Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 January 16

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< January 15 January 17 >

Purge server cache

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Secret account 02:31, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Cumberland Sausage Show

[edit]
The Cumberland Sausage Show (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

No assertion of notability is available for this radio show. Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia for EMAP-Bauer radio fans. This could be considered radio fancruft. The only sources on this appear to be self-published sources (i.e. the radio station's website), and no third-party sources, excluding this article. Solumeiras talk 00:00, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was nomination withdrawn. Canley (talk) 04:22, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pittsburgh Gasometer Explosion

[edit]
Pittsburgh Gasometer Explosion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I'm unable to find any sources to support this, other than a "List of Lists", which includes it in a list of unusual disasters. Surely an explosion that killed 28 people 80 years ago would have some web presence? I suspect a hoax or exaggeration. Delete unless sources can be found. Pburka (talk) 23:56, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 03:17, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NexG PrePaid

[edit]
NexG PrePaid (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Lack of Notability, information irrelevant to product and seems like advertising a product Cahk (talk) 20:54, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TonyBallioni (talk) 23:45, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete' N/N product per wp:product. -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 23:53, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Changed my mind: Keep This is beginning to look like a product something similar to Octopus card, not as large, but getting there. -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 00:04, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Withdrawn by Nominator see below; non-admin closure. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:12, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

William Hung

[edit]
William Hung (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article is about a person who gained famed for a bad audition in American Idol and getting a few deals on commercials/Tv shows. He is not a real actor and really is not of notability. Plus this article has been requiring sources for a year now.TrUcO9311 TaLk / SiGn 23:30, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-I honestly did not see his discography, which probably is notable. But im still edgy on the article.--TrUcO9311 TaLk / SiGn 23:39, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't get the fascination with him. But his horrible performance on American Idol got him 3 CD's released by a major studio (which is enough to have him pass WP:MUSIC). He has also had guest roles on several TV shows. It may be for something stupid, but he is notable. TJ Spyke 23:37, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep OK, so he's on the 14th minute of his 15 minutes of fame (it's been four years since "She Bangs"). Still, he's a symbol of the idea that even mediocre people can find stardom, given the right opportunity. He's a blue-link in other articles. Like the agony of defeat guy on Wide World of Sports, as long as there's American Idol, there will be replays of William Hung. Mandsford (talk) 23:42, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment-I see what you mean. I guess it is able to be kept.TrUcO9311 TaLk / SiGn 23:50, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question Are you saying that you agree that the article should be kept? If you are you can withdraw the nomination by adding withdrawn like any other comment and explaining your reasoning for withdrawing. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:01, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reply-yes I am saying it should be kept and should be withdrawn. How can I do so?TrUcO9311 TaLk / SiGn 00:07, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I just closed it as withdrawn by nom you don't have to do anything else. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:12, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep, passes WP:MUSIC by having had three albums on a major label. (There's hope for all of us striving musicians if Hung can get a record deal...) In addition, he gained a metric buttload of attention for his atrocious performance on Idol -- I don't even watch Idol and I've heard a lot about this guy. Lack of sources is no reason to delete. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 23:52, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus pushing strongly towards keep. Daniel (talk) 14:47, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Digi-Sign

[edit]
Digi-Sign (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Doubts on notability. Leaving aside the CoI noted on the talk page, this is a private company with 40 employees. I put that way below WP:CORP. However, the 'pedia has a history of liking internet backbone-related companies, no matter what their size, and this appears to be one, so here it comes. ➔ REDVEЯS is standing in the dark 23:20, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Undecided at the moment. There is a clear COI in this article, and this is indeed a small company. But having had Getronics as the majority shareholder speaks to their advantage imo. I think it all depends on the scale of their involvement with "National ID Card implementations" (what do they do? in which countries?) and "online banking" (what do they do? for which banks? etc.). AecisBrievenbus 23:32, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, I know what you mean - definitely not a speedy for all those reasons. But my hunch was, with the terrible sourcing and the CoI and the lack of out-and-out assertion of notability, then this was an AfD matter. If you (or anyone, not just you) can find actual third-party reliable sources that scream "keep", then we should. But I'm still erring on the side of getting shot of it. ➔ REDVEЯS is standing in the dark 23:41, 16 January 2008 (UTC
  • Keep. The company appears to be fairly important in E-business, particularly in Hong Kong. Given the critisism of the HKPCA (1), the fact that this company was the first, and currently one of only two, comercial certificate authorities to be recognised by the Electronic Transactions Ordinance (ETO) is what suggests notability to me (1)(2). Furthermore, the recognition of Digi-Sign by the ETO was covered in a small news article in Computers & Security (a technical journal in IT (3); R Ecclestone (2001) Vol. 20, Issue 7, Pages 585-588.) --Lox (t,c) 20:18, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Hi there. Apart from being known in places mentioned above which is always nice :-) Perhaps I should explain my intentions more thoroughly. Before I do, let me answer one or two of the questions raised above: we are an incredible company in the true sense of the word. It is not credible that a company as small as ours can compete on an international level against the 'monsters' like VeriSign, et al and actually win the business. Hence the use of the word 'incredible'. The fact is that the Bahrain National ID project is the first National ID card in the whole of the GCC that is using ICAO compliant ID cards that use digital certificates to provide extra security on the card and provide electronic identity online. This was a highly contested and important milestone in the whole national ID card sector and we won it. How we won it is because we not only convinced the government of our merits but also because we convinced them of the importance of international credibility of what they were doing by insisting they had their environment ISO 27001 certified too. We are currently undergoing this process as I write.

This leads me to my next point which is the whole issue of educating the customer by truly involving them in the process. ISO 27001 is about implementing policies and procedures with the customers’ involvement to accurately define the environment and then go about protecting the assets.

As an organisation, we originally began life as a VeriSign Affiliate in 1999. After four frustrating years we conducted the MBO for many reasons but the principal one was our distaste for their unwillingness to truly share their knowledge with us. Effectively, despite paying many millions for the 'privilege' of being their partner, we had to learn everything we know about the industry by hiring in the intelligence. The larger PKI providers in the world charge hugely inflated prices for their service on the basis that they have the knowledge and you don't. And you pay heavily for their service.

In principal, they're probably right, it's taken them years to acquire this information, so why shouldn't they be handsomely paid for it? However, this principal, in my opinion, is one of the reasons why wide scale adoption of Digital Certificates has still not come into affect. Continuing on our 'incredible' path, we're going to radically change this over the coming months and years and Wikipedia will be one of the instruments we're going to use to help educate the world on how exactly the technology works, how to implement it, options and advice, do's and don'ts, etc etc.

Moreover, we're at an advanced stage in discussions with a large (if not the largest) open source Certificate Authority [CA] foundations where we will really bring the 'technology to the masses'. So for those Wikipedians that think we're here to advertise ourselves, that's true to a point but it's not the real intention. We intend to 'lift the lid' on this industry and, respectfully, without Wikipedia's support, it'll have less impact. The planned articles are not at sufficient detail yet, but for example, a central activity in implementing a Certificate Authority is the Root Key Ceremony and this should be conducted according to SAS 70. Wikipedia references SAS 70 but has nothing about how to conduct a Key Ceremony, or even what it is. We've seen prices as high as $200,000 being charged for this service when in fact, once you know how to do it, $10-20,000 is probably a fairer price to pay.

Then there’s articles like what a trust centre is, how to construct one, how to implement policies and procedures (ISO 27001 :-), software, cross certification, etc etc. As I say, the actual article plan is not defined yet.

Anyhow, I've written enough for now. You must do what you must but may I suggest that regardless of your final decision, once we start to commit (and contribute) these articles to Wikipedia, you will agree to permit us to appear. Seems fair to me, but again - that’s your call. Thanks P.--PReynolds

  • Keep Regardless of the irrelevancy in the previous discussion,they are already well-known enough to be notable. We are not here to support industry developments, and if we dido, we'd lose our reputation for NPOv & objectivity. I caution PR that the range of general articles being planned need to be written totally free of any slant towards a particular solution. I thank him for the frank declaration of COI, for we will be watching. DGG (talk) 21:43, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: WikiProject Companies has been informed of this ongoing discussion. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:27, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete Keeper | 76 23:10, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tion Hegemony

[edit]
Tion Hegemony (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article lists a lot of "references" that do not appear to assert any notability for the article; they appear to be Star wars novels and fan encyclopedias, which do not count as secondary sources. And as such, it has not demonstrated notability and should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:10, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 14:48, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Beans for books

[edit]
Beans for books (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Does not assert significance other than two stories from local news sources - stories which easily fall into the category of "human interest" stories that stations do all the time. DJBullfish (talk) 22:08, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:28, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Terry Frisby

[edit]
Terry Frisby (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The article is non-notable, orphaned, and unreferenced. Ohmpandya (Talk to Me...) 22:04, 16 January 2008 (UTC) Ohmpandya (Talk to Me...) 22:04, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 and Salt from further recreation Thank you all for a complex set of discussion points. I will take the plunge as the closing administrator and act particularly with regards the consensus and in light of my duty (IMHO) to protect against WP:BLP concerns. --VS talk 11:50, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ed O'Loughlin

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Ed O'Loughlin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This was previously discussed and deleted, but appears to have been re-created. Since I don't have access to the original text, I can't tell whether it is exactly the same material or not, but it is very similar in nature. Although this is ostensibly a biography of Ed O'Loughlin, it is actually a coat rack about various criticisms that have been made of him. This is evident from the fact that the "Criticism" section is as long as everything else put together. Most of these criticisms are by rather small, obscure organizations. There simply aren't enough reliable sources for a proper biography, and it's unlikely that there ever will be. Furthermore, I have my suspicions that User:Adon Emett, who re-created the article, is the same as User:C1818 and the 124.190.*.* IP addresses that were disrupting the previous AFD. This article should be deleted and salted as an irremediable violation of WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:BLP. I would appreciate if an administrator could check if the original reincarnation is the same as the one that was previously deleted, and, if so, speedy delete it under G4. *** Crotalus *** 21:51, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The prior incarnation before deletion, though equally as unbalanced, was different enough in the details that I'd say it doesn't quite qualify as G4. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:55, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a side-by-side comparison of two versions. (Note that the reference footnotes displayed are combined for both articles). --23:42, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Regarding the overlap of editors and IPs between AfDs, see this edit. --A. B. (talk) 23:43, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. -- A. B. (talk) 23:25, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I confirm it is a effectively a recreation and therefore in my view eligible for speedy deletion per G4 because it is on the smae subject that we agreed to delete the article - there is no new material, no new claims for notability therefor the same arguments apply. In my view the G4 qualifier substantially identical to the deleted version and that any changes in the recreated page do not address the reasons for which the material was deleted is met.--Matilda talk 23:56, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I can confirm it is substantially different in that the blogs are no longer used as citations but reliable sources such as the Jerusalem Post. -- Avi (talk) 01:19, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Response -> Delete - in my view different sources have not changed the article because they have not addressed the reasons for which the material in the first place which were that it was not "a neutral, well-sourced, and verifiable article" - moreover- and most importantly for me - notability had not been established - the last nomination asserted he fails WP:Bio against the criteria for journalists - ie He has not won any prizes for his Journalism, nor written any books - as a result he is not eligible for an article. The use of more reliable sources may address some of the verifiability concerns but WP:UNDUE applies and when that is matched against Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Presumption in favor of privacy this article shouldn't be here as per the last AfD. No new material has been introduced - only slightly better sources used. --Matilda talk 03:06, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete:
  1. Any notability the subject has depends on just one source, an editorial in the Jerusalem Post, not a news article. The other refs (besides O'Loughlin's biographical information) are from various advocacy groups, not impartial organisations
  2. The article should have gone through deletion review rather than re-created.
  3. The article was created primarily to criticize its subject for perceived bias in his Middle East reporting for The Age and the Sydney Morning Herald. It's a major BLP liability, as a quick perusal of this re-created version's edit history and talk page reveals.
  4. There is no balance to the criticism here -- it's all negative. Presumably someone in Australia holds a positive view of him given that he's held one of the most sensitive assignments in Australian journalism for 5+ years.
  5. Wikipedia is not a soapbox.
  6. Given that the subject is, at best, marginally, if at all, notable, I believe we must delete this article.
--A. B. (talk) 00:18, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep I am afraid this is a bad-faith I do not understand this nomination, especially as the nominator himself suggested that the article be recreates with reliable sources, which this has been. It is not a WP:COATRACK as Mr. O'Loughlin has been accused of misrepresentation over 100 times in the year 2003 alone. There is not one incident, but many incidents that fit the same pattern. I am very concerned that the nominator did not take this to the talk page, when it was an obviously different article. I am also very concerned that the nominator seemed not to read the talk page, in which these issues were discusssed in great detail. Recreating an article PROPERLY, with reliable sources is the way we improve wikipedia. The Jerusalem Post is noy a small organization, neither is the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs. And both are reliable sources as well, wikipedia-wise. I am an administrator and I can confirm that the article at current is not the same, as it brings reliable sources instead of blogs. Avi (talk) 01:02, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Responding point-by-point to A. B.:
      1. Accusations of bias are often ipso facto opinions, not facts, just as the initial bias is the imposition of an opinion, not fact. The fact that O'Loughlin has a pattern in his writing style has been documented by more than one reliable source. The fact that O'Loughlin has come under criticism from Israeli and non-Israeli sources has reliable sources. Thus, the notability is confirmed by those sources, even if they are editorials or articles in reputable journals.
      2. Incorrect, because this is not a recreation of the old, unsourced article but a new incarnation with reliable sources, so it is not an "undeletion" but a different article.
      3. WP:BLP is not an excuse to blank article content that is not liked; otherwise, we should delete and salt article like Ariel Sharon. WP:BLP requires …the greatest care and attention to verifiability, neutrality and avoiding original research, particularly if it is contentious. In this incarnation of the article, such care has been taken.
      4. As I pointed out a number of times on the article's talk page, that is a reason to find and bring documentation of that "presumable" positive view; NOT a reason to delete the article.
      5. Absolutely; and where do you find soapboxing here? WP:BIO requires multiple citations in reliable sources; we have that here.
      6. Given that the subject passes our notability criteria, the article is reliable and verifiably sourced with WP:BLP in mind, we must keep the article. Remember, WP:NPOV applies just as much to "whitewashing" as it does to "smearing". Per WP:NPOV#Undie weight we must bring the prevailing opinion in proportion to what is found, not what is presumed.

-- Avi (talk) 01:15, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Avraham, I see no evidence to justify your comment about bad faith on the nominator's part. The fact is that the community, not just Crotalus horridus, concluded just 3 weeks ago that this article should be deleted. You may see things differently and you may believe this article should be kept, and that's OK, but I don't think it's right to level a bad faith charge at the nominator. --A. B. (talk) 01:19, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment First, the claim of bad faith is unsupported, unproductive, and unhelpful. Please strike it out. Second, the 100 accusations all come from the same defunct, highly obscure pressure group, and do not prove notability. The Jerusalem Post is undeniably a reliable source, but Stephens's sharp rebuttal of an article written by O'Loughlin is not, in my view, coverage of O'Loughlin. The JCPA is a reliable source of a sort, but Fleischer's brief, exemplary mention of O'Loughlin and commentary on his reporting is a pretty marginal basis for a claim of notability. Finally, the rebuttal by the Australian arm of the Free Patriotic Movement says nothing about O'Loughlin specifically, it only takes aim at two specific statements in one specific report. And I'm not exactly sure how Avi concludes (elsewhere) that the Aussie Aounists are a reliable source; I tend to see them as questionable sources even in a "regular" article, and this is a BLP.
    • In my view, an article about a person which contains more than 50% "controvery" or "criticism" information can only be justified if this person is genuinely, verifiably a controversial figure and widely criticized. Note widely, as in "by a wide volume of sources", not deeply, as in "intensely and personally." Given that reliable 3rd-party sources do exist which mention the criticsm of O'Loughlin from partisan groups, it's worth mentioning. But it's not worth overwhelming the article with, and that is the only reason this article exists anyway. <eleland/talkedits> 01:21, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some clarification. There are currently 3 criticism sources. The problem is that 2 of them are not really about O'Loughlin at all, and the third is unreliable. Israel in the Australian Media, as the title suggests, is really about Australian media coverage of Israel in general. O'Loughlin is mentioned, but the article isn't about him. Likewise, The meaning of Vanunu is an editorial decrying the release of Mordechai Vanunu, and, although O'Loughlin is criticized, he isn't the article's subject. Then there's an organization called the UALM, which wrote a press release attacking O'Loughlin for what they saw as overly critical coverage of the Free Patriotic Movement. But UALM is an arm of the FPN, so they have a conflict of interest. Their political hit piece is not accurate enough for a BLP. So we have 2 sources that are basically trivial, and a third that is unreliable. That makes the entire criticism section in violation of Wikipedia policies, and, without that, the article itself becomes a nn-bio. *** Crotalus *** 01:48, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just a thought: consider deleting this article and adding a sentence or two to the articles for the two newspapers about their coverage of the Middle East. Clearly O'Loughlin has strong backing from his bosses and the papers' owners. Furthermore, his work is always vetted and sometimes rewritten by the editorial staff, so to the extent that it is or isn't biased, that's an issue associated with the entire institution, not just a reporter. There's more substantive sourcing for this approach than there is for the O'Loughlin article and you don't incur BLP issues if you don't mention reporters by name. --A. B. (talk) 01:57, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do you have a reliable and verifiable source for the "strong backing"? Merely stating so is a violation of original research and as a WP:BLP, it is especially critical that we have none of that. Moreover, the source I just added does talk a bit about the "support", in as much as The Age has been accused in print of deliberately refusing to publish criticism of its correspondents so as not not "impugn" their "professionalism". -- Avi (talk) 02:13, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep I have been watching this discusssion. I think that assertions of Cotalus that certain identities are one and the same are reprehensible unless they are backed with evidence. For this alone I think that Crotalus should be put forward to have his Admin status removed. Mongoosed (talk) 02:39, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I ws writng when someone just deleted what I had said. Thanks for the welcome Matilda. I have been following the archive and I think that it was an ambush from Eleland and Crotalus. The was no proper vote. I these guys cant defeat the logical arguments of Avi than they seem determinined to have their way by cheating.Mongoosed (talk) 03:39, 17 January 2008 (UTC) 03:37, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
— Mongoosed (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Comment. I'm undecided on keep or delete. However, I'll note that its present form the article is a POV-laden coatrack and strikes me as un-encyclopedic. Majoreditor (talk) 03:30, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Majoreditor, this is about as good as this article is going to get if built with these sources and with the intent of criticizing O'Loughlin; it's been a lot worse, trust me. I'm not sure anything more encyclopedic can be written, which is a good reason to delete it. --A. B. (talk) 03:51, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Majoreditor, how can it be a coatrack if the reason for O'Loughlin's notability is his demonstrated bias? -- Avi (talk) 04:10, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Response - perhaps you could link bias to the criteria for notability under WP:Bio - I can't see it - thus if bias is not a criterion for notability, then this journalist is not notable unless you have some other basis.--Matilda talk 04:17, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • The criteria for journalists is covered by those for creative professionals and to reporduce them form WP:BIO they are
        • The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors.
        • The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique.
        • The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, which has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.
        • The person's work either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries, museums or internationally significant libraries.
      • I don't see the article making any assertions to support these--Matilda talk 04:25, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • However, the criteria for any person, journalist or not, is covered by WP:BIO#Basic critera in which it states:

          A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject.
          If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be needed to prove notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability.
          Primary sources may be used to support content in an article, but they do not contribute toward proving the notability of a subject.

