The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This is just an article about a radio show that is not very known. Sounds as an advertisement. Damiens.rf 23:22, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable, no sources, advert.Renee (talk) 23:41, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak keep I would think that an "internationally syndicated" show might possibly be notable if verified. The generic title makes it hard to search for sources though. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 23:42, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep as it is "internationally syndicated", verified with this search, but appears to have very little third-party press coverage. Paul Erik(talk)(contribs) 23:55, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Sources definitely serve for verifiability and an internationally syndicated show on hundreds of stations around the world is certainly notable. I do wish this was better sourced. - Dravecky (talk) 05:16, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A verifiable widely syndicated show like this must be notable. However I must say that a sentence like "it is also heard in seven Canadian provinces and six foreign countries" really makes me cringe. Not all readers are are in North America. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:44, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Week Keep. There are a lot of garbage articles about non-notable, local only radio shows on Wikipedia, this isn't one of them. It's syndicated which certainly helps it's case, are there any more verifable sources for this article than the link above? --Rtphokie (talk) 03:10, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 21:56, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Prod of "No assertion of notability. Looks like a non-notable instant messenger program." removed with comment "I don't believe that this article should be deleted as this instant messenger will soon be released to the general public and will be updated on a regular basis" by User:Trebor678. Ricky81682 (talk) 23:17, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment was speedied before and the text looks substantially the same. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:19, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If A-Talk was to be released, would this article then be able to stay on Wikipedia? 11:49, 11 April 2008 (BST) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trebor678 (talk • contribs)
If it was reported in WP:Reliable sources to assert its notability, then almost certainly yes. Until then, I concur with a Delete vote. ~ mazcatalk 18:35, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
"
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Deleted (non-admin closure), Speedied by Discospinster. Bfigura(talk) 00:42, 11 April 2008 (UTC)"[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Article needs a better structure, but consensus is that notability guidelines are met.--Kubigula(talk) 17:31, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the reference for When Nothing Else Matters by Michael Leahy.
[1]
You can also find information about it on Simon and Schuster's website [1]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Goodtimesroll8 (talk • contribs) 23:14, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Already appears on Leahy website, where it should be. Renee (talk) 23:43, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- I cleaned it up a bit. No position on whether to delete. Bearian (talk) 00:26, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The GQ mention goes a way to proving this meets the notability guidelines for books, but as just a single independent mention doesn't quite go all the way. If a couple more reviews are found before the AfD closes, then it'll be a keeper for me. —Quasirandom (talk) 23:07, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There seems to have been a significant amount of review coverage of this book from large papers. I'm assuming the quoted articles are full reviews, rather than blurbs. The article needs to be cleaned up and turned into an article instead of a list of review blurbs, but it seems like the material might be there. --Clay Collier (talk) 05:14, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The NYT review is sufficient to show notability. I am mpt entirely sure which of the others were significant reviews, as they are not exactly cited, but that one is.DGG (talk) 23:45, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 unanimity of respondents (non-admin closure). Skomorokh 23:52, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article is no more than just an advertisement for a recent (2008!) non-notable book (by a on-notable author). We shouldn't allow this kind of articles on Wikipedia. Damiens.rf 22:59, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. What a nice PR write-up. Renee (talk) 23:44, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The two sources now in the article are from pretty weak newspapers (small city papers, Savannah, Lexington). But, I just found several more from mainstream presses with good vetting and fact-checking procedures. Renee (talk) 01:13, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There are several academic articles and talks on the study references in the book, see this. Very noteworthy study and book.Renee (talk) 01:31, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added book reviews that appeared in two U.S. newspapers. The book is published by HarperCollins, a well-known book publishing company. --Eastmain (talk) 00:30, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per sources found, and note that for a new article, tagging with {{unref}} would be preferable to give it a chance for improvement rather than taking it straight to AFD. -- Whpq (talk) 13:10, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: To become less of an advertisement and more like a real article, the article should focus on why is the book important (is it influential? polemical? expected?) and less in describing the book's contents. The current book analysis in the article is original research, since it's based on the book itself, and not on secondary sources. But still we have to determine which of the 5 criterion on Wikipedia:Notability (books) apply to this book ( "1" is borderline). --Damiens.rf 20:06, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Meets WP:BK 1. Could use some cleanup for tone, but otherwise is a good stub. —Quasirandom (talk) 23:15, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete--Publication fails wikipedia's notability guidelines, as a simple google search will reveal. Stanley011 (talk) 22:17, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable, no secondary sources. Renee (talk) 23:46, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Blaxthos ( t / c ) 02:40, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. There is no way this article is going to get deleted, as the artist is extremely well known, although it does need some attention. Ty 10:19, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Biography of a living person with no references or assertion of notability. Sole external link seemingly is subject's own page. Hellno2 (talk) 22:21, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Note the post-nominal letters OBE and FRSA, which are generally indicators of notability, and his conservation activities. --Eastmain (talk) 23:11, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. There are two good references but when I read the article it seems like a chatty "here are my hobbies" letter. I did a Google news search for Dave Shepherd artist and got no hits (there are a lot of other Dave Shepherds. If more good sources can be provided, then I would change vote to keep.Renee (talk) 23:50, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. The added references establish notability. Renee (talk) 01:05, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Very strong keep. Notable artist, and if having an OBE isn't an assertion of notability, I'd like to know what would be. Perhaps founder of the David Shepherd Wildlife Foundation, also mentioned in the article? As for "difficult to do a google search, a quick google on "David Shepherd" (not "Dave")+art+africa turns up many relevant pages for this artist. Even if you just google "David Shepherd", five of the first ten hits are for this person. Grutness...wha? 00:44, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Not to everyone's taste, but hugely notable, which the article still does a very poor job of conveying. Johnbod (talk) 04:17, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Speedily deleted as a blatant hoax. Dlohcierekim 22:30, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete G3, so tagged. Clearly a blatant hoax; Google turns up bupkis, which is surprising for a supposed gov't agency. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 22:22, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Article has been improved during the discussion, and later comments are all to keep. Espresso Addict (talk) 14:53, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It was speedily deleted once, recreated, but kept after the second CSD tag was placed. There's very little notability here, and the fact that she was the daughter of X it doesn't automatically make her notable. I've waited on this for quite a while, but the article hasn't changed since the speedy, and I can't find much on her at all. PeterSymonds | talk 22:04, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. This kind of article could be useful to someone doing history research. I wonder if it can be merged somewhere? As it is there's no notability, not to mention no sources.Renee (talk) 23:52, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a genealogical database. PowersT 00:11, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete recreated content. Blaxthos ( t / c ) 02:40, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; this article is in need of cleanup more than deletion -- if it were tidy-looking no one would give this a second glance. We do keep near genealogical articles where notability is conferred by hereditary, as in royal houses, which is the case here. As for sources, I didn't find any in a quick search, but I also didn't have any of the paper sources to hand that one would really need to do this properly; the sources at Duke_of_Burgundy would probably be helpful. Perhaps the article can be referred to the royalty wikiproject for work... If with more thorough work nothing is found, then perhaps deletion is in order. -- phoebe / (talk) 04:53, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I don't have access to sources to check whether this should stay or go, and don't question the nominator's right to bring this to AfD, but I must say that this is is one of the most ridiculous WP:CSD#A7 speedy deletion cases I have seen. Surely being remembered after 900 years is more of an indication of importance/significance than making a recording that scraped into the Billboard hot 100 (or whatever it's called) a few weeks ago? When administrators do things like this I can't accept that it's no big deal. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:32, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is anyone mentioned in a 900-year-old document notable? Or just nobility? PowersT 12:33, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't say that that makes anyone (nobility or not) automatically notable, which I why I haven't said "keep" here, but I would say that it's certainly enough of an indication of importance/significance to avoid speedy deletion. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:30, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've rewritten from a better source. The deciding factor, for me, is that she went to Outremer with her husband on his expedition to claim Tripoli. I think going on Crusade is enough to confer notability in this case. Choess (talk) 21:20, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. She's the mother of the wife of two English nobles and an ancestor of Elinor of Castile, the wife of Edward I, King of England, and therefore of the royal line descended from him. Bob (talk) 21:18, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree that anyone who's life history, dates and descent has been seen as being worth preserving for nearly a thousand years seems notable. phoebe's comments seem to indicate that there are additional sources that can be added, which is a good enough indication for me. --Clay Collier (talk) 07:38, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 21:54, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if this is a hoax or not, but Google is completely unaware that this person was in any of the movies listed. Rnb (talk) 21:44, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, boy. The article creator updated the page to read "likes to watch" instead of "played a minor character in." I'll just speedy the article. Rnb (talk) 21:48, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Started acting no earlier in 2006, which led to becoming an extra in a 2004 movie? Right. Oh, leave the AfD tag in place, just in case. DarkAudit (talk) 21:51, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The creator removed the AfD tag. I'll replace it. Rnb (talk) 21:53, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Merge A lot of work has been done on this, and I think that any redirect needs to be part of a merger. Terriers' proposal seems best. With a merger, one can hope that other schools in Wichita Falls will try to contribute to the WFISD article. Mandsford (talk) 12:43, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- Though I agree the page looks nice, none of the info is notable. Info like who the first principal was and what each building costs simply isn't wiki-notable, on top of that, it's not even sourced. A redirect is probably fine. 24.177.145.49 (talk) 14:49, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Prod was removed twice, no real name, no citations. Fails WP:BIO Athlete. Govvy (talk) 21:15, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
→ Guess you lot fixed it up now! Seems interesting you pay attention when it's threatened and not when conversation is brought a month ago to improve it. But anyway guess it's fixed now. Good enough to keep now.Govvy (talk) 17:35, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Makes a couple of (mostly unsourced) claims, but nothing that meets notability for athletes. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 21:21, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Consensus has always been wrestling on one of the major televised wrestling shows was notable enough for a professional wrestler. LessThanClippers 21:24, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. What consensus is that? I don't see Wikipedia articles for many regular jobbers from WCW, WWE, TNA and so on. There needs to be more notability than just wrestling a few times for a major promotion. RobJ1981 (talk) 21:33, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: I have reliable print sources about this wrestler. This article is already on my list of articles to expand, and I will do the work of establishing notability. Incidentally, can anyone point me toward a citation template for newspapers (print)? GaryColemanFan (talk) 22:40, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - See WP:CIT for a list of citation templates including printed newspapers. -- Whpq (talk) 13:13, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, there are already some links in the article to stories about him from SLAM! Wrestling, a third party reliable source. The page is looking pretty poor right now, but I think expansion/more sourcing is possible. GCF, the template for a newspaper article can be found at Wikipedia:Citation templates. It is about half way down the page. Nikki311 22:54, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I added his real name, which was one of the reasons for nomination here, with a newspaper citation. GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:06, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm confident that more sources will appear and will be notable to include as an article. -- ThinkBlue (HitBLUE) 23:14, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per GaryColemanFan. iMatthew2008 23:17, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The external links actually look like they are decent references. Renee (talk) 23:57, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems to meet the notability threshold. --UsaSatsui (talk) 00:44, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Where do I begin? I was very surprised not to find a speedy category that applied to this article. No assertion of notability. No reliable sources. Article was prodded and the prod removed by the editor who created it without making any substantial improvements. I favor quick deletion per WP:SNOW. Steven J. Anderson (talk) 20:49, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy DeleteMerge not sure if WP:NEO applies here, but there's gotta be something! Dustitalk to me 20:54, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I thought, and notice I changed from speedy to merge. Dustitalk to me 21:11, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A very popular catchphrase indeed, but I'm not sure if it warrants a full article; I haven't turned up any reliable sources for it even though it's widely known. I say Merge to Scarface (1983 film) unless it can be proven notable enough for its own page. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 20:56, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Scarface. Great line, not much value as an article. Dr.eXtreme 20:58, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Actually, now that I look at the article history again it was nominated for a speedy under G4, which means it's a recreation of a previously deleted article, but the editor who created it removed the speedy tag. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 21:00, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article was only previously speedily deleted and was never deleted as per an XfD discussion so it's not eligible as a G4 speedy. Metros (talk) 22:05, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak deleteRedirect -- not seeing much separate coverage to warrant it's own article. It is already mentioned in the scarface article, noting that the line is famous. The funny thing is... the line has been parodied so many times, I wonder if a sourced article could be created? I doubt it, it would probably fail other policies. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 22:04, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the article on the movie. If nothing else it'll discourage recreation (I recommend also creating a redirect for the version without the punctuation). 23skidoo (talk) 22:34, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect I PROD'ed it since there's no speedy for catchphrases (and G4 was inappropriate): based on discussion above it would be best to redirect to the parent article. Acroterion(talk) 23:37, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I fail to see the utility (or harm) of a redirect. Blaxthos ( t / c ) 02:58, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the movie; the utility of a redirect is that for people like me who didn't know where the phrase came from and who might happen to search for it one bored evening, it's actually quite interesting to find the initial source (and a redirected title makes a search more likely to succeed). Agreed that the unpunctuated version should be rdr'ed as well. -- phoebe / (talk) 05:00, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have absolutely no objection to a redirect, both with and without punctuation, but it must be redirected to Scarface (1983 film), since Scarface is a disambiguation page. Also, there's no reason to merge, since the line is already incorporated into the article. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 05:41, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm the creator of the article and I would like to add that this version, in my opinion, it's more adequate than a redirect, not to mention than a speedy deletion. It's a very popular catch phrase, given the fact that Imdb lists this quote referenced in at least 15 different movies. And I don't see why it can have a separate article. Paulinho28 (talk) 16:06, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Scarface (1983 film), without prejudice. It is theoretically possible to have a separate article, if there was a probable discussion of the significance of the phrase with proper secondary and academic sources. However, this version is just a list, and provides little value independent of the film's article.-- danntmTC 21:54, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to deletes above: The nominator has stated that "...I have no objection to a redirect.... Are you willing to allow this to happen? Dustitalk to me 16:41, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
non notable local radio show. The only references here are to instances where the show was cancelled. Article doesn't make it clear how this show is notable. Rtphokie (talk) 20:29, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:N by not showing any independent sources. Dustitalk to me 20:36, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Article needs some work but plenty of independent reliable sources ([2]) are available to reference this article and show notability. This show has repeatedly received regional [3][4] and national [5][6] coverage (to link a few). - Dravecky (talk) 21:39, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep The article needs some work, but this is a notable show in a top ten U.S. market. --InDeBiz1 (talk) 21:49, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Article doesn't establish notability. A similar article, "Tour de G'ville" was speedy deleted 03:50, 20 February 2008 as A7. Db-A7 was denied here, but article hasn't improved substantially since February. Leo Laursen – ☏⌘ 20:26, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete My first thought was ok, I'm going to get this kept because there has to be something on Google and WP:N says "...if references or notability cannot be found" or something there to. However, researching this and going to Google I found, get this, 1 hit that has directly to do with Tour de g'ville. Dustitalk to me 20:48, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Tagged as questionable notability for 11 months without any substantial improvement. All references found in a reasonable search were about individuals at the institution, not the institution itself. Pastordavid (talk) 20:21, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I found some information on this in a Google search here however when I went here I couldn't open the page (maybe its just me). Dustitalk to me 20:32, 10 April 2008 (UTC) changing !vote to merge see below [reply]
Comment. Yeah, that is a link to the homepage. You've got no argument from me that it exists (which is what that website proves), just that it's notable. Pastordavid (talk) 20:49, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: So the fact that there are 321 hits on Google doesn't assert Verifiability? WP:V says "If no reliable, third-party (in relation to the subject) sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." Dustitalk to me 20:59, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that there are 321 ghits does not show that any of them provide substantial information from a Reliable source about it. I couldnt find one in the first 60 or so. DGG (talk) 04:52, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not exactly sure about this one, I mean, I feel the article should stay because it's obviously there as you can see in the google search. Keep the article and let me work on it and try to bring it up to par. Dustitalk to me 12:23, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I did a Google news search on it and not a single reference came up. (I was expecting at least one along the lines of "Mr. X graduated from..."). If Dustihowe can find decent sources for it I would change my vote. Renee (talk) 22:45, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Seems to be part of Cal Arts music program and not notable on its own, except by association with Subotnick, etc. Recent edits haven't added anything to notability or style. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:22, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to CalArts. No significant coverage found, and it doesn't help that their website appears to be dead. Jfire (talk) 03:56, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into the article for CalArts. It wouldfit nicely there as one of their programs. DGG (talk) 04:36, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or redirect After several days of looking, I was unable to find much more information of this particular article. Numerous hits on CalArts, which seems to be affiliated with CEAIT. I stronly suggest that, since CEAIT does exist and is affiliated with CalArts, you merge or redirect to CalArts. Dustitalk to me 15:12, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see much to keep this link blue. --Stormbay (talk) 17:23, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Doesn't appear to meet music notability standards for a band. Article was replaced after CSD A7 deletion[7]. Dougie WII (talk) 20:07, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as inability to verify questionable claim that it passes WP:BANDBlaxthos ( t / c ) 02:59, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per JohnCD, but you have to love a band that calls its first release "Greatest Hits"... Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:12, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Redirect per above. If someone writes about Kaysville as part of a lesson about Wikipedia, they can edit the school district article. Mandsford (talk) 12:45, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Clearly not ntoable enough for stand-alone article. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 16:51, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WaltonOne 18:56, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unnecessary and unnotable list of voice actors for Sailor Moon. This information is already included in the individual character articles and the list of minor characters. A standalone list is unnecessary and Wikipedia is not a directory of voice actors in a series. Collectonian (talk) 18:58, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I would say Keep this, as Wikipedia already has lists of actors on loosely related topics, including everyone who played Dr. Who. I want to avoid a WP:NOHARM argument, but I really don't see how this article hurts Wikipedia. JuJube (talk) 19:08, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. Quite aside from WP:OTHERSTUFF, JuJube's analogy is poor. The list of everyone who has played the title and lead character in a forty-year-old series is somewhat more significant than everyone who has ever been a voice actor in a particular cartoon. I would similarly advocate deletion of a List of everyone who had ever appeared in a Dr. Who episode. RGTraynor 19:39, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe. Rethinking vote. JuJube (talk) 22:04, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This list, although valid, is redundant and unnessacary. If a SailorMoon wiki exists, I'd say transwiki it there, but otherwise delete. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 19:13, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
