Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 May 4
- 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) 00:07, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Tiffany Jo Allen[edit]
- Tiffany Jo Allen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable singer, she has never been signed to a major label or had any chart singles on major music charts. There is hardly any reliable sources anywhere. Caldorwards4 (talk) 23:56, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The article's sources are only trivial mentions of her, and no reliable third party sources seem to exist. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 00:04, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Non-notable. Renee (talk) 00:22, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Non-notable singer. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 03:25, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom and Hammer. Doctorfluffy (talk) 20:42, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 22:52, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Please lets put this article out of its misery. Ltwin (talk) 20:45, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus to delete, default to keep. Sandstein (talk) 06:41, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mansion stage[edit]
- Mansion stage (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Seems to be a hoax, or at the least a non-notable type of stage. Only Google hits are for "Luigi's Mansion" stages. Doesn't seem to be a notable type of stage. Relatively few relevant hits. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 23:56, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I don't think it's a hoax: [1]. Zagalejo^^^ 00:01, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I don't think it's a hoax either but it seems more like a definition. Maybe it could be integrated into an article on theatrical stages. Renee (talk) 00:24, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, a medieval precursor to the Elizabethan stage that originated with the passion plays and has been used in revival to the present day. Also known as mansion staging. --Dhartung | Talk 06:35, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. In reference to Dhartung's comments, I find 45 Google Books results for "mansion stage" and 25 for "mansion staging". This is enough to make me reasonably confident that the subject is notable and that a well-referenced article can be written. Jakew (talk) 19:13, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 22:53, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The Google Books results show clear notability, and the these ones reveal plenty of information that can be used for expansion. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:43, 6 May 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 G10 -- I guess that works too, if not G3 -- by DGG. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 00:44, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ahmet sarp[edit]
- Ahmet sarp (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Fails WP:BIO. No reliable source google search.[2] Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 23:52, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Non-notable. Not a single Google news hit.Renee (talk) 00:24, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- G3 The lack of any information on this guy seems to indicate a WP:HOAX. So tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 00:35, 5 May 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. - Philippe 17:33, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sulo Kolkka[edit]
- Sulo Kolkka (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Fails WP:BIO. No significant coverage in reliable source. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 23:50, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Non-notable, not a single google news hit. The single non-RS or V reference reads like a small piece of trivia.Renee (talk) 00:26, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, probably. Lots of google hits, not even one in a properly reliable source. Somebody who can read Finnish should probably check fi:Sulo Kolkka for details - especially the talkpage. It seems to say its an urban legend - unless urbaanilegendana means "completely verifiable" in that absurdly difficult language - but doesn't provide any links to the Finnish equivalent of snopes. --Relata refero (disp.) 03:20, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 22:55, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Can't find any reliable sources on this one. asenine say what? 23:11, 9 May 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 due to a previous but still-ongoing discussion on the same article. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:25, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sean Creed[edit]
- Sean Creed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Fails WP:ATHLETE. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 23:47, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete: Recreation of deleted article. RGTraynor 01:16, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This AfD seems to still be open. GaryColemanFan (talk) 03:18, 5 May 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) 00:06, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Daniel Mumford[edit]
- Daniel Mumford (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Possible hoax. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 23:32, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. On the balance of probability, a hoax. Note that the online databse for VC recipients only runs up to 1944, so that can't be checked. And the string "Proceedings - U.S. Naval Institute, Vol. 120, March 1994" can be found online (with exactly the same punctuation), but not the contents of the article. And so on. Codohu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is an editor (presumably Collin Husted) who's already received a final warning for adding unverified material in the past. This is just the next step. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 00:57, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Update The article's citations are all cut-and-pasted from this page, punctuation and all. Anyone with access to the U.S. Army War College Library (or a comparable library) could confirm this as a good article or as a hoax. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 21:05, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:02, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:02, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as a clear hoax. The SAS did not conduct this kind of operation during WW2 and there's no mention of this person on List of English Victoria Cross recipients or a Google search, which isn't likely if he did indeed win a VC (Britain's highest award for heroism). --Nick Dowling (talk) 11:49, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as obvious hoax. A 16-man unit "sabotaged roughly 200 airplane factories in Germany"? Rubbish. The author's previous final warning for adding unverified material was last year, but he should be given another now. JohnCD (talk) 19:41, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Seems like pure nonsense. Zenlax T C S 19:42, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete - clear hoax. Not a VC recipient, no references found in google books or other searches. Debate (talk) 10:11, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete as an obvious hoax. No results referring to this person on Google Search, so this person most definitely is not a VC winner or any sort of a notable person. StarryWorld —Preceding comment was added at 21:50, 7 May 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.
Inflatophilia[edit]
- Inflatophilia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable neologism. All the ghits shown in google search are non-RS. No hint in google books [3]. Fails WP:RS. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 23:25, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Deflate, I mean, Delete as an unsourced neologism. Sounds fun, though... (Tell me I didn't just say that.) Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 23:44, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- LOL ! Erring towards Delete - per nom Francium12 (talk) 23:51, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not only does it cite references and reliable references are not available but the definition given here doesn't match up with ones elsewhere on the net. Apparently, there are so many ways to think of things like this... Munci (talk) 00:01, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - No I've changed my mind having investigated some of the darker corners of the internet. Had better clear the history :=) I now believe that there are people whom are actually in to this. Whereas Inflatophilia only has a few hits on google, Inflation fetish has some 25,000. Needs to be referenced though Francium12 (talk) 00:25, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- But Inflation fetish and Inflatophilia are not same term. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 00:31, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
'Comment - Well if you're such as expert ;-) would you mind explaining the difference as inflation fetish is clearly notable based upon google hits Francium12 (talk) 10:40, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well if you're such as expert ;-) would you mind explaining the difference between Breast expansion fetishism and Boobphilia? Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 10:57, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete in this form. It's a genuine term but I've never heard it used in this sense; it refers to a sexual attraction to inflatable objects, not to being inflated. — iridescent 01:22, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Seems to be entirely original research. If kept the title should be changed to something more generalized. 65.11.23.219 (talk) 06:37, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I have since found there have been versions of Inflatable fetishism, Balloon fetishism and Inflation fetishism already deleted multiple times. Munci (talk) 12:01, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment
I believe that google doesn’t quite understand the difference between inflatophillia and inflation fetish itself. But I can’t help thinking that this is simply for systemic bias in VfD if this was to be deleted. If google is anything to go by it seems there are people actually into this stuff so can anyone explain how this can fail on notability?
As I understand it inflatophillia is an odd fetish which involves using inflatable objects as parahillia. Think latex balloons and the like.
There is also a different fetish which seems to be about inflated women which I would term body inflation fetish. As one could imagine it seems to exist more in comics and art than in the real world as that would be rather dangerous(http://humanballooncd2005.tripod.com/) Anyone can check out this link and several others on the Internet to see that such a thing does actually exist.
I think all such terms are used rather interchangeably. Inflation fetishism and expansion fetishism seem to be similar terms. Maybe an article called expansion fetishism could group them all together if only so I could amusingly add an expand tag Francium12 (talk) 13:16, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: The Keep proponents are missing a trick. Meeting the standard of WP:NEO has nothing to do with whether this paraphilia exists. It has to do with whether it is widely known under this name. With 83 Google hits, no reliable sources discernable or included in the article, and the hits being exclusively to Wiki mirrors and bulletin boards, it demonstrably isn't. RGTraynor 12:47, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete - Nabla (talk) 02:06, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Kevin Hand[edit]
- Kevin Hand (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
While he is genuine, he appears to be a fairly minor commentator on a local radio station. I've cleaned out some of the more dubious BLP violations, leaving a rather sorry stub; while it probably could be cleaned up, I don't really think it's worth saving. A search for him on the BBC London website only brings up a couple of hits (the 15 or so hits are misleading - if you check the URLs most are to the same page), and there doesn't appear to be any mention of him on the BBC website since the end of the 2007 cricket season. The Google Test again shows he exists, but I'm not convinced there's enough to establish notability. More than willing to be convinced otherwise. (Note: I've posted a notification of this AFD at WP:WikiProject Cricket; presumably if he's notable someone there will be able to defend him, and if none of them have heard of them it'll argue against his notability.) — iridescent 23:12, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. —Stephen Turner (Talk) 07:31, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. —Stephen Turner (Talk) 07:31, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep - whilst the article could do with a lot of work, being hagiographic and non-encyclopaedic in tone, I think he just about rates as notable. Radio London has a catchment area of over 10 million people, and his ball-by-ball commentary on Middlesex matches on the Internet can be listened to by Middlesex fans the world over. Whatever decision is reached, the same should apply to Mark Church. who fulfils the same role with Radio London for Surrey cricket as Hand does for Middlesex. As a Surrey fan, I listen to a lot of Church's commentary myself on the Net. For a fan of a county, it's rather marvellous to know that commentary on every ball of every match ios available on the Net. JH (talk page) 09:15, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have had a go at beefing up the piece on Kevin Hand, although my ineptitude means that someone should add working links where I have made references to other relevant materials. He is certainly interesting and relevant, based on the points I have added to his piece - ball-by-ball commentary on cricket is a vital element of accessibility for blind and partially sighted people and the MCC and BBC's commitment to ball-by-ball commentary is a large contribution to that need in the UK - Kevin Hand's work for the BBC is important to that. People all over the world access the service and discuss it, amongst other places, on the Middlesex Supporter's website MTWD. these are "high accesss" parts of the internet - MTWD achieving some 1.5M to 2M hits per annum from some tens of thousands of people.
I agree that the article still needs more work, but I would strongly advocate that it should be kept and improved, not deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ian L Harris (talk • contribs) 15:06, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete With a grand total of 0 RS in the article which actually name the subject, the article currently fails WP:V. Happy to return and rethink if at least 2 non-trivial RS references are included. --Dweller (talk) 22:36, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. SGGH speak! 12:01, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete per User:Dweller. I'm in his catchment area, but have not heard of him. Johnlp (talk) 14:50, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - no RSs to establish notability. In addition, most of the content would need to be deleted as POV, opinion and comment. TerriersFan (talk) 19:36, 10 May 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 "Les noms" to Marie-Thérèse Morlet and keep that one. Sandstein (talk) 06:25, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Les noms de personne sur le territoire de l'ancienne Gaule du VIe au XIIe siècle[edit]
- Les noms de personne sur le territoire de l'ancienne Gaule du VIe au XIIe siècle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
I see no evidence to indicate notability. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 23:06, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following related pages because on closer inspection the author does not appear to be notable, either:
- Merge the two pages at Marie-Thérèse Morlet and keep. The scholar seems notable enough for the academic notability criteria, having published several obscure but scholarly, multi-volume books. Google Scholar shows an apparently significant presence. The book itself may not be notable enough to support an article in its own right, and seems important but obscure. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:16, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per Smerdis. I can't see much independent notability for the book, but Ms Morlet seems notable. Google Books shows that she is "widely cited by her peers or successors", to quote WP:BIO. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:14, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per above, although some sources would really be nice. Beeblbrox (talk) 05:05, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into Marie-Thérèse Morlet as it is unlikely that enough information would be available to expand the article in question significantly with reliable sources. Ms. Morlet certainly qualifies under WP:PROF in her own right. B.Wind (talk) 00:14, 10 May 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) 00:06, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Virgin America fleet[edit]
- Virgin America fleet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
lacks notability and, because WP:AIRLINES deemed registrations irrelevant, page also lacks relevance. Butterfly0fdoom (talk) 22:47, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: If you nominate this for deletion, then you are pretty much obliged to nominate every other fleet page for deletion unless you can somehow prove that this page is more worthy of deletion than other fleet pages, which is probably impossible to do. You should also notify WP:AIRLINES of this nomination. NcSchu(Talk) 23:26, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. —CariMeSpeak! 00:42, 5 May 2008 (UTC) + comment made to WP:AIRLINES here CariMeSpeak! 00:42, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Wikipedia is not a directory, article has little context. What is the relevance of this info? --neonwhite user page talk 02:38, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete WP:AIRLINES consensus seems to be that fleet lists are generally not notable, and any exceptions must establish notability on a per-case basis. I also support removing similar sections that may be integrated into other articles, such as in most of the articles in Category:Airline fleets. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 04:05, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The fleet tables are basically copied one-for-one from their respective sources, and I don't see the benefit they give to the encyclopedia. Neither airline fleet is notable in any regard so they fail that basic page requirement. WP:AIRLINES has also stated that registration tables should not be included in Fleet sections on any airline page, therefore merge requests are also irrelevant. Neither page has substance, unlike some other fleet pages that exist on the encyclopedia, and plenty of time has been given for substance to be added. NcSchu(Talk) 04:10, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per User:NcSchu. MilborneOne (talk) 18:42, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per NcSchu. Jakew (talk) 19:19, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, also per NcSchu. SempreVolando (talk) 18:51, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, it has long been held as concensus at WP:AIRLINES that sprawling lists of fleet tables and registrations, previous users, current operators, etc, etc are not encyclopaedic, with the exception of a few circumstances, such as Western Pacific Airlines, where the fleet itself actually was notable. Additionally, the sources being used for many of these articles are not reliable sources, they are mainly enthusiast sites with no expectation of fact checking and the like. Let's build an encyclopaedia here, and let's leave the fandom element to sites such as airliners.net. Furthermore, in the event that article length is ever used as a reason for the existence of these articles, the solution to horrible cruft is to delete it, not create a separate article for it. --Россавиа Диалог 18:36, 8 May 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. Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 04:15, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Randall Stone[edit]
- Randall Stone (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Huh? Even after reading the (long) article I can't see why this is here. Looks like an elaborate vanity page. —Chowbok ☠ 17:52, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Userfy to User:Randallstone. Although User:Randallstone did not create the article, he has edited it. As a second choice, delete per WP:BIO and WP:COI. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:59, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Question - Does he qualify under WP:Athlete as having competed at the highest level of his sport? I don't know if the world triathalon championships are professional or the highest non league sport or not...but if they are, he qualifies for an article. LegoTech·(t)·(c) 18:53, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. If Stone WP:Verifiably competed for Team USA Triathlon or at the USA national championships, he would pass WP:BIO#Athletes. No WP:RS are currently cited, and I can't find one independent of Stone. Beyond that, the obvious COI edits do not appear to be major. His Special Olympics work gets him some RS attention, but he currently falls short. • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 02:40, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Frankly, I smell a rat. There are only 23 Google hits with "Randall Stone" + "triathlon" + "USA" [4], and each and every one is either this article, a Wiki mirror, or some business promotional website. There is not a single hit from an athletics-based website, official or otherwise. The USA Triathlon team doesn't seem to have a website I can find which might verify team members, but the team didn't start holding organized tryouts for the Worlds before 1999. RGTraynor 01:54, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete looks like a vanity page to me. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 22:12, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Wikipedia is not a resume service. B.Wind (talk) 03:59, 10 May 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. Fabrictramp (talk) 23:32, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Stacie Hayez[edit]
- Stacie Hayez (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Claims to multiple works, but no real assertation of notability. Finding sources proved difficult since there're about 8 million people with this name, but I'm turning up nothing verifiable on this author. Possible COI at work too, not to mention a misspellt name. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 22:24, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:05, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. Notability is not even asserted--this thing should've been speedied. No claim is even made that this writer has published one single word--instead, she has written 15 short stories, which ordinarily would be insufficient to establish notability even if they had been published. Looks like a weak attempt at WP:AUTO. Qworty (talk) 14:21, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete The ONLY Google Hits she has is her Wiki page.Electricbassguy (talk) 03:47, 10 May 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) 00:05, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Send Out Scuds[edit]
- Send Out Scuds (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
- Sower Seed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
A band that appears to completely fail WP:MUSIC. Black Kite 22:09, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- delete cant find any reliable sources. --neonwhite user page talk 22:16, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and get their EP Sower Seed while you're at it. The band seems to fall more than a bit short of WP:MUSIC, with only one EP out to date. (There's such a thing as Christian ska?!) Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 22:19, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, no sources beyond MySpace/record label, no claim of any notability which would pass WP:MUSIC, appears to be one of countless bands with an EP and a MySpace page and nothing more. --Stormie (talk) 01:32, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb "Talk" 08:44, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:05, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - falls well short of WP:MUSIC standards (article on band's current label, Blood and Ink Records, is now prodded. Should the prod tag be removed, this article loaded with red links - and getting redder and redder, I must add - should also go to AfD). B.Wind (talk) 03:39, 9 May 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 Deleted (non-admin closure) by User:Pascal.Tesson per CSD A7 - Group/band/club/company/etc; doesn't indicate importance/significance. WilliamH (talk) 10:11, 10 May 2008 (UTC) CSD G1, patent nonsense. WilliamH (talk) 10:15, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Long Island Giants[edit]
- Long Island Giants (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
I added a PROD tag to this page, on the grounds that it was non-notable, autobiographical, and created specifically for vandalism. User:M.malone.11 removed the PROD tag, saying that it was not an autobiography. The other two concerns still stand. Also, the page was previously speedy deleted under criterion A7 (article does not state subject's significance). — Insanity Incarnate 21:58, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I'm suprised it wasn't speedy deleted again under G11. It's non-notable, badly written, no sources and promotional. --neonwhite user page talk 22:18, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: M.malone.11 (talk · contribs) tried to change this to a "save". Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 22:30, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- save why does it matter if this article stands. There is no reason for it to be deleted in the ways that were stated previously. It is not badly written and whatever sources that are necessary i will provide. Please let me know. user:: m.malone.11. — Preceding unsigned comment added by M.malone.11 (talk • contribs)
- Delete I found one mention of the Long Island Giants in 1977 and 1996, but this article states the team started in 2003, so I have to assume its a different team and vote delete as non notable. MMAlone, come back when you've gotten newspapers to write about the team LegoTech·(t)·(c) 23:09, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article states that they are a Little League baseball team, but it looks like a joke article and [this site] seems to indicate they are a minor league football team. The question of deletion hinges on whether there is a real team by that name in whatever sport, and whether that team is notable. Ryan Paddy (talk) 23:27, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Even if there is a real team, deletion and recreation of a proper article if necessary is still the best way to go. --neonwhite user page talk 02:40, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Why? If there is a notable team by that name the article could just be edited back to stub that represents the real team. Deleting and recreating with the same name would be pointless. But if notability can't be demonstrated then it should be deleted. Ryan Paddy (talk) 03:37, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Even if there is a real team, deletion and recreation of a proper article if necessary is still the best way to go. --neonwhite user page talk 02:40, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Inexplicably, the creator of this article (or at least someone using his account) started vandalizing it himself three minutes after creating it by adding nonsense (such as the team sponsors providing not just equipment and uniforms, but "zebra rides") and gratuitous profanities. But going back to the original text, this team appears to be just a Little League baseball team which would be non-notable under WP:ORG. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:50, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete per A7 and salt at closer's discretion. (This appears to be a case in which an article might keep being recreated.) Deor (talk) 12:34, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Completely non-notable local "organization". Doctorfluffy (talk) 19:02, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete for lack of sources that prove notability under WP:ORG.-- danntm T C 22:45, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- What do we need to change for it to stay as an article-Dohertyizzle —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dohertyizzle (talk • contribs) 22:54, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, if your account is really being hacked, first change your password (click on "my preferences" in the upper right part of the screen). Then look at Wikipedia:ORG#Primary criterion and see what the requirements are to establish notability for a team. Specifically, it would help if you could show that there has been significant coverage of your team in mainstream newspapers, magazines, television programs, books, etc. If there hasn't been, the chance of this article being kept is pretty low. Also, please make sure everything in the article is 100% true and not just a joke or exaggeration. Saying that "The Late and Great Frank Zappa" is a coach of this team makes it sound like Frank Zappa came back from the dead to be a coach. If you have a coach whose name coincidentally is Frank Zappa, not the deceased musician, then don't refer to him as "the late and great". --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:25, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Also I would like to add that we only created this article to get more notarity and gain more players to join our team. I am apologizing for all the vandalism that went on with that article obviously someone hacked into mine and Malone's account and screwed stuff up —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dohertyizzle (talk • contribs) 22:59, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:16, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No evidence of notability found via Google. On the bright side, the edit history of this article is pretty funny and so are the writers' comments here. Ryan Paddy (talk) 00:55, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Google is not the only search engine in the world and we are improving a website so it will be up soon okay [personal attack removed]--Dohertyizzle (talk) 01:26, 7 May 2008 (UTC) Personal attack removed by Metropolitan90 (talk) 08:41, 7 May 2008 (UTC).[reply]
- Why do u care so much if this article is up or not is it hurting anybody or screwing up anybody elses paper,We are a real tema i will send you a picture of our team if u really want proof--Dohertyizzle (talk) 01:29, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, it's hurting the family of the late Frank Zappa, for claiming that he is coaching your team from the grave, for one thing. Also, it's hurting Eric Chavez and Dikembe Mutombo for misrepresenting what they bought for your team, if indeed they bought anything for your team, which I doubt. Are you planning to edit the article to make sure it is true? That would be more helpful even than a picture of the team. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 08:41, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete as hoax. Compare with earlier AfD on Long Island Beans, which also was a hoax. BRMo (talk) 23:18, 7 May 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) 00:09, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sockball[edit]
- Sockball (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Contested Prod. Can find no semi-reliable sources to back up the article's content. It contains spurious details (no G-hits for "Hawaiian Tropics Tour of Hawaii" or "Kate Dorito", for example). Smacks of WP:MADEUP. Gr1st (talk) 21:45, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not so much Madeup certainly appears to apply. LegoTech·(t)·(c) 23:12, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete sole 'source' doesn't appear to talk about sockball as anythibg other than a kids' game CariMeSpeak! 00:37, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Unreliable references, and also bogus claims. Dwilso 01:35, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete more college stupidity. JuJube (talk) 04:05, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:17, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per non-notable and WP:MADEUP. Chris M. (talk) 05:37, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Sandstein (talk) 06:43, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Salvation Army filmography[edit]
- Salvation Army filmography (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
The information in this list is just too trivial. Garion96 (talk) 21:37, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Unsourced and indiscriminate info on every time that the Salvation Army's appeared in a movie. It would be very hard to verify every listing, not to mention that this is a directory of loosely associated topics. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 21:49, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per the Hammer, or his otters...never sure who's talking LegoTech·(t)·(c) 23:12, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep A genuinely interesting and unusual encyclopedic article. The lack of sources will probably kill it, sadly. Ecoleetage (talk) 02:38, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per every reason given above.
