notability. Pie is good (Apple is the best) 23:06, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete If the airline never flew, then the article is highly unlikely to ever advance beyond stub status. Notability was very definitely marginal. If it would have failed WP:CRYSTAL as a prospective airline, there's certainly no reason to include it as an airline that never made it to flight. RayAYang (talk) 17:32, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Does seem to have multiple WP:RS's that keep WP:V possible. So what if it does not go much beyond a perma-stub, thats allowed. Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 09:26, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - it never existed as an operating airline. Bearian (talk) 18:02, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The Wiki if full of "things that never were" how can that (alone) be reason to delete? Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 06:29, 5 August 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. Lenticel (talk) 11:20, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Shri Prabhuji[edit]
- Shri Prabhuji (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Bio of a non-notable religious leader. Also, no reliable sources. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 00:22, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 00:25, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 00:25, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 00:25, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete blatant copyright violation and so tagged Ohconfucius (talk) 05:37, 30 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 G7, see nom. No other significant edits. Will de-link in a moment.. TravellingCari 11:46, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Greenwich (software)[edit]
- Greenwich (software) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
I had forgotten about this article until recently. It was my first contribution, made on 2006 December 29. I have learned a lot since then and no longer feel that this article meets the notability criterion. Therefore, I am nominating it for deletion. « D. Trebbien (talk) 00:18, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment since the only non-bot edit apart from the creator was to categorise, I'd say this is an easy G7. ANy objections to a speedy? TravellingCari 00:54, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Go right ahead. And if you hadn't noticed, it will need to be delinked from Greenwich (disambiguation). Synergy 11:25, 30 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 redirected. Synergy 11:19, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Daveed[edit]
- Daveed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
A major failure of WP:N and WP:V. Tavix (talk) 00:14, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge/Redirect: This should just be a redirect with a comment about it in the article. – Jerryteps 00:28, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge/Redirect- this one's fairly obvious. Reyk YO! 01:48, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy close: boldly redirected Ohconfucius (talk) 06:01, 30 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. --PeaceNT (talk) 16:34, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
11,000 Clicks[edit]
- 11,000 Clicks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This article has no references, is uncategorized, orphaned, and fails WP:V and WP:N. Tavix (talk) 00:10, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Delete per nom. – Jerryteps 00:26, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]Delete Like the nominator said. Forego (talk) 00:29, 30 July 2008 (UTC)Nevermind, keep per Ironholds's comment below. --Forego (talk) 17:11, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]- Delete fails WP:N. « D. Trebbien (talk) 00:51, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep; what the hell people? Other than the WP:V and WP:N things the others are not reasons for deletion. It has no references, yes, but a simple google search would have asserted notability and verifiability. It's a first draft of an article; of course it isn't going to be perfectly categorised, but that doesn't mean it's worth being deleted. I'm going to rewrite it to be more encyclopedic, but I'm still having trouble understanding how this even got delete votes. Ironholds 00:57, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I know that everything mentioned by the nom except "fails WP:N" does not support the article being deleted, and I should have been more clear. As far as the Google search asserting notability and verifiability, none of the links are of actual content, and the only thing that can be verified is that this DVD exists. Look through them for yourself. They are all websites trying to sell the DVD or essentially database pages which list the published "about this DVD". « D. Trebbien (talk) 00:39, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep- I think Ironholds is right. A mass of google hits including what seem to me to be substantial secondary sources indicate both WP:V and WP:N are met. Reyk YO! 01:34, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia:Search engine test... a bunch of google hits do nothing to prove verifiability. --Rividian (talk) 02:13, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- new york times review and an All Music Guide page; it's released by a notable label, it comes from a notable artist; what more do you need? Ironholds 11:57, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The New York Times did not review this. Search for the first sentence and you'll find three unrelated websites, leading me to think that this is what was published by the publisher of this DVD. All Music Guide is simply a database. « D. Trebbien (talk) 00:43, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - It seems to me that a vast majority of these G-hits are links to purchase, links to user-added content, and the like. I agree that verifiability is met, but I question the notability. It does have an allmusic review, which gives it some credibility, but not necessarily enough in my opinion. Not every album by a notable group is notable. Addionne (talk) 01:50, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Allmusic review plus a new york times review sticks WP:N firmly in the net. Swish. Ironholds 11:12, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ooh woops. Always read the small print, I guess. Ironholds 12:57, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: WP:NM#Albums states that an officially released album by a notable musician can have its own article. Moreover, if the article were to be deleted, people would see a gap (or redlink, if you like) in the discography of Moloko and would just create the article again, which suggests that the more sensible route would be to place a {{cleanup}} or {{refimprove}} template and hope that people will improve the article over time. It Is Me Here (talk) 18:06, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup. It was released by a notable band on a notable label; therefore, it's notable in its own right per consensus. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!) 18:27, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- What is says is 'officially released albums may have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia. Individual articles on albums should include independent coverage.' Which means it can have an article, not that it should. Addionne (talk) 18:50, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Whoops, didn't realize this was a DVD, not an album. Darn non-standard infoboxes. Anyway, Weak neutral per precedent that releases by notable acts are usually notable. There is an Allmusic review, but other than that I'm finding very little. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!) 19:15, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep: Some references have been added. – Jerryteps 22:47, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- keep - article stinks, but that's not a reason for deletion, seems notable per other music efforts. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 21:42, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Subject is notable and article is on it's way and just needs development. Lympathy Talk 15:37, 4 August 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.