*Keep List seems to have detailed content that would convolute the Sailor Moon article. Most of the entries have an article associated with them and is appears to be a valuable collection and quick reference to all the voices that are used for these characters. Seems to pass WP:N and WP:V. Good enough for me. --Pmedema (talk) 19:36, 10 April 2008 (UTC)* - Delete as per TheFarix's comment below. --Pmedema (talk) 15:31, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The articles on the actors are just lists of their previous jobs. They are not real articles. You don't automatically become notable for being a saylor moon voice actor. --Damiens.rf 19:54, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That comment would only be valid in this discussion if this discussion were about deleting the actors' articles themselves. -Malkinann (talk) 00:13, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The existence of articles on the actors was being used as an argument for keeping this list ("...Most of the entries have an article associated with them..."). I'm arguing that those articles are not even good enough to justify themselves, let alone the list. --Damiens.rf 16:44, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Most of them are still alive, and therefore may become more notable. Having a stub on their acting jobs (their career), is still a start. Having a list to tie them all together for Sailor Moon does not put undue weight in their articles about their Sailor Moon job. (as the old Sailor Moon cast category was said to). -Malkinann (talk) 21:26, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey! I'm also still alive and therefore I may become more notable someday. Should I start a stub about myself? --Damiens.rf 21:39, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Great. But now you understand how flawed your argument is? --Damiens.rf 23:20, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My argument is that how good the actors articles are shouldn't enter into a deletion discussion of a list of actors, that it's an unrelated issue. The actors list is separate from the actors' articles, after all, their careers are more than Sailor Moon. Just as a historical note, the actor list was created after the deletion of a "Sailor Moon cast members" category.-Malkinann (talk) 23:34, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Voice actor credits on anime related pages are given on the character or character list articles; redundant. Doceirias (talk) 19:56, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is standard to have a cast list somewhere, and this is clearly too big to be part of another article. --Masamage♫ 20:46, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Abstention while I think about it based on TheFarix's comment below. --Masamage♫ 21:33, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per non. The actors and actresses are already listed with the characters they portray or voice. This list is unnecessary, we don't include these lists in anime-related articles. --Farix (Talk) 21:22, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We don't? Oh, hey, look at that. That's changed since the last I saw. --Masamage♫ 21:33, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete duplicative. JJL (talk) 00:08, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki and then delete. Theres a Sailor moon wikia right here. --NickPenguin(contribs) 01:33, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as duplicitous listcruft. Blaxthos ( t / c ) 03:01, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to have to hope that you misspoke, and that you mean "redundant" rather than "intentionally deceptive". --Masamage♫ 20:14, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
KeepThere's more than one way of presenting this sort of information. Tho the material can be gathered out of other articles, collecting it in one piece is also a good way to go. We can do both, at least for the most important series DGG (talk) 23:52, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wikiacc (¶) 17:07, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unnotable list of locations in Sailor Moon, barely sourced and what is sourced comes from a handful of primary sources. The rest is filled with plot details and personal opinions/suppositions/theories. No real-world notability of any of these locations, and what relevance they have to the plot is covered simply by mentioning them in the relevant context. Wikipedia is not a Sailor Moon guide, not is it a place of excessive plot details. This list fails WP:FICT and WP:NOT. Collectonian (talk) 18:50, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, the notability guideline most closely related to this article, Wikipedia:Notability (fiction), is still in a proposed state without a clear consensus. -Malkinann (talk) 20:09, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question: If this is deleted, where do we put the information on plot-important, non-arc-specic areas such as the Hikawa Shrine and Juuban High School? --Masamage♫ 20:44, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is a serious question. I don't mind the article being deleted if there's a good answer to it. When multiple articles make reference to a significant location, where do we put the central explanation of what that place is? --Masamage♫ 20:08, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You don't. There is no need to give that level of detail when mentioning the girls go to X school. Its not an unusual school, its a school. First mention of Rei's school, note its all girls. That's all that is necessary. None of the places in the series play a significant role in the series nor are they so unique as to need a list that can show no real-world significance or coverage. It could be any school or any shrine. Collectonian (talk) 20:16, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That works for the schools, but other places simply have more information about them and need more coverage. However, looking down the list in the article itself I see that there's basically nothing which can't be narrowed down to its significance to just one character or one story arc, so any useful information can receive its brief mention in those places. All right, I'm satisfied. --Masamage♫ 20:24, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no real-world significance here. Eusebeus (talk) 00:30, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki and then delete. There's a Sailor Moon wikia here. --NickPenguin(contribs) 01:35, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That SM wiki tends to have its information ported to WikiMoon, a more popular Sailor Moon wiki with an incompatible license to Wikipedia. -Malkinann (talk) 07:23, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as more cruftyness. Blaxthos ( t / c ) 03:01, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to notability to people in the real world and consistent with Wikipedia's first pillar, i.e. a specialized encyclopedia on Sailor Moon. Discrminate list as well. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 07:44, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This looks mostly like fancruft, i.e. plot details with some trivia and opinions, not an encyclopedic view on the topic. Still can be very interesting to fans of course, so I'd also be for transwikiing if someone wants to do that. And the locations which do have enough significance can be mentioned in the main articles if they are not yet. --Minimaki (talk) 12:00, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Even aside from the question of whether this meets the notability guidelines, which I agree this does not, there's the question of utility: as best as I can tell, this information is most useful as part of the various discussions of the characters/stories. So: copy out any relevant bit to the relevant place, and redirect to Sailor Moon. There's too many links to this page, even aside from the temlpate link, to delete outright. —Quasirandom (talk) 21:50, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
KeepThere's more than one way of presenting this sort of information. Tho the material can be gathered out of other articles, collecting it in one piece is also a good way to go. We can do both, at least for the most important series DGG (talk) 23:53, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - Unverifiable, in-universe style, lead is self-referential. Has no business being on wikipedia. This can go somewhere here: Wikipedia:Alternative outlets.--SevernSevern (talk) 14:48, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 article stubification, withdrawn nomination. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:31, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article is unencyclopaedic and out of context with its highly subjective title. There are concerns about possible copyright violation. The contents should properly be added to other articles created by the cricket project. The style, spelling, grammar and presentation of the article fall well below expected standards. It is frankly an embarrassment. See cleanup tags and talk page for further reasons to delete. JamesJJames (talk) 18:37, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The title isn't subjective, even though it might look that way. Cricket writers and historians have been referring to the period just before WW1 as cricket's Golden Age for a very long time. See for instance the title of a book by the noted cricket historian David Frith: The Golden Age Of Cricket 1890-1914. That said, the structure, style and spelling of the article leave a lot to be desired. If it's not to merit deletion, then it needs a lot of work. JH (talk page) 18:52, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It's unencyclopaedic how exactly? SunCreator (talk) 21:21, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reply. Nowhere in the article does it say why cricket in this period has been considered a "golden age". It therefore lacks perspective and the content is out of context with the title. The content is a disorganised mass of incidents that may have taken place during the period but there is nothing within them to indicate anything special about the period. For example, the article says that were some very good players around at the time but that is the case in any period. Most of the content is about mundane incidents that are unsuitable for inclusion on this site; the rest should be written to the appropriate season review article (e.g., 1895 English cricket season). For an article to be "encyclopaedic", it must have a stated purpose and stay in context. --JamesJJames (talk) 04:54, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Its a terrible piece and needs mass deletion. The whole page need not be longer than 200-300 words yet is massive and goes into detail on each county. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.103.205.60 (talk) 02:55, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why should it be limited to 200-300 words? David Frith wrote a book on the topic! -- Mattinbgn\talk 09:11, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete as lacking proper sources to verify the "golden age" moniker claim. Blaxthos ( t / c ) 03:03, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There was a book written on the topic not to mention reams of writing. The term is not arbitrary nor POV nor something the writer of the article (or the book for that matter) made up one day. It is the common term for that period in cricket history. -- Mattinbgn\talk 09:11, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw nomination. The non-member who made the "terrible piece" comment above has taken some positive action by reducing the article to a stub. I have furthered this process by improving the introduction and the referencing. I think the nomination should be withdrawn on this basis as the article is now ready for a structured development, the essential thing needed being an analysis of the period and why it should be considered a "golden age". --JamesJJames (talk) 05:38, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep The issues raised with the article are content issues and can (and have) been improved. The topic has been the subject of many books and articles and is clearly an encyclopedic topic. -- Mattinbgn\talk 09:11, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per Mattingbgn. —Moondyneclick! 11:41, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per Mattinbgn and Moondyne. Johnlp (talk) 11:51, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the new version of the article is a big improvement, and merits keeping for the reasons given by Mattinbgn. JH (talk page) 16:47, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please note nominator has withdrawn this AFD nomination. No further !votes are necessary. Dustitalk to me 17:55, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Planned film to be released more than a year from now, nothing really known about it. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Dougie WII (talk) 18:32, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's no real reason to delete. Nothing it violates the guidelines on CRYSTAL, aside from the fact that its an upcoming film. Its certainly not the first time an article has been made about a film coming out later. The information is verifiable, there's no speculation or "crystal balling". If it was vague speculation like "Rob Zombie said he might be doing another film in the next year or so" that would be one thing but we already have the title, director, release date and the beginning of the cast.--CyberGhostface (talk) 18:45, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NFF. Has not been completed and nothing about the production of this film is notable. Collectonian (talk) 18:57, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the notability guidelines for future films; there is no verifiable information that production is underway. IMDb shows that it is only in development. Many projects have had various elements "ready" for production but are never guaranteed to actually go through. WP:CRYSTAL shouldn't really apply here -- talk about the project is verifiable, but per WP:NFF, it's not appropriate for a stand-alone article to exist unless filming is verified to have begun. There is minimal information here, anyway -- I would recommend putting a brief mention of it at the bottom of Rob Zombie#Filmography and recreate the article if production begins. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:07, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Since I'm in the minority, just delete it then.--CyberGhostface (talk) 20:49, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
First of all you have two votes now, please cross one out, second of all, if you're going to say speedy delete, can you please underline which CSD it meets? The Dominator (talk) 03:31, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep pending sourcing. The director and studio are notable. The only issue is only one source. I say keep the article for a few months to either allow better sourcing or for confirmation that this is a hoax, at which point it can be speedied if necessary. 23skidoo (talk) 22:37, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If its a hoax, its one that Rob Zombie himself is participating in. He's discussed the film on his MySpace.--CyberGhostface (talk) 23:49, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:CRYSTAL is the guiding policy. No need to rush to a noncompliant bad article with poor sourcing. Blaxthos ( t / c ) 03:04, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — Article is sourced. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 03:49, 13 April 2008 (UTC))[reply]
No, it's not, it cites one unreliable website that talks about a possible rumor that the movie might eventually be made. The DominatorTalkEdits 13:26, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFF and in this case WP:CRYSTAL applies as well, if CyberGhostface wishes to userfy and recreate later he is free to do so. The DominatorTalkEdits 13:26, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
I love this. Really. This is so a concept that needs a name. Too bad it's a neologism that's only defined in Urban Dictionary and has no real reliable sources to back it up. When it gets published in a major publication, we can restore the article. howcheng {chat} 18:31, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEO. Only two of the cited sources even mention the term, and they're both blogs. Anturiaethwr (talk) 20:07, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. If I knew the etymology I might well use the word. I enjoyed reading the piece about author photographs, which unfortunately does not mention it. Scratch it up to the many concepts (I've always advocated dúchas for "inherited temperament or personality traits") that ought to have English words but don't yet. If it catches on, the deletion should be without prejudice. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 20:42, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unreferencable nonsense.--Rtphokie (talk) 22:03, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Blaxthos ( t / c ) 03:05, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Bloggy neologism. Only mainstream "source" cited does not even use the word. -- Arthur Frayn (talk) 13:36, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Copied from Talk:Bershon: Although this may seem only an online phenomenon, it can be observed that it is a prevalent phenomenon in society, with prevalent sources citing its presence.--Bgnuf (talk) 08:42, 12 March 2008 (UTC) (howcheng {chat} 17:12, 15 April 2008 (UTC))[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The English adaptations of the anime and manga series Sailor Moon have no notability outside of the series. This article is almost entirely sourced from fan sites and sites that violate WP:COPYVIO, lacks neutrality and contains extensive OR and personal opinion. The English releases of the series are already covered with the appropriate detail in the main article, invalidating any claims that this is a "break out" or "spinout" that doesn't require notability. Collectonian (talk) 18:28, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep as on the talk page. WP:MOS-AM states "Articles should be self-contained, only referring to subpages for additional information or details if the main article or a section becomes too long." Furthermore, under "Topics that can reasonably be included" in a main article, we find "issues arising from the transition from...one language to another (such as alterations to storylines, international voice actors, air dates or dates of publication)." --Masamage♫ 18:37, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All of that is already covered elsewhere and ALL of it must be properly sourced by RELIABLE sources, not relying on fansites and copyright violating sites. And, since the MOS does not call for such a section, saying it is a proper subpage is incorrect. Translation issues belong in the appropriate sections of each media, not in a standalone section to allow venting. Collectonian (talk) 18:40, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's certainly an appropriate subpage when there's stuff to say about the subject, and my opinion is that there is. References, of course, can always be changed to better sources, and an article being currently flawed is not an appropriate argument for deletion. Meanwhile, if the issue is primarily about organization and you think this should be trimmed down, split and merged into the different media pages, then this is decidedly the wrong venue for such a discussion. --Masamage♫ 18:48, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing salvageable from this article, nor does anything need to be. It is already covered in the appropriate place. Collectonian (talk) 18:52, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The argument from WP:MOS-AM is fallacious -- the MOS should be considered a minimum lower bound of what is needed for complete treatment of a subject, not an upper bound of what to include. —Quasirandom (talk) 19:57, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am not saying such an article is required; I'm saying it has precedent as something that could be permissible. --Masamage♫ 20:48, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Right -- and I was saying to Collectonian that absence from the MOS should not be considered as barring it. —Quasirandom (talk) 21:26, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ohh, I see. Okay. --Masamage♫ 21:35, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Given the large number of articles linking to this one, if the article is deleted a redirect to Sailor Moon#English adaptations had better be left behind. Still thinking about the nomination's merits. —Quasirandom (talk) 18:40, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, with the number of links, if deleted then a recreate as a redirect would be a good idea. Collectonian (talk) 18:43, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The consensus keep in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Editing of anime in American distribution suggests that, in general, articles about anime adaptations when there are contraversial changes can be encyclopedic in principle. There are serious editoral concerns with this article, especially with WP:NPOV and WP:RS, but there's enough of the latter to show there is contraversy, if not to source the details. Together, these things make me inclined to a keep+fixit, but I'm willing to listen to other arguments while I think about it some more. —Quasirandom (talk) 20:06, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Definitely a notable topic, and if there are NPOV/RS issues that can be addressed within the article. I'm not even an anime fan and even I'm aware of the importance of this topic, as Sailor Moon is arguably one of the major anime imports and the "Westernizing" of it has been a matter of contention, and not just at the fan level either; you've got people writing doctoral theses on anime these days. 23skidoo (talk) 22:39, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:CRUFT, stick to topics with real-world impact / analysis. Blaxthos ( t / c ) 03:06, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is exactly the sort of real world information that is appropriate for an encyclopedia. 'Real world impact' is not he consideration for inclusion of articles. Even if it were, if these adaptation are widely known, they have impact.DGG (talk) 04:55, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge into the relevant anime/manga articles. The topic would be better treated as part of the respective series pages for the anime or manga and part of the development/localization history in those articles, with relevant tidbits being added to the respective page of the specific Sailor Moon anime arcs. As it stands, the present article asserts zero notability, and per Collectonian, previous AfDs have shown that separate pages for the adaptations are not viewed as appropriate. Sephiroth BCR(Converse) 05:06, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - The English adaptation of Sailor Moon does have real-world impact. This is the English wikipedia, as everyone knows, and the adaptation from the original Japanese series is crucial in understanding what was changed. This series is known for the major difference in the English and Japanese anime. By major changes, I'm talking about shifting lesbians to cousins, gays to women or het, deletion of "nudity" scenes and removal of Japanese culture. Sephiroth, I think the reason for the creation of this page is to compile the massive English adaption change, rather then including the so called "tidbits" into various articles. Like you said, as it stands, it has no notability, but I'm sure people could find out useful real world information to satisfy the notability guideline. The previous AFD for the other adaptation articles, the example being English adaptations of Tokyo Mew Mew, was worth it. That article was not correctly cited and contain loads of OR. Here however, if we are talking about opinions and neutrality, those can be easily addressed. References, or better ones actually, can be inserted in. We know the so called OR is true, anybody who watches the series can tell, it's just a matter of citing them with references. --Hanaichi 08:49, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Very well-stated. The article has problems now, but they are all decidedly fixable. --Masamage♫ 20:06, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please provide evidence to back up your claim that it has real-world impact and meets WP:FICT. Discussion of Sailor Moon in general does NOT give notability specifically to the English adaptation Collectonian (talk) 02:55, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Contains valuable information on the vast differences of the English language version; which was sometimes changed so much it was hardly anything like it's original. This detailed guide is very useful, particularly for newcomers to the series who wouldn't otherwise know. Blaedvanderwoodsen (talk) 02:51, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So after some thought, I'm going to recomment keep and remand to WikiProject Anime and Manga for cleanup and better sourcing. This is one of the flagship franchises, so to speak, of anime adaptations into English, and features in the examples from Editing of anime in American distribution -- but it needs hella work to prove that. If after a suitable amount of time (a couple months, say) nothing has been improved, and so proven, then revisit the issue. —Quasirandom (talk) 01:09, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Extra help from the parent WikiProject would be vastly appreciated. :) --Masamage♫ 03:48, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sailor Moon is a main anime of its genre and was an early title in the flood of anime series to enter Western markets since the mid-90's. The article may contain fancruft, but that's a reason for clean-up, not deletion. This article, as all articles, needs to be judged on its own merit-- the status and nature of other anime articles has nothing to do with this, more notable, topic. I will respectfully disagree with this who call this topic un-encyclopedic. It meets WP:RS. There's a lot of crap in wikipedia. I've advocated for the deletion and merger of articles which essentially are nothing more than fan biographies and summaries of popular series as part of WP:FICT re-development. Sailor Moon was a pioneering series in terms of the western adoption of animation. There's a small body of literatures that deals with the marketing efforts of the producers and how the producers tried to cash in on the success of the series through marketing. The most famous of this was an article by syndicated columnist Dave Barry. There are also a small body scholarship outlining the failure of the show to achieve wide popularity in the US, despite strong showings elsewhere. Intertwined with the marketing articles are the articles about sexuality and "girl power". Here's a brief quick-and-dirty scan of the available sources for this article. I do not currently have the time to edit Wikipedia. However if anyone who wants to help clean this article up would like me to help gain access to them for sourcing purposes, drop me a note on my talk page.
* Non-Western Sexuality Comes to the U.S.: A Crash Course in Manga and Anime for Sexologists. Author: Cornog, Martha; Perper, Timothy Journal: Contemporary Sexuality Pub.: 2005-03 Volume: 39
Issue: 3 Pages: 1(4) ISSN: 10945725
GIRLS IN CARTOONS; Japan's Pioneers. Journal: New York Times (1/1/1985 to present) Pub.: 2000-09-24
Pages: 4(0) ISSN: 03624331
A Challenge to Hollywood? Japanese Character Goods Hit the US. Author: Allison, Anne Journal: Japanese Studies Pub.: 2000-05 Volume: 20 Issue: 1 Pages: 67(22) ISSN: 10371397
Pretty little girl warriors : a study of images of femininity in Japanese Sailor Moon comics /
Author: Browning, Sheila Rose.; Takeuchi, Naoko. Publication: 2004 Dissertation: Thesis (M.A.)--University of Missouri-Columbia, 2004. Document: English : Book : Thesis/dissertation/manuscript Archival Material Archival Material Internet Resource Internet Resource
Sailor moon and the Shojo-ization of male imagery / Author: Dvorak, Julianne Komori. Publication: 1997
Dissertation: Thesis (M.A. in Asian Studies)-- University of California, Berkeley, Dec. 1997.