- Comment: Why wasn't this article proposed for deletion when it initially was created by Rhyddfrydol more than two years ago? It certainly would have saved him/her - as its major contributor - a lot of time and effort. However, as much as I hate to see someone's hard work deleted, too much of this article - such as American Gigolo (1980) Richard Gere's character gets an appeal letter from the Salvation Army - amounts to nothing more than trivia and hardly constitutes "Salvation Army filmography," which should be limited to films in which a major focus is placed on the organization. MovieMadness (talk) 14:11, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Response You may be surprised how many old articles are lying around in WP:Backlog that should have been deleted years ago! Ecoleetage (talk) 15:45, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/MoveDelete in present form
- Comment: Indeed this article is very extensive and as a whole would not be found elsewhere, despite lacking sources it HAS merit. It may not qualify as a WP: filmography, it certainly can be counted among the many 'Lists of Films' WP supports. I think it should be recreated as a list. Wikipedia has many many films lists which are not as extensive as this one. If WP can handle List of films about computers and List of biker films it can keep this one. EraserGirl (talk) 15:33, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: At a glance, it appears in the List of films about computers and List of biker films, the movies truly are about the subject matter. As I stated above, the major problem with this article is that most of the film's cited are not about the Salvation Army but rather merely make mention of it or refer to it in a vague or trivial way. If it was limited to films in which a major focus is placed on the organization, I would vote to keep it, although it would be a very short article indeed. MovieMadness (talk) 16:58, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I concede your point, the subject is only tangential in many cases. Perhaps curtailing it to ones where the Salvation Army is a major element would improve the article and bring it to a more acceptable form. The author of the article should keep his research, perhaps in his own sandbox with those intentions. I will change my vote for that reason, the research should be put to better use, but the article as it stands does not conform. EraserGirl (talk) 17:24, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per TenPoundHammer. It's basically a "list of films that at least vaguely refer to the Salvation Army", which is far, far too broad. Also, it's unsourced, and much of it is sure to be unsourceable. Jakew (talk) 19:30, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:17, 5 May 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 Spartaz Humbug! 21:55, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Order of the Cupola[edit]
- Order of the Cupola (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
No independent sources verify notability. Artichoke2020 (talk) 21:24, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep it is a secret society, it shouldn't be notable. 65.11.23.219 (talk) 08:18, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Maybe it shouldn't be notable in everyday life, but to be on Wikipedia, according to WP:N, it has to be. Artichoke2020 (talk) 13:00, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Without secondary sources, we can't be sure that the subject is notable, nor can we verify the content of the article. Jakew (talk) 19:38, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:18, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I suppose, unless someone finds secondary sources. Gimghoul28 (talk) 20:19, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Patently NN. Debate (talk) 07:15, 9 May 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) 00:04, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sunderianism[edit]
- Sunderianism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Another hoax/made up one day religion. Curiously, there is one faintly relevant reference here in a discussion of relations between Mormonism and Christianity; but the quote is "Modernism, Liberalism, or Sunderianism does not constitute a rigorous and well-defined school of theology, but is rather an inclination by some writers and teachers to integrate Christian thought into the spirit of the Age of Enlightenment". Nothing to do with the "Voice of Ishbar" or the "Roman-Catholic Turks of Antioch" in the 11th century. There were Turks in Antioch then (the Seljuks captured it in 1084) but I doubt if many of them were Roman Catholics.
The two Pontifices Maximii (sic) of the religion are said to be Vincent Patillet and Connor Steelberg. From this and this it appears that "Vincent Patillet, 4ème 4" and "Connor Steelberg, 4ème4" are classmates at the Lycée-Collège international, Saint-Germain-en-laye, which must the headquarters of the religion.
An article on "Connor Steelberg" was speedily deleted as nonsense/non-notable last year.
Delete as hoax. JohnCD (talk) 21:01, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. -- BelovedFreak 21:15, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Fails WP:V. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 21:17, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - unverifiable possible hoax. Only source I could find was a blog (mentioned by nom). Nothing on Google news, scholar or books.--BelovedFreak 21:18, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Beloved -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:26, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete From the department of jokes nobody gets. Call Vince! Call Connor! Let them see this. Now get lost. Mandsford (talk) 22:07, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above. It made me laugh, though. Especially when I saw the google hits.--KojiDude (Contributions) 22:44, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete 2 results on Google. — Wenli (reply here) 02:16, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete religioncruft. JuJube (talk) 04:05, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey I'm just going to say that the quote for Sunderianism on that site mentioned above was a stupid cop paste done by some religious site. My friend had inserted the the word Sunderianism onto the wikipedia page for Christianity, because for a brief moment it was aChristian religion, it has now changed to it's own religion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.157.173.167 (talk) 05:03, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment AfD template removed and names altered by BigBrotherIsWatchingYou (talk · contribs). JohnCD (talk) 16:42, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - possibly a hoax, and definitely unverifiable. ['religioncruft'?! Never heard that one before - although it probably applies here!] RichardΩ612 Ɣ |ɸ 17:40, May 8, 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Sandstein (talk) 06:22, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
List of Jewish jurists[edit]
- List of Jewish jurists (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Guess this should be removed, as the topic isn't quantifiable, and thus doesn't give any weight in special notability of the subjects. →AzaToth 20:47, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- BelovedFreak 21:20, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. -- BelovedFreak 21:21, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I fail to see why the religious beliefs of jurists are relevant, plus this isn't even a list of jurists, but of court officials. And including those from Israel is a no-brainer. Article fails to establish why being Jewish has any bearing on this. Potential WP:BLP issues, too. I'm surprised this article has survived so long, frankly. 23skidoo (talk) 12:51, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Wikipedia:Listcruft, same as Non-notable intersections by ethnicity, religion, or sexual preference. Also, similar lists have been deleted so far. IZAK (talk) 17:21, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete non-notable intersection. --MPerel 06:45, 7 May 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). Per WP:SNOW, undivided consensus that significant coverage in independent reliable sources asserts the subject's notability, and that the article meets no deletion criteria. Nominator withdrew. WilliamH (talk) 22:35, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Eskimo kissing[edit]
- Eskimo kissing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
No sources or references that make this legit. Is this for real? GoHuskies9904 (talk) 20:35, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment There're two references in the article. Yes, it's for real. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 20:40, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - 41,700 hits on google for "eskimo kiss". This is for real Francium12 (talk) 20:41, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Also mentioned in many print sources. See [5] GaryColemanFan (talk) 20:44, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The presence of print sources (as mentioned above) has me convinced that this is an encyclopedic topic and can easily be more than a dicdef. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 20:48, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep. This is an interesting article. The term exists for sure. -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:49, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "Interesting" isn't a criterion for a normal-speed keep, much less a speedy keep. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 20:51, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy because the article doesn't meet any criterion for deletion. Interesting was an answer to "is this for real?" -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:17, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I think the tagging is unjustified and for the most part does not meet WP:DP. Yes, it has been tagged for references, but if you'd bother reading the talk page of Eskimo kiss you'd see there were suggestions on how to improve the article. It's a factual term that's also referred to as "kunik", "Polynesian kissing", etc. But Eskimo Kiss (161,000 GHits) entered English usage since the colonization of the Americas (although unlike 'kunik', it refers to the Western interpretation/style of solely rubbing noses), and is thus used because it is the more popular term. - Io Katai (talk) 20:56, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - article could use some work, but passes notability guidelines by significant coverage in independent reliable sources.--BelovedFreak 21:24, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, well-established subject. WillOakland (talk) 21:58, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I withdrawl the AfD. I honestly thought this was a joke. Didn't know it was an actual term. My apologies. Close the discussion. It's a keep! -GoHuskies9904 (talk) 22:24, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete - Nabla (talk) 02:11, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ruth Pearce[edit]
- Ruth Pearce (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Article about a minor soap opera character who appeared for the first time on the show at April 18, 2008 and article created at April 19, 2008. Contains no real world information. Fails notability per WP:SOAPS and WP:FICTION. Prod was reverted with no exhalation and without establishing notability or adding any real world information. Magioladitis (talk) 20:07, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Non-Notable per WP:SOAPS and WP:FICTION.--RyRy5 (talk ♠ wikify) 20:29, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as not passing notability guidelines mentioned by nom. Can't see any significant real-world coverage, nor do I expect there to be any.--BelovedFreak 21:28, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- BelovedFreak 21:29, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, the {{prod}} was probably removed because the nominator has been nominating scores of fictional character articles for "Fails notability per WP:FICTION", but WP:FICTION is just a proposal, it's not even a guideline. And SOAPS is a WikiProject guideline and does not apply to non-members of that WikiPro9ject. The text "portrayed by actress Selina Chilton" actually *is* real world information. And I believe it's spelled "explanation", not "exhalation". --Pixelface (talk) 15:30, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please don't try to guess why some people are reverting edits without edit summaries. In fact, I could just revert the edit because the rules for declining a prod say clearly that we need a summary. The information you are mentioning in the article can already be found in other related articles. I think we need a more general discussion. A soap opera is something more than a collection of its characters and its episodes. That a soap is notable it doesn't mean that every of its character it's as well. -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:20, 9 May 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. Content exists already at main article, unlikely search term - Nabla (talk) 02:15, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Camera Can't Lie discography[edit]
- Camera Can't Lie discography (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Seperate discography page for a band with 2 releases. Both releases are already mention in the band's main page, so there doesn't seem like there's any point in this article. Drewcifer (talk) 20:02, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into Camera Can't Lie. No need for a separate article. GaryColemanFan (talk) 20:06, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Discography with two entries? It's already in the band's article itself. Definitely no need for a separate page. — scetoaux (T|C) 20:07, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Camera Can't Lie. No need for a separate discography, redirects are cheap. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 20:16, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:19, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete There's nothing on it to merge into the band's page and there's not much of a point creating a redirect for an unlikely search term. --Bardin (talk) 02:20, 6 May 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. Most arguments for deletion (that the content is bad) are unpersuasive. While the content at the time of nomination may have been inappropriate, the article has now been rewritten and only one person contests that the topic as such is encyclopedic. Sandstein (talk) 06:50, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Drug policy[edit]
- Drug policy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Article is only a POV of one man about drug policy and addiction. It should be either scrapped and rewritten, or else redirected back to Prohibition (drugs) as it was before. As of now it is not a page about drug policy in general. NJGW (talk) 19:51, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete not even an integral article, unsuitable for an encyclopedia. Change it back to redirect. Chimeric Glider (talk) 20:03, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep and rewrite I feel that there is strong need for this article on Wikipedia. So far, two other articles, War on Drugs and Prohibition (drugs), have been used to cover drug policy in general. However, using War on Drugs as a synomym for Drug policy is POV, systemically biased, and factually inaccurate, since "War on Drugs" only refers to a specific drug policy lead by the United States since 1972. Also, using the article Prohibition (drugs) to cover general drug policy topics is factually inaccurate and POV, since prohibition is only one aspect of drug policy that is often used in conjuction with other strategies (eg. treatment and prevention). Calling that article "Prohibition" gives the prohibition aspect of drug policy undue weight. I have actually suggested renaming that article, but I think it is better to keep it and make sure it is stricly about the prohibition aspect of drug policy, while moving other aspects to Drug policy.
- The author actually started this article on my suggestion, after he contributed drug-policy related material that belonged neither in War on drugs nor in Prohibition (drugs). What he didn't do though, was to write a lead to introduce the topic before pasting that material. I have tried to make the article a bit more balanced by writing a lead and starting a section about individual countries, and have also merged some material from Prohibition (drugs). I don't think we need to delete the material he wrote. It would be better to move it to a new article Drug policy of Sweden and to include a brief summary here. --Cambrasa confab 21:09, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The material that he wrote is already at another article: Nils Bejerot. The author has also tried numerous times to include the material at Cannabis (drug). It seems the author has a narrow focus, and a wp:coi, as illustrated by this quote on their talk page. If a page is to remain at Drug policy, perhaps more seasoned editors should be in charge of its rewrite. NJGW (talk) 21:27, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Bejerot's and the present Swedish government's view has never been that drug policy is equal to only prohibitions. This is also mentioned in the text. The "follow up" in the text is normally done by a social worker employed by the local Social Services board. Parts of Bejerot's different comments in the US. war on drugs is less relevant i an articel about The drug policy of Sweden and more material of another type is needed.. The article Nils Bejerot is different. And I guess that the parts with comments about the U.S war on drugs is of interest. Dala11a (talk) 22:40, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The material that he wrote is already at another article: Nils Bejerot. The author has also tried numerous times to include the material at Cannabis (drug). It seems the author has a narrow focus, and a wp:coi, as illustrated by this quote on their talk page. If a page is to remain at Drug policy, perhaps more seasoned editors should be in charge of its rewrite. NJGW (talk) 21:27, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: I am sympathetic to specific articles: Drug policy in the United Kingdom, Drug policy in south Asia ... as the situations warrant. A generic "drug policy" article would be overwhelmingly huge and indiscriminate. Ravenswing 02:21, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree. It doesn't have to be huge because it would just summarise the most important points of drug policy. That's the whole point of an encyclopedia, isn't it? We have other articles on "huge and indiscriminate" topics like Health care. Also, it is good to have an article where all the individual contries' drug policies are listed and briefly explained. --Cambrasa confab 02:41, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep, but remove the Nils Bejerot section. This appears to be two different articles. There should be a summary article on drug policy that covers a wide range of policies, from libertarian views to criminalizations and from rehab-based punishments to death penalty-based punishments and all areas in between. Seeing how the drug situation is handled differently in places like Amsterdam versus Singapore, for example, is quite important, and under a heading like Drug policy can be presented under a neutral POV, while under a War on Drugs or a Drug Prohibition cannot be. Referencing Ravenswing's suggestion, yes, there should be some specific articles for larger or more significant countries, but this article could be a central linking spot for them. The Nils Bejerot section should be a separate article, either under Nils Bejerot or Drug Policy in Sweden. Also, it reads like an essay. Eauhomme (talk) 02:58, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, but remove the Nils Bejerot section per Eauhomme. But I additionally think the Bejerot section should be completely rewritten before insertion in a Sweden-only article. Ssteinberger (talk) 05:17, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments[edit]
- comment 1) I advise anybody to read the talk page for Drug policy
2) "As of now it is not a page about drug policy in general" Yes, but the page was started only a few days ago. Rome was not built in one day. One person has made a lot of complains about the text, compare talk page. I suggested that he should enter a subsection with critics. He refused. I have earlier today asked for a third opinion according to Wipedia rules for conflict solution. This is the correct way.
3) Redirection of Drug policy to Drug Prohibition is not correct. That is really POV. A drug policy can include many other things than prohibitions.
4) The original start of the article included a text abut that different section should inform a different views on Drug policy. For the moment only one section exist but as I have explained above is there reasons for that.Dala11a (talk) 20:59, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- reply A "lead" section did exist, but was a todo list with no context, so I moved it to the talk section. This is at best a definition (drug policy is a government's or institution's policy on drugs), not an encyclopedia article. Interesting that although Dala11a claims that the redirect to Drug prohibition is incorrect, al l the material inserted upto that point was about prohibition issues in Sweeden (and one man's influence on those policies). NJGW (talk) 21:07, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The author just reinserted the todo list:
This page was started with the goal that it it can have a broader view than for example Prohibition (drugs) ,War on drugs, Cannabis(drug) or Legal history of marijuana in the United States or articles about the Drug policy in a specific country. It is to be hoped that each section can give a presentation of a specific policy. The articel is still under construction. Please feel free to start a new section about a different and important view on Drug Policy, of course including sources according to Wikipedia rules etc. not just your own opinion.
- NJGW (talk) 21:27, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 'Reply' To Eauhomme and others: If you want to write about why the Swedish drug policy differ from so many other countries it is necessary to write about Bejerot and his ideas. In his active days he educated almost every police officer in Sweden about drugs and hold 2 days courses for 100 000 participants. The same conclusions is made by UNODC. They have raised the Swedish example as one of more general interest. In general: A risk with a section for every country is that it will be huge (there are many countries) or that it include many sections with text without content or a biased content or unspecified claims about the text. To Steinberg: Specify your claim, I have ask before to specify your claims in the articles talk page.Dala11a (talk) 08:28, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply to Dala11a Understood, except that such an article would not have a generic title like Drug policy. It would be more appropriate for an article like Drug policy to have a section on Sweden, with a brief mention of Bejerot, a teaser on why his ideas are notable, and a link to a larger article. Eauhomme (talk) 02:36, 6 May 2008 (UTC)n[reply]
- comment per the discussion above, I have moved all the Nils Bejerot info to the Nils Bejerot page. I think the page should now be moved to Drug policies by country, and the Drug policy page should be a disambig page, as the only thing left to put there would be a short definition (which would be covered by the lead at D. pol. by country). NJGW (talk) 18:35, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply to NJGW I is of course possible to have a page called Drug policy by country. But since there are many countries will the text about each country bee limited in Drug policy by country. It is of course possible to have Drug policy as a disambig page. But there is still another angel on drug policy that is not suitable or relevant for an articel about one single person on or about a specific country. Compare with my original to do list. So do you have any suggestions for a headline for that article? Or is it just that you don't want to have that article?Dala11a (talk) 22:38, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply The todo list I believe you are referring to was to discuss: What is possible; How is carried out: what methods are used and in what mix; and Why is it done, what is the theory about addiction behind the anti-drug policy; as well as a broader view than for example Prohibition (drugs) ,War on drugs, Cannabis (drug) or Legal history of marijuana in the United States or articles about the Drug policy in a specific country.