        • We have this person as the subject of multiple, independent sources which are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. Further sub-sections of WP:BIO are not intended to prevent someone who meets the basic criteria from being considered notable. -- Avi (talk) 15:02, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep most definitely. I believe that the Ed O'loughlin article is very good and that the arguments put forward by Avi are compelling.Adjuro (talk) 04:40, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
— Adjuro (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  • By the criteria outlined above (thanks Matilda) the Article should be kept on the basis "the person's work has won significant critical attention". Matilda have a look at the referneces to confirm for yourself that they are "significant".Adon Emett (talk) 05:16, 17 January 2008 (UTC) — Adon Emett (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    • Response: I do not regard the cites as "significant" critical attention, they are relatively few from sources which I have to say do not strike me as without bias on this topic - we obviously differ in our interpretation of significant - there has been some unfavourable criticism but not enough to justify an article for a journalist who otherwise has apparently no claims to be regarded as an important figure in his profession and the article continues to strike me as breaching WP:UNDUE for somebody who does notmeet WP:Bio and thus it breaches WP:BLP as discussed above.--Matilda talk 05:25, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'd say that there is more than a little subjectivity on your part, when you bucket widespread criticsm of the guy as being insignificant. What's your POV. An Australian member of parliament goes on record in a major Australian daily to attack O'Loughlin, The Editor of the Jerusalem post goes on a rampage against O'Loughlin, Sections of the Australian Lebanese community excoriate him, scholarly works single him ourt as an exemplar of bias, and there is more much more as Avi has laid out for us to read, but Matilda's opinion is it's not significant! What special journalistic experience do you have Matilda? What allows you to be so dismissive? Eh? Adon Emett (talk) 06:34, 17 January 2008 (UTC) — Adon Emett (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

These "shoot from the hip" accusations of sock-puppetry are preety poor aren't they Matilda? I thought the issue was decided on the strength of the arguments anyway? I suppose not. The issue is decided by Crotalus! It should have been a civil discussion on the discussion page. When Crotalus, A.B., Eleland could not prevail with logic...well they just resorted to their normal technique of put the article straight to deletion (AfD). Dont you think all this is petty and arbitrary? There are plenty of sound refs that O'Loughlin is one of many controversial journalists in Australia. That's his claim to fame. There are Wiki articles on Andrew Bolt, on John Pilger, on Michael Gawenda etc because they are all controversial. And none on any other of the Age foreign correspondents because they are not - you wont find a single critical reference for any of them except...O'Loughlin. What's the matter Crotalus? Got an Eleland stuck in your throat? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adon Emett (talk • contribs) 06:22, 17 January 2008 (UTC) — Adon Emett (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  • Response Regrettably the last AfD on this same topic was also clouded by sock-puppetry. I am trying to keep the sock-puppetry case case simple. Happy for somebody to nominate an alternate puppet master.
The strength of the argument should indeed apply but weight is given to the number of those who support a point of view. It is extremely strange that new users (not just one but two) should appear with properly formatted comments (including signatures) giving their views, apparently never having edited on wikipedia before. Unfortunately their views were confined to praising the views of another editor - hardly compelling strength of argument approach.
    • How much weight? 20kg, 50kg. Dont make me laugh.

By the way this whole issue has been discussed in many places - no doubt there are new interested parties. Bandying around unsupported accusations of sock puppetry. Quite unprofessional.Adon Emett (talk) 07:07, 17 January 2008 (UTC) — Adon Emett (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]


My POV is merely that of an Australian editor assessing the claims fo the article against the notability criteria. I see the cites for criticism as all coming from a particular sector (including the Austrlaian politician whose views are well known). I disagree that this journalist is as well known as the others you ahve mentioned. Moreover WP:Otherstuffexists would apply. I would need a more independant source than those already cited (all have their obvious biasses unfortunately - even or perhaps especially the MP) to convince me that this journalist was controversial and thus met the notability criteria on the basis of his notoriety as a controversial journalist. I don't see it at present.--Matilda talk 07:00, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Australian did not have to cover the story if they did not think it noteworthy.The Australian Jewish News did not have to go into convulsions about O'Loughlin if he were not noteworthy. Remember he's not writing about Sport so it wont be on the front or back pages. You have to know something of what he writes. And when you examine the writing of people who do - you find only complaints. Just because his area is sectional, not global does not exclude him from Wikipedia. I have not heard of many of the people bioed in Wiki but that does not mean that they should not be there. I am sorry but it just seems that you are just displaying your ignorance on the topic.Adon Emett (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 07:17, 17 January 2008 (UTC) — Adon Emett (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Comment I am C1818 and am outraged at the suggestion that Adon Emett and I are the same person. Where is the evidence? Why is it so hard for you to believe that this article is not merely a "soapbox" of one person but represents a serious and evidence-based biographical article of this journalist. He is responsible for a significant proportion of articles on Israel which appear in two major Australian newspapers. He is therefore noteworthy due to his influence on the interpretation and reportage of this particular subject matter to a large group of readers. As an influential journalist in relation to this subject matter to a large group of Australian readers it is vitally important that any behavior outside of commonly accepted journalistic standards be revealed, especially because he is attracted so much controversy.

Another issue of serious concern is the fact that "Eleland" who was responsible for the initial deletion once flew the flag of a terrorist organisation on his web site and freely advocated "armed struggle", no doubt referring to terrorist acts by Palestinians against Israelis. I hardly think he can be considered impartial.

C1818 (talk) 07:56, 17 January 2008 (UTC) — C1818 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  • Keep It is claimed by "Nick Dowling" that what is notable is "the aparant sustained attacks on O'Loughlin". One might question why he is "attacked". He is criticized because of continued violations of acceptable journalistic standards. Since he is personally responsible for a significant amount of the information and analysis of Middle East issues provided to many Australian readers through two major newspapers reaching a significant proportion of the Australian population and SINCE he already had an entry in Wikipedia prior to the introduction of these criticisms by concerned persons, it was and is important that these issues be introduced. I agree with the claims of some others that he is an un-noteworthy individual. Had he not had a biographical entry in Wikipedia, I and most others would not have added one. One has been added however, therefore the full extent of his professional behavior must be made available to the readership.

C1818 (talk) 10:29, 17 January 2008 (UTC) — C1818 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I don't agree with your claim that "its important" that criticisms of O'Loughlin be included in Wikipedia and "the full extent of his professional behavior must be made available to the readership" as these views aren't in accordance with fundamental Wikipedia policies on neutrality. Wikipedia is not a soapbox and if you don't like what O'Loughlin writes this isn't the place to push your agenda. What's notable is that a campaign has been mounted against this journalist by interest groups. The actual criticisms of O'Loughlin are less notable (especially as they seem to have only been made by groups with political agendas which are related to the topics he writes on rather than politically neutral observers on press standards), and he and his employer's response to these claims, as well as any commentary which can be found from neutral parties such as experts, also needs to be prominently included in the article. I'm getting the feeling that this is some kind of crusade I wasn't previously aware of and that deletion is in order, and have changed my vote to delete accordingly. Incidently, Nick Dowling is my actual name, so you don't need to put it in quote marks. --Nick Dowling (talk) 11:04, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With respect I think you've missed the point Nick. It's not whether one "likes" or "dislikes" O'Loughlin's opinions - it's that there is documented evidence that O'Loughlin uses Advocacy Journalism. That is he breaks independent standards of journalism to advocate a view in his News reporting. This has got so bad that many comentators have published criticisms of his News reporting, parliametnarians have raised concerns, and scholarly studies have criticised him. If he were a commentator it would not matter, but he is a news reporter, and as such he has attracted attention around the world and particularly in Australia. For this noteriety he deserves a comment in Wikipedia, just like Andrew Bolt or Gerard Henderson.Adon Emett (talk) 11:25, 17 January 2008 (UTC)— Adon Emett (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  • Delete. Matilda ties it all together with her point on criteria for journalists/creative professionals. As such, the subject doesn't meet criteria for inclusion, and this coatrack-ish article should be dispatched. Majoreditor (talk) 12:55, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails the notability standards for creative professionals, and I thought Wikipedia policy was against attack pages which is what this article reads like. Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:54, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep - the guy is a Journalist for g-d's sake. will we delete every prominent figure who has detractors? i see the problems here, and i stronlgy urge all invovlved to not just delete the whole think, but rarther fix it. deal with it and deal with it until we die. thats our vocation as wikipedia editors to never ever finish writing on subjects.--יודל (talk) 18:39, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. /sigh. Once again, Yudel/Yid, that is not how wikipedia works. If O'Loughlin is not notable, we are not supposed to have an article on him. Personally, I think he is notable; others here do not. But the mere fact that he is a journalist is insufficient. Once again, please review WP:NOT. -- Avi (talk) 18:44, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Answer - mostly as if not all agreed here that he is indeed notable. this isnt the issue, the concern of the deleters is only that his notability is more about his fights with Israel, so if that makes him Notable why should we delete, rather than fix it and balance it?! lets start doing our duties here rather than trying to see where we can censure and delete more info, we are a free and open encyclopedia and simply deleting others work drives away new editors--יודל (talk) 18:51, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Er -- no. If you read through the discussion you'll see that not all editors agree that he is notable, just like Avi explained. Majoreditor (talk) 19:22, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not all, but Most of all. The consensus here is that he is Notable, but the problem is that his notability is more negative than positive lets fix it.--יודל (talk) 19:34, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rachmana L'tzlan, did you read the discussion? Crotalus horridus, Matilda, Major, among others believe that this person is not notable. I think that they are forgetting WP:BIO#Basic criteria, but that is for other participants and the closing admin to decide. -- Avi (talk) 19:52, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We are all powerfull enough to decide, u being a sysop does not in any way shape form make u a bigger decider than me. once u allready said your opinion please refrain from lecturing others on policy we know that u r a sysop but it should not come into play now on this page.--יודל (talk) 20:00, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mah inyan Shemitta Aytzel Har Sinai?? -- Avi (talk) 20:02, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If u want to speak privetly in an other languge others should not get your mesege there is email for it. please do not use this page to start persanal skirmnishes--יודל (talk) 20:06, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For those who do not understand Hebrew, and surprisingly, this seems to include User:Yidisheryid, this is a transliteration of a Rashi at the end of Leviticus and is now used as a colloquial expression meaning, "What is the connection between what you just said and the current discussion". Funny, how a user who professes to know Yiddish and Hebrew failed to understand that. -- Avi (talk) 20:09, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I never ever said that i do not understand hebrew i just told u its not apropiate to write in other languges here, and comes to show how honest the words u write are, lets talk about the subject at hand not my conduct or yours. i beg u please do not revert this page into personal grudges.--יודל (talk) 20:15, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? You sig is in Hebrew!--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:06, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails notability test as noted repeatedly above. Is a pet hate subject for a handful of pro-Israeli groups. Interestingly is a pet hate subject for pro-Palestine groups as well. But despite all of that, he is just a journalist working for a newspaper, like tens of thousands of others. As regards WP:BIO#Basic criteria, the secondary source material does not appear to meet the requirement to be "intellectually independent" as it is all published by groups with stated pro-Israeli (or pro-Palestine) agendas. He has won no major awards, he has never been newsworthy in his own right and is no more entitled to a WP article than I am. Manning (talk) 00:04, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Australia is geographically very large but very small in population. Mr O'Loughlin writes for two (sister) newspapers that reach most of the population in her two largest cities (Sydney and Melbourne). The population of these cities and surrounding areas is approximately forty percent of the Australian population. In addition the Fairfax media organisation for whom he works services many other regional centres. He therefore directly INFLUENCES around EIGHT MILLION people of the Western World (based on a population of 20 million) and probably many more. Given that Australia as a nation is relatively influential for her small size in population and given her strong alliance with the USA and other Western Powers, the fact that he can influence at least eight million voters of a democratic nation that is an influential and credible member of the Western Alliance is NOT INSIGNIFICANT. He can strongly influence public opinion and hence VOTERS (Australia being a democracy) and therefore the contriibution of his journalistic endeavours significantly outweighs his relative lack of notability in other ways.

C1818 (talk) 06:35, 18 January 2008 (UTC)— C1818 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

    • Comment You've already voted keep above so there's no reason to do so again. As noted earlier, this isn't the place to push ideological agendas and paranoias anyway, so stop speculating about Mr O'Loughlin's audience. In the unlikely event that that many people read the two papers he writes for (the audited figures say that the total is actually well under a million) that argument applies to every journalist in the papers and notability is not inherited from an employer anyway. --Nick Dowling (talk) 07:22, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Wikipedia:BLP#Criticism looks highly relevant to this discussion. --Nick Dowling (talk) 07:25, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment

    "please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus among Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia"

    As this is not a "vote" in the tradtional sense, I surely can "vote" as often as I like. If you counted votes, I would vote once, no problem.

C1818 (talk) 07:51, 18 January 2008 (UTC)— C1818 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment It's interesting that an editor whose only contributions to Wikipedia have been in this deletion debate is suddenly quoting Wikipedia policies... --Nick Dowling (talk) 08:09, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary section break

[edit]
Given that the article has already been deleted once I would suggest that this discussion be brought to an immediate close. The article probably should not have been recreated without first going to a deletion review and there currently appears to me to be a consensus to delete the article. --Nick Dowling (talk) 10:34, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Beginning of Ed O'Loughlin's post

Dear whoever you all are

My name is Ed O'Loughlin - this is my real name, I stress - and I am the subject of this article.

The article as it has appeared in its various manifestations in recent months is a starkly one-sided attack on my personal and professional character which is based entirely on highly partisan sources and falsehoods. The moving forces behind it are anonymous people who do not have the integrity to reveal their identities or interests, and whose malicious intent is quite clear from their contributions to the discussion pages and their vandalisation of posts expressing differing views.

I note that the article has already been deleted once on precisely these grounds, and I am puzzled as to why it has now been re-instated. If it were published in the "old media" - which is to say, by people who have to publicly stand over and justify what they say and suffer the potentially severe personal consequences, such as loss of livelihood - it would clearly be actionable.

Please note that my work has been repeatedly critiqued in the public domain in Australia for the past five years and in that time not one factual error or instance of bias has been substantiated. Please also note that every newspaper reporter covering the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has to stand up to a level of vexatious attack from interest groups and ethnic partisans unknown in any other posting. Nevertheless, all the complaints against me to our internal ombudsmen and to the Australian Press Council have been dismissed as entirely without merit, including one (Press Council number 1305, December 2005) which went to full arbitration. My employers, whose commitment to truth in journalism comes second to no media organisation in Australia or indeed the world, has seen fit to extend my contract here from the original two years to five years and counting.

I am, overall, an admirer of the Wikipedia project but I am disturbed to see how easily it can be manipulated by those hell-bent on imposing their personal beliefs, without regard to balance or empirical truth. I recently watched an episode of the Colbert Report in which the presenter demonstrated the pitfalls of what he terms "wikiality" by editing the page on African elephants to assert that their numbers are exploding. I now understand what he meant.

I am requesting that this article be deleted. If anybody wants to write about me in future I would expect them to at least have the courtesy and guts to put their real name to their writing, as do I. If the article is not deleted I expect this letter be prominently displayed both on the front page and on the discussion page, and that the letter be protected from the vandalism which has been such a marked feature of this supposed debate.

Yours, Ed O'Loughlin, Middle East Correspondent, Sydney Morning Herald, The Age

PS contrary to what he or she is allowing this community to believe (see extract from the administrator Avraham's talk page below), “Adon Emett” is not using his or her real name. Unless, that is, the contributor in question really is the Hebrew “Lord of Truth”.