Warriors of legend : reflections of Japan in Sailor Moon (unauthorized) / Jay Navok; Sushil K Rudranath; Jonathan Mays 2005 2nd ed. English Book Book 147 p. : ill., maps ; 21 cm. North Charleston, S.C. : BookSurge, LLC, ; ISBN: 1419608142 9781419608148
Millennial Monsters: Japanese Toys and the Global Imagination / by Allison, Anne. English Book Book Internet Resource Internet Resource xxii, 332 p. : ill. ; 23 cm. Berkeley : University of California Press, ; ISBN: 0520221486 (cloth : alk. paper)
Note: I created this article as part of a split (due to size) from the main Sailor Moon page. --Kunzite (talk) 17:16, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No one is disputing Sailor Moon's notability. What is in dispute is this list/article regarding only the English adaptation. How much of those sources you listed are actually give significant coverage ot teh English adaptation versus being about Sailor Moon itself? Collectonian (talk) 18:19, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete --JForget 00:18, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there is no indication that the redlink team for which this guy played was fully professional, and having articles like this with no more than an initial and surname played for such-and-such is not good for this encyclopedia. Where's the bio in this one liner? We don't know where or when he was born, whether he is still alive, what his life story is, or even his freaking first name. C'mon, this isn't a bio, it's a WP:NOT#DIRECTORY entry. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:12, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A quick Google establishes that this is all verifiable, but adds nothing, not even the name. If all the hockey fans of the Internet know or care this little about him, I strongly doubt he's notable. Anturiaethwr (talk) 20:21, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The Detroit Pontiac McLeans played in the Michigan-Ontario Hockey League, so the evidence suggests that its players aren't automatically notable. I found this reference, which may be the source for this article. If the evidence showed that he had played at the highest level, I would not delete the article for being too brief, though. A stub of a verifiable biography of a notable person is better than none at all, but I agree that notability has not been established in this case. For an entirely different R. Terry, see http://movies.nytimes.com/person/1227421/R-Terry/filmography , credited for a song in New Jack City. -Eastmain (talk) 20:33, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete - notability not asserted. Royalbroil 04:47, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, consensus is that the improvements in the article during the AFD show that the topic is legitimate and notable. Davewild (talk) 20:59, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete one-line apparent dicdef but sufficiently mangled I wouldn't wish it upon Wiktionary. Are we to expect identical articles of Fooians in non-Fooland for each and every Foo? No, let's stop this here and now. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:56, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Does nothing more than state the obvious. Don't see how it could be expanded. DCEdwards1966 19:01, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to Weak Keep after seeing the revised article. DCEdwards1966 19:50, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
*Delete Even worse than it looks at first glance: "The Americans in Japan refer to American-born Japanese citizens in Japan." Apparently limited to persons who (a) have Japanese citizenship and who (b) happen to have been born in the United States. I agree with Carlos that this is opens the door to many more unnecessary articles of X-landers who were born in Y-land. Keep A much better article now than it was 24 hours ago. Mandsford (talk) 12:34, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep and expand-crappy stub but worthwhile topic-thus is my mission given for this evening. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 21:07, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The definition sounds like original research (who requires all those conditions for this term be used?), and there is nothing else. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:54, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it'd be useless even if expanded. An article about Westerners in Japan might make sense, but not Americans.24.237.164.151 (talk) 00:13, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve This is a valid encyclopedic topic. The article has already been improved and some objections are already obsolete. An article about Westerners in Japan would lack focus. Fg2 (talk) 00:27, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improvenotable topic, as demonstrated for example by the multiple reliable sources now listed in the "Further reading" section of the article. All deletion arguments have been addressed or are invalid: nominator's argument consists of WP:OTHERCRAPDOESNTEXIST (besides, we already have a series of well-sourced articles about immigrant groups in Japan, like Vietnamese people in Japan, Iranians in Japan, so it's a bit late to try to put forth a "look what this might open the floodgates to!" argument) and the bizarre definition about "Americans in Japan" only referring to Japanese citizens born in American has been removed. cab (talk) 00:53, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:ALLORNOTHING. No one here is suggesting that we create 40,000 "Fooians in Barland" articles to fill out a bunch of templates. The topic of this article is clearly notable, as proven by the sources; Laotians in Paraguay, Ethiopians in Kazakhstan, or whatever other fanciful examples, have no bearing on this debate. cab (talk) 01:58, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
True. I also think that the article's current state reads like a disassociated list of studies that use Americans living in Japan as their subject demographic. The History section is easily dwarfed by the content in Japan-United States relations, and the Notable Individuals section is already covered by both CAT:American people in Japan and CAT:American expatriates in Japan. --NickPenguin(contribs) 02:49, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Categories do not substitute for lists; they are complementary to each other, not the least because a list can be annotated. See WP:CLS. Also, I don't see the History section as overlapping with Japan-United States relations; that article mainly focuses on intra-governmental contacts, whereas the point of this article, like the others in the "Fooians in Japan" series, is to discuss the actual expatriate community. cab (talk) 02:54, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fooians in Bariland indeed. Blaxthos ( t / c ) 03:08, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The improvement made since the start have demonstrated that the subject can be treated encyclopedically, if in a rather different direction than the initial stub. I'm actually pleasently suprised by the improvement -- good job there, guys. —Quasirandom (talk) 03:56, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As an American who lived for part of a year in Japan, I think this is a worthwhile topic. The article itself needs a lot of improvement however. It is not clear if it is about Americans of Japanese ancestry who moved to Japan, or any American living there for any reason and any length of time. Steve Dufour (talk) 14:06, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and possibly re-title- maybe something like "American Expatriates in Japan". With regards to the 'Fooians in Barland' argument: most countries do not have significant, documented periods where significant numbers of people from one country were living in another. With the American post-WWII occupation, we have a documented phenomenon of residency by American citizens in Japan. There's been quite a bit written about the role of Americans during Japan's post-war reconstruction, as well as ongoing issues regarding the presence of American military bases in Japan. Japanese communities in the West have also been sending individuals back to Japan as students (including to receive training and ordination as Pure Land ministers). Notability will take care of Fooians in Barland articles without a comparable documented history. --Clay Collier (talk) 07:51, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 looks like sufficient claim to notabilty at the first look so we close this as keep in the first instance to allow time to develop. SpartazHumbug! 07:45, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unsourced oneliner about a game show with no indication that this show is aired anywhere etc. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:53, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Blaxthos ( t / c ) 03:10, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. The show has been aired for 30 years; won awards including Asian Television Awards; and is widely popular in Japan. Added a link to the ja: wikipedia page, to give an idea of the size this article can grow to, since the nominator has an issue with the current size of the article. Neier (talk) 08:17, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I also added a mergefrom tag, from another slightly longer and older article. The proper title should be "Kinchan no Kasō Taishō" with the macrons, per WP:MOS-JA. -chan may need hyphenated as well. Neier (talk) 10:24, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The show is very popular in Japan. Oda Mari (talk) 16:04, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, tag for a translation from the Japanese wikipedia article and for sources. Pretty much all television shows broadcast on national stations/networks are de facto notable. —Quasirandom (talk) 17:25, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete --JForget 00:19, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn (apparently pick-up) baseball team. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:43, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete only "King of the Fields" Bangor search result is this article. No viable hits for "NLB World Series", either. DarkAudit (talk) 21:57, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. Axl (talk) 10:21, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Definitely non-notable. Could be a hoax. BRMo (talk) 10:44, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. Thought it may have been a local league, but saying it plays non-existant teams like the Memphis Mice? Come on. 216.37.86.10 (talk) 18:36, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as either blatant hoax (more likely) or non-notable semi-pro or lower baseball team. —C.Fred (talk) 20:44, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Article about an organization that cannot be found on the internet. The text reads like a party joke. Andreas (T) 17:24, 10 April 2008 (UTC) Witten in Greeklish. Andreas (T) 18:01, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can't even translate this. Smells like a WP:HOAX. Even if it isn't and it's not translated to english, poof... obliterate.--Pmedema (talk) 18:08, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK... tagging as db-nonsense as per below and everyone else.--Pmedema (talk) 04:27, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment looks like translitterated Greek to me. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 20:14, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm all for booting it. -Yupik (talk) 20:20, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Since Greeklish isn't the same as Greek, this article cannot be transwikied. If anyone who speaks fluent Greek sees this as a probable hoax, please tag the article {{db-vandalism}}. I cannot do this myself. --Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth-timed 20:49, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable group, maybe hoax. It's Greek transliterated into Latin letters. The title means something like "The Madhouse of Anarchists of Cyprus" and it starts off "The F.A.K. is a Cypriot institution... " Seems to be about a group, but no references, and even turning the initials back into Greek and searching for Φ.Α.Κ. only turns up a different one. JohnCD (talk) 21:17, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete --JForget 00:20, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete straightforward violation of WP:NOT#HOWTO. Hit with Cmd-Alt-Esc Bfigura(talk) 00:49, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - cat /usr/local/doc/wikipedia/snowballdelete-HOWTO.txtBlaxthos ( t / c ) 03:12, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - nohup cd /; rm -rf * > /dev/null 2>&1 & +Hexagon1(t) 02:07, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 sourcing in article, showing notability of this phenomenon. If any sources given via links here are not in the article already, please add them. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:28, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No evidence of notability. I searched 10 pages of Google results for "Car spotting" but could not find a reliable, independent source. Article has no sources currently. swaq 17:21, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I also just noticed that this article is orphaned. swaq 17:36, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I'm a car spotter.. come to think of it, a couple of my cars have even been spotted. But, I've never heard of this term and I see no evidence that this activity has gotten coverage in useful sources. So, as always, delete unless properly sourced.Friday(talk) 17:49, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no refs and non-notable. I assume Car Spotters are analogous to Train spotters - but the likelyhood of all that stuff about inciting people to street race seems very dubious. Dump it. SteveBaker (talk) 19:04, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In a matter of moments I was able to establish that there at least two books on the subject, both called The ABC of Motor Car Spotting; one written by Graeme L. Greenwood in 1949, the other by John Dudley in 1952. Citations of these books in other works indicate that they are about the hobby of spotting distinctive models of cars, as the article describes. Since we certainly have train spotters, plane spotters, tram/bus spotters, it is no surprise that we have car spotters too. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:18, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there'll be any disagreement that people who like cars like to identify interesting ones. But, are any of the details sourceable? Maybe this could be mentioned in some larger, already existing article? Car culture or something? Just throwing out ideas. Friday(talk) 19:29, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I started adding references already. Laudak (talk) 01:22, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete At best this is a NEO, at worst it's OR. Blaxthos ( t / c ) 03:14, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a neologism. The sources adduced above fail to convince. Eusebeus (talk) 08:38, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is obviously not a neologism. For thing, there is no new word and for another I have found sources from over 50 years ago. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:50, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article is getting better. Maybe it can be properly sourced. I'm willing to change my mind on delete, and give it a chance to grow. Friday(talk) 16:21, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this could be covered general "spotting article" to cover all kinds of spotters... --— Typ932T | C 18:45, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I can't understand why this debate is continuing when it has already been ascertained that whole books have been written about this subject. If that doesn't satisfy our notability criteria then I don't know what does. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:53, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 21:55, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article isn't teling the truth. It is just a page created by the person that wants this game. There are no references and no infos about this game. MR.CRO95 (talk) 16:56, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Maybe not quite hoaxalicious, but clearly misinformation on a future video game on which there are no reliable sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 17:22, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete nn meditation center, essentially similar to a parish church which are routinely deleted... Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:11, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: article has been boldly redirected by another editor. Close discussion as redirected. B.Wind (talk) 04:38, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Notability not established in independent, reliable sources. All sources, as pointed out below, are either COI or otherwise related to subject. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:25, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable failed parliamentary candidate, nothing to distinguish him from hundreds of other local politicians who fought an unsuccessful campaign in a general election, per WP:BIO#Politicians. I PRODded this article on 28 March, and it was deleted but then restored today at DRV.
Apart from his own website and other websites of his party, the only remotely substantial coverage of him include appears to be a mention in a BBC news report of the 2005 Conservative Party leadership election. I don't think that's anywhere near enough to meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", because the BBC report isn't really about Watkinson, it's about the party leaders. BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 17:01, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I asked for this article to be undeleted this afternoon as the Gentleman in question is a senior businessman in Barnsley who is a Director of the Barnsley & Rotherham Chamber Of Commerce, and a director of the Barnsley Development agency - an extremly powerful body.
Although I do not wish to go into the "politics" of this - it seems that he is quite a senior member of the Conservative party (even though this might not be in a public elected position).
I agree that is seems that there is a possible COI, however even if he did write an article about himself it seems to be factual and balanced and has been upgraded by other users over a period of a couple of years - I fail to see why this has suddenly become an issue now.
Just a quick guess, but is the new user BRChamber (talk·contribs) perhaps in some way connected to the Barnsley & Rotherham Chamber Of Commerce? If my guess is wrong, then sorry for the mistake, but if right then I'm sure that BRChamber will be able to help establish the notability of Clive Watkinson by pointing us to all the substantial coverage which Watkinson has received in reliable sources independent of the subject. We need the help, my Google search for this extremely powerful body only returns only7 hits. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 23:56, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well spotted! Barnsley and Rotherham Chamber of commerce was created last year as a result of the merger of Barnsley Chamber of Commerce and Rotherham Chamber of Commerce - that's why you are not finding anything in your search. - Try Google search for Barnsley Chamber Of Commerceand you will get 904 returns - you might also find more information under BCCI (Barnsley Chamber Of Commerce & Industry)
I will try and update this article with some sources tomorrow for you.
I have now read the COI and don't feel as if there is any - especially as the COI refered to a biased article, which I don't believe that this is. However, in order to maintain neutrality, I have simply added references to the article and removed a broken external link, so that I cannot be accused of bias.
It is clear that you are hell bent on deleting this article, so I don't intend to add any more as I am just a lowly new user whilst you are an administrator - so it's likely to get deleted anyway.
Comment - Making you aware of the COI guideline is necessary not only for cooperation here, but also in your own interest. Many people are simply not aware hat they get into when editing on subject they're affiliated with. The mentioned guideline also has a section on deletion that illustrates actually well what is happening here. One of the many politician articles here has been proposed for deletion, being tagged for five days, not least to establish whether anybody but the creators thinks it should be here. If that is the case (as here) the deletion can swiftly be undone, but it is everybody's right to ask for a deeper evaluation. So there is no reason to assume that the nominator is 'hell bent', but merely that according to her understanding of our policies and guidelines and the current information, we shouldn't have an article on this politician. An the outcome of this discussion, that is now in need of further opinions, will depend more on the quality of sources about him than of anything else.--Tikiwont (talk) 12:05, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok - Point taken. Thanks for that Tikiwont. Perhaps I over reacted due to the tone of the previous commenter.
I still feel that the article is well balanced, factual and not making any exagerated claims about Mr Watkinson, and I still don't see why it's suddenly become an issue after being up for almost 2 years.
I also, from my point of view feel that it's useful to highlight senior members of the business community - I constantly refer to Wikipedia when I want some information on people that I'm meeting and find it a useful tool.
Perhaps the aricle should be moved to a different section rather than political since the majority of the article refers to Mr Watkinson's business and community commitments rather that his politcal bent (which I don't want to comment on anyway).
The reason that the article became an issue is that it was spotted by someone who chose to do something about the subject's lack of notability. Sometimes such articles are spotted very quickly, but in other cases (such as this) it takes longer.
I've read the articles you suggested, and still disagree with you for the reasons that I've already stated.
But, hey - If it makes you feel good to go around deleting articles are are doing no harm to anyone then I suppose we've both had our say and I'll leave it up to another administrator to decide whether Mr W is notable enough.
WP:NPA and WP:AGF, please. If you can provide references in reliable sources to demonstrate that Watkinson meets the notability criteria, then I will support keeping the article. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 22:44, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wizardman 21:56, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
First AfD was closed as delete, but many sources had been added near the end of the discussion. As a result I'm relisting it to see if this new version is notable. Procedural nom. Wizardman 16:52, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Appears notable to me, needs some cleanup, but at least there are some decent 3rd party references.--Rtphokie (talk) 18:28, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article could use some work but it's well-referenced and certainly appears to satisfy any notability requirements. - Dravecky (talk) 20:05, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Good call by the nominator to give the article a relist rather than immediately deleting, as it appears to work in terms of sourcing and notability. 23skidoo (talk) 22:41, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per my comments in the first AfD. Question: should this be renamed to just "Baka Boyz"? DHowell (talk) 05:27, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Their AM show may not be that well known outside of their home market, but their syndicated weekend mixshow has numerous affiliates nationwide and in decent sized markets. --InDeBiz1 (talk) 21:51, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Slim consensus but the two sources added by Phil Bridger do not demonstrate notability, one being a bare name mention in a book, the other a single news story. Pigman☿ 06:13, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This organization is not notable enough do deserve an article on Wikipedia. In a Google search, with the notable exception of an Forbes article about Karen I. Tse, all the 627 results are press-releases or other forms of self-promotion, posted in a variety of websites by people related to the organization. Wikipedia shouldn't be one more of these websites. Damiens.rf 16:50, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've added sources to the article that demonstrate notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:14, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Article reads like a copyvio pieced together from various sources (second paragraph comes from IBJ web site, for example). Coverage from Forbes, US News, etc., demonstrate that the subject meets WP:CORP, but the best move is to scrape clean and start anew. B.Wind (talk) 04:47, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Speedy delete as per copy violation tag --BrucePodger (talk) 23:43, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete copyvio of [8]. B.Wind (talk) 03:10, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
