Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 March 26
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 The Mummy (franchise)#Future. MBisanz talk 23:55, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Mummy: Rise of the Aztecs[edit]
- The Mummy: Rise of the Aztecs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Rumour, fails WP:NFF. Jenuk1985 | Talk 23:23, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to The Mummy (1999 film); a web search shows that this movie may indeed be under consideration by this name [1], but fails WP:NFF for the nonce. JJL (talk) 23:35, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect - There is some discussion at The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor about it, so it should be redirred there. — neuro(talk)(review) 00:05, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Rumor, fails WP:CRYSTAL; if it ever gets made we can have an article, but this ain't Daily Variety. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:27, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton Talk · Review 00:00, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Agree with Orange Mike: fails WP:CRYSTAL. I don't see any reason to Redirect for an as-yet unshot film. Pigman☿/talk 01:02, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to The Mummy (franchise)#Future. Clearly fails WP:NFF at this time, so there shouldn't be a separate article. However, several variations of this title already redirect to the franchise article, and this one seems like a reasonable enough variation to redirect as well. Admittedly I'd feel better about it with a better source, but redirects are cheap and this does seem to be the name that's being used elsewhere on the Internet. BryanG (talk) 01:31, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - WP:CRYSTAL. A-Kartoffel (talk) 07:43, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to The Mummy (franchise)#Future. The WP:NF and WP:CRYSTAL guidelines support the idea not to have a separate article, but they don't preclude notable speculation from multiple reliable sources to be mentioned briefly in a larger article. - Mgm|(talk) 10:25, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 18:54, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
*Delete, non notable, crystal ball. Short notice in The Mummy (franchise)#Future should be enough. Deletion Mutation 17:45, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Blocked sockpuppet. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 20:28, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: rumours, no evidence this is notable. JamesBurns (talk) 08:53, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:03, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mike Stick[edit]
- Mike Stick (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Baseball player bio that provides no evidence of notability. The claimed involvement with the Chicago Cubs, is not borne out by searching for him in past team members on the Cubs' official website. However, the article does appear to be advertising his role as owner of a franchised sports medicine facility. Astronaut (talk) 23:40, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete A search of baseball-reference.com shows nothing either. Any article that starts out with the claim that someone "was a Major League Baseball outfielder" is going to be checked on Wikipedia, so don't use that as a pickup line either. It would be poetic justice to redirect this to Microphone gaffe for anyone thinking of a "stuck mike". Mandsford (talk) 15:24, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:30, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete As Mandsford said, b-r shows nothing, including no minor league appearances. Gnews search gets no hits after 1995, his last year in college, and those 9 gnews hits are all passing mentions.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:35, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- A little more research: Also can't find a gnews/web hit that shows Stick ever signed with the Cubs at all, even a minor league contract. The Creighton 2006 media guide says he did, but that's the only place I can find it. Since that info was probably supplied by Stick, I don't think we can use that as an independent source.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:05, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete There is no evidence that he was an actual MLB player, nor any other notable actions. blackngold29 18:37, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Here is his professional record: [2] Kinston eagle (talk) 22:17, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. My guess, given the timeline, is that he was brought into camp as a replacement player by the Cubs during the strike in 1995. Those guys generally aren't considered notable (or counted as MLB players unless they appeared in real MLB games before or after), so I think this probably fails on notability and should be deleted. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 03:15, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - just another wannabe scab, never actually got to The Big Game. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:45, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. MBisanz talk 01:13, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Post literacy[edit]
- Post literacy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Original research Nerfari (talk) 23:25, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete, agree WP:OR Jezhotwells (talk) 23:55, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and clean up, add more sources. Certainly should be rescued as a possibly encyclopedic topic. Bearian (talk) 00:40, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and stubbify. It's clearly got an OR problem, but the sources to support an article exist. Saving a stub instead of wasting time on a deletion discussion seems to be the most sensible option. - Mgm|(talk) 10:22, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: My fear, after looking at the existing sources which are tangential at best, and googling the phrase, is that there is nothing worth keeping. Google hits refer to a few such speculative essays as this, but mostly this is a term of art in literacy education programs, as "here's what we do with folks after we've taught basic literacy". I don't like doing things unilaterally, but I'm tempted to blank this article and write two referenced sentences explaining the above usage. Everything here (that I read: I nodded off a bit in the middle) is a personal essay speculating on the anthropology of the distant future. T L Miles (talk) 14:01, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Update: I've blanked most of this and will rewrite. Doing research, this is notable as a literacy education term which has been "drafted" by Michael Ridley, Chief Librarian at the University of Guelph, for a class and a paper (which he has posted EVERYWHERE) to discuss cybernetics. This usage is slightly more than a neologism, but not notable (as I can't find anyone not in his class who uses it thus). T L Miles (talk) 15:11, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Update: I found one usage of it in Ridley's sense, as the title of a review article in a journal for the 1980s, that then does not use it again even in the course of the review. Unless we can find more, it's a neologism and I'll convert this to the literacy education usage, which is quite common (I've given up after a dozen books and peer reviewed articles that use it in the title). T L Miles (talk) 15:40, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Update: I've completely rewritten this article as a stub on the more notable meaning. I've left a paragraph in on this fella at Guelph's neologism, commented out, with one reference. I may add the ref to his paper, but its unpublished presentation notes, and unless it can be backed up by someone else, I think its a neologism that should be excluded. Please take a look at the current article before closing this AfD.T L Miles (talk)
- I went ahead and took out the final vestige of the previous topic. Details, and links to the poor references for that meaning are on Talk:Post literacy. T L Miles (talk) 16:27, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per User:T L Miles's excellent work. JulesH (talk) 18:00, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This should be an easy keep now -- the delete !votes above were based on a completely different version of the article. Plenty of good sources now. Looie496 (talk) 21:23, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep based on T L Miles' rewrite. Radiopathy (talk) 15:41, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I can't help but feel the "keep" voters have missed a crucial part of the debate here. Nerfari (talk) 21:29, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Query: which would be? T L Miles (talk) 23:53, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well you still seem to be !voting to delete. Have you changed your mind? If so, I would like to withdraw my nomination. Nerfari (talk) 20:48, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah! Sorry. I Struck that comment -- which of course is not a vote. I don't feel like I should express an opinion on the current content, as I mostly wrote it and decided that it was an appropriate topic for this title. We can as an administrator to take a look if you want to close it, or relist it, or you can withdraw it, or whatever you feel is best! T L Miles (talk) 22:49, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as interesting article on an interesting topic. -65.246.126.130 (talk) 20:08, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. Xclamation point 01:51, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FV Monte Galineiro[edit]
- FV Monte Galineiro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
As far as I can see, this is a truely minor incident in the grandn scheme of things. True, this is WP:NOTPAPER, but we are WP:NOTNEWS either. I just can't see any evidence of longterm or far-reaching notability. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 22:31, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Probably hundreds of fishing vessels sink every year; I don't see this one as being any more notable than any of the others. Parsecboy (talk) 23:21, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep' - This article is no different from other articles covering similar vessels and the FV Monte Galineiro was a 30 metre sea vessel, not exactly a small size. OOODDD (talk) 00:29, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Possible move? This article in its current state is more like a recap of the event rather than an article about the ship. Perhaps the event should be noted in the article about the CCGS_Leonard_J._Cowley with appropriate redirect? Otherwise this article needs more history on the ship itself. --Brad (talk) 15:18, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge info into CCGS Leonard J. Cowley. Mjroots (talk) 18:16, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - A normal accident. 98.119.177.171 (talk) 17:39, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:09, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge i agree with Mjroots (talk), and Brad (talk) it sould be merged into CCGS Leonard J. Cowley. Cheers Kyle1278 02:36, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to Stonehill College. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:07, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2008-09 Stonehill Skyhawks men's basketball team[edit]
- 2008-09 Stonehill Skyhawks men's basketball team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Article about a low-tier (division II) basketball program which does not assert notability. TM 22:26, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - AFD tag not on article. Nothing in history that indicates it was put there to begin with. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:17, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. -- DoubleBlue (talk) 02:51, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Stonehill College. There's no need to go through AfD for an article like this. There is a possibility that an article on the Skyhawks basketball team will be notable enough that an article can be written about it and also quite likely that someone will seek information on the Stonehill Skyhawks men's basketball team, so why not direct them to the college? DoubleBlue (talk) 02:57, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect As you'll see I redirected it a while back to Stonehill Skyhawks men's basketball team, but it was moved back because I didn't do the necessary changes to make it that way since I didn't know I had to (I'd only been here for like a month at the time), so per DoubleBlue this should be redirected to Stonehill College not deleted.--Giants27 T/C 12:28, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Valley2city‽ 18:50, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Second city[edit]
- Second city (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
An unreferenced, unmaintainable, incomplete and subjective list of cities Untick (talk) 21:43, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - A referenced, maintained, near-complete and near-NPOV list of cities. It has a few problems and needs some more sources but most of the articles on wiki do too. A delete would be plain stupid when it is a fairly decent article with sources. ┌Joshii┐└chat┘ 22:25, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - per Joshii, no reason to delete as far as I can see. Jenuk1985 | Talk 23:08, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Has issues, but I don't think it's unsalvageable. Gigs (talk) 23:23, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, it's not completely unreferenced and being unreferenced is not in itself a reason for deletion. I don't see why it would be unmaintainable. Incomplete is also not a reason for deleting wikipedia lists or they would never get started. Subjectivity can be addressed by the use of reliable sources. There might be a notability issue in that question of the second city of some countries is a big deal, but that's not necessarily the case in every country. However reliable sources discussing the topic rather than merely mentioning it could be required if you wanted to be ultra-strict. Nerfari (talk) 23:34, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Article needs some work but nothing bad enough to require deletion. Fraggle81 (talk) 15:10, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Well referenced, informative, not indiscriminte. I42 (talk) 15:15, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename as List of second cities? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:52, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. . It seemed to be deleted already per WP:SNOW but now formalizing the close. Valley2city‽ 18:52, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Vendetta: a christmas story[edit]
- Vendetta: a christmas story (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Short film that fails to meet WP:MOVIE criteria. No major coverage or awards found on Google. Film has IMDB entry, but not much more. ttonyb1 (talk) 21:30, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "Budget: $100", best sentence: "On January 24, 2000, the Internet Movie Databse (IMDb) added Vendetta to its listings, officially acknowledging Vendetta as a proper film." Priceless. Delete -- Noroton (talk) 21:37, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Cunard (talk) 22:19, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as a non-notable film. Skier Dude (talk) 22:27, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Also recommend sending link to this AFD to inclusionists for even more lulz. Ryan4314 (talk) 22:30, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Oh, the humanity! And the lack of significance. Fails WP:N among others. Pigman☿/talk 01:08, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Unverifiable by independent sources. - Mgm|(talk) 10:19, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Article was probably written by the person who donated the $100 budget. LargoLarry (talk) 14:19, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - IMDb entry doesn't actually mean film is a "real film" (e.g. proper film, studio production, etc.) Based on its official site, it appears to just be some persons homemade movie that they are giving away for free. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 14:28, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per lack of notability. Having a page at IMDb does not at all establish notability since the database attempts to be comprehensive, not encyclopedic like we are. Looks like snow to me... —Erik (talk • contrib) 15:01, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, even speedy G11, nothing but someone's personal creation they are not attempting to promote here to give some attempt at legitimacy. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 15:43, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Leave it for a while I'm gonna be perfectly straight here. I'm the one who made the article. I'm NOT the creator of the film, I'm just a fan of it because I think it's funny. Honestly, the only reason I made the article at all is because I had to make a Wikipedia article about something for a school assignment. Just leave it for like 2 more weeks so I can do my assignment. Haha, a little sympathy please? Fruhtloops514 (talk) 20:35, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If you want to create a Wikipedia article successfully, the topic has to be notable. The consensus does not look in your favor, honestly! If this is for a school assignment and if you want to cover a film, I suggest visiting Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Requests and doing a search engine test for any one of these topics to see if any of them are notable enough to write. At least this way you will have an article that will stick around Wikipedia permanently! :) —Erik (talk • contrib) 20:40, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Can you imagine if every teacher decided creating a Wikipedia article was a good assignment???!!! The AfD pages would go on forever. 209.247.22.164 (talk) 12:43, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Non-notable, and inclusion on IMDb does not make it so. I42 (talk) 15:28, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
*Snow delete, non notable, no 3rd party coverage. Deletion Mutation 17:58, 28 March 2009 (UTC) N.B. !vote of sockpuppet of blocked users struck through. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:58, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Speedy delete both a7, no indication of notability, no support for implausible claims of notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 14:33, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Richard Hedderman[edit]
- Richard Hedderman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
No references can be found to verify claims of being "Dublin Champion" for boxing in 2007, or being in the All-Ireland tournament. Google search for "Richard Hedderman" boxing results in 4 links, one of them being this article. (I also checked "Rich Hedderman", "Richie Hedderman", and "Dick Hedderman" with no success.) Contested prod. ... discospinster talk 21:14, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. This individual certainly exists but the information about him being "one of the youngest contenders to enter a National Championship" cannot be verified. He seems to be participating in junior boxing matches, so he fails WP:ATHLETE. Cunard (talk) 22:32, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Eoin Hannon is from the same club and appears to be non-notable as well. I've added him to the deletion discussion. Cunard (talk) 22:32, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. MBisanz talk 01:12, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Norton Insight[edit]
- Norton Insight (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
No assertion of notability. TechOutsider (talk) 20:36, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, delete my insight. OK. Fine. See if I care. How can I possibly vote on this without there being a conflict of interest? I'd nominate your insight for deletion, TechOutsider, but nobody ever wrote an article about your insight. -- Noroton (talk) 21:42, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep or Merge/redirect to list of Symantec products— Preceding unsigned comment added by SF007 (talk • contribs)
- Comment Why did you create it then, TechOutsider? Am I missing something here? Gigs (talk) 23:02, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply I am now more NPOV. Considering that I created it and was its editor 99% of the time; deletion should be a no-brainer TechOutsider (talk) 04:47, 27 March 2009 (UTC)TechOutsdier[reply]
- Anyone? No more votes?