From administrator's talk page:

124.191.88.235' block Hi. You blocked 124.191.88.235 on 10 January for two weeks. I noticed this subsequent edit, the new editor making it and the signature he used -- this looks like he is trying to evade your block. --A. B. (talk) 04:31, 16 January 2008 (UTC) Let me just say, I'm fine with Mr. Emett getting a fresh start. He's registered under his real name, he seems to be reasonably co-operative so far. <eleland/talkedits> 05:41, 16 January 2008 (UTC) Gee thanks, Eleland. And are you co-operative? Adon Emett (talk) 05:47, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

end of Ed O'Loughlin's post

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - fails WP:ORG. KrakatoaKatie 05:14, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Youth Challenge International Canada

[edit]
Youth Challenge International Canada (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable organization, makes no claim to notability whatsoever. Unsourced. Reads like an advertisement. Only link is to official web site. Unable to locate any secondary sources on the organization. Less than two pages of Ghits. Fails WP:ORG. Despite all this, was previously declined speedy because admin felt we should try to "help article," so I'm bringing it here for consensus. Redfarmer (talk) 00:15, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The listing from the Canadian International Development Agency, which I've added as an External link, is a secondary source, is it not? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:31, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's a basic government listing with contact info and a short bio. I don't think that would count as a secondary source to establish notoriety. I don't know about Canada, but in the states we have all kinds of non-profits which are listed on government web sites and are, in no way, notable. Redfarmer (talk) 00:34, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, we're not trying to establish notoriety, surely. I don't know about the US, but I do know Canada and if CIDA lists you as an accredited organization, you're legit. Or at least there's no reasonable basis to assume otherwise. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:38, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:ORG, an organization must be notable in order to warrant its own article. Just being legit does not meet the guidelines. Notoriety is established through media reports such as newspaper and magazine articles, etc. and other secondary sources. Redfarmer (talk) 00:42, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's notability we're trying to establish here, Redfarmer, not notoriety. (I certainly hope this non-profit organization isn't going to end up being notorious). At any rate, I also added a link from La Francophonie, the international body for all French-speaking nations. This appears to be an notable international youth aid agency, IMO. Thanks, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:51, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Would you quote a secondary source to the article per WP:REF? I don't speak French but the new page appears to be another directory listing, which does not qualify as a secondary source. Redfarmer (talk) 00:54, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I converted the CIDA link to an in-line citation and have also tagged the article as too promotional in tone. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:59, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm asking you to quote a secondary source for me, though. If you can find a secondary source which establishes the notability of the organization per WP:ORG, I will withdraw the nomination. Directory listings do not count as secondary sources. I cannot find such a source. Redfarmer (talk) 01:03, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've posted about all I can find. I'm not sure I would describe the CIDA Web page as a mere directory listing, though. CIDA has listed them (and they have flagged CIDA on their home page) because they're being funded and supported by CIDA. So in my mind, at least, that denotes a certain level of notability and significance. But no, I've found nothing that's going make you want to pull the AfD, I suspect, and your viewpoint may well prevail. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:11, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is, even if I grant that those articles are not akin to a directory listing, you admitted that both organizations give funding to this organization, which, to me, makes it more like a primary source than a secondary source since the CIDA and the La Francophonie are associated with this organization. Redfarmer (talk) 01:22, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know that La Francophonie gave them anything, but CIDA did. For you, that makes it a mere primary source -- I get that. But for me, it means that the Canadian government has seen fit to support this charitable international youth organization -- which it wouldn't have done unless they were up to something socially noteworthy and important, per WP:ORG.Shawn in Montreal (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 01:27, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Redfarmer (talk) 21:40, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, redirect can be made by anyone else per general editorial discretion if they so desire (no clear consensus to create one from this discussion, so I'm not going to proxy-create one). Daniel (talk) 14:49, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammed bin Osama bin Laden

[edit]
Mohammed bin Osama bin Laden (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

A son of Osama bin Laden born in 1983. Notability is not inherited. This article fails WP:V and WP:BIO. "Mohammed bin Osama bin Laden" turns up almost nothing, and "Mohammed bin Laden" is the name of this individual's grandfather making non-trivial coverage of this individual difficult to find. There may be sources in Arabic but I'm certainly not qualified to look for them. h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 21:31, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Withdrawn per improvements, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 23:18, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mill Creek Mall

[edit]
Mill Creek Mall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Doesn't appear to be a notable mall. A search for reliable third party coverage under both names turned up virtually nothing but directories and hotel pages -- not even mentions of the mall's closure could be found. The only sources cited are ICSC listings. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 21:19, 16 January 2008 (UTC) Withdrawn per Alansohn's improvements. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 23:18, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 – clearly fails WP:MUSIC. KrakatoaKatie 07:47, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tempercalm

[edit]
Tempercalm (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Also included in this nomination:

Non-notable band. Judging by the username who created the article, it appears to be self-promotional. Only secondary sources I find are incidentals (lists of places they are playing, sites to buy music) or primary (videos on Youtube, Myspace, etc.). Fails WP:BAND. No prejudice for recreation if they go somewhere after their album is released. Redfarmer (talk) 20:58, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge and redirect Campus for Christ to Campus Crusade for Christ, and delete Summit (conference). Neither meets notability requirements. The latter was created then abandoned, and there's no content specific to Campus for Christ except 'it's our meeting'. Any redirect would be equivalent to a WP:CSD#R3 as an odd typo. It's better to simply delete it. KrakatoaKatie 08:20, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Campus for Christ and Summit (conference)

[edit]
Campus for Christ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Summit (conference) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Delete and redirect. I do not believe this organization meets notability requirements, nor does it link to other articles. Thus, I am nominating both the main article, Campus for Christ, as well as its daughter article summit (conference). This second article I think should be deleted and then redirected to summit (meeting). Lovelac7 20:45, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete, since the lack of reliable sources has not yet been overcome.Tikiwont (talk) 10:06, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ignition (band)

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Ignition (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The last AfD was closed too early. I noted that the subject of this article was not applicable for A7 speedy deletion, because some significance was asserted, and as such may if references are added pass WP:MUSIC criterion 1. Still it needs an AfD for consensus to be determined - and should not be speedied this time. h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 20:36, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • My apologies for causing all the mayhem here! I closed the first nom since someone else had placed an A7 tag on the page, and it got speedied just as the first AfD opened. Apparently, the A7 got overturned and I didn't notice; I thought the page had just been re-created, so I tried to tag it for G4 until I realized my mistake. Then I went back and reopened the first AfD -- but since this one's now open, I've re-closed the first AfD. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 20:41, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • And just to further confuse the clarification, er clarify the confusion, the article was never technically A7'd. It was nominated for A7, (never deleted), tag removed, Afd'ed, tag removed under the impression of a successful A7, subsequently G4'ed, tag removed, and now AfD2'ed. Cheers!  :-) All this to say, please consider the merits/lack thereof of the subject matter, and not the mess of deletion happy editors, myself included. Keeper | 76 20:48, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
First don't swear, except at me. I've been working on too many CSD's today. This particular band's article has been speedy deleted, in fact, 3 times. I didn't see that when I pulled the speedy off the article, it appeared to have notability. Yikes. I recommend just letting the AfD run it's course though. NO NEED TO ADD MORE METHOD TO OUR MADNESS. I would do better the rest of the day to type with my forehead instead of my digits... Keeper | 76 21:18, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Let's look at WP:MUSIC criterion #1.
  1. It has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable.[1]
    • This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, magazine articles, and television documentaries[2] except for the following:
      • Media reprints of press releases, other publications where the musician/ensemble talks about themselves, and advertising for the musician/ensemble.
      • Works comprising merely trivial coverage, such as newspaper articles that simply report performance dates or the publications of contact and booking details in directories.
      • An article in a school or university newspaper (or similar) would generally be considered trivial but should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 01:14, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of YouTube celebrities

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
List of YouTube celebrities (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
  • Keep. It is not too out of control that it's unsalvageable, but it needs a bit of trimming. Entries without their own articles should probably be removed, whether there's an outside reference or not. Keep it to only people who have actual articles on Wikipedia, and then it becomes a simple list for navigation on Wikipedia. Then it won't be a directory, based on my understanding of Wikipedia is not a directory of people. • Anakin

(contribs • complaints) 20:50, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. I would. Some people even if they have articles are not celebrities. The Whogasm girls are one entity recently removed from the list for example. Rather than celebrities that was more of a viral video popular in one month of last year. Maybe there are other reasons why people should/should not be on the list also. • Anakin (contribs • complaints) 13:05, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Ah now that is a good point. Some people aren't notable enough for articles, but are worthy of a mention to any rounded article on the subject of YouTube celebritism (word?), which for better or for worse, seems to gather media attention. Perhaps I was wrong to suggest "write the article first" was a good policy for this page. Perhaps a sentence/very short paragraph on each entry in the list establishing notability, with references (separate article or not), would be better. It would make for a fuller article, more valuable than a "list", and allow some things of fringe notability a passing mention. (Surely better than needing an ugly stub article for those things, or ignoring them.) Then again it may prompt people to want it deleted with even greater vigour. It's just an idea; take it as you will. • Anakin (contribs • complaints) 13:36, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Eluchil404 (talk) 06:02, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Joe foglia

[edit]
Joe foglia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:BIO. He's only a sound engineer, which is a minor role in creating television programming. Also obvious WP:COI given author's username. h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 20:26, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't think a person should be able to self-declare his notability. --Revanche (talk) 01:44, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result wasDelete --JForget 01:38, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brandon Michael Kimble

[edit]
Brandon Michael Kimble (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Apparent hoax. The link on the page leads to the profile for Chris Konopka, not Kimble. The article claims the player was taken by the New England Revolution with the 51st pick in the 2007 supplemental draft, however the draft tracker shows the Revolution passed on that pick. An internet search shows no evidence that a player with that name played for UMKC or had any affiliation with the Kansas City Wizards. Scottmsg (talk) 20:26, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 that this club is considered to meet notability requirements. TerriersFan (talk) 00:39, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stonehouse Town F.C.

[edit]

Non notable football club Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 20:06, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:41, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Muslim population growth in India

[edit]
Muslim population growth in India (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete POV-ridden article with pro-Hindutva POV-pushing. Pro-Hindutva POV-pushers always want to depict Muslim population as an evil in India. Do not provide any reliable source. The first paragraph describes general situation in South Asia and India. The rest of the information will be good in Demographics of India article, do not deserve for a separate encyclopedic article. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 19:50, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Muslim pouplation is growing in India" yes, growing. You are absolutely right, 100% truth. But Muslim population growth is not a separate phenomenon aside the general population explosion in India. Population growth is a phenomenon in India, and separating this particular religion in this issue is pro-Hindutva POV-pushing which the Hindu-nationalists do. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 11:34, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, in India, Muslim population is growing faster than the population of other communities. That's a fact. I respect Islam. Why is the Muslim population growing faster than the population of other communities? Some social scientists suggest that it is because of lack of education among Muslims in India. And, there are many other explanations. Thus, this article should not be deleted. In India, if you say any thing negative about Islamic community, they call you a ‘Hindu nationalist’. The so-called secularists in India don’t even understand the meaning of secularism. They try to appease Muslim community in the name of ‘secularism’ and don’t do a thing to improve their conditions. Why is the percentage of uneducated Muslims higher than the percentage of uneducated Hindus in India? Can any so-called secularists explain this to me? As I said earlier, there are reasons why the population of Muslims growing faster than the population of other communities. We should highlight those reasons instead of deleting the article. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 09:19, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The uneducated part of the population is growing faster, it consists of Hindu, Muslim and ther religions. Not only Muslim population, other population is also growing. It is POV to separate Muslims. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 11:28, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - In addition to what Otolemur crassicaudatus wrote, I do not understand the point of this article, and it certainly needs a clean up. For instance, what relevancy does this statement have: "There are more Muslims in India than there are Sikhs, even though 85.3% of all Sikhs―about 20 million out of 24 million worldwide―reside in India.". The English is abysmal in the article as there is a no sense of flow. It seems all the statements are directly copy-pasted from an pro-Hindu website. I hope for a quick deletion of this article, or at least a clean-up and a proper redress of the purpose of the article. Also, I found funny: "India has conducted a decennial census since 1881, and has always tracked religious affiliation as part of the census, thus leaving little room for controversy about the underlying facts. The Census of India is generally seen as one of the more reliable regularly conducted censuses outside of the developed world."... no need to comment further, you can tell of the evident bias. The article needs a complete re-work (because it centres around Islamophobia) or delete it. I hope for the latter. --Waqas1987 (talk) 22:01, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge and Delete. this article is certainly not POV-pushing but this AfD seems to be. I think the information presented is useful, but doesn't need an own article and should be merged into Islam in India.
The article is certainly POV-pushing, and this vote is also in the same line. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 15:47, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Could you explain in what way it is POV pushing? Poeloq (talk) 16:07, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Care to my comments above, why I described this article POV-ridden. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 16:15, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Canley (talk) 08:20, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of personalities from Bratislava

[edit]
List of personalities from Bratislava (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This list should not exist as it the category "People from Bratislava" would serve the same purpose. If they are notable enough to have a wiki article then the category should cover it. Wikidudeman (talk) 19:20, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. It is currently not listed at List of roguelikes, so there seems to no point in merging or redirecting. Tikiwont (talk) 10:20, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MAG (computer game)

[edit]
MAG (computer game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Subject fails Wikipedia's notability requirements, lacking independent, verifiable sources. The closest statement to notability within the article itself is that of proximity: the game's author was classmate to the author of the better-known Hack. After personally spending roughly 45 minutes searching for potential source candidates (querying Mike's Adventure Game, Mike Teixeira, and taking a fair stab at its alternate titles, MAG and PC-MAG, which overwhelmingly return results for topics other than this game), I located a number of one-off "here's the game, download it" mentions, exceedingly brief capsule summaries at MobyGames and Home of the Underdogs, and a handful of Usenet postings (mostly spoilers), none of which appear to qualify as reliable, third-party materials. The game in question exists, but it has not generated sufficient interest to qualify as notable for Wikipedia's purposes. (Of possible relevance to the discussion is that the article recently sprang into existence on the basis of a single-purpose editor going by the handle "Magauthor".) D. Brodale (talk) 19:04, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:44, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A Black Rose Burial

[edit]
A Black Rose Burial (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable band that has released albums but never charted. No more notable than 25,000 other bands on metal-archives.com, which wikipedia cannot be flooded with. Possibly self-promotion. There are way too many bands on wikipedia and not enough admins removing the non-notables. -RiverHockey (talk) 18:36, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tikiwont (talk) 10:28, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kal Parekh

[edit]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:46, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tasmainia Radio Int

[edit]
Tasmainia Radio Int (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

non-notable, vanity, original research Rapido (talk) 18:30, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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-- withdrawn by nominator (non-admin closure). SeanMD80talk | contribs 16:21, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Between the Buried and Me

[edit]
Between the Buried and Me (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable band that has released albums but never charted. No more notable than 25,000 other bands on metal-archives.com, which wikipedia cannot be flooded with. -RiverHockey (talk) 18:28, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, you don't get onto Victory Records anymore since their success with Thursday (band) and Taking Back Sunday unless you're good enough to go on national tour. They've been on second stage at Ozzfest and toured with Norma Jean. Redfarmer (talk) 21:49, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Canley (talk) 08:29, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sports Implosion

[edit]
Sports Implosion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

non-notable, vanity, original research Rapido (talk) 18:27, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, although I will undelete for merging per Argyriou if anyone so desires (please contact me on my talk page). Daniel (talk) 14:51, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Human Factors for Highway Engineers (book)

[edit]
Human Factors for Highway Engineers (book) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This page originally had a proposed deletion tag, but the article creator clearly opposes the deletion, both on the talk page for this article and in the edit summary. However I do believe that this article does not do enough to establish notability and has very little content to it. -- Atamachat 18:22, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 01:18, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Radio G'day

[edit]
Radio G'day (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

non-notable station, vanity Rapido (talk) 18:24, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 01:12, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

London Weekend Radio

[edit]
London Weekend Radio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

non-notable station Rapido (talk) 18:20, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Normally I would disagree as radio stations are generally notable through that alone, but this is a pirate station with no actual charter or recognition from whatever official body is responsible for distributing broadcast rights in IrelandGB. Without such recognition or a reliable third party source discussing it, this is no different than any other self-published material lacking claim to notability.--Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@ 18:22, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:48, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kiss 94.8

[edit]
Kiss 94.8 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

non-notable station, vanity Rapido (talk) 18:16, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 list, but userfy the single pages, which as far as I see has already been done. (If something is missing, I'll restore it on request). I'll also delete the category, since as there is consensus to empty it for now. If in future pages for single years are barnched out, they should probably be named differently, e.g. 1947 in paranormal, fringe, and pseudoscience. Tikiwont (talk) 11:20, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1958 in List of years in paranormal, fringe, and pseudoscience

[edit]
1958 in List of years in paranormal, fringe, and pseudoscience (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Also included in this nomination:

Non-notable list. Fails WP:NOT and WP:LIST for indiscriminate lists. Information like this should be listed in the articles on the paranormal phenomenon. They don't merit a year by year list of their own. Redfarmer (talk) 18:12, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We haven't had time to add to the article, so how can you say that there wouldn't be enough information already? It's not like this thing was stagnant for months, I had created it only minutes before you tried to have it deleted. With so many cryptids, paranormal phenomena, researchers, creatures of folklore, pseudoscientific movements, debunkings, etc, there's plenty of stuff to fill a timeline. It may take a while to do so, but you haven't even given it a chance. Abyssal leviathin (talk) 19:08, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I said little potential for growth here. Are you saying you have enough information to fill every year from 1600 to 2008 like the lead article suggests? Will you have enough secondary sources to justify separate yearly articles for each year or can they more easily be featured in articles on the subject? Redfarmer (talk) 19:18, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Probably not from 1600 to 2008. But, if there's a century where nothing of relevence happened in, it can be removed from the list page. I never intended to keep all those centuries on the page. But yes, I'm reasonably confident that there's enough information out there to construct a year-by-year timeline of reasonably good quality, at least pertinent to recent times. Abyssal leviathin (talk) 19:22, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You could throw that objection at any timeline about a general category of knowledge. Would you object to a "Years in history" article series too? I imagine an article like that would contain quite the hodge podge of topics, most of which probably less related than the ones in this series. What about "Years in science"? Just what is the "context" of science anyway?
And your accusation that this is somehow original research is a joke. There's nothing original about it, it's all going to be verifiable information, just like any other Wikipedia article would be. And the implication that this would be an attempt to "advance a position" as the "synthesis" section you linked to says, shows that you haven't been paying attenion. I've said from the beginning that this series would cover both claims, debunkings and revelations of hoaxes. That's about as NPOV as you can get.
Sorry if I seem testy, I just really think this article series could turn out well if given a chance.
Abyssal leviathin (talk) 23:24, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all All of these could be grouped into a single article about "B-- F---", without the conceit of setting aside an entire year as special. For each year mentioned, there's one thing that's mentioned. Summaries: 1840-- Rev. Walker looked for Bigfoot. 1947-Roswell, of course. That's all. 1958- construction workers see Bigfoot. 1967-film of Bigfoot. 1970-A psychiatrist sees what he calls zoobies. 1995-a TV crew films Bigfoot. Even 2006 and 2007, which you'd think would be filled with every strange story someone saw on the internet, each have one item about...Bigfoot. Except for 1947 (Bigfoot was on a sabattical in Europe at that time), it's all about Sasquatch. Wikipedia isn't the Fortean Times. The intent seems to be that every time a UFO or a Bigfoot or another strange this is observed, someone will create an article called "19__ in y.i.p.f.a.p." and then someone else will add to it. Save it for Yetipedia. Mandsford (talk) 23:57, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Um, no crap all it talks about is Bigfoot. That's all that I had time to add before you guys started hounding for it to be deleted! Seriously. The vast majority of the criticisms the articles in question have received indirectly come from the fact that people have been hounding for it to be deleted before it had the chance to develop at all.
First they tried to delete the list of years itself saying "It's a list of links to non-existant pages," which of course was irritating, as the page had been up for less than five minutes! How many articles was I supposed to create in that time? Then, to satisfy that guy I scramble for three or four minutes trying to create as many articles as possible. And then, I get swarmed by people telling me that they should all be deleted because of how undeveloped they were! How many well developed articles could you create in that amount of time?
And the tone of your writing at the end seems to point to your wanting to delete this is somewhat based on a distaste for the subject matter. That's not a good reason to delete them.
So here's all the criticisms, we've got, implied or otherwise:
  1. No articles made in the series (how many should I have made within 5 minutes?)
  2. Too narrow a subject matter for a timeline (not true)
  3. Too broad a subject matter for a single timeline (contradictory much?)
  4. It's a synthesis with original research (Not true. At all.)
  5. I'm advancing an agenda with a synthesis (I said from the beginning I was covering both sides of the issue. And I didn't refer to the subjects as fringe and pseudoscience because I considered them legitimate!)
  6. Content is only about Bigfoot (because it was nominated fr deletion before I could add anything else!)
  7. The paranormal is stupid (Personal opinion, not grounds for deletion)
Does anyone have any legitimate reason why this should be deleted? Didn't think so.
Abyssal leviathin (talk) 00:37, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We can only judge the articles based on what is there. IMO, an article shouldn't be in article space unless it is ready to pass Wikipedia guidelines. Besides, if you have an intention of improving the articles, you could still be doing that; nothing about AfD prevents you from doing that. I checked your contribs and you have only been editing articles on plants since the AfD started. I still need to be able to see how this would improve knowledge on psuedoscience any more than individual articles on, say, Roswell or Bigfoot would. Redfarmer (talk) 01:13, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what you're talking about with the plant thing, but I do see your point. However, I hope you can understand why I'd be reluctant to invest much effort into improving an article while it has a lynch mob trying to delete it. I'd love to do so, though. I've been looking forward to creating this for a long time. I'm gonna take a few hour break though, been on Wiki like all day. :D Abyssal leviathin (talk) 01:26, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restructure I think the idea is good, but could need a wholly different format. Benjaminbruheim (talk) 00:32, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 10:44, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy It looks to me like the creator was being chased through these articles by a hasty AFD... If the pages were userfied, then the creator could complete the pages before releasing them into the wild. I think they would be useful, complete, but not as is. MorganaFiolett (talk) 14:41, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • My 2p Worth I'd endorse MorganaFiolett's userfy suggestion, or a merge all. I think the problem, here, is that the creator has come at this problem the wrong way around, by trying to create a structure before there is any material. And the problem with that is that you've now got 408 useless articles (&/or spaces where articles belong) which frankly will be impossible to make useful in any reasonable timescale. The better approach would be to start with a Timeline of...-type article, then to expand it from reliable sources until it gets big enough for the centuries to need breaking-out per summary style, then to expand those until the decades need breaking out, and so-forth. If that process takes many years to complete, or is never completed, it will not matter because the only articles created along the way will have been good-quality ones. AndyJones (talk) 17:57, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd endorse this too, as I think this is essentially what I was trying to get through to him (you just put it much more eloquently than me). I'm not opposed to the idea per se but it's a ridiculous task to start with five centuries worth of years and go year for year. This becomes a navigation nightmare and does not increase knowledge. No prejudice to recreate the way MorganaFiolett and AndyJones have suggested. Redfarmer (talk) 20:06, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Alright, I can go for that. :D Abyssal leviathin (talk) 20:32, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I guess the starting point is to create the timeline article. Once that's in place we can redirect all of these to it, then propose a speedy close of this AfD. Let me know if you want any help with the practicalities of that. Have you thought about the name? "paranormal, fringe, and pseudoscience" is a bit clunky, but I'm afraid I don't have a pithier suggestion. AndyJones (talk) 20:42, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all per above. Mgiganteus1 (talk) 21:13, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, but open to reposting if reliable sources that have been accepted by the community in a discussion emerge. To quote a participant: "I'll make a list when I have time.", when said list appears and is accepted, we can move forward. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 12:08, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

UltraRogue

[edit]
UltraRogue (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Subject fails Wikipedia's notability requirements, lacking independent, verifiable sources. After personally spending an hour searching for potential source candidates (querying UltraRogue, urogue, and even Herb Chong), I managed to turn up one blog post, the Roguelike Restoration write-up, and a mix of Usenet posts, none of which qualify as reliable, third-party materials. There's no doubt the game in question exists, but it has not generated sufficient interest to qualify as notable for Wikipedia's purposes. I would have suggested merging suitable content into Rogue (computer game), but that route fails to address the underlying issue: insufficient documentation about the subject. D. Brodale (talk) 17:51, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someoneanother 10:30, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 10:45, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I find multiple independent sources (including a sourceforge project) discussing urogue with simple google searches, certainly more than "one blog post", so I don't know why your searches aren't turning them up. Reasonable people can, of course, disagree about whether this is notable enough. My opinion is that since it is the progenitor of several modern games, including Hack, NetHack, and others, it's notable enough for its own article. Nandesuka (talk) 23:03, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Feel free to provide a list of independent sources that contribute to verifiability of the game in question, especially those that support any claim to notability. I certainly couldn't find any, and I made a good faith effort. I'm unaware of any direct connection to NetHack, in particular through that game's progenitor, Hack, and would welcome a reliable source for that suggestion. My guess is that the SourceForge project mentioned above is that of the Roguelike Restoration Project, which I feel does not constitute sufficient evidence. I also question the relevance of Abyss (the link provided above) to the discussion here, especially given the nature of the linked content. D. Brodale (talk) 23:16, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'll make a list when I have time. Speaking of allusions, what's wrong with the "nature" of the Abyss link? It describes itself as a game "based upon UltraRogue", published by a commercial enterprise but given away for free. Is there something inappropriate about that? It's hard for me to imagine a more relevant statement than that of a software publisher saying "I based this program on this earlier one, here." Regarding the relationships, Hack is universally acknowledged to be directly inspired by rogue (just google for "roguelike family tree"). Whether it was completely independent of or intertwined with u/a/srogue is something for others to comment on. Nandesuka (talk) 23:22, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Regarding Hack, there is a difference between inspiration from Rogue (which I am not contesting) and from UltraRogue, which is the subject of this AfD. I see no reason to conflate the two different games within this discussion. As for Abyss, I'm not sure what to make of a first-person statement that it is based on UltraRogue with respect to the original nomination. I don't see how it addresses my original concerns with the article in question on the grounds mentioned above. It does not contribute to notability of UltraRogue, and it appears as though you are attempting to state a claim to notability for Abyss that would inherit to UltraRogue above. You're correct that there is a one-sentence statement that Abyss is "based" on UltraRogue, but I would question what that means, rather than read undue significance into it. Though, by all means, I would welcome that list of sources meeting the needs of the nomination that I could not locate. D. Brodale (talk) 23:41, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'm confused by your "first person statement" analysis. The author of a work says "This work is based on UltraRogue." "First person" implies that I'm saying it was based on UltraRogue, which I'm not; rather, a third party source -- in this case, the creator of the game -- is saying it. I think this is relevant because it goes directly to the notability and verifiability of UltraRogue; if nothing else, we have a primary source for the sentence "UltraRogue is the inspiration for the game Abyss" (a sentence which is not yet in the article). I don't think arguing the notability of Abyss is interesting here, because the article isn't really about it. Rather, it goes to the question of whether UltraRogue itself is notable. On a casual web search, I find sources listing games (multiple games) based on UltraRogue, and its the fact that the game inspired successors and siblings that is directly relevant to its notability. Hope that helps. Nandesuka (talk) 01:23, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • I wasn't referring to you. The simple statement on the page in question is first person, in that the relation between UltraRogue and Abyss is not stated by a disinterested third-party. I still feel uncomfortable reading much into a single line without further exposition, regardless. The claim is opaque to verification. And I don't grasp how it establishes notability for UltraRogue at all. I'm unwilling to concede to hand-waving about multiple games being significantly influenced by UltraRogue in the absence of reliable sources that contribute to verifiable claims. D. Brodale (talk) 01:51, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • So if Hemingway says in the introduction to The Old Man and the Sea that it is based on a work by Edgar Allen Poe, you would say that we couldn't use that statement until a third party parrotted it? (He doesn't say that, and this obviously ain't Hemingway we're talking about here :-) I don't know where you're getting this guideline from, because I don't see it in any of our guidelines. The claim is self-verifying because the relevant part is the fact of the claim. Maybe it's not based on UltraRogue. Maybe it's really based on Doom. But the author claims it is based on UltraRogue, and that is relevant to establishing UltraRogue's notability. Nandesuka (talk) 01:56, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • It's clear that I accept that the author of Abyss states that it is based on UltraRogue per my earlier comments. How again does this establish notability for UltraRogue per Wikipedia policies, guidelines, and practice? It seems a terribly weak argument — if an argument at all — to say that UltraRogue is notable because it inspired Abyss, especially given that the only one who has seen fit to comment on this is the author of the latter. D. Brodale (talk) 02:12, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                  • In this case, the Abyss author quote would be a secondary source I'd think. Primary for Abyss, but that's not the topic of discussion eh? Hobit (talk) 04:08, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                    • No, I don't believe that's the core concern, as it remains unclear how the single statement contributes to verification of any significant claim about UltraRogue itself, or from my interpretation of guidelines, the notability of same. I should have steered clear of the term "first person" in my initial response, making it clear that my concern is that too much weight is being placed on the line relative to the original nomination for deletion. D. Brodale (talk) 04:20, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • The Balrog roguelike information site describes UltraRogue as "extremely advanced for its time," and goes on to detail some of the specifics behind that, as well as detailing author, copyright, and platform information. Site seems down at the moment, I used an archive.org link. Nandesuka (talk) 01:30, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • To my knowledge, BALROG hasn't been "live" for quite some time. I have to ask, how does the page in question fulfill the reliability guideline with respect to notability? It appears that the self-published information is gleaned from the author's personal efforts to render the game playable, per the content on the page. D. Brodale (talk) 01:42, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Yes. Writers, authors, software developers, and other creators of content, unlike Wikipedia editors, are allowed to engage in original research. We're clearly not going to find a Washington Post article on urogue, but I think that it's pretty clear that there is a pattern of software history that is apparent here, based merely on the statements of third parties. I'm not terribly knowledgeable about BALROG, but it is certainly referred to by many other sources online. Nandesuka (talk) 01:48, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • I never attempted to apply WP:OR to BALROG, so please don't mischaracterize my concern. I questioned whether this self-published material constitutes reliable support. I don't see how it does. Reference to The Washington Post is disingenuous at best. Please don't exaggerate the requirements of the original nomination. There are many game-related sources that are consensually accepted as reliable sources. I don't believe BALROG falls in line with accepted practice on Wikipedia with respect to establishing the notability of games. D. Brodale (talk) 02:05, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • iRogue, a port of Rogue for the Palm Pilot, notes in its source code that various data structures and data tables are "taken entirely from urogue". [4]. It is also described (or advertised) as being derived from rogue and urogue [5] Nandesuka (talk) 01:48, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm sorry, but reading select comments directly from source code about, of all things, data structures strains credibility with regards to the original nomination. Is this not original research? D. Brodale (talk) 01:55, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Er, no? On the home page for iRogue, the author states "[iRogue] is derived from two versions of rogue (rogue 5.3-clone and urogue)." It is impossible to reasonably characterize that as original research. Nandesuka (talk) 02:16, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • I was referring to the first of two links supplied above, and I think that's a clear case of original research on your part. With respect to the second link, which I overlooked, this is again questionable support for the claim of notability on the part of UltraRogue. See the discussion of Abyss above. How does this satisfy reliability as a verifiable source per WP:N? Please don't misconstrue my remarks, and I apologize for not noticing the secondary link. D. Brodale (talk) 02:20, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • With respect -- and this is a tangent, since you have acknowledged the point -- I don't think looking at the source code is original research when the source code contains the claim in English. Original research would be if I opined "The source code from iRogue is clearly derived from that of urogue. Look, these struct elements here are almost the same!" When the source code has the comment "This was taken entirely from urogue", that's a different kettle of fish. As to how this is relevant, I think the existence of a cluster of multiple games, all explicitly claiming some derivation from UltraRogue, is prima faciae relevant. Reasonable people can, of course, reach different conclusions. Nandesuka (talk) 02:25, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                  • The argument fronted above (as I read it) is in part that UltraRogue is notable because of its name being present within source code to another game (the first link). That's a primary source (the source code) which fails to satisfy reliability guidelines with respect to WP:N in bypassing the need for a reliable, third-party support. Your example of original research is baffling, as it seems you did claim that iRogue is derived from UltraRogue in the stated manner. Simply substitute "comments" for "struct elements" (both constitute programming code). Did I miss something? How can we verify that those comments don't represent past work and simply weren't removed? We, as editors, cannot. But before I derail this AfD... I don't see "a cluster of multiple games", but that is neither here nor there, as I also do not see reliable sources that establish UltraRogue's notability, which is the overriding concern of the nomination. For the record, the examples we've discussed at length were uncovered in my earlier search to establish UltraRogue as notable, but then, as now, I still fail to see how they could possibly satisfy relevant policy. D. Brodale (talk) 02:46, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I do want to add, in light of the illuminating discussion above, that the terse remarks of connection present on both the Abyss and iRogue pages fail to satisfy the request for verfiable information about UltraRogue itself. I take responsibility for letting this original request slip in the avalanche of discussion concerning the notability of the subject. BALROG, mentioned above, does not strike me as a reliable source for such, as noted elsewhere. D. Brodale (talk) 04:06, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm a big nethack player, and I'd never heard of it so I was going to stay out. But I'd call comments by iRogue and Abyss authors secondary sources. The reliable is tricky here, but verifiable isn't. That said, all this needs to be nicely in the article. Hobit (talk) 04:11, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have to ask: what do the iRogue and Abyss one-liners verify about UltraRogue other than it exists? I don't see how either constitute "significant coverage" per WP:N. I honestly feel like I'm missing something here, but I cannot locate any such coverage with respect to either game. D. Brodale (talk) 04:24, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've added the references to the article. Would have been nice for people to have had this discussion on the article's talk page, rather than in an AfD. But what can you do. Nandesuka (talk) 05:46, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I would still note that none of the references constitute significant coverage (apart from a cobbled together collection of Usenet posts) by reliable sources, insofar as notability is concerned. I might also add that there's nothing wrong with discussing the article in the context of an AfD, which seemed a more prudent course to take in gaining wider exposure for an article unilaterally undeleted after nearly a year's absence from article space. Your own remark was to "take this to AfD." Sue me for seeking the opinion of those who might not have noticed its reemergence. D. Brodale (talk) 06:17, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've nominated more than my share of articles for deletion, and no article is immune from nomination. I'll note, however, that the article as it exists today -- with a minimum of effort, I might add -- is substantially better than the one you nominated. For that matter, it's at this point much better referenced, and contains more detail, than the article on Hack (video game). And I don't think we should be deleting the Hack article, either. Nandesuka (talk) 13:57, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • The subject of this AfD is UltraRogue, not Hack or any other Wikipedia article, unless I misunderstand the nature of this discussion. Let's stay focused. Participants could spend all day pointing hither and yon at other articles. I strongly question what you consider "much better" referencing; I see the addition of a number of links, but little indication of critical filtering. To wit: none of the supplied "references" speak of the article's subject in an extended fashion, excepting BALROG and the Usenet spoiler collection discussed earlier. In another case, there's reference to an unannotated, unattributed table from a pseudonymous site. Yes, this may be better than no citation at all, but (still) where are reliable sources that devote significant coverage to satisfy notability? Despite these additions, which I encourage others to assess rather than count, there's no indication of whether or how UltraRogue is notable. This isn't personal. I simply don't see evidence of notability. D. Brodale (talk) 18:02, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • If the author of Moby Dick said in the forward to the book that it was based primarily on a book called My Fair Lady then that forward would act as a reliable secondary source when explaining the notability of My Fair Lady. Melvile is not a primary source for My Fair Lady. I'm claiming the same thing here. If two large/important projects (and I'm not 100% certain on that, though I have heard of both of them) claim that they were derived from the same base project, that contributes to the notability of the base and if the claim is clearly attributable, it is a reliable secondary source just as Melvile's forward would be. Or so goes my thinking. Hobit (talk) 18:27, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't quite follow the reasoning, but neither iLarn nor Abyss state the degree of relation to UltraRogue, "based" (the only desciptor used in either case) could mean in whole, part, or combination, and it certainly is not clear in either case. I don't think it's self-evident that the basis is primary (as given in your analysis), nor do I think that whatever significance one might assign to these two games automatically attaches to thing or things that might have influenced them. Certainly, the lone statement of each that "X is based on Y" is far from significant coverage about Y, isn't it? D. Brodale (talk) 18:48, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails notability guidelines. I keep reading above about the possibility of other mentions, but the article contains none. I'd suspect if reliable, verifiable information was actually available it would have been added to the article by now. Gromlakh (talk) 05:30, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The deletion argument is about "reliable sources." That's a dreadful thing. There is wide precedent for history of videogames articles, and many of those will not yield a great deal of current chatter. Therefore, trying to find out if this is a heavily discussed game today is ... weird. The down side to any "history of videogames" article is that the books that cite the developments either have not been written or are pretty rare. Next, there are many exceptionally trivial articles, many empty articles, cluttering up Wikipedia (hit "random"), but this isn't one of them. I'm certainly no fan of the genre of videogame articles, but the genre is "in" (i.e. either we go through all of them and leave ourselves with nothing but Pong and Frogger, or we do not reject them for having generic limitations), and this is a respectable and valid member of the species. Geogre (talk) 14:00, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is not a "history of video games" article. The subject under discussion is UltraRogue, a single computer game that at least one individual/group claims to actively develop. I don't follow your logic, could you clarify? D. Brodale (talk) 18:08, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails notability guidelines. It was notabable in its day (20 years ago) but is fairly obscure now. As far as I know there aren't specific pages for Super Rogue or Advanced Rogue either (the later being fairly widespread, perhaps moreso than the original Rogue). It is hard for a topic which predates the modern web-based internet yet existed (essentially) solely on the pre-web internet to meet Wikipedia's guidelines. In any event Wikipedia is not the source of all knowledge on the internet or the replacement for a good google search. The primary source can be found easy enough. BTW, on quick examination Abyss is directly based on the source code and irogue borrowed a few pieces here and there to expand the rogue clone port it was based on. In the end I say delete the article, I do not care to play rules lawyer as some are wont to. It might be worth a footnote on the rogue page. -- yendor —Preceding unsigned comment added by Archmage yendor (talk • contribs) 03:51, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No evidence of significant coverage from reliable, third-party sources. With regards to Archmage yendor's comment; if it can be shown that this game was notable 20 years ago then that is enough. There is no expiry date on notability - I've based many video game articles on magazine reviews from that long ago. Marasmusine (talk) 17:03, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 00:49, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A Dose of Rock 'n' Roll