speedy delete as copyvio, but no problem with re-creating in the future if it can be re-written without copyvio and the peacocking that comes with it. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 15:11, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nabla (talk) 16:44, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The copyvio has definitely been addressed. John Vandenberg(chat) 00:46, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Reliable 3rd party source, from Anthropology News March 2007. Copyvio issue from before has apparently been resolved. Still requires a cleanup. SunCreator (talk) 17:15, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This is a good article, albeit with some POV issues and non-neutral wording. Any doubts about copyright infringement have been addressed. The Museum is undoubtedly of encyclopedic interest. I have attempted a minor cleanup to remove non-encyclopedic use of adjectives, and remove errors created by copy/paste of text from IMOW website.--Benmoreassynt (talk) 17:47, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Needs cleanup but sustained 3rd-party WP:RS coverage is availble to establish notability and fix the article. • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment - withdrew my delete vote after seeing copyvio problem has been addressed - otherwise don't know enough about notability for these sorts of things to make an informed comment. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 13:00, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep while there are some press releases in the mix, there is significant RS coverage that more than establishes notability. This can easily be added to the museums project's to-do list if kept for clean up TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 02:00, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Article sources are improved. Pigman☿ 05:25, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently non-notable music publication. No evidence of notability in the article. Only source is its own Myspace page. Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:29, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per CSD A7 BoL (Talk) 04:55, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the article does assert notability for the publication; so it's not a speedy candidate under CSD A7. The problem is that there are no citations from reliable sources, and two search engines turn up nothing online - not surprising since the magazine existed only before the onset of the Internet. If someone with a few issues and clippings covering the magazine comes forward, it will have to be an unfortunate deletion. Delete unless/until someone comes forward with the pre-Internet sources.B.Wind (talk) 02:45, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A search of google news archives, here, didn't disclose a lot, but enough to convince me that this fanzine was notable. It is referenced in a number of articles as contributing to the early success of later notable bands and evidently had enough pull in the industry to ship musicians internationally to perform in festivals. (That's found in "Metal bands of 5 countries plan to let it all hang out", Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Jul 26, 1991.) I'm adding what seems appropriate to the article, but it's challenging because these are subscription only sources, and I'm not subscribing. --Moonriddengirl(talk) 13:22, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm combing through a standard google search now, and the deeper I go, the more convinced I am of the notability of this magazine. Please note that it has changed significantly since its nomination, here. I'm still adding some of what I find, though a lot is not usable (bare mentions of interviews of famous bands/individuals, for instance). Although this is one of the most notable examples, I find a number of instance likes this where Salon gives a "shout out" to the magazine here and credits them as being among the factors that contributed to the popularization of Metallica. --Moonriddengirl(talk) 14:25, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, jonny-mt 16:32, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Metal Forces was definitely a notable magazine in the 1980's for its coverage of the underground heavy metal scene and in many ways was more significant than Kerrang! for its coverage of new and upcoming bands. The magazine was also at the forefront in the promotion of thrash metal, and many bands from that era owe their early success to Metal Forces. For us readers, growing up, it really was the "bible". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.103.153.15 (talk) 15:01, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Article has been updated with additional citations. It has a way to go, but enough has been added to meet notability requirements. Keep. B.Wind (talk) 04:50, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Speedily deleted: no notability was claimed. - CobaltBlueTony™talk 15:22, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable; Google search for her name turns up only sites that are self-published or are blatantly trying to advertise her; no third party sources covering her in a significant manner. Original nomination by User:Naerii as a prod but needed to go to AFD. Jason Harvestdancer | Talk to me 15:11, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Fails the criteria at WP:FOOTYN as he has never played a professional game. No references or sources are listed to prove other notability. Eastlygod (talk) 14:42, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO#Athletes as has never played in a fully professional league. пﮟოьεԻ57 07:17, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 With the confirmation of the album title it is obvious this vote is heading towards keep, although I would have prefered more information. If any objections, it can be still discussed for a merge or deletion review. --JForget 00:03, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No reliable sources. All quoted sources are blogs, that seem to track back to one source: the unreliable www.tommy2.net. Kww (talk) 13:41, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Vanessa Hudgens. Checking out the sources, though, this does not seem to be a verifiable thing. The sources look made up, and one of them is even a LiveJournal. It still doesn't pass the criteria of WP:MUSIC#Albums. When the album is confirmed by major sources, then we can start an article. phoenixMourning ( talk/contribs ) 14:59, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:If the title has no reliable source, why a redirect?Kww (talk) 15:05, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I checked her "official fan website" (http://www.vanessa-hudgens.com) and they said that it's completed though. I don't think it's very reliable, as things and people associated with the Disney Channel and Radio Disney spread rumors like wildfire. phoenixMourning ( talk/contribs ) 16:49, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's listed there as "Sophomore Album" with a "rumoured title of Identified". Not sufficient to justify an article with this title.Kww (talk) 18:27, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Still just a fan-site (despite its impressive name), but it has been upgraded to the title there. Still no sources from the record label.Kww (talk) 00:48, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- This is the title of her new album and if you type Vanessa Hudgens Identified in on google, you will find millions of sources. Piece-of-Me-08 (talk) 14:10, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It has now been confirmed by Vanessa herself. Exclusive_474 15:05, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All anybody needs to do is cite just ONE reliable source and this debate would be over. Just don't state they exist - point to one that meets wiki WP:RS requirements.--NrDg 07:51, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As said before, it fails WP:Music because their is no reliable sources reporting it --Kanonkas : Take Contact 18:58, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - We now have confirmation that the album will be called Identified but we don't have a reference that we can actually use in an article as the reference is a copyright infringement of Disney Radio property. We need a reference we can legally link to still and not stumble over contributory copyright infringement. WP:COPYRIGHT#Linking_to_copyrighted_works --NrDg
Comment I agree that we shouldn't generally directly link to a Youtube video. I'm satisfied with a reference directly to the Radio Disney interview. No real difference between that and linking to a print source.Kww (talk) 21:43, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The difference is that a print source has archives and a full cite will give all the information necessary for a physical archive lookup to verify the content. The radio interview is transient and therefore unverifiable even if we give complete information. We need a trusted person, aka a reliable source, to assert they heard the interview and can vet the contents. Unfortunately none of us can do that even though we have all heard the interview and I, NrDg, assert the information is correct. --NrDg 21:57, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Use "Vanessa Hudgens (2008-04-11), Interview, Radio Disney" as a reference for now until we get something better. --NrDg 23:42, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The title is officially announced. Surfer-boy94 09:02 (UTC) 14 April 2008
Keep - Vanessa has confirmed the title herself. Motion-In-The-Ocean 04:06 (UTC) 15 April 2008
Keep - This is the title of the album. As said above, Vanessa has confirmed it. Insomniatic_999 09:42 (UTC) 15 April 2008
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. --jonny-mt 16:39, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Completely non-notable local Jesus camp for kids. Fails WP:N and WP:COI, since it was created by an account with the same name as the article. Qworty (talk) 01:51, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Actually it's something like a combination/choice of a certificate program for ministry (especially youth ministry) and missionary training. We might do well to have an article on Master's Commission generally. I don't think individual programs are necessary. They're basically unaccredited religious training camps. --Dhartung | Talk 08:53, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Indeed, WP:COI guidelines only recommend against article creation/editing by users closely associated with an organization, but have no rule against it. Feel free to let me know (or edit :D) anywhere in the article that is non NPOV. I'm not sure what you mean by "Jesus Camp", but while Rockford Master's Commission isn't accredited for the first year, second year on takes courses through Global University. There are a few more things I'll be adding to the article as far as notability as well. Dhartung, I do agree that it would be worth having a general Master's Commission article. I would be able to get some information together for that, though it'd wouldn't be for a while. --216.124.161.226 (talk) 23:42, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Moonriddengirl(talk) 12:35, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not Notable. Just another small sunday school with delusions of grandeur. Jason Harvestdancer | Talk to me 15:15, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Procedural nom. In my mind, there's nothing uncontroversial about the PROD which was placed on the article, thus why I'm bringing this to AfD for consensus. The reason placed on the page by user Brandonbarr was: "This article was created by Riam4ever, which is a know pseudonym of the Brandon Barr in Redlands, CA, a fact that can be confirmed with a Google search of "Riam4ever" (ie: this article was written by its subject). This is a clear conflict of interest. Additionally, this entry is without much substance or references, and is being used to further the career of Mr. Barr, while additionally causing confusion between this Brandon Barr and me--a writer, poet, and critic of the same name that has a longer history of publication." As this is a procedural nomination, I am neutral at this time. Redfarmer (talk) 11:54, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He's published a few books, but all I can find about him is on his official website. There are a couple of minor mentions, and then the rest of the Google hits seem to be about different people. He fails the notability guideline at this time. PeterSymonds | talk 12:28, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete "Several short stories" is not notability. DGG (talk) 02:53, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Articles are usually orphaned for a reason. The only links to it deal with this AfD. Subject falls short on WP:BIO. B.Wind (talk) 04:56, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This is just a spam article created by the subject. Psykosonik (talk·contribs) Text copied from article talk page history. ➨ REDVEЯS is always ready to dynamically make tea 11:51, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sources aren't substantial enough, and none of his novels seem to be notable. A page on him was deleted in 2006. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 17:15, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete looks like a serious case of the V-word. JuJube (talk) 19:11, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Wikipedia:SNOW (non-admin closure). Consensus forms that independent, reliable sources establish the subject's notability. WilliamH (talk) 01:25, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Vanity sections and lack of references are easily fixed through editing, not AfD. 19,000 non-wiki ghits, several hits in Google News -- it's very likely that notability will be easily established.--Fabrictramp (talk) 13:55, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup. Multiple WP:ATHLETE athlete alumni verified. Partial references were already there (but damaged) or readily available. • Gene93k (talk) 14:31, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - plainly notable high school. Several specific claims to notability and thanks to Gene93k has the independent sources needed to meet WP:N. TerriersFan (talk) 16:21, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article makes clear and specific claims of notability, supported by reliable and verifiable sources satisfying the Wikipedia:Notability standard. Alansohn (talk) 17:27, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The result was keep. The subject is notable as the mother of a major celebrity, but that is totally seperate from her notability as a published musician and author. Keep. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 23:30, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well i saw that bob marleys mother passed away, but instead of deleting the article i was thinking of having a merge to Bob Marley Under Family. What do you think? All thoughts are welcomed.--Pookeo9 (talk) 21:51, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't delete. Instead, merge with Marley family page. There will be a lot of interesting bio articles all over the web that can be linked. She also had a singing career of her own, and was the matriarch of this very famous and large family. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kwgreen (talk • contribs) 12:29, 10 April 2008 (UTC) — Kwgreen (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
She deserves a page on her own, even if she is Bob Marley's mother. Just like Bob's wife would probably deserve a page because of her work in The We-Fives, and in raising Bob's legal children. I say legal, because Bob left descendants other than Ziggy, Rohan and their siblings. gtdanyelz --198.150.12.32 (talk) 22:09, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
merge with Bob Marley's article - she has no notability except by connection with him.Be best (talk) 23:35, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but give the article better citations. A number of good articles from reputable news media outlets are now available and more info will probably be available in the next few days.[9][10]Scanlan (talk) 00:21, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep subject is notable for her albums and books. Editorofthewiki 10:46, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep References like the ones Scanlan found can be added. Her relationship with Bob Marley alone wouldn't be enough. But if you combine that with the books and albums I'd say there's just enough to pass for a solo article.--Cube lurker (talk) 15:33, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Giving birth to someone who later became famous doesn't make you notable. Are we to have articles on the parents of every celebrity? 195.188.40.144 (talk) 10:22, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not all of them, just the ones that go on to author books, release albums or partake of other notable activity.--Cube lurker (talk) 13:35, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. She has written books, and recorded a couple of albums on her own. Some people have done much less than that and can be found on WP... Jahsensie (talk) 17:09, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 DGG says it all really... SpartazHumbug! 07:10, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment—I could not find any specific information that would make this publisher particularly notable. They do appear to exist, but I didn't see any of their publications that had large runs, positive reviews or notable awards. Chimericana Books just appears to be a vehicle for the owner to publish material that others won't touch. So I can't support a keep at this time.—RJH (talk) 17:53, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
COMMENT
I don't see a reason to remove this entry, the author is a legitimate writer, editor and artist. I have a book called The Starry Wisdom, a short story anthology of Lovecraft-inspired tales. Among the contributors- J G Ballard, William S Burroughs, Ramsey Campbell and Mike Philbin, Chimericana editor. You won't find any of his novels in a traditional small bookstore. This does not make the writing illegitimate. Just as there are great, unrecognized independent film makers, there are also great independent, unusual independent writers. His stories are everywhere, there are probably over a hundred on line. Mr. Philbin is a serious and dedicated writer- he is prolific, and the vast number of publications that have published his material is proof that he does have a following, is a legitimate artist, and that he has an uncompromising vision. About me- I won't pretend to be unbiased. Mike Philbin accepted stories by me for two of his anthologies, and I am grateful for that. I had submitted them to him because I was a fan of his writing and publications. But the fact that I am a fan of his writing has nothing to do with this post. I see no legitimate reason to remove this post. All I can think is that perhaps someone has a personal agenda, perhaps someone who had a story rejected for the Chimeraworld anthologies, and that this is more like a subtle harrassment than an attempt to clean up wikipedia. This entry is accurate. This entry belongs on Wikipdeia, and I would be glad to do whatever is possible to keep this entry up and preserve the integrity of Wikipdeia. Because if this is due to some personal agenda it does Wikipedia a disservice to take seriously claims that an entry is not legitimate simply because the author's radical writing and outspoken views have angered some. What is the criterion for deciding this page should be taken down?
Davidltamarin (talk) 14:27, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Considering that their apparent flagship publication, "Chimeraworld", is unlikely to be notable as a book, considering no US library has a copy of it or any book with that word in the title. Nor does any library have "Jane's Game", or indeed., any other publication from this publisher. DGG (talk) 03:01, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete.Sandstein (talk) 20:34, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neologism, original research. While there are certainly atheists who consider themselves spiritual, there is no evidence offered that shows this is a term with established and significant usage. Indeed, it is a neologism by the author's own admission, and creation of this article appears to be part of a campaign by The Center for Spiritual Atheism to get the term recognized by dictionaries and other resources, and this "organization" appears to be little more than a website with no notability. The definition of the term is not supported by any reliable sources, and seems to refer to a type of Pantheism. There are references, but I know that at least one of them does not support the content--G.H. Smith's book does not list the term in its index, nor do I recall it ever addressing the subject. There are no in-line citations supporting any of the content, which appears to be purely original research. Nick Graves (talk) 17:07, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Deleteand Move to user space. This is a notable topic generally, but it appears to have been added to Wikipedia, as the nominator states, as a promotional piece for a website, and as such seems to be entirely original research. However, if you search for the exact pairing on google "spiritual atheism" you get 4,780 hits, with many forum discussions and web pages about being both an atheist and spiritual (and again using this exact neologism). In fact I heard a discussion recently on Speaking of Faith where Greg Epstein discussed this very inclination after being asked about it by the show's host. So my recommendation is to suggest to the entry's author that s/he move it to user space and work on making it something other than an promotional tool before putting it back up. Perhaps there are people from the Atheism Wikiproject who would be willing to help. I think simply deleting this page without noting the fact that it is a viable topic is a problem and sends the wrong message.PelleSmith (talk) 17:43, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm amending my original assessment because from further searching it seems that the slightly different emphasis described by the article Ttiotsw linked below is much closer to the predominant usage out there. In other words I still think this is a concept that is notable, and growing in notability, but its too far removed from the promotional material posted by entry creator. Also, it might be tough presently to find third party sourcing, as the thousands of hits out there are mostly to self-descriptive accounts of people calling themselves spiritual atheists. The similarity in what these people claim, however, is rather astonishing and I don't agree at all with Ttiotsw that because there is no academic literature available (which isn't surprising since its a neologism), or because there is no notable organization around this concept yet, that all of these testimonials don't amount to something mildly significant. Don't get me wrong, I'm no spiritual atheist, but mildly self-conscious self-identifications, however simplistically they may be worked out, garner more attention than that.PelleSmith (talk) 20:30, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not notable, though the editor can move to userspace as suggested above to build up the references. It looks like the starting of an article and the search string "Spiritual Atheism" gets hits but the hits are crap and contradictory to the article (e.g. [11] feels it's addressing a different idea). No big-name journal or paper stands out so it just doesn't feel notable. It's a neologism. Ttiotsw (talk) 19:16, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Right now I'm undecided between stubbify and delete. Current article appears to be original research veering toward the self-promotional, so current article has to go. However, underlying topic may be marginally notable, although there seems to be a haystack of personal-page type unreliable sources from which it might be possible to extract a needle of reliable ones. --Shirahadasha (talk) 21:25, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The definition presented here seem substantively the same as the article on Naturalistic spirituality, and there also exists Secular spirituality as a possible merge/redirect target. The current promotionalism needs to go (and someone should probably keep an eye on all those redlinks), but I am not yet sure what to do about the rest of it. - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 22:16, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Original research. YahelGuhan 06:15, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No doubt, many atheists consider themselves spiritual, however the article here doesn't appear to significantly differentiate this philosophy from Deism or even Naturalism. While references are mentioned, no in-text citations or anyththing specific is cited to demonstrate notability, and all the information that actually exists in the entry reads more like an essay than an exposition of properly sourced data. ◄Zahakiel► 13:22, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and some serious clean-up with naturalistic spirituality/secular spirituality, all of which are almost identical topics and do have notability. However, across all three topics there is only one in-text citation along with tons of original research. -- MacAddct 1984(talk • contribs) 14:05, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Definitely POV! "Non-literal Christianity" = "spiritual atheism", and apparently, so is anyone who doesn't believe what the author believes. Looks like we'll be going to hell after all. Mandsford (talk) 19:38, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think the nominator said it best, while this is a concept that certainly exists and I know many people who have taken a similar belief (myself partially included) but as a term it is very uncommon. There is the one website, "spiritualatheism.com" that uses the term, but it is far from a reliable source. So I have to say delete without merging as a nonnotableneologism without coverage from reliable sources. I did manage to find this [12], but it doesn't really discuss the actual term as much as the concept, and I'm not sure of its reliability either. The Dominator (talk) 13:53, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 21:54, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete None of his compositions appear to be notable; none of the films are notable, nor are the bands he's composed for. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 16:39, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable. In addition, can people watch list this article as user PJ Corvus keeps removing the AFD. --Fredrick Dayton (talk) 15:23, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete I'm always dubious of allowing a wikiproject to dictate a notability guideline for subject areas that is seen to trump overall notability. The requirement is for multiple non-trivial independant coverage. This does not meet this and therefore gets kicked into touch. Just to be clear, match reports are not multiple reliable sources create. SpartazHumbug! 07:03, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Created by member of the club with no significant input from indeppendent editors. Unable to verify most of the content as there are no sources that go beyond trivial listings. Fails the notability guideline of Wikipedia:WikiProject Rugby union - the team is at the second level of regional competition. dramatic (talk) 10:49, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. None of the three external links given mention the club. As dramatic says, their home page is not available, the lds site appears to be the home page for the entire organisation, and mooloos is the home page for the Waikato Rugby Union.-gadfium 18:45, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The page now has solid third party articles related to some headings. Fo rexample, why the Jaradites switched from Rugby League to Rugby Union. The success of individuals and team effort.Wsunnex (talk) 23:08, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The posting of a library user number to allow viewing of a restricted access resource violates both Wikipedia guidelines and the Hamilton City Council's regulations. Given that you have provided references for some of the material, we have a question of notability. A Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Rugby_union#Are_New_Zealand_Rugby_clubs_notable.3F discussion at the Rugby Union wikiproject suggests that teams at the second level of a district union competition are non-notable unless there are special aspects of notability. Has Jaradites won a large number of titles? no. Is the fact that it is based around the LDS community notable? No - there have been religion-based rugby clubs (Marist in nearly every NZ city) for decades. The number of brothers is really clutching at straws for notability (and IIRC it isn't referenced). An entire team switching codes is certainly unusual, but is that sufficient basis for an article? It is also problematic that there have been no substantial contributions from any disinterested editors. (It's a sort of litmus test - if you are notable, someone else can be bothered researching and writing about you)dramatic (talk) 12:22, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As per Wsunnex. Has third party source, Waikato Times is a reliable source. Could use a clean-up, but shouldn't be deleted. - Shuddetalk 02:51, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Someone using an IP Address belonging to the University of Waikato attempted to remove a delete vote and a comment (by different users) from this discussion. And again on 18 April (reported to AIV). dramatic (talk) 01:23, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 references provided apprear to be incidental. For this to survive we really need to see some proper sourcing for verifiability if nothing else. Otherwise, this looks like POV original research. SpartazHumbug! 06:51, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unreferenced boxing term. Was a proposed deletion, but has already been once deleted per Prod in the past and then recreated (which counts as contesting). Unless some good sources about such a concept can be found, it remains little more than a dictionary definition with an ill-defined list. Tikiwont (talk) 10:02, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, and why are you nominating? 86.44.28.245 (talk) 10:25, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well it was indeed half procedural, half because of lacking sources. I've expanded the rationale.