- First, I think that "how is [policy] carried out" and "why is it done" are issues which belong in the sections/articles for individual nations, and if those sections/articles are numerous enough, then a small summery of these different policies would become useful, but that still belongs in Drug policy by country. "What is possible" sounds like an essay, and might be difficult without venturing into OR territory, but maybe you can clarify what you have in mind for such a section/article. Similarly, I'm not sure what you mean by "a broader view than [other articles]." So far that is not what you have been working on/towards, so if you give us some example of what you mean we can give more meaningful opinions. NJGW (talk) 23:05, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply to NJGW: As I already have replied above, a solutin is not fixed immediately. What is possible a not necessary an essay. The present Tree strike law in the US. seems (?) to be based on the assumption that a person with tree drug offenses is not possible to treat (other people knows more about the tree strike laws). Other countries have a different official view. There must bee traceable sources about that. And so on. Dala11a (talk) 23:42, 9 May 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. Fabrictramp (talk) 23:36, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Alpha Sleuth[edit]
- Alpha Sleuth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This is not sufficiently notable due to its lack of coverage in sources independent of the subject. Article was created by a user who probably has a conflict of interest. --Snigbrook (talk) 19:40, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete (G11) as blatant advertising. Editor's name indicates COI, and article contains link to purchase puzzles. GaryColemanFan (talk) 20:05, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - agree that it is advertising; also does not pass notability guidelines as there does not appear to be any significant coverage in reliable sources.--BelovedFreak 21:34, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - textbook conflict of interest case - get your product covered by reliable sources before writing an article here. Or better still wait for uninvolved persons to take interest in your product and write the article for you. And avoid the ignominy of witnessing people debate the notability of your product. Pegasus «C¦T» 02:56, 5 May 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) 00:03, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yisroel Valis[edit]
- Yisroel Valis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Fails to assert notability: domestic murder (or suspected murder) of a baby is a tragic situation, but hardly an uncommon one. The whole article appears to have sprung from a polemical essay at a blog. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 19:02, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. -- BelovedFreak 21:35, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- BelovedFreak 21:35, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - agree with nominator, although I strongly feel that mention of this incident should be made in an article such as 2008 in Israel, 2008 in Israeli crime (which can be created), or something similar. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 21:50, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree it could have a place in some appropriate article - e.g. if it has some demonstrable broader notability concerning the relationship between Israeli secular criminal law and Halakha. Simply as a criminal case over a baby's death, it doesn't merit inclusion. (It was in 2006 BTW). Gordonofcartoon (talk) 22:26, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Fails WP:BIO. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 22:28, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete might merit mention in article on relationship between Haredim and Israeli government. (Would be nice if it could be as construed as sequel to VALIS.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yudel (talk • contribs) 19:08, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete NN, not copyvio, but some sentences copied from [6]. --Shuki (talk) 20:22, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not notable. The article seems to be a coatrack for disenting views among factions in Israeli society. Steve Dufour (talk) 02:57, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Sandstein (talk) 06:21, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ann Douglas[edit]
- Ann Douglas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
A minor character played in... 10 episodes of the Bold and the Beautiful, which airs more than 200 episodes per year. Article contains no real world information and fails WP:SOAPS and WP:FICTION Magioladitis (talk) 18:55, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Non-Notable per WP:SOAPS and WP:FICTION.--RyRy5 (talk ♠ wikify) 20:32, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- BelovedFreak 21:37, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - does not meet WP:SOAPS or WP:FICTION. Minor character, doesn't need separate article.--BelovedFreak 21:40, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, WP:FICTION is just a proposal and the nominator appears to not understand that. And non-project members are under no obligation to follow SOAPS. Betty White is a notable actress and 10 episodes is quite a stint as a guest star. Character articles for soap operas are preferable to having an article for all 5,303 episodes of The Bold and the Beautiful. --Pixelface (talk) 15:27, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:N is not currently disputed. Could you please explain how this article meets the guidelines it contains? Specifically, where are the sources independent of the subject which have devoted substantial coverage to this character? Also, can you please address the fact that this article is entirely summary of the character's role in the plot with no real-world analysis, failing WP:NOT#PLOT? Lastly, if sources per my second question do not exist, how would it be possible to provide such real-world context that is verifiable and not original research? Doctorfluffy (i can has msg) 22:53, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I have a creeping suspicion that Magioladitis is rather better informed than the above comment might suggest. The ongoing effort to deprecate our policies and guidelines is misplaced. Yes, aspects of WP:FICT are under discussion, notably when Spinouts are acceptable even if they contain no real-world information. That disagreement is a far cry from the longstanding and recently revitalised consensus at WP:NOT#PLOT which presents the very compelling argument that articles at Wikipedia must aspire to more than mere plot summaries or mere in-universe content. If the article has encyclopedic potential through demonstration of real-world impact or significance, of course it should stay. However, there is simply no source that I can find to provide substance to that claim. Thus, it should be deleted per our policies and guidelines. Eusebeus (talk) 15:37, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I strongly agree with your analysis of the current policy disputes and the way they manifest themselves in AFDs. Doctorfluffy (i can has msg) 22:47, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I could find no sources to indicate that this character is notable, and the article is entirely plot summary with no real-world context. Doctorfluffy (i can has msg) 22:47, 8 May 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 the arguments given. Pointless article.. Black Kite 19:47, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Montreal Metro Tunnel[edit]
- Montreal Metro Tunnel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This article doesn't really refer to anything and is just a placeholder article for the succession boxes for crossings of the St. Lawrence River and Rivière des Prairies. We would be better served by having those succession boxes direct to Line 2 Orange (Montreal Metro) and Line 4 Yellow (Montreal Metro) rather than an article bidon. Montréalais (talk) 15:44, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and use line numbers in the succession box instead as per nom. -- Jao (talk) 16:20, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 18:08, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 18:08, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Rebuild as a dab page since it's a possible search term. 70.55.89.211 (talk) 05:47, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein (talk) 06:43, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Mentioned only as a "see also" link in one article and a river crossing in an infobox. If someone were actually looking for information on a subway tunnel, it would be presumptive to have some actual information at either location. B.Wind (talk) 15:22, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hersfold (t/a/c) 18:30, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. As for retaining as a disambig page, the whole system is one long tunnel, so what would we be disambiguating for, exactly? I've never heard the term "Metro tunnel" used specifically for those two sections under rivers. Nor does the article provide any evidence that anyone else does, either. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:34, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Keep per WP:SNOW (non-admin closure). There is very clear consensus that this is a legitimate, discerning, discriminate topic of notability, supported by reliable sources, and is not the POV can of worms that some commentators have initially thought it might be. WilliamH (talk) 16:33, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Video games notable for negative reception[edit]
- Video games notable for negative reception (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Certainly there are games out there that are more critically panned than others, and some are just massive disappointments. And yes, anybody could easily say that this article has been well-referenced and sourced. But regardless, all of this information can be covered on their respective articles and therefore there isn't much point in keeping this article - which appears to be largely trivial and just a little POV. Valtoras (talk) 17:47, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep since it is a useful, and not indiscriminate, collection of information. 71.37.58.10 (talk) 18:59, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 20:13, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - 1. Not indiscriminate. This list is not indiscriminate, in the sense that not everything could be on there: it has to have a sourced statement that the game is notable for negative reception. Sources like the most disappointing games are used, and are adequate. 2. The argument of the nominator rests on a single point: "all of this information can be covered on their respective articles". This point is blatantly false and goes against the reason to have lists like List of Chinese philosophers, List of topics in philosophy of mind and Films considered the greatest ever at all. I suggest the nominator gives WP:Lists a good read. I also suggest the nominator withdraws because the debate is unlikely to have a different conclusion than the last one, but this really is just a suggestion, unlike the rest of this argumentation, which has a pressing and generally not nice tone. User:Krator (t c) 20:43, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- consensus can change, the afd may result in the criteria being change or significant edits. --neonwhite user page talk 20:54, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If that were all true, wouldn't video games that have been considered the greatest ever survived deletion? Certainly it likely had more issues, but generally speaking a major re-write would have sufficed if Wikipedia wanted to keep such lists. Valtoras (talk) 05:57, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep It has clear criteria the problem is that 'negative' is subjective and some of it seems to consist of original interpretations of reviews which is in violation of WP:NOR. A rescue may be possible if enough source are available but it looks like it needs alot of work and alot of the page may have to be removed. --neonwhite user page talk 20:51, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The article is well referenced and sourced, any clean-up work needed should be highlighted so it can be done. There's nothing in WP:INDISCRIMINATE which stands against this list, in letter or spirit, the list is an answer to a perfectly reasonable question. Putting the information into individual articles destroys a line of research and benefits nobody. Anyone needing that information would quickly give up Wikipedia if they had to check each game article for titles released on major platforms from here right the way back to the Atari 2600 era. Someoneanother 21:02, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I believe that this article can have (and largely has) a reasonable limit on its scope and acceptable sourcing for its facts. Acceptable sourcing takes care of POV concerns, and having an index on the subject definitely adds to WP's utility for game designers, retrogamers, gaming historians and people who are just interested on the subject. The advantage of this article over the same thing in category form is not all that large, but the ability to reference entries is enough of a justification. While we're on the subject, how about listing the genres of games in the article to ease comparisons? --Kizor 21:08, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep for much the same reasons as last time. As long as each entry is sourced, and as long as no cherry-picking of sources occurs, there should be no concerns with POV, and I don't believe there are at present. And it's a legitimate subject; there are similar articles on films etc. It's a shame that more editors don't contribute though, as there's a "requirement" that potential new entries must be discussed on the talk page prior to being allowed, and some don't even get replies, but still. Miremare 22:28, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I concur with the arguments raised above and last time around. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 02:27, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep There isn't a real reason given for deleting this article. It's referenced and sourced and I don't see the problem with it. Nick mallory (talk) 10:53, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Provided every statement is properly attributed, and any entry lacking inline citations is removed. Taemyr (talk) 18:33, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep My gut reaction was that this was going to a POV ridden article. But I'm surprised that it's relatively fair. The article seems to be well-monitored to keep POV stuff off, and to work with reliable research. I think this is a legitimate and clear topic supported by reliable research in a few instances. I want to knock it but I can't. Really, this article just needs more references like the ones it already has. Randomran (talk) 20:18, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: It's the first time I participate on a AFD vote, but I have a good argument to defend the article. Lists are important, even if they're controversial; if this article is deleted, then List of best-selling video games and others should be deleted for the same reasons. I mean, we know there are controversial or tabooed topics, but please, don't permit that to take risky decisions while editing Wikipedia. How many times this article has to be nominated for deletion before you can understand that? Sometimes deletion is not the answer, you know.--Twicemost (talk) 23:09, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Hello Twicemost, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your imput in this deletion discussion. However, just because an article was nominated for deletion before, doesn't mean it can't, or shouldn't, be nominated again. Discussion and consensus are the backbone of this project, and consensus can easily change over time. It is clear that the consensus for this discussion is highly likely to be keep due to not being overtly POV and for having mostly reliable sources, something I'm 100% fine with. In my eyes, it seemed to be a trivial list that did nothing to really construct the encyclopedia, but I understand and concur with the contributors to this discussion. But again, thank you very much for your contributions, I very much appreciate it. :) Valtoras (talk) 05:25, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, and possible move to "Video games noted for negative reception". But I understand the nominator's concerns. The bar has to be very clear for this kind of article. There should not be just verifiable sources blasting the games, but verifiable sources noting that other sources have blasted the game (some Worst Ever lists), or that the game was a prominent commercial failure (E.T.), or that the game sparked outrage (Columbine). Otherwise we just get "Video games somebody sometime somewhere didn't like" loaded with all kinds of original research. Matt Fitzpatrick (talk) 12:48, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - "indiscriminate" means "indiscriminate", not "I don't get it" - David Gerard (talk) 17:33, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per clear consensus in previous AfD, discriminate topic, notable (even in article's title!), and verifiable. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 03:45, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Sometimes games are notable because they are good. Other times, they are notable because they are appalingly bad. For balance, both should be remembered equally. Also, I think it's starting to snow.Gazimoff WriteRead 09:34, 7 May 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. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 18:57, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thats the spirit[edit]
- Thats the spirit (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Professional name of a non-notable person. PeterSymonds | talk 17:13, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speeedy Delete (G11) as non-notable, unsourced, vanity, and advertising. Article created by User:Thatsthespirit indicates conflict of interest. And article describing the professional services for which he can be hired is blatant advertising. Prose like "So you could say, tongue in cheek, he's a ghostbuster!" doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. GaryColemanFan (talk) 17:24, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- G11 Blatant vanispamicrufti--howeveryouspellthat. So tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 17:32, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Sandstein (talk) 06:18, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Theory of Hitler´s escape[edit]
- Theory of Hitler´s escape (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Article is original research. A typical conspiracy theory --Church of emacs (Talk | Stalk) 17:06, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Certainly notable conspiracy theory, only concern is the current state of the article. Needs quite a lot of referencing, rewriting and general clean-up. M0RD00R (talk) 17:17, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree the article needs a lot of work, but most of these theories are published elsewhere, so someone just needs to cite sources for the genuine published theories (however whacky), and delete the imaginary, original research ones. Any volunteers? Perhaps we should add a comment that these theories are rejected by most historians. Dbfirs 19:49, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll join in the fun of rewriting/citing if there are any website references. I don't have any books on the subject. Reconvene on the talk page I suppose? -FrankTobia (talk) 19:56, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The best reference seems to be a book called "Hitler's Escape" by Ron T Hansig. Published in 2005 by Athena Press; ISBN 1932077820. A synopsis can be found at www.hitlersescape.com. I don't have access to the text of the book, and I don't know where Mr Hansig stands on the Crackpot -> Historian scale, but he seems to have put forward an argument slightly stronger than those on which several other Wikipedia articles are based. (perhaps they should all be deleted?) (but I can remember when Global warming used to be in this category!) Dbfirs 21:25, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll join in the fun of rewriting/citing if there are any website references. I don't have any books on the subject. Reconvene on the talk page I suppose? -FrankTobia (talk) 19:56, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree the article needs a lot of work, but most of these theories are published elsewhere, so someone just needs to cite sources for the genuine published theories (however whacky), and delete the imaginary, original research ones. Any volunteers? Perhaps we should add a comment that these theories are rejected by most historians. Dbfirs 19:49, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Looks like original research, maybe an essay. It worries me that there are no sources. If this is a notable and verifiable conspiracy theory, we need sources or else it's no better than idle speculation. Generally I agree with M0RD00R's comment, and I feel that it would need a rewrite from the ground up to be a decent article, so a delete wouldn't hurt anyone. At the same time, the facts are pretty hard if they can be supported with references, but even then it still violates WP:SYN. -FrankTobia (talk) 19:56, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Probably belongs in shortened, impeccably sourced form in Death of Adolf Hitler. Right now it isn't clear that this is not largely synthesis of sources, though. --Dhartung | Talk 19:57, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - If there is an article on the death of Hitler, we certainly don't need this as well. OR and ?notable as well. Scolaire (talk) 21:07, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - As per previous comments. Pity this didn't come with a .wav file of "Springtime for Hitler" Ecoleetage (talk) 02:51, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Per comments above. ~Ambrosia- talk 04:40, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, WP:OR. Esradekan Gibb "Talk" 08:48, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The statement that there were no sources is simply wrong: the sources are the newspaper articles and the autobiography. There are only no internet links. But all the newspaper articles can be found in archives. And the autobiography "Speaking Frankly "....I have that autobiography and the statement, given in this article is true. So, there ARE sources, but no internet sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.180.32.54 (talk) 08:55, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- My issue is not that sources don't exist. Surely you recognize that there are no sources cited within the article. If there are newspaper and book sources, you can cite them. Even then, though, I still feel like you'll run into WP:SYN issues. -FrankTobia (talk) 13:01, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I didn´t write the article. But I was in an archive and I have the autobiography. That is why I can merely say that the sources exist and all written in the article is true (which on the other hand doesn´t mean that I think it´s a good article). Much must be improved. But I also do not know any internet source to cite. However once again: If you go into an archive and see those mentioned articles of 1947 and 48, you´ll see everything is correct. —Preceding comment added by 62.134.104.22 Does anyone know an internet site of the newspapers, which are mentioned in the article? There, we could probably find the articles in the archives and so give a good citing, couldn´t we?
- Delete as OR/synthesis -- I'm surprised someone who has the autobiography doesn't know the article got the name of the book wrong.--Doug Weller (talk) 20:32, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Per comments above.--Sarkana (talk) 22:50, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, much must be improved: but, if we can get reliable internet sources of the newpaper articles, I´ll propose to keep.......if we can get internet sources of the newspaper articles.......and the part of Byrnes´ autobiography, "Speaking Frankly", I don´t know any internet source, but I can say, what´s written in the article is true
The user "Realy nice guy" suggests to merge a more compact version with the main article (see disussion page)......what about this idea? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.134.104.120 (talk) 15:14, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As for a merge, I oppose until the information to be merged is sourced and has citations. -FrankTobia (talk) 16:11, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Seems to be patent nonsense, with little or no citations. --Simpsons fan 66 03:11, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Does anyone know an internet page where to find the newspaper articles? I read them all in archives in New York, Washington etc. and what is written in the article is right (which does not necessarily mean the article need not be improved). But I don´t know any internet source. And the autobiography "Speaking Frankly", years ago I read that book and I can remember that this statement of Stalin was a part of that biography. Another question: Does anyone know a pathologist to ask, if a body can burn in that time and only ash remains? Is that possible? I don´t know, but generally, instead of crying there were no references, I would search for 1.)an internet site with these newspaper articles;2.)a copy of the autobiography of Byrnes;3.)medical sources, if it was possible to burn a body to ash in that time. By the way.......as aforementioned the theories are already published, so, I wouldn´t say this article was an establishment of a theory. It simply needs quite a lot of referencing, rewriting and general clean-up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.180.32.14 (talk) 09:52, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Bad textual quality alone would not be a sufficient reason for deleting the article, original research is. --Leithian (talk) 15:48, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete original research. If it were a synthesis, it should have been deleted due to lack of support by independent, reliable sources. Ironically, the lede of the article states that the sources would be included. B.Wind (talk) 02:27, 10 May 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 leaning towards keep, so defaults to keep. Wizardman 17:00, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Laura Kiviranta[edit]
- Laura Kiviranta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Article about a fictional character of a soap opera. It has no real world information. It fails guidelines for WP:SOAPS. Magioladitis (talk) 16:56, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —Magioladitis (talk) 21:45, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Wikipedia generally has articles on fictional characters in major national TV shows. See Guiding Light (2000-present) list of cast/characters, for a soap opera example. There's no reason to single this one out. There's no "real world" information because it's a fictional character. --Oakshade (talk) 23:04, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The list you shown me it's a perfect place for many nominations. Check the guidelines in WP:SOAPS:
Character articles should always be written from a "real world" perspective, and should definitely not consist simply of in-universe plot summary. As such, it should include:
- Real-world dates for when the character was created
- Which actors have played the character, and when
- Any awards which were won by the actor for playing that character -- Magioladitis (talk) 01:31, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Response - That's an excellent case for article improvement, not deletion. That WikiProject Soap Operas (WP:SOAPS) project page (not by any means a notability guideline) you quoted was created for uniformity and improvement of soap opera character articles and doesn't mandate deletion. A wiki-improvement tag is more appropriate. I don't subscribe to the "We have to destroy this article in order to save it" mentality. --Oakshade (talk) 01:41, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Response They are hundreds of fictional character articles not having any notability. The important is to improve the soap opera's article and the list of characters article. Individual articles for characters which is impossible a real world information should be merge or delete. -- Magioladitis (talk) 02:11, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not at all impossible to improve this article, especially of that "real world information" that you feel the article must be deleted if it currently doesn't have (WP:SOAPS doesn't mandate deletion if an article is currently deficient of these things as you claimed). As it's major character in long running soap opera, all of the requested information can be found and likely known by millions of fans. Deleting is not the solution if an article needs work. --Oakshade (talk) 02:50, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- And another note, this article actually does show what dates the character was created (one of the the original characters) and which actor played the character and when (Piitu Uski for it's entire run). There were no awards for the actor playing the character so that last "requirement" doesn't apply. Under your own criteria, this article "passes" the style guidelines set up in WP:SOAPS. --Oakshade (talk) 03:09, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions.
- Comment The list of characters can be converted to something like the List of Family Affairs characters. Separate articles cannot be supported without any real world information. Most of the character articles violate the WP:FICTION guidelines. -- Magioladitis (talk) 19:32, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:PLOT (too little real-world context) and WP:N and WP:V (multiple independent secondary sources giving significant coverage are needed to demonstrate notability and to allow the reader to verify the content). Jakew (talk) 19:46, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- keep or Merge or redirect, depending on the importance of the character, but since a character might be a search term, the one thing that should not be done is delete. Spin out for major characters is still acceptable-- WP:PLOT is at this point totally disputed, and, in any case, only refers to articles which are only plot summary without other content. I would like to see evidence first that someone with access to Finnish language sources has at least looked for them. DGG (talk) 00:27, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per my previous comment. Eusebeus (talk) 13:36, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- to facilitate discussion, I copy the relevant part from your comment there, although you didn't even bother to cut and paste: "Those aspects of WP:FICT which expand upon WP:NOT#PLOT are essentially an extension of consensus policy. There is general agreement that purely in-universe content is inappropriate for Wikipedia" Unfortunately, if anyone cares to go the the FICT page they will see right at the top: the following is a proposed Wikipedia policy, guideline, or process. the reason it's only proposed is because there's no consensus, as the extremely long talk pages the demonstrate. probably it's time to mark rejected if people persist in refusing to compromise.DGG (talk) 19:21, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, the text "played by Piitu Uski. Laura has been in the series since the beginning.[1] She appeared in the series in years 1999–2008." is real-world information. Does the nominator speak Finnish? Somehow I doubt they've looked for any sources in ANY Finnish newspapers. And non-project members are under no obligation to follow SOAPS. --Pixelface (talk) 15:24, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- the degree of agreement and rationality at the SOAP guidelines might be a good example for some of the other discussions. According to them, all this needs is the addition of the real-world details about the character's part in the show. The people who do not want to follow reasonable compromise are not setting a good example here. DGG (talk) 19:16, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment to Pixelface It is like opposing an episode article to be merged because it states that this is the fifth episode of the series, so it contains real world information. I think I should write contains no real world information but trivial which it is already found in the list of characters article. -- Magioladitis (talk) 19:20, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. ,,n (talk) 04:14, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I agree with that: The soap is notable. I didn't Afd the soap! That the soap is notable doesn't imply that each individual character is notable! It's exactly like episodes and TV series. A soap it's much more that its characters. This is another reason I didn't make a group Afd.-- Magioladitis (talk) 00:14, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep this organized, referenced, and well-presented article that even has an image. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 03:41, 11 May 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. You want a merge tag, not an articles for deletion tag. Merge does not mean delete. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 16:51, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
List of Sandra Romain awards and nominations[edit]
- List of Sandra Romain awards and nominations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Should be merged within original article; regardless of how big a name in porn she is (I don't personally know), there's no reason to have a separate article for it. Irk Come in for a drink! 16:41, 4 May 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. This is NOT Articles for Merging. I will place a {{merge}} tag on the article instead. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 16:44, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
List of Belladonna awards and nominations[edit]
- List of Belladonna awards and nominations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
I'm not quite sure how big a name in porn she is, but what constitutes having her own page for awards and nominations? Should be merged within original article. Irk Come in for a drink! 16:23, 4 May 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, defaulting to keep. Wizardman 17:01, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Jenni Vainio[edit]
- Jenni Vainio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Article about a fictional character of a soap opera. It has no real world information. It fails guidelines for WP:SOAPS. I prodded the article and my prod was reverted as "minor edit" without any explanation. Magioladitis (talk) 16:15, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —Magioladitis (talk) 21:46, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- NOTE - The nom is attempting to delete every character article of the popular Finnish TV show Salatut elämät. --Oakshade (talk) 03:30, 5 May 2008 (UTC)--Oakshade (talk) 03:30, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Consensus has long since decided fictional character articles, including in soap operas, can be included. Major character in long running national soap opera. WikiProject Soap Operas (WP:SOAPS) is not a notability guideline, but a project improvement page and in no manner mandates article deletions. If you feel the article should be improved, a wiki-improvement tag is more appropriate, not article deletion.--Oakshade (talk) 03:30, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions.