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:11, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Third party coverage indicates notability. Being 'more NPOV' now is not a reason for deletion, it is a reason for copyediting - deletion is not a substitute for manual editing. — neuro(talk)(review) 08:51, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I think he's arguing that he created this article as POV-pushing, and now wants to right that wrong. I'm not sure I buy that though. Gigs (talk) 18:25, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply Thank you. It's just a stub and likely to remain one. Should be deleted. TechOutsider (talk) 00:55, 30 March 2009 (UTC)TechOutsider[reply]
- Keep That it will remain a stub is not a reason for deletion. DGG (talk) 22:34, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:04, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Haragei[edit]
- Haragei (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Nonsense. Please see the discussion here. Oda Mari (talk) 20:00, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Fg2 (talk) 23:08, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I'd have to agree with the discussion referenced. Best deleted. Pigman☿/talk 01:14, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The article makes no sense. Mantokun (talk) 05:31, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The dictionary definition part of the article doesn't belong in Wikipedia. The attempts to go beyond a dictionary definition are questionable. There's an awe-inspiring Buddhist image, but what does it have to do with haragei? The two parts, dictionary definition and beyond, have little relationship. The article is a dictionary definition that focuses on none of its meanings, but something else that someone wants it to mean. This makes it a coatrack. Fg2 (talk) 01:54, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The Buddhist/martial parts of the same concept are discussed more seriously (and verifiably) at Dantian. Jpatokal (talk) 02:16, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Appears to be a mistaken version of what we have already at Dantian, which covers the verifiable aspects of this concept adequately. — Gavia immer (talk) 02:22, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep per WP:SNOW. NAC. JulesH (talk) 18:09, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
À la carte[edit]
- À la carte (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This page is just a dictionary definition. It seems to clearly fall under things Wikipedia is Not. According to the talk page it has already been transwikied to Wiktionary. Seems like a clear candidate for deletion.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Locke9k (talk • contribs) 26 March 2009
- Speedy keep - you're kidding, right? You're right in that Wikipedia is not a dictionary, but this phrase does have a legitimate status for an encyclopedia article to document the phrase and its usage itself, not just the definition. Jd027 (talk) 20:15, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What I'm trying to say is that the article is about the concept "À la carte" not the phrase "À la carte." See the difference here. Jd027 (talk) 21:01, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Dictionary definition, unsuitable sourcing (sources must be about the subject term, not just use the subject term). Already in Wiktionary, just link to wiktionary from disambig page instead. Gigs (talk) 20:36, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - is not a dictionary definition, unless one uses a highly non-dictionary definition of dictionary definition. WilyD 20:50, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - as notable as Blue-plate special and is mentioned in that entry for historical significance. Personally, the phrase is contained in one of my favorite quotes: "I never married, I always live a la carte" (Professional Boxer cited in Sports Illustrated, recited in the book A Neutral Corner. Has significance outside of restaurants; e.g., in the ongoing debate over bundling cable channels (channel bundles versus a la carte pricing). TNplinko (talk) 21:09, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep already a bit better than a dictionary definition, could easily be expanded further. --TeaDrinker (talk) 21:13, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. AfD evaluates whether Wikipedia should have an article with this title. It doesn't evaluate the current content. I agree the current content's a dicdef, but I think it would be possible to write an encyclopaedic article called a la carte. — S Marshall Talk/Cont 22:11, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
-
- I should imagine people from the relevant WikiProject would be best placed to answer that. I've dropped a message on their talk page accordingly. — S Marshall Talk/Cont 23:23, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - why is this even nominated?! Jenuk1985 | Talk 23:10, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. — Gigs (talk) 23:33, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- An obvious keep- the potential for encyclopedic expansion is significant, that is the historic prevalence and evolution of the a la carte restaurant comes to mind. Although it does make me wonder in some ways whether the subject is so tightly entwined with the history of restaurants that a merge to the parent article might be an option. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:39, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Definitely keep because the subject has worth enough to have its own article. If the nominator had a little bit of interest in gastronomy, he would have not nominate it for deletion.--Caspian blue 23:40, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and expand. notable cuisine-related subject. Badagnani (talk) 00:30, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep - see WP:BEFORE. Bearian (talk) 00:56, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Transwiki and redirect to the disambiguation page. I don't see anywhere this article can reasonably go beyond the definition of the term. I see a number of people arguing that the article has greater potential, but these arguments have not taken the form of additional sources or content in the article that would not be at home in wiktionary. If the article survives the AfD in its current form, and is not substantially expanded, it's bound to be re-nominated. --Shunpiker (talk) 02:31, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Google returns 7,910,000 for it, so it is a common phrase. I never heard of it before, but a lot of people apparently use it. Dream Focus 04:50, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep There is a difference between dictionary definitions and stub articles. This one I would classify as a stub article. The phrase is used a lot and needs to be documented. Tavix (talk) 05:41, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep or Transwiki to French Wikitonary. See User:Tavix, where there is a diffrence upon dicitonary vs stub. Junk Police (talk) 06:42, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Snow keep. Oodles of possibilities to make this much more than a dictdef. -- Banjeboi 12:33, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I'd suggest that this could be merged with menu and redirected without loss of information; some time ago I did some cleanup on that page. But this is not the place. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:38, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Definitely keep. Dining à la carte is a far more recent phenomenon than one realises. There are many historic, gastronomic, and sociological paths to expanding this article. Rhinoracer (talk) 15:14, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy delete. A7 Tone 20:33, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Lawrence kushnick[edit]
- Lawrence kushnick (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Original research, non-notable person. Jd027 (talk) 19:55, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete. The guy is promoting himself. —Largo Plazo (talk) 20:10, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete - unnotable, unreferenced autobiography. . . Rcawsey (talk) 20:29, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Deleted as G3 by Ged UK (talk · contribs). Non-admin closure. KuroiShiroi (contribs) 21:48, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dropped a bag of corn[edit]
- Dropped a bag of corn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Wikipedia is not for "something made up one day". Wperdue (talk) 19:56, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete not a list of things made up one day. CTJF83Talk 20:05, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - original research, Wikipedia is not for things made up in one day. Jd027 (talk) 20:20, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I can't find anything at all. Hobit (talk) 20:29, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete (G3) and the vanity articles linked from it too. Gigs (talk) 21:06, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete per Gigs (talk · contribs). ♪Tempo di Valse ♪ 21:32, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Xclamation point 01:51, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
List of Top Down View Games[edit]
- List of Top Down View Games (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Unencyclopedic, no reason to have a list specifically for top view video games. CTJF83Talk 19:52, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 23:12, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete better as category --MASEM (t) 23:16, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Why is that better? A category wouldn't give the platform, developer, release dates etc. Nerfari (talk) 23:54, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If it were a true genre of video games (like first-person shooter), then I can reasonably see a list being helpful because being a similar playstyle, one can use the list to track how the genre changed over time or the major publishers for it. But a list of games that are related not by play style but by a choice of presentation is not helpful. We might as well have a list of sprite-based games, a list of games that use 3D, etc. A category is fine, since it is a valid aspect of the video game presentation, but not for a list. --MASEM (t) 18:04, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Why is that better? A category wouldn't give the platform, developer, release dates etc. Nerfari (talk) 23:54, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, too broad/indiscriminate, and not well-defined. Depending on interpretation could easily contain somewhere between one and two-thirds of all video games ever created. Nifboy (talk) 01:14, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, Nerfari is correct in saying that a category isn't better over a list with this amount of information, but especially in the early computer days, most games would be of this nature. A list of this kind would soon grow too large with little advantages from having it in the first place. (If it is kept for some reason, someone should find out its proper name and retitle it). - Mgm|(talk) 10:11, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, 'no reason to have a list specifically for top view video games' - it's not too broad as it only covers games that have birds eye view perspective.. a lot of the old games are side-view games. This list is for people who are interested & like top-down view games... similarly to people who like first-person shooters, third-person shooters, or side-scrollers. Ah-ha found the correct category Category:Video_games_by_graphical_style and Top-down_perspective. Hmm.. so this should be a category than a table like Category:Video_games_with_isometric_graphics ? Andwan0 (talk) 12:52, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Original research based around a broad, largely unverifiable and subjective context. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 02:16, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to Journeyman (sports). MBisanz talk 01:13, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Journeyman (football)[edit]
- Journeyman (football) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Article has nothing except an imprecise definition, contrary to What Wikipedia is not, and a list with no clear criteria (which is original research) and a very heavy UK bias. Kevin McE (talk) 19:18, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Journeyman is here to stay. The term is a frequently used by pundits and commentators and it seems perfectly valid that someone should be able to look up the term and see some notable examples. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.113.86.45 (talk • contribs)
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 19:59, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - as per nomination, although intro might be kept and used in Football Terminology article. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 19:54, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Merge somewhereRedirect to Journeyman (sports) as per TJ Spyke - don't merge, the definition is essentially wrong and the great long (mostly unsourced) list adds nothing to the reader's understanding, and some of the examples of alleged "journeyman" players are frankly ludicrous -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:41, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]- Delete or Redirect to Journeyman (sports). Article is nothing more than a stub with a list of players. The list of players is not needed and it can be mentioned on the sports page. TJ Spyke 21:02, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect to existing article located at Journeyman (sports). GiantSnowman 21:06, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Journeyman (sports) per above.... simply makes sense, "Journeyman (football)" is not quite right and there is already an article which explains it. List of players is a) fairly superfluous, and b) not consistent with true definition.--ClubOranjeT 08:38, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I was unaware of Journeyman (sports) when I proposed this for deletion, but I wonder whether the redirect would be of much use:"Journeyman (football)" is a fairly unlikely set to keystrokes if one did not know that the article was thus named. Kevin McE (talk) 17:34, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. A redirect would be pointless, per Kevin McE's argument above. JulesH (talk) 17:59, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. The lack of independent sourcing in a subject like this is a serious issue, and none have been found in spite of attempts during the course of the debate. The secondary sourcing alluded to by Gigs has not materialized. Hence, the delete opinions get the nod on this one. Sjakkalle (Check!) 16:44, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Kevan Shaw[edit]
- Kevan Shaw (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Poorly sourced article about a lighting design consultant. Some passing references turn up in Google news searches, but no significant coverage. Contested prod. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:00, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Seems to be notable enough to have a good scattering of secondary source coverage. Should be trimmed down to WP:NPF standards though. Gigs (talk) 00:07, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:00, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Since I posted this article, I clearly think it is valid. I have cut it right sown to its core as suggested by Gigs.Fiunary (talk) 20:21, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Much of the article is unsourced, and I can't find independent sources other than those that establish his existence. Sancho 00:41, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I went through the first few pages of google hits for "Kevan Shaw" and couldn't find anything that would qualify as significant coverage in independent secondary sources. Yilloslime TC 04:28, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete no evidence of meeting WP:BIO Secret account 14:05, 2 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Secretalt (talk • contribs) [reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was WP:SNOW delete as probable hoax. Eluchil404 (talk · contribs) - 06:55, March 29, 2009
Aabir[edit]
- Aabir (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Blatant hoax. First, take a look at the "Reception" section; those reviews are impossible. Second, I could find no indication of this movie existing when coupling the movie title with any of its "stars". KuroiShiroi (talk) 18:37, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete this hoax. Salih (talk) 19:28, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete: obvious nonsense given some of the details, like a running time of "4 years". So tagged. Zetawoof(ζ) 20:55, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: Note, the CSD tag for nonsense is very specific. It is only applicable to uncomprehensible material, which this is not. While this is nonsense and should be deleted as a hoax, please allow it to go through AfD or at least hit WP:SNOW. KuroiShiroi (talk) 20:56, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've seen weirder things. Before I was on Wikipedia I would've considered anything high on the List of longest films by running time to be a hoax. - Mgm|(talk) 10:06, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete "325 crore in it's first hour" (sic)? 325 crore what? Rupees or old Zimbabwe dollars? I can't find any ghits - and am not bothering to look again. Drivel. Peridon (talk) 21:18, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- delete non-notable, no refrences, hoaxalicious. Skier Dude (talk)`
- Delete Complete bollocks. pablohablo. 23:16, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
*Delete per Skier Dude. Deletion Mutation 15:41, 28 March 2009 (UTC) N.B. !vote of sockpuppet of blocked user struck through. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:33, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:25, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was merge to Żnin. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:07, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Leszek Jakubowski[edit]
- Leszek Jakubowski (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Two-sentence stub about a mayor of a small town. Per WP:BIO, just being an elected local official does not guarantee notability. Notability not established otherwise. — Kpalion(talk) 10:39, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. —Ouro (blah blah) 12:28, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - mayor of a small town, who doesn't even have an article of his own over at pl.wiki. Not much more can be said. --Ouro (blah blah) 12:31, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge To Żnin. Room there for inclusion of mayor. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:22, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per ChildofMidnight.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:52, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete - non-notable bio; could have been speedied. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:18, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton Talk · Review 18:33, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per ChildofMidnight. Skier Dude (talk) 22:41, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge I agree with ChildofMidnight's assessment. Pastor Theo (talk) 02:30, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Userfy. Moved to User:Southidaho/Salt lake eagle gate apartments (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:40, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Salt lake eagle gate apartments[edit]
- Salt lake eagle gate apartments (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
CSD for notability declined by DGG (talk · contribs) (fine, it's not technically CSD-able). Non-notable apartment complex containing biographies of non-notable people. KuroiShiroi (talk) 18:15, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I am not sure where this falls. The writing of the article is so bad it is hard to tell the exact meaning that is intended. However, some notability seems to be asserted, such as being the home of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latterday Saints (though the current president doesn't live there). Definately needs a rewrite, both to understand the content and to remove the POV language ("the prophet") from the article. Not sure if this is a keep or delete, but most likely delete. The Seeker 4 Talk 18:25, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep if sourced My only problem here is with sources. IF they can be found to support the material in the article, the apartments are notable for the very high concentration of notable figures living there, as a major residential center for Mormon dignitaries. DGG (talk) 18:44, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Aside from being totally unclear there doesn't seem to be any meaningful assertion of notability here. The fact that several 'church leaders' are asserted to have lived there at some point is not adequate grounds for notability. As far as I can tell there are no news articles on this complex or anything similar source-wise to establish notability or even to verify the article. As a result, in addition to the notability issue, it appears that the article is likely entirely original research. Locke9k (talk) 20:58, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. It doesn't seem to have anything notable about it, other than it seems to be residence of some higher ups in the LDS church. Some clarity on this would be a good thing. Just because Spencer W. Kimball lived there, though, doesn't mean it's notable. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:21, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Userfy. The article has its faults, but it's been around for just a day without any significant edits by anyone besides Southidaho (talk · contribs) (the original creator). Let's not be bitey and give them a chance to fix it. - Mgm|(talk) 10:03, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:27, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- userfy per MacGyverMagic. It looks likely to be notable, but I can't prove it. so let the author try to do so. Hobit (talk) 15:18, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Xclamation point 01:51, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
List of current NHL goaltenders[edit]
- List of current NHL goaltenders (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
outdated and unmaintainable list. Previously prodded, but removed with a sofixit explanation. I say that, by nature, this subject matter is constantly changing and therefore unmaintainable. The list is obscure and is practically an orphan, so the cost of maintaining for outweighs the rewards. ccwaters (talk) 17:39, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. —Djsasso (talk) 12:22, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This infomation is already contained in the List of current NHL team rosters. There is no reason this info needs repeated, or any reason why goalies should have a list and not right wingers, centeres, etc. Setting a precedent here could spread to every position in every sport and I see no reason to believe all of those lists would be kept current. blackngold29 17:54, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom and Blackngold29. Unnecessary page. Skudrafan1 (talk) 20:23, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as a content fork per above. Resolute 13:58, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I completely agree wtih Blackgold Mandsford (talk) 17:58, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Xclamation point 01:51, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
William George Pye[edit]
- William George Pye (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Weak Delete I'm not sure how notable the topic is. Cssiitcic (talk) 17:36, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep I find some book results that all seem to mention this person here. Article needs citations and some work, but I don't think it fails WP:N. The Seeker 4 Talk 18:09, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep There seem to be enough sources to build a good article, and the subject is notable enough for Oxford Biography, and probably notable enough for us. Gigs (talk) 20:29, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep We should always cover material already in other noteworthy encyclopedia-like publications like the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. Also, when you're not sure if someone is notable enough, you should at the very least try a Google search or make some other attempt to find out. - Mgm|(talk) 09:58, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:27, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep An article in ODNB, as in any other selective national biography, is definitive evidence of notability. If you like the GNG, think of it as one ultra-reliable source. DGG (talk) 22:37, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. MBisanz talk 01:11, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Debt evasion[edit]
- Debt evasion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Unsourced. I'm not sure how notable this is; it can probably be merged into another article of some sort. Cssiitcic (talk) 17:29, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
KeepSpeedy delete per the PROD tag you seem to have missed ;-) ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 17:32, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- D'oh! I removed the prod tag due to this AfD being open. Reason for prod was: "Seems to be a non-notable topic, original research etc." KuyaBriBriTalk 17:34, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. In addition to arguments already put forth, the article seems to be taking a how-to or how-not-to tone. Borderline WP:NOTHOWTO. KuyaBriBriTalk 17:40, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete A search here indicates this term is used fairly often, yet no in-depth, third party publication seems to deal with the word itself; everything seems to be simply using the term, not describing it. This means the article fails WP:NEO and deletion is in order. The Seeker 4 Talk 18:13, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. This is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary, so is not supposed to be about the term, but about the subject of debt evasion. Many of those sources do provide substantial discussion of the subject. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:43, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: While a google search of the exact term yields 1290 hits, which vary in reliability, a google news archive search with all date yields 48, a google books search yields 221, and a google scholar search yields 54. Within these, it is likely enough reliable sources can be found. Hellno2 (talk) 18:54, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- keep I was in the middle of writing this article when someone just went and proposed it for deletion without even giving it a chance. It takes time to write an article. And I did not have a chance to place references here. I do indeed have some sources. But they are not in front of me now. If you want to be really kind, close this out as a keep, and give me a chance. I will award you a barnstar if you do. Then I can work on this at my own pace. Boston south station (talk) 19:51, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. As Hellno2 points out, this is a widely-discussed topic, and there are no shortage of sources. Looking through the article, I see no problems with a 'howto' tone as suggested. Additional sources are required, but that isn't grounds for deletion. JulesH (talk) 18:04, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Apart from the clear notability seen by glancing through the snippets displayed by Google in the searches above, here's a whole book on the subject. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:50, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Valley2city‽ 01:20, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Foods with Nationality Names[edit]
- Foods with Nationality Names (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Trivial list (see WP:NOT). No other articles link to here. (Author contested PROD). Radiant chains (talk) 16:29, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Orphan list and for seemingly good reason, this is near nonsense and a list for the sake of making a list. treelo radda 16:38, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- treelo radda 16:38, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- treelo radda 16:38, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Nonsensical list--Caspian blue 16:43, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:NOT#DIR, Wikipedia is not the place for a arbitrary lists like this.
- Delete while not an indiscriminate list, I fail to see how this list could be useful to anyone—even if fully completed, which it is not close to right now. However, it is a list of loosely associated topics. Fails WP:NOT#DIR -Atmoz (talk) 17:04, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as unencyclopedic cross-categorization. Locke9k (talk) 18:54, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, a loose association of topics like list of foods named after people. Benefix (talk) 20:59, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as all entries are obvious (e.g., "Columbian Coffee" could also be "Any other country Coffee") and a very loose association. TNplinko (talk) 21:16, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Violates WP:NOT#DIR, of practically no encyclopedic value. ♪Tempo di Valse ♪ 21:54, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:NOT#DIR ````
- Delete. It's interesting as trivia, but little else - and there's no real explanation as to the source of names. Sure, I can fix it, but even so, I see a prediction of a snow storm. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:26, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Completely trivial and doesn't take into account regional varieties of language. - Mgm|(talk) 09:48, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep/merge Geographical indications of this sort are of major economic, cultural and legal significance and so we have several substantial articles upon the general topic including: Appellation, Appellation d'origine contrôlée, Protected geographical indications in the European Union, Protected designation of origin, Country of origin and Terroir. This list provides a good start for a useful index of foods of this sort and still has more to be added, e.g. Cornish pasty. The arguments above such as trivia, nonsensical and unencyclopedic say nothing of this and so seem to be personal opinions of no value, i.e. WP:IDONTLIKEIT. We should retain this article for consolidation into the others which seem to need list and links to assist navigation around them. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:57, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete'. It's not a good start on the completely different article Colonel Warden talks about. And it's not much of an article on its own. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 21:47, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, it certainly is a good start towards the index Colonel Warden is talking about, and explanations can only be added if there is a framework to build on. RenegadeMonster (talk) 12:08, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The sort of nationality foods are foods named for their origin and branded as such, not dishes named after a place. There is one single thing on this list (Colombian coffee) that is relevant to the topic he's talking about. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 19:14, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and rename to list of foods named after places to complement list of foods named after people. I think the non-arbitrary nature of the list topic has been proved. It's unfortunate that it's merely a list of links but per WP:CLN "building a rudimentary list of links is a necessary first step in the construction of an enhanced list" Nerfari (talk) 22:01, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Irish coffee, french fries, and danishes have nothing in common. One is named after an ingredient, one is named after the language of the name that stuck to the dish, and one is named after the origin of the dish. The rest of the list, indeed, is a hodgepodge of random dishes that share names with places or nationalities, with a variety of origins and meanings. How are they part of one topic? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 09:30, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep WP:IAR Jwray (talk) 06:07, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. MBisanz talk 01:11, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Forge Radio[edit]
- Forge Radio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Contested prod. internet radio stations lacking significant coverage in verifiable 3rd party references are not notable RadioFan2 (talk) 16:19, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. —RadioFan2 (talk) 00:09, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Delete Notability not particularly well established by current articles and sources. Gigs (talk) 20:40, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. In my opinion, college radio stations are always notable. You never know who might learn their trade there and go on to become famous. There are hundreds of articles about college radio stations. 199.125.109.58 (talk) 23:41, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That is a basic violation of policy and guidelines. We only cover things that are notable already or have been in the past because anything that might happen in the future is not verifiable. - Mgm|(talk) 09:45, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Per the above anon. - NeutralHomer • Talk • March 26, 2009 @ 23:49
- Keep - There are plenty of worse articles on similar topics (i.e. student radio), focus your attention on them - Cockerney • Talk —Preceding undated comment added 00:33, 27 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]
- Weak Keep as the BBC article reads as if the station is government licensed, or at least was at the time, and government licensed stations get a notability leg up on random internet radio stations. Better referencing for the article will prevent this from getting re-nommed in the future. - Dravecky (talk) 06:45, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment there is an implication of a license there, but it appears to be a quote from a student who are not always the most reliable sources. I'm not seeing Forge radio listed on the Ofcom so they dont appear to have a analog RSL, or Community broadcast license nor is there any mention of any broadcasting outside of internet streaming mentioned in the article. I'm no expert on UK Radio standards, but I dont think streaming audio is licensed by the govt there. If someone can point to a govt issued license for this station then yes it would be notable, otherwise, it's student run, internet only, streaming audio. The bbc.co.uk reference does show some coverage but its still not up to the significant coverage WP:N asks for. The arguments so far here for keeping this article that it might produce someone notable and that other stuff exists. I'm just not seeing that this subject is or could be notable.--RadioFan (talk) 16:48, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. While I think this could be at least a notable article, there is a lack of sources to back up most of the information given on it. The argument of other stuff exists isn't a valid one, and perhaps other student radio articles should be included in this deletion debate. ~~ [ジャム][t - c] 17:30, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Nomination withdrawn (non-admin closure). RayTalk 07:37, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Stolnaya vodka[edit]
- Stolnaya vodka (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
I originally speedied as G11. Speedy was declined. I suggest that this counts as blatant advertising that would require a rewrite to become encyclopedic. Additionally, there are severe notability issues as well -- Gnews gets 1 hit, but that might be a linguistic issue. RayTalk 15:54, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep
CommentI won't suggest a keep or delete yet, I have alerted Wikipedia:WikiProject Spirits to ask if there is anyone willing to have a go at rewriting the article, as I feel it may have potential, in my opinion it can be saved. If people start rewriting the article, please can I suggest a good faith keep, with a view to renominate in the future if it still isn't up to standard? Jenuk1985 | Talk 16:00, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply] - Conditional Delete - as it stands know it is copyright violation as it is an exact copy and paste from the North American distributors web page found here. However, if it is an award winning vodka there should be plenty of sources out there and could be saved. --Jeremy (blah blah) 18:35, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I've removed the copywritten material and added a couple references. The article is barely a stub but since it is no longer blantent advertising it'll do for now until it can be rewritten properly -- Cabe6403 (Talk•Sign) 19:07, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep — Seems notable. I found a source to assert it. I don't have time to add it right now, though. Master&Expert (Talk) 21:53, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. A consumer product for which independent reviews may be found, the brand also seems to have gotten some notice in reliable sources on account of its "stolnaya+vodka" potentially confusing trademark. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:48, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Withdraw nom. It looks better now. Sorry it took so long -- I clean forgot about this, for which I am sorry. RayTalk 07:34, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy delete. A7 Tone 20:34, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
LFC NYC Supporters' Club[edit]
- LFC NYC Supporters' Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable fan club; fails WP:ORG. KuyaBriBriTalk 15:43, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:25, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete, created by user:LFCNYC, and non notable organization, probably formed today :>. chandler · 16:27, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - It doesn't explain it's notability (so much so that User:Ukexpat has nominated for speedy deletion (Wikipedia:CSD#A7). It's also got some huge Wp:COI issues as well, being set up by User:LFCNYC. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 16:55, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete per WP:CSD#A7. GiantSnowman 17:10, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy delete. G11 Tone 20:34, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Contego[edit]
- Contego (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Delete 2 year old software that has not received significant coverage in reliable third party sources. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 15:08, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete as G11, reads like a sales pamphlet to me so I've tagged it as such. treelo radda 16:43, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. WP:SNOW. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:13, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Shooting Gazette[edit]
- Shooting Gazette (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
The tone sounds okay to me, and IPC Media is very notable. Too many ghits to assess notability, and can't db-inc a magazine, so taking to AfD - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 15:06, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 15:07, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep -- I see nothing wrong with this. Field sports may be politically incorrect, but that is no reason for deletion. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:45, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as nominator hasn't given any reason to delete it. It's a nationally-distributed printed magazine from a reputable publisher that's been going for 20 years so notability is surely not at issue. Article could certainly do with some editing for NPOV, but it's only 2 days old so I see no reason to bring it to AFD. Qwfp (talk) 16:15, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Notable magazine and I can't see any reason to delete / speedy / AfD it other than a WP:IDONTLIKEIT on shooting or field sports. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:41, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep no reason given to delete (tone being OK and inability to assess notability are not reasons to delete AFAIK) and the number of hits indicates the subject is notable. The Seeker 4 Talk 18:18, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Appears to meet the general notability guideline. ukexpat (talk) 19:51, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The nominator gave no valid policy-based reason to delete this. - Mgm|(talk) 09:41, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think Dank55 was nominating on behalf of ukexpat (talk · contribs), looking at the article's history. It appears ukexpat put a speedy deletion tag on it and Dank5 declined speedy deletion on the grounds he cited above.