--Tikiwont (talk) 10:52, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Runs risk of an attempted dict definition of a media hype coinage with an extremely loose application, but if properly sourced, could be a useful list and history of fights deemed superfights by writers not parroting press releases. 86.44.28.245 (talk) 11:14, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I added some notes and refs to the article to try to indicate what i mean here. 86.44.28.245 (talk) 04:21, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete: Totally unreferenced and the subject is not even defined properly. It appears to be an entirely subjective definition based on what is deemed "mega". I tagged it as unencyclopedic and unreferenced a while back and nobody has done anything to address these issues. I can't see any hope of getting a half-decent article out of this. --DanielRigal (talk) 11:52, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - hard to tell really. It gets alot of ghits but which are 'Super fight' and which are a specific term 'superfight' and which are just advertorial bad grammar I don't know. It is crying for one solid reliable source really. I would guess it should be deleted otherwise...Cheers, Casliber (talk·contribs) 10:59, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete --JForget 00:07, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. He does seem to have released a lot of records. Are the record labels mentioned in the article major labels in Argentina, or significant independent ones? I couldn't find an article on him in the Spanish Wikipedia. --Eastmain (talk) 05:45, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hersfold(t/a/c) 04:45, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, jonny-mt 09:46, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The rules to allow biographical pages such as these, are governed by the present text at WP:MUSIC: "This page in a nutshell: A musician or ensemble is notable if it has had some sort of recognition by professional organizations such as music charts. Notability is met if the musician has been the subject of a broadcast by a media network.". Also see WP:MUSIC#Criteria for composers and lyricists. Self-published sources are at times acceptable WP:SELFPUB, but this article may have verifiability issues, possible conflict of interest issues, and external link issues. Bottom line, this DJ appears to have NO entries in professional music charts, so unless those records were released from a major, or a significant indie label with major distribution, DELETE. Jrod2 (talk) 10:24, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Absolutely no coverage in reliable sources whatsoever. I'm tempted to say speedy delete G3 because most, if not all, of those chart positions (for USA, for instance) look totally bogus. However, the page is protected so I can't G3. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 16:44, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per TenPoundHammer, this article then should have been taken out the first time it popped up. Not even Wikipedia in Spanish allowed him to create a biographical article. He also has serious WP:COI issues, (see his user page [[15]]). Jrod2 (talk) 17:06, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Hindu (?) deity of unclear notability. The article focuses on that deity's family tree. Delete. Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth-timed 10:01, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless independent refs are provided (and the horrible page-widening is fixed!) -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 18:16, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If ref provided ,add the page to vishwakarmas —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.164.182.134 (talk) 13:48, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. As far as I can make out this seems to be an article about a caste in South Asia whose members consider themselves to be descendants of Viswakarma, so the genealogy is relevant to the subject. There are some sources at Google Books. I'm sure that this is a notable subject which should have an article, but this one is in a very sorry state at the moment, even after I fixed the worst of the formatting problems. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:47, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article reveal some appocripfas in hinduisam. Viswabrahmins had been always raising phylosophical and rational rebellion against convensional brahmanisam in India.The ancient social system denied a suitableforum to reveal these parallel stream of brahmanism.It should be there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.164.187.91 (talk) 14:36, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Unsourced (external link leads to a social site, not a reliable source), not Wikified, orphaned, original research, written as an essay (almost sermon-like), and... if this is an appropriate subject for a well-sourced, NPOV Wikipedia article, it will need to be scraped clean to start anew. Oh... Orphaned articles are usually orphaned for a very good reason. B.Wind (talk) 02:17, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 09:22, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, very weakly, and entirely without prejudice. This is a borderline case, but this text is a bit too daunting to edit into a serviceable article. Google Scholar yields 12 hits, which is not inconsiderable; but the articles themselves would appear to be about an ethnic group, not a deity. Regular Google brings forth mostly Hindu marriage bureaus. (??) I'd say all deities are notable per se, at least if someone didn't just make them up yesterday. So are most ethnic groups or Hindu castes. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 13:54, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
RedirectViswabrahmin to Vishwakarmas, which is a much better developed article on the caste (there is no servicable content in the article being AFD'ed). We already have two articles on the related deity: Vishvakarman and Viswakarma, which should be merged. Note that the the same term can refer to the caste or the deity and to make matters more confusing, there are several possible spelling variants, with the sw being replaceable by shw, sv, shv and brahmin being replaceable by brahma, brahman, karma, karmas, karman ... and of course we can add "Lord" or Shri" or "Sri" to the deity's name! No wonder we have all this mess. Sigh. Abecedare (talk) 20:33, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Should the redirect go there, or to Vishvakarman, which seems to actually be about the deity this is trying to describe? - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 00:43, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I suggested the Vishwakarmas (i.e., the caste) page because all the Google book hits seem to use the term for the community and because the anglicized brahmin is usually used to refer to a varna, rather than the universal entity brahman. Anyway, I have added "otheruses" tags to the two pages so that the readers can easily find the article they are interested in. Abecedare (talk) 01:29, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. I didn't spot the Vishwakarmas article. We always seem to get this problem of multiple overlapping articles about South Asian castes. It would be great if some people with knowledge of the subject and a commitment to NPOV editing could get a grip on these, because I would love to be able to get an idea of what this whole subject is about rather than try to see through the POV fog. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:35, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Pigman☿ 05:29, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, there seems to be an extensive number of theatre appearances, which may convey notability. Maybe someone more familiar with that branch of performing arts can tell us if any of these productions are significant? Lankiveil(speak to me) 10:57, 10 April 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Delete A long list of well known plays and musicals doesn't convey notability - many of these are commonly produced at amateur or semi-amateur level. The references to entertainment industry sites such as Imdb are pretty threadbare, citing just Blue Water High. Notability not established in my view. Murtoa (talk) 12:07, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Murtoa makes a good point - there's no evidence his performance of The Witches of Eastwick (etc.) was anything more than amateur. I'm not seeing anything on his IMDB bio. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 23:51, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 absence of delete preferences (non-admin closure). Possibility of merging content elsewhere left open to editors of the article. Skomorokh 00:06, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Attempts at both a redirect and a prod were apparently removed by the author of the page. Wikipedia is not a "how-to" manual per WP:NOT#HOWTO. J Readings (talk) 07:56, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it is probably a copyvio. The biggest giveaway is "as provided in Rule 11 below.", when the text has no "rule 11". My guess is that this is taken straight out of the policies. However, the subject here is notable. Lotto is the oldest and largest of the Norwegian lotteries, and the results and draws are made on national TV in prime time. In fact, even some of the advertisements for Lotto are notable in that they won the annual Gullfisken (Gold Fish) award for best TV commercial. Sjakkalle(Check!) 10:58, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The article Norsk Tipping already covers in the abstract state-sponsored games in Norway. While that article, too, has its fair share of problems (no reliable sources, no citations, possible original research, etc), this article -- in addition to those problems -- reads like a "how-to" guide with little additional reason to justify its inclusion into the encyclopedia. J Readings (talk) 11:10, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Tell you what, I have gone ahead and rewritten the whole article. As it is a rushed work, it is not in very good shape, but I have taken away most of your concerns. In fact, this game is so encyclopedic that the paper encyclopedia Store norske leksikon has an article on it. (online version) Keep. Sjakkalle(Check!) 11:36, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Norsk_Tipping, game is not notable on its own but the Norsk Tipping games probably have collective notability. Lankiveil(speak to me) 11:53, 10 April 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Comment. I am utterly amazed at seeing "merge" votes when I have presented that the lottery is the subject of a separate article in a paper encyclopedia. Are we really going to start having more restrictive notability standards than paper encyclopedias? Sjakkalle(Check!) 14:26, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per very interesting/relevant comment by Sjakkalle. If we believe in WP:NOTPAPER then we should be at least as inclusive as a specialized paper encyclopedia. I have to imagine a national lottery will also have plenty of reliable sources. Certainly state lotteries in the US do. Hobit (talk) 18:55, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I share Sjakkalle's amazement. Don't people even bother to read previous comments before commenting themselves at AfD? Phil Bridger (talk) 07:40, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Wizardman 14:57, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Attempts at a prod first was removed by the original author of the page. Wikipedia is not a "how-to" manual per WP:NOT#HOWTO. J Readings (talk) 07:54, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Norsk_Tipping, game is not notable on its own but the Norsk Tipping games probably have collective notability. Lankiveil(speak to me) 11:53, 10 April 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Merge per Lankiveil, trimming copyvio as necessary Percy Snoodle (talk) 14:23, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lacking context, not a stand-alone article. WWGB (talk) 12:38, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No real context, appears to be a copyvio of a promotion for a state-run lottery game (or commercial promotion). B.Wind (talk) 05:15, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Speedy Delete per WP:CSD#G11 and contents of talk page or WP:CSD#G3 as made up nonsense. Pedro : Chat 08:23, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Thanks for the great explanation! Anyway - It should be a speedy with a db-nonsense or db-bio instead of going to the AFD. Fattyjwoods(Push my button) 07:12, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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:CSD#A7. Salting, since this is the fourth deletion of this page. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:12, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Self-overturned speedy after claims of notability. But they don't seem notable (i.e., fails WP:BIO. Notability is not usually inherited from parents, there are high-achieving students at every school, cites of involvement in major projects aren't specific enough to evaluate level of participation, etc. DMacks (talk) 05:01, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I completely agree that this article needs to be deleted; this article does not seem to have any grounds whatsoever for existence on Wikipedia. RobertM525 (talk) 05:09, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:N, WP:BIO. Speedy perhaps? Salt liberally if recreated. Xdenizen (talk) 06:06, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If Rocco really were a notable, hardworking student, he wouldn't have all this time on his hands. Qworty (talk) 08:23, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - calling yourself notable three times in four lines doesn't make you so. JohnCD (talk) 09:53, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, would not appear to be all that notable in the wider world. Lankiveil(speak to me) 11:51, 10 April 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Delete per the following:
1st reference: a catalog reference of an article about hte subject's father having made racially charged remarks while on the air. Notable???
2nd reference: a list of Scripps National Spelling Bee results: "Settonni" does not appear on this page. I even manually scanned it when the search feature turned up nothing. No notability here.
3rd reference: is list of departments at Midpark High School. Settonni's name appears nowhere, and even if it did, such participation does not meet WP:BIO. Still no notability.
4th reference: a page about the National Young Leaders Conference. Settonni's name does not appear here either. Not notable.
Added comment: The phrase "Rocco Settonni" makes only three Google hits, two of which have come from Wikipedia and the situation around this article. The thrid is a PDF of non-notable sports participation. - CobaltBlueTony™talk 13:10, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. John254 01:40, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article does not cite any sources whatsoever, and it has been tagged as such for quite some time. RobertM525 (talk) 04:56, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per countering systemic bias, clearly interesting and notable subject, there are hundreds of thousands of articles more demanding of afd than this. Thanks, SqueakBox 05:06, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Other articles are worse" is not sufficient grounds for an article to be kept. Per WP:PROVEIT, "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." I'd love to see this article sourced and kept, but if it isn't, it needs to go. And those other articles? Yeah, they should be nominated for deletion, too; not used as grounds to justify the existence of other articles like them. RobertM525 (talk) 05:15, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is when systemic bias is such an important issue on wikipedia, so I simply disagree with the first part of your comment. Thanks, SqueakBox 05:32, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can you remove the "Thanks" part from your comments? It's reeeeally annoying. 86.44.28.245 (talk) 10:30, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Under no circumstances, please do not direct such comments to me, see WP:Civil and stop beiong a jerk. Thanks, SqueakBox 16:25, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - found some minors sources but nothing to meet WP:N. SunCreator (talk) 05:18, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep now that some references are added. SunCreator (talk) 16:08, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Your ignorance is not the reason for deletion. If you want references, why don't you ask about it politely at Portal:Russia/Russia-related Wikipedia notice board? Obviously the topic is of notability, not some junk fictional universes from computer games or pornstars. `'Míkka>t 05:30, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment To be fair to the nominator the {{unreferenced}} tag has been on this article for over six months. And right now despite your assertion otherwise, there is not one reference given on the article to verify it's notability. SunCreator (talk)
The article was written three years ago when policies of WP:V were lax and deletionism was not so rampant. "And right now" people have life besides wikipedia, you know. I have at last found some time to waste and added references. I doubt you will find anything in English online, though. `'Míkka>t 15:37, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We don't need anything in Engl;ish. This encyclopedia is written in English but it is not about the world as seen through English speaking eyes, it is about the world as a whole (the sum of knowledge etc). Thanks, SqueakBox 18:39, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm with you on that, times have changed. You might like to look at this also Afd on Median Europe. Ah I see you have already :) SunCreator (talk) 16:08, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable subject, often referred in the Gulag-related literature Alex Bakharev (talk) 05:45, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless reliable sources are provided. I can believe that the subject of the article is real and notable, but without any references to prove it, it can't be included in Wikipedia. Terraxos (talk) 05:52, 10 April 2008 (UTC) On second thoughts, keep. A Google search finds this mention [16], which isn't much, but is enough to convince me that this was a notable historical phenomenon. Given that, the article should stay; it can always be improved later. Terraxos (talk) 05:58, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Another sign of cultural bias against Eastern Europe. - Darwinek (talk) 09:00, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've read a bit about blatnoy culture and this adds up for me. 86.44.28.245 (talk) 10:10, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a matter of whether or not it's true. I'm not doubting the article. Per WP:V, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." Verifiability is derived through sources. Without sources, the article is not verifiable, and thus not eligible for being on Wikipedia. Even the article on Canada, something I doubt anyone would question the existence of, needs sources. Per WP:V (and WP:NOR), we can't just write articles here about things we've seen, read, or heard of, no matter the topic or how accurate our articles turn out to be. RobertM525 (talk) 18:50, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It was unverified. I believed it could be verified by a visit to a good library. Old-style articles on encyclopedic topics that have survived being read and potentially edited by hundreds of people with knowledge of the subject are in their way more honest than sourced articles that have not undergone the most rigorous review. They claim no authority, they cherry-pick no sources, they misrepresent none, and they do not give potential editors pause on any point of dispute. I prefer that we have an article of this sort than no article. 86.44.28.245 (talk) 23:16, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While the article might not be (admittedly) well cited, it is a well documented historical event. It was featured on the History Channel, "Organized Crime: Russian Mafia" program. Arm (talk) 13:50, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless someone actually produces a reliable source (hearsay and blogs don't count). When this is done, I suggest moving the article to something like Snitch wars in Soviet prisons as the current title is too vague and suggestive (I was expecting something about gangsta rappers). Colonel Warden (talk) 14:24, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There seems to be some kind of misunderstanding as to why I nominated this article for deletion, especially from Darwinek and Míkka. They seem to be suggesting that this is some kind of attack against Eastern Europe or Russia or Russians. I honestly cannot say that I understand this; it's some kind of Argumentum ad populum or simply two wrongs make a right. I nominated this article for deletion because it is reflective of what's wrong with Wikipedia right now: too many articles are written without sources, even about topics that ought to be well-written and well-sourced. It undermines Wikipedia's credibility to have articles like this. People seem to be thinking that my nomination of this article was somehow special--why this article and not others? Because this was an article I happened to be on, and rather than just leaving articles tagged "unreferenced" for years on end, I'd like to see the articles get fixed. And look what happened here: only when the article was threatened with deletion did anyone bother to actually fix it. It's sad. I do not buy the excuse that, "I'm busy--I don't have time to make this article 'right.' Just leave it alone, because it deserves and article even if it's a bad one." Look, if you choose to take this AfD nomination as some kind of attack against Russians or Eastern Europe--go ahead. I can't stop you from being that irrational. But, after reading Wikipedia:Wikipedia is failing, I've realized that we Wikipedians need to take a more proactive approach to making Wikipedia worthwhile. So, per WP:PROVEIT, I believe articles need to either be fixed or be deleted. Yes, even articles that are on topics that deserve a good article. RobertM525 (talk) 18:39, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reply I dont know about Darwinek, but you ignored my explanations. Let me recap them. New generations of bold deletionists driven by best intentions now and again fail to understand that quite a few articles were written long time ago when rules were not so strict. Some subjects are of historical note, but unlike US presidential elections or pornstars, no one really watches these pages or works on them unless some drastic happens. I have already written above: if you want so badly some article fixed, go to the corresponding wikiproject, noticeboard, original authors, whatever. But it seems you have a different desire, just delete it and done with the problem. You also seem to lack basic comprehension skills. You wrote I do not buy the excuse that, "I'm busy. This was not what I said. I basically said "I am busy, but I have found some time to fix it". You may further pretend to be naive and ask "" why you did not do it earlier?" My answer: there is HUGE amount of work in wikipedia to be done "earlier". And I am doing it 25/7, but in other areas. But when some mop/scissors wielding wikipoliceman jumps in with threats of deletion, then don't be surprized that I will put aside my regular work, because you created unnecessary exaggerated panic. And you last sentence of aggressive deletionism is duly noted. You are not alone, unfortunately. But fortunately there is some fierce and propactive opposition to your extremism. And no, wikipedia is not failing despite years of bitching and groaning and whinning of some, because some others are working. `'Míkka>t 19:44, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. Another piece of your problem with comprehension: Darwinek wrote "cultural bias". He did not write "attack against Eastern Europe". A bias is a bias, not attack, and Darwinek referred to a well-recognized problem in wikipedia. Please read wikipedia:Countering systemic bias. No one is going to accuse Americans that they don't know Eastern Europe. But a larger problem is that many people refuse to recognize their ignorance in certain areas and refuse or simply lazy to educate themselves before issuing judgments. `'Míkka>t 20:12, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