- Comment The list of characters can be converted to something like the List of Family Affairs characters. Separate articles cannot be supported without any real world information. -- Magioladitis (talk) 19:33, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete unless multiple reliable secondary sources can be found to demonstrate notability and to make the article verifiable. Jakew (talk) 19:56, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- keep or Merge or redirect, depending on the importance of the character, but since a character might be a search term, the one thing that should not be done is delete. Spin out for major characters is still acceptable-- WP:SOAPS is only a project. I would like to see evidence first that someone with access to Finnish language sources has at least looked for them. DGG (talk) 00:19, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per my previous comment. Eusebeus (talk) 13:34, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, there is no policy against articles about fictional characters from soap operas. I don't know why the nominator thinks mentioning that Anu Palevaara portrays this character is not real world information. WP:SOAPS is a guideline for one particular WikiProject, it doesn't dictate policy for the whole site. --Pixelface (talk) 15:12, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment You can't build a whole article about a fictional charactered standing only in one line which indicated the actor's name and the years of appearance (unreferenced). We certainly can make a better list of characters with short descriptions but do we really must have 6 different articles? Is each of these characters notable on its own? -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:17, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus, default to keep. Wizardman 17:03, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Aaro Vaalanne[edit]
- Aaro Vaalanne (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Article about a fictional character of a soap opera. It has no real world information. It fails guidelines for WP:SOAPS Magioladitis (talk) 16:12, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —Magioladitis (talk) 21:47, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Consensus has long since decided fictional character articles, including in soap operas, can be included. Major character in long running national soap opera. WikiProject Soap Operas (WP:SOAPS) is not a notability guideline, but a project improvement page and in no manner mandates article deletions. If you feel the article should be improved, a wiki-improvement tag is more appropriate, not article deletion.--Oakshade (talk) 03:27, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions.
- Comment The list of characters can be converted to something like the List of Family Affairs characters. Separate articles cannot be supported without any real world information. -- Magioladitis (talk) 19:32, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete unless multiple reliable secondary sources can be found to demonstrate notability and to make the article verifiable. Jakew (talk) 19:56, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per my previous comment. Eusebeus (talk) 13:34, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, having no real world information is not a reason to delete, but this article has real world information anyway: "He is played by Teemu Lehtilä. Aaro Vaalanne was in serie in the production periods 2004–2006. The character came back to the series in the spring–autumn 2007." I don't see what part of WP:SOAPS this article "fails." It may be preferable to have articles on individual characters of Salatut elämät rather than 1403 articles for each and every episode. --Pixelface (talk) 15:15, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It is like opposing an episode article to be merged because it states that this is the fifth episode of the series, so it contains real world information. I think I should write contains no real world information but trivial which it is already found in the list of characters article. Better have a well-organised List of characters with short accurate character profiles than having 1403 character articles with variations of the episodes plots or plot summaries. -- Magioladitis (talk) 19:22, 7 May 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) 00:03, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nizaam Hartley[edit]
- Nizaam Hartley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable wrestler with none-barely any information/references in the article iMatthew 2008 15:41, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. —iMatthew 2008 16:03, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Only mention in an indepedent source is as part of a list. No coverage of Hartley himself (or herself, as the one-sentence article doesn't even clarify this much). Non-notable. GaryColemanFan (talk) 16:54, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom and GCF. –LAX 22:01, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete not notable. When an article doesn't even confirm gender then you know it is not notable. Darrenhusted (talk) 12:39, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Ajstyles tna roh (talk) 17:56, 6 May 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) 00:02, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Boerseun (wrestler)[edit]
- Boerseun (wrestler) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable wrestler with none-barely any information/references in the article iMatthew 2008 15:41, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. —iMatthew 2008 16:02, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I have been unable to find any reliable, independent coverage of this wrestler. Fails Wikipedia:Notability. GaryColemanFan (talk) 16:51, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, not a notable wrestler, per above. Chimeric Glider (talk) 21:57, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom and GCF. Not a notable wrestler. –LAX 22:04, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Blogs and fansites do not RS make. Darrenhusted (talk) 12:37, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Ajstyles tna roh (talk) 18:36, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Speedy keep, go read the deletion guidelines next time. Dan100 (Talk) 18:19, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Vimeo[edit]
- Vimeo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
All I could find about this service was it mentioned as one of a choice of video upload places (ie such as YouTube or Vimeo) and one review (which I added) and an article about the creator of Vimeo being fired and putting up pictures of himself with a bong. Appears to be an entirely non notable web service. LegoTech·(t)·(c) 15:40, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Nominator is advised to check Google News Archive in future. --Dhartung | Talk 19:59, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Coverage in multiple reliable sources (PC World, NPR, New York Times) indicates notability. — scetoaux (T|C) 20:12, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep VideoRanger2525 (talk) 21:29, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- comment so all it takes to be notable is to get your press release printed in several places? I did check Google News. This is the sort of article ABOUT Vimeo that the New York Times wrote "The entrepreneurs who have started companies like ClipShack, Vimeo, YouTube and Blip.tv are betting that as consumers discover the video abilities built into their cellphones and digital still cameras" sort of like what I said in the nomination. LegoTech·(t)·(c) 22:26, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- So that's just the New York Times. There are several other news articles and the like that more than mention Vimeo, such as this review by PC World, and this article by USA Today. Also, it certainly has notability for being the first to have HD support. — scetoaux (T|C) 22:56, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Cool, I didn't find that one...I actually added the review from PC world to the article (as I stated in the nom) I just wanted people to actually read the content instead of taking his comment at face value. Quoted from WP:WEB
- comment so all it takes to be notable is to get your press release printed in several places? I did check Google News. This is the sort of article ABOUT Vimeo that the New York Times wrote "The entrepreneurs who have started companies like ClipShack, Vimeo, YouTube and Blip.tv are betting that as consumers discover the video abilities built into their cellphones and digital still cameras" sort of like what I said in the nomination. LegoTech·(t)·(c) 22:26, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
LegoTech·(t)·(c) 23:02, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]This criterion includes reliable published works in all forms, such as newspaper and magazine articles, books, television documentaries, websites, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations.[4] except for the following:
* Media re-prints of press releases and advertising for the content or site.[5] * Trivial coverage, such as (1) newspaper articles that simply report the Internet address, (2) newspaper articles that simply report the times at which such content is updated or made available, (3) a brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of Internet addresses and site or (4) content descriptions in Internet directories or online stores.
- Neither the PC World article nor the USA Today article fall under any of those categories. — scetoaux (T|C) 23:09, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This is definitely a notable website and has numerous references in mainstream news. Gary King (talk) 05:44, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:20, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Wizardman 17:11, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
HeartBreaker, The Original Tribute to Pat Benatar[edit]
- HeartBreaker, The Original Tribute to Pat Benatar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable tribute act. Fails WP:BAND. Also appears to be a WP:COI issue Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 14:38, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as non-notable. No sources provided. As the creator was User:Benatartribute, I would agree that this seems to be a conflict of interest. GaryColemanFan (talk) 16:58, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- delete as per above comments. Subject is an nn along with creator/COI issues. It's non-notable advertising. Peter Fleet (talk) 18:30, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- {{hangon}}Regarding HeartBreaker, The Original Tribute to Pat Benatar, please forgive me for not fully understanding what makes this listed for deletion. Perhaps it's just a guiedlines issue? But, what speciffically makes any of the other tribute bands listed on the tribute act page any more notable than HeartBreaker to allow those pages inclusion? Is it the formatting? Unfortunately, I am new to the Wikipedia environment regarding editing and possibly need some direction on this? I came across the tribute acts pages and noticed The Iron Maidens, which is a local group with not as long a tenure in the tribute community as HeartBreaker, although definately notable, and they are incuded. But beyond The Iron Maidens are bands whos accomplishments pale in comparison to HeartBreaker. HeartBreaker IS a notable, respected and an acknowledged band of the tribute community as well as being one of the first of local tribute acts to appear in the L.A. area when the tribute phenomenon began during the late 90s, particularily with a female lead singer. That, in itself makes HeartBreaker a pioneer to the community. What other information or details do you suggest including, other that what is listed in the biography which is certainly not insignificant, in order to make this page more or as "notable" than or as any of the other other listed tribute bands by Wikipedia standards, and to gain inclusion? Please advise. I have perused some of the other acts' pages linked to the tribute acts page and see only a few with significant notability, most have even fewer accomplishments and notariety than HeartBreaker, some I've never even heard of and certainly aren't known to our local tribute community, which definately expands beyond just the L.A. area. HeartBreaker has been written about and featured in reliable sources and is known for it's tenure, quality and respected within our tribute community, particularily since we are one of the longest running tributes AND are acknowledged BY the artist to whom we pay tribute, Pat Benatar and members of her band(s). We are the only band of any kind listed in her official web pages and have been joined by significant original members of her band. This in itself lends support to the tribute act pages. The histoy of the tribute act pages specifically points to acts who are joined to play with the artists to whom they tribute and further goes on the list bands on the page. Why is it not acceptable to list HeartBreaker and a biography of information to support the tribute act pages? We may not have as much notariety as The Iron Maidens but we certainly are not insignificant and definately are more notable that some of the listed bands. HeartBreaker was featured in a televised documentary about tribute bands on a major network and has been written about and listed is major publications. As well, do a search for "Pat Benatar Tribute" on any major search engine and see who comes up in the FIRST spot. How can any of this not be notable when this is in regard to tribute bands?????? Please explain. Thank you.
- HeartBreaker, The Original Tribute to Pat Benatar
- Official Pat Benatar Website :Link Page
- Official Pat Benatar Fan Club - Links Page
- "9 On The Town" Local Channel TV 9 Tribute:Segment. Bands listed on this archive page were included in a televised documentary, fully initiated by Channel 9 and unsolisited in any way by the artists in the documentary
- Unsolicited Review in OC Weekly
- Benatar Tribute Band - Photos and Interview of and with original artist
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Benatartribute (talk • contribs)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:21, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is non-notable as per WP:BAND. Can't explain it any better. The community will decide it's fate at the AfD. Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 23:36, 4 May 2008 (UTC) According to that it does meet the guidlines as notable. Maybe the format isn't correct yet but I'm working on it. After all I only started on it last night. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Benatartribute (talk • contribs) 00:49, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
A musician or ensemble is notable if it has had some sort of recognition by professional organizations, such as music charts. Notability is met if the musician has been the subject of a broadcast by a media network. The above are quotes from the article you site. HB meets BOTH of these criteria. --Benatartribute (talk) 01:01, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Those aren't the only criteria and the "we" part of your post indicates the other issue. See WP:COI. Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 01:07, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
COI States: Do not edit Wikipedia to promote your own interests, or those of other individuals, companies, or groups, unless you are certain that the interests of Wikipedia remain paramount.
The "interestes of Wikipedia" will remain paramount once the article is complete. That's all that is required in the final revision.
It also states: There are no firm criteria to determine whether a conflict of interest exists, but there are warning signs. Adding material that appears to promote the interests or visibility of an article's author, its author's family members, employer, associates, or their business or personal interests, places the author in a conflict of interest. When editors write to promote their own interests, their contributions often show a characteristic lack of connection to anything the general reader might want to consult as a reference. If you do write an article on an area in which you are personally involved, be sure to write in a neutral tone and cite reliable, third-party published sources, and beware of unintentional bias. Neutral point of view is one of Wikipedia's five pillars.
This is simply a matter of editing. You have no knowledge of HB at this time so you cannot be the judge and jury. There will be reliable sources cited once the article is complete and it will remain neutral for the puposes of supporting the interestes of Wikipedia per it's suggested guidelines. I grew up with paper Encyclopaedias so I understand the concept. And, I will support the Five pillars. I really don't understand, however, why this has come so quickly under fire so early in the process and by whom? HeartBreaker has made notable accomplishments in the tribute community worthy of inclusion. Just for argument sake as with any documentary it's information in and infomation out. Likewise the neutral party observer even in a respected status can also be other than accurate and objective using verifiable sources and those often times must come from the source itself, otherwise it can be inaccurate, biased or subjective, thein can then lie the difference between fact and opinion. In a nutshell, this is all a very grey area and as the articles you site state, "There are no firm criteria to determine whether a conflict exists." Basically, it says remain neutral and cite your sources and that should be enough said. You can't assume that every person who starts an article is there to promote their own self-interests. You must sometimes simply guide an individual to it's goal. For these purposes, that I know the rules, should be ALL that concerns you.
I don't know you people are but I think it ridiculous that you can sit in judgement of a band in a genre' you nothing about and imply that the article is for self-promotion when we have clearly been noted by KCAL-TV9, a notable source and OC Weekly also a notable source AND the original artist to whom we tribute. Just because I added the article DOES NOT mean I CANNOT add the entry. It states so above in the guidelines of COF. I think you need to go back and read the guidelines. The article is meant for it's intended purpose as an article of reference to the read. I have OTHER mediums in which to "advertise!" HB may not have as much recognition as other bands but we certainly ARE regocognized and notable and according to the guideline having the most regocnition is NOT the test.
Certainly, feel free to suggest and editing style but I see NO reason(s) to delete the article on the references you cite. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Benatartribute (talk • contribs) 03:19, 7 May 2008 (UTC) — Benatartribute (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Keep. First, looking at the article history, there were no sources when the first two people commented on the nomination. The article is now sourced. The issue now is with the quality of the sources: some of them are not clearly reliable, and some of the reliable sources are trivial coverage. I'm going to lean to the side of caution and say the notability hurdle of significant, independent coverage in reliable sources is met, so cleanup is in order, not deletion. —C.Fred (talk) 06:08, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you--Benatartribute (talk) 09:34, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - falls well short on WP:BAND. None of the links posted above are to independent reliable sources as mentioned in WP:V and WP:RS. Let's look at the 12 criteria in WP:BAND (to be considered, it must be presented in the article and not necessarily in this discussion): #1 (subject of independent, non-trivial published works...) not in article; #2 and #3 no charted hits, no gold records; #4 (non-trivial coverage of at least one international or one national tour) no evidence of such coverage, but if there such for the 2002 Japan tour mentioned, it could apply; #5 (two or more albums on major or important indie label) no releases mentioned in article; #6 (at least one member who was part of a notable music group) Jeff Carlson doesn't quite qualify as he is most notable of being a Hanson brother; #7 (most prominent representative of a notable style) doesn't really apply as HeartBreaker is a cover band; #8 and #9 no awards apparently won and no evidence of performance in a major music competition; #10 (performed music for a work in media that is notable) no evidence of applicability here; #11 and #12 no mention of either having a recording placed in rotation for a major radio network, nor is there mention of a half hour (or longer) radio network program. If there is evidence of something in this list of criteria applying, it must be placed in the article as soon as possible to maximize the likelihood of the article being kept. B.Wind (talk) 03:48, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect, you must understand the significance of a tribute band vs a cover band to make this argument. Tribute bands DO NOT generally record records, (especially of the original type that would be considered for some of the acknowledgements you cite) some do, but there are a vastly different set of circumstances for doing so than an original artist's goal. It is not about chart-topping. Tribute bands are significant because of the phenominon (this HAS been written about and documented in the media) that has developed in the last ten years. Tribute bands are NOT cover bands. This is basically a whole new breed of musician. That this has been written about is significant, in that context and that we are still around (where many have come and gone) is significant for the reasons stated. Please see tribute acts and The Iron Maidens there is a distinction about tribute bands vs cover bands that have obviously already made way into the wiki articles here tribute acts. HeartBreaker is significant relative to the genre for the reasons stated in the article. If I need more, I suppose I will need to know how to refine it. HeartBreaker has accomplished just exactly the things a tribute band's objectives are to accomplish, including acceptance by the original artists. HeartBreaker, HAS been featured in a televised media documentary about tribute bands on KCAL-TV 9 (which, IS a reliable source...is it not?) and written about in unsolicited non-second-party reviews (as in the OC Weekly is this not reliable??) and has won a significant award in a contest relative to the tribute community and published as such. Tributes do not compete in the Grammy Awards. Perhaps we are not the MOST notable of all tributes, but we ARE notable and significant within the context of the subject and indeed recognized, respected and known within the tribute community, which in itself is notable. To our own surprise, we have a reputation that has preceeded us. For example, we were speciffically contacted by VH-1 to perform in a show about tribute bands that would have included the original artist. I noted this in the article but someone edited it out so I assumed it was not relevant. How whould VH-1 know of us were we not notable or relevant? And particularily, we are one of the pioneer tributes in the genre with details as described in the article. Perhaps you can suggest specific documentation or proof I can provide to substantiate that if it would make us more relevant to your argument? Please read some of the other discussion here before making your judgement and offer suggestions to help with refining this rather that judgements that are not completey relevant to what you are compairing, thus biting the newbie. I will tell you, that I am not an editor, I have never written an article here before so please forgive any errors or omissions due to unfamiliarity with the process on my part and I will reiterate as I have in earlier discussions that I realize this is not a forum for advertisment. I certainly do that elsewhere. Likewise, I am not a youngster simply vying for attention or pushing promotions for the benefit of my garage band. I simply noticed that tribute acts and The Iron Maidens had made their way into the information pool and tells me that this new notable encyclopedic information and as a tribute, HeartBreaker is significant. And that said, I would most appreciate help based on all the facts rather than assumptions based on that which is perhaps simply not clear enough to you. Thank you.--Benatartribute (talk) 06:06, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I have already stated what you need to save the article in the addition to the rather lengthy cut'n'paste of the last two posts, which you planted on my talk page. Put your evidence of meeting any of the criteria of WP:BAND (which is the same as WP:MUSIC) in the article itself and see if you can turn up independent documentation of the tour of Japan as otherwise the group is essentially local in nature. After all, the key question is "what distinguishes this act from the thousands of cover bands in North America, and what evidence from reliable sources show it to be verifiable per Wikipedia policies?" As I looked at it yesterday, the article showed nothing to show that the answer would be "yes", and I didn't see any significant change in this today. Note (as I said on my userpage and on WP:NOT): Wikipedia cannot be used to promote an act; instead, the act should work hard to establish its own notability (think global, not local!) so that Wikipedia could reflect it when such an article is permitted per Wikipedia policy. B.Wind (talk) 22:04, 10 May 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 Transwiki to Wiktionary, already tagged. Black Kite 23:37, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Homegoing[edit]
- Homegoing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Wikipedia is not a Dictionary Harland1 (t/c) 14:29, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Wiktionary, like most definitions. Irk Come in for a drink! 16:26, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Transwiki as the above editor probably intended. Double-Tongued has some references that can go with. --Dhartung | Talk 20:01, 4 May 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. Flowerparty☀ 02:24, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Victimhood in America[edit]
- Victimhood in America (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Aborted and incomplete article, probably OR - there is too little to actually tell Lars T. (talk) 14:11, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. As Lars points out, there's too little information to say anything about this article, but based on a quick search I think it's unlikely to be notable in and of itself; given both that and the headers on the (empty) sections, I imagine that this article, if ever expanded, will be pure OR. However, there's a possibility that the creator will come back (after having edited nothing since creating the article) and make it clear what the article is based on, so I'm watching the page. I'll be willing to change my recommendation if the article turns out to fit the guidelines. AnturiaethwrTalk 17:31, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete obscure theory, incomplete article. Chimeric Glider (talk) 20:07, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, I don't believe this can become anything but an editor rant. WillOakland (talk) 21:54, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- keep Plenty of sources to use on this topic. The theory is not not obscure just ignored as it is not very PC to talk about, it ties into discussions of structural violence. The article lists that it is in the process of being revamped, I would say leave it at that.65.11.23.219 (talk) 06:56, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - there was one edit (the creation) almost a week ago, since then nothing, also nothing more from Obri0210 (talk · contribs) who created the article .Lars T. (talk) 14:40, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The article seems to have been abandoned and looks like it might have included original research if it had been completed. Also, it is not clear that the article creator's view of victimhood is a view limited only to America; a global perspective would be preferable. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 13:24, 5 May 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). Clear consensus that article needs improving, not deleting, on the basis of which the nominator withdrew. WilliamH (talk) 17:37, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
List of female stock characters[edit]
- List of female stock characters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Unencyclopedic, POV and OR by default article. M0RD00R (talk) 13:52, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep/merge The article is current in transition from an earlier competing format which seemed mostly based upon OR to a more objective format in which the list just links to other articles. Since the linked articles explain the stock character type such as Bond girl or Bunny boiler, little further detail is needed in this list, which is primarily for navigation. But sources are being added to reinforce any debatable entries and the sourced entries form a model for what the list might become. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:00, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Colonel Warden - this article is apparently being improved and de-POVed. It provides (or at least, when completed, will provide) a good method of navigating the other articles on the topic. I don't see a reason to delete it at this time. ~ mazca talk 15:05, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Nominator probably doesn't understand that this isn't an article, its a list. As an aid to navigational tool, it does its job perfectly, and the debatable entries seem to be getting referenced within the list itself, which is above and beyond the requirements in my book. Celarnor Talk to me 15:58, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per above. This list serves as a decent navigational hub, and is apparently undergoing a rework to be much better than the previous version. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 16:36, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Not inherently OR or POV, because stock charactes are discussed (almost ad nauseum) in scholarly works, which also means is notable. Article is in the middle of being improved by multiple editors, which means we should step back, don't jostle their elbows while they do the work, and there's anything like sourcing and verification problems when they're done, THEN revisit it. —Quasirandom (talk) 17:22, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. OK, let's revisit article in one month's time, I'm ready to withdraw my nomination. M0RD00R (talk) 17:26, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Keep and merge ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:52, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Doom of Mandos[edit]
- Doom of Mandos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This article establishes no notability through reliable sources, and is just a repetition of part of the plot of the Silmarillion by JRR Tolkien. It is already mentioned in that article and does not need a whole article for a 3 sentence repetition. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 13:41, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect to somewhere, most probably Vala (Middle-earth) under Vala (Middle-earth)#Mandos. That way it can remain under Category:Middle-earth theology. Uthanc (talk) 01:13, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:22, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Blatant failure of WP:NOT#PLOT. Most of the article is direct quotation with other in-universe info to pad it. Additionally, this appears to be a non-notable aspect of the work which has not received significant coverage from reliable secondary sources. Doctorfluffy (i can has msg) 03:59, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- merge with suitable redirects which does not require afd. As a prominent named element in a very notable fiction it is worth the redirect. (Incidentally, has anyone actually checked the reliable sources on Tolkien to verify that it is not in fact commented on? That these articles are carelessly written does not mean then are unverifiable as notable. DGG (talk) 21:24, 6 May 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. Since I can't track down an article about "the elections" he ran in to merge to, I'm afraid it has to be deletion. Pigman☿ 01:05, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Prince Mongo[edit]
- Prince Mongo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Tough one, this. There are many many Google hits, but the sources cited in the article - an "unofficial website under construction since 2002", a YouTube video and some personal commentary - appear to be representative. Searching News and Scholar came up with only one source, http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.0735-2166.2004.00212.x, which is not about this individual but only mentions him as a local character in Memphis elections. I'm sure that this guy really is a household name in Memphis, but WP:V is policy and I am having serious trouble finding acceptable sources for what is, in the end, an article about a living individual, whihc paints that individual in less than flattering terms. Guy (Help!) 13:40, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as unverified and possibly unverifiable WP:BLP. Sandstein (talk) 13:55, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Non-notable local figure, no real sources. KleenupKrew (talk) 22:13, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to an article about the elections. Editorofthewikireview my edits here! 23:46, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:24, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- merge per Editorofthewiki. I can't find anything else. Guy appears to have done a good job searching. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:55, 6 May 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) 00:01, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sausage surprise[edit]
- Sausage surprise (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable fictional food that seems to have just been created. No references. STORMTRACKER 94 Go Irish! 13:07, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete non-notable neologism. M0RD00R (talk) 13:40, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete certainly not worthy of its own article, not even worthy of a mention in one of the existing articles.Gungadin 14:15, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - a one-off mention in a fictional TV program, that apparently didn't even give any useful information about it? Somehow I think this isn't quite encyclopedia material. ~ mazca talk 15:02, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - This was on an episode of Eastenders that was on about half an hour ago... weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 16:03, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as fictionalfoodcruft. Unencyclopedic and certainly fails notability test. GaryColemanFan (talk) 17:04, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - indeed, foodcruft. --BelovedFreak 21:45, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Per WP:NEO. Not notable. Malinaccier (talk) 23:21, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as cruft. Editorofthewikireview my edits here! 23:44, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Unencyclopedic. It only appears in one TV program. — Wenli (reply here) 02:14, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete who cares. JuJube (talk) 04:24, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete The AfD has already been removed twice. --Richhoncho (talk) 10:50, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete non-notable fictional food.-- danntm T C 16:09, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per others. Doctorfluffy (talk) 18:50, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:24, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:25, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to EastEnders if there's value as a search term, otherwise delete.--Fabrictramp (talk) 23:26, 5 May 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. Flowerparty☀ 02:23, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dan_Thies[edit]
- Dan_Thies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Does not meet notability guidelines FeldBum (talk) 12:21, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Non-notable search engine optimization consultant. KleenupKrew (talk) 13:21, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete does not meet WP:PEOPLE. The only independient coverage is some trivial coverage by consumerwebwatch.org. The other two sources are an article by the subject himself and something that looks like promotion by friends (it's not a bad thing, they are probably reliable sources for facts about the subject, but not valid to assert notability) --Enric Naval (talk) 15:37, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Simply non-notable, and few sources. Editorofthewikireview my edits here! 23:43, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Keep and expand. No consensus. Now that we have an expert assisting with the article, it cam be further developed. My suggestion would be to keep and expand. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:12, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Pelikan tail[edit]
- Pelikan tail (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Article is founded on the false premise that Mr Pelikan invented the vee-tailed fighter airplane airplane tail with only two control surfaces, when such a craft had already seen combat. I was going to sit on this one, but it's probably pointless to wait.