Therefore, speedy keep per WP:SK ground 1: the nominator doesn't think the article should be deleted.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 22:28, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think Dank55 was nominating on behalf of ukexpat (talk · contribs), looking at the article's history. It appears ukexpat put a speedy deletion tag on it and Dank5 declined speedy deletion on the grounds he cited above.
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:08, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hustle Till I Die[edit]
- Hustle Till I Die (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Unreleased album with little media coverage of substance. Fails WP:NALBUMS. TheJazzDalek (talk) 15:04, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —TheJazzDalek (talk) 15:05, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete unreleased without significant coverage. Gigs (talk) 20:52, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as non-notable at this point; welcome back if it's ever released & meets inclusion criteria. Skier Dude (talk) 22:49, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Unreleased album with trivial coverage. Wait till it exists and does something. Duffbeerforme (talk) 04:25, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - not notable. Deb (talk) 12:30, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non notable, crystal ball. Deletion Mutation 16:33, 28 March 2009 (UTC)N.B. !vote of sockpuppet of blocked user struck through. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:45, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]- Blocked, not banned, which does not mean an automatic revert of all edits. Since the sockpuppet was not being used to game this AFD, his !vote should not be discounted. TheJazzDalek (talk) 00:18, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: apprently not according to some admins. A whole slew of AfDs were reverted even though some editors had already voted. As I understand it, once a second editor has voted the AfD process needs to go through and the tags maintained, even if the nominator is blocked. JamesBurns (talk) 08:31, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Blocked, not banned, which does not mean an automatic revert of all edits. Since the sockpuppet was not being used to game this AFD, his !vote should not be discounted. TheJazzDalek (talk) 00:18, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. WP:SNOW. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:13, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dr. Walzcak[edit]
- Dr. Walzcak (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Delete another professor where I declined a speedy request. He exists: [3], but again is lacking in significant coverage in reliable third party soucres. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 15:03, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I can't even find a homepage for this prof. I found a couple papers (e.g. [4]) written by a Dr Michael Walzcak about chemistry, but not enough to establish a significant impact in their scholarly discipline. Fails WP:PROF. -Atmoz (talk) 17:12, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I'd have to agree with Atmoz, this fails WP:PROF. Matt (talk) 17:28, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails WP:Prof notability requirements. Full of peacock terms. Wperdue (talk) 21:20, 26 March 2009 (UTC)wperdue[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:49, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I cleaned up the article (and moved it to a non-misspelled title) but I didn't find any evidence of passing WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:56, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Scopus shows 4 papers, with citations 13, 12, 11, 2. All in very good journals, but all published in connection with his doctoral work. This is not enough for notability though it is certainly enough to warrant discussion rather than speedy. As a rough guide, associate professors at other than the most important research universities are almost always not considered notable here, unless they have an unusually distinguished record. DGG (talk) 17:26, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Does not seem to pass notability requirements under WP:PROF or WP:BIO.--Eric Yurken (talk) 00:44, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:03, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Xclamation point 01:52, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Douglas Winblad[edit]
- Douglas Winblad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Delete was tagged for speedy deletion, which I declined as some people are convinced that all faculty of all universities are inherently notable. He is on faculty [5], but as far as I can find there is no significant coverage in reliable third party sources. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 15:00, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 15:06, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment There seem to be some Google scholar and Google books hits, but I'm having a hard time telling if this is the same person. For example, [6], [7]. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 15:10, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete The formatting is horrendous, it is one or two lines long, and is completely unsourced. Also, the article makes absolutely zero assertions that this article is notable.Cssiitcic (talk) 17:33, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Week keep I fixed formatting, and added sources, categories and a stub notice.--Auric (talk) 17:39, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:14, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Google Scholar finds only 2 articles, and a total of about 20 citations to them. (the searches above are pertinent, and there are a few more citations. There are not likely to be more than one person by that name working on Wittgenstein) This is enough to pass speedy, but not enough for notability. Though a first-rate college, Vassar is not a research university, and it is not likely that associate professors there would be notable.DGG (talk) 17:32, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Passes neither WP:PROF nor WP:BIO. The searches above do not establish notability. Additionally, I could not find enough evidence for notability on WorldCat or Google News; actually, I could not find ANY evidence of notability.--Eric Yurken (talk) 00:43, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per Eric - simply not notable.
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 18:11, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Albanian-Moldovan relations[edit]
- Albanian-Moldovan relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Mere existence of diplomatic relations is not notable; these two don't even have embassies with each other. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Laos-Romania relations for very recent consensus on the matter. (I should note the pair have signed a free trade agreement, but Moldova has signed similar documents with Romania, Armenia, Serbia, Croatia, Macedonia, Bulgaria and Bosnia, so this is clearly nothing out of the ordinary, plus it's doubtful the two poorest countries in Europe do that much trade.)
And may I also point out that I prodded a few trivial articles of this nature yesterday (including this one), only to be reverted by User:WilyD with the dismissive edit summary "rm silliness": [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13]. So if you're wondering why this stuff is lying around for so long and keeps making its way through AfD despite broad consensus for swift deletion, there's the answer; it's certainly not the first time he's done it either. Biruitorul Talk 14:55, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - attacking me is not a substitute for a rationale for deletion (of course, with transparently notable articles, one probably have nothing better). Like almost every pairing of countries, easily meets and exceeds WP:N [14] [15][16][17][18][19] of course, the sources go on and on and on ... like any pairing, anyone who spends even a few minutes investigating will come to the unavoidable conclusion. I'm puzzled by the campaign to purge such useful, encyclopaedic articles from Wikipedia. WilyD 15:15, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- 1) In no way did I "attack" you. 2) Of the six sources you gave, the third and the sixth tell us nothing. Three of the others talk about how the Albanian President (who, by the way, is more or less a figurehead) spent a couple of days in Moldova; and the final one about how the Moldovan President spent a day in Albania (where he didn't even meet his counterpart). This kind of stuff is purely symbolic and forms part of the normal course of international relations. It is not a substitute for an actual article. 3) You can't easily skirt the fact that they don't have embassies, or cultural/historic ties, or much at all to do with each other. Two short, ceremonial visits quickly forgotten can't make up for that. - Biruitorul Talk 15:47, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Content-free article. Automatic pairing articles are not worth keeping around, especially if they don't say anything. (Of course, their tendency to creep up again and again points to a significant architectural flaw of MediaWiki, but that's a point for another day.) ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 19:04, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - another pair of random countries which really don't have any relations of which to speak. Jd027 (talk) 20:00, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I could find no sources establishing notability of this topic. Yilloslime TC 20:08, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Generally speaking, any pair of countries which don't have embassies with each other are unlikely to have relations worthy of a separate article. . . Rcawsey (talk) 20:14, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete- I agree wholeheartedly with Digwuren's analysis of these contentless country pairing articles, and with Biruitorul's analysis of the "sources" provided by WilyD. Reyk YO! 21:43, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, given that there are 192 UN member countries, the possible number of articles is 192!/(192-2) = 1.868 x 10354. Not all of them are notable. Martintg (talk) 21:55, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, by my maths, the number of possible articles of this type is (192*191)/2=18336. Still a large number of mostly pointless articles, but nothing like the horror you're describing. Reyk YO! 22:12, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Math was never my strong point, I based my calculation on Permutation#Counting_permutations but I probably mis-understood the concept. Martintg (talk) 22:40, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, by my maths, the number of possible articles of this type is (192*191)/2=18336. Still a large number of mostly pointless articles, but nothing like the horror you're describing. Reyk YO! 22:12, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per others, little if any encyclopedic content. ♪Tempo di Valse ♪ 21:56, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No evidence that this relationship is significant — it would be reasonable to have an article on Montenegro/Japan relations, due to the war between them that just concluded (see here), but I doubt that there's anything like this going on between these two. Nyttend (talk) 01:49, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per all above. Relations are not shown to be notable. --Nick—Contact/Contribs 04:17, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The only non-trivial information in the article reveals the countries don't have actual embassies for the other inside their own borders which indicates the relations are most likely insignificant. The rest of the page gives no useful content at all. - Mgm|(talk) 09:37, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - One of the reasons that I nominated Chile–Cyprus relations was that they don't have embassies in the other country. It applies here as well (Albania is represented in its embassy in Moscow, and Moldova is represented by it's Sofian embassy). DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 10:16, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:29, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I find most such articles to be rather trivial and pointless. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 17:05, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I see no real value in such articles Rizos01 (talk) 20:50, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Snow Delete as these countries don't have any notable relations. Tavix (talk) 00:16, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I agree with User:DitzyNizzy, they don't have embassies in their respective countries. ΕλληνΚύπριος (talk) 17:29, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:33, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Backup Direct[edit]
- Backup Direct (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Advertising a business Be-technical (talk) 14:53, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete; fails WP:COMPANY. KuyaBriBriTalk 14:58, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - This is most likely notable. See the list of awards on Backup Direct's website; we would just need to verify these in reliable, independent sources. There also seem to be some news mentions that probably aren't press releases. [20]. Overall, this meets WP:WEB, if not WP:N. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 15:03, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 15:04, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per LinguistAtLarge Jenuk1985 | Talk 15:36, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:00, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Linguist. The article is a stub, so it's just missing references. It seems they do exist. Ancemy (talk) 00:21, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Speedy deleted by User:TerriersFan (A1: Not enough context to identify article's subject. (non-admin closure) Wigglesoinkswaddles 19:25, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Anjuman Computer College Kahuta[edit]
- Anjuman Computer College Kahuta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Delete not verifiable, not notable - this college appears to be a technical school rather than a post-secondary type school, and barely enough context here to know much about the place and google has nothing more. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 14:40, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was close - Action from previous AfD already carried out (non admin closure) Jenuk1985 | Talk 15:06, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
100 Tiger Treasures[edit]
- 100 Tiger Treasures (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Article was AfD on 8 March 2009 as "merge or delete". It has not been merged. Could it now be deleted, please. --Tagishsimon (talk) 14:31, 26 March 2009 (UTC) Tagishsimon (talk) 14:31, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Close Said AfD closed as merge, not delete. Don't use quotation marks to misrepresent the information! I have performed the merge myself, not sure why you couldn't have done this rather than create another AfD Jenuk1985 | Talk 14:41, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Close per Jenuk1985. --Tagishsimon (talk) 15:03, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Xclamation point 01:52, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Matt Norman[edit]
- Matt Norman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Declining db-spam speedy deletion, taking to AfD; the article was deleted 4 times in 2007 for non-notability (3 times as CSD A7), and it's not clear the problems are solved. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 14:22, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 14:24, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 14:24, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm leaning towards a keep on this one. Looking at the list of newspaper articles (at the bottom of the article), I see a dozen+ mentions that are slightly more than trivial. Most of the articles are about the subject's uncle, but they also mention Matt Norman, usually almost trivially, but a tiny bit more. I think this, along with some of his film credits is probably enough to establish notability. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 15:17, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep the many on-topic references and links provided in the article show beyond a doubt that this actor has received significant attention worthy of being recorded. Satisfies WP:BIO. -Atmoz (talk) 17:18, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep the problems with this page lie not with notability.--Perry Middlemiss (talk) 22:12, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Usual case of "article isn't great, but that isn't a reason to delete". Subject appears to satisfy notability. Orderinchaos 01:18, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to News_style#Lead_or_intro. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:32, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Burying the lead[edit]
- Burying the lead (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This is just a stub on the use of a term in journalism. It's just a WP:DICDEF. Any possible expansion of the the explanation should already be covered in the articles News style and Lead paragraph, so no reason why this should ever be a standalone article. DreamGuy (talk) 14:05, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:SNOW. I would say "merge into News style", but there isn't anything worth merging. Shreevatsa (talk) 14:26, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or redirect to News style or something appropriate like that. ♪Tempo di Valse ♪ 14:28, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete first off, it should be "burying the lede." Second off, it's just the definition of a term. I've already merged it here [21].Bali ultimate (talk) 15:03, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - There is some dispute about the spelling. Lead is far more common and certainly more correct. DreamGuy (talk) 13:52, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect to News_style#Lead_or_intro seems like the most appropriate thing to do. This is a potential search term. Note that "lede" and "lead" are both valid spellings for this usage. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 15:19, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge/redirect to News_style#Lead_or_intro or possibly another journalism article. This should defninitely not be a stand-alone article, as it's just a dictionary definition and Wiktionary already has an entry so there's no point transwiking it. On the other hand it is a plausible search term as pointed out above. Hut 8.5 16:25, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Soft redirect to wikt:bury the lede as plausible search term, but a better topic for Wiktionary. -Atmoz (talk) 17:21, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- comment I'd suggets a merge or redirect to lede, but for some reason we don't seem to have an article on that subject. Artw (talk) 22:01, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Lede (news) is a redirect to News style#Lead or intro. The news style article needs improvement, but I guess this isn't the place to discuss that :-) Shreevatsa (talk) 22:29, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge/redirect to News_style#Lead_or_intro per above - there's not much more to say than a dicdef. Bearian (talk) 00:55, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
*Merge/redirect per above. Deletion Mutation 15:51, 28 March 2009 (UTC) N.B. !vote of sockpuppet of blocked user struck through. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:38, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Xclamation point 01:52, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Lal Babu[edit]
- Lal Babu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Completely unverifiable. I have looked for info on this person through different angles, but have been unable to confirm that this person really existed or that at least the facts about him are correct. His supposed real name Achyutanand Choudhary gives no Wikipedia-independent Google hits[22], no Google News hits[23], ... There are quite a few hits for Lal Babu[24], but when trying to find any about the subject of the article, I again found no results. Hiw name plus that of his most famous song gives only 2 Google hits, both from Wikipedia[25]. The same for another song[26] or his famous book[27]. The article itself has no links or sources either. Fram (talk) 13:59, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Unfortunately, I can't find anything on Google to even verify that this person existed or exists. I searched with both his nickname "Lal Babu" and real name "Achyutanand Choudhary". For all we can tell, this could even be a hoax. Given the old-looking photos, I might suspect that someone is trying to create a memorial for a family member. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 15:29, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
dear sir,
If person is not alive how you can search him? people are there in bihar who are very famous but not on internet..you mean people who are famous should be on internet and google search....sir to make a person famous google is not the way. I am trying to tell the world about Lal Babu using your medium, If you think so it should be deleted please delete it....but m sure he is famous n loving then your people on wikipedia. come to bhagalpur n ask peeople who is lalbabbu....thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.167.115.46 (talk) 07:13, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There is a huge amount of info on dead people available on the Internet, actually. Normally, a famous person who dies in 2009 gets remarked upon in at least some online available sources. But you are free to give us some info on offline sources (books, newspaper articles, ...) about Lal Babu. Fram (talk) 07:53, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:31, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:31, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I had the same lack of luck with internet sources as LinguistAtLarge and Fram. Unless independent, reliable sources show up, notability just isn't there.
- Delete: no significant coverage, non-notable. JamesBurns (talk) 07:40, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:26, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
St. Francis of Assisi Convent[edit]
- St. Francis of Assisi Convent (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Removing from db-spam queue, taking to AfD. See WP:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes#Education. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 12:58, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 13:01, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 13:02, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - as a high school this is a significant institution in the city. Indian schools have a poor presence on the Internet and time should be given for local sources to be found to avoid systemic bias. This page was only created today so a deletion discussion is premature. TerriersFan (talk) 17:54, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There are 4 pages of Google hits for "St. Francis of Assisi Convent" Navsari, all of the hits appear unreliable. I understand that there are likely to be useful printed sources for most high schools somewhere, but they may be hard to locate. What should we say to people who are trying to be careful with their CSD tagging work? Should we tell them that it's "premature" to bring an article to AfD if there's not a single useful Google hit and we don't know how to locate other sources? If this one was premature, then how about the other school articles I'm pulling out of the db-spam queue that have no notable ghits, most of which have a tone that strikes many Wikipedians as promotional? I'm fine with the general principle of "Don't bring it to AfD if the outcome is known in advance", and I'm sure there are some articles where I'm the only one in the discussion who didn't know the outcome in advance, but I'm not sure if this article is one of those. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 18:14, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I would tell the CSD taggers to proceed more carefully in tagging tag perfectly legitimate articles for deletion. This article was not promotional when it was created. Cunard (talk) 22:11, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- P.S. I'm right with you on the systemic bias issue, especially as it applies to notable Indian institutions; I just left a reminder today at WT:INDIA for people to keep an eye on the list of India-related deletion discussions. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 18:16, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- P.P.S. As a practical matter, we're on more of a 10-day clock than a 5-day clock, because most of the admins who are closing these days will relist if it looks like more time is needed. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 18:19, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per TerriersFan. All high schools are notable. The existence of this school can be verified by this Google Books link. Cunard (talk) 22:11, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I am in agreement with TerriersFan's assessment regarding high schools and notability. Pastor Theo (talk) 02:43, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Question I understand that there's an argument that it's a waste of time to debate notability about high schools, and that it's highly likely that some kind of printed references might exist and someday be consulted for most high schools, at least in the countries I'm familiar with. My question is ... how do we write an article without sources? Since we can't find any reliable sources on Google for this school, and there's no assertion that sources exist (outside of the city government site, which only gives the name), what makes us believe that this article was written by someone neutral, rather than a booster or a rival of this school? The article "sounds" fine ... but is that how we judge NPOV these days, from the tone rather than the sources? - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 03:23, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - As the one who placed the speedy deletion tag onto the article's original form. I agree now the article should be kept because of its new revisions and added references bringing it to a encyclopedia appearance.--Rent A Troop (talk) 09:47, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. MBisanz talk 08:31, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DeSoL[edit]
- DeSoL (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
It may well be true that this band is well-known in some circles, but there is no evidence of notability in the article - which has been created and added to by a suspiciously large number of one-off users Deb (talk) 12:50, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment there seem to be a few news hits for them [28]. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 15:36, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 15:36, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Claim of billboard charting does not show up for me at billboard. What are Triple A charts? Two of their album articles claim allmusic professional reviews that do not exist. Allmusic [29] and short review [30] Duffbeerforme (talk) 04:52, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Billboard AC Chart Listing and a blurb on Billboard commenting on it being the highest debut in AC history.
- Does the Adult Contemporary Billboard chart count as a national music chart?
- Here's two more articles from Billboard that discuss the band itself a bit more...although they seem like they might overlap a bit.