P.P.S. I have to admit that partly the guilt is mine: in my "keep" vote I should have stated that I've been going to add references to the article. I suspect this would have helped to avoid some heat here. `'Míkka>t 23:28, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You spend a lot of time attacking me rather than my argument that the article does not belong on Wikipedia without sources. And when you are arguing against the deletion itself rather than me and other "ignoramuses," you seem to say that if an article is based upon something that Wikipedia doesn't have much coverage of (i.e., Eastern Europe), then the rules for its inclusion are much more lax than if it is on "US presidential elections or pornstars." I would say that it does not matter what the article is about: the same rules apply to all. Namely, an article must be notable and verifiable. Certainly, I am not arguing that the article is not noteworthy. I'm not even arguing that the article's content is wrong. What I am arguing is that, when I put the AfD up, it was not verifiable within itself (read: sourced). RobertM525 (talk) 00:58, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This sounds like so much self-justification, of course the same rules apply. There is an interesting new debate developing that the whole encyclopedia needs to be NPOV and bloated coverage of everything American while deliberately attacking the coverage of other cultures is an NPOV violation as well as violating pretty much every other goal we have. Thanks, SqueakBox 01:11, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As a deletionist myself I reiterate my above comment that this is not the article or the subject area to be deleting. Along with Africa, Latin America and other parts of the world we really lack coverage of Eastern Europe/Russia whereas we have bloated coverage especially of North America and the UK, and that countering systemic bias is very much what is at issue. We should probably try to make countering systemic bias into policy to nip this kind of thing in the bud. Thanks, SqueakBox 22:28, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Notability is asserted in the article per numerous sources. Nominator should probably look to places such as WICU and the article rescue squad if a subject is notable but the page does not assert notability. AfD is not forced cleanup. CelarnorTalk to me 22:32, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment for new voters. Please note that the references were added only after the article was nominated, so the initial concern was legitimate; only IMO it should have been addressed in a different way. `'Míkka>t 23:28, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Appears to be sourced sufficiently now. Could probably be improved, but that's not a reason for deletion Bfigura(talk) 00:56, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The other day I was wanting to check George Bush's ancestry and came across the interesting suggestion in the Barbara Bush article that he was the grandson of Aleister "The Beast" Crowley. There's some web sources out there for this but, nevertheless, I decided that they were not to be trusted and so reverted. This article that we are now contemplating suggests that Joseph Stalin - an important political and historical figure - reneged upon a deal. This is conceivable, like the Crowley allegation, but it could equally be made up by someone who wants to fling some mud at Stalinism/communism/Uncle Joe/the Russian mafia. And my general understanding is that many/most sources from the Soviet era are dubious due to their regrettable tendency to rewrite history. And we don't actually seem to have a direct citation for this major libel. And if it is in cyrillic, I'm not going to know what it means since this is the English Wikipedia and I don't speak Russian. Now, it doesn't much matter if someone gets their facts wrong about Sailor Moon but, per WP:REDFLAG, something of this importance requires impeccable sources that verify the matter. I'm still not seeing them. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:46, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's also an after-the-fact "source," and was not really the source of the original author's text. FWIW. RobertM525 (talk) 09:16, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article does require a thorough rewrite. Almost all Russian sources cited (but on recent book I didn't verify the author) are not by professional criminologists or historians and they contradict each other in some significant parts. I will think what good might be made of this. `'Míkka>t 21:56, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The topic seems notable enough and is now cited. I would prefer it be renamed to Suka Wars. Steve Dufour (talk) 14:19, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A name change is being discussed on the talk page. Please explain why the present name should be prefered, if you feel that it should. Thanks. Steve Dufour (talk) 04:20, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The book Red Mafiya by Robert Friedman explains the term. I've mentioned it on the talk page if anyone wants to do the cite. Squidfryerchef (talk) 18:18, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately Robert Friedman is poor reference. He is a little-known reporter His book is about Russian Mafia in the US, written in paparazzi style, more for impression than for factual accuracy. The page which (barely) mentions Suka Wars has no refs to sources of info and ridden with factual errors. `'Míkka>t 22:03, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete --JForget 00:22, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A gushing bio but only one of the external links mentions the woman. One solution might be to move the article to West Tennessee Youth Chorus and change it appropriately. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 04:50, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, if this were already a WTYC article it would be a weak keep at best. I dunno if a White House performance, even two, really rates notability (there are scads of events throughout the year, and how high a profile does the Pageant of Peace have?). --Dhartung | Talk 05:03, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete For starters, the title is completely inappropriate for an encyclopedia article. Second, this looks like someone's personal essay about the subject or a direct cut-and-paste copyvio. Some digging will be needed to prove or disprove the latter. Either case is grounds for deletion. DarkAudit (talk) 14:30, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with the nominator. If someone were to create a WP article about WTYC, it might survive (although even there establishing notability would be a tough task). However, I could not find any newsmedia coverage mentioning Martha Wright specifically, except this one:[17] (The name "Martha Wright" is fairly common and GoogleNews search produces lots of hits, but, after additional filtering, all but one appear to be false positives). Nsk92 (talk) 14:34, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to West Tennessee Youth Chorus and refactor appropriately. Assuming article is not overstating the choir's achievements, they stand a reasonable chance of meeting WP:MUSIC, eg appearance on The Today Show might meet point 10, and there is likely to be independent press coverage of the various concert appearances mentioned in the article. The Martha Wright: Uncommon Educator page itself should probably be deleted as a non-useful search term which encourages the generation of pages named in the incorrect style; however, a redirect from a title meeting our guidelines (and that doesn't interfere with the existing redirect from Martha Wright to Martha Coffin Wright) would seem acceptable. Espresso Addict (talk) 22:19, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, If the Chorus is notable someone can write the article. This one is not suitable even for adaptation--the odds of it not being copyvio are infinitesimal ("The final concert of the festival will be held on the Grand Ole Opry House, with celebrities such as .. This facility is recognized as one of the acoustics-friendly venues in the world today, let alone its fame and historicity."). DGG (talk) 02:49, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree it reads like a copyvio in parts, but I've tried and failed to find an online source. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:20, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Definite delete this garrulous press release. Xxanthippe (talk) 12:03, 11 April 2008 (UTC).[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 absence of delete preferences (non-admin closure). The possibility of merging content or redirecting the title elsewhere is left open to editors of the article. Skomorokh 00:10, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Look here. This is the official list of state highways in Nebraska, last updated in 2007 as stated on the second page of the file. Guess that means that part of the agenda never passed, huh? Dbm11085 (talk) 06:07, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You provide the same link as before. I already read it. It may also mean that nebraskatransportation.org just have NOT got around to updating the document for this new road. There are several minors links that say it does exist, but only one implying it doesn't exist. SunCreator (talk) 11:36, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the state would neglect to update their official road data for 3+ years after the meeting referred to in the link you provided. Additionally, the link you posted shows an agenda of the city of Kearney. By definition, an agenda is simply a plan. On the agenda is the planned approval for _construction_ of 10A. Doesn't necessarily mean it was actually approved, especially if the NDOR doesn't have it listed under their own page. After doing a Google search, only the site you brought up appears. Where are the other sources proving that it exists? --Dbm11085 (talk) 18:17, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's very likely that it has existed in the past but was given to the city or county to maintain. It shows up on Google Maps; I believe the agenda item was simply widening the road from two to four lanes (which was done). I would recommend merging this and most such spur and link routes into a list, since there's really not much that can be written aside from what it connects a main highway to. --NE2 17:02, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's also in the 2003 version of the log: [18] --NE2 17:10, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/merge to List of Nebraska Connecting Link, Spur, and Recreation Highways. It's been proven that this highway existed at least in 2003, so don't delete, but these routes are too short to sustain their own articles. Anything currently in the article can be put in a row in the table there. -- Kéiryntalk 00:43, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/merge per Keiryn. – TMF 03:02, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, doesn't assert notability, WP:SNOW. NawlinWiki (talk) 00:36, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A quick google search does not turn up anything but a frat boy, which is who I suspect this is. Aiden Fisher (talk) 04:19, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteLooks like political spam. Not notable unless and until he actually wins. -- Dougie WII (talk) 04:27, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually this is probably more likely just a hoax page. -- Dougie WII (talk) 04:36, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cragg Chaffee is a legitimate candidate with both the executive and military background to be considered as so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.228.128.156 (talk) 04:31, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please give us a reference for this. Aiden Fisher (talk) 04:41, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how this article asserts his notability. It tells us where he works and his star sign, but not why he's worthy of inclusion in the 'pedia. Xdenizen (talk) 05:03, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps he is. Be aware that just being a "legitimate candidate", even for offices higher than this one, is not sufficient notability for a Wikipedia biography. --Dhartung | Talk 05:11, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- as per nom. Not a notable individual. I considered tagging this for speedy deletion when I noticed it on New Pages, but figured it would end up here where the community could comment. Xdenizen (talk) 04:39, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Either this is completely a WP:HOAX, or the Republicans are in even deeper trouble this year than anybody thinks. Qworty (talk) 08:31, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, by the looks of it, an amusing but non-notable joke candidate. Lankiveil(speak to me) 11:49, 10 April 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Delete This is a joke article about a joke candidate. DarkAudit (talk) 14:33, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article content makes it look like a definite hoax. Also, article creator is an SPA. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 20:17, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete - appears to be happening in somebody's back yard. Unsurprisingly, there aren't any reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 13:29, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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; consensus is that the site is notable due to extensive substantial coverage by reliable independent sources, most of which have been added to the article during the AfD. WP:SOAP issues, if any, can probably be fixed through editing. Sandstein (talk) 20:31, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - WP:COATRACK is highly relevant here. This article is not really about the website, it is about Western coverage of Chinese issues, especially Tibet. The linked articles, for example, are not about the website, but about China's government's unhappiness with said news coverage. --Orange Mike | Talk 03:57, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Article is written in an NPOV manner, covering views from opposing sides, so I don't see how it is in violation of WP:SOAP. And apparently it is a notable topic, having been referred to by CCTV, CNN, Der Spiegel, and the Chinese Foreign Ministry. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 03:57, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I've added four links to the External Links section[19]: Xinhua News, World Tribune, SBS, and the PRC Embassy in the US. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 04:15, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
KeepStrong Keep The website appears notable with coverage by both CNN and Der Spiegel - so the article does have reliable third party sources. Possibly some clean-up is required but that is a seperate issue. Nick Connolly (talk) 04:16, 10 April 2008 (UTC) + Multiple hits in a wide range of major news outlets.Nick Connolly (talk) 05:53, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per OrangeMike. Xdenizen (talk) 04:44, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete per nom BoL (Talk) 04:45, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment May I ask under which criteria do you suggest it for speedy deletion? As far as I am concerned, WP:SOAP is not a legitimate reason. Herunar (talk) 06:15, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note The article was originally speedy deleted (by me), as it was nothing but an unsupported attack on news stations - essentialy libel. However in its current format it is most certainly not speedy deletable. Pedro : Chat 07:05, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment to Hong Qi Gong and Nick Connolly - if you follow the links, they are not articles about the website; they are articles about the Chinese government's objections to western coverage of China-related issues. This is the definition of a WP:COATRACK; the article ostensibly about the website is being used as an excuse to discuss these issues. There is little or no substantial coverage of the website, certainly none in reliable sources. --Orange Mike | Talk 04:47, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well the CNN article does refer to the website by name and refer to the allegations made by the website. Likewise the Der Spiegel article. There has also be coverage on the SBS tv channel website in Australia [[20]]. The articles say what the website is, and name the website. Hence we can verify that 1. the website exists 2. it does carry Chinese criticism of western media and 3. it is notable enough to have multiple (if short) references to it in established media. Coatrack issues, and style issues are editorial issues not deletion issues.Nick Connolly (talk) 05:18, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Re-read WP:N: ""Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial..." --Orange Mike | Talk 05:25, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
yes...and the sources are in detail enough that no original research is needed to extract the content. There is a website, it is called Anti-CNN, it does cover Chinese critcism of Western media coverage. All of that is easily verified from reliable third party sources.Nick Connolly (talk) 05:31, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But that doesn't constitute notability. Nobody is disputing that the website exists; so does my talkpage, and my blog. But neither my blog nor my talkpage is notable. --Orange Mike | Talk 05:36, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What exactly is your point? You argued that there is no significant coverage, then upon hearing that there is significant coverage, you argue that it still does not constitute notability. Does CCTV, the largest media source in mainland China, not cement its notability by interviewing the website's creator directly? Of course there are sources which only mention it passingly - it's how every independent movement gained recognition. Devoting a whole article to the website is pointless because it neglects the other parallel movements - much like the case in YouTube phenomenons. Herunar (talk) 05:44, 10 April 2008 (UTC) (edit conflict)[reply]
But if CNN, The Wshington Post, the Wall Street Journal, Der Spiegel and goodness knows how many other diverse major news outlets where all name-checking you and your blog, then yup, your blog would be notable. This blog isn't very notable and WP:UNDUE and WP:COATRACK are issues but they are editorial issues not deletion issues. Nick Connolly (talk) 05:43, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or MergeMerge or Weak Keep mainly per User:Orangemike with regard to WP:COATRACK. But this article does have some relevant information about Chineses' reaction to foreign criticisms about China and Tibet. Perhaps it can be merged to 2008 unrest in Tibet or somewhere else. Chris!ct 05:10, 10 April 2008 (UTC) I decide to hold onto my !vote for now since I want to give this article a chance.Chris!ct 06:02, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
StrongSpeedy keep While a few of the sources are inadequately cited and irrelevant to Anti-cnn, most do refer to Anti-cnn by name and often Anti-cnn is a central theme. Other users advocating deletion here clearly have not bothered to read the sources at all or have no understanding of WP:COATRACK. Anti-cnn has undisputedly gained significant notability on its own and this is notWP:COATRACK. CCTV, the most prominent television network in China, interviewed its creator. The Japanese Sankei Shimbun newspaper is another example of prominent media that is completely about the website. I believe a rewrite is needed in the article, but definitely not deletion. Herunar (talk) 05:34, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I feel called to rectify some of the words OreangeMike chose. The cited links 2-5 are not reactions of chinese goverment---takungpao is a Hongkong based newspaper group free from government control, xinhua.net is a state owned company but not part of government, and it merely collects the content of TV programs previously broadcasted. CNN and Der Spiegel have certainly nothing to do with chinese government, and certainly not unreliable sources. Secondly its does not contain critism of western media coverage in china, nor does the Anti-cnn site it talks about do anything close to that. It's only about claimed "biase and distortion" in some reports. Big difference. If anyone has really checked cited links 4&5 and then spent a little time on Anti-cnn itself, he will agree with me that there's actually an atmosphere of approval for what they call"fair" media coverage, no matter where they come from. As for the content of this page itself I will not accept OrangeMike's assertion that it mentioned Anti-cnn merely as an excuse start irrelavent discuss, because there is simply NO discussion, only discriptions and (to be improved) cited links. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Helloterran (talk • contribs) 05:56, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
From our article Ta Kung Pao: "has been funded by the government of the People's Republic of China since 1949. Widely regarded as the mouthpiece of Communist Party of China". It is definitely not free from government control.F (talk) 07:15, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure. Ta Kung Pao is obviously leftist, but it's not controlled by the PRC. I don't know where those statements come from, and they're uncited. In fact, the TKP website receives more views from North America than from China, so it is not so much anti-west as pro-china. Still, there are many, many other reliable sources, second-party or third-party, which talks about anti-cnn, so the problem over WP:SOURCE and WP:N has never been there. Herunar (talk) 07:40, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Per Orangemike. And Wikipedia articles cannot be used to serve as a rant against organizations let alone calling it lies and distortions. Merumerume (talk) 06:06, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"lies and distortations" is in quotes and is perfectly legitimate. See WP:MOS. There is no rant - please elaborate. Herunar (talk) 06:12, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt you have not read the page carefully. There's no rant. Almost everything related to those organizations are quotations and the quotations are illustrated by pictures shown on Anti-cnn site, which is included in the cited links. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Helloterran (talk • contribs) 06:17, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Only the glaring Western-centric bias of Wikipedia's editor force would even let this approach AfD. Coverage from multiple secondary news sources gives notability and verifiability. CelarnorTalk to me 07:45, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment To nom - may I ask how it is an attack page, which you just added as a reason for deletion? Currently, half of the page is devoted to CNN and Der Spiegel's responses. The rest are mostly quotes and basic information. By every definition it is not an attack page, nor WP:SOAP. While I intend to display good faith, my feeling is that your nomination is extremely biased and shows a fundamental lack of consideration and understanding of Wikipedia policies. Orangemike's reason is a legitimate suggestion but ultimately false and shows a lack of research, considering the many sources in the article which directly contradicts what he says. I urge admins to close this ridiculous nomination and praise the contributors who were able to build a well-cited, well-written and NPOV article for a very sensitive subject, in a very short period. I intend to nominate the article for DYK. Herunar (talk) 07:53, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The website has notability and references. Let's just make sure it remains encyclopedic. --Triwbe (talk) 07:59, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep I second : The website has notability and references. Let's just make sure it remains. Can people stop pointlessly deleting pages! Chendy (talk) 08:56, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to 2008 Tibetan unrest - The content is notable and has reliable sources but the article's name isn't neutral. There's the last statement that anti-xinghua.com website is already made, but we can't keep creating the same articles for each website. So the website maynot be notable but the content is. I think it's better to merge the content to 2008 Tibetan unrest. Dekisugi (talk) 10:38, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The name is neutral because that's what it's called. I don't understand the rest of your comment. The anti-xinhua website is created in response to the anti-cnn website. The article is and has always been notable itself and should not be merged. Herunar (talk) 11:40, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The content is notable, but the website is not. That's why I said it should be merged in the main article I said above. The whole thing can only be written in a section in the main article. Otherwise it looks like a WP:FORK article. About the anti-xinghua, that's exactly what I meant that website is not notable. There might be tens other websites come up later to act and counter-act this whole Tibetan unrest issue. Who knows more to come? So it's useless to have separate articles for these recently-created websites. Dekisugi (talk) 14:00, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The website is notable because many, many third-party source refers to it by name. Sure, it has often been cited to prove a point, but it's exactly because it has become the vent of discontent that it's notable. No other such website has received such attention. The fact that CNN decided to refer it by name is an example of how notable it is, as compared to the other websites that may spawn up. Herunar (talk) 08:42, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, the website is not notable. It is referred by many at this point because of WP:RECENT. In the coming months people forget and the website is going to be just another spark of media hype. Per its title, there is also another place to merge in CNN controversies. Put it there or in 2008 unrest in_Tibet#Aftermath and appraisal section as one or two paragraphs with tons of cite news. The content is really bloated as WP:FORK. Dekisugi (talk) 08:50, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:RECENT is not policy and not even a guideline. It's just an essay. A collection of opinion. And even the essay itself states, "Recentism is not by itself an argument for article deletion — lack of attributability and notability are — but it may make it more difficult to judge whether notability actually exists." Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 09:03, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say to delete the article. I'd say the content should be merged to the main article and redirect this to there. WP:RECENT is a good essay because we're not journalists here. Dekisugi (talk) 09:05, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Perfectly fine article. I understand it's been edited due to POV concerns. I'm sure people will keep an eye on it. 86.44.28.245 (talk) 11:23, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Absolutely no hint of personal opinion, and the content is backed up by wide coverage and sources. PeterSymonds | talk 11:37, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to 2008 Tibetan unrest I'm not an expert on wikipedia policy, but some people have used terms like notable and encyclopedic. But shouldn't whether or not something is notable depend on its legacy? If the site was just created, it seems a bit too soon to immediately label it as notable. Only time will tell whether or not it is notable and worth an article all by itself. Until then, the site seems specific to the Tibet unrest, so I'm with Dekisugi above. If it expands and critiques other stories besides the Tibet unrest, then maybe it is worth a page by itself.--Rayjapan (talk) 14:24, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
True, but WP:NOT#NEWS. Although there are news articles reporting this specific website, but it does not guarantee this website will still get coverage in the coming months. A good essay about this is Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a newspaper. If this website becomes a significant historical entity, then I'm sure we will have a separate page here. The true significant event is the Tibetan unrest itself. Dekisugi (talk) 15:46, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I removed the speedy tag from this originally, and re-wrote it a number of times to try to make it NPOV after various users kept adding screeds of info. I'm honestly not sure how notable the website actually is; the refs are somewhat passing references, and it smacks a bit of WP:RECENT, but there are definitely 3rd party sources. I don't think it's a Deletion candidate; if it's not kept I would be tempted to go for a merge to the Tibetan unrest article, and then split it out again if it becomes obviously independently notable. Black Kite 16:20, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia is not a news service and we cannot have an article about every homepage that monitors media. If this homepage lasts for a couple of years, yes, an article can be created, but as of now, the contents can easily be moved to other articles as have been suggested above.--Amban (talk) 23:24, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - To the editors that have voted to merge to 2008 Tibetan unrest... err... have you seen the size of that article? It's already very bloated and it's only going to get bigger. Now, this website has been discussed in numerous mainstream news sources. It's obviously notable. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 00:33, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - Yes I read the article. It is bloated to another issues other than the subject itself. It is like advocating the website itself rather than an encyclopaedia article about the subject. The subject is about a website. Most of the content says others such as Jin Jing and other trivial mentioning the website by some officials. I repeat again, that at this point the content of this article is not enough to say that the website is notable. Have you looked also to the website directly? Its content is even worse that it only consists of collections of video links to other video hosting websites. Dekisugi (talk) 08:59, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is not for us to judge personally whether or not a website is "good" enough for an article. It doesn't matter if it's only a collection of videos. (I present to you: The Hampster Dance.) What established the website as notable is that numerous mainstream news sources have mentioned it by name and discussed it. If the article poorly presents the subject matter, then it needs clean-up, not deletion. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 09:08, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and sometimes articles need merging, splitting and redirecting. At the moment, the current article does not need a split article from the main ones, say it the 2008 Tibetan unrest or CNN controversies. Dekisugi (talk) 09:17, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