The technical subject should be discussed in the article for the Magister. There little actual aero material here is unreferenced. Potatoswatter (talk) 12:11, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep not the same design, see my comment on talk page. The claims are adequately sourced with Virginia Tech sources --Enric Naval (talk) 15:48, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It could be a different design or it could not. The VT sources were written by the same undergraduate who wrote the article, and his instructor, both in the context of the classroom, not research. Very not WP:RS. From the PowerPoint's references, the NOVA documentary and first principles might have been their only references to Pelikan's work, making this article WP:OR as well. Potatoswatter (talk) 17:09, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The Air&Space magazine also mentions the Pelikan tail[7](pages 2 and 3). I added this source as an inline reference to the article. Looks like this happened on 1998. To me, it looks very clearly like a different tail. The Boeing_X-32 article bears a photo where you can see clearly the differences with a vee tail (the pelikan tail has a flat surface between the tails) Image:USAF_X32B_cdp_boe_stovl_010.jpg. Mind you, the article is badly sourced with no inline references, but that's not grounds for deletion (I changed that a bit). One of the VT sources is actually a paper published at "42nd AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit", so it's been published and can probably be used. Both VT sources have a good bunch of sources at the end, so they probably meet verifiability standards, altought the PDF is sourcing nothing and should probably be reworked into an example of an academic attempt to build a plane model with a pelikan tail (already did that). I attributed stuff so it's clear what is from the original analysis from Boeing and what is from those students --Enric Naval (talk) 01:41, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, NN proposed design. It's mentioned in Ultimate Fighter: Lockheed Martin F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (ISBN 0760317925), for one paragraph. Seems like it's WP:V but not really WP:N. --Dhartung | Talk 20:07, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If it's really non-notable then I'll go for merging on another article. Until now, V-tail looks like the best one to merge into --Enric Naval (talk) 04:45, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note I just found an article at V-tail. A note could be added there. Same advantages are cited for V-tail as Pelikan tail. Potatoswatter (talk) 23:38, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Notice that the Pelikan tail appears to have weight problems that the V-tail does not have. --Enric Naval (talk) 03:55, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- But I think the Pelikan weight problem and V stress problem are both a manifestation of the need to apply greater forces at the control surfaces. We had more discussion at the talk page. Potatoswatter (talk) 04:07, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Hum, ok, so, that totally falls out of my area of expertise, and the sources don't make any comparison like that. I'll leave those details to the guys from WP:AVIATION :) --Enric Naval (talk) 04:11, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I made a note at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aviation#Pelikan_tail_vs_V-tail to attract editors interested on the matter --Enric Naval (talk) 03:55, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- thanks :v) Potatoswatter (talk) 04:08, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Also posted at WT:AIR, per recommendation at WT:AVIATION --Enric Naval (talk) 05:20, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge - To the V-tail article - the differences between the two seem mainly ones of minor details, one being basically a variant of the other. Both articles are not very long, and so coverage on one page would help both topics. - BillCJ (talk) 04:53, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment – In response to the RfC, I've posted my thoughts as an experienced aerospace engineer on the talk page for this article. My opinion is that this AfD is a bit precipate, so I'd encourage admins reviewing the recommendations here not hurry to close it in order to give more time for discussion. Askari Mark (Talk) 03:55, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for clarifying the situation! Potatoswatter (talk) 04:39, 6 May 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) 00:01, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Chameleon Club[edit]
- Chameleon Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Suspected hoax. No reliable sources. If the first reference is meant to be a book, I can find no trace of it. The second reference is about secret societies in general, and the third is about Cambridge University student societies in general; neither mentions this "Chameleon Club". Two Cambridge graduates I consulted had never heard of it: that may be just because it's so secret, but in that case it is not notable. The author's only other contribution is an attempt, also supported by an irrelevant reference, to insert a mention of this into the article on Harvard's Porcellian Club. Delete as probable hoax, in any case non-notable. JohnCD (talk) 10:15, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. -[[Ryan]] (me) (talk) 11:24, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, probable hoax. Neither of the two linked references even mention this group. KleenupKrew (talk) 13:19, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
G3 Appears to be a hoax. So tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 16:21, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]- Delete then. I don't see why it's not speediable, but there's nothing here that seems to assert notability, nor any reliable sources to even verify the content. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 16:37, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:28, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - can't find it on Google, so combined with nom's reasons suggests it either doesn't exist or is non-notable. Agree that it shouldn't be speedied, to allow reasonable fact-checking. Paulbrock (talk) 23:56, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Lack of notability. No sources can be found. Enigma message 17:11, 8 May 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. If it becomes notable later on, it can be re-created at that time. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:56, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
City17: Episode 1[edit]
- City17: Episode 1 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
The subject is not notable, because it isn't released yet and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Dekisugi (talk) 09:58, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. 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 may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:spa|username}} ; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}} . |
- Delete with no prejudice against recreation when the game's released. It may meet WP:N when it's released, it may not, but the preliminary material is there. PeterSymonds | talk 10:04, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep:Much like any Mod that I've seen within the Wiki, I'd have to say they've all been planed for deletion. Oddly MINERVA (mod), has not, which is quite odd. However As a developer of the mos itself, I can;t come across being reasonable without touching the present line of Bias. I voted for Keep, simply as this mod is likely to be released in the time allotted, which of course isn't currently stated, but soon will. Aside that, the page itself serves as a time line of events that have taken place for the mod's development. And more Importantly, it serves as a good foundation of information for the mod too, rather than just blatant advertising. --MrTwoVideoCards (talk) 10:08, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- comment - "...it is likely to be released..." violates WP:V. As for other mods, WP:WAX holds in this discussion. Dekisugi (talk)
- comment - "...it is likely to be released..." Was never stated, and after two Years of development I can assure it Will, be released. There is enough content also to prove that, sadly I can not yet upload any images as of yet, due to the New User policy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MrTwoVideoCards (talk • contribs) 10:15, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The quote was your own statement (read again your comment above). It's simple actually. Follow WP:V policy, WP:NOTE guidelines and make sure the article contains what Wikipedia is. At the moment, the article is not and should be deleted. Dekisugi (talk) 10:17, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I belive I handed that the wrong way, and instead meant I had never set a release date on the Wiki page, even though one does exist for June.--MrTwoVideoCards (talk) 10:20, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The quote was your own statement (read again your comment above). It's simple actually. Follow WP:V policy, WP:NOTE guidelines and make sure the article contains what Wikipedia is. At the moment, the article is not and should be deleted. Dekisugi (talk) 10:17, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I would like to see this article stay as it is an import history is this Mod's life, It serves as an extension onto City17 and shows some of the development that has taken place. --Jonoxplor (talk) 10:24, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
— 121.210.176.101 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.— Jonoxplor (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Dekisugi (talk) 10:22, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I can't say to that really, but this page is listed in several other places at the time, one being the main website, which gains about 140 visitors a day. Not alot, but this could have been any one of them.--MrTwoVideoCards (talk) 10:42, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 15:50, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Where's the evidence this mod is notable? I'm not sure one page from ModDB is enough. Unlike MINERVA (mod), there are no third-party independent sources asserting notability. "The mod being released on time" has got to be one of the most random reasons for keeping the article I've ever heard. If you can magic some reliable sources asserting notability from somewhere and use them in the article, I'll change my vote. Until then, gotta be delete. Una LagunaTalk 16:39, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I can't find any reliable sources to assert notability. It should be noted that the only two keep rationales to date are ILIKEIT and OTHERSTUFF. Just because you like it or find it interesting doesn't warrant inclusion in the project, and the fact that other, similar things in the project doesn't mean anything. Celarnor Talk to me 17:09, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. --SkyWalker (talk) 17:11, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. and Celarnor. JohnCD (talk) 17:40, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The only existing Third party resource is PlanetPhillip Which was not published by me.--MrTwoVideoCards (talk) 23:33, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Truly this page isnt as absurd as this one: [8], now this should have been deleted.--MrTwoVideoCards (talk) 23:57, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep:Quit being snobs, it's a single extra page on a website where having the extra page would cause no harm other than to inform people. The fact you care enough to even file the "report" to get such a thing deleted shows a lot about you. Also if I have to keep an objective viewpoint as some sort of backwards rule, I refuse.--Jman — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.39.191.99 (talk • contribs)
- — 72.39.191.99 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Dekisugi (talk) 08:12, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It show nothing. If you want to advertise do it somewhere else. --SkyWalker (talk) 03:11, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep:This is pathetic. "because it isn't released yet and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball". Wikipedia has umpteen articles on unreleased games, does that mean they should be deleted? No, because they are giving PRE-RELEASE information. If you have problems with certain aspects, work to fix them, don't just remove the entire article. -- MrBlank —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.26.104.94 (talk) 00:16, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- — 211.26.104.94 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Dekisugi (talk) 08:12, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Most of the are games not mods. Mods tends disappear overtime. Unless this mod got wide coverage like for example Black Mesa or MINERVA then this mod can stay. Till then this violates wikipedia rules. --SkyWalker (talk) 03:11, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I know the guy running this gig, he's serious about this mod, It will come out. If you don't think so, if you seiously think this mod wil not come out, ask youself, is this wiki really hurting anything? Why would we destroy this perfectly harmless site, I mean, it's pretty sad, some people have nothing better to do then eliminate something that doesnt have a negative effect towards anyone. this mod will no doubt be a good one, and wikipedia will only help advertise when it's done. --Dylan — Preceding unsigned comment added by No00dylan (talk • contribs)
- Keep If you want to go the rout of deleted all content without notable referances we might as well delete half-life 2 episode 3's page. and duke nukem forever could be called heresay as well. heck, lets delete the ancient history section too. because all of these are based partly on conjecture. city17 is on the wiki cause we want a record of it all. of cource wikipedia isnt a crystalball, we didnt post questions on the c17 page, we posted our facts. games are games, so are mods. is shivering isle not a game cause it requires the original oblivion. and to simplify a fix for the people that want it deleted, just dont look at it. if you dont like the thought that you might generate some extra fandom for our game mod then remove wiki from the web cause someone could research porn on here and become adicted to it, or the same for alcohol or smoking. you need to judge based on whats best for the wiki and the community, not if you think it fits into your idea of the wiki. if i remember correct, wiki's are for the community and public. if this is allowed to proceed then it takes a huge step back in the wiki's standards, and bars it as anouther entity that allows and accepts the supresment of ideals and free speach. because like all articals on the site if we didnt care for them we wouldnt write them, so how can we or anyone be object.-Clannerjake — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.218.64.136 (talk • contribs)
- — 12.218.64.136 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Dekisugi (talk) 08:16, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep What is so wrong about this mod? I mean, it's a mod... right, it's like a game, you just need another game to play this game. And this game, i will say, has nothing wrong in it. Posting an article about the mod to show of the people of how the game would look like is just normall, it is completely the same as telling what is Half Life 2 or anything else like that is about. The mod is not released yet, so people wanna know more about it! I know that you got some problems of someone saying that 70% or something like that of the information on wikipidia is wrong, but this is not wrong! and does nothing bad! i dont even understand a reason for it to be deleted... plus, this is an nice mod, it tells the life of a rebel from the Half Life story, all the way from hl2, to hl2ep2, and i think it is also a good source of knowing more about Half Life, and even thought it's not yet released, we already know the story! i say it should just stay, it doesnt make any harm. --StalkDude343 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.100.241.234 (talk • contribs)
- — 189.100.241.234 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Dekisugi (talk) 08:14, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note also, let me point out that GestaltG has stated that wikipedia jilted him on his web page attemps, further, he also is the main harasser to many of the page deletion attemps, like the one for sourceforts. to conclude that he is following a personnal agenda would not be hard to come to terms with. his actions speak for themselves. why is that he is on so many remove lists. maybe we should start a list of his actions and debate on if he is of sound judgement to be a wiki member.-Clannerjake —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.100.241.234 (talk) 01:22, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- — 189.100.241.234 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Dekisugi (talk) 08:19, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note for closing admin - the above signed Clannerjake uses different IP addresses (see the above one also). Dekisugi (talk) 08:19, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete And ten demerits for incompetent sock-puppetry. Also,
people who suck at english but speak it as a primary language make me laugh....oops, NPA. Hmmm. Oh well. Let's just say that the paragraphs above me pretty much sum up this. It is like they are just going through the list and trying each one. Protonk (talk) 02:50, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- there was never a reason to put people down at all. That was uncalled for, and is not a big issue in the argument. The argument is.--MrTwoVideoCards (talk) 03:14, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Block Socks Boy, they sure are obvious. Cache isn't up yet, so I'll copy this here in case they FINALLY get clever and delete the evidence:
Wikipedia is growing, and it looks like the seed its using is pure fast-growing retard. various wiki editors are on the assault, calling c17 free advertising and non-sense.
many developers use wiki’s and to note wikipedia also writes on things that are more or less based on conjecture and hearsay. like all of its ancient histories witch to most, no notable texts remain talking about them. so, is this just another example of how humanity tends to burn its histories. hl2 dm pro was hit, sourceforts was hit, and now us.
Take a stand for your mod, and stand by us. In the Link below, you can post your opionon, and vote to keep the mod by adding *”’Keep”’ at the start of your paragraph.
- Seriously now. Protonk (talk) 02:56, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Can IP users vote?. I thought only established users can vote. From above voters most of them either are new users and IP voters.--SkyWalker (talk) 03:05, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Presuming that you accept the "fact" that this debate isn't a vote, sure IP users can make arguments. I think the running consensus is that the weight carried by an IP users opinion against a registered user is less, but in this case it doesn't even matter. Their statements are so incoherent as to be totally irrelevant. Protonk (talk) 03:15, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Then how would this discussion end If I had the only say to effect the outcome?--MrTwoVideoCards (talk) 03:16, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No, I've never argued before towards wiki standards, but what I am saying is that the fact that the mod would need to be overly popular is ridiculous. Aside the fact developing a mod is already hard enough. Getting into something of that status is pure luck. What I mean is that still, I might not be able to win. If no one else had made a point on it.--MrTwoVideoCards (talk) 03:44, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I belive that even Sourcefortse had something like this originally on their Forums, because how down right ridiculous this all is. How else would we make a point if I'm the only one arguing. If so, then this argument would be one sided, and I'd have no chance on making my Point understandable. I ask for you to take a look at the SourceForts Page Discussion, and read the archived deletion argument, and notice how many users joined the Wiki for the sole purpose of voicing their opionon.--MrTwoVideoCards (talk) 03:08, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- How ridiculous all what is? Let's presume for a minute that you are in the right, that this article belongs in wikipedia. Surely, if that were the case, you could convince us of it. Some of us would see reason. There would be no reason for the creator of this mod to canvass for votes on his website. The debate could proceed on the merits of the article. And, frankly, NONE of their contributions help to make any keep argument more understandable. The whole thing might as well have been copy/pastes of all the wrong things to say. Protonk (talk) 03:20, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I belive that even Sourcefortse had something like this originally on their Forums, because how down right ridiculous this all is. How else would we make a point if I'm the only one arguing. If so, then this argument would be one sided, and I'd have no chance on making my Point understandable. I ask for you to take a look at the SourceForts Page Discussion, and read the archived deletion argument, and notice how many users joined the Wiki for the sole purpose of voicing their opionon.--MrTwoVideoCards (talk) 03:08, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Then Why should a mod Not be on a wiki, is there a single reason. What I don't understand is for a subject to be on a wiki is of two things. It need to be either popular, or of some importance. What I mean by this, is it seems we would need to be featured in one or more magazines just to be able to even have a slight chance on the wiki. This is what you are asking of, and its very hard to do so. What I understand is that the Wiki has no limitation of space, and it is for the Community. Therefore it should stay, is why I say Keep. It hardly does any harm, and has a sole purpose for anyone whom would like to read about the mod, or would like to know more about it. The wiki is an encyclopedia, not a "you need to be awesome in order to be listed here website" I simply ask to allow this page to stay, but other would vote it for deletion, but why? It's a simple page, it doen't have any advertising, and it servers as a purpose about the mods history and what it is about.--MrTwoVideoCards (talk) 03:27, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Because it needs to be Notable. It needs to be Verifiable and it needs to have a Neutral point of view. Once it is those three things, it can be on wikipedia and I'll defend it any day. Until it is all of those three things, it needs to be deleted. There are clear policies that exist in order to ensure that wikipedia remains an important resource. Once people see that anything can get on here, the image if it will tarnish, and that is hard to replace. I'm sorry you feel differently, but thems the breaks. Protonk (talk) 03:31, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Then what would you say make this article all of that? What would the Page require in specific terms to be up to the base.--MrTwoVideoCards (talk) 03:34, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The only Source I can comment on, and that has gotten outside coverage on the mod, is that of Planet Phillip. Aside that, because the mod is not yet released, theres not much else that can be done, Planet Phillip at the moment is te only site that talks about City17 in detail, and later this week, we might have an interview, which might add to notability, but yet I'm not sure.--MrTwoVideoCards (talk) 03:47, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment well you let protonk vote and hes established that all he can do is insult peoples spelling. isnt there a wiki rule about that. Protonk we werent trying any sock-puppetry, that thing you feel up your butt is your head. if you want to sound like an idiot and give rise to people saying idiot seed was planted in wikipedia. then go ahead and keep talking. we area a community. so we post on other sites as well about the purity grade of idiots that go around trying to delete other peoples works cause they feel it doesnt fit there ideals. its going to be on planetphilip as well. and many many more... i hope that makes you spazz out, america has a term for you, its called 'terrorist', and i hope the minute you need some help and ask that everyone runs you into the ground and calls you names. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.218.64.136 (talk) 03:24, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not going to argue towards name calling, but I simply debate the fact of notability.--MrTwoVideoCards (talk) 03:35, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Protonk "Civility is a code of conduct for editing on all Wikipedias. Wikipedians define incivility roughly as, personally-targeted, belligerent behavior and rudeness that results in an atmosphere of conflict and stress. Our code of civility states plainly that people must act with civility toward one another."