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
A Dose of Rock 'n' Roll (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The article appears to be an ad for a book (with no justification of notability) that is as yet unpublished. It would seem to be a speedy delete to me, but that was declined. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Delicious carbuncle (talk • contribs)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 14:51, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cysero

[edit]
Cysero (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article does not meet WP:N, WP:FICT, or WP:WEB. Much of the text is speculation or just plain nonsense. --Eruhildo (talk) 17:25, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 14:52, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Radiorainbow

[edit]
Radiorainbow (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

non-notable station, vanity Rapido (talk) 17:31, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 14:52, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CIMsystem

[edit]
CIMsystem (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Was a contested speedy, so bringing to AfD. Lacks third-party non-trivial coverage in the article, but I can see a few web resources like [6] and [7] that might allow for an encyclopedia article. Ghits = ~1500. Google Scholar results look promising. h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 16:53, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - article about a software business; makes no showing of notability, and the links given go to company websites. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 17:50, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I examined the 15 Scholar results, but only 1 appears to truly mention CIMsystem[8]. The remainder seem to be results for "CIM system", which probably appear as "CIMsystem" due to OCR usage (see results by Hancke, Jardim-Goncalves et al., Ragowsky & Stern (x 2), Islam et al., Sarkis & Lin, Ari & Hoang, Canfield & Nair, which all appear to be OCR errors). I suspect that the remaining results, which I cannot examine, are the result of a similar error. Of the two websites listed, one appears to be restricted to products produced by the company (i.e., not about the company)[9] while the second (a source supplied by a partner of the company) asserts little notability[10]. --Lox (t,c) 08:14, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Canley (talk) 08:32, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Protected Vehicles Incorporated

[edit]
Protected Vehicles Incorporated (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete article about a nn company has been taken over as a WP:COATRACK to soapbox grievances concerning the collapse of the company. Even if reverted back to the pre coatrack version, the subject would remain nn Mayalld (talk) 16:37, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That means delete, by the way. Two One Six Five Five discuss my greatness 16:49, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see any notability here. The coat rack argument is a valid one as well, and although that could be fixed, it would leave the argument with less content and be even less notable than its present state.--Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@ 16:52, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment Read, "there is no neutral version to revert to". This is not the case here so we cannot apply G10.--Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@ 18:10, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see that now. delete without prejudice. A military contractor may well be the sort of business whose links to public affairs make it notable, but the pre-attack page version is very brief and does not make a case for notability. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 19:47, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Secret account 02:16, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ovechkina

[edit]
Ovechkina (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

There is no town by this name in Pskov Oblast. There are three villages called "Ovechkino" (notice the spelling), but the information in the article is insufficient to determine which one of the three is meant. The article in its present form fails the "sufficient context" requirement and is named incorrectly.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:24, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was redirect to Midshipman's Hope. нмŵוτнτ 03:32, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Skirmish at Telstar

[edit]
Skirmish at Telstar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This appears to be from a work of fiction but asserts no notability and is definitely not notable outside of the work. It didn't fall directly under and speedy criteria and the original author had removed the prod Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@ 16:23, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was No Consensus, defaults to Keep. Nakon 04:10, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Battista Serioli

[edit]
Battista Serioli (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I believe that this article should be deleted by the same precedent as Carmelo Bertolami. I've been trying to make Good Articles out of all the last remaining World War I veterans, but my searches indicate that there just aren't the sources to support an article for this individual. It's not a language thing either - I found plenty of sources, English and Italian, for Carlo Orelli. Of the Ghits, there are only three hits that offer more than trivial coverage that are not unreliable blogs or forums:

  1. A brief, four-sentence mention of his 102nd birthday
  2. A video recounting the experiences of Italian WWI veterans No longer active, but I've seen this before and it recounts the tales of Serioli and Delfino Borroni, two of the World War I veterans. Serioli's segment was about a three minute long discussion
  3. What looks like a local news obituary And a poor one at that, since it doesn't even mention what his actual date of death was (the unreliable forums and blogs bounce between the 21st and the 22nd)

Thus it has little potential for expansion and contains no information aside from what is present in Veterans of the First World War who died in 2007. My basic problem with this article is that there is little, if any, verifiable information out there that could be added to this article aside from what is already present on this list. For those worried that the Google test is not sufficient, I performed searches at both the University of Texas Libraries Catalog (which covers several voluminous libraries) and jstor.org (which covers journal articles back to the 1800s) with no results. Cheers, CP 23:54, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Scientizzle 16:08, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. JERRY talk contribs 02:26, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nial Djuliarso

[edit]
Nial Djuliarso (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Previously prodded article, restored per request. Recent graduate with a CD on CD Baby, competition wins make a claim of notability, but none seem major or have created outside notice. Current sources are either not reliable or not independent. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 16:08, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. WP:CRYSTAL states that an article should not have an unverifiable speculation, but since this is not unverifiable, the WP:CRYSTAL argument does not hold in this case. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 03:15, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hepsi's third studio album

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Hepsi's third studio album (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Prod removed without explanation. Violates WP:CRYSTAL. h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 16:05, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 copyvio. No verdict on the notability of the subject ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 16:15, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Andrew Sords

[edit]
Andrew Sords (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Reason THD3 (talk) 15:49, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This page is obviously advertising and has by admission been written by the subject's manager, voilating Wikipedia's conflict of interest policies.THD3 (talk) 15:49, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


I am not sure why this page is being considered for deletion. I saw the Coren bot picked up the copyright issues, however I have addressed these. The information that was used from another page is information that I have control over. I also had someone bring up conflict of interest as I am Mr. Sords' manager, however within the guidelines of the conflict of interest page I am allowed to contribute to a page as an someone with expertise in the associated field.

This page is compiled with information from his official website, www.andrewsords.com. Coren bot is finding similarities with Mr. Sords' profile on violinist.com because the information there was culled from his official website as well.

I do not feel that there is any conflict of interest, seeing as how all information on the page is strictly informational --there is no solicitation or advertising, there is barely any mention of my management company. Please read the page, all information (besides one brief section that I will be more than willing to remove) is pertinent to Mr. Sords and him alone. If this page were advertising as THD3 implies there would not be a full biography and information about the tasks that Mr. Sords is doing at this time. This page serves to provide information about an artist and nothing else.

Do not to delete this article -- it is not in copyright violation and there is no conflict of interest.

Shortright (talk) 15:55, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Checking the biography guidelines Mr. Sords falls under the exemption of: "The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors". Mr. Sords is considered one of the best violinists on the concert circuit at this time. You can retrieve reviews of his performances in major newspapers in the states in which he's played. JuJube -- which part would you like proven? Shortright (talk) 15:59, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:50, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Marmadukiverse

[edit]
Marmadukiverse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Utterly non-notable bordering on ridiculous neologism. Prod removed by author. JuJube (talk) 15:47, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:52, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zimiti

[edit]
Zimiti (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable technology. Googling only yields 382 hits and no news pages. Page reads like an advertisement; it was created by User:Zimiti, which seems to indicate a COI. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 15:40, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete a junk vanity article all about how it's innovative and whatnot... signed? Throw this out with the trash. JuJube (talk) 15:54, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete seems spam. The external links given as references (and read like press releases) all prominently mention that this is award winning technology. That's quite nice, but what award it actualy won is never cleared up. There are no other indications of notability. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 15:59, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no reliable sources to indicate notability. Of the English language links provided in the article, the business week link is dead, and the remainder are directory entries with information built from what reads like a press release. -- Whpq (talk) 16:37, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The technology is used in the Boardbug Baby and Child Monitor and Googlingproduces 6,300 references for this product. The technology received the Consumer Electronics Show (CES) Best of Innovations Award in 2005 CES 2005and the Smart Funding Innovation Award in the 2002/2003 Smart Awards 2002. - This article is still being edited and I propose it be kept and reviewed once the information is complete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zimiti (talk • contribs)
Reply Notability is not inherited. The links provided are for the Boardbug product and makes no mention of Zimiti. -- Whpq (talk) 17:33, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:53, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Challenging Training Personalities

[edit]
Challenging Training Personalities (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Original research and how-to guide. Unreferenced. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 15:34, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The subject of the article has the problem of being an open ended list. Another concern is that it is indeed so close to a howto that I don't see how this could evolve in to an encyclopedic entry. It has not been referenced, but I have seen such material in magazines before, and I doubt it is original research. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 16:31, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete OR how-to guide. remove -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 23:56, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Worth saving before it's deleted. It's great stuff, but it's definitely a how-to and looks like it came from somewhere else (OR is the next best guess), and I can't see any policy that would justify a keep. However, for those of us who have encountered "The Know it All", "The Arguer", "The Digressor", etc. in these AfD debates, this is a great way to deal with that while staying within WP:CIVIL. I've been guilty of acting like nearly every one of the "challenging" personalities at one time or another, and I think we can all recognize ourselves. If someone can give a policy reason for keep, lemme know. I hope it stays up awhile instead of being snowballed. Mandsford (talk) 00:09, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • See what I mean? Every type of personality is described in this useful (though not a keeper) article, starting with "The know-it-all". Let's see, I encourage other group members to comment on the person’s remarks freely. As Martijn has pointed out for anyone new here, if you want to keep the article, don't simply argue that it's useful (strangely enough, "it's usefull" doesn't bring up a redlink). Useful, interesting, etc., are elements of style, but don't speak to whether an article belongs in an encyclopedia. Again, I haven't seen a reason for the article to stay.

Mandsford (talk) 03:50, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:09, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kenny Williams (cyclist)

[edit]
Kenny Williams (cyclist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete nn sportsman (claim to be a professional is unreferenced) Mayalld (talk) 15:22, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral According to Wikipedia:Notability (people) an athlete must compete in the highest level in their sport, and it seems as though this person might be notable since they competed in national championships. On the other hand, seems non notable due to lack of references in primary sources. Conclusion, undecided on which carries more weight.Plm209(talk • contribs) 15:31, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - according to the fact that he is an elite national champion. He also won several other medals in national championships and became 2nd and 3rd in the Burnaby Six Days which is a professional race, referencing his professionalism. Iameddie (talk) 15:36, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Professional in the context of notability criteria means "paid", not "very good". The race may be a professional, but that doesn't address the fundamental question as to his Amateur/Professional status as an athlete. Mayalld (talk) 15:45, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Actually "professional" in the context of notability criteria refers to the events in which an athlete has competed, not the athlete's personal status. WP:BIO says, "Competitors and coaches who have competed in a fully professional league, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport such as swimming, golf or tennis." The subject of this article has done that, regardless of whether he personally is a professional. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:50, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment: common sense suggests that if amateurs are competing in professional competitions/leagues, they count as professionals for notability purposes - it's a rule-of-thumb measure of notability, not a specific criterium relating to sources of income. --Paularblaster (talk) 17:55, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There are 392 matches for him here if you search him in quotes. I have a feeling enough sources can be found to verify his notability. matt91486 (talk) 15:52, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy deleted. -- Longhair\talk 19:34, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redbank Plaza

[edit]
Redbank Plaza (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete nn shopping mall - article seems to be little more than a vehicle for external links Mayalld (talk) 14:52, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spebi 06:47, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jungle Traffic

[edit]
Jungle Traffic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 14:53, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Emirates Airline Marketing and sponsorships

[edit]
Emirates Airline Marketing and sponsorships (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

A list of events which an airline or any company sponsors is not notable enough for its own article, and should be covered inline in the main airline article; a few lines should suffice. Russavia (talk) 07:04, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 14:53, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fpsbanana

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Fpsbanana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I originally was going to csd this, but decided to back down to Afd instead. This site's been tagged for a month with the notability template and no one's been able to come up with anything other than the fact that it's a seemingly unremarkable fan site for a popular game. DJBullfish (talk) 00:07, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the FPSBanana deletion debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. нмŵוτнτ 03:18, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gideon (song)

[edit]
Gideon (song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable, mostly speculation, should be made a redirect with sourced material added to Z (album) -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 05:33, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The solitary source currently present in the article appears to simply be a collection of lyrics on the band's website[11], suggesting that much of what is written in this article is original research. I struggled to find any sources about the song; those that I did find failed to suggest notability of the song[12][13] or appear to be a reliable analysis[14]. --Lox (t,c) 20:56, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If it's not notable enough for people to be commenting on it in good verifiable sources, it probably isn't notable. Wouldn't want every song ever written having a Wikipedia article. For transparency, I'm the editor that changed the original OR to current OR. I still think my version is correct, but that doesn't make it not WP:OR or worthy of an article. For discussion of OR in similar case see here. NJGW (talk) 22:35, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was No Consensus, defaults to Keep. Nakon 04:12, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Outbound Flight Project

[edit]
Outbound Flight Project (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article asserts no notability through reliable sourcing, and is just a repetition of plot elements from the Star Wars series. As such, it is all plot, has no secondary sources for verification, and should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:58, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Week Keep if inmproved. Significant theme, but needs rewriting to show how it fits into the overall series, and where it's mentioned there--not even adequate in-universe referencing. This at present --as so many low quality fiction articles are-- is an article written to be intelligible only to someone already quite familiar with the series. Possibly merge into the article for the novel of the same name. DGG (talk) 15:37, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:56, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Roopali Patil