When people talk about anti-cnn, are they necessarily talking about the 2008 Tibetan unrest or the CNN controversies? No. It's like, when people talk about Romeo and Juliet, they're often not talking about Shakespeare's plays as a whole. Which means that R&J has notability and deserves a split, because readers may be seeking information only about Romeo and Juliet. Such is the case. Anti-cnn is not only a controversy about CNN - it has even more information about Der Spielberg. And anti-cnn is only casually related to the 2008 Tibetan unrest, since "bias in western media" is only a small part of the controversies around the 2008 Tibetan unrest. Thus, any merge does not make sense, which logically concludes that anti-cnn has notability on its own. Herunar (talk) 09:32, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't the website only talk about 2008 Tibetan unrest issues? And worse it talks only from one point of view. Dekisugi (talk) 09:44, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter if it talks from one point of view. Every independent website has one point of view - they're not Wikipedia, where we have specific policies to include as many points of views as possible and representively. It's completely normal. It's not only about 2008 Tibetan unrest issues even though that's what it talks about - it is notable enough to be responded to by CNN, which means that it's also quite important among CNN controversies. Do we also include a small section in the CNN article? And in the German newspapers articles? Probably in controversies about media, and in articles about Tibet as a whole? Whether or not we split an article depends on its notability. It certainly has gained much notability on itself, much much more than enough to exist as an article. Herunar (talk) 09:56, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You said: It's not only about 2008 Tibetan unrest issues even though that's what it talks about. How do you know that the website is not only about 2008 Tibetan unrest while you said it is the content of the website? Dekisugi (talk) 10:08, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh one more thing about your opinion here. It's funny to see you advocate keep for this small article where the content is barely enough to have a separate article where you advocated don't split for a very long section in 2008 Summer Olympics torch relay section about protests issue. Dekisugi (talk) 10:17, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
These two are different issues. I have stated my rationale, and please refrain from making comparisons for the sole purpose of making a judgement on me. If you want to discuss about the split of that article, go to the talk page. The unrest in Tibet is the content of the website, and yet because of its content it also related itself with other topics. This is common sense and I don't want to have to explain it again. Herunar (talk) 12:28, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's different debates but similar issue, and you gave different views. The article we're debating here is separated from 2008 Tibetan unrest, but the content is really minimum. The subject (the website) contains links to videos about the Tibetan unrest. Yet, it can only be explained simply by a single paragraph in the main article, that there are websites recently created as the aftermath of the event with the same numerous cited references we saw in this article. Dekisugi (talk) 12:50, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's funny you choose to focus your argument on some not-so-central points. The wiki policies only apply to wiki articles, not directly to their subjects. I guess it's mainly notability issue that you are concerned, and I think it should not be a problem given all those contents and citations and extensive reading materials given. The Anti-cnn site was a response to reports on tibet unrest, not the event itself, which means it's much more than a simple correction of news details. If you take a closer look you will find that this wiki article, too, centers upon the actions and reactions of different parties, and the unrest is only the background. Cited links 2-4 shows that this site has played a critical role in part of recent evolution of netizen culture , and this alone guarantees its importance. The reactions of some media and organizations, and their attitudes towards its existence, are a relatively indirect, but still incontrovertible assurance of its position in history. Helloterran (talk) 15:43, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And? The content is stil barely enough to get a separate article than one paragraph in the main article's section. That's it. It's only a small effect of the whole Tibetan unrest issue. I don't see that the site is more broad that just a collection of video links. And there's no way that this recently created website played a critical role. The article does not show a significant important role in anything than just a hype. The reaction of media is only temporary, so that's why it's better that the content is placed inside the main article. When it lasts for longer time and the more coverage about the subject (the website, not the content of the website) is available, then we can have a separate article it here. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Dekisugi (talk) 16:47, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's not mainly about tibet unrest so it's irrelevent how much proportion it counts for in THAT issue. You tend to believe that this website is a temprary emotional outburst of some (group of) individual(s), but you fail to see the fact that it hosts a forum with thousands of new posts about related issue and beyond everyday, and until this day it's still receiving new materials. Whether the action-reaction cycle between Anti-cnn and its targets will end soon and why is an interesting topic with multiple factors to take into consideration, that's why I believe it's way too early to come to your conclusion. Your reasoning to doubt its notability can be applied exactly to 2008 Tibetan unrest itself, especially the time span and subject coverage part, for what are now under heated discussion is not what happened in those couple of days, but underlying deeper issues. May be you should suggest merging it to Human rights in the People's Republic of China first. Helloterran (talk) 18:32, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And I dont think WP:SOAP fits here: there is nothing original to advocate, not here, not on that website, but only fact based comment on existing opinions. Helloterran (talk) 18:36, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep There are WP:COATRACK issues here, but I think they can be fixed. With regard to notability, it seems just barely established. (And I think better links can be found further establish WP:N). Bfigura(talk) 01:00, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there do seem to be sufficient sources, such as the Washington Post. DGG (talk) 03:04, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as notable. Thanks, SqueakBox 07:54, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not really notable enough at the moment. Lord of Light (talk) 16:36, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment the website is still clocking up more minor refernces on news.google. A mention in Die Ziet [[21]], and in The Times [[22]] plus there seems to be a very minor news story about the website being unaccesible on the UN HQ computers, all since this AfD. Still no absolute, slam-dunk article exclusively about anti-CNN covering it in vast detail in some major news outlet.Nick Connolly (talk) 00:52, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
also a comment - the news articles mentioned above only say trivial thing about this subject (the anti-cnn website). The Times even does not mention it at all (I don't know where you found it). The Die Ziet news even says more similar websites appeared only because temporarily angered emotion by some people. Therefore, since this AfD, there's no other major reliable secondary source coverage about this anti-cnn website. It obviously shows non-notability about the website. Yes, there was such historical event where websites were created in the aftermath of 2008 Tibetan unrest. Doesn't it enough to write there in a single paragraph? Dekisugi (talk) 01:12, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
more comment It's irrelevent what Der Zeit think it is. The very fact that they noticed it and mentioned it in a published editorial suggests just the opposite of their claim. It's also inappropriate to compare Anti-cnn with some sites set up for some historical events, because it's not about any particular event, but the underlying biase and misunderstanding as a whole, and that is a broader issue. Helloterran (talk) 07:46, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Anti-cnn is a website about particular event: the Tibetan unrest. That's what the reliable sources say, unless if you have other reliable sources that say otherwise. Dekisugi (talk) 11:28, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Anti-cnn is about western reports on the Tibetan unrest, not the event itself. That's what reference links 2-7 say every time they mention this site. Helloterran (talk) 17:34, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable enought, it seems more like a temporary internet fad and thus does not warrant inclusion. Might warrant inclusion if this website stays popular, but this is highly doubtful. For the moment delete or merge parts of the article with other relevant articles on the Tibetan unrest or the Olympic torch relay. Dassiebtekreuz (talk) 00:58, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Additional comment In addition to what I earlier said... About something being notable "due to secondary coverage and not because of time", well, perhaps at the heart of the problem is Wikipedia's policies. (I hope administrators are reading this...) On any given day, thanks to the Associated Press and Reuters, there will be stories that will appear on many sites and possibly in many languages like English, German, Chinese, etc. These stories can range from a devastating earthquake to the first day of spring. On that day, they are both newsworthy, but I can imagine people being interested in the earthquake 1 or 10 years later, but I'm not sure about the second one. Secondary coverage is used as the test for an article's importance not because it is a good test, but only because the alternative (the test of time) is difficult to measure. I personally would like to see wikipedia as an encyclopedia than a news aggregator. As for this article, perhaps it should have started as part of 2008 Tibetan unrest in the first place and moved out if it stood the test of time. --Rayjapan (talk) 05:59, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'd like to point out that WP is not a paper encyclopedia - WP:NOTPAPER. This is why WP's notability guideline has no rule on so-called "legacy" or the length of time of a subject's notability, and it's why, I suspect, WP:RECENT remains only an essay of opinions, and not a policy or guideline. There's no practical limit on the number of topics WP can cover. And with notability clearly established, there's no reason why the subject does not deserve its own article. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 06:25, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. John254 01:36, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article is essentially a long winded advertisement for an ebook (mentioned at the end). The airline itself, to my knowledge, never flew (though there IS an Indian carrier with the same name, it is certainly not the airline mentioned in this article), and the most I could find out about it was a bunch of pr announcements and a couple of mentions in various magazines (whom all mention that it will fly in THE FUTURE, not that it ever really flew). Do we really need to catalog every failed business idea? SiberioS (talk) 03:30, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete google search "Indigo Airlines" Fenton -wikipedia for gets 5 ghits, two of which are copies of this and 3 of which are irrelevant. Doesn't exist--ad/promo. JJL (talk) 03:54, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment No typo--I used Fenton to eliminate the Indian airline of the same name. The source below seems like a good one but is only one source thus far. The search below gets mostly the Indian airline. How many target this airline? JJL (talk) 04:24, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Perhaps the addition of Fenton was a mistake. Minor sourceSunCreator (talk) 04:41, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment That doesn't make it notable. Thousands of businesses are started and fail every year. It is not Wikipedia's place to document them. Some failed businesses meet notability (ie: Enron, DMC makers of the DeLorean). An "airline" (which it wasn't..it was not organized, nor recognized as such as the article you link indicates) whom lasted for three months, and whose notability comes from the fact that the founder WROTE the article in question to promote his own ebook, doesn't cut it. SiberioS (talk) 05:47, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It's an Associated Press article. Not by the author. If the article is notable, it's notable and that doesn't change over time because the company is no longer active. We don't remove articles on the Dinosaur, Typewriter etc. SunCreator (talk) 11:54, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The comparison is absurd. I can hand you newspaper clippings of local establishments that have opened and gone under in my neighborhood. That doesn't make them notable. And neither is this. This is not the collapse of Eastern, Laker Airways, or Braniff. companies that were notable in their own time. This is not a company founded, and whom failed, by an individual whom is notable (ie: Delorean and DMC). There numerous failed business attempts in the opening days of the internet, of which more was written was about, hyped, and said, and lasted longer than this "airline", and they aren't included on Wikipedia. SiberioS (talk) 18:34, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rewrite. Rewriting in this case wold be a rather drastic cut. A reasonable article would have been less likely to be nominated for deletion. DGG (talk) 02:58, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rewrite. Subject of the article is clearly notable, but the text needs to be reqorked and additional sources include. Alansohn (talk) 17:29, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly notable (Plenty of other sources, e.g. Time Magazine.[23] Failure of a business does not remove its notability. Encyclopedic subject with plenty of context.Wikidemo (talk) 18:04, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep convinced by Time magazine source above. JJL (talk) 19:05, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Extremely aggressive WP:Single-purpose account that keeps edit warring to delete the WP:COI, WP:AUTO, and WP:N tags left by other editors. The article fails WP:BIO generally and WP:ATHLETE specifically. Google hits for his pseudonym, "DrHeLpErZx," are only 56 [24], and none of them WP:RS. Under his actual name, he does even worse, with only 8 Google hits [25], and none of them WP:RS. Delete, and then salt vigorously if recreated. Qworty (talk) 03:45, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Reverted tag removal and warned for vandalism. DarkAudit (talk) 04:46, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination. Possibly a speedy. Xdenizen (talk) 04:48, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - tagging as such. --Orange Mike | Talk 05:12, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
AN/I Report. Since he is continuing to vandalize the tags, I have opened the following AN/I: [26]. Some blocking will be required here, because if it's speedied, he's very likely to recreate it. Qworty (talk) 05:22, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per Orangemike. FCYTravis (talk) 06:01, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked. The vandal who created the article and kept reverting the tags has now been indefinitely blocked by OrangeMike [27]Qworty (talk) 07:03, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. Bstone (talk) 08:27, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete vain vanity in vain. JuJube (talk) 09:59, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Keep and move (non-admin closure). Consensus forms that article cleanup and moving it to List of basic tort law topics is appropriate action, per Wikipedia:SNOW of Celarnor's proposal. WilliamH (talk) 01:12, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A "glossary of terms" article. Multiple fork of existing articles. Smells like a copyvio. At best should be reduced to a "list of tort topics" with links to separate articles. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 02:58, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm in the process of fixing the content right now. This subject is WICU material, not AfD material. CelarnorTalk to me 04:56, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Afd is not for cleanup. SunCreator (talk) 05:12, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - needs sources, but the content is clearly useful, notable and encyclopaedic. As for 'smells like a copyvio', I would advise the assumption of good faith unless that is actually proved. Terraxos (talk) 05:47, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I've finished putting it in line with the contents of the tort law template and I think it needs a move to List of basic tort law topics. Regarding sourcing concerns, it basically mirrors the content of the lead paragraph of the articles of their subject, per other basic topic lists, most of which are currently unsourced. Sourcing concerns should go there. CelarnorTalk to me 06:00, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If the content is the issue, try tags first; deletion should only be used when nothing else can save it. Anyway, the content is good, useful material, so it should be kept. PeterSymonds | talk 11:31, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (Viewed after User:Celarnor's changes). Perfectly encyclopedic, and I see no evidence of copyright violation in its current form. I also endorse his proposed move. Xymmax (talk) 13:45, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You can tell that a lawyer wrote this, because even the "explanations" aren't in plain English. Even when you make your way through the jargon, I question its accuracy (on the definition of "assault", for instance, I think the intent was to say "imminent" rather than "immediate"). Black's Law Dictionary is somewhat more readable than this. And speaking of dictionaries, do you figure that you don't need sources? Appellate courts were asking for citations long before Wikipedia came along. Mandsford (talk) 19:47, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move per Celarnor. It'd be fine as a list, although it might do with a trip to WP:WICU. (Maybe tag with 'requires expert attention'?) In any event, AfD isn't the place to deal with cleanup issues Bfigura(talk) 01:07, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. What has been brought up as possible sources to warrant an article on this book, has been found insufficient. Tikiwont (talk) 19:03, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Self-published book by author with “law degree” from unaccredited “law school”; no discernable previously published third party references to the book have been located that would signify notability for the book, and book fails to meet criteria for notability for books listed at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_%28books%29#CriteriaFamspear (talk) 02:56, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator’s additional comment: The subject of the article is an apparently self-published "law book" on Common law by an individual named Verl K. Speer who claims to have a "Doctor of Common Law" degree from something called the "Universal Life University School of Law."
The only thing I have been able to locate on the "Universal Life University School of Law" is a web site purporting to advertise for a law school by that name. The site states that an individual can "[e]arn your degree of Doctor at the Common Law and become a member of the prestigious Universal Bar Association - an association dedicated to the restoration of law and justice." The cost is only $295 for the degree -- in the form of a "freewill offering.” See [28].
It’s a bit unclear from the article talk page, but my understanding from my discussions with the article's creator there is that he/she disputes whether the "Universal Life University School of Law" mentioned on that web site is the same “Universal Life University School of Law" at which Verl Speer received his "law degree."
At any rate, there is no such law school, or at least no such accredited law school of which I am aware. Thus, the author seems to have no credentials in the field of law -- which is the subject of the book.
On the book itself, I have located no references to this "law book" that would establish notability for the book. Famspear (talk) 03:25, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as lacking notability. Sounds not unlike the outfit who gave me my "medical degree", the Kings Cross Upstairs Medical College and Institute of Nail Care. :) Xdenizen (talk) 03:51, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. Created by an extremely aggressive WP:Single-purpose account intent on flouting WP:COI and WP:RS policies at every turn. Likes to edit war over tags on "his" article, constantly deleting them--real ownership issues here. Likes to leave nice little droppings of spam for us to step into and clean up too [29]. Of course, when we finally analyze all of the underlying facts in the case, it turns out that his self-published, completely non-notable book fails everything under WP:BK. The author himself has no notability at all, ringing up a grand total of 13 Ghits[30], and every single one of them consisting of self-promoting spam on obscure blogs and forums. Apparently, the biggest thing the book in question has ever had going for it is this WP article itself, a fact that must account for the desperate machinations to preserve it. Let's get rid of this thing now. If it's recreated, salt vigorously. Qworty (talk) 04:26, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless evidence of notability in reliable sources is provided. Terraxos (talk) 05:44, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A degree from the university of life? I thought that was an old joke. But here is their home page (watch out for popups!)... did I mention Delete and salt? I can't see any evidence of real notability. Sheffield Steeltalkstalk 21:15, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The link above for the University is a fake created to discredit the author, telephone # (207) 784-2266 goes to a company called New England Home Mortgage. The domain name 20m.com that hosts free websites was registered in 2000 and not 1985 when the university that the author attended was in existence. Where is the due dilligence people? Its so obvious. I have only put this wiki entry up because this is a work of history which has been hidden for a reason and I guess will continue to be hidden atleast on wiki. I have no interest in it otherwise or for any personal gain. It seems that these policies restrict innovation or new information, only a continuation of something that is already established or known, exciting. Rather than downloading the book and reading it, which would involve too much effort for many of you, you simply discredit and move to the next post. Goodluck, this community obviously continues to be an irrelevant source of information, just opinions of others hoping for the truth but can never be taken "seriously" [31].
*Keep(duplicate deleted) Book is located at the Library of Congress classified as Subjects: Law--United States--Popular works. Natural law--Popular works. Law--Philosophy--Popular works. Justice--Popular works.[32]
I hope that you don't think I created the "fake" webpage or that I have any interest in "discrediting the author", which is perhaps implied by the post above. If you know the URL for the university's "real" web-page, it might be a good idea to post it - the only links I can find seem to imply that it is a diploma mill. Better than posting links to the university, though, would be posting links to any evidence that this book meets wikipedia's standards for notability. I'll save you the trouble of looking them up and say here that your best bet is to demonstrate that the book has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the book itself, with at least some of these works serving a general audience. Sheffield Steeltalkstalk 22:12, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. So we are to believe that the single keep vote on the AfD is not the book's author, when he just happens to pull out a PDF of a fringe newspaper article that's 23 years old? Who else but an author would have such a thing in his files? The mere participation of the author here is blatant WP:COI and WP:SPAM. Is there anybody besides the author who wants to stand up for the article the author wrote about his own project? He writes the article, he shows up for the AfD, he votes "keep" multiple times. This is really too much and a block may be in order--he's already been warned for WP:COI, after all, and it had no effect. And even more to the point, since all we have is one article from a fringe newspaper 23 years ago, it's clear to see that this entry fails WP:RS. The Library of Congress doesn't mean a damned thing in terms of notability either, since any spammer, self-publisher, or vanity-press author (such as this guy) can send copies to the Library of Congress and they will put them somewhere in their immense basement. Qworty (talk) 22:46, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by nominator: Dear SheffieldSteel: Perhaps the link to which user Starwalk3r is referring is the one that I posted above, as he/she made the same accusation a few days ago on the talk page for the article where I had posted the link. However, I'm not sure.
And Starwalk3r, in any case, it's unclear why you are claiming that any of the linked materials to be "fakes" that would be "designed to discredit the author." At first I thought perhaps you meant that the web site itself had been designed by someone to discredit Verl Speer. Perhaps, however, your intent was instead to say that I provided the link for the purpose of discrediting Verl Speer (even if the web site itself was not designed for that purpose). It's just not clear to me what you're driving at. In any case, Starwalk3r has not provided any independent evidence that there ever was a real law school called the "Universal Life University School of Law," or that Verl Speer has a real law degree, or that Verl Speer's book has ever been significantly recognized as important or authoritative in the world of legal publications.
In any case, editor SheffieldSteel has reiterated the problem. You, Starwalk3r are the creator of the article and you are the person ostensibly wanting to keep the article -- yet your argument for retention seems in the form of statements like "this is a work of history which has been hidden for a reason". Even if that is true, that is not a valid argument for notability.
And Starwalk3r, why in the world are you suggesting that Wikipedia editors download the book and read it? The high opinion of Wikipedia editors is not what would make a book "notable" for purposes of Wikipedia. Wikipedia rules do not allow Wikipedia editors to evaluate the book and, on our own, declare it to be notable based on what we happen to have read in the book. Notability is a determination by the editors of how independent third parties view the book, not how Wikipedia editors view the book. Each and every Wikipedia editor might think the book is the most important book in the world, but that does not make it notable for purposes of having a Wikipedia article about it. The rules and guidelines have been quoted to you, yet you continue to push the article for this book based on an obvious affinity you feel for, and have expressed for, the book itself, or for the presumably important message contained in the book, rather than addressing the Wikipedia notability guidelines.
Now, Starwalk3r, you have posted a reference to the fact that the book is found in the Library of Congress. Wow. Did you know that essentially every other book for which the copyright claim has been registered in the United States is found in the Library of Congress? That makes the book worthy of an encyclopedia article?