"And ten demerits for incompetent sock-puppetry. Also, people who suck at english but speak it as a primary language make me laugh....oops,"-protonk "Their statements are so incoherent as to be totally irrelevant."- Protonk you are in violation of the wiki civility code. so stash it.-ClannerJake
- I'm sure WP:CANVASS and WP:SOCKPUPPET is in there somewhere. Maybe you can quote them for me too. Protonk (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 03:57, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- comment i could but sense you can type i think you can read. but if you wana try and draw pointless acusations go ahead, i respect your right to be totally wrong. the fact of the matter is you have been flamming me. i should remove your posts, its vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.218.64.136 (talk) 04:07, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This Page may be deleted, after much flaming...(sadly, and unintended) I'll try again later, and post this mod when theres more actuality towards it and, and is also released. I supposed I was a bit hasty in adding it soon, but should of had more on it. Also no more discussion shall continue based on this issue until it is later brought up for another reason. --MrTwoVideoCards (talk) 04:01, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment WOOOOAAAA!! I slept and woke up this morning with badly smelled socks here. I'll put some spa account tags later. Dekisugi (talk) 06:59, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Will it be fine to add this later, upon release?--MrTwoVideoCards (talk) 09:20, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, as long as the article conforms with WP:NOTE guidelines, then yes. The most crucial things are non-trivial third-party reliable secondary sources. I'd suggest to wait for the subject to get some publications, reviews, news releases, etc. When they are available, I'm sure somebody will create the article here. Note that when any subjects are notable, they don't need WP, but WP does need to create articles for them. We're writing an encyclopaedia, remember? Dekisugi (talk) 09:25, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Lacks the multiple, in-depth and reliable sources needed to establish notability. Someoneanother 12:24, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete for lack of reliable independent sources.-- danntm T C 16:38, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - This article is too early. It needs reliable third party sources in order to prove that the mod is notable. As it's still in development, this is unlikely. Maybe, per WP:SCRABBLE, the mod may become notable after release, in which case the article can be recreated. For now, it should be deleted as per WP:RS, WP:N and WP:VGazimoff WriteRead 11:20, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete unreleased mod without large pre-release press. Holy puppets, Batman! BJTalk 06:37, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - The references provided are not enough to satisfy WP:N. If it attracts critical attention from the gaming media then there's no prejudice against recreating it. Marasmusine (talk) 09:45, 11 May 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) 00:00, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
David Wolkinson[edit]
- David Wolkinson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Another contested prod for an election candidate, this time for the Michigan House of Representatives. Wikipedia is not an election hoarding: per WP:BIO#Politicians, just being a candidate does not confer notability. The references say only that he was active in student politics, has been a candidate before, and has a blog. Delete as not notable. JohnCD (talk) 09:11, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails WP:BIO#Politicians, which states that just being a candidate for political office doesn't guarantee notability. Notability would otherwise be conferred by significant press coverage, but Wolkinson doesn't have this. PeterSymonds | talk 09:38, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per PeterSymonds. -[[Ryan]] (me) (talk) 11:27, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, wikipedia is not a local political blog. If he gets elected to the U.S. Congress or higher, then he can have an article. KleenupKrew (talk) 13:16, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, not notable enough yet. --John Nagle (talk) 17:32, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Do Not Delete - David is a significant figure in Michigan politics. Rock2942 (talk) 15:24, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete being a candidate is not enough for notability.-- danntm T C 16:42, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:29, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:30, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: No assertion of notability beyond the subject's being a candidate for a political party nomination, and being a candidate for a state legislative seat - neither of which is inherently notable. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 00:51, 6 May 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. Cbrown1023 talk 16:53, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fernando Martinez (disc jockey)[edit]
- Fernando Martinez (disc jockey) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Entirely a work of original research, and I'm not convinced of the subject's notability outside of the game. Marasmusine (talk) 08:18, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm adding the following to this afd, since it seems all the GTA DJs will have similar notability (or lack of it):
- Pepe (disc jockey) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Adam First (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) --BrucePodger (Lets have a beer) 14:13, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Marasmusine (talk) 08:18, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails WP:N, lack of sources to prove notability. PeterSymonds | talk 09:41, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Dbam Talk/Contributions 13:40, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteThe game is notable, the individual characters aren't. Can we get rid of the articles on the other DJs too? --BrucePodger (Lets have a beer) 09:15, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note, Adam First has already been changed to a redirect to Grand Theft Auto: Vice City soundtrack. Maurice Chavez has also been made a redirect following its afd, but to List of characters in Grand Theft Auto: Vice City. I think we need to find a consistent way to handle these, its currently a mess. Personally I'd now go for redirection to List of characters in Grand Theft Auto: Vice City, maybe combined with merging of contents, for consistency with existing the existing afd result. --BrucePodger (Lets have a beer) 14:13, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Only in-game characters (ie. those listed in the main cast) are included in the "List of characters..." articles; DJs or other radio personalities are covered in the soundtrack articles. Obviously any redirects should reflect this. Where a character appears in more than one game then I think the general rule of thumb—with the GTA taskforce and other regular contributors—is to redirect to either the game in which the character is most prominent or the first game in which the character appeared, whichever is more appropriate. So Adam First is probably fine the way it is and Maurice Chavez should probably also redirect to the Vice City soundtrack; Fernando could redirect to the GTA3 soundtrack article. Dbam Talk/Contributions 19:41, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Seems reasonable. --BrucePodger (Lets have a beer) 21:16, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Only in-game characters (ie. those listed in the main cast) are included in the "List of characters..." articles; DJs or other radio personalities are covered in the soundtrack articles. Obviously any redirects should reflect this. Where a character appears in more than one game then I think the general rule of thumb—with the GTA taskforce and other regular contributors—is to redirect to either the game in which the character is most prominent or the first game in which the character appeared, whichever is more appropriate. So Adam First is probably fine the way it is and Maurice Chavez should probably also redirect to the Vice City soundtrack; Fernando could redirect to the GTA3 soundtrack article. Dbam Talk/Contributions 19:41, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete original research. Characters are not mentioned in any independent, reliable sources. B.Wind (talk) 04:05, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Not notable within the context of the game, let alone outside of it. Its just Maurice Chavez all over again. .:Alex:. 09:22, 11 May 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. Hut 8.5 10:11, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Kyaw Hein[edit]
- Kyaw Hein (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Lack of notability. Only reference is a government site. Enigma message 17:14, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The site mentioned, while hosted on a government domain, is that of a newspaper, published by a company rather than a government department. No doubt the newspaper is close to the government, since Burma is a military dictatorship, but there is no reason to doubt the accuracy of this particular newspaper article. See http://www.mmtimes.com/no361/t001.htm for a later article from the same newspaper, hosted on its own domain. --Eastmain (talk) 23:04, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 23:04, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, unclear how he is notable. Stifle (talk) 18:49, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. This book says that he's one of the two most established actors in Burmese cinema. That sounds pretty notable to me, especially along with the Myanmar Times sources. Although that publication may not be the most reliable of sources for the political situation in Burma I see no reason to doubt its reliability as a source about actors. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:59, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein (talk) 07:24, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, notability established. WillOakland (talk) 08:13, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per WP:BIAS. M0RD00R (talk) 14:00, 4 May 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. Fabrictramp (talk) 23:41, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cake (draughts player)[edit]
- Cake (draughts player) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This does not appear to be a notable software. The article about its creator was previously deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Martin Fierz. Sandstein (talk) 07:03, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Not encyclopedic and fails notability. Dwilso 08:51, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Do not know of any notability. SunCreator (talk) 14:00, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge with MTD-f or delete per above. Percy Snoodle (talk) 12:55, 6 May 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) 23:59, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
RoX Thresher[edit]
- RoX Thresher (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Character from a non-notable game, and therefore fails WP:N. PeterSymonds | talk 07:02, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The article is a one line stub. The game doesn't even have an article. 65.11.23.219 (talk) 08:15, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. and 65.11.23.219. JohnCD (talk) 10:19, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. notability concerns, I did a google search for "RoX Thresher" and found only 3 pages. 2 of which were Wikipedia pages. Bill (talk|contribs) 12:57, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 15:50, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete apparently this is referring to a freeware Boulderdash clone, the blue character with the teeth is Thresher (right click on the image and attempt to save it, Thresher1.png). The game doesn't appear to be notable, a single character sure as heck isn't, not sure if this justifies a speedy delete but surely it shouldn't take 5 days to puzzle this one out. Someoneanother 17:26, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:33, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, I would say redirect to RoX but there is currently no article for that. This stub doesn't really tell you anything about the character. --Pixelface (talk) 15:01, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Sandstein (talk) 08:48, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Autum Ashante[edit]
- Autum Ashante (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
In so far as I can tell, this seven year old girl is notable for one event (WP:ONEEVENT) and does not actually meet any of our biographical guidelines. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 22:11, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. WP:BLP1E. KleenupKrew (talk) 22:23, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. No, WP:BLP1E doesn't apply, because this is for more than one event. Note the multiple references in reliable sources. Note the list of appearances: "a variety of television credits, an appearance at the Apollo Theater, and the African Burial Ground in Manhattan." --Eastmain (talk) 22:46, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete -- I hate to be mean to a child, but she hasn't achieved Wikipedia-defined notability. Ecoleetage (talk) 23:25, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The article is mainly sourced to local papers like the weekly The New York Amsterdam News, but NPR, The National Review, and others (including deliberate shit-stirring by Michelle Malkin and VDARE) have covered her. --Dhartung | Talk 00:34, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, I agree, article is sourced well enough. She seems to have notability. Izzy007 Talk 00:38, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails WP:BIO. A few articles, mostly in local papers, over a short time span, mostly about one incident, fail to show encyclopedic notability. Edison (talk) 01:08, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep It's one event, but it's sustained coverage of the event. Seung-Hui Cho and Jocelyne Couture-Nowak are both really known for only one event, but both are notable due to sustained coverage and official recognition of the event. Nyttend (talk) 01:47, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:BLP1E and per Edison. Stifle (talk) 18:20, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 19:43, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 19:43, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete It is unfair for a 7 year old to have been put in this situation. This is one of the very few cases i would apply do no harm. DGG (talk) 04:23, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Notable, well-sourced. Trachys (talk) 16:26, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein (talk) 06:54, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete the sources listed lead to a premium database service, the external link leads to a non-existent news article and searching her name on Google News turns up 0 results, I searched A blast from Barron. New York Amsterdam News (one of the sources) on google, it didn't turn up a result from the newspaper in question. As such, there is no evidence from reliable sources of notability, as such it fails human notability criteria. Atyndall93 | talk 07:12, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete 15min fame issue, encyclopedia not news archive 65.11.23.219 (talk) 07:03, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete A local event that was soon forgotten. Someone's 15 minutes of newspaper fame (bordering on human interest fluff) doesn't automatically grant encyclopedic notability. (There is even uncertainty what her name is?!?!) Weregerbil (talk) 08:33, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This little girl is a poet whose work has attracted attention beyond the controversial incident in 2006. The article is sourced; the person is clearly notable. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 15:15, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. In case it was not entirely clear in my original nomination, I believe this should be removed per do no harm in addition to BLP1E. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 16:32, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete one rather irrelevant event does not make her notable. - Nabla (talk) 01:38, 11 May 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. Fabrictramp (talk) 23:42, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
TWOMDE[edit]
- TWOMDE (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable. A part of a conference that hasn't happened yet. Weregerbil (talk) 06:33, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete no indication of notability from reliable third party sources, as such is fails WP:N in that a google news search turns up nothing. It also fails WP:CRYSTAL as it is a future event without notability. Atyndall93 | talk 07:21, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Per above, and also fails WP:ORG and WP:N. PeterSymonds | talk 09:12, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals/Deletion. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:34, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete for all of the excellent reasons given above. Qworty (talk) 22:26, 7 May 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. Feel free to merge. Flowerparty☀ 02:32, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No Matter What (T.I. song)[edit]
- No Matter What (T.I. song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Fails WP:MUSIC; it is a leaked track from T.I.'s upcoming album and not announced as a single, song has no notability DiverseMentality (Talk) (Contribs) 06:38, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep seems to adhere to WP:MUSIC criteria as it has had media coverage (according to google news). Atyndall93 | talk 07:37, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Meets WP:MUSIC, which states: In general, if the musician or ensemble that recorded an album is considered notable, then officially released albums may have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia. Individual articles on albums should include independent coverage. This does. PeterSymonds | talk 09:14, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
***I think you are confused...this is not even an album! Do you know me?...then SHUT UP!!! Sarcasm is beauty 17:34, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Paper Trail. There doesn't seem to be quite enough info for the song itself yet. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 16:39, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
*Merge to Paper Trail. See WP:MUSIC#Songs. Do you know me?...then SHUT UP!!! Sarcasm is beauty 17:34, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- WAIT A MINUTE!!!! IT IS A SINGLE!!!!. It has been released on iTunes and there is a citation too. I'm reverting my vote to speedy keep. --Do you know me?...then SHUT UP!!! Sarcasm is beauty 15:23, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Does a song necessarily have to be a single in order to purchased on iTunes? DiverseMentality (Talk) (Contribs) 00:23, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Paper Trail. Not notable on its own yet. GaryColemanFan (talk) 18:17, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
***Comment Why not merge directly to Paper Trail itself? Do you know me?...then SHUT UP!!! Sarcasm is beauty 18:19, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:34, 5 May 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. Cbrown1023 talk 16:53, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
European Laser Institute[edit]
- European Laser Institute (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This Institute (it's an association) has existed since 2003, yet has only 113 Google hits. I submit that it is not notable. Prod tag removed. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 05:51, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete since it fails WP:CORP. Habanero-tan (talk) 06:05, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete fails WP:CORP, no evidence of notability through Google News/Scholar/Books/Search. Atyndall93 | talk 07:43, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails WP:CORP. Aside from that, no sources are provided to prove notability. PeterSymonds | talk 09:16, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per all above. -[[Ryan]] (me) (talk) 11:28, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I added some references from Google News archives. See also http://www.google.com/search?q=%22European+Laser+Institute%22+site%3Aeu Besides, there is considerable public interest in lasers. --Eastmain (talk) 00:33, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, those references don't say much. Has this association ever done anything? Phlegm Rooster (talk) 00:38, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. According to the article, ELI organizes conferences and workshops, sometimes in cooperation with the Laser Institute of America (LIA), and publishes the Journal of Laser Applications. --Eastmain (talk) 02:47, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Jointly publishes with three other groups. All associations have meetings, and the sources you have found are press releases (one by a European Photonics Industry Consortium) and an announcement by one of the partner intitutions (in German), so I think it is still not notable. The Laser Institute of America has 239 Google news hits, 498 Google books hits and a couple of thousand Google scholar hits, for the sake of comparison. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 03:47, 5 May 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. Cbrown1023 talk 16:54, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Leesa Fogarty[edit]
- Leesa Fogarty (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
The subject of this article is a fashion designer who attracted some press attention when she she insisted on using "normal-sized" women to model some of her swimwear. (And good for her.) None of the press reports included much biographical information, however, and its difficult to see how the article could be written as anything other than autobiography. Plus, it reads like a CV rather than an encyclopedia article. So, it did not surprise me that the article was started by Bluepedal (talk · contribs), which is also the name of one of her companies. Moreover, all of the substantive edits have come from IP addresses that have few or no edits outside of this article. This article could not be rewritten by a third party editor because there are insufficient reliable sources; thus it should be deleted. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 15:04, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- BelovedFreak 15:12, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:49, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nomination. Habanero-tan (talk) 06:06, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- keep but needs a massive rewrite. If not NPOV'ed, delete. Christopher Mahan (talk) 06:33, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep with conditions, she seems to have some notability, but that article is a POVfest and full of link spam, if that cannot be rectified with good sources about her other achievements *Delete. Atyndall93 | talk 07:48, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as spammity spam spam spam. WillOakland (talk) 08:09, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete if it needs a massive rewrite then delete it and someone can write it later if she is still notable, but are encyclopedias really about 15min fame? 65.11.23.219 (talk) 08:37, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete linkspamfest and promotional essay, but allow for the possibility of an objectively-written and -sourced article on the subject at a later time. Sorry, but this one has to go because it would be better to start anew than to try to modify this to maintain Wikipedia standards. B.Wind (talk) 02:49, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
* keep but I agree it needs a rewrite. User:Angelica Added after discussion was archived, signed by a fake signature. Added by User:90.192.183.57 erc talk/contribs 07:27, 15 May 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 by Christopher Mahan (A7 (bio): Real person; doesn't indicate importance/significance). Non-admin closure. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 06:47, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thomas M. Lawson[edit]
- Thomas M. Lawson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This article is probably a hoax. There is no source. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 05:26, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete because he links to his flickr and myspace Habanero-tan (talk) 05:30, 4 May 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 by User:Splash as an advertisement. Non-admin closure. ~ mazca talk 15:23, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Foreign market research[edit]
- Foreign market research (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Prod removed without comment or discussion. No context, no assertion of notability. Reads like a poor advertisement. Would need a complete rewrite to be useful; as it is, the article is practically incomprehensible. FrankTobia (talk) 05:13, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete that IS an advertisement. The citation links to the site you can buy their service from. Habanero-tan (talk) 05:24, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete Non-notable article. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 05:29, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete as advertisement. Prose is impossible to decipher. GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:33, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete as an advertisement, plus 99% of it is indecipherable. Atyndall93 | talk 07:53, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete WP is not for advertising.--Berig (talk) 07:56, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G11. Blatant advertising. PeterSymonds | talk 09:19, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete per G11 Doc StrangeMailboxLogbook 13:05, 4 May 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. Despite recently being restored per a Deletion Review, the consensus here is clear, and the article has been deleted. Rjd0060 (talk) 23:58, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Userbox[edit]
- Userbox (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This is an article on an internal subject of Wikipedia (Isn't there a policy against that? Maybe not.). I don't find it to be notable enough outside of Wiki-projects for its own article. Wakanda's Black Panther!♠/♦ 05:12, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Wikipedia:Userboxes, that article is completely redundant Habanero-tan (talk) 05:19, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as non-notable subject on its own. The current page as it stand is thinly disguised to talk about userbox as used within Wikipedia, which is a self-reference to be avoided. Do not turn into a cross-namespace redirect to Wikipedia:Userboxes. KTC (talk) 05:49, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Not notable enough, and completely redundant as we already have an article on this. Dwilso 07:24, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, self-referential, wrong namespace. WillOakland (talk) 08:00, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete until the userbox concept reaches mainstream culture and is written about in reliable and independent sources to the point where a user (non-wikipedian) would actually look up this article it fails notability criteria (Wikipedia articles cannot cite Wikipedia! (I think)) due to lack of sources. Atyndall93 | talk 09:16, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails WP:N outside the Wikipedia namespace. PeterSymonds | talk 09:43, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Badge. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:04, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment How do you propose we merge it into Badge while not failing WP:UNDUE? ~ Wakanda's Black Panther!♠/♦ 16:45, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- By condensing the content to an appropriate degree. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:15, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment How do you propose we merge it into Badge while not failing WP:UNDUE? ~ Wakanda's Black Panther!♠/♦ 16:45, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If reliable sources assert that userbox is a type of badge, and if coverage of badges mentions userboxes, then it could be mentioned in the badge article and redirected to it, but currently is not a notable aspect of badges (or of Wikipedia), so there I cannot find an appropriate article for userbox to be redirected to. --Snigbrook (talk) 20:09, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- A userbox is obviously a type of badge - that is a simple matter of language. It is a neologism though and so we should just redirect to a more normal word or phrase. Personal device might be better than badge. Colonel Warden (talk) 02:00, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As Wakandas black panther mentioned, WP:UNDUE applies if mentioning it in the article. A redirect would be confusing as a search for "userbox" would redirect to an article that does not explain it. Also it is something specific to Wikipedia (and probably other wikis) and not a particularly notable aspect of them, and is rarely mentioned in coverage of badges, personal devices or wikis. --Snigbrook (talk) 02:17, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- We have the selfref template for such cases. See Self-reference. Colonel Warden (talk) 02:21, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As Wakandas black panther mentioned, WP:UNDUE applies if mentioning it in the article. A redirect would be confusing as a search for "userbox" would redirect to an article that does not explain it. Also it is something specific to Wikipedia (and probably other wikis) and not a particularly notable aspect of them, and is rarely mentioned in coverage of badges, personal devices or wikis. --Snigbrook (talk) 02:17, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- A userbox is obviously a type of badge - that is a simple matter of language. It is a neologism though and so we should just redirect to a more normal word or phrase. Personal device might be better than badge. Colonel Warden (talk) 02:00, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If reliable sources assert that userbox is a type of badge, and if coverage of badges mentions userboxes, then it could be mentioned in the badge article and redirected to it, but currently is not a notable aspect of badges (or of Wikipedia), so there I cannot find an appropriate article for userbox to be redirected to. --Snigbrook (talk) 20:09, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. While it certainly is notable outside of the WP userspace, it isn't notable outside of MediaWiki usage. Unfortunately, Wikipedia isn't ready for this level of covering everything under the sun yet, so for the time being, it should be removed until either the time comes when we've matured enough that we don't need to worry about notability any longer or independent reliable sources show up mentioning the subject. Celarnor Talk to me 16:04, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]- Sounds like you want Wikipedia to be an encyclopedia about EVERYTHING, which is next to impossible. We will have to have a notability guideline of some kind, else we'll have an article on everyone on the planet, dead or alive. ~ Wakanda's Black Panther!♠/♦ 16:45, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- An encyclopedia of everything is exactly what I have in mind. Of course, we're not ready for that yet, so, for the time being, notability guidelines are something we have to live with. But that's a separate issue. Under our current policies and guidelines, this particular subject doesn't warrant inclusion in the project. Celarnor Talk to me 17:05, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sounds like you want Wikipedia to be an encyclopedia about EVERYTHING, which is next to impossible. We will have to have a notability guideline of some kind, else we'll have an article on everyone on the planet, dead or alive. ~ Wakanda's Black Panther!♠/♦ 16:45, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, not notable outside of WikiMedia websites. Don't redirect as it's incorrect to redirect from Article => Project space. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 19:08, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete not notable; lack of independent reliable sources. --Snigbrook (talk) 20:01, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This is essentially a trivial sub-topic of Wikipedia (which is notable), but is not notable in its own right. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 01:15, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not notable outside of Wikipedia and related websites. — Wenli (reply here) 02:09, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete not notable independent of Wikipedia.-- danntm T C 02:59, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete no redirect. JuJube (talk) 04:29, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not notable, especially outside Wikipedia Gary King (talk) 05:46, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Very strong keep: Userbox is not "an internal subject of Wikipedia", userbox is an internal subject of any wiki. It is relevant for Uncyclopedia, Conservapedia, Liberapedia almost all wikis. It is an important wiki term. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 18:47, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Any reliable sources to indicate real-world notability? Celarnor Talk to me 20:05, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes. Wikipedia: The Missing Manual by John Broughton Page 56 and 171. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 20:18, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Normal notability guideline ask for multiple independent reliable sources. Also, how is one arguing that the source is showing that the topic isn't an "internal subject of Wikipedia" when the source being provided is entitled "Wikipedia: The Missing Manual"? KTC (talk) 23:07, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "An important wiki term." - As in, a term only notable to A Wiki-editor (which there are few less of than wiki-readers who do not edit). And (in a strictly opinionated, non-proven matter I say this) it's not really that important on the Wikis. <humor>After all, how often do you hear "My good man, I just added the most magnanimous userbox to my userspace!"?</humor> I just don't know as userboxes are notable enough, is all. By the way, do you know anyplace online where I can read Wikipedia: The Missing Manual? ~ Wakanda's Black Panther!♠/♦ 00:41, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes. Wikipedia: The Missing Manual by John Broughton Page 56 and 171. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 20:18, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per source provided by above. A viable stub article using a single source. Celarnor Talk to me 20:23, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and redirect per Habanero-tan. Joelster (talk) 04:50, 6 May 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 Cleveland Cavaliers. Fabrictramp (talk) 22:34, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Whammer (mascot)[edit]