[edit]
Roopali Patil (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable. At least doesn't deserve to be a standalone article. We may merge it with an appropriate one. - Niaz(Talk • Contribs) 16:04, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - I've nothing to say but A7.--NAHID 19:09, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article says - "She is the vice president of the Maharashtra Navnirman Vidyarthi Sena(MNVS)". Hardly A7, right? But, it still looks like fodder for AfD. Is there any article this can be merged to? Aditya(talk • contribs) 03:53, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Falls under A7. Notability is not constituted by being a member of a student government in a non-notable school. Plm209(talk • contribs) 15:35, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What are you saying, dear? "A member of a student government in a non-notable school"! Hoa... the school was never mentioned, and group is a major political force in one of the largest and wealthiest states in India. A vice-president of MNVS is supposed to wield more political clout than 50 mayors from the American mid-west. I only proposed a merge because of the lack of substantiation and material in the article, not because of "non-notability". Aditya(talk • contribs) 17:04, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The region that hosts the regional party is bigger than five European countries taken together in terms of population, and ten African countries taken together in terms of economy. The student wings in these parts of the world are "the political force" more often than not. This doesn't pass notability criterion because of lack of availability of sources that cite the subject. Not because of ignorance about the student wing, the party or the region. And, A7 should not be guided by ignorance. Aditya(talk • contribs) 03:10, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's mighty tiring to argue against systemic bias. In the US no one gives a shit what the students think or do about politics. In India they matter big time, often more than the working middle class. Describing Indian matters in an American context is ignorance taken to extreme. Have anyone noticed that by Indian context half the US bio articles here are non-notability exemplified? This particular article in discussion may go to hell, as there is no "third party reliable source" that mentions the subject "in a non-trivial way" (not yet). But, saying that the vice president of MNVS is inherently non-notable (and may be material for speedy delete) is pure ignorance. This discussion has already seen the importance of students in Indian politics, the state of Maharashtra and the Shiv Sena much deprecated. Let's not take it further. If you guys want a delete, I don't see a problem. But, nurturing a Northern-Western bias is a problem indeed. And, this discussion has already seen much of it. Aditya(talk • contribs) 18:12, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see how that really applies here. The fact of the matter is, if she were truly notable there would be neutral third party sources discussing her. If the office is really given that much weight over there, there should be some neutral third party sources attesting to that as well.--Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@ 19:23, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would point out that nobody in this discussion had even mentioned Shiv Sena before Aditya claimed that it had been "much deprecated" in this discussion. The only connection between this discussion and Shiv Sena is that the subject is a leader in a political party which was formed by former members of Shiv Sena. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:27, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment No, we are not nurturing Northern-Western bias here. That might be your personal feelings. People just mentioned some examples here. Before an admin delete this entry, you could make an option like Keep,Merge or something else. That may give you a better satisfaction, right!--NAHID 19:12, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For Oni: Yes, you are right. But, my point was not in claiming that she is notable, but the post is (it is possible that she may a hoax). And, all sources don't exist on Google, the only way I can try looking her up (being outside Maharashtra and all).
For Metropolitan90: The comment that said - "student wing" of a "regional" political party - was very much about the Sena. And, not realizing that already shows how little we care for the Indian context.
For NAHID: Please, I am trying to talk about bias, not personal feelings. While you are most welcome to have feelings, and find how ways to achieve better satisfaction, this may not be the right place to discuss so.
Thank you all. Aditya(talk • contribs) 03:16, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't speak for Arman, but the comment that said "Vice president of "student wing" of a "regional" political party which was established only recently (in 2006)" would not make sense if referring to Shiv Sena, which was founded in 1966. By contrast, the MNS was founded in 2006. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:54, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Which regional party? Aren't we talking about MNS, a part and parcel of the Sena family? Aditya(talk • contribs) 07:56, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For Metropolitan90: You are absolutely right. MNS (est 2006) is NOT Shiv Sena, it is a marginally notable off-spring of Shiv Sena. And the article-subject is NOT VP of student wing of Shiv Sena, she is VP of student wing of MNS. As the leader of student wing of a newly established marginally notable political party (no matter of which country / region we are talking about) she is not notable. This assertion is fully supported with the lack of any 3rd party source on the article subject.
For Aditya: Where did you invent "Sena family" from and what makes MNS part and parcel of Shiv Sena? On the contrary, after Raj Thackeray came out of Shiv Sena and established MNS, the relationship between the two parties have been rather hostile. Please, before accusing others of ignorance, bias etc. study the subject and as NAHID said, for heavens sake, either clarify your stance (keep/delete/merge) or stop wasting others' time on an article of which so far no one has found any merit. Arman (Talk) 11:36, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For heaven's sake, stop shouting. Did you at all read what I have been writing above, apart from looking for holes in my points? Just because a finger pointed at you doesn't mean you have suddenly grown a right be rude and incivil. It's pretty sad to see editors telling others to do research when they fail to even read what is in front of them. Let me recap for you what I have been writing:
  • But, it still looks like fodder for AfD. (16 January)
  • This doesn't pass notability criterion because of lack of availability of sources that cite the subject. (17 January)
  • This particular article in discussion may go to hell, as there is no "third party reliable source" that mentions the subject "in a non-trivial way" (not yet). (18 January)
I'm quite speechless at your outburst. Please, read before you write. And, I beg you, be a little more civil in discussions. And, please... please... please... don't bring back that time-wasting theory. It's pure personal attack. Aditya(talk • contribs) 12:32, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies. I have shown some unwanted outburst of emotion. On my defence, I don't get called "ignorant" everyday by "civil" members of wikisociety. So, you also support delete of this article -that means you agree with the consensus. And yet you diligently contradict everyone's posting with accusing some for ignorance, some for bias etc. And at the end of the day, I get to be the one who is looking for hole in other's argumunt! I am simply amazed with your innovative argument, I would love to award you a barnstar on Wikilawyering, but alas, I couldn't find one. Arman (Talk) 01:54, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as still I believe that this article fails at WP:NOTE. I carefully observed the whole debate and finally came to this decision. Here goes my arguments supporting my decision.
  1. This article has already been deleted once as User:Oni_Ookami_Alfador mentioned. Of course it lakes on certain WP policies, thus it was deleted.
  2. I do agree that a Vice-president of a non-notable organization can be notable. Say for an example, a famous leader in his early life might be in a post of a small organization. It doesn't mean that such organization will became a notable one, or that famous person will turn into a non-notable figure. But, does this article in anyway matches in such example? I don't think so. (@User:Plm209)
  3. We can hardly find any reliable source that supports her notability or even speaks for this person. I do agree with Aditya Bhaia (User:Aditya_Kabir) that all source doesn't exist on Google ONLY. This is the only reason why I was a bit shaky while tagging this article for AfD. But, after observing the whole debate I become quite confident that there is no such strong reference available that supports her case (if so, then local Wikipedians might come up with those references.)
  4. I do agree with Arman Bhaia (User:Armanaziz) on the point recently established organization. Here the context is not like USA where usually two parties are seen on election or political activities. In Indian subcontinent, hundreds of parties participate in election and political activities. It is a common case that in general election some of the parties even do not get a minimum votes defined by the election commission. Here establishment of a political party doesn't make it notable. They become notable by their activity as time passes by.

So the nutshell of my argument is - she might be a Vice President of a political party (unsupported by any source) or a wing of a political party or any such. But, neither she nor her party could satisfy WP:NOTE. Thus I am voting against its existence on WP. Thanks very much. -- Niaz(Talk • Contribs) 15:47, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Solid reasoning. It uses WP:NOTE (of which WP:BIO is supplement) without belittling anyone or anything, and it doesn't call for the A7. Nice. Aditya(talk • contribs) 03:32, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. нмŵוτнτ 03:15, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sri Nanduri Bapiraju

[edit]
Sri Nanduri Bapiraju (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The article resembles an essay with no clear indication as to the notability of the subject. SWik78 (talk) 17:21, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete for lack of reliable sources to indicate notability. Notability itself is unclear. The article is a rambling obituary with occasional asides. From what I can glean, he was protester who got beat up an then went on to a law career. There may be non-english sources, but in searching, I cannot find even a hint of sources being available through other means. I am of course open to a keep if sources can be found -- Whpq (talk) 16:57, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for not establishing notability of the subject – the only sources found with a web search are Wikipedia articles. — alex.muller (talk • edits) 17:05, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete Spartaz Humbug! 12:18, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Live at the Bolton Albert Halls

[edit]
Live at the Bolton Albert Halls (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I believe this fails WP:IINFO, WP:NOT#ADVERTISING, and due to this articles resemblance to a DVD Booklet, this article fails WP:NOT#GUIDE. The article has no references of any sort, fails to assert notability, and has received only minor improvements since its inception, almost exactly a year ago. Ferdia O'Brien (T)/(C) 05:50, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Canley (talk) 14:25, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 02:55, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Centro Monier

[edit]
Centro Monier (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Appears to be about some sort of shopping mall/shopping centre. That alone would not make it notable. h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 14:18, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Secret account 02:54, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Artworlds Creative Arts Center

[edit]
Artworlds Creative Arts Center (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete as organization of unclear notability. Google search excluding Wikipedia mirrors only results in 2 pages. References supplied by author are all of local newspapers. Contested prod. ... discospinster talk 14:01, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment The following was added to the article, and I think it shouldbe seen as a keep vote by the articles creator:
There are alot of well known artists that shared knowledge and friendship, and they deserve an opportunity and time to add to this article. The more people from Artworlds past that have a chance to contribute to this article the better it will become. Just give it a chance to blossom. Not everyone with interesting facts are journalists.--Rawhide ranch (talk) 04:17, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The sources supplied in the article do not seem to add up to significant coverage. Without any other sources to attest notability, I'm afraid this article does not meet the inclusion criteria. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 16:50, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - correlating the text of the article to the inline citations, these references apepar to be simply event annoucements in a local paper and would not constitute the type of coverage needed to indicate notability -- Whpq (talk) 17:11, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The notability of this organization is that numorous artists all converged at the same time at one location, Artworlds, taking classes, instructing classes, becoming colleagues and friends. Researching these people, who are today well-known in their careers, it is fascinating to think of them together at Artworlds when many of them were just starting out. There must have been a strongly nourishing environment at Artworlds to have played a part in the formative years of so many career artists. Such influence makes Artworlds a notable organization. There actually are more credible references than local news papers alone. They are found when one looks into the links to web sites in this article, for example, the Artworlds instructor named Suheyla who taught belly dancing. Here is her web site where she talks about teaching at Artworlds. --Rawhide ranch (talk) 05:29, 18 January 2008 (UTC) http://www.troupetaamulat.org/founder.html[reply]
Reply - if this organisation was notable in the formative stages of the careers of all of these artists, then the notability would be established through coverage in reliable sources. I see no such coverage indicated in the references provided, nor in the references. Also note that User:Rawhide ranch is the original editor of this article. -- Whpq (talk) 11:57, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:58, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hand picked domain

[edit]
Hand picked domain (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This is an essay, and how-to. Article was nominated as a SPEEDY by another editor because it violated WP:NOT, however it was rightfully declined as that is not a WP:SPEEDY criterion. I PROD'ed the article as and essay and how-to which was endorsed with a PROD2 by another editor. Tags were removed with additional text added, but no quality improvements. The article remains an essay and how-to. Whpq (talk) 13:57, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 21:49, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Achievements of telecom sector during 2004-2007

[edit]
Achievements of telecom sector during 2004-2007 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Unenyclopedic mess, with very much the wrong title as it refers only to the telecoms industry of Pakistan. Borderline WP:CSD#G11 but not quite. Declined Speedy. Pedro :  Chat  13:22, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Almost blatant advertising, although doesn't appear to be promoting any one thing in particular. Also looks like it could well be a copyvio - I just suspect it. Would need a complete rewrite to be encyclopedic, and as a standalone topic probably fails WP:N and would need merging and attention from an expert on the subject.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 13:28, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Note that Azeemsajjad is Project Manager - R&D Ministry of Information Technology, Pakistan. No doubt he is preparing this for his lords and masters and has decided to use Wikipedia as a sandbox. Of course Azeem would probably find it too much like hard work to improve the Communications in Pakistan article. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 13:58, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Advert and sandbox, I agree with both. WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDENplay it cool. 23:08, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- According to WP:DEL our conclusions as to whether an article should be deleted should not rely on the current state of the article. They should be based on whether the topic itself merits coverage. If the topic itself merits coverage, but the article needs improvement, it should be improved, not deleted. That is straight from the policy. Geo Swan (talk) 13:31, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but rename -- this article is really about Pakistan's telecom sector. That is what it should be called, or something similar, like Telecommunication in Pakistan. This is clearly a notable topic. According to the sources I found telephone access grew from 4 percent to 35 percent, just during the years 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007. That kind of explosive growth clearly merits coverage. I have taken the liberty to scale the article back to a stub, because that is how much I could reference in the amount of time I am prepared to budget to this article today. There are aspects to this article that initially made me wonder whether this is a {{|tl|copyvio}}. I think it probably isn't however. I suspect that someone wrote a document for some other purpose, and thought they could include it here, but didn't (yet?) provide any references. I have no problem with the original contributor(s) putting back some or all of the original material, provided they were in fact the original author(s) of that material, it is written so it fits -- is "encyclopedic", and they provide references. Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 13:31, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge -- I overlooked RHaworth's reference to Communications in Pakistan. It is a topic worthy of coverage -- largely unreferenced however. Whatever valuable material that was originally in this article that can be properly referenced should be merged with article. Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 13:53, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. It's possible that this could be a WP:HEY, but it needs more work than has already been done.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 11:40, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Close due to unusual circumstances and a bit of confusion. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 20:39, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ignition (band)

[edit]
Ignition (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Borderline notability. Not an A7 speedy delete as there are claims of notability. May quite easily meet WP:MUSIC criterion 1 if references are provided. h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 13:14, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Nakon 04:14, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Caju Industrial

[edit]
Caju Industrial (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Tagged as fake which is not a CSD: Possibly Probably existing football club whose actual league is unknown / unverified, but it is certainly not the top league as currently indicated in the article. Sources are neither present nor found by me. Tikiwont (talk) 12:54, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the related article on their nn stadium:

Estádio do Conselho Municipal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Comment It seems that Caju Industrial is the name of a company in Mozambique [16][17], which is/was a parastal fruit and nut growing operation. I tend to view this as a keep and short pending sources operation.--Thomas.macmillan (talk) 20:07, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Meanwhile, I've found them listed at a (Brazilian ) site at [18] and they might well be a company sponsored soccer club. If somebody can come up with anything substantial, even better. Whether we should have an article on above mentioned company is IMO a different question until there is actual evidence that they're indeed related. --Tikiwont (talk) 21:21, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Above is just a listing as existing. The current article isn't correct and there aren't any sources two write something different. So it's still delete for me.--Tikiwont (talk) 10:31, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
With the reference tot he listing, I was m just talking about the football club. There is no need to decide here whether we should have an article on the company nor would it be a good idea to write it on top of the current one, not least to avoid the possibility to revert to the previous topic. If someone sees fit, they can write a stub or article on the parastatal in any case, e.g. at the same place after the current one has been deleted, or at Caju Industrial (company), with a redirect from Caju Industrial, which might avoid misunderstandings. --Tikiwont (talk) 09:53, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 after the nomination was withdrawn. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:43, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Netar Mallick

[edit]
Netar Mallick (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

If he has a knighthood, that should make him notable. I get less than 200 ghits, but some of the sources look like they could be reliable. h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 12:51, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy keep. Regarding notability: a quick Googling, a look at this Laudatio, and his knighthood (which is not an easy honour to get, recent British political scandals notwithstanding) all suggest that he meets the notability criteria. He certainly seems to meet the requirements of WP:PROF as a recognized leader in his field -- see the laudation above for details. However, can we please have more on his achievements in the article itself?" -- The Anome (talk) 14:29, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete by expired PROD. Non-admin close. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 07:14, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Naruto GOA

[edit]
Naruto GOA (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Seems to be a slightly notable game (180K g-hits [most on the first few pages were forums]), plenty of sources to verify, but I'm not too sure. VivioFateFan (Talk, Sandbox) 12:39, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Consensus appears to read that this was largely original research with BLP concerns, and its value to Wikipedia was questionable. Some raised the concern that it served as a coatrack after the conclusion of several recent deletion discussions. Aside from this, the title is hardly adequate - "out of control" is an emotive term. While a move to a different title could have been contemplated with a different consensus, that's not the case here. Orderinchaos 15:38, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Myspace invites and out of control parties

[edit]
Myspace invites and out of control parties (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