Finally, you, Starwalk3r, have posted a reference to the book review in The Spotlight. At least that's something. In my view, however, that book review does not make the book notable for purposes of Wikipedia. Famspear (talk) 23:00, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Still another comment by nominator: OK, I now see that Starwalk3r actually was referring to the link posted by editor Sheffield Steel. So, Starwalk3r has essentially made the similar accusations about two different web sites, links to which were provided by two different editors (by Sheffield Steel and myself). Starwalk3r, since you seem to know so much Verl Speer his book and the "real" "Universal Life University School of Law," why don't you tell everyone, just for kicks, where this "law school" was located. (I realize this is getting a bit tangential, so my apologies to all Wikipedia editors; it's nearing the end of tax season, and I'm working late on a Friday). Famspear (talk) 23:16, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
*Nominator comment: OK, based on what I've looked at, I will now assume that Starwalk3r was indeed trying to say that the site I linked (the skeptic site) is not really a site for the "Universal Life University School of Law," but might actually be a site trying to discredit the Universal Life University School of Law. And I see now that Starwalk3r might be right about that. I don't know about the site that editor Sheffield Steel linked to. Nevertheless, score one point for Starwalk3r! Now, the request to Starwalk3r is reiterated: Please show how the book, Pied Pipers of Babylon, is notable -- using the Wikipedia rules for notability. Famspear (talk) 01:23, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
*Keep (duplicate deleted) Comment by article's creator: Yes Famspear I was referring to the site, not the user who posted the site in regards to the website of the university being a fake to discredit the author. The only nobility I have been able to find was that of a review which was included as a photocopy in my copy of the book I had purchased and was from an independent source which apparently, according to Wikipedia (Circulation of The Spotlight peaked in the early 1980s at around 200,000, when it was the largest-circulation periodical on the far right in the United States. [34]), had an audience with "the largest-circulation periodical on the far right in the United States". As for me being the author, that doesnt even make sense. I am in Canada and the author by now, if still alive, is in his 80s and is an American. So due to the age of this book being 23 years old, and at the time of its publishing, the information was well over 20 years ahead of its time, and since the review at the time was provided by an independent publication who's critical commentary was non-trivial and goes "past a simple plot summary"(This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries and reviews.[35]) and due to the lack of technology at the time of its publishing, archive records of multiple reviews are not within arms reach and easily attainable. I believe that this one review from the spotlight is just proof for nobility. Starwalk3r (talk) 01:59, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Starwalk3r (talk • contribs) 02:13, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Abysmally fails WP:BK. The book's sole defender is basing the book's supposed significance on this single guideline: "The book has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the book itself, with at least some of these works serving a general audience." None of that happens to be true for this book. The book has not been the subject of multiple published works. The single review offered was not in a publication "serving a general audience." It's time to delete this vanity article now. Its WP:single-purpose account defense went toboggoning way down into WP:CRANK a long time ago. Qworty (talk) 20:14, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Clueless Qworty, this is my first posting on here. Not just an SPA like your CMB imagined. Starwalk3r (talk) 20:07, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no matter how the article got written. DGG (talk) 02:56, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 for the third time. Wikipedia is not a game guide. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 03:23, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not the place to add cheat codes for games. Captainpanda 02:08, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Wikipedia is not a host for indiscriminate information. This would certainly seem to qualify Bfigura(talk) 02:38, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete --JForget 00:23, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article admits that it is a neologism. I do this too, and people make jokes about it a lot, but I don't think this is a term that's widely applied to it. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 20:21, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete --JForget 00:25, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yeah, you're right. Definitely a hoax, can't find it anwhere else. THE KC (talk) 02:09, 10 April 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Delete Doesn't appear to be a hoax, a Dani Gecko is a rare Brazilian Gecko perhaps called 'Gekko scabridus'. Still can't find any notability for it. Hence delete. SunCreator (talk) 02:17, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Yes, all species are automatically notable, but I can't find anything to verify of the existence of this species, and a quick search doesn't turn anything up for Gekko dani or Dani gecko. This is a reference for 'Gekko scabridus' which is found in China rather than Brazil. See Gekko verreauxi for a stub article about another species of gekko. Editors wanting to create articles about the less common species of gekko could use the Gekko verreauxi stub article as a model for articles on other species. --Eastmain (talk) 03:43, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Thought it was a hoax at first; it might not be, but a google search turns up very little. No prejudice against recreation if the facts can be properly verified. PeterSymonds | talk 11:24, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, appears to be a hoax. No problem with recreation if the existence of this species can be verified. Lankiveil(speak to me) 11:39, 10 April 2008 (UTC).[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Personal essay; no ghits except a user page and wikirage. Trovatore (talk) 01:24, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable original research. Note: author is asserting copyright. Does that make it a speedy candidate? Dawn bard (talk) 01:27, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've nominated it for speedy. Note that the author says 'under construction', as if this were his personal web page. Wikipedia is not a web host. The way, the truth, and the light (talk) 01:34, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment I don't know any speedy-deletion criterion that would apply to the copyright notice specifically, and I don't see why there ought to be one. We each hold copyright on our contributions to WP; we just license that copyright under the GFDL. It's true that a copyright notice is one of the red flags that makes the word "crackpot" fly unassisted into my brain, but that's just a correlation. --Trovatore (talk) 01:37, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Appears to be WP:OR or copyvio, or both because of thisSunCreator (talk) 01:43, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Hi, I am the author of this page Voidal Symmetry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Thanks for pointing out that I have breached guidlines. You're right in saying it's an original work. However, I believe this is an important discovery and if any one can assist me in properly formulating this I would be most grateful. It is based on the 'Nothing is Something' argument so perhaps references can be included to bring it into line with Wiki policy. As I say - I would welcome any help. A C Thursby-Pelham 02:03, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Response A.C., I think you've acted in good faith, but you don't seem to understand the nature of Wikipedia. We're a tertiary source; we don't publish original work. It first has to be published in reliable sources. --Trovatore (talk) 02:14, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Get it published first. Wikipedia is a tertiary source. CelarnorTalk to me 02:17, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question What publication/s would Wiki consider valid as publication mediums? A C Thursby-Pelham 02:21, 10 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewtp21 (talk • contribs)
Comment, valid for Wikipedia is WP:RS 'Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.' and WP:N 'significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject'. SunCreator (talk) 02:30, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Revert to unvandalized version. NawlinWiki (talk) 02:08, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Notability - I am unable to find other references to this Michael Goldman, this page seems to suffer from serious notability problems. Nicwright (talk) 01:21, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with nominator. Subject is not at all notable Stanley011 (talk) 01:44, 10 April 2008 (UTC).[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Rjd0060 (talk) 21:52, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article is useless. There are already articles on the isotopes of each element, as well as table of nuclides. It's unlikely that anyone would actually want to use a list in this form, even if it were completed. The way, the truth, and the light (talk) 00:55, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - acts as a directory and an intermediate between articles. it helps a user whilst browsing and to find articles previously difficult to find. it benefits the views of other articles. it has a practical use and application. --Deoxyribonucletic acid (talk) 22:43, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: agree with challenger. Versus22 (talk) 01:13, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Lists have many purposes, not all obvious, see WP:CLN#Lists. Giving this a keep because nominator has not identified a reason to delete and WP:IDONTLIKEIT#I_don.27t_like_it is not a valid reason. SunCreator (talk) 01:15, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: All it lists is all these different articles. Versus22 (talk) 01:25, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This could be useful to someone. Per Suncreator's comments.--Adamfinmo (talk) 01:27, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't think it's disputeable that isotopes are notable / important. Moreover, it seems a good candidate for a list, as it's a well defined criteria that isn't likely to hugely expand. Bfigura(talk) 02:34, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is clearly a well-defined list of lists, and to a non-chemist appears somewhat useful. No harm done. Joshdboz (talk) 02:42, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a valid alternate respresentation of Table of nuclides, which links to this list as one of several alternate forms. The formatting here is a bit ... well, stretched out is what comes to mind -- a more compact representation might improve the utility, but that's an editing issue. —Quasirandom (talk) 03:43, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Striking my keep while I think about this some more. There's this, there's Index to isotope pages, and there's Isotope lists. The latter two are clearly reasonable alternate layouts -- the question is, is this uncessarily duplicative of them? —Quasirandom (talk) 03:51, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak redirect to Isotope lists, as much as I dislike using "weak"/"strong" qualifiers. As an index to the same information, I find Isotope lists both more compact and informative, at least in the body; the leads of the various articles, I find somewhat wonky (to use the technical term). That reservation, however, is an editorial matter, and thus while it properly ought not to affect the strength of my recommendation, I find it does. —Quasirandom (talk) 04:01, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it could be useful to have the isotope lists kept in this list Frank AnchorTalk to me (R-OH) 04:35, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to table of nuclides, which links to a number of existing representations of this data, including index to isotope pages and table of nuclides (complete). Due to the number of nuclides (isotopes) which exist, this list would be extremely unwieldy if completed in this form; furthermore, individual articles don't exist for most isotopes outside of a couple particularly interesting ones (deuterium and carbon-14, for instance), so continuing to list every isotope in this format is unlikely to provide any benefit over the existing representations. Zetawoof(ζ) 06:09, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As an alternate target, Quasirandom's suggestion of isotope lists also looks good. Same information, again - just displayed a little differently. Zetawoof(ζ) 06:11, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree that there's a lot of repetition of material on this subject, but is this the only complete list of lists of isotopes that indexes by name of the element, rather than symbol? It might have utility for people with no background in chemistry who want quick access to a particular list of isotopes and might be put off by the periodic table representations. Also, for several forms of disability and for some output devices, clicking on a periodic table representation might be difficult and a plain text list might be easier to handle. Espresso Addict (talk) 18:55, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Check out the lists linked from isotope lists. They're indexed by name and use plain text. Zetawoof(ζ) 19:49, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I had seen those, but they don't include all elements on a single page, and you need to know the approximate atomic number to find the correct subpage. Espresso Addict (talk) 21:48, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect: The list has existed for 3 years and still has only a few elements with any isotopes listed. DCEdwards1966 19:19, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was expecting better than this. What the author calls "Hydrogen-2" and "Hydrogen-3", the rest of us call deuterium and tritium. (Hydrogen-1, of course, is known as hydrogen). A topic that should be in an encyclopedia, but an incredibly useless list. The redirect would be a good idea, since it would take one to something readable. Mandsford (talk) 19:52, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but completely rewrite. I have made a draft at User:PrimeHunter/sandbox2. It is based on List of elements by atomic number. I didn't use anything from the existing List of isotopes. The isotopes column lists all isotopes which currently have their own article with a name of form "Elementname-number", for example Carbon-14. This may not be the most common or notable isotopes. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:14, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
PrimeHunter's proposed revision looks good. As noted, it's an encyclopedic topic, and it needs an encyclopedic type of article. Mandsford (talk) 12:31, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep and replace page wither version provided by PrimeHunter. (Nice work.) Keep per navigational abilities per WP:LIST and WP:SAL. Earthdirt (talk) 02:27, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the revised version. It is very useful to have a list of isotopes that are notable enough to have their own article--something that the chart of the nuclides can't provide. --Itub (talk) 17:23, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and replace with Primehunter's version. Bm gub (talk) 18:19, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Topic is fully encyclopedic without question. --Blechnic (talk) 00:53, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly. But it's also already covered in a number of other lists - the question at hand is whether we need this one. Zetawoof(ζ) 02:28, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A table of nuclides, those, is generally written in a different way. If it is exactly the same as this one, written as a list, then it is the problem article, not this one. I will look at it, though, to see if this is the point of this AfD. There are enough chemists on Wikipedia who understand the difference though (I assume by the excellent detail in many of the chemical articles) that it's unlikely any will vote for doing this any way other than the standard, a nuclide table, and a list of isotopes remaining the two different things. --Blechnic (talk) 03:30, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment No, it looks like the table of nuclides is a table of nuclides, while this is a list of isotopes. The user with the sandbox should just put his version of this list, up, though, as it is more useful. They are not quite the same thing, although they may look to be identical due to the type of information they contain, they're used differently. --Blechnic (talk) 03:39, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have copied my sandbox version to the list. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:42, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, that's much more usable. Although the prior author(s) was well-intended for attempting a list of this nature, and it's not straight-forward how to make things useful on Wikipedia. --Blechnic (talk) 05:24, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A useful method of accessing isotope articles. The Table of nuclides (complete) is very inconvenient to use for many purposes, and the individual element isotope lists are not appropriate for some methods of approach to the subject. This list is a suitable alternative. -R. S. Shaw (talk) 03:02, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - this list of isotopes is incomplete. Just take a look at the complete list of all isotopes published each and every year by CRC Press - and it will take one hundred pages to publish it here. This one is a list of selected isotopes and should be named so, with an explanation in the title why these specific isotopes were selected at the first place, something like "Basic elements and its best known radioactive isotopes". greg park avenue (talk) 19:44, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. As I wrote earlier, the current selection is simply those isotopes which currently have their own article. I primarily view the list as a way to navigate our isotope articles and not as a claim about which isotopes are best known or most notable. I didn't make the isotope articles and don't know how they were selected (without investigating, my guess would be that different editors just created them when they had time and thought an isotope seemed notable). The lead says the links are to isotopes with their own article. I didn't want to claim on the page that all isotope articles were listed, because new articles may be created without updating the list at the same time. (Existing articles may be deleted or redirected but that is more rare and deletions would immediately stand out as red.) PrimeHunter (talk) 21:06, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep → Weak keep then, if this is the best deal we can make it to show the CRC table without duplicating it - over one hundred pages in small print. If the links to the existing lists of elements/isotopes for any listed in Wikipedia element are provided, and I checked few ones, they are, there would be no better deal in town for now. Don't confuse it with the Table of nuclides - that table is only a graph showing the main idea of the statistics - atomic/mass number ratio but nothing else. And if someone will look for any particular isotope, but did not know which element to look for, this list will do it. greg park avenue (talk) 00:33, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yes, of course you're right. Why did you not say that in the first place when nominating this article with AfD? Maybe merging this article with the Table of nuclides, which you support I gather, and moving both to the new name Table of isotopes, which name already exists and is redirected to it, would be more appropriate than the deletion? Sounds like an idea, no? greg park avenue (talk) 18:33, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 given absence of delete preferences and effective withdrawal of the nomination (non-admin closure). Skomorokh 00:14, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Possible advert created by company employee. Creator is at least honest about this possible conflict of interest. Originally tagged for speedy when it consisted of mostly links, but now I'm less sure. Google does provide some evidence to support the 'leading producer' claim BrucePodger (talk) 00:44, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I thought I once read something, perhaps just an opinion, that any company listed on a major exchange such as the TSX should be considered notable. Any foundation to that? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:54, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's a poorly-written article, but that's what tags are for. The fact that there's a newspaper source reporting that the company was bought for £120 million is something in itself. PeterSymonds | talk 11:16, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, third-party coverage and large price-tag would seem to indicate notability. Lankiveil(speak to me) 11:36, 10 April 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Actually, keep. Its improving and the creator seems to be doing a reasonable job of not just producing an advert. --BrucePodger (talk) 23:34, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Wizardman 19:04, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Topic seems real. [36] UNusual that nominator close the Afd himself/herself within 5 minutes of creation of Afd. SunCreator (talk) 01:00, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I undid the closure of this AfD, given the above user's comment (placed after closure) and the {{hangon}} tag placed on the page. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 01:38, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I closed it because I thought it was a speedy, and it still should be, this article is very poorly written, no links to articles, no sources, no refs, no nothing. It fails the above of WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:N. RkORToN 02:03, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete has barely any content on it, just one sentence. ~ LegoKontribsTalkM 02:17, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. Obviously, TPH was correct with what he did. Closing your own nomination as delete is grossly inappropriate, especially as a speedy. sources[37] exist, but only just barely. Not quite notable. CelarnorTalk to me 02:24, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Search for 'Mata Nui' the wording Great Spirit is the English translation of the original. Not sure of original language Polynesian perhaps. SunCreator (talk) 02:53, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable element of a fictional work. A redirect to Bionicle may be appropriate. Terraxos (talk) 05:37, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Topic seems real, and there are a couple of items to show notability, but the notability is weak at best. There's not enough context in this article for me to vote keep. PeterSymonds | talk 11:11, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete, does not appear to be a significant entity or concept in Polynesian mythology. Lankiveil(speak to me) 11:35, 10 April 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Keep: I have re-written it to fit in the proper context of the Bionicle line of Lego toys, and the accompanying books. The other parts of this storyline are well represented and well written elsewhere in Wikipedia.--Benmoreassynt (talk) 15:57, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or change to redirect page- Terraxos is right, google pulls up Bionicle, so this should probably just redirect there. Otherwise, delete; it's simply a non-notable element of a work of fiction, as stated above. Mizu onna sango15/水女珊瑚15 16:00, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm afraid this fictional character character is not significant enough, or cited enough, to be notable.-- danntmTC 22:03, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I beg to differ. The Bionicle franchise has caused quite a sensation and has a large cult following. The character Mata Nui is one of the most important characters in the Bionicle storyline and therefore warrants an article. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 17:38, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 21:50, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
PROD'ed, does not assert notability. Shawnc (talk) 00:18, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't assert notability in any way; hasn't received significant third-party coverage (Amazon doesn't count). Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 00:32, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - totally non-notable new book, does not assert notability, no reliable sources. --Orange Mike | Talk 03:37, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable book. Just because a book is published it doesn't automatically give it notability. PeterSymonds | talk 11:06, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable book. Attempted to G-search, but all that came up was various booksellers and press releases. Lankiveil(speak to me) 11:33, 10 April 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Delete, since notability has not been established. --Abrech (talk) 12:02, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Leave it! Wikipedia is an information site, so just put some information of the novel down and leave the page here. Rigsy05 (talk) 11:25, 11 April 2008 (UTC) — Rigsy05 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Notification - Rigsy05 typed in a description which he/she claims was a direct (copyvio) transcription of the cover blurb, and removed the AfD notice; when CobaltBlueTony called him/her on it, Tony was told to "sod off." I've rolled back everything Rigsy did (which included changing the author and publisher names, incidentally; maybe it was a different book with the same title?) --Orange Mike | Talk 13:35, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nope - those relate to Centurion (Scarrow novel), a different book altogether (and the source of Rigsy's confusing intervention here). If you want to prod or AfD the Scarrow stuff, that's your business. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:04, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 21:48, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unsourced, possibly OR, extremely broad inclusion criteria, and works better as a system of categories, which we I believe we already have. Mr.Z-man 00:14, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there are various reasons why lists are more suitable then categories, see WP:CLN#Lists. Also could NOT locate any exist category. Category:Afro-Asian_Americans don't exist for example.
I can't find anything that is WP:OR, I imagine that you referring to the 'Father's Ethnic Heritage' or the 'Mothers's Ethnic Heritage'. Each person I checked it made it clear on the persons biography. So at a lost to understand what part of it is WP:OR. Even if some of it is WP:OR that part can just be removed so not an issue for Afd. SunCreator (talk) 00:52, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Considering a large percentage of the population is not of a single ethnic/racial group, wouldn't a list like this be impractically long? Joshdboz (talk) 02:45, 10 April 2008 (UTC) Delete List is far to wide, and "multiracial" is far too undefined a term - it basically defines everyone. Joshdboz (talk) 12:20, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It wouldn't be everyone but those that are notable. But yes, it could end up a long list. If it got longer it would eventually be split into sections, by type and then most likely alphabetically. So it's not really a concern from that point of view. SunCreator (talk) 03:16, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Overtly racist OR/synthesis without any sources. When you have people like Rae Dawn Chong, who is described as a mix of Chinese, Scots Irish, Cherokee and Black Canadian, sensible classification breaks down and becomes quite subjective. We don't want to be arguing whether someone is an octoroon and whether this list should therefore include them. Or whether the offspring of Jews and Gentiles are multiracial. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:40, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While I disagree with some of the delete reasons, it is simply an unmaintainable list. It would be like a List of people who wear glassesRandom89 08:51, 10 April 2008
Delete, per Random, simply too wide a scope. Inclusion criteria are very fuzzy (would a Scottish/Irish person count?) Lankiveil(speak to me) 11:30, 10 April 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Delete per Random and Colonel Warden. Extremely broad scope, vaguely defined considering the various definitions of 'race' (although I guess this would use US definitions), and could become huge and very crufty especially given the melting pot of the United States.--h i ss p a c er e s e a r c h 11:49, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. List itself may be relevant. But it simply can't be handled. Probably the number of entries should have four digits. Who shall manage this? And can it ever be reliable? No. --Abrech (talk) 12:01, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Random; too wide of a scope indeed, and possibly fuzzy guidelines (just how distinct is "race"?). Better served as a category. (That, and they left out Neal McCoy, who's Irish/Filipino.) Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 16:51, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Regretful delete If this had really been a list of multiracial Americans, it would have been a worthwhile topic. We live in a society where Barack Obama is thought of as being "black", but never referred to as "white", even with an equal heritage from those two races. Author's mistake was not only to label Mom and Dad, but to label them based on "ethnic heritage" rather than as white, black, Asian, etc.; an inconsistent application of PC then followed ("Luo of Kenya", e.g.) and this is actually a list of multiethnic Americans. And since most Americans can trace their ancestry to several different ethnic groups, we're all "multiethnic" to some extent, even if we aren't of mixed race. As the old saying goes, when you try to please everyone, you end up pleasing no-one. Mandsford (talk) 20:16, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
One practical solution would be to redirect to List of pureblooded Americans and add a footnote saying that every American not on that list should be considered multiracial; another would be to accept that the inclusion criterion is far too vague and Delete. Sheffield Steeltalkstalk 21:36, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a perfect example of an unmanagable list. As Mansford points out, multiracial is a pretty loose label. Bfigura(talk) 01:29, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Loosely defined list scope, difficult to manage, bound to be virtually endless. --NickPenguin(contribs) 01:43, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a meaningless concept unless you believe in the myth of racial purity. If you go back far enough in the family tree all Americans (and all people of other nationalities) are multiracial. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:17, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The scope of this list is too ill-defined to make is manageable, and it add little to the encyclopedia.-- danntmTC 22:14, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Undefined inclusion criteria, indiscriminate collection of information, and possible WP:BLP violations. Race is largely a social construct, and self-identity is a big part of that construct. Is someone who is half-white and half-black multiracial, or are they black? Some would say the former, while many would say the latter (especially in the US, cultural heir to the old "one drop" rule). Also, everyone is multiracial to some extent. How much Native American/European/African/Asian/etc. heritage must one have to be consdered multiracial? Once someone "passes" as white, are they any longer multi-racial? Making a determination that someone is multiracial largely depends on one's point of view, and such determination as made in this list constitutes original research, and may very well be contrary to someone's self-identity. I think a list of multi-racial Americans might be appropriate if it is rooted in a reliably-sourced definition, gives due regard to self-identity, and substantiates why each person's multi-racial identity is notable. None of this is the case with the article in its current form. Nick Graves (talk) 03:09, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
^Leahy, Michael. (2004a) When Nothing Else Matters, New York. Simon & Schuster.