- Whammer (mascot) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Stub that has no chance of expansion. Brief mention of Whammer should be on mascot list page, not an entire page based on him. Waste of space. Page is not notable, as very few mascots are. GoHuskies9904 (talk) 04:56, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This actually is information about this mascot, [9], but I'm not sure if he needs his own article. Perhaps we can discuss him and Moondog at the same page (Cleveland Cavaliers mascots, or something like that). Zagalejo^^^ 05:29, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge with team article, nothing to make it notable in its own regard. Habanero-tan (talk) 05:34, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge with Cleveland Cavaliers, not a notable mascot, fails notability guidelines. Atyndall93 | talk 09:42, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:36, 5 May 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), with the hope, as per the editor's comment, this will not "jinx the servers and doom us all" Ecoleetage (talk) 16:33, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Waterloo Hawks all-time roster[edit]
- Waterloo Hawks all-time roster (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
You've got to be kidding me. This is a horrible list with no real sources. Waste of space. GoHuskies9904 (talk) 04:52, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep There are all kinds of sources that can be used to verify the content in the article. The book Total Basketball, for example, contains information on every NBL and NBA player, and the Association for Professional Basketball Research provides information on the guys who played while Waterloo was in the NPBL: [10]. I don't think the list is currently complete, but that can be fixed. Zagalejo^^^ 05:05, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Wikipedia isn't having any problems with disk space as far as I know. Habanero-tan (talk) 05:17, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't say that... you'll jinx the servers and DOOM US ALL!!! On a more serious note, I don't want to invoke the "other stuff exists" argument, but are there any comparable all-time rosters on Wikipedia? The concept is a good idea for a team fansite or historical site (Yes, I am aware that the team appeared to exist professionally for a small number of years in late 40s-early 50s), and the content appears verified or at least verifiable, but I am only 90% sold (read: weak keep) on the idea as a Wikipedia article. As an alternate option, slap the tables together into one (not split by letter) and crash-merge into the Waterloo Hawks#Waterloo Hawks All-Time Roster section (which at this moment is a de-pretty-fied version of this article, within an article that has plenty of room for material). -- saberwyn 09:00, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There are lots of all-time rosters: Boston Celtics all-time roster, Chicago Cubs all-time roster, etc Zagalejo^^^ 18:19, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The Waterloo Hawks aren't the Boston Celtics or Chicago Cubs. -GoHuskies9904 (talk) 19:54, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
-
- Their roster is already on the Waterloo Hawks page. Why is there another page devoted to their roster? -GoHuskies9904 (talk) 01:58, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The list on the team page is just bare bones. This list seems like an attempt to make a nicer looking, more informative list of players. For the record, neither list is complete; both exclude the guys who played while the Hawks were in the NBL or NPBL. A true all-time roster would be much longer (and would more clearly justify the use of a separate article to present that information.) Zagalejo^^^ 03:13, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Why not just have the nicer looking chart on the main Waterloo page. Makes no sense to have a random roster from the late 40s on two different pages. Wondering how many people will actually find the page under investigation right now. -GoHuskies9904 (talk) 14:52, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge with Waterloo Hawks OR Keep I am finding it really hard to draw the line with this one, I cannot figure out how notable it is, does mention in a book of all players ever to play (such as Total Basketball make them notable? But I am certain about one thing; the fact that the tables are sortable but still separated by letter just doesn't make any sense, that really needs to be fixed. Atyndall93 | talk 09:53, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Most of these players would pass the primary notability criterion. Even if they had undistinguished pro careers, they were at least (in most cases) well-known players at the college level, and were discussed in newspaper articles in their day. Zagalejo^^^ 18:19, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Erring on the side of merge, but I think this qualifies for an article in its own right per WP:N. However, the article needs a cleanup, but that's not what AfD is for. PeterSymonds | talk 09:58, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:36, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep. This has already come up for discussion as to the professional baseball all-time rosters Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chicago Cubs all-time roster, where the decision was that an all-time roster of a notable professional sports team is definitely encyclopedic. (For the record, I'm wondering what the nominator's deletion reason is? "horrible list with no real sources" isn't a valid deletion reason as far as I can see.)--Fabrictramp (talk) 23:40, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comentario - It's not a valid reason? Why the heck are Wiki admins so bent on making sure everything is cited and in the best condition possible? I've had plenty of edits reverted because of not having a documented source to back it up. -GoHuskies9904 (talk) 02:16, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reverting an edit is not the same as deleting an article. AfD is not the place to resolve editing issues.--Fabrictramp (talk) 15:20, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Separate issue, not involving this article. -GoHuskies9904 (talk) 17:45, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- COMMENT If only people would take 2-3 minutes and look at everything. The Waterloo roster is already on the Waterloo Hawks team page. Why is their a second page that is incomplete I might add for a team that has been defunct since the 1950s. The Cubs have been around 100+ years, you need a separate article to list thousands of players. You don't need one for 20-25 guys that Waterloo had in its small existence. Comparing the Cubs to the Waterloo Hawks is like comparing Nike to sneakers some guy makes in his garage. -GoHuskies9904 (talk) 02:12, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Then why are you asking for deletion instead of being WP:BOLD and merging the information?--Fabrictramp (talk) 15:20, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Because its not about a merger. The main page already has the roster, the second page is a duplicate. -GoHuskies9904 (talk) 17:44, 6 May 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. Bearcat (talk)
J. D. Myers[edit]
- J. D. Myers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Highly promotional and non-neutral piece on a borderline but non-notable musician. A search turned up only false positives. He has not had any chart singles, and only one of his albums was on a major label (the article also indicates that said album was yanked before it even hit shelves). There also don't seem to be any reliable sources about him anywhere. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 04:50, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 04:51, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete because it doesn't contain any references.Habanero-tan (talk) 05:52, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails WP:MUSIC. He released an album, but that doesn't automatically qualify as the album isn't notable. PeterSymonds | talk 09:23, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete can only find one source mentioning him from 1992 (from the Roanoke Times), plus he fails WP:MUSIC as a musician because unreleased albums are in general not notable; however, they may be notable if they have significant independent coverage in reliable sources and the single he released does not turn up any news results either. Atyndall93 | talk 10:00, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment There is a review of the album on All Music Guide but it's really not that substantial (although promising). Still not a significant source, though. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 17:09, 4 May 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 moe anthropomorphism. If anyone wants to merge some content in they know where to find it. Wizardman 23:09, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Moezilla[edit]
- Moezilla (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Not notable, one of thousands of fan created characters within Moe anthropomorphism. No reason to even merge it, nothing notable about it. Habanero-tan (talk) 04:49, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - We already have an article on this, and most of the info is redundant. Dwilso 07:27, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge with Moe anthropomorphism Does not seem to have notability on its own, although I cannot find any info on the personification of Mozilla products in the main article, so I suggest merging the information into the main article. Atyndall93 | talk 10:26, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- She's cute, but Merge to Moe anthropomorphism. Not notable enough for her own page. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 16:23, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Compress and merge with either Moe anthropomorphism or OS-tan. Yeah, I know, strictly speaking applications and not operating systems, but it still looks like a possible target. As examples of moe anthropomorphism, even as a class, these don't seem to have acheived independent notability. —Quasirandom (talk) 17:35, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Moe anthropomorphism or just delete; not notable. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 19:01, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 'Redirect to Moe antropomorphism. This is not notable on its own.-- danntm T C 18:33, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:46, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect into Moe anthropomorphism. I don't really see a problem with the article as is, but it seems like it would fit well in the Moe anthropomorphism article. Moezilla doesn't have to be notable to merge, per WP:NNC. --Pixelface (talk) 14:58, 7 May 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. Discussion on merge can take place on the articles talk. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 20:00, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Arden Valley Road[edit]
- Arden Valley Road (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Road simply is not notable. It exists within Harriman State Park that minimal traffic travels everyday. Maybe you can briefly mention it on the Harriman State Park page, but that I don't think is necessary. GoHuskies9904 (talk) 04:44, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. It has a well referenced history and pictures. It does seem a little strange that someone put so much work into making such a good article about such a mundane road. I wouldn't want to delete it, although I wish there was another place to put it other than Wikipedia. Habanero-tan (talk) 04:55, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep - It is a notable state park route that is referenced by in the NYSDOT logs. Plus, its a quality article that had a lot of hard work put into it. It is far from a stub or anything like that. -Airtuna08 (talk) 06:24, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep Meets WP:N, contains sources, is very nearly rated as "B" class. It's a quality, well-written article. PeterSymonds | talk 09:26, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Meets the notability criteria as it contains good sources. <irrelevant>It is also a good article</irrelevant>. Atyndall93 | talk 10:34, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:47, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:47, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, I know this road ;). That aside, it's a major park thoroughfare and tied with the history of the region Arden Hill Hospital, etc., hiking in the region as well as the reasons above TravellingCarithe Busy Bee 02:11, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into Harriman State Park – Marginal notability, because from what I see, there's one source that's not just a map. A lot of the above comments are tending towards WP:EFFORT and WP:PRETTY, neither of which are particularly compelling reasons to keep. — Bellhalla (talk) 03:34, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comentario I agree, a page being considered pretty or well written aren't good reasons to keep something. I can make a good article on my cat, but should it stay because I have pretty pictures and some fancy wording. The road is barely notable, so should be deleted. In fact, there are no reassurance shields in the pictures on the page. So drivers don't even know they are on Arden Valley Road. Also, from my understanding, there are more of these types of roads within Harriman Park. How come one of a group of hidden roads was put into an article? If one was going to be done, it should make sense to have them all. I don't see this page's purpose. Other than it being "pretty", which it is, but again, that shouldn't fly as shown in the WP articles from Bellhalla above.-GoHuskies9904 (talk) 21:44, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep - As the original writer of the article, I feel it meets criteria to stay, its probably heading to GA soon anyway.Mitch32contribs 10:36, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Quite notable thoroughfare, well-sourced, no reason to delete. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 19:06, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak merge. Outright deletion is probably over-the-top. This article is well-written, but I'm not entirely sure of its notability independent of the park. Consider a merge to the article on the park. However, I wouldn't be too terribly perturbed if this article was kept on its own. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 19:42, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - probably has historic value within the park, given that it was built in 1930. (I don't know if the Civilian Conservation Corps worked on this or not, but it's plausible.) --Elkman (Elkspeak) 18:05, 8 May 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 by Trusilver (CSD A7). Non-admin closure. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 06:50, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Joey Kay[edit]
- Joey Kay (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
I speedied this, but the user removed the speedy tag. The article fails WP:BIO. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 04:43, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Vanity article apparently created by the subject himself. Nothing to assert notability. GaryColemanFan (talk) 04:47, 4 May 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. Page has already been moved to the appropriate title.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:51, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Canadian Fraternal Organization - L'Association Fraternelle Canadienne[edit]
- Canadian Fraternal Organization - L'Association Fraternelle Canadienne (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Fails WP:CORP. Goole search shows only 17 ghits [11]. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 04:29, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The article's title is wrong. It should be changed to Canadian Fraternal Association. There are more ghits that way. The article started out as a copyvio, which I fixed. I have seen evidence that the association appears before parliamentary committees and lobbies government regulators, and read about notable people who have held positions with the Canadian Fraternal Association, but I have not found a lengthy history of the association. This is a national group which has existed for more than a century. --Eastmain (talk) 05:48, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 05:53, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Per nomination. It definitely exists, but an occasional press release isn't enough for WP:CORP. Habanero-tan (talk) 05:55, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Is this the Canadian Fraternal Association of Insurance Companies? They have some Google books hits. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 06:03, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep To above, yes it is. This meets WP:CORP, but is titled wrongly. PeterSymonds | talk 09:29, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Eastmain. The article should be moved to the correct title, not deleted. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:44, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Habanero-tan. GreenJoe 21:06, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep/move move to the proper name and keep per RS coverage that includes the NY Times, among others CariMeSpeak! 21:48, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- While awaiting the outcome of this nomination, I have moved the article to its correct English name, Canadian Fraternal Association. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:58, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, mistaken nomination. Does anybody think it odd that User:GreenJoe, who argues to keep many student associations of extremely questionable notability, would want this large association deleted? Fee Fi Foe Fum (talk) 22:35, 7 May 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 by Jmlk17 (G11: Blatant advertising). Non-admin closure. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 06:52, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Charismatic Stations of the Cross[edit]
- Charismatic Stations of the Cross (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Fails WP:RS and WP:N. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 04:15, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No notability asserted or present; nothing to indicate that anyone knows of this except the author. Accounting4Taste:talk 04:20, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Agree with nom. There is nothing redeeming about this article. Looks like some kind of advert with no context. -FrankTobia (talk) 04:27, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I'm still not sure what the subject of this article is. Is it a book? Is it a religious observation? Either way, the only hits through an internet search are for an online book store that I've never even heard of. GaryColemanFan (talk) 04:45, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete It is a 2008 book being sold for $5 on the vanity press website lulu. Very not notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Habanero-tan (talk • contribs) 05:07, 4 May 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. Spellcast (talk) 11:24, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Webaganda[edit]
- Webaganda (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Fails WP:N and WP:RS. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 04:13, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I agree, no references or sources to substantiate any usage anywhere. Accounting4Taste:talk 04:19, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, nn neologism. Nakon 04:19, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, non-notable, unsourced neologism; considering it's an Internet neologism, less than 1000 Ghits casts serious doubts on it's usage or availability of reliable sources. nneonneo talk 04:25, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, non-notable neologism. JIP | Talk 04:34, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Sufficient notability has not been established. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 06:26, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as a non notable neologism.--Berig (talk) 07:54, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Though I like the word. :) Use of the word has not, however, been established, and therefore fails WP:N and WP:NEO. PeterSymonds | talk 10:01, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Non-notable neologism. Google doesn't reveal any reliable sources. — Wenli (reply here) 02:06, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete neologism. JuJube (talk) 04:29, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:47, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy delete (non-admin closure). PeterSymonds | talk 09:32, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cole guerriere[edit]
- Cole guerriere (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Unreferenced and unsourced and (almost unfortunately, in my opinion) appears to be a hoax. Article asserts that the subject was an influential opera singer, but returns no google hits - of any sort -, nor do the people or works attributed to the subject mentioned in the article. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 03:34, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- G3 Fairly obvious hoax -- a singer who supposedly broke down boundaries would likely get at least a handful of hits, but not so here. So tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 03:57, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete as hoax. No independent sources seem to exist. GaryColemanFan (talk) 04:49, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Wizardman 17:19, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Darth Vader's helmet[edit]
- Darth Vader's helmet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
There are no sources that are independent of the subject listed that grant notability. seresin ( ¡? ) 03:09, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete All of the relevant info regarding Darth's helmet should be covered in the Darth Vader page. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 03:23, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete
& Merge-redundant article, all information should be merged into the Darth Vader article; Non-Notable to have it's own article.--~SRS~ 03:39, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and merge isn't acceptable per WP:GFDL. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 04:02, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't even know what I meant by that. =) SOrry.~SRS~ 04:21, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, it confused me for a while too when people would just link to the GFDL as if it explained it. Wikipedia's license requires that the history of any contribution be maintained, so merging information and then deleting the article actually breaks this, though I agree that it's not very obvious - a merged article should just be redirected so that the contribution history is maintained. See WP:MAD for an explanation. Cheers ~ mazca talk 14:59, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, not notable enough information to have its own article. JIP | Talk 04:35, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete any relevant sourced content should be added to the Darth Vader article. The helmet doesn't warrant its own article. GaryColemanFan (talk) 04:37, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge unless the content is not already present in the main article, otherwise delete. Mizu onna sango15/水女珊瑚15 05:03, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Non-notable article. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 05:34, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above. If the information is accurate, it should be covered by the Darth Vader article.--Berig (talk) 07:53, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to kabuto. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:06, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Darth Vader if there's any relevant information not already included there. This article does not do much on its own. ~ mazca talk 14:59, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Darth Vader is my favorite villain, but Wikipedia is not Wookiepedia. Kabuto and Stahlhelm cover this trivia. Zero Kitsune (talk) 18:08, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. As much as I like Vader, his helmet itself isn't notable. Doctorfluffy (talk) 18:40, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect without deletion as the article contains sourced out of universe information. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 18:50, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. —Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 18:52, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect. Helmet is not notable independantly from Darth Vader, and I'm sure that article can accomidate these two lines somewhere. --NickPenguin(contribs) 21:30, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:48, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've merged the content to Darth Vader. A non-admin close and redirect might be in order(?). --EEMIV (talk) 23:54, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've also reworked the dubious sourcing -- rather than attributing it to an unreliable fan site, it is instead reworded a cited to the text the fan site quotes. Despite not itself being a reliable source, I trust echostation well enough to be accurate when it claims to quote verbatim from a text. --EEMIV (talk) 00:00, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete without redirecting, it's a highly unlikely search term. Dorftrottel (bait) 14:46, May 8, 2008
- Delete - Not notable enough. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 00:10, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No merge or redirecting. The helmet is not notable. -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:12, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Claims of not being notable are unfounded per WP:JNN. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 00:14, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Plus... Any useful information can be added in Darth Vader's article in a small section. -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:20, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If information on the subject can be added into an another atricle in a small section, then we should redirect to that section without deletion. Regards, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 00:33, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe, there are some things to be said about Achilleus' helmet as well but that doesn't make it a searchable item. Does it? :) -- Magioladitis (talk) 01:10, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It is to those researching props and novels, for example. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 03:23, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Update: I just made significant revisions to the article and added a couple published books that provide out of universe context as references and also noted its notability in that various specific products have been made that focus on just the helmet. Please note the current revision. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 03:40, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please just put those in the Darth Vader article so this thing can be redirected. --EEMIV (talk) 03:58, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Merge any appropriate info to Darth Vader and then delete. Dedicating a whole page on his helmet is something you'd expect from a Star Wars wiki. Spellcast (talk) 09:04, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- We cannot legally merge and delete per the GFDL. A "merge" stance cannot be a "delete" stance as well. Thus, it is looking like the consensus in this discussion, taking into account the various improvements to the article during the discussion and after the initial flood of deletes above, is that the article should be merged and redirected without deletion. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 15:53, 11 May 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. Fabrictramp (talk) 23:44, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Busters on the Planet[edit]
- Busters on the Planet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Not enough information and completely unreferenced. It fails WP:MUSIC Razor flame 02:13, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Wikipedia loves having articles for every album in existence. Habanero-tan (talk) 06:17, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- First, it does not, and second, it's not an album. Delete. Punkmorten (talk) 10:08, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The article just a song list. Does not express the album (or whatever) itself is notable. Certainly the songlist itself does not seem notable. 65.11.23.219 (talk) 07:08, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:MUSIC.-- danntm T C 18:35, 5 May 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. Spellcast (talk) 11:30, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hobosexual[edit]