A collection of unrelated news articles bundled together under a supposedly common theme does not an encyclopedia article make. h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 12:26, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 12:27, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Yes, I read it, but this is not encyclopedic. I agree it is interesting, and yes I'd read this in a newspaper or tabloid if I was searching for the subject online, but I cannot agree with this being placed in Wikipedia. Sorry. - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 12:36, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Certainly if they were unrelated. They however are: they are all about Parties advertised on Myspace, that ended up in some cases in riot situations (with 500 people attacking police cars) and shootings. A modern phenomenon of interest to some, and no doubt a phenomenon that will be occuring more often as social networking is utilised more in society. If this article may not seem relevant to you, however I beleive it is, and will become more relevant as more of these situations occur. Cheers! User:trijah
  • I appreciate that you took the time to create the article with reliable references, but I'm just not sure it's the sort of thing that's appropriate for Wikipedia. Certainly the article's name needs to be changed per WP:MOS as "out of control parties" is informal slang and "Myspace" should be "MySpace". Perhaps this article could be extended to include other social networking websites such as Bebo and Facebook, and could be broadened out to cover things beyond "out of control parties". We'll see what others think.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 12:36, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy for it to be modified and added to, but to delete it seems rash. It is an obvious phenomenen that seems to keep occuring, and in fact, getting worse ( Considering the recent event with 500 people attacking police cars, and a police Helicopter being called in). I am sort of suprised there isn't something on Wikipedia already. Also happy to have the title changed as per Wikipedia guidelines, good suggestion.User:Trijah —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trijah (talk • contribs) 12:46, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Further comment, I want to say in support of my delete as MySpace and other networking sites shouldn't be made a scapegoat for these out of control parties as these parties-ran-amok have always been a common occurance, just watch any teen film produced as far back as you can (say the 1970s) and you will know why. Willirennen (talk) 18:58, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Guys - I thought about including this on the Myspace page, however it is quite big, so under Wikipedia guidelines, it should probably have its own page. Instead, I have linked to it from the MySpace main article.User:Trijah —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trijah (talk • contribs) 13:15, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Smerge (Selective merge) Not a bad article, and perhaps deserving of inclusion in the MySpace article, with some trimming. If it would be too big a section in the MySpace page, then leave out trivia, extraneous detail, BLP problematic material and original research and it will get shorter. Fifty years ago there were parties planned by minors when the parents were away, which resulted in police presence, property damage and injuries when "party crashers" heard about them and the attendance swelled. See the 1983 film Risky Business. Today, the social networking sites merely augment what would probably have occurred anyway. A telephone tree (when someone tells 4 friends, they each tell 4 friends, etc, etc) could accomplish about the same thing. What is needed is multiple reliable sources not merely giving the initial news account of each party that got out of control, but giving an overview of the phenomenon, much like this Wikipedia article does. It borders on WP:synthesis. Electronic media do offer a greater ability to assemble a Flash mob quicker than word of mouth and phoning, so I do not rule out that this is a valid topic. But I do not want to see it become a mere listing of parties where the house got messed up and the police were called. Some reliable third party reference is needed to screen out original research. For now, it could be included in the MySpace article, with only examples cited by overview articvles in the press. Edison (talk) 15:20, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I suggested this page a day or two back in the deletion discussion over Corey-whats-his-face (the Australian kid). This sort of thing clearly needs mentioning about myspace as it has made quite big news (whether justly or not) and the myspace page would be a bit too big if it mentioned everything about the site- which is absolutely huge...Perhaps move it to a more general page about myspace in the media where other things can be mentioned too (i.e. all those parental fears over stalkers on myspace that the press likes to makes a big deal of and that sort of thing)--Him and a dog 15:28, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Reads as a blend of News and Essay, both of which wouldn't belong. Permanance of notability is questionable at best. Pharmboy (talk) 15:43, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article's title and thesis makes it clear that the topic is a POV observation. Nightscream (talk) 17:54, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable POV, OR, BLP concerns. Blank for protection of minors per BLP after. Lawrence Cohen 18:36, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep Multiple instances have occured, and the general problem has been noticed in some news sources. So there's not an OR issue. Nor is there a BLP issue when the incidents have been reported each in major news sources. Even if the individual incidents are not sufficiently notable for Wikipedia, per WP:NOTNEWS, the collection is as a whole. I would maybe suggest moving it to the more neutral title "Myspace and parties". JoshuaZ (talk) 18:57, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes agrees - Myspace and parties is a lot better title. Good suggestion. User:Trijah
  • Delete to counter the reasoning above, novel synthesis of ideas is still original research. Partys happen. Myspace exists. Sometimes, people on Myspace throw parties. That this series of events happens can be put together from reliable sources. That the events listed in the article have a common theme outside of superficial coincidences is entirely original research, and as such, should be deleted. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:01, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • This isn't a synthesis. The observation that these events are occuring due to myspace has been made in news sources. See for example [19]. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:09, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes not a novel synthesis of ideas. This concept has been mentioned in two non news articles, referenced in the article discussing the concept of inviting people to parties. I certianly wasn't the first person to discuss the topicUser:Trijah.
  • Delete. Fails on grounds of OR, non-notability, and quite possibly BLP. The atrocious un-encyclopedic writing style doesn't inspire confidence either. (I realize that's not grounds for deletion; but I think it's symptomatic of the page's lack of understanding of what the wikipedia is.) Doops | talk 19:08, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think re writing it in a better style would be a better solution than deleting it. This is obvously an important topic, and relevant, given recent events. One of these events is already actually listed on the myspace pageUser:Trijah
As I said, of course bad writing is not grounds for deletion. But this article is by its very nature incapable of being written in an encyclopedic style: it is a tabloid newspaper feature article by nature. The title is a good rubric: if we're making up the page title from scratch, then the odds are that the subject is probably not encyclopedic. Doops | talk 02:35, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Mattinbgn\talk 19:12, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is NOT original research, and (adding further comment following on from JoshuaZ's rebuttal below) as also noted by other comments above, when two items are put together synthetically in this way it is IMHO original research! The alternative - which is not helpful at all - is that Wikipedia can be used to connect any two or more other sources into any article of choice by any editor.--VS talk 20:39, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • As has already been discussed that's not an issue here because we have other sources that make the connection for us. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:44, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Expanding on my previous comment; there is no synthesis since the connection of parties at myspace have gotten out of control has already occurred in the sources. We aren't making that connection. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:04, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, agrees, as has been mentioned before, there is no synthesis since the connection of parties at myspace have gotten out of control has already in news articles and other sources in the article. It is not against Wikipedia guidelines to list instances of a concept that has previously been discussed, in fact this is common in Wikipedia articles.trijah
  • Delete, just because it happens to have been reported in the news and be true doesn't mean that it makes an encyclopedia article. There have indeed been a few cases of parties which were advertised on MySpace and got out of hand, but pulling a few examples of that together doesn't make a good article. If there was some wider phenomenon then it might be worth a discussion, but I don't think there's anything to say here other than that such a correlation exists. After all, MySpace doesn't 'cause' out-of-hand parties, it's just a means by which they might be publically advertised to a great many people. It only warrants a brief mention on the MySpace page. -- Mithent (talk) 23:50, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete at present, largely per Mithent. Some parties turn feral - and some of these have been advertised on MySpace. There is perhaps scope for an article on "out of control parties" (although a better title should be found), assuming that the perception that there are more of these now than a few years ago is accurate. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 01:16, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete: it jumped off the page to me that -as a reader - I was supposed to agree that something was terribly wrong with some service being provided by the online community, but the article sure did NOT do a good job of defining that service. --Revanche (talk) 01:58, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'comment And we have yet another news source making the connection between online invitations and probelmatic parties:[20]. We now have three sources that make the connection for us, 2 of which explicitly connect to Myspace. The OR argument is simply not credible. JoshuaZ (talk) 05:07, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Au contraire, what we have is links that show that some parties have become online phenomena. We don't have enough to show this is a concept as such discussed at length in reliable sources. A bunch of unrelated articles showing that sometimes, people with Myspace accounts throw wild parties does NOT mean that there is a larger issue that needs documenting. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:24, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and the links between these events in the article (such as they are) are original research. --Nick Dowling (talk) 08:56, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and merge While properly sourced, the article title is a non-notable neologism. I can go to various news sources and find four stories about any topic I invent, but that doesn't make the topic notable. I suggest merging the content into the articles about the relevant social media sites. Jehochman Talk 11:48, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Myspace article is already very long and already has many separate issues. Also, we can't delete and merge per the GFDL. We can merge adn leave a redirect. But that would still have the issue that the main article is too long as it is. JoshuaZ (talk) 15:53, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the majority of this article is newspaper style coverage of the details of individual events which are all irrelevant besides demonstrating the the worst case scenarios. Only at the beginning is there any content about the topic, using refs (5) (9) and (10), none of which are scholarly. This article is merely a COATRACK on which to hang four tabloid write-ups. John Vandenberg (talk) 11:58, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete POV Fork article started after this Afd was closed, Synthesized into COATRACK . Source [21] is by lined from agenicies so its a rehash of another article, [22] is news blog hosted on the SMH site, while I wouldnt throw it away it wouldnt hold it up as a reliable source to establish notability either. Gnangarra 12:41, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just don't understand it - when it suits wikipedians this place is trying to be as clean arsed as the Brittanica - yet there are all sorts of entries on things that the Britannica folk wouldn'd touch with a 10 foot barge pole. There are articles on all sorts of other crimes, crime trends, specific criminals and so on - this is a new and emerging trend it's big enough that a whole entry for it exists more than just a stubb and this is one of the effects of the rampant viral distribution of information across the internet - it's a trend that deserves it's own entry. 124.170.99.251 (talk) 18:00, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Wikipedia isn't the place to document new trends, nor does it try to be the most cutting edge source of information on what is hot "today". The entire premise of notablity is that it must be permanant, and not the hot topic du jour. Pharmboy (talk) 20:33, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Further to Pharmboy's comments, the article as currently written simply talks about a small group of incidents. For this to be a "trend" which an encyclopedia (remembering that Wikipedia is precisely that) should have an article on, there needs to be some kind of analysis being reported here. Not analysis by the author of the article, either. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 21:50, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You make an excellent point DHMO. Unfortunately I have !voted else I would move to closing one way or another myself. Any other admins ready to take the plunge?--VS talk 08:09, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Keep This is a sociological phenomenon of the current era and therefore a valid part of today's experience. The cult of celebrity is rampant and online communities such as My Space both reflect this phenomenon and jam it at the same time by substituting "ordinary" people for the publicists' overpaid darlings. The instant communication and rapid fame offered by new technologies is with us - like it or not. I think that it is highly important that this page stays especially after the extremely conservative decision to pull the pages on the Narre Warren incedent. CNN, BBC, The Times etc have paid attention to this story - bloggers and newspaper forums include many positive as well as negative comments - and Wikipedia is like a pious old grandmother and loses touch with life as it happens around us. Turning the story into a discussion of the overall phenomenon is a legitimate way to reference these incidents - if you think there are issues about BLP. OK you may not like wild streaming parties summoned by call outs via new media formats, but its out there and pulling the Wikipedia article won't stop it. Pulling Wikipedia articles on modern phenomena does nothing except make Wikipedia look foolish, pedantic and tired. People will talk about these things and surely Wikipedia should be responsive to the mood of the era

Bebe Jumeau (talk) 11:27, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Agrees with Bebe. Good on you. I agree, I think its backward thinking to remove articles that deal with modern social phenomena. This situation will continue to occur. Social Networking sites are not going to disapear. If its deleted now, you can be sure this information will reappear, so presumably the research will have to be done all over again. It is a fact that these situations are happening in the real world and as any Encyclopedia should, Wikipedia should reflect concepts in the real world. If the concept of mass electronic communication gone wrong, resulting in riots, shootings and international attention can't be recorded in Wikipedia...then I say there is something wrong with wikipedia. If people are unhappy with the structure, then fix it up or add to it. Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:57, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • The problem with Bebe's argument, though, is that the only way in which this article "deal[s] with modern social phenomena" is though the authors connecting the dots, which isn't something that's supposed to go on here. If we look at the sources, only the last two take any kind of broad view of this phenomenon, and one of them at least is a blog. The other sources simply back up the fact that this or that party (generally the one in Melbourne recently) was advertised on MySpace, turned feral and resulted in various consequences for the host, whose article has already been deleted. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 05:48, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • By saying "connecting the dots" you seem to be saying the author is using diverse findings to come to some crazy conclusion. The article mereley mentions where Myspace has been used to send out party invites as reported in the media, and the parties have gone out of control. The article does not advocate a position, does not imply anything about myspace, does not advocate an unpublished idea. It merely states what is stated in the articles already. It does not say "msypace is responsible for out of control parties" it says "There have been these four situations involved and Myspace was a factor - and now people are warning against invites on Myspace". Nothing outrageous or illogical, in my honest opinion. Deathlibrarian (talk) 10:31, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, I'm not saying that. What I'm saying is that the article here says (in essence) the following: People have parties. They advertise same on MySpace or elsewhere. As a result of these advertisements, the parties become out of control. What the sources say (with the exception of the blog, which largely doesn't come into things is: Someone had a party. The party was advertised online. The party became out of control. The italicised phrase which the article is saying isn't in the sources, and that's what I'm meaning when I said "connecting the dots". It seems like an entirely uncontroversial conclusion to draw, but as an encyclopedia, it's not Wikipedia's place to draw that conclusion. Even if we downgrade it into MySpace being a "factor" in the parties turning feral, the sources don't actually say that. Unless and until a reliable source says "the reason that this party went nuts was because masses of people turned up to it because it was advertised on MySpace/Facebook/social networking site X", then original research is being conducted here. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 11:23, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • -Turning the story into a discussion of the overall phenomenon is a legitimate way to reference these incidents... Turning one thing into another is called Original research to address such occurrences we have a policy WP:OR, turn multiple things into one is still original research, its also a coat rack when multiple things are combined over a single commonality and a synthesis when conclusions are created from these. Gnangarra 12:58, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Secret account 02:52, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Josephine James

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Josephine James (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

After the last AfD which was conducted in a way which made things difficult as multiple articles which shouldn't have been bundled together were in the same AfD, I'm creating a new stand-alone AfD for this porn actress. So - she is non-notable, no non-trivial coverage. No awards - nothing out of the ordinary. h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 12:23, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Secret account 02:50, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Hunstone

[edit]
Mark Hunstone (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Seemingly non-notable musician. Prod declined by anon without comment. tomasz. 11:41, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - You have the wrong band. The wiki article a about an American rock band based out of Austin Texas. The band referenced in the article is an Aussie soul/jazz band. -- Whpq (talk) 21:09, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Spoon were most definitely a Newcastle based band, and Silverchair used to back them up. They once played at the Star Hotel and had a fire eater as a warm up act, except he set the ceiling on fire. However, I can't find anything about this nor his work in England. There's some google evidence for Spoon and some of his other work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.121.65.133 (talk) 02:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete per WP:SNOW. KrakatoaKatie 18:45, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trottoirism

[edit]
Trottoirism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

PROD removed by author without comment. Precisely one non-Wikipedia Google reference - to an Italian magazine of that name. This is at best a non-notable neologism, more likely something made up one day. JohnCD (talk) 11:36, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Secret account 02:49, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Webcomic genres

[edit]
Webcomic genres (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article doesn't say anything unique about genres in webcomics; in fact, most of the article simply tells us that yes, webcomics can have genres, too. So what? All works of fiction can be said to have a genre, there's nothing special or unique about webcomics in this instance (and I say that as a fan of webcomics). Especially when of the only three examples given (absurdist fiction, dark comedy, and sprite comic), the first two are present in a wide variety of fiction outside of webcomics (and are not particularly widespread or noteworthy within webcomics) and the third admits that it isn't even a true genre in the first place, merely an art style! We already have categories for different genres within webcomics--and an article on sprite comics, too--that should be more than enough to satisfy any possible demand for this topic. Ig8887 (talk) 11:32, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Canley (talk) 09:03, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Planetouched

[edit]
Planetouched (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable neogolism. Article fails WP:FICT, WP:NOT#GUIDE and has no reliable secondary sources to demonstrate real-world significance. This term is a proprietary word used only in Dungeons & Dragons game guides and its associated publications. Gavin Collins (talk) 11:14, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I agree; this isn't a neologism at all, it's an in-universe label for group of fictional people, the same as Decepticon or hobbit. No one is claiming that the term "planetouched" has significance beyond identifying the races to which it has been applied to in the D&D rules. Whether or not it fails WP:FICT, WP:NEO doesn't apply.Ig8887 (talk) 13:29, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Unlike Decepticons and Hobbits, Planetouched do not appear to be a fictional race per se, but are perhaps a Category of creatures - the article does not make this clear. It seems to have been derived from another made up word, extraplanar (existing in an alternative dimension?), and both of these terms appear to me to be a good example of neogolisms to me.--Gavin Collins (talk) 16:33, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete per WP:N and/or WP:RPG/N; there's no independent coverage here, and I don't see why a third party would devote a non-trivial amount of space or time to coverage of the term. Percy Snoodle (talk) 11:40, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - well...there is "Races of Renown - Aasimar and Tiefling (a Guidebook to the Planetouched)"[23] by Green Ronin. That is an entire book dedicated to them and uses the term in the title no less. There are others as well. That being said I am still largely neutral on this one. Web Warlock (talk) 17:21, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have no objections to a merge as others have suggested. --Craw-daddy | T | 10:33, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's getting messy around here.  ;) BOZ (talk) 14:40, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was nomination withdrawn. Canley (talk) 14:28, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Baby born in air

[edit]
Baby born in air (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This is a funny one - and if it gets deleted, a perfect WP:DAFT candidate. This should be a notable fact to include somewhere in the encyclopedia, but I don't think it deserves an individual article. h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 11:11, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. would have been a A7 anyways Secret account 02:47, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adoptive music

[edit]
Adoptive music (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Appears to be a non-notable record label, Google isn't turning up much. h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 10:56, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:00, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa Dale Rifkind Society for Ethical Culture

[edit]
Lisa Dale Rifkind Society for Ethical Culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Hoax or let us say crystal ballery: it is the society that Lisa Rifkind, currently a student at Woodmere Middle School is going to found when she grows up. Strangely, the prod tag was removed by an IP address registered to Hewlett-Woodmere School District. Isn't it nice when the hoaxers leave clear clues. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 10:45, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

M!--

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Merge to Lord (band), action complete. JERRY talk contribs 15:03, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Dowling

[edit]
Andrew Dowling (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The article does not assert the notability of it's subject via reliable sources. Note: If this can be fixed in a timely manner, I'll withdraw the AFD. - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 10:44, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 02:58, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

rel -->

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 cleaned up enough to satisfy nominator and consensus of others. Argyriou (talk) 20:16, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anti Christian Movement (China)

[edit]

:Anti Christian Movement (China) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) Per Wikipedia:SOAP and WP:FRINGE. While there's no denying there's persecution of Christians in China, characterizing it as an "anti-Christian movement," is original research, even if such research may be found on JSTOR. Anything in this article is also found in Christianity in China. Also, Communism in China had relatively little to do with Karl Marx or the Communist Manifesto, and more to do with Confucianism, Lenin, Mao, and Chinese bureaucracy. So, it's pretty dubious that the sources cited actually support the claims. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 10:14, 16 January 2008 (UTC) See comments below. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 07:55, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Christianity in China. I find it difficult to believe this topic warrants its own article and the creator doesn't seem to have researched his subject very well considering the fact he misspelled Karl Marx's name. Redfarmer (talk) 10:36, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep. A search for “anti-christian movement”+China on Jstor turns up 28 articles (ranging in date of publication from 1923 to 2004), and 20 book reviews (1928-2002). A search on google news gets 134 hits, dating back to 1922; google books gives 667 hits; google scholar 288; the bibliography of the Cambridge History of China lists the work Ka-che Yip, 'The anti-Christian movement in China, 1922-1927', Columbia University, Ph.D. dissertation, 1970; at this point I conclude that it is neither “original research” nor “neologism”, that it is a serious topic for independent treatment (or should we just merge "history of atheism" to "history of religion"?), and that the article might need clean-up and some rewriting but there are no grounds for deletion. --Paularblaster (talk) 13:24, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
adding comment: like a great many terms used in relation to Chinese history I'd guess it's a rather literal translation of a Chinese term; I'm on a university network at the moment so I don't know whether this is generally accessible ... --Paularblaster (talk) 13:39, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
and adding: this should really clinch it. Plenty there to get your teeth into. --Paularblaster (talk) 13:50, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redfarmer, a redirect would only make sense if the title wasn't so verbose and it didn't have a disambig tag. Nobody's going to type, "Anti Christian movement (China)". I mean, there isn't even an article on Anti Christian Movement because it's such a contentious idea.
I will say, however, that Paularblaster's sources seem reliable and verified. So, instead, yes, let's just clean this up and clarify that it was specifically a historical movement and not some broad social movement that's necessarily going on right now. As the article on Christianity in China notes, Christianity is growing and the CPC are a lot more tolerant of religion than they used to be. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 20:42, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Well sourced historical event. There is probably a case for an article on the persecution of Christianity by the CPC in the post-revolution period (although as noted above, things are much better now), but that's another story. Mostlyharmless (talk) 21:59, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Change vote to Keep. The article has been vastly improved, containing factual information about what appears to have been a historical anti-Christian movement in China, with reliable sources. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 07:55, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was No Consensus, defaults to Keep Nakon 04:15, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Igor Goryanin