- Washington Post article & New York Times article. --Onorem♠Dil 11:50, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I just checked the interwiki links and they are fake. Deb (talk) 12:27, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: trivial coverage, non-notable. JamesBurns (talk) 08:01, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:02, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:04, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Onorem. Coverage by Washington Post and New York Times makes them notable. Ancemy (talk) 00:24, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as they have a charted single on a major chart, coupled with significant source coverage. Hot AC is indeed a notable chart. Not sure where the AAA charts came from, but sure as heck not Billboard. Oh yeah, and having the highest AC debut in the history of that chart, isn't that a good assertation? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 01:54, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was No consensus to delete, so kept through a merge and redirect to Takaful per debate below. Hiding T 09:08, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The World Takaful Conference[edit]
- The World Takaful Conference (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Declining db-spam and taking to AfD, I'd like comment from people from the region if possible. Google hits suggest this is probably nonnotable by our standards, but it's possible people from the region will have a different view. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 12:48, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. -- - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 12:53, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to takaful. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 19:05, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. There seems to be enough coverage found by Google News and Google Books to show notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:31, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:02, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. WP:SNOW. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:12, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mietinen Young[edit]
- Mietinen Young (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Unsourced and never will be sourced. Doesn't exist, probable hoax. Never happened.
No version of history or documented sources support this article. Franamax (talk) 10:39, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I prodded this as a probable hoax a few days ago, I'm interested in early exploration and have encountered a number of fringe theories re pre-columbian ocean crossings, and this was a new one on me and one of the least credible. "In circa 1438 they accidentally crashed ashore of the Hudson bay". If there had been an expedition that long before columbus that mapped part of North America it would be sourcable. ϢereSpielChequers 11:33, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No sources, no ghits other than copies of this article. Probable hoax, since, as WereSpielChequers says above, you'd think there would be some references if it were true. Anaxial (talk) 11:36, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Quite probably a hoax, absolutely no Google search results outside of Wikipedia. ←Spidern→ 11:58, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, arguably speedily as a deliberate hoax. I have never encountered the personal name 'Mietinen' in English history, and my moderately extensive knowledge of North Atlantic exploration has never revealed any such incident as the one described. 'Bay of South'? Honestly, if you're going to hoax, learn to write convincing English. AlexTiefling (talk) 14:15, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Mietinen, I would interpret as being a Finnish surname, it did show up when I was searching this in other contexts. Irrelevant though, unless sources are found - and pre-Columbian maps of Hudson Bay and sourced accounts of landing there, oh wouldn't we be smiling?!:) Not to be I suspect... Franamax (talk) 14:52, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete if you're sure no reliable soures can be found. ♪Tempo di Valse ♪ 14:30, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete probable hoax, if this was generally accepted or even a significant fringe view it would get at least one Google hit, so either it was made up or it has zero acceptance. Either way it shouldn't be here. Hut 8.5 16:31, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:36, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The only thing I can add is that there are also no hits in gbooks or gscholar. --Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:38, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete -- WP:HOAX. Reached Hudson's Bay about 50 years before Columbus reached West Indies! Wholly incredible. I know there are other contenders for the first to America, but this cannot be one of them. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:22, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:20, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Desert sand (color)[edit]
- Desert sand (color) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Recreation of a deleted page Zinnwaldite (color) replacing the word Zinnwaldite with desert sand, see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zinnwaldite (color) PaleAqua (talk) 09:12, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: if that's correct, suggest delete under A4. - Jarry1250 (t, c) 11:54, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If the article can be saved and improved, then that must be the preferable option. - Jarry1250 (t, c) 08:42, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep: See [31] and [32]. The AfD linked appears to be against a hoax article, yet this colour seems to exist? Not sure why this is nominated? Jenuk1985 | Talk 14:05, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- First link is to an unreliable source, anyone can add a color name to colourlovers at any coordinate. Second link is a cyclic source back to wikipedia itself. Finally the article contents is a straight recreation of the Zinnwaldite article. From the clam about the color of Pluto, and the bit about beige telephones not being beige. Even as the name of Crayola crayon color, there is already a list of them at List of Crayola crayon colors. Note the coordinates at that later page are mostly original research. PaleAqua (talk) 15:19, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well I'm really struggling to find anything to suggest this colour doesn't exist. Just type the hex code into Google, many of the pages call it desert sand. Jenuk1985 | Talk 15:25, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Just looked through the first 3 pages of google results and they appear to be traceable back to wikipedia itself. PaleAqua (talk) 16:11, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You're right that there are a lot of things, including the second source cited by Jenuk1985 (which actually corresponds to an earlier version of list of Crayola crayon colors, down to the two notes at the bottom), that are Wikipedia mirrors. It's also true that Keraunos, despite xyr claims to the contrary in the initial edit summary, has copied the deleted content of Zinnwaldite (color) almost exactly. (I just compared the two. The wikitexts of the parts about telephones, boots, and so forth are identical. This wasn't an original creation, despite the claim to being so in the edit summary.)
However, it's also true that this is a real colour. You've been looking for the wrong thing, partly because Keraunos has simply reintroduced deleted content under another title with the RGB value slightly altered, rather than writing a proper article. A good article, which this is far from being, would tell you that Desert Sand is a standard military camouflage colour, used by the U.S. Army and others, and specified in standards. (Color, marking, and camouflage pattern painting for armament command equipment, published by the United States Department of the Army in 1988, lists it as one of 12 standard camouflage colours. Other U.S. Army documents list it as colour number 23448, as defined by FED-STD-595A.) Its pantone number is 17-1524, according to page 149 of ISBN 9781931868259 (and 142-B according to page 174 of ISBN 9781892123008). It is colour number 313, according to the 1942 National Paint Bulletin. Its ISCC–NBS designation is 181 O 5-e, according to the 1955 NBS list.
On the gripping hand, therefore, not only is this previously deleted content, it is also inaccurate content and badly sourced content. (Apparently, readers are supposed to look at pictures and repeat an original analysis of the colours of the things in those pictures.) The fact that this was inaccurate was pointed out in the prior AFD discussion. Since a good article would have to be created from scratch anyway, without any of this inaccurate and misleading content, whether we delete it (as a simple re-creation of deleted content) or blank the article and start from scratch is pretty much a toss-up. Uncle G (talk) 20:36, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Some nice sources there. Replacing the article with a properly sourced one that was not misleading would be a good solution in my opinion. PaleAqua (talk) 00:20, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Did a quick trim and added at least the 12 standard camouflage colors bit. More of the above should probably be added. I'll probably withdraw my AFD if we can get a good article out of this. PaleAqua (talk) 00:24, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You're right that there are a lot of things, including the second source cited by Jenuk1985 (which actually corresponds to an earlier version of list of Crayola crayon colors, down to the two notes at the bottom), that are Wikipedia mirrors. It's also true that Keraunos, despite xyr claims to the contrary in the initial edit summary, has copied the deleted content of Zinnwaldite (color) almost exactly. (I just compared the two. The wikitexts of the parts about telephones, boots, and so forth are identical. This wasn't an original creation, despite the claim to being so in the edit summary.)
- Just looked through the first 3 pages of google results and they appear to be traceable back to wikipedia itself. PaleAqua (talk) 16:11, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well I'm really struggling to find anything to suggest this colour doesn't exist. Just type the hex code into Google, many of the pages call it desert sand. Jenuk1985 | Talk 15:25, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- First link is to an unreliable source, anyone can add a color name to colourlovers at any coordinate. Second link is a cyclic source back to wikipedia itself. Finally the article contents is a straight recreation of the Zinnwaldite article. From the clam about the color of Pluto, and the bit about beige telephones not being beige. Even as the name of Crayola crayon color, there is already a list of them at List of Crayola crayon colors. Note the coordinates at that later page are mostly original research. PaleAqua (talk) 15:19, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep. This is not the imagainary color that was deleted previously, this a different color that is an actual color although its coordinates are very close to the deleted color. Thank you for the information about the camouflage colors. That is very important and useful. Keraunos (talk) 02:27, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I found a website with color samples of the 12 official camouflage colors and I added it to the article as a reference. However, incorrectly I suspect, it shows desert sand and earth yellow as being the same color, whereas desert sand should be a paler and more beige color than earth yellow. The 12 official MERDC camouflage colors (color samples shown): Keraunos (talk) 04:31, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, with kudos to Keraunos and Pale Aqua for the rewrite. As one of the camo colors, this is a commonly used name (Rustoleum and Testors both have this as a ready-mixed color; Case used this as one of their official tractor colors), so it's logical that people will be searching for it.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:04, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy keep. pointy nom; snow (non-admin closure) Atmoz (talk) 17:28, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Scareware[edit]
- Scareware (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
neologism kgrr talk 08:45, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Reliable sources use the scareware categorization, not just the internal spyware community. BaShildy (talk) 09:24, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- did you run it past EBSCOHost? Is it really used by academics in journal papers? It's recognized by urban dictionary kgrr talk 10:14, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Is the nominator going to give a reason for nominating this article? In any event, notable due to high profile litigation against perpetrators and prevalence of the problem. Socrates2008 (Talk) 10:35, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- An article created by the nominator, Hot stain (AfD discussion), was nominated for deletion for being a neologism. Within 10 minutes, xe in turn nominated 2 other articles for deletion, with the same one-word rationale: "neologism", later augmented with the same largely irrelevant "It's in Urban Dictionary." argument. Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to make a point appears to apply, alas.
But no, notability is not due to the litigation and the prevalence of the problem. Notability is not fame nor importance. As Wikipedia:Notability explains, notability is in-depth coverage in multiple independent published works that are independent of the subject, which this subject has. Some of them — not even all of them (as some quick research revealed) — are even cited in the "References" section of this very article. Uncle G (talk) 11:07, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- An article created by the nominator, Hot stain (AfD discussion), was nominated for deletion for being a neologism. Within 10 minutes, xe in turn nominated 2 other articles for deletion, with the same one-word rationale: "neologism", later augmented with the same largely irrelevant "It's in Urban Dictionary." argument. Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to make a point appears to apply, alas.
- Speedy Keep fairly well sourced article and prevalent problem. No arguments for deletion.--Moloch09 (talk) 10:59, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Term is well sourced in the article, so it clearly is not a neologism. Anaxial (talk) 11:21, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Like it or not, it's entered common usage. ←Spidern→ 12:03, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per others. ♪Tempo di Valse ♪ 14:32, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:17, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Moonbat[edit]
- Moonbat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Neologism kgrr talk 08:34, 26 March 2009 (UTC) Urban dictionary has six entries for this neologism. Take your pick of which meaning to assign to this epithet. No way to write an Npov article on it. kgrr talk 10:10, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Not only was the assertion that this is a neologism refuted by Geogre in the first AFD discussion for this article, back in 2004, this discussion being the third, but the article itself even cites a source that supports this. It's the very first source cited, in fact. Inspired (by us, ironically) to do the proper research, William Safire, an identifiable expert in this field who has a reputation for accuracy to defend, did his own legwork, checked the facts, and published the result. (There's more on this subject than was in the column in his 2008 Political Dictionary, by the way.) You didn't read the sources to see what they said about the subject, or even the prior AFD discussions, did you?
Personally, since the sources (c.f. Safire's dictionary, and this and this) treat them both as one and discuss them together, often in a wider context of epithets on web logs as a whole, I'd merge this with Wingnut and do the same, on the principle that Wikipedia should address subjects as sources do.
But that's a matter of merger, not deletion. Even an editor without an account has all of the tools necessary to enact that. This is Articles for deletion, and repeatedly nominating an article for deletion on grounds that were shown to be wrong almost five years ago, and also shown to be wrong by the sources in the article, in the expectation of a different result the third time around, is not (shall we say?) the best of approaches. Uncle G (talk) 10:40, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Look, I don't like the term. It's slippery, as the nominator says. It's just a generalized pejorative. The only concrete definitions have to go back to "looney" and "lunatic" and combine those with "funny" comments on 1960's teenagers (and they're all retirees now). Oh, it's culture war. It's dumb. It's best left elsewhere. It is, however, neither neologism nor impossible to write properly. A proper article treats the term as a slippery term, as a term used, I believe, by Hunter S. Thompson, as incorporated into general apolitical discourse, and as a particularized term of opprobrium appropriated specifically by Rush Limbaugh. However, he and his usage will pass away like dry leaves in winter, and the term will likely remain in its light form ("amusing lunatic; an antic, usually young, pursuer of attractive ideas"). Geogre (talk) 11:19, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Pretty much agree with what George said; it seems to be used widely enough to justify having an article on it. The fact that it's pejorative isn't reason enough to have it deleted. Interestingly, Wikipedia's current definition of the term is quoted in this book. I do think that we need to expand our sourcing on the term and find a solid definition, though. It seems that a specific mode of usage, "barking moonbat", was coined by Perry de Havilland on his blog, Samizdata. A cursory google search reveals 104,000 results. ←Spidern→ 12:20, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- keep sufficiently stable for an article. Artw (talk) 17:27, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, not a neologism but needs more research. The 1940s experimental aircraft XP-67 Bat has also been called the "Moonbat", but I haven't found when that alternate name was first applied. The term, in any case, is more than fifty years old. 21:42, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
- Keep as per most of the above — MapsMan [ talk | cont ] — 00:56, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
- Merge the content is all WP:DICDEF so the title should take us to a more general article such as Pejorative. We really shouldn't have separate articles for every insulting word as they are all much the same topic. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:17, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not a dicdef. A dictionary definition contains multiple definitions for the term. There's only one definition of moonbat here. You could merge though; but the argument that it is dicdef is wrong; and you don't need to do an AFD to merge.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 01:11, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What do you call it if there's only one definition, then, if not a definition? Powers T 12:39, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep this is a perfectly proper article.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 01:11, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Delete"
- delete, this word is a politically motivated perjorative. It's OK to borrow a word from a science fiction author, and twist it to a new context, but the addition to wikipedia helps to give it official support. I'm from Boston, where this word is used every day on a station which actively employs republican politicians who lose elections, or are ejected from the local legislators as a result of convictions in court. Keep or delete it's a political attack word. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.160.160.101 (talk) 14:28, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Probably. However the wikipedia is not censored, even though it may be an offensive term.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 22:18, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- keep - feh. a notable stupid political pejorative. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 20:00, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and make Wingnut (politics) a redirect. Digestible (talk) 20:53, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:09, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rusty Bike Pump[edit]
- Rusty Bike Pump (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Wikipedia is not for stuff made up in school one day Magog the Ogre (talk) 07:59, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I can't find any references to it anywhere. --ascorbic (talk) 08:09, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, altogether a trivial subject, regardless of whether it's real. Nyttend (talk) 13:21, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - all appears to be original research. Jd027 (talk) 20:31, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- delete - while it sounds fun, it also sounds like a non-notable activity. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 20:02, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Xclamation point 01:52, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
KCEG[edit]
- KCEG (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
While licensed broadcast radio stations have long been taken as generally presumed notable, sometimes an article is created for a radio station that is still under construction and not yet licensed. This is often both acceptable and practical but when the station is deleted from the FCC database without ever receiving its broadcast license, any presumption of notability is lost and, unless notability can be otherwise established, the article should be deleted. This is one such case. Dravecky (talk) 06:55, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. —Dravecky (talk) 06:57, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant Delete - For the sole reason is that the station's license has been deleted in the FCC database. No station according to the FCC, no need for an article. - NeutralHomer • Talk • March 26, 2009 @ 07:11
- Delete Dravecky's logic is spot on here. It's reasonable to have an article for stations with only construction permits because they nearly always are promoted to full broadcast licenses. Licensing is time consuming and expensive and rarely results the way this one did (though in this economy we may see more). The deletion of this station from the FCC DB is all the indication we need that this station is not likely to ever be notable and should be deleted.--RadioFan2 (talk) 12:13, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Cancelled stations are notable, if they were on the air but surrendered their license because of financial reasons, etc. but this one never went on the air, and all the information I've seen is this was just a paper station and never got past the construction permit phase. User:MrRadioGuy What's that?/What I Do/Feed My Box 14:26, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Since this never was a radio station (apparently), then I see nothing notable about it (in a Wikipedia sense). — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 15:42, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Deletion Mutation 16:45, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was merge to New York State Route 146. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:10, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
New York State Route 912C[edit]
- New York State Route 912C (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
The general consensus of the AFD-going portion of the community and the U.S. roads project has been that state routes are inherently notable, for a variety of reasons (listed here and in a perhaps more accessible format here if you're not familiar with them). However, this is a state route only in the most technical sense—it is a section of road maintained by NYSDOT, but not posted with signage to guide the road user. Indeed, it lacks a traditional route number; it is assigned only an inventory number presumably to facilitate records keeping at NYSDOT. (Such a route in New York is called a reference route, and such routes perform various sundry tasks that require state maintenance but are not worth signposting as an actual, or touring route. In this case, NY 912C's purpose is linking two other state routes.) As I understand it, the only signage directed to the road user by the state for this route is signage pointing to the other route it connects to: from NY 156 signage points motorists to NY 146, and vice versa. They are not made aware of the number 912C except by the usage of 10-inch (25 cm) tall signs of the design shown in the infobox at the top of the page.