- Hobosexual (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Contested prod. Article is about a neologism, with no references for its currency. nneonneo talk 02:00, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as an unsourced neologism. Majoreditor (talk) 02:10, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Insufficiently sourced neologism, and Wikipedia is not a dictionary. (By the way, the version of this article that was deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hobosexual in 2006 appears to have been sufficiently different from this version that this article is not eligible for speedy deletion.) --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:22, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per all above. Mizu onna sango15/水女珊瑚15 04:56, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as a non notable neologism.--Berig (talk) 07:51, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as a neologism with no apparent source. Connorflanagan (talk) 10:18, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete because it is a recreation of deleted material through previous AfD. Dekisugi (talk) 10:20, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No it's not. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 16:41, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep/merge as the concept is notable and we have articles on related topics such as ragamuffin. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:11, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The second bit of your argument is addressed by WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. I recommend that you try adding this neoligism to urbandictionary.com. (Community editor (talk) 16:16, 4 May 2008 (UTC))[reply]
- You are missing my point. Since we have at least one other article on the general topic of people who wear shabby clothing then a merger of this material would be sensible. There are other well-established words of this sort, such as tatterdemalion and so a simple move might suffice. Colonel Warden (talk) 02:13, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The second bit of your argument is addressed by WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. I recommend that you try adding this neoligism to urbandictionary.com. (Community editor (talk) 16:16, 4 May 2008 (UTC))[reply]
- Delete as a non-notable neologism, and salt as a re-creation of a previously deleted article. KleenupKrew (talk) 13:05, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Article is neologism with unverified origin that appears to be in minimal usage. (Community editor (talk) 16:14, 4 May 2008 (UTC))[reply]
- Delete Neologism with no reliable sources to back it up. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 16:41, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Neologism with no readily available sources to assert notability. Celarnor Talk to me 17:06, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment "Readily available" is not a requirement in any encyclopedia that I know of. Stalinwasmydad (talk) 18:25, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Colonel Warden; article has reliable primary source, and Google validates claims of currency. Stalinwasmydad (talk) 18:25, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No reliable sources. Appears to be a non-notable neologism. — Wenli (reply here) 02:06, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Non-notable neologism. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 18:49, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Ah, I missed WP:NEO articles. Neologisms need independent sources indicating common usage, which this does not have.-- danntm T C 22:07, 5 May 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. Cbrown1023 talk 16:55, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Tae kwon do 3d[edit]
- Tae kwon do 3d (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Contested prod. Educational software. This article is written like a magazine review and would need a substantial rewrite to become an encyclopedia article. No notability asserted. Delete. Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth-timed 01:46, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. As far as I can tell, the article should be called "Taekwondo 3D." Hopefully that'll help anyone who has the time to look into this. AnturiaethwrTalk 02:17, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy close Article was PRODed when it was one minute old, and AfDed at fourteen minutes. G-hits throw a lot of false positives, but the article should have time to develop. The creator's been editing it pretty steadily since it was created. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 03:20, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete It's SPAM and/or a review for NN software Doc StrangeMailboxLogbook 03:33, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete time elapsed since creation is not a reason for keep when there's no eviden e this is notable software CariMeSpeak! 21:45, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete on the basis of notability, not the quality of the current revision of the article. BigBlueFish (talk) 14:44, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:49, 5 May 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) 23:55, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"W.O.W."[edit]
- "W.O.W." (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Stub about a song released two days ago by a redlink band. Delete. Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth-timed 01:23, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Non-notable song by non-notable band with no reliable sources backing it up at this point. Erechtheus (talk) 01:24, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Completely non-notable. Renee (talk) 01:27, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Can't find anything that proves notability. Jb0007 (talk) 01:30, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Non-notable song by non-notable band. GaryColemanFan (talk) 04:34, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or redirect to World of Warcraft.--Berig (talk) 07:50, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect Remove the content, but redirect to either WOW or World of Warcraft. I personally prefer the latter as a plausible redirect, but that's for further discussion. PeterSymonds | talk 09:56, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Non-notable song - I can't find any info about it on Google. — Wenli (reply here) 02:05, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete then redirect to Wow.-- danntm T C 20:18, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:50, 5 May 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 G12 copyvio, then recreate as a redirect to the main article. Black Kite 23:43, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Peta (cat)[edit]
- Peta (cat) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
I'm sort of complexed about this one. It seems made up, but I can't quite nominate it for SD. The footnote is messed up also. Mm40|Talk|Sign|Review 01:02, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I was monitoring Special:Newpages when I came across this. However, It has been a day, and the article hasn't changed much. Mm40|Talk|Sign|Review 23:32, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral. I'm conflicted on this, too. Given the sources available for some other cats mentioned at Chief Mouser to the Cabinet Office, you'd think there'd be plenty of sources available for this one; the only sources I can find, though, are the BBC one mentioned in the messed-up footnote and this Sudan Vision article, and you'll note that these three articles are substantially the same, especially toward the end. Seems pretty notable, as cats go, but where are all the other sources? And should this be speedied as a copyvio? Probably, but I'd hate for that to happen before anyone has a chance to find more sources. AnturiaethwrTalk 01:22, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Lordy, if we had a page in Wikipdia on every famous person's pet we'd quintuple (at least) the number of articles. Sorry, but non-notable.Renee (talk) 01:29, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. What confuses the issue for me is that I can't quite make out whether this is someone's pet. Having a cat at 10 Downing Street sounds like one of those traditions (like the ravens at the Tower of London) of which the British seem fond, and the article on Chief Mouser to the Cabinet Office says that the cats are actually civil servants. I can't be sure of that, though, and I don't know whether any of that makes these cats notable. Incidentally, if this article is deleted, I recommend also deleting Wilberforce (cat), Sybil (cat), and (the much better-sourced article) Humphrey (cat), whose notability comes from the same position. AnturiaethwrTalk 01:59, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and reference better. We have Barney_(dog) across the puddle. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:09, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Chief Mouser to the Cabinet Office, as with the several others who are not expanded into articles. Seems to have been less notable for whatever reason, probably WP:RECENTISM, but basically we don't have enough for an article. --Dhartung | Talk 03:06, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge as per Dhartung. Editorofthewikireview my edits here! 03:08, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy close Article was three minutes old when it was AfDed. Not to go into WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but I'll point out this is a bit of a borderline article- all Chief Mousers that have come after have articles; none that came before. Either way, give it a little time. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 03:28, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I was monitoring Special:Newpages when I came across this. However, It has been a day, and the article hasn't changed much. Mm40|Talk|Sign|Review 23:32, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Of course not- you bit the creator.They haven't been back since. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 20:01, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]- A bit harsh to say you necessarily scared them off, but they indeed haven't made any more edits. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 18:39, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 00:00, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep It's the old problem of older stuff not being available online. Just because a reference isn't online doesn't mean one doesn't exists. The article itself states that there was significant newspaper coverage at the time of Peta's appointment. It just needs someone to find the relevant newspapers from that time and quote them as refs. Mjroots (talk) 15:41, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Put to sleep and delete (and do the same for successors). There doesn't seem to be much information showing Peta being notable for doing something other than what's being done by millions, if not billions, of felines do naturally globally. Aside from catching the odd mouse, what else (besides a ceremonial title) separates this cat from any living in a residence of a head of state or head of government? I fail to see it. B.Wind (talk) 00:28, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as copyvio from here. When the copyvio content is removed, as it must be, there is nothing significant left and there are no other substantial sources. TerriersFan (talk) 19:06, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Are we really discussing the notability of a cat tht has nothing more for it other than being a cat? Even if the PMs cat... - Nabla (talk) 19:56, 11 May 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 and redirect to Capacity utilization. I've done the redirect; someone more knowledgeable may merge the content in. Black Kite 00:29, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cyclical overcapacity[edit]
- Cyclical overcapacity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
- Nothing links to it; orphan tag has been on the page since 7/2006 - Article itself is ostensibly a definition, but no cites and not especially well written (seems more like a very short essay) - page has been vandalized for two months but nobody noticed
(found it while working on disambiguating links to capitalist) Frank | talk 19:36, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral I've heard of it, but mostly in psedu-socialist criticism of capitalism. Web links. Scholar links. Books links. Bingo. first book hit. Thought I remembered it correctly. That's why you don't see it too much in modern scholarship (7 hits on scholar). Not too many people want to associate with this theory. I think, as a theory, it isn't much, or what was good in it has been covered in other explanations. But it is one of those 'gatekeeper' phrases--just complex enough to sound authoritative but not so complex that the person using it can't explain themselves. This might do well as a subection of marxist economics. But it wouldn't really bother me to see it deleted. We aren't losing any information. Protonk (talk) 02:14, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keepon the basis of what Protonk found. Historical importance as a theory is sufficient. DGG (talk) 01:39, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Locobot (talk) 01:23, 21 May 2009 (UTC)--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 00:48, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. —Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 00:48, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I don't really see this as a theory per se, although as an expression it may be more common in planned economies. It seems to be an apposite to structural overcapacity and the two are frequently discussed together, so what we may need is one article on overcapacity. Basically, overcapacity is seen as one tick in the economic wheel that will eventually be replaced by undercapacity. In capitalism, this is opportunity, while in communism, it is grave error, waste of resources, opportunity cost, and so on. But that may best be discussed as part of another article. We could just merge with output (economics) or business cycle. --Dhartung | Talk 03:16, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into Capacity utilization. I don't know about this subject, but this seems to be the area in which it falls. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 03:39, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, merge as Jeremy suggests; that seems like a much more specific candidate. --Dhartung | Talk 06:46, 5 May 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. Singularity 02:05, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Black-Africans in Australia[edit]
- Black-Africans in Australia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
undefined term as stated by the article, WP:SYNTH a conglomerate of information to advertise http://www.africanoz.com.au. and a POV Fork of African Australian. Previous incarnations of the article were at Black Australians, Afro Australians Of African Descent Gnangarra 00:46, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Serves no purpose and seems to be somewhat streesing the word "black", which may have racialist conotation. All the incarnations should function as redirects to African Australian. The Ogre (talk) 00:50, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Per nomination. Renee (talk) 01:37, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per the tag on the article, to African Australian. Same concept; better name. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 03:40, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- comment merge what?, with the exception of African Americans were stationed in Australia as US soldiers and sailors during the Second World War and Vietnam War, allowing opportunties for then predominantly white Australia to come in contact with a new and different ethnic group[3] all other sourced material is in the article. The only other information not covered is the unsourced WP:SYNTH There is no clear definition of what constitutes being an "African Australian" (or "Afro-Australian"). Along with indigenous Africans who were born in Africa, the term could encompass people as disparate as Caribbean British, African Americans or Cape Malays who with an African upbringing or family background have chosen Australia as their new home. The Australian Bureau of Statistics records people according to their birthplace and their self-described ancestry, although aggregated data for Africa is split between "Sub-Saharan" and "North Africa and the Middle East". Gnangarra 04:31, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well then redirect. Whatever. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 07:03, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Per black people. Habanero-tan (talk) 05:20, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - The article is complete non-sense, and unencyclopedic. Dwilso 07:31, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect per JeremyMcCracken.--Berig (talk) 07:49, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Nick Dowling (talk) 08:23, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No encyclopedic content. Doesnt need to be redirected, i cant see people looking up this topic on here. Five Years 11:38, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Appears to be a POV fork of African Australian (but why, I don't know). dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 08:41, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as a unneeded articles, for a subject already covered in African Australian.-- danntm T C 21:07, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, would appear to be an unnecessary fork of African Australian. Nothing in this article that isn't in that one. Lankiveil (speak to me) 07:32, 6 May 2008 (UTC).[reply]
- Delete Seems like a POV fork of African Australian when comparing/reading the article.--RyRy5 (talk ♠ Review) 00:30, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I won't dignify this article with a reason. Kransky (talk) 11:01, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Wizardman 17:21, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
CryptoHeaven[edit]
- CryptoHeaven (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Not verifiable: the only third-party reference is a promotion piece from a TV show. The article is written like an advert and has not improved at all since November 2007. -- intgr [talk] 19:51, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, advertisement. KleenupKrew (talk) 02:13, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:22, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Locobot (talk) 01:23, 21 May 2009 (UTC)--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 00:42, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 00:42, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Appears to be notable based on the results at g-scholar and g-books. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 03:43, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete 15 results in G-scholar and Gbooks is not significant, and look at the results they all are just references to a commercial website http://www.cryptoheaven.com which is what the article is about. The company itself is insignificant however they may use significant encryption techniques in which case an article on that would be notable wherein they might be mentioned. 65.11.23.219 (talk) 08:30, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Exactly; they are references to the subject of the article, hence the reason I looked them up. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 20:05, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Does not seem to meet WP:CORP. Deli nk (talk) 12:13, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and make a mention of this company on some article like Cryptography --Enric Naval (talk) 16:00, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment So that's where Superboy's pet dog went!!! Mandsford (talk) 22:04, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as just an ad, not notable--Doug Weller (talk) 20:37, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Although company does not seem to be large, the technology is significant. It is noted in books, university publications, and articles like 'CRS Report for Congress' g-scholar. Wording of the article could be edited to better suite encyclopedic entry. -- Holkoagnes (talk) 03:49, 10 May 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 Nakon 00:35, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
William Schnoebelen[edit]
- William Schnoebelen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Procedural nomination: I previously stubbed this article because of BLP concerns. It was later PRODded by another editor, but this was removed with the addition of some external links which don't look entirely convincing. Therefore, I have brought it here - I have no opinion. Black Kite 00:22, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I've heard of this guy, he's written 6 books that I'm aware of and frequently gives lectures for The Prophecy Club. I'm sure some good references can be found. --RucasHost (talk) 03:05, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment After looking through the article's history I've noticed that you deleted about 80% of the articles content. --RucasHost (talk) 03:10, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment That's fine, but it'd need to be sourced. Black Kite 15:08, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Well it seems some people really went after this article with a vengeance. Adding way too many {{fact}} tags (eg. for things that already had references mentioned) and generally acting in bad faith. Anyway, I've been trying to fix things up and I have added a few new references. I'd also like to point out that there are articles on this man on four other Wikipedias. --RucasHost (talk) 03:28, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment To be honest, I thought that the {{fact}} tags made a fair enough point -- perhaps a little overzealous but not in bad faith. Remember that we do have to adhere to WP:BLP as a matter of legal responsibility. Having said that, my vote is to Keep the article, as the guy is clearly a notable figure (as a published author and controversial religious commentator) despite the difficulty we seem to be having in finding appropriate references. I think the references and links we have are enough to establish his notability, even if they are perhaps not formal enough to establish much else. BreathingMeat (talk) 03:53, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Not sure about the notability, but I don't agree with the BLP stubbing. A handful (handful, hence the reason I'm not convinced of notability) of hits on g-news (search all dates) and g-scholar (plus a huge number of google and g-video hits) seem to confirm what was in the old revision. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 03:49, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I think it is rather clear that it has been so far impossible to provide verifiable reliable sources for this article. A lot of articles survive AfDs because there's a consensus that the subject is notable despite the fact that the formalities of our notability requirements are not met. I'm quite ambivalent on this issue. __meco (talk) 04:09, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Evangelist of no known notability. KleenupKrew (talk) 13:10, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, for a few reasons. None of the references in the article can truly be considered a "high-quality reference", something explicitly called for in WP:BLP. The subject gets some google hits, but most of them seem to be products of his own self-promotion. I can't find a single article in a reliable source. Even eviscerating to a stub isn't very feasible - there still needs to be an indication of why the subject is notable, and simply stating that he is an evangelist won't be adequate. If someone can find better sources than I could, I would reconsider my !vote. Tan | 39 18:18, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- He is being used as an expert in a couple documentaries of the conspiracy genre that I am aware of, namely the anti-masonic Secret Mysteries of America's Beginnings and the anti-Mormon documentary The God Makers. __meco (talk) 13:53, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - If only his sources say he is what he is, and no one else can verify, and his books are nominal, he isn't notable. And for futhur comment, i will not be alledged to have acted in bad faith when I placed the fact tags that needed to be placed. Hooper (talk) 03:00, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 01:57, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 01:57, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Schnoebelen is a non-notable evangelist. The problem is there is no reliable source that suggests he is notable. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 03:45, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep True, he's not widely known (and that through his Chick connection), but he's likely to be read in some Fundamentalist church circles, and seen as "authoritative" despite facts to the contrary. (Also, young people in and around Fundamentalism are told The Lord of the Rings, comic-book heroes, and such recent mythologies are "evil", and sometimes turn to these kinds of materials as an alternative. I can't cite that, since it'd break WP:OR.) I'd like there to be something objective about him on Wikipedia; silence speaks too much in his favor, IMO. Zephyrad (talk) 16:52, 11 May 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. Singularity 02:00, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Issue-driven entrepreneurship[edit]
- Issue-driven entrepreneurship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
My prod tag was removed without addressing the underlying issue, so I'm bringing this article to the community. Essentially, 100% original research -- note that the article's creator indicated in an earlier revision that he had copyrighted both the article's title and the underlying concept. Accounting4Taste:talk 00:08, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I am also nominated the following related pages because the same author is apparently bent on advertising his website without any notability or reliable sources.
- Delete. This neologism isn't reliably sourced. Majoreditor (talk) 00:14, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete both pages and all 10 redirects created to it, as per nom. KTC (talk) 00:15, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as non-notable, poorly sourced neologism, with clear conflict-of-interest. Also, please delete the redirects to Issue-driven entrepreneurship and Enviu. nneonneo talk 00:36, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete for insufficient notability of a company or organization. I would have probably attempted speedy deletion. Erechtheus (talk) 00:56, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as a spammy article on a non-notable company. I've also speedy-tagged Enviu. Delete the redirects too. Bfigura (talk) 01:00, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as spam. (The redirects too, of course, since others are stressing the point.) I'd say it's just this side of speedy deletion. (Though it did make me laugh by recommending that the reader Google some guy's video because "its [sic] great!") AnturiaethwrTalk 01:39, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Unsourced neologisms/spam. No reliable sources to be seen. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 02:04, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 'Delete both No evidence is provided that this term or the firm are notable. -- Mattinbgn\talk
- Speedy delete Enviu G4, so tagged. It has numerous bracketed numbers (e.g. [1], [2]) which look like a copied wikipedia entry. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 03:53, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I undid the G4 for Enviu. The page was speedied before and re-made; G4 is only for pages that have gone through AfD before (which Enviu hasn't). Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 04:08, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Whoops, my bad, thanks for catching that. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 20:07, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, personal essay. It's even signed. JIP | Talk 04:36, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: nn. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 04:37, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above.--Berig (talk) 07:47, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Non-Notable.--RyRy5 (talk ♠ wikify) 20:31, 4 May 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 and redirect to Middle-earth#History for the time being; if there is a better target (per Dhartung for example), please feel free to change that. Black Kite 00:31, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dawnless Day[edit]
- Dawnless Day (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This article has no notability established through reliable sources, and is just a repetition of a small aspect of the plot of the last book in the Lord of the Rings trilogy. As such, it should not have its own article. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 00:07, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Non-Notable. No reliable sources added also.--RyRy5 (talk ♠ wikify) 00:54, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete nn, minor plot point. Alternatively, merge to the book. JJL (talk) 01:01, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, although if merged/redirected it would probably be best to include this in War of the Ring. --Dhartung | Talk 03:20, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Middle-earth#History; not deserving of its own article, but would fit here. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 03:56, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per JeremyMcCracken.--Berig (talk) 07:46, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment whilst donning fanboy cap. If you're going to put it in the history proper instead of as part of the war, then putting it in the "History of the world" article is macroscopically inappropriate by at least a power of two. The Third Age is 3021 years which are covered by two paragraphs in that article, and not a whole lot more even in Third Age. Again, we're talking one day out of 1.1 million days. A significant one, to be sure, but that article only covers the entire war in a couple of sentences. Perhaps a case might be made for a smerge of a line or two to Timeline of Arda#3019, which already has an entry for the date. But I see this best as an actual stratagem by Sauron that should be considered a part of the war. --Dhartung | Talk 08:06, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge Non-notable by itself, but this could easily be added into the Middle-earth#History page because it fits in with the history aspect of Middle-earth. Alone, it is not worth a stand-alone article, but it is worth keeping on Wikipedia. Razorflame 18:10, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Non-notable fictional event. Seemingly minor in the story itself, and no coverage from any reliable secondary sources. Also, fails WP:NOT#PLOT. Doctorfluffy (talk) 18:42, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Middle-earth#History. There's not enough for a stand alone article.-- danntm T C 21:44, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge, but not per any previous ideas: wouldn't it be better to merge it to the Battle of the Pelennor article? Nyttend (talk) 00:17, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 01:58, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- merge with suitable redirect which does not require afd. As a prominent named element in a very notable fiction it is worth the redirect. (Incidentally, has anyone actually checked the reliable sources on Tolkien to verify that it is not in fact commented on? That these articles are carelessly written does not mean then are unverifiable as notable. DGG (talk) 21:32, 6 May 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 A7 by Fuhghettaboutit , non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 16:26, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Darkest Shade Of Red[edit]
- Darkest Shade Of Red (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable band, speedy removed by articles creator without development of article Richhoncho (talk) 11:15, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete Meets criteria A7 - no assertion of notability Deli nk (talk) 12:11, 4 May 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 Gwernol 13:11, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just another katch 22[edit]
- Just another katch 22 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This is a recreated page. This article has been speedied, prodded (both removed), still no claim of notability Richhoncho (talk) 11:20, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete. Just another non-notable internet band. --Kravdraa Ulb (klat • sbirtnoc) 11:37, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- keep. is a band in autrlia ive been to one of there shows there good--user:durryman —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.134.81.68 (talk) 12:08, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete Meets criteria A7 - no assertion of notability. Deli nk (talk) 12:12, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete. Non-notable, good or not.9Nak (talk) 12:13, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- keep. should be kept is very notable in australia --user:jak-22 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.134.81.68 (talk) 12:19, 4 May 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.