This route is only a block in length. That is, it is 0.08 miles (0.13 km) long. That's 422.4 feet, slightly less than one and a half American football fields. Given this short extent, and the fact that it is not given the status most other state routes enjoy, I feel that not enough can be said about it to make it a good subject for an article. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 06:45, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge. In all purposes, this is just a small slab of pavement maintained by NYSDOT to connect routes. The only thing differentiating it from a bannered loop / spur (similar to U.S. Route 101 Alternate (Washington)) is the state route shield. A state route shield should not imply notability by itself; rather, routes should be selected for inclusion in Wikipedia as a standalone article by their notability (and that would include most state routes). --Rschen7754 (T C) 07:06, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to New York State Route 146. NY 912C is little more than a small, state-maintained roadway providing a connection between two signed state touring routes. The route is also unsigned and hidden from both the general public and commuters, save for small, 8 inch by 10 inch green signs alongside the route that serve only as inventory reference points for NYSDOT. The content within this article can easily and adequately be covered in the article on NY 146. – TMF 07:38, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge — extremely good argument on the part of the nom. Yes, state routes are inherently notable, but so are interstates, and this AFD shows consensus for merging an interstate article. But why 146? I don't see why either 146 or 156 is better than the other. Nyttend (talk) 13:25, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to New York State Route 146. I thought this was merged to NY 146 a while ago. This particular stretch of road is already discussed there. Also, as a general rule, I think we should not make articles on these very short, unsigned roads, especially if they can be discussed as part of another article as in this case. --Polaron | Talk 13:39, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:39, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:40, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge somewhere. I do not see how a road 0.8 miles (or is it km) long can be notable in its own right. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:25, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Xclamation point 01:52, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Adelaide University Athletics Club[edit]
- Adelaide University Athletics Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
A student club that comes nowhere near meeting WP:ORG or any other notability requirement. Membership according to claims on the talk page is 50. Nuttah (talk) 06:33, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Per nom - no sign that this meets WP:ORG Nick-D (talk) 08:08, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 01:06, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fails WP:GROUP and, as individuals, WP:ATHLETE. WWGB (talk) 00:43, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The existing text doesn't bode well for notability, but just because an article's initial incarnation is poor doesn't necessarily mean deletion. I'm not familiar with this club directly, but if it is true that the club has been defunct for a number of years and is just getting started again then you wouldn't expect many google hits. I suspect that past notability could be established with hardcopy sources like old newspaper records, but tracking them down might be a struggle.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 01:02, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Appears to fail WP:ORG. Orderinchaos 18:19, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:04, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
David Alan Hilton II[edit]
- David Alan Hilton II (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable BLP with sourcing issues. KuroiShiroi (talk) 06:03, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Being related to notable people and dating a notable person do not make you notable. --Nick—Contact/Contribs 06:14, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:BLP and WP:BIO. ColdmachineTalk 07:22, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, absolutely no proof of notability — who knows, notability might arise for someone dating a society figure like Lohan, but keeping for that reason would be crystalballish. Nyttend (talk) 13:27, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. WP:SNOW. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:11, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Johan Fridlund[edit]
- Johan Fridlund (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This 16-year-old Swedish youth footballer fails WP:ATHLETE, WP:NOTE. Jim Ward (talk) 05:48, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, no notability asserted. JIP | Talk 08:07, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. There doesn't appear to be any independent verifiable information about the kid and there also isn't any evidence he played first league or international matches in his age group. Fails every verifiability rule in the book. - Mgm|(talk) 12:18, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Per Mgm. — Jake Wartenberg 12:38, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. -- Jeff3000 (talk) 20:38, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Had he been a part of the actual lineup of Superettan team Ängelholms FF I would have voted keep, but he's unsurprisingly not part of their lineup according to their web page. Tomas e (talk) 21:13, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:41, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to Blackadder. Cirt (talk) 04:10, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Blackadder Hall[edit]
- Blackadder Hall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Delete - article has been tagged for notability since May 19, 2008 and there have been no subsequent edits. Notability requires that independent reliable sources cover the subject of the article substantively and there are appear to be no independent reliable sources that establish any notability for this specific fictional residence outside of the series. Note that the unquestioned notability of the series does not mean that every single element of the fiction is independently notable in the absence of said reliable sources. The article is merely a recitation of a few random plot points, which appear to be covered adequately within the article for the series as a whole and/or within the articles on the individual seasons. Prod removed under the novel, yet far from correct, theory that merging to some article somewhere is always under every circumstance preferable to deletion; the very existence of the AFD process demonstrates that this theory is incorrect. I would hope that those who plan to argue in favor of retaining this article will also offer up the reliable sources that they claim support its notability. Otto4711 (talk) 05:23, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "theory that merging to some article somewhere is always under every circumstance preferable to deletion; the very existence of the AFD process demonstrates that this theory is incorrect." The AFD process is to discuss deletions and is totally unrelated to idea merging. The fact the deletion process exists, doesn't mean merging is bad in this particular case. - Mgm|(talk) 12:22, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I can only glean the belief of the de-prodder from what he asserted in his edit summary, which was "Merge always preferred to deletion." Clearly, since we do delete some articles rather than merge them, this assertion is not correct. Otto4711 (talk) 12:32, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Extremely minor plot point, relating only to two one-off special episodes of the series. No reason to believe that this location is particularly important for understanding the show. Would be an irrelevant digression if merged elsewhere. JulesH (talk) 08:39, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Question - Is there one or more lists that might be appropriate for merging this to? - jc37 08:39, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This article is rather short - can't we just sumarize a bit it and merge it into Blackadder? Laurent (talk) 09:23, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and Delete - an abbreviated form of this - perhaps just two sentences - could easily be merged with the Blackadder article--Moloch09 (talk) 11:02, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Blackadder as a likely search term. (only merge when the information is verified) - Mgm|(talk) 12:22, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- How, when someone typing in Blackadder Hall will get Blackadder after typing Blackad is this a likely search term? Otto4711 (talk) 12:45, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Does that work across all platforms and cover all eventualities? Hiding T 13:19, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I am unaware of any situation in which this will not be the case. Assuming there is some platform out there where this isn't the case, the likelihood that someone is going to search for a specific fictional structure from a specific TV series and not know about the TV series is remote to the point of near-complete implausibility. Otto4711 (talk) 21:37, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- So basically, redirects are free, this is a valid redirect, it may possibly be of use, and so we could just go and redirect it? Just in case someone comes to this page from one of the many websites that may well still link to it? That might actually work, yes? Hiding T 11:09, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- So basically, this is an extremely-to-the-point-of-ridiculousness unlikely (and therefore useless) search string, the article on the series will come up in advance of the redirect (thus making it invalid), not every possible thing that someone might possibly on a one-in-a-million whim type in a search box needs to be a redirect, and I see no indication that there is some multitude of websites out there that link to this page. So, no, still not seeing the point in turning this improbable, useless and invalid search string into a redirect. Otto4711 (talk) 12:29, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I can't say I followed all that. I see lots of words I understand, but they don't seem to make sense when placed in that order. Basically, and correct me if I have this wrong for reasons just outlined, you are saying that even though people might actually arrive at this page from the internet, it would be better for them to be faced with a blank page that they might then create, than to be redirected somewhere useful? I think I have that right in reading the last couple of words, which seem to state that even given the possibility that a redirect would be of use, you'd much rather not, because... actually, I can't come up with a reason why. I think it is because you don't want to, which is fair enough, but if that's all it is, this is just arguing for the sake of it. It strikes me, though that this is also indicative of a major problem on Wikipedia: What is the major objection to redirection as a simple solution? It can't be the ease of implementation, there must be something deeper. Perhaps a fear of conflict, or a need to see a final solution. It's certainly something to think about. There might even be an essay in this. I'm going to have to think about this one. Hiding T 13:30, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirects are free and informative. Why are we here? Hiding T 12:42, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Because this information is so irrelevant that it shouldn't be included in any of the articles on the topic, and because having a redirect but no information about the subject of the redirect would be silly. JulesH (talk) 13:32, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree, it's often been found quite useful to redirect related terms to a suitable article, so much so that it is part of the things to consider before listing an article for afd. I guess we have different values, and when that happens, I always find it better to lean on guidance. YMMV. Hiding T 16:57, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Because this information is so irrelevant that it shouldn't be included in any of the articles on the topic, and because having a redirect but no information about the subject of the redirect would be silly. JulesH (talk) 13:32, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. No assertion of independent notability. Eusebeus (talk) 21:35, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or redirect to Blackadder. Most fictional locations are not worth more than a mention in the main article, and this doesn't seem to be an exception. – sgeureka t•c 11:22, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. I had a look at my box set as well as the secondary literature and just don't see the notability - worth a line at most in the blackadder article. --Cameron Scott (talk) 09:30, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and redirect to Blackadder. This fictional place has no independent notability beyond the piece of fiction it belongs to, not established by sources currently in the article and, by my search, not available at all. Wikipedia should not be a fan site, or a glossary, and the accretion of articles devoted to non-notable segments of works of fiction does harm to the project. "Blackadder Hall is the home of the fictional Blackadder family" seems about all that should be menioned in the blackadder article, but that's for editors working over there, of course.Bali ultimate (talk) 15:19, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect per hiding. Ikip (talk) 01:04, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Xclamation point 01:54, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Air Cambodia[edit]
- Air Cambodia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Nominating this for the same reasons that it was nominated 12 months ago. A "company" which was "established" in 2004 could not have flown passengers in 1996. There was an airline called "Royal Air Cambodge" formed in 1955 and renamed in 1970 to "Air Cambodge", and which operated until 1975.[33] The "Royal Air Cambodge" name was resurrected in 1993 and operated until 2001. In 2002, Hainan Airlines was going to start an airline called "Air Cambodia", but this never got past planning stages. In 2004, Phuket Airlines announced a plan to start an airline called "Air Cambodia" (this article) [34], but it too never got past the inital planning stage. There is nothing available in the media that gives detailed information on this failed start-up, past that it was to have been a joint-venture project with the Cambodian government; it's a byline in Cambodian failed airline start-ups. It's absolutely not-notable, deserving perhaps of a mention in some type of list of failed airline start-ups, but not of an actual article. Russavia Dialogue 05:11, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cambodia-related deletion discussions. -- KuroiShiroi (talk) 05:28, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- KuroiShiroi (talk) 05:29, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Per review of article and Russavia's reliable expertise on this field. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:51, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, regardless of the existence and notability of previous airlines, this one shows no proof of notability — companies, even airlines, can't be inherently notable. Nyttend (talk) 13:29, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per Russavia's comment no evidence airline ever operated. MilborneOne (talk) 19:55, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 04:09, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mohit Shah[edit]
- Mohit Shah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Fails WP:Notability. There is no reliable third party source. Searching for this person on search engine has no wielded no result. SkyWalker (talk) 04:55, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- KuroiShiroi (talk) 05:28, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete -This fails per WP:Notability, lack of reliable citations WP:Reliable_Sources and possible COI WP:Conflict of Interest per Talk [[35]].
The tag for speedy deletion should not have been reverted [[36]]. This person is not the same person who was the former Chief Justice of Gujarat (a State of India) per Google News[37] --Louisprandtl (talk) 07:48, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]- -- User:SoWhy pointed out to me [38] that he used this article [39] as reference for his decline of speedy deletion. I agree with his decision and thus have edited my earlier comment as such. However the first part of the Delete comment on why the article Fails still stands.--Louisprandtl (talk) 16:38, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, I see a lot of stuff without any references. Could be a young business man like many others in India. The article should distinguish how he is different than others in India. --Athos, Porthos, and Aramis (talk) 23:16, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:42, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. MBisanz talk 08:31, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hot stain[edit]
- Hot stain (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Apparently a neologism. Claimed to be a term used by scientists, but a wide ranging academic paper search (EBSCOHost) only brought up one pop-science opinion article by Maude Barlow in "The Nation". A few hits on the web, but everything seems to lead back to articles authored by Barlow. Gigs (talk) 04:14, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Additional infomation Double tongued dictionary references this apparent letter to the editor. This article by Kirk James Murphy, M.D. references the double tongued dictionary. Wisegeek also has an article on the word, but they don't cite sources. There's a very incestuous circle of references here, and as I said before, no hits on EBSCOHost outside of Barlow. Gigs (talk) 04:21, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Neologism: 1 : a new word, usage, or expression 2 : a meaningless word coined by a psychotic. Neither. Hot stain is used in many articles to describe areas where safe drinking water has been depleted. Yes, Maude Barlow has written three books about water depletion. All of which use the term. Quite a few articles give reference to Maude Barlow's books or articles. What do you expect? She's a notable activist and author in the field of water depletion. I gave three references in the small stub article describing the depleted area. I can give more references such as the article by Kirk James Murphy, M.D. The End of Drinking Water? July 12, 2008 that you refer to. He also does talk about Maude Barlow, But you have already labeled her and anyone or anything referring to her with the epithet "incestous". Double tongued dictionary refers to Marylou Healy's article as their source Protecting water vital to America June 16, 2008. She does *not* bring up Maude Marlow. According to Wise Geek, it's a term coined in the late 1990's. It's hardly a neologism if the word was coined 10-12 years ago. Give me a break. Why do you continually hang around the articles I have written and launch your attacks? Does something bother you about water shortages? or the prospect that water can run out? I feel like you and Grundle2600 have nothing better to do than to play tag team. What's the deal? kgrr talk 06:00, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi kgrr. This nomination is nothing personal. I just took an interest in improving the Peak Water article and noticed that this term has very little usage when I went to research it in greater depth. The Wikipedia definition of neologism is "words and terms that have recently been coined, generally do not appear in any dictionary, but may be used widely or within certain communities". "Hot stain" is apparently primarily only used in Barlow's work, and has very little wider acceptance in the scientific community. The incestuous comment was not meant as an epithet, it was to illustrate that "all roads lead to Rome" when it comes to usage of this term. I look forward to working with you on various articles, but I don't think this one meets the criteria for inclusion. Gigs (talk) 06:48, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- According to Maude Barlow in her book Blue Gold, the word appears to have been coined by Mihal Kravcik in Kravcik, M.,Water for the third Millenium, People and water, Kosice, 2000 to describe large areas of land consumed in a perma-drought. Think Sahara Desert. I will try to find a URL for that paper. Some background is in order. Maude Barlow is National Chair of the Council of Canadians and Tony Clarke is Executive Director of the Polaris Institute, another Canadian organization. Barlow was also recently appointed as UN Senior Water Adviser. kgrr talk 14:36, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi kgrr. This nomination is nothing personal. I just took an interest in improving the Peak Water article and noticed that this term has very little usage when I went to research it in greater depth. The Wikipedia definition of neologism is "words and terms that have recently been coined, generally do not appear in any dictionary, but may be used widely or within certain communities". "Hot stain" is apparently primarily only used in Barlow's work, and has very little wider acceptance in the scientific community. The incestuous comment was not meant as an epithet, it was to illustrate that "all roads lead to Rome" when it comes to usage of this term. I look forward to working with you on various articles, but I don't think this one meets the criteria for inclusion. Gigs (talk) 06:48, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 15:45, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. It is being used to describe a certain thing in a variety of places... that being an area where water resources may not be able to be used for humans. It may be a relatively new word, but seems to be in use with the same meaning by those using it. California is one ot the "hot stain' areas of the world where water is fast dissapearing. Yet while the water is disappearing, our per capita usage is doubling. It looks like this term will be used more as water resources dissapear. skip sievert (talk) 15:52, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm still undecided on this. Here's a newspaper reference to the term [40]. Although it might be used to some extent, this is probably a not-very-common neologism, and as such undeserving of an article. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 15:52, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have expanded the article information a little. It seems like with just a bit more editing and information presentation the article can be made more notable or informative. skip sievert (talk) 18:09, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. —Gigs (talk) 23:09, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Certainly a notable concept; I don't think anyone can deny that. The word may not be in common use, but I'm not aware of any more common terms for the concept. Powers T 17:25, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'm sorry to say it, but I think the article has gotten worse since this AfD started. Expanding the article with general water resources information that overlaps with (and probably belongs in) the Peak water article doesn't make me want to keep it any more than before. I also don't understand what wood stains have to do with this. Gigs (talk) 21:24, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I do not share that opinion. The article is a stub. The article was not expanded with general water resources information. More directly related information as to human water resources was added to expand the article in content and creative presentation that relates to the article title and subject (my opinion). Working on articles during an A.f.d. is something that brings more interest to presentation and thought to the debate, and expanding info., can make an article less of a stub and more of an encyclopedia entry... also my opinion. skip sievert (talk) 16:08, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep or Merge Yes, there are problems with the article. They should be fixed with good editing, not with deletion. This term does appear to be a neologism, but there is also evidence of some reliable source. Merge would be, preferably, to a section in an article covering the more general subject. At this point, it's not clear to me that the term is in sufficient use to justify its own article, but even minor neologisms, if there is any evidence of usage, as there is with this term, can deserve a redirect. We should remember that our purpose isn't just to create an encyclopedia in the abstract, but also to serve our readers. Merge is a matter of ordinary editing and consensus, it can be done at any time, and I dislike the blunt instrument of deletion when there is any reasonable basis for keeping some of an article's information in the project, because deletion inhibits the formation of broader consensus, and merge is easily undone with no fuss if more source appears that can't adequately be covered in the target article. Gigs' argument above is actually an argument for Merge, not Delete. "Hot stain" is also a kind of wood stain, so searches should include the term "potable water" or some other possible associated words. --Abd (talk) 13:17, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Heh, Abd, my point was, when the AfD started, the article was fine, it didn't have any issues other than being only one sentence long. All of the problems with the article have come since the AfD, with misguided attempts to bloat the article to "give it more notability". There wasn't much to merge when I nominated it. I definitely think the concept is notable enough to be mentioned in other articles, just not to warrant its own. Gigs (talk) 20:52, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I think your comment user Gigs is demeaning and uncalled for. This may be your opinion though. If the article was fine then why did you A.f.d. it? You do not have to answer that, it is just a rhetorical question. The article was also not only one sentence long at least when I saw it. Also to imply that the added information was added to bloat in a misguided way is just a little like Taunting or baiting; deliberately pushing others to the point of breaching civility even if not seeming to commit such a breach themselves. skip sievert (talk) 21:07, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Skip, I think your edits are in good faith, and I do appreciate that. It is completely appropriate for you to attempt to improve an article in AfD as well. Adding more information to an article will not give the subject of the article more notability though. The added information does nothing to establish the notability either, and, in my personal opinion, has made the article somewhat worse off. Remember, we aren't debating about the notability of the article here, we are debating the notability of the subject. I hope you can see this is why I said I thought the edits were misguided. It was very much not a personal attack, and I'm sorry if it came off that way. Gigs (talk) 21:18, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I added per suggestion of Abd Potable water. That was done because there is a direct connection. But lets get on with other issues. Thanks. skip sievert (talk) 21:41, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've moved much of that off-topic material to water stress, where it fits perfectly. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:55, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. All the scholarly sources I can find use this term to mean "a chemical staining solution used at high temperature" (see (link), so I doubt that this term is in common use. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:51, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. per WP:SNOW (WP:NFT and WP:OR) Mgm|(talk) 12:25, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Jeffball[edit]
- Jeffball (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Something that a bunch of "us" made up "one day" Mblumber (talk) 04:06, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Non-notable, no sources, etc. KuroiShiroi (talk) 04:16, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Per WP:OR. South Bay (talk) 04:31, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:NFT and WP:OR. --TeaDrinker (talk) 05:09, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - unnotable. MathCool10 Sign here! 05:33, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:OR, WP:NFT, WP:N/WP:V, and probably some other policies. Speedy close per WP:SNOW. --Nick—Contact/Contribs 06:10, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, made up at school one day. JIP | Talk 08:08, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete - ridiculous. . .Rcawsey (talk) 08:35, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - It smells a lot like something made up. An added strike is the lack of sources. (Google also says, "did you mean jeff ball".) DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 11:30, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete (probably going to be snow closed in a sec) WP:NFT : "a new drinking game invented at a particularly memorable party". i.e. this. - Jarry1250 (t, c) 12:18, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy delete. Almost certainly an advance-fee fraud instrument; no notability. Given the probable harm from bolstering a scammer's fraud and the low probability of accuracy, this deserves IAR deletion. — Coren (talk) 02:42, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yoga Joseph[edit]
- Yoga Joseph (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Unsourced biography of a living person. Template on it says suspectable notability. Last few sections appear to be promotional about his family. —— nixeagleemail me 03:41, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 03:44, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Strong Delete possibly a page to bolster confidence in a 419 style scam. Gigs (talk) 04:38, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Non-notable biography, no evidence of notability. --TeaDrinker (talk) 05:05, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I have removed the unsourced claims out of concern for the potential that this page is a scam. The version of the article that was originally nominated is here. Oren0 (talk) 05:15, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Search results were nil. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:53, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete - Per Gigs. - NeutralHomer • Talk • March 26, 2009 @ 06:05
- Delete - Notability is not established and not sourced. --Nick—Contact/Contribs 06:16, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I'd probably have CSD'ed the unstubbed article as well. No indication elsewhere on the net that this is a historically long term subject either. Non notable. FT2 (Talk | email) 11:03, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete as coatrack for spam-scam. Bearian (talk) 14:16, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No sources stablishing notability, and the events described in the article don't stablish notability for an article. --Enric Naval (talk) 19:17, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh come on. Are we expected to believe thatupon moving to Toronto, his first purchase was not in fact a home, but a rare Porsche 928 S4? The poor man's Porsche? A banker? As far as I can see, there is no information that can be sourced about this name. And it's quite an unusual name. So, not notable or verifiable. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 00:20, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 08:32, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sket Dance[edit]
- Sket Dance (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Unnotable manga series. Fails WP:BK having no significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources. Doesn't even have an Anime News Network entry. Article nothing but huge amounts of plot summary and a list of chapters. Prod removed with reason of "This seems to have recovered nicely and is gaining in popularity in Japan. A deeper search may turn up something useful." However, searches in both English and Japanese have uncovered exactly 0 reliable sources giving the series significant coverage (series was released in Japan as "Sket Dance" so no issue of "mistranslation" of the title). Being "popular" does not equal being WP:N, nor do sales figures configure any notability on a book per WP:BK, including recent discussions upholding this long held consensus. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:25, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:25, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Books like this exist in a gray area as far as AfD results are concerned, and it's an area I think is worth discussing on a regular basis, as I've seen consensus shift back and forth several times over the last couple of years. The main issue with this article is that it was created too soon - it should have been created after establishing clear notability, either through an anime adaption or an English translation, and the resulting third party coverage. Both of those are reasonably likely outcomes for an established Shonen Jump series. But it is also certainly possible that neither will happen (eg, Mr Fullswing). Wikipedia not being a crystal ball, I agree with Collectonian; this article should not have been created. Which I'm not at all sure about is whether it is worth the time and effort to bother deleting articles like this. Most of them will establish clear notability/clear non-notability in due time. Let it happen then; there's no rush. At the least, articles in this gray area should continue to be discussed. ...this wound up being more half-baked than I originally intended, but at the least, previous AfDs for articles in this gray area have uncovered previously unknown sources, so it's worth forcing a discussion. Doceirias (talk) 06:11, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It is something the anime/manga project has discussed recently, and in the end consensus agreed that manga is best served by being covered under WP:BK, that number of translations/adaptations doesn't establish notability (just possible "signs" of it), etc. This has also generally been upheld in the last 30-50 manga/anime AfDs Being to gray, I think, is also not something that should include keeping completely unnotable series around to see if maybe its licensed, maybe its adapted, maybe... This isn't even a particularly new series, which generally lowers the chance for shonen series to get licensed, at least in English. Now, if it did have multi-adaptions already, or the author was super famous, then I could agree that maybe let the gray sit awhile, see what else happens. Except there aren't, and the author is so unnotable his link just redirects back to this article. So as it is, I just don't see how it can ever be anything more than a lot of plot summary and a list of the volumes/chapters. Nothing else can be verified beyond that, and really other than its existence and rough serialization, nothing else is covered in a third-party source. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 14:17, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep; I agree completely with the eloquent comment above by Doceirias. ColdmachineTalk 07:26, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment No ANN, No licensor in US/UK, France, Germany, Spain & Italy. Seeing the current state of the article i'm inclined to it in Userfy. I will cast my vote later depending of other editors input. --KrebMarkt 09:00, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete We can't keep article because we think they'll establish their notability in the future. And even the verifiability policy requires some coverage by reliable third-party source. But one other point is that this manga series has been out since 2007 and it still hasn't clearly established its notability. Just how long are we suppose to wait to see if it does? --Farix (Talk) 11:17, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I'm with Doceirias with this one -- notability does not seem to be firmly established, but there's enough indicators of notability to strongly suggest that it will be easier to do so in the future. This may be crystal-ball gazing, but it's enough that I cannot convince myself to suggest any kind of deletion, even if it does not meet the letter of any guideline to keep it. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:31, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I guess my question is, what evidence of notability are y'all seeing. Its serialized...that doesn't make it notable. Even being a longer series doesn't make it notable. Indeed, after 2 years, no adaptations, no OVAs, no significant coverage, nothing but being there and being read. If that is a sign of notable, every romance novel every printed in America would have evidence of being notable :P -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 20:29, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Two years, seven volumes, and not canceled yet? In Jump? (And not some third rate romance novel line.) To anyone following the magazine, that's pretty promising. Anime deals usually get announced around volume twelve (give or take) and almost never happen earlier; a series with no hope of merchandising success rarely lasts that long. Circumstantial evidence, but a good deal more reliable in practice than being by a notable author. Doceirias (talk) 07:16, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That mention of volumes before adaptions is pretty WP:OR. I can think of countless notable series that got adaptions commissioned long before hitting 10 volumes, never mind 12. Dandy Sephy (talk) 22:13, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Two years, seven volumes, and not canceled yet? In Jump? (And not some third rate romance novel line.) To anyone following the magazine, that's pretty promising. Anime deals usually get announced around volume twelve (give or take) and almost never happen earlier; a series with no hope of merchandising success rarely lasts that long. Circumstantial evidence, but a good deal more reliable in practice than being by a notable author. Doceirias (talk) 07:16, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I guess my question is, what evidence of notability are y'all seeing. Its serialized...that doesn't make it notable. Even being a longer series doesn't make it notable. Indeed, after 2 years, no adaptations, no OVAs, no significant coverage, nothing but being there and being read. If that is a sign of notable, every romance novel every printed in America would have evidence of being notable :P -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 20:29, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Like other manga that are featured in extremely popular manga magazines, maybe it'll be kept, maybe not. Depends on who is around to comment and form a consensus at the time. I've seen things exactly like this go both ways. I believe when it has that many readers, successful enough to be kept around long enough to publish its chapters in separate books, then it is notable. Please use common sense instead of quoting the notability guidelines, which are suggestions not absolute laws. Dream Focus 19:25, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The thing is, the notability guidelines ARE the codified common sense of the community. —Quasirandom (talk) 19:56, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Of the very small percentage of wikipedia editors who participated in their creation. The opinions of a few dozen editors or less, does not represent the millions of wikipedia users who have never had a chance to vote on it. Dream Focus 22:31, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per failing WP:BK and Wp:N. No North American/European licensing, no major adaption, possibly Chinese license but these are hard to verify. If someone finds some inkling of proper notability (i.e. not google hits or scanlation/blog/shopping sites, I may be convinced to switch to keep. Doesn't seem likely at face value however Dandy Sephy (talk) 20:11, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete this work doesn't appear to meet any of the criteria in WP:BK. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 20:32, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: insufficient coverage, fails WP:BK. JamesBurns (talk) 06:43, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This thing seems to have potential notability out the wazoo, but is missing that last crucial piece or two to push it over the edge. Above comments seem to indicate that such pieces are roughly as likely as not to magically materialize. Userfy for now. 「ダイノガイ千?!」(Dinoguy1000) 02:40, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Userfy After reading your thoughts that the best compromise between work already done and respecting the WP:BK objective criterion. --KrebMarkt 06:51, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
*Userfy per most recent !votes. Deletion Mutation 17:36, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Blocked sockpuppet. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 20:18, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No adequate non-primary sourcing whatsoever; fails WP:BK. — sephiroth bcr (converse) 23:01, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 00:03, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
List of Malayalam films with non-Malayalam Titles[edit]
- List of Malayalam films with non-Malayalam Titles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Indiscriminate, unreferenced, trivial list. Biruitorul Talk 03:08, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The info presented here is not a copyright violation, well verifiable, well referenced. There is no dispute that the facts are authentic. Trivial is a relative term. (Sarvagyana guru (talk) 04:19, 27 March 2009 (UTC))[reply]
- Delete trivial list, non-notable. Remove. ♪Tempo di Valse ♪ 03:13, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete List is non-notable and OR. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:54, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Salih (talk) 10:46, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, intersection of random qualities — I know that's not the "standard" phrase, but I can't remember what is. Nyttend (talk) 13:30, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 20:06, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Vague inclusion criteria, trivial list. Skier Dude (talk) 22:30, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
*Delete per TRIVIA, OR & N. Deletion Mutation 16:56, 28 March 2009 (UTC) N.B. !vote of sockpuppet of blocked user struck through. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:47, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. WP:SNOW, too many problems with this article to be fixed Tone 20:36, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sex and music[edit]
- Sex and music (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
WP:OR KuroiShiroi (talk) 03:09, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:PROD removed by creator. KuroiShiroi (talk) 03:09, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as original research. --TeaDrinker (talk) 04:12, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Per WP:NOT. South Bay (talk) 04:34, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as original research. --Nick—Contact/Contribs 06:12, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete per WP:OR. ColdmachineTalk 07:27, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Original research about an obvious conclusion that needs no article. Nate • (chatter) 08:42, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, and remind the author that correlation is not causation (and Wikipedia is not a publisher of essays). Zetawoof(ζ) 09:15, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete per WP:SNOW. Obviously unencyclopedic, fails WP:NOT. Ottre 11:34, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
- Delete, original research. We've got trouble! Right here in River City! - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:34, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 00:03, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Marshall Sosby[edit]
- Marshall Sosby (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Possible BLP violation and a definite WP:ONEEVENT. KuroiShiroi (talk) 03:05, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- KuroiShiroi (talk) 04:58, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- KuroiShiroi (talk) 04:59, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:BLP1E: "when an individual plays a major role in a minor event... it is not generally appropriate to have an article on both the person and the event" and WP:NOTNEWS: "Wikipedia considers the historical notability of persons and events. News coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, but not all events warrant an encyclopedia article of their own... Unless news coverage of an individual goes beyond the context of a single event, our coverage of that individual should be limited to the article about that event" Cheers! Scapler (talk) 11:06, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete non-notable person who received media attention after 1 event. Fails WP:BLP1E and WP:NOT#NEWS. -Atmoz (talk) 17:48, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Completely unsourced BLP about one event. Gigs (talk) 20:43, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete for reasons cited above. --Another Believer (Talk) 04:35, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Speedy delete, WP:SNOW, WP:NOR. NawlinWiki (talk) 20:01, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Chaos Theory (essay)[edit]
- Chaos Theory (essay) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
WP:OR. PROD tag removed by an IP. No sources. KuroiShiroi (talk) 02:50, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:NOT a webhost or blog and no original research policy. --TeaDrinker (talk) 04:16, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Essay. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:54, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete in accordance with WP:NOT#OR#3. ColdmachineTalk 07:29, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete as self-admitted original research. JIP | Talk 08:09, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Obvious OR with nothing to distinguish it from the Chaos theory article, except for being of a far lower standard. Anaxial (talk) 11:17, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete It fails the basic goal of Wikipedia. - Mgm|(talk) 12:27, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above and WP:NOR. ♪Tempo di Valse ♪ 14:34, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Obviously delete. --Anna Lincoln (talk) 16:30, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per all of above. 99.184.128.247 (talk) 23:35, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Appears to be a WP:OR essay. Can we just speedy close and be done with it? Plastikspork (talk) 02:53, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Per WP:SNOW. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:10, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
MV Princess of Acadia[edit]
- MV Princess of Acadia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Doesn't seem to meet wp:N nobility. Staffwaterboy Critique Me Guestbook Hate Comments 02:45, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Non-notable. ♪Tempo di Valse ♪ 03:15, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Is the in-depth subject of secondary independent sources like CBC News [41] and others [42][43][44][45] The coverage is substantial. --Oakshade (talk) 04:37, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - article is in stub status, and AfD is not for cleanup. Coverage in third party reliable sources seems to exist as Oakshade indicates. ColdmachineTalk 07:30, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, though it needs cleaning up; the period covered by the article involves two ships of the same name, and this is not mentioned. . . Rcawsey (talk) 09:16, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep sources in the article plus potential sources provided above provide more than enough evidence that this topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Satisfies WP:N. -Atmoz (talk) 17:50, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep a ship of this size is going to be sufficiently notable. Mjroots (talk) 18:15, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep - multiple sources, and WP:SHIPS standard practice provides that ships of this size are notable. Parsecboy (talk) 01:57, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I think there are enough keeps here to WP:SNOW the issue. --Brad (talk) 15:23, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:42, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep alternatively REname and Stubify -- The ship is notable for operating a ferry service in the Bay of Fundy. I would thereofre suggest that the article might be converted into one on Bay of Fundy ferry services, enabling detail to be added of earlier vessels providing the service. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:37, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 18:12, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tui and La[edit]
- Tui and La (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
An editorial decision has been made to remove this from List of Avatar: The Last Airbender characters, so I have reverted my "speedy merge." There is simply no useful information that passes WP:Notability; the characters are in two (maybe three) episodes and do not even have any lines. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 02:22, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The notability simply isn't there if they were removed from a character list. treelo radda 16:52, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete since the alternative (redirecting) would cause confusion. – sgeureka t•c 10:58, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:43, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete It's borderline A1 at the moment, and if the most appropriate article doesn't want it (per WP:NNC) there's no justification for it having its own article. There's not enough here for this to be comsidered a WP:SS breakout. Jclemens (talk) 19:49, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep as rewritten; I don't think a long close statement is in order, but for DRV's sake here goes: (1) it seems that everyone agrees that there was this island; (2) the community has said that geographic features are usually notable; (3) the only real objection is that this was created by a banned user; (4) we have two provisions in apparent conflict WP:CSD#G5 allowing for speedy deletion of materials of that sort and a statement at WP:BAN that it deletion is not required; (5) the article has been substantially redone by an editor in good standing. So, given that deletion appears to be permissive and not required, we have the authority to keep this, and now that it has been rewritten we should. 'nuff said and thanks to all who helped out here, because this was a policy discussion worth having, and we may continue to have at the talk pages of the two cited policy pages to resolve the apparent conflict in explicit terms. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:09, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neptune Island (Long Island Sound)[edit]
- Neptune Island (Long Island Sound) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
I believe this article qualifies for speedy deletion (under criterion G5) as the creation of a banned user (User:Jvolkblum) evading the ban. All substantial edits to the article are by socks of the banned user. However, the speedy deletion template was removed on the grounds that it appears to be a "seemingly worthwhile, problem-free article."
The article does indeed seem to be worthwhile and problem-free, but its creator is a user who has specialized in creating content that seems good, but turns out on careful examination to be artfully disguised garbage. Among the long-term disruptive behaviors for which this user earned his/her community ban is falsification of sources. This has included adding content that was copied verbatim from copyrighted sources but was inserted in articles with citations to completely unrelated sources (typically an obscure book title with a date from the early 20th century that is not available online), citations to plausible sounding sources that upon examination do not even vaguely support the content, and reference callouts that identify an online source as something completely different than what it actually is. Additionally, although the topic is superficially "worthwhile," close examination suggests that it's pretty trivial in the grand scheme of things. My eyeball estimate from a map indicates that the island that is the subject of the article has a total area of less than 2 acres, and the main topic of the historical sources cited in the article has been disputes over real estate transactions.
The article does cite some sources that are related to the topic, but much of the content in the article is not associated with any reference callouts, and the sources cited don't necessarily support the information with which the citations are associated. For example, this 1848 history book is cited to support the sentence "When Louis A. DePau purchased Locust Island (now included in Glen Island) in 1847 and built his residence there, he established a chain-ferry between that island and Neptune Island for his own private use, landing at a dock on the west of Neptune Island." The book does exist, and it does state that Louis A. DePau purchased Locust Island, but it says nothing about his building a residence or a chain ferry, and it does not indicate that Locust is part of Glen Island (another source cited earlier in the article does document the name change). The following paragraph has extensive historical information, but the only source cited documents only that New Rochelle and Pelham Railroad Company and the New Rochelle Street Railway Company were established in 1885 and that a branch line to the Neptune House dock was planned; none of the other details in the paragraph are documented by that source. Based on my past experience with the banned user, I think it likely that the entire article is copied from some source that is not identified or cited in the article. In view of the fact that this is a banned user whose past offenses have included trying to pawn off copyvio content by inserting seemingly valid false references, I believe this article should be deleted in accordance with Wikipedia policy on enforcing community bans by reverting edits, which states "the presumption in ambiguous cases should be to revert". If someone is willing to take responsibility for verifying the article and rendering it in their own words, that's fine, but keeping the current version because it looks like it might be OK is, in essence, saying that WP:V and WP:Ban have no significance.
Finally, for the record, this is at least the third time this article has been created. Earlier versions that were deleted included Neptune Island (New Rochelle) and Neptune Island (New York). Orlady (talk) 03:21, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. —Orlady (talk) 04:14, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep This AfD is latest in running vendetta of Orlady against New Rochelle area articles. As Orlady notes, it "seems" decent. Notability is asserted, clear. Orlady is wasting my, others time with this pointless AfD, put in deliberately just in advance of my posting a community unban proposal for the allegedly banned user, who in fact is one of perhaps many misidentified by Orlady as being associates of one former wikipedia editor. This verges on wp:pointy. I am inclined to consider opening an RFC/User behavior on Orlady's actions here and elsewhere. P.S. My response copied exactly from my response to another simultaneous AFD opened by Orlady on another New Rochelle article. It does not merit revising. If you oppose here, please also copy your response to oppose there, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Holy Sepulchre Cemetery (New Rochelle, New York) doncram (talk) 04:39, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Further, for the record, Orlady has elsewhere made claims that "Jvolkblum" (which is really perhaps several different persons caught up in one mess, only one of which has been banned) is entirely fabricating material, and then Orlady was proven wrong. Further, Orlady acknowledges the topic is notable: "If someone is willing to take responsibility for verifying the article and rendering it in their own words, that's fine, ....". I think Orlady's point is that she doesn't want to be the person monitoring this article for accuracy. The solution for that is for Orlady to drop it from her watchlist, not to try to force other editors to waste time with an inappropriate AFD. I say it is not necessary for anyone to revise the article in response to this AFD. Following logic similar to Orlady's, perhaps it is best not to cater to the unreasonable demands of Orlady, who may just want the article improved, but instead raised an inappropriate AFD. doncram (talk) 17:45, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- KEEP -
- The island is geographic landform of New York state, falling under several sub-categories including Island of New York and
Long Island Sound. Numerous articles about minor U.S. islands exist that have never been challenged for notability. Some examples include: Davis Island (Connecticut), Conspiracy Island, Griffen Island (West Virginia), Rabbit Island (Rhode Island)
- The island is recognized as a 'New York physical, cultural and historic feature' by US Board on Geographic Names (BGN) Geographic Names Information System (UGIS) Neptune Island.
- The island's history dates back several hundred years. (Examples):
- It was the site of "The Neptune House" which was a popular summer resort during the mid-1800's. (The firm Currier & Ives produced a print of the hotel.)
- The US Government operated ferry service to & from Fort Slocum (on nearby Davids' Island) was run from Neptune Island.
- Chain-ferries and ferries to Glen Island Park operated from docks on Neptune Island.
- The bridge/roadway connecting Glen Island County Park to the mainland crosses the western portion of Neptune Island.
- Present day uses of the island:
- Home to the Huguenot Yacht club (historic/ influential boating organization)
- It is the location of the city park Neptune Park —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.191.221.194 (talk) 05:16, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per nom. The nom's description of the process of the editing actually confirms the notability of the topic. Believing that an article of a notable topic should be deleted because of faults of the creator and main editors is very ad hominem.--Oakshade (talk) 05:18, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
SpeedydeleteG7. The points made above are very cogent, but I think as an overriding principle, we can't condone blocked socks of banned users even when they appear to be making constructive edits. No prejudice against an editor in good standing re-creating this article with different content, of course.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 11:06, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've stricken the "Speedy" part of my comment accordingly. My position remains as stated.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 12:12, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- delete per nom and S Marshall. Any attempt to verify the content through legitimate references would inevitably involve effective recreation of the entire content from scratch. As it stands, the article is entirely unreliable. AngoraFish 木 11:34, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've read through the listed references and found a few points mentioned in the article, but *most* of the article can not be considered sourced. I find it interesting that it does not mention that it's not even considered an island [46] anymore, having been connected by a causeway and bridge so that recent mentions of it are entirely about "Neptune Park". I looked for other references for "Neptune Island" and found either the aforementioned listed references or other locations. I'm not quite sure what to make of the effort behind this article. If it's true, based on original research, I wish they would write a book. If it's a mix of true and false stories, why put so much time into it? Should it be deleted? I think it should be tagged, and most of the article moved to the talk page. dm (talk) 14:16, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I found this reference could apply to the entire matter, especially the title and the last sentence. dm (talk) 18:59, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Procedural delete as coming from a banned user. This is what the banning discussion was all about and if we wanted to accept articles from that author we wouldn't have banned him. ThemFromSpace 15:41, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- An article on a notable topic that happened to be created by a banned user is not grounds for deletion. WP:NOTABILITY makes absolutely no mention of articles created by editors that Wikipedia doesn't like as it is totally off topic.--Oakshade (talk) 16:05, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- In which case most of the article should be removed. The references do not support most of the text. dm (talk) 16:33, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No. The references do appear to support the text. As for the other text - "The island is located in the city's Lower Harbor and is situated between Davenport's Neck, Glen Island and Travers Island" for example - it's all verifiable. If it was required to delete all text that doesn't have a citation tag next to it then about 90% of all Wikipedia content would be deleted. Only contentious or controversial material that currently doesn't have a citation "should be deleted."--Oakshade (talk) 22:50, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- In which case most of the article should be removed. The references do not support most of the text. dm (talk) 16:33, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete (G5) as an article created by a banned user. The banning policy is clear on this—this person is not welcome here.It does not and should not trump notability.Notability does not and should not trump this important policy. MuZemike 00:46, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]Let me clarify in regards to WP:BAN. Nearly all the content in the article was created by said banned editor. All other edits seem to be minor (i.e. not to be confused with "minor edit") compared to the first three edits in that article. Hence, I think this falls under the spirit of the banning policy and G5 as a result. MuZemike 00:56, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Here is an instance where our banning policy prevents the improvement of the encyclopedia, and therefore a suitable case for IAR. Very few banned editors actually continue to evade the ban by making good contributions; normally, a key reason for excluding them is that their contributions are quite likely to be dubious. This is different--there is a possibility that some additional sources might be needed, but the article is as well sourced and otherwise adequate as 99% of our local articles. Will this encourage the return of banned editors generally--I do not think so , as this is a special situation. We may need to discuss elsewhere how to deal with this particular individual. DGG (talk) 04:16, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply of Oakshade and DGG: The sources (which match everything I was able to find easily) do not cover most of the text as written. I'm an inclusionist, but as I found with the Thomas Paine Cottage when I rewrote it from scratch, leaving the pre-existing version in place was disingenuous, it almost seemed like the banned editor was enjoying creating content to prove their point that Wikipedia isnt accurate. I'm fine with having an article for Neptune Park. It's not really an island anymore. But it will be a very small article without most of the current text. If this editor wanted to really contribute in a healthy way, they would keep the article text to what can be sourced and they would not try to own the articles. In fact, the best way for them to move forward would to find some *other* area in wikipedia to help out in for a while. dm (talk) 00:59, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There's nothing wrong with a "very small article" on a notable topic. It just means it would be a valid stub. That's what stub notices are for.--Oakshade (talk) 06:27, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you feel that this is relevant?—S Marshall Talk/Cont 10:57, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Contrary to the assertions that the sources in this article "appear" to support the text, I find that long passages are unsourced and there is little correlation between specific statements in the article and the sources cited to support those statements. Unfortunately, this has been typical of my experience with "Jvolkblum" socks. In this experience, the article content often is interesting, appears plausibly true, and is sprinkled with reference callouts. Upon examination, though, the references cited don't actually support the specific information to which they are attached. Sometimes in my research into articles such as this one, I've finally come upon the work from which the article was copied verbatim -- except for the addition of reference callouts to other works, sprinkled semi-randomly through the text. Because the affected articles have mostly been deleted, it is difficult for me to provide examples. Suffice it to say that the "Jvolkblum" socks are masters at introducing carefully disguised copvios into Wikipedia, and this article is similar in many respects to some other articles that ultimately were determined to be copyvios. --Orlady (talk) 18:15, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 02:10, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep unless material included is shown to be inaccurate, not merely unsourced. Being unsourced is not grounds for deleting an article. While being created by a sock of a banned user is, this article appears to have been a good-faith effort to produce a useful article. I'm not an expert on this subject area, so I can't be certain of the accuracy of the article, but it all appears reasonable to me. If somebody highlights more than trivial inaccuracies in the article, please consider my !vote changed to delete. JulesH (talk) 08:46, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep as per JulesH above. If the article were better sourced and shown to be accurate there seems no reason to delete just because a banned sockpuppet has written it. Ban sockpuppet again is a better solution. Some separation should be made between punishing users breaking the rules and the interests of a comprehensive WP. --Moloch09 (talk) 11:07, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The user who created the sockpuppet that created this article is still banned, but the user is agressive in evading the ban, including creating myriad sockpuppet accounts and editing from open proxies. The sockpuppet accounts, open proxies, etc., are blocked on a regular basis, but generally only after new content has been created. Effective enforcement of a Wikipedia community ban necessitates removal of the content added by banned users. Insisting that the banned user's contributions be treated as if they were good faith contributions only abets this banned user in his/her apparent goal of disrupting Wikipedia. --Orlady (talk) 14:00, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep but stubify As someone who has occasionally observed the Jvolkblum mess and disputes resulting from the same, I'm deeply suspicious of anything written by him/her, and even the significant possibility of it being him/her writing is enough for me to become quite dubious. Therefore, I believe it best to remove all content that can't precisely be sourced, without using {{fact}} and similar templates. However, nobody claims that this doesn't exist, and it's doubtless a notable topic. For that reason, it shouldn't be at all hard to write at least a good stub; and if we simply remove problematic content, rather than deleting and recreating, an honest user will be able to restore the good parts that have been removed. Nyttend (talk) 13:36, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Everyone who has contributed to this article is free to edit the article to remove the content that is unsourced and/or unencyclopedic. However, it is not clear that this 2-acre tract of land (my estimate; the land area is not given in the article and I have not found any source that documents it) that formerly was an island is "doubtless a notable topic." --Orlady (talk) 14:00, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - IAR case - the article is good. The reason for which G5 exists is because banned users tend to post dubious material which should be removed in a speedy fashion - this is an exception to that. From WP:BAN:
“ | This does not mean that obviously helpful edits (such as fixing typos or undoing vandalism) must be reverted just because they were made by a banned user[...] | ” |
- Delete, then recreate as stub. Clearly the topic is notable, and Wikipedia probably ought have an article here. However, this is not just a banned user, but a user banned for subtle copyright violation and falsification of facts. In this case, being unsourced -- or sourced to questionable or unavailable material -- has the presumption of inaccuracy. Could all the details be checked out and proper sourcing done? Yes, with the same amount of work it takes to build an article de novo. Serpent's Choice (talk) 16:01, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As Serpent says:
Delete and recreate as astub. All our policies and guidelines are subordinate to the idea that anything we include must do more good than harm to the project. How much harm will it do to have a stub instead of a full article? Not much. How much harm will it do if the imbecile who created it goes and writes an op-ed on how inaccurate Wikipedia is, using this as his prime example? Far more. yandman 16:15, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply] DeleteKeep (see comment below this one) it can always be recreated as a stub. Normally, I'd say that editing problems don't need to be solved with deletion, but this is a special case. Burn it to the ground and start over with information that is entirely sourced. I don't have any faith that the article is a sincere effort to get at the truth. Destroying it helps the encyclopedia directly by removing what may well be lies, and indirectly by sending a message that sophisticated trolling will come to nothing. -- Noroton (talk) 17:22, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or stubbify. If i understand the problem, it's a banned user whose often created hoax articles and hoax information that seems plausible? And allowing this to stand as is might encourage them to continue socking and, likely, start creating hoaxes again? And this is a long article to start with that's difficult to assess (because there's a lot of info). Given the record of the banned user, there is no trust or good faith to assume. Strip it down to "Neptune is an island in the Long Island sound" and have a responsible editor start over.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:28, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Hoax accusation is misleading, there are no hoax articles that i am aware of. There is a current discussion at wp:an about the banned user and other users caught up in the mess. A major point there is that there are more than one different persons tarred with the same brush. I am aware of an accusation or two by Orlady that some material was fabricated, one of which was tracked down and shown to be false (the source existed, the quote was exact). I am not aware of any hoax articles. If you are, please share. doncram (talk) 17:50, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep. I opposed above, as the first response to the original deletion. Whatever the bad stuff in the article is, deleting the article destroys the continuous record here, and makes more work for us and for future editors not yet involved. The New Rochelle area editor(s) who put it in before have saved copies and stand ready to paste it in again, as they have before for this and other articles on New Rochelle area articles that have been deleted repeatedly. The New Rochelle area editors have been trained by long experience to understand that Wikipedia administration (broadly, meaning us), is unfair and mean-spirited, and that it is necessary to save copies, and to be persistent, in order to get suitable coverage of NR area topics that by everyone's admission are wikipedia-notable. I pretty much agree with them, that is a reasonable approach to take, given really nasty and unfair persecution. Some here would wish to punish them, to send a message by deleting the article. That message will not be received or understood; its only effect will be to make it harder for the rest of us to keep the bad stuff, whichever that is, out, in the future. Certainly it is fine for anyone to stubify the article, but this is an AfD process and the decision here is about whether to Keep or Delete. As the deletion nominator admits, the subject of the article is notable, and I argue that Keeping is far better. doncram (talk) 17:42, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The purpose of deletion (if the closing admin finds for it), is specifically to "destroy[] the continuous record". That's a feature, not a bug. Regardless of whether or not any one editor feels that a ban was rightfully enacted, the banning policy states that the content of editors evading a ban (as opposed to a simple, even indefinite, block) are not welcome here. That is doubly true for editors whose banning includes claims of source manipulation or plagiarism. Nor is the solution here to "save copies, and to be persistent". Deleted material is deleted material, and recreation of it is subject to speedy deletion on those grounds. I do not for a moment dispute that this topic is viable for Wikipedia. But the contribution of text that currently stands as an article on this topic is inherently tainted. You appear to feel passionately about this area of history, and likely have better access to sources than I do (this is way, way out of my field). You seem to be in a position to help write a replacement, properly sourced, and free of a banned editor's poisoned well. What's there now isn't worth arguing about. Serpent's Choice (talk) 18:24, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Doncram, if the only information in the article is sourced and confirmed, and the only information that goes into the article later is sourced and confirmed, won't everyone or just about everyone here be happy? If bali ultimate has done that, then most of my problems with it are removed, and I'm fine with keeping it. If someone is going to try to add back information that either isn't footnoted or, if footnoted, isn't confirmed by an editor in good standing, then we have a problem that AfD can't solve anyway. -- Noroton (talk) 20:33, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes. By the way, I'm really not interested in the topic of this article, not at all. What I want to preserve is the discussion of specific sources, so that future wikipedia editors know that Orlady or whoever found out specifically that a given source said, or did not say, whatever. Stuff like that should best argued out in the Talk page of the article, but it is also argued out in the edit history and edit summaries in the article itself. Deleting will lose the present edit history, edit summaries, and any Talk page discussion. It will not remove the material from the hands of any NR area editors who might wish to add it in again. The future regular wikipedia editors will have no way of knowing that specific material was already discussed, if the article is deleted. Like the present discussion is impoverished by our not having access to the edit history and Talk page discussion of the two or more previous versions of this article, that were deleted already. doncram (talk) 20:46, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- cmt if anyone's interested, I've brutally stubbified, and added in the fact that it appears to no longer be an island. I stripped out everything that wasn't clearly and accurately citable on line. I still think starting over is a better idea, given that you don't want to encourage this behavior (and the article was, as created, filled with unverifiable and confusing information.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:51, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Great. I think that this is a fine start. Your discussion of the sources in your edit summaries will prove invaluable in the future, too. Deleting and repasting in this new version would not encourage any good behavior or send any useful message, it would just lose useful information, in my view. So, I think we've reached the right outcome: the article has been reduced down to an acceptible stub. Orlady has effectively "won" by forcing other editors to do that. The NR editor(s) have "won" by having Orlady, me, and everyone else here agree that the topic is eminently notable. And future editors "win" by having record of the discussion and the specific discussion available to them. Yay, we have reached a WIN-WIN-WIN resolution. All that remains is for someone to close this discussion in favor of Keep. doncram (talk) 20:46, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll change to keep per IAR as well as article improvements by a non-banned editor. MuZemike 21:43, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was WP:SNOW Delete as probable hoax. Eluchil404 (talk) 06:52, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Super School[edit]
- The Super School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This was prodded as "Hoax. No such movie exists on IMDB." but the prod was removed by an IP. Nothing has changed, it still can't be verified that this film exists. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:03, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete at the very least it fails WP:NFF, and I do suspect a hoax as well. JJL (talk) 01:15, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: looks like a hoax, also a possible attack page re: Violet Darling". JamesBurns (talk) 01:45, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I couldn't find anything on Google related to a movie of any sort. Looks like a hoax. —LedgendGamer 03:21, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete unsourced, most likely a hoax. ♪Tempo di Valse ♪ 14:33, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Cunard (talk) 22:18, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete unverifiable & non-notable. Skier Dude (talk) 22:29, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
*Delete, non notable, crystal ball, original research. Deletion Mutation 17:47, 28 March 2009 (UTC) N.B. !vote of sockpuppet of blocked users struck through. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:55, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 00:25, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yanda Airlines[edit]
- Yanda Airlines (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
I can find no reference to this airline anywhere. There was an airline called Yanda Airlines some years ago, and it was an Australian airline with the IATA code of "YE". Doing a search it appears the article creator may have used original research from other sites, who are still linking "YE" to Yanda Airlines. There is no airline listed on the Mehrabad Airport website and searches of other databases (such as ICAO8585) show no such callsign existing. If we have Farsi speaking editors who can check sites such as [47], [48], [49], [50], etc to see if this could be another airline, but with a code of YE. Russavia Dialogue 00:36, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia Dialogue 00:37, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia Dialogue 00:37, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I really don't want to state my opinion as a delete right away but I am definitely leaning that way. I can find plenty of information about a "Yanda Airlines" in Australia that appears to be defunct but I can not find anything about this Iran carrier. But to help you the two digit code for Yanda might be ST per this link but I still am not sure. I will wait to see how this AFD progresses before going one way or another. -Marcusmax(speak) 00:47, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It's hard to vote keep if nobody can find proof of the existence of "Ye Olde Airlines" Mandsford (talk) 00:48, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment/Extremely weak keep not sure of the reliability of flightstats but this and this seem to show an operating flight and farecompare http://www.farecompare .com/ flights/Kish_Island-KIH/Bandar_Abbas-BND/market.html shows flight options. None of these are significant enough to build an article but at least appear to verify existence. We will probably need Farrsi language sources to find more. Sorry for the busted link, Farecompare is black listed but I'm familiar with the site and know it to be an aviation tool StarM 01:18, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I will be requesting that these be added to the blacklist, as they are not reliable. ST used to be the code for Yanda, then it was changed to YE. After they went bust the code was passed onto Norfolk Jet Express, and it looks like it has been passed onto another airline. Airline codes do get passed on when an airline goes bust, etc. For example, TE used to be TEAL, then Air New Zealand Domestic, then Lithuanian Airlines. TN used to be Trans Australia Airlines, then Australian Airlines, then Air Tahiti Nui. PA used to be Pan Am, then Florida Coastal Airlines. There may be an airline in Iran with the code "YE", but it most definitely is not "Yanda Airlines". Anyway, the existence of a code doesn't confer notability, multiple sources which discuss the article subject does, and this is sorely missing that. --Russavia Dialogue 02:39, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment not disagreeing with what you found re: Norfolk Jet Express, etc. but what I found was more than a code, THR Tehran YE 1222 Yanda Airlines 11:40 AM Scheduled TU5 a scheduled flight for 26 March 2009 so it appears unless flightstats is totally based on wrong information that there may be an operating flight. That said, I tried to back up the Kish flight from Tehran and could not. I'm an admin, but as I've already weighed in and am not sure if it's 100% confirmed this airline never existed, I'm not comfortable deleting yet. StarM 03:19, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Refer to Air Cambodia for an example. This type of rubbish is permitted to stay on WP, simply because there are sources out there, and it doesn't matter if the sources are wrong. I'm not having a go at you here, but rather the media, who couldn't tell Air China from China Airlines. You mentioned a flight on 26 March, here is the screenshot from OAG, which gives the name of the airline, along with its code. In the airline industry flights are referred to as YE1222, rather than Eram Airlines 1222. Bringing it back the flightstats website, OAG confirms that YJ belongs to AMC Airlines since 2008. Flightstats states that YJ belongs to "National Airlines" of South Africa; an airline which ceased operations in 2004; and along with this the logo belongs to National Airways Corporation, the domestic airline of New Zealand (and now part of Air New Zealand). The same thing is for code "NS" -- OAG correctly attributes this as belonging to "Northeastern Airlines" -- Flightstats states that it belongs to Caucasus Airlines; an airline which ceased operations 5 years ago. IATA codes are recycled as a matter of business, and this can cause some confusion, and it pisses me off more than you can imagine that we are allowing sites which are basically hobbyist site (Flightstats) to be used for inclusion of material into an encyclopaedia. Another example is Farecompare with this link for Selcon Airlines (unable to provide link due to it being on blacklist - to find go to website --> Travel Guide --> Airline Information --> S) which according to them has the code U9. Selcon did exist for a short time in Nigeria in 1993, but the U9 code has belonged for some time to Tatarstan Airlines; one can even see they use the Tatarstan logo, and provide all types of interesting factoids about this Selcon which according to them is based out of Kazan and Moscow. OAG on the other hand is a supplier to the industry itself, and it is required to have up-to-date information, unlike these other unprofessional "hobbyist" websites. --Russavia Dialogue 05:48, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment not disagreeing with what you found re: Norfolk Jet Express, etc. but what I found was more than a code, THR Tehran YE 1222 Yanda Airlines 11:40 AM Scheduled TU5 a scheduled flight for 26 March 2009 so it appears unless flightstats is totally based on wrong information that there may be an operating flight. That said, I tried to back up the Kish flight from Tehran and could not. I'm an admin, but as I've already weighed in and am not sure if it's 100% confirmed this airline never existed, I'm not comfortable deleting yet. StarM 03:19, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Here is a document from Qantas from 2002 which specifies what I stated above about Norfolk Jet Express. Someone who speaks Farsi and can do searches of the above sites and cao.ir (if they can even get it to load) is going to be needed. If nothing is found, it's not doing to do the project any harm in deleting an article which is incorrect. --Russavia Dialogue 02:45, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- And it gets somewhat worse if one were to trust farecompare. As per http://www.farecompare. com/flights/Norfolk_Jet-YE/Tehran_Mehrabad_International-THR/Bandar_Abbas_Airport-BND/schedule.html there is a flight operated from Tehran to Bandar Abbas; flight YE 1217, which is operated by Norfolk Jet, but with a Yanda Airlines logo. Whilst farecompare is blacklisted, and rightly so, it may be worth listing flightstats.com also. Looking at the link report, I see it is linked at Dashoguz Airport, the link of which states there are no flights from Dashoguz, whilst there are flights with Turkmenistan Airlines; they say there are no flights as T5 isn't loaded into the GRS. This is then quite possibly another candidate for a blacklist? --Russavia Dialogue 06:24, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The company with the code "YE" is Eram Air as per [51] and [52] (that link likely will not work without a login). So can an admin delete this article (no redirect, as there was a Yanda Airlines in Australia which was notable). --Russavia Dialogue 03:06, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Per nominator's thorough investigation and lack of evidence of existence which makes notablity tough to establish. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:57, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for re-opening as I said above, it was a very weak keep, but I think more time is needed to look into the sources. I'm not saying you're wrong, you know a hell of a lot about airlines and the industry, I'm just saying more time wouldn't hurt in case there's information out there that we haven't found. Worse comes to worse, you're right and it closes as delete. I don't think anyone's going to allow the article to remain if there aren't reliable sources to establish existence and hopefully notability, and maybe Air Cambodia needs to go to, I haven't looked. I certainly wouldn't want it to remain if we can't find anything - I just want time to look for it. There was no reason to close early. I'll have a look to see what, if anything, I can find today. StarM 12:11, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - This very well appears to be a hoax, or at least an airline that never got off the ground and fell apart in the planning stages. I believe the Australian Airline of the same name deserves this space more than this seemingly non-existent airline. -Marcusmax(speak) 21:53, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as I suspect somebody got the codes mixed up and assumed that the Iranian airline was the Australian airline by mistake, also note that an IATA code can belong to more than one operator at the same time (but not in the same part of the world!). MilborneOne (talk) 19:56, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. MBisanz talk 23:52, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
$pread[edit]
- $pread (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
- Delete. Winning an award for "best new title" hardly confers notability. In fact, this magazine is not notable and lacks the requisite non-trivial coverage from reliable third party publications to suggest otherwise. JBsupreme (talk) 00:29, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, What is the nomination reason?Smallman12q (talk) 00:55, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- JBsupreme is the nominator. He disguised his rationale as the first "delete" !vote. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:51, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per lack of reliable third-party sources listed on page. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 11:44, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: per " non-trivial coverage from reliable third party publications". I added about of half a dozen such references, which were quickly reverted by User:Carl.bunderson here, along with the snappy comment "rv, these are not referenced, and ergo not references". As the user appears somewhat more experienced in edit wars than I am, I will not re add them. For the purpose of this discussion, please consider them. T L Miles (talk) 15:48, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Also this, a village voice interview/discussion of the magazine, which was also previously removed from the article. I also note the January 29 2009 AfD of this article made reference to a Washington Post article, which I can only assume was also removed. T L Miles (talk) 15:58, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- While I'm here, the Utne award is not for best new "title of a magazine", but the term "title" as in "publication". The award reads "...but sit down with an issue of this already controversial title and you'll realize..." So that would suggest notability. T L Miles (talk) 17:33, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Miles, it would have made considerable more sense for you to have added content, and sourced it with the sites you provided, rather than doing a half-assed job and adding "references" to the article. And please don't get the impression I'm a poor editor. If you had to deal with an incivil git such as Spin, you'd be sorely tempted to edit war with him as well. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 18:44, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No harm no foul! Wikipedia has a unique ability to get under the skin of the best of us -- myself included/especially. T L Miles (talk) 23:30, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for taking my response in stride! Have a good day :) carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 23:48, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: After rereading the guidelines (there are none as of yet for Magazines specifically), this magazine clearly has mentions which (according to the definition at WP:GNG) are not trivial (single sentence in book, listing of opening times, an event listing) and fall within ""Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive". The publications in question: Utne Reader, Village Voice Time Out, San Francisco Chronicle, New York Press, are third party and independent "Reliable sources". I also don't see any change since the last AfD a little more than a month ago that would make us believe the inherent notability had changed. T L Miles (talk) 17:47, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, per Miles. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 18:44, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Award winning ("best new title"), the VV article looks solid as do a few other sources. Meets WP:N. Hobit (talk) 18:24, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Plenty of sources. I also found a couple of more mentions in the Village Voice: ("Best Of" 2006 and "School for Johns") -- Shunpiker (talk) 03:51, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The notability is obvious, with the given sources. Wikipedia is not censored. Jwray (talk) 06:55, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to WXFT. MBisanz talk 23:52, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ryan Asselta[edit]
- Ryan Asselta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable local television presenter. Little or no mention in reliable third-party sources (though several mentions in the context of his job). Majorclanger (talk) 22:47, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a fair complaint. He is a public figure in the city of Boston. The only references I was able to find were that of FOX25. However, I was able to find a third party reference. See page.User:Pride09 —Preceding undated comment added 23:22, 24 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]
- Restore redirect to WXFT, for which he works. Note that this would match Ryan asselta. Quantumobserver (talk) 03:18, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:20, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to WXFT; the person himself is not notable. ♪Tempo di Valse ♪ 03:16, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:06, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:06, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:07, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. MBisanz talk 08:31, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Shovelglove[edit]
- Shovelglove (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Not much of a case for notability here. A dead link to a mention in a radio show's archive, a blog, and a self-published book by the "inventor". I also found a one-sentence mention in the Guardian, but nothing of any significance. Originally deleted for lack of notability back in 2007, I think this has been given plenty of time to improve but still hasn't done so. I tried to improve the references but couldn't find anything better. Short of that, I think it fails to make its case. Kafziel Complaint Department 21:13, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete attempt to advertise a rather ridiculous self-published book. Could possibly be speedied either as G4/re-creation or as G11/spam. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:36, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above LetsdrinkTea 22:07, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep – I think there is minimal notability there. See NY Times blog review, SFF net article. MuZemike 00:06, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I mentioned that NYT blog (and it's linked to in the article) but blogs don't generally establish notability. I'm certainly not saying it doesn't exist, just that it's not notable outside a handful of blogs. Kafziel Complaint Department 04:45, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:20, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The blog doesn't have to establish notability. It has to reliable and non-trivial. It might've been written in a blog format, but the writer is an author and journalist related to the NY Times which means there's nothing wrong with the blog's reliability. - Mgm|(talk) 12:31, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - No apparent notability, spam, and Wikipedia is not a how-to guide for exercises, especially ones involving poorly-controlled sledgehammers. (The '14 minutes' bit is especially
preciouspointless.) AlexTiefling (talk) 14:30, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply] - Keep. While I generally frown on blogs as sources, blogs should certainly be acceptable if they are independent of the source, reliable, and professionally edited. Freakonomics in the NY Times definitely meets those qualifications, and I'm fairly certain that Lifehacker does.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:10, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. –Juliancolton Talk · Review 00:03, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
D-Fence TurretZ[edit]
- D-Fence TurretZ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Declined prod. The declining admin claimed some marginal notability, but without elaborating. References in the article do not help, and this Google search returns nothing substantial. Delete. Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 20:04, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Game Maker is software with which anyone could make a rudimentary game in a few minutes. Needless to say, these will tend not to be notable. This one in particular gets 12 Google hits, mostly forums directly proting the game, zero reliable sources. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:49, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete zero reliable sources found after further searching. Not notable. AngoraFish 木 21:07, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 09:04, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
December EP[edit]
- December EP (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
article on ep with no coverage in independant reliable souces, Duffbeerforme (talk) 19:03, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —--Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord2 19:24, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete: Nothing notable about this at all. Refs are blogs, a promo and a fansite, all failing WP:RS. Zero Gnews hits. Toddst1 (talk) 01:29, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: insufficient 3rd party coverage WP:NALBUMS. JamesBurns (talk) 05:33, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No one seems to understand that this is the bands official (and hopefully temporary) website. Though a blog, it is still a valid source of information. Also, I've added (and another person) more links from other sites, providing validity to coverage. I shall continue to provide more until my point that it is a very young EP and still needs time for more reviews to surface, as well as prove its notability. —Preceding unsigned comment added by EOA3928 (talk • contribs) 17:47, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:19, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - no reliable independent sources. A-Kartoffel (talk) 07:16, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails WP:NALBUMS. Even if the article was sourced reliably, without charting or garnering significant media coverage, it will remain non-notable. TheJazzDalek (talk) 19:33, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Because I'm fighting a losing battle, and can't possibly sway anyone. EOA3928 (talk) 22:21, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
*Delete per above. Non notable. Deletion Mutation 16:16, 28 March 2009 (UTC) N.B. !vote of sockpuppet of blocked user struck through. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:42, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 23:52, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hai-Nyzhnyk Pavlo[edit]
- Hai-Nyzhnyk Pavlo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Appears to fail WP:AUTO and WP:BIO. All iwiki was created by one user, article in ruwiki was nominated for deletion and, i think, will be deleted. UPD 22:28, 21 March 2009 (UTC): article in ruwiki was deleted afted dicussion. Track13 (talk) 13:39, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:00, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No substantial coverage in reliable sources. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:28, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Is this a reliable source? This web page for Hai-Nyzhnyk lists it as a part of a series of biographies of Ukrainian histories, and it has about a page of information on Hai-Nyzhnyk. But it's in Ukrainian and translate.google.com is giving me garbage when I try to read it, so I don't know what's really in it or how reliable it should be considered. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:16, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You can ask for translation someone from following users: ru:User:DR, ru:User:EvgenyGenkin. They knows English and Ukrainian very well. I can read on Ukrainian (I'm from Belarus), and i don't see significant differences between facts in sources and the text of article. Track13 (talk) 22:28, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:19, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom If this article was new, i'd give it some time, but there appears to be no real claims to notability. Spinach Monster (talk) 01:51, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. MBisanz talk 09:04, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Amer Begović[edit]
- Amer Begović (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
not sure he meets notability standards Skitzo's Answer Machine 11:18, 21 March 2009 (UTC) Answer Machine 11:18, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, provided reliable sources are provided. WP:ATH states athletes are notable if they "have competed at the fully professional level of a sport", which appears to be the case. However, there is no reliable source to confirm this. I42 (talk) 11:37, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. GiantSnowman 03:09, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - a website dedicated to football in the former Yugoslavia reports a person named Amir Begović as playing for FK Leotar over three seasons in the Yugoslav Second League. In my experience, the data at this website is reliable and is based on the Yugoslav football almanacs published during this period. My only concern is that the article is about a person name Amer Begović. Does anyone know if they are the same person? Jogurney (talk) 04:47, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:18, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep. With regards to the question asked by Jogurney about whether the player mentioned on his website is the same person in this article or not, it's plausible as the two spellings of his are interchangable, and the Canadian forum quoted in the article uses the alternative Amir spelling. The info contained in that report also seems to tallys with the Zerodic website and states he played at a professional level, so I would say he passes WP:ATHLETE. Bettia (bring on the trumpets!) 11:25, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as it appears that Amer Begović is the Amir Begović who played in the Yugoslav Second League for FK Leotar. Jogurney (talk) 12:28, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep looks to pass WP:ATHLETE. GiantSnowman 14:51, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. MBisanz talk 23:52, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Operator generator[edit]
- Operator generator (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable band. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 18:30, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete I found a couple reviews but no substantial coverage. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 18:55, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: trivial 3rd party coverage. JamesBurns (talk) 03:27, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:07, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —--Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord2 14:29, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - [53] [54] [55]... --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord2 14:52, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep 2 more short reviews to add to HexaChords links [56] [57] (the second is
GermanGreece, showing international interest). Also Tom Choi was a member of the apparently notable (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Asbestosdeath) Asbestosdeath (who became Sleep. Duffbeerforme (talk) 15:51, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Another of Choi's bands may also be notable. Noothgrush released an album through Throne Records and another through Slap-a-Ham Records and a quick search finds multiple reviews. Duffbeerforme (talk) 16:11, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:18, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- [58] a little bit more. Duffbeerforme (talk) 19:19, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
*Weak delete and rewrite, they may be notable enough, but the article is a pure mess and lacking any sources. Deletion Mutation 17:16, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Blocked sockpuppet. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 20:29, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete. Nick-D (talk) 08:10, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Lay Investures, Concordat of Worms,Simony and Priest Celibacy[edit]
- Lay Investures, Concordat of Worms,Simony and Priest Celibacy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
No context, no references, unable to categorize BoomerAB (talk) 16:40, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not really sure what the author was going for here, but Simony, which the text is about, already has a real article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:59, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Andrew Lenahan. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:48, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton Talk · Review 00:06, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I am in agreement with Mr. Lenahan. Pastor Theo (talk) 04:10, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I can't even tell what this is but it looks like the beginnings of personal essay to me, or just patent nonsense. 07:34, 26 March 2009 (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. MBisanz talk 23:51, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Gobi marathon[edit]
- Gobi marathon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Deprodded on the grounds that it is mentioned in the Lonely Planet guide to Mongolia here. However, this is just an index listing that suggests no more than a passing mention in the main text, and there is no substantial coverage to be found. Delete. Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 19:49, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete no evidence of notability LetsdrinkTea 22:10, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect It seems to be an alternative name for Gobi March, which is already a part of the 4 Deserts article. Sources for it's notability easy to find, if using the name Gobi March: [59][60][61] in a couple of minutes of searching. Just seems to be the case of somebody creating a misnamed article. Dendlai (talk) 00:12, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure ... the Gobi March seems to be a 6 day thing, but the website about the Marathon only talks about marathon and half-marathon (http://www.gobimarathon.com/ ).It could be that "Gobi Marathon" is used in both senses, to complicate matters. PamD (talk) 00:29, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton Talk · Review 00:03, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mongolia-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:54, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:54, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep or "nomination withdrawn", take your pick (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:53, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Danielle Eubank[edit]
- Danielle Eubank (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
No assertion of notability, fails WP:Creative. Apparently an autobiography. Petropoxy (Lithoderm Proxy) (talk) 22:07, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed to Keep. I might open a separate afd on Fletcher Beasley. Petropoxy (Lithoderm Proxy) (talk) 02:49, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. —Petropoxy (Lithoderm Proxy) (talk) 22:11, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep A gallery in LA, a gallery in London, lots of google hits, various exhibitions, seems fine to me..the article needs work but she seems encyclopedic, interesting and notable to me...Modernist (talk) 02:44, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I suppose I would be more amenable to keeping the article if it weren't so obviously an autobiography. Yourartresource's only contributions have been to this article and the article on her perhaps even less notable husband Fletcher Beasley. Petropoxy (Lithoderm Proxy) (talk) 03:29, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep Not a major artist, but a write up in the LA Times [62] and probably more sources out there. The tone is promotional, but that's not a reason to delete.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 23:02, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton Talk · Review 00:02, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 23:52, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Peyami Gurel[edit]
- Peyami Gurel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Fails WP:Creative. No significant coverage in 3rd party sources, perhaps an autobiography. Petropoxy (Lithoderm Proxy) (talk) 22:08, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. —Petropoxy (Lithoderm Proxy) (talk) 22:11, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not notable.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 23:11, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete nn...Modernist (talk) 20:09, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton Talk · Review 00:02, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment We may be dealing with cross-wiki self promotion in this case, as the French version is mainly the work of two single-purpose accounts Serda and Temurah, the account BahadirMurat on the German Wiki, and Temurah again on the Turkish wiki, all within the last month or so. It seems that they are all translations of the article on the Turkish wiki, which might have originally been a copyright violation, from what I can gather by online translations:[63], the entry by User:Temurah reads approx. "Why delete the entry on Peyami Gürel? This is about how we need to follow a procedure. In his biography by my own site. I cannot think of a better way do it. His knowledge and permission to have it .... Where do I apply for this?" Petropoxy (Lithoderm Proxy) (talk) 02:38, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 09:04, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mieczysław Mietko Rudek[edit]
- Mieczysław Mietko Rudek (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
No assertion of Notability, fails WP:Creative. Definitely an autobiography, as the major contributor User:Mietko admits on his user page to being identical with the subject. Petropoxy (Lithoderm Proxy) (talk) 22:20, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. —Petropoxy (Lithoderm Proxy) (talk) 22:22, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not notable. The article used as a reference isn't about the artist.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 23:17, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete nn... Modernist (talk) 20:08, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton Talk · Review 00:01, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nomination. Hekerui (talk) 02:06, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. not notable and no references as pointed out by Ethicoaestheticist. Artypants, Babble 14:38, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 23:52, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Blackmarket EP[edit]
- The Blackmarket EP (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
ep with no real indication of notability, no coverage in reliabe sources. prod removed by pointy editor Duffbeerforme (talk) 22:50, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —--Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord2 22:56, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, article fails to establish notability per WP:MUSIC#Albums. Esradekan Gibb "Talk" 00:58, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: non-notable non-charting EP. JamesBurns (talk) 05:02, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton Talk · Review 00:00, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
*Delete per nom. Deletion Mutation 17:39, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Blocked sockpuppet. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 20:30, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 23:51, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Brownshirt tactics[edit]
- Brownshirt tactics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
I originally proposed the deletion of this page; it was deleted and subsequently re-created by the original author. My concerns remain largely the same as they were then:
- the article is poorly referenced (one of the four references is tangential and the other three simply refer to uses of the term).
- there does not appear to be an accepted definition of what actions constitute "brownshirt tactics". There are few similarities between the tactics mentioned above; it appears to be simply a colorful political pejorative rather than a scholarly term.
- the definition as currently given in the article does not appear to be accurate. The article claims that "the link between the message and the one benefiting from the action must not be revealed," which strikes me as being 100% nonsense in describing the original brownshirts, who do not seem to have gone to great pains to conceal their association with the Nazi Party.
Basically, the article is not useful as currently constituted, and I don't see evidence of scholarly sources that would let us write a good article about "brownshirt tactics". Delete or redirect to Sturmabteilung. Choess (talk) 23:41, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. —94.196.22.232 (talk) 12:28, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. The definition used in this article is insufficiently sourced. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:03, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If this is just a re-creation from a previous deletion, then isn't this a speedy delete G4? And a suggestion to Lindorm to userfy it if they want to improve it so it doesn't get deleted again? --Grev (talk) 02:37, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It's a recreation of an article that was deleted via proposed deletion, not AFD. CSD G4 doesn't apply to these. AAMOF it would have been undeleted on the request of the original author or anybody else. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:37, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, seems to be written mostly to express the author's opinion. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. JIP | Talk 08:12, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: non-notable -- no non-trivial coverage of the term, no sources covering the actual tactics of the Sturmabteilung. The article is simply WP:OR combined with citations of the use of the phrase. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 16:19, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Sturmabteilung. Plausible search term via its use as metaphor. Also, redirects are cheap. Serpent's Choice (talk) 20:30, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If there is no interest in improving the article then by all means delete it. At least time there has been a debate, last time it was just deleted without it (as far as I know). Redirecting to Sturmabteiling and including a paragraph there seems to me the best choice then.--Lindorm (talk) 20:00, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 23:51, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Modelio[edit]
- Modelio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
I cannot find any news references to the software. The only thing I've found is a short release at http://www.programmez.com/actualites.php?titre_actu=Modeliosoft-sort-un-nouvel-outil-de-modelisation--Modelio&id_actu=4595 and it is in French. The translation is little more than an announcement. If there are other sources I don't know about, please indicate them here. Something this new that has generated enough of a following to be notable should be easy to find. Shadowjams (talk) 19:25, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 03:10, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete. Like Shadowjams, the only thing I found is the article at Programmez. I'm not quite as convinced it's a straight press release (Frédéric Mazué's French Wikipedia user page says he's the editor of the magazine and before that a freelance journalist, where press releases don't usually have a byline), it's just not enough on its own for notability. The software's only been out for three months - no prejudice against recreation in the future if the software becomes notable.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:05, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Tone 20:37, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
MUST University[edit]
- MUST University (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Unnotable non-accredited "university."[64] Delete article and maybe add name to List of unaccredited institutions of higher learning. BBiiis08 (talk) 18:24, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete for lack of reliable sources. The news articles I can find with the phrase "must University" in them are not about this organization. Possible db-org speedy deletion candidate. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:50, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No sign of meeting WP:ORG Nick-D (talk) 08:11, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I certainly can't find any references in RS. - Jarry1250 (t, c) 11:43, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per wp:v. -- Jeandré, 2009-03-26t11:55z
- Delete Accredited schools are considered inherently notable; but are unaccredited ones? If not, this could be speedied as A7. Nyttend (talk) 13:38, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete: A7 & possibly A1. No indication of what this "online university" comprises of, or even if it exists. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 16:22, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 09:03, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Giuseppe Mitri[edit]
- Giuseppe Mitri (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Academic with no indication of meeting WP:ACADEMIC. Speedy request declined on the basis that he has an "interesting discovery", (though article makes no explicit claim as to the discovery's importance; and I'm not sure "could be a sign of" qualifies as a discovery) so AFD. Rd232 talk 13:25, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Does not meet inclusion guidelines or indicate basis for notability. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:17, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:42, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:59, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: no third-party sourcing and no articulation of notability. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 16:27, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Passes neither WP:PROF nor WP:BIO. Productive researcher, who may become notable in the future, but whose current modest citation impact is not enough to justify inclusion. The articles on Titan are fairly recent and have 25 or fewer citations to them on Google Scholar. Media coverage is also fairly modest at the moment.--Eric Yurken (talk) 01:02, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 09:03, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tina K.[edit]
- Tina K. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
I don't see that this singer meets WP:MUSICBIO. The article currently has no sources or incoming links, and the four different names she's recorded under make finding sources difficult. Dori (Talk • Contribs) 00:04, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:59, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No good sources = nonnotability. Nyttend (talk) 13:39, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 03:10, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. BLP of a marginally notable subject, limited chance of a well-referenced and maintained article until greater notability is established. Avruch T 17:16, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:09, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Happiness via Optimal Challenge[edit]
- Happiness via Optimal Challenge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Article seems to be promoting the idea. I originally speedied this as {{db-spam}}, however following a request I'm listing it here to obtain more views. PhilKnight (talk) 20:57, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete as blatant spam. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:58, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete seems to be an advert, little if any encyclopedic value, also fails WP:NOR. ♪Tempo di Valse ♪ 22:03, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Article is impossible to follow, fails at WP:NOTE, is missing images that the article mentions, and possibly breaks WP:SPAM. The Earwig (User | Talk | Contributions) 21:10, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Invalidated as part of a WP:POINT move, see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Disruptive AfDing by user Juvenile Deletionist. Hiding T 19:38, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Fly (Dave Matthews song)[edit]
Notability, if any, not yet established. Probably useless junk. Juvenile Deletionist 19:26, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
- Delete I created this article myself a while ago because the song had just been released and I hoped that it would become more notable, but it doesn't seem that way so I fully support a deletion. –Dream out loud (talk) 04:36, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Since the nominator has been blocked for disruptive AfDing (see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Disruptive AfDing by user Juvenile Deletionist), the AfD tag was removed by an admin and not deemed prod-worthy, I am going to close this discussion. –Dream out loud (talk) 13:56, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.