[edit]
Igor Goryanin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Autobiography by a scientist no more notable (or so it appears) than most other Principal investigators. --Vegetatron (talk) 10:03, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:27, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unlike many of the other people on the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions, this person is a real scientist heading his own group. The question is really to what extent Wikipedia should be a(n autobiographical) Who's who of the world's scientists, and what level of notability is required for inclusion. Wikipedia:Notability (academics) seems to imply lower requirements than does Wikipedia:Notability (people), and I think it should be kept in mind that things like publications in peer-reviewed journals are a basic part of every scientist's job. --Vegetatron (talk) 20:45, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It should be a comprehensive encyclopedia containing all notable scientists, --that the people involved may have written the article here is reason for care and careful scrutiny, but not for deletion. The holder of a named chair in a major UK research university, who is effectively head of a department, is certainly going to be notable. All college faculty write papers, yes, and the average is between one and two. In most universities, 6 or so is necessary for tenure. He has written 27 in Web of Science, of which the most cited, The systems biology markup language (SBML): a medium for representation and exchange of biochemical network models in BIOINFORMATICS 19 (4): 524-531 MAR 1 2003 has been cited 237 times. (the next are 98, 59 and 51 Very few scientists get to that point--especially those with a large part of their career in industry, where there are fewer publications than the academic part of science. More notable than most, which is the standard here. "all scientists write papers" is like saying that all baseball players hit balls. There are the major leagues, and full professor at Glasgow is at that level. DGG (talk) 17:44, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fair enough. Maybe some clarification of the notability guidelines for academics would be of help, especially to make it clear what it takes for a PI to be more notable than the rest. I estimate that there are at least 100k research groups in the world, and 100k articles about individual scientists seems at least an order of magnitude too many. (On a side note, I'm not familiar with the numbers you cite for the typical number of publications -- where I'm coming from you need at least 2-3 (and preferably more) peer reviewed papers to get a PhD, and you'll have at least several times that by the time you're heading your own group. It could be that we're in very different fields.) DGG, I also took the liberty of removing a line break in your comment, just to keep it all on the same indentation level. Vegetatron (talk) 09:55, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I agree with Vegetatron. Two papers is just enough to get a PhD in the life sciences. Anybody with just 6 publications would have a hard time even to be considered for an assistant professorship, let alone get tenured. Perhaps it's different in other fields or at smaller US colleges or universities in some developing countries, but not at major US universities or any university that I know of in Western Europe. --Crusio (talk) 12:26, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete Nakon 04:16, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fancy frontier

[edit]
Fancy frontier (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article tagged for Speedy Delete and contested. Article is about a comic convention that does not indicate the importance or significance of its subject. --VS talk 09:59, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Neutral I would comment that it would be hard to nominate or vote one way or another as all the references and source is not in English, and instead in Tradition Chinese (Mandarin, I suppose). Finding additional sources would also be impossible if you only speak English, and not having English sources isn't a valid reason for deletion. Does the nominator speak Chinese/Madarin and has he searched for verifiable reliable sources from non-English websites or publications? Otherwise, I would say Withdraw/Default Keep as having insufficient information to make a nomination. I couldn't conclude whether the article was notable or not based on this very same lack of English information. Pharmboy (talk) 15:56, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Secret account 02:49, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ace industries

[edit]
Ace industries (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable company. Article created by an spa. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 09:23, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Secret account 02:55, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chronicles Of The Imaginarium Geographica: Here There Be Dragons

[edit]
Chronicles Of The Imaginarium Geographica: Here There Be Dragons (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

OK so it isn't spam, but there is no evidence of notability nor even much assertion of it. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 09:18, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, though I think there is some (minor) assertion of notability, in that the author believes that a movie will be made from the book, which would indeed be major. But, given that A) the book is not yet released, B) The film would come out in 2011 (!), C) there is no evidence of notability, and D) There are no reliable sources at all, this needs to be deleted. If it eventually ends up notable, then by all means - an article would be fine. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 13:33, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Whether or not to rename this is an editorial decision.Spartaz Humbug! 20:12, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sack of Rome (846)

[edit]
Sack of Rome (846) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I have never read nor heard anything of this supposed sack of Rome by the Saracens. It is not listed under any of the other Islam and Italy sections, nor are there any citations. As well, searching other encyclopedias, I have found no mention of this supposed sack (the only things I can find are articles linked to the wikipedia page). I have yet to see anything by any historian, and I find it difficult to believe that only wikipedia would have knowledge of this event. I believe this article to be false, and unless someone is prepared to show any evidence of this event, it should be deleted. I apologize if I have put this in the incorrect category, I have never nominated an article for deletion before. Izzodinapoli (talk) 08:46, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep but possible rename (no good suggestion at the moment).There obviously was a siege of Rome by the Saracnes in 846. See e.g. this[24], this[25], or this[26], which calls it a (partial) sack. Edward Gibbon called it an "Invasion of Rome"[27]. The attack of the Saracens on Rome in 846 is clearly a well-known event, but whether to call it a sack, invasion, attack, campaign, or whatever is another discussion. Fram (talk) 09:35, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I believe this was nominated in good faith, but this is fairly easy to come up with references for as long as you don't limit yourself to "sack of rome 846". It seems that St. Peter's was sacked, but the city walls of Rome held. The name may need to be changed, but I haven't yet found a standard name. --Dhartung | Talk 10:24, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks guys, "sack of rome 846" is what I used in order to search for sources. If indeed the walls held and St. Peters was at the time outside the walls, it shold be renamed no? It's hardly a sack if they never even made it inside the city.Izzodinapoli (talk) 17:08, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename it "Attack on Rome"? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 11:12, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merged to A Clockwork Orange. Sandstein (talk) 21:39, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ultraviolence

[edit]
Ultraviolence (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Originally prodded as "Article incorrectly defines nonnotable neologism with uncited original research." however with three hours remaining article was rewritten by creator with prod tag deleted. Article still fails WP:NEO as a nonnotable neologism, with the lead being a dictionary definition (and still incorrect) followed by a list of uses in popular culture. Lead is entirely original research with no sources about the term itself and only citations for where it used to describe other things. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 08:00, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep or Merge into A Clockwork Orange. This term is definitely notable, having been coined almost twenty years before I was born by Anthony Burgess and later used by Stanley Kubrick in his film adaptation of A Clockwork Orange. The article isn't very well written right now but I don't consider a term coined nearly fifty years ago by a major British author and used in a film adaptation by a major film director to be a neologism. Redfarmer (talk) 08:35, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (though I don't know if my vote really counts, being the aforementioned "creator" and all) I think Redfarmer is spot on with his comment. As for considering the term "nonnotable", I think that's not a NPOV statement at all. If I didn't know this word is relevant in modern culture, like many other words that have good articles here in WP, I wouldn't be struggling so much to keep it in. I've said before that the word itself has no official definition anywhere, so you can't ask for sources for that, because they don't exist (for now). All you can do is what I think I did, which is showing that the word is a significant part of our culture whether or not it has been taken seriously by academics or otherwise. I've already said the article needs lots of work, but that's no grounds for deleting it instead of improving it. Kreachure (talk) 16:12, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Um, aren't we debating that decision here? Why are you saying "if you want the term kept" as if you already knew that the decision was delete or merge? If the decision is merge, then that's what we'll do, not what the person who proposed the deletion in the first place demands to be done. Kreachure (talk) 16:46, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spebi 06:42, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Offerdahl

[edit]
Mark Offerdahl (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Procedural nom. I declined a speedy request, as it seems that the article does assert some significance. The editor who requested the speedy deletion contacted me on my talk page to explain why they felt the subject fails to meet notability (apparently, the athlete in question is a minor-leaguer). Due to my ignorance of Australian rugby, I will defer to the other editor and accept that this person probably fails WP:BIO, though I think AfD is still the way to go here, as speedy deletion really should be reserved for the most obvious cases. faithless (speak) 07:46, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Whilst I cannot easily locate the Policy, my understanding is that team sport athletes are notable if they have played at least one game in the top grade in their league. The Jersey Flegg is a junior (under 20s) league. -Sticks66 (talk) 01:00, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP - He has an infobox, he's in Manly's squad, NRL.com have him and they don't include a whole raft of 'juniors'. I'd keep him around.Londo06 (talk) 19:40, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Any player who has ever stepped on a park could write themselves an infobox - it doesn't prove notability. Offerdahl might be listed in the Manly squad (and has been for 12 months) - but has not played one game - many listed in the top 25 never do play at NRL level. He may have a page at NRL.com but it is empty of any playing stats because, so far, there is nothing to record. Where is the harm in waiting for a few months and making up the article when he runs on in an NRL jersey and meets notability? •Florrie•leave a note• 21:58, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggestion. If it's ok, I'd like to add Rodney Davies to this AfD, as the issues are essentially the same - he's also an Australian footballer who's been signed by a club, but as of yet never played an NRL game (according to Florrie - I admit to having zero NRL knowledge) Mostlyharmless (talk) 22:19, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree That article should be deleted as well. It is essentially the same though from what I can tell he has more potential, but you can have all the potential in the world it doesn't make a difference to Wikipedia, Wikipedia:BIO#Athletes clearly states that an athlete must have played in a fully professional league of their sport to be notable.Firelement85 (talk) 01:16, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Non-admin closure. — alex.muller (talk • edits) 16:48, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Leigh & Orange

[edit]
Leigh & Orange (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Unsourced self-promotion. The company seems like it should be notable, having been around so long, but Google news turns up only 7 hits, none substantial. Jfire (talk) 06:49, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep, from what is available this is an historic Hong Kong firm (fka Danby & Leigh, then Danby, Leigh & Orange). Sources in English are a bit weak but I suspect this is primarily a language barrier issue -- Chinese and Arabic sources could probably yield more. With a bit of digging we could at least develop a list of major buildings. Here's a UNESCO-sponsored award they won.[28] --Dhartung | Talk 08:10, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Current version of the article Partition Table Doctor is a copyright violation from here and here; previous one was blatant spam. The other two articles are also speedily deleted as spam and/or copyright violation. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 10:04, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

EASEUS Data Recovery Wizard Professinal

[edit]
EASEUS Data Recovery Wizard Professinal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Unsourcedl, high WP:COI issues, other deletion methods are not possible. VivioFateFan (Talk, Sandbox) 06:18, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following articles for deletion for the same reason:

EASEUS Data Recovery Wizard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Partition Table Doctor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. нмŵוτнτ 02:55, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seetharaman Narayanan

[edit]
Seetharaman Narayanan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

An average programmer, no assertion of notability beyond taking part in software development. `'Míkka>t 06:10, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep per WP:WEB, criteria #3. нмŵוτнτ 02:53, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cigarro & Cerveja

[edit]
Cigarro & Cerveja (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Webcomic that fails WP:WEB because there doesn't appear to be any independent coverage. The Alexa ranking of its website is around 500,000 (just below "No Data"). szyslak 05:43, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I remember seeing two different print books in a couple local stores Evilkeen (talk) 14:50, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Nakon 04:17, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overdrive/Preamp 250

[edit]
Overdrive/Preamp 250 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

A non-notable product. I cannot tell if its from a car or video game, but there are no sources and it doesn't appear notable. Also, a violation of the naming convention and possibly WP:SPAM or WP:OR MBisanz Talk 15:08, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info. I've reviewed it in the context of its field, I'm not seeing the notability of an tool that seems like a generic, functional tool. MBisanz Talk 16:26, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've cleaned it up a little. It's a well-known pedal. In this case, I'm not sure what would be considered satisfying notability requirements (I say this with no rancor, but I'm sure there's no UN resolutions pending on this, and I doubt the Wall Street Journal covered it; but within guitar circles, magazines such as Guitar World would be the most likely candidate for information, but given the age, it's doubtful that any refs would be online). Also note I'm fairly neutral on the matter, just making a comment. Yngvarr 00:06, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for your imput. I'm sure your familiar with WP:NOTE. For me, I like superlatives in cases like this, was it deemed the "best" pedal by some magazine, the "highest selling" pedal its first year, was it the subject a huge recall or lawsuit, did it do something no other pedal did as well? The answers to any of those questions all establish notability to me. MBisanz talk 14:51, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pastordavid (talk) 21:20, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have added a couple of sources to the article. Reading some of the non-suitable sources online, it would appear that this was indeed a very notable product in the late 70s and 80s. Notability is not temporary, but because the product was notable before the internet was around, sources online are very hard to find. But we can assume that many sources exist in people's basements in those old magazines. This article needs the work of an expert, but it is savable. I have flagged the article for rescue to see if the Rescue squadron has any guitar experts in it's ranks. Fosnez (talk) 22:03, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename to meet standards. This was a quite notable product back in its day, but alas, I can find no reliable sources to prove it. I did, however, find a few mentions of it being one of Yngwie Malmsteen’s favorite pedals. Perhaps a guitar afficianado can provide some reliable sources. —Travistalk 22:39, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Transhumanist (talk) 05:40, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was No Consensus, defaults to Keep Nakon 04:18, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Haivrit

[edit]
Haivrit (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete Not notable per wp:music, i don't think being a nominee for a televison stations "breakthrough artists" award can be considered major, but judge for yourself! Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 05:17, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment it's ok, i'm glad you're commenting, perhaps you should add something in the article to show that the band is notable. Like your assertion that they've charted in Israel's national charts. 1 album released doesn't assert notability. -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 07:39, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, that's hard. Israeli charts aren't archived as well as those in USA or UK. They were in heavy rotation on Galgalatz (paragraph 11) and i am quite sure that they were on the charts, too. If there's anyone here who can help me find old Galgalatz charts, i'll be very grateful.
Furthermore, according to WP:MUSIC, being nominated for a major award does make the subject notable (paragraph 8). The award they were nominated isn't just some TV station listing, but one of the most important award ceremonies in Israel, comparable to MTV Video Music Awards. I also have a recording of their performance on a national radio show, and with the interview it's at least half an hour (paragraph 12).
But most importantly, they satisfy paragraph 1: this band has been covered in MOOMA, which is not a wiki or a forum, but a professionally edited encyclopedia of Israeli music, and it has been the subject of numerous publications in the newspapers, and i'm talking about professional reviews, not just press releases. I already quoted some of them. It's very hard to Google them up, because their name is just the word "Hebrew" in Hebrew. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 10:47, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The Israeli press have reviewed them what more do u need to be Notable?--יודל (talk) 20:38, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 G1 (patent nonsense) by User:Kubigula, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 05:06, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wild woompacha

[edit]
Wild woompacha (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

User created page on him/her self. Looks like an unencyclopedic page, too. Autobiography and possibly a hoax? Tuvok[T@lk/Improve] 04:59, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:02, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lord of the Rings notable deaths

[edit]
Lord of the Rings notable deaths (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable list of deaths. Pretty fancrufty; cites no sources, and is an orphaned article. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 04:52, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 -Djsasso (talk) 23:34, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Corvette (pinball)

[edit]
Corvette (pinball) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete article about a short-run pinball machine, nothing exceptionally notable about it other than perhaps there are pictures of a car on it?!? am I missing something here? Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 04:47, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Try wp:n. -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 03:16, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, I thought we were talking about policies.... -- Masterzora (talk) 04:18, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, there are 122 articles about different variations on a the basic pinball machine, and maybe this particular article will be less boring as time goes on, with someone metaphorically hitting the flippers to keep the ball in play for awhile. Mandsford (talk) 03:36, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would add that there is still no indication that this particular machine has any qualities that set it apart from the thousands of pinball machines that have been manufactured over the years. Pinpedia.com, pinball.org and ipbd.org are databases and websites that mention all such machines, famous and obscure, memorable and forgettable. If the Corvette machine is referred to in a book, great... but its mention on the internet sites means zip when it comes to notability. Mandsford (talk) 21:50, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't see how this could possibly be notable. Yes, the article may adhere to NPOV, but seriously, it's a pinball machine... Dchall1 (talk) 01:46, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Canley (talk) 10:31, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Annotated Bibliography of Fly Fishing

[edit]
Annotated Bibliography of Fly Fishing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This is a listcruft containing only original research. Pilotbob (talk) 05:25, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I do not see this as original research in any way. It is doing what all editors do, collecting information from sources. That is not original research. This is a most interesting and thoroughly encyclopedic entry. --Bduke (talk) 09:56, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Simply putting 'cruft' on the end of a word isn't an argument. Having articles written by people who actually know something about the subject might be seen by some to be a good thing. Nick mallory (talk) 10:55, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Using the term cruft in this way is common in AFD threads. See WP:CRUFT#Usage. Your comments do not address any of the problems with the article. Pilotbob (talk) 17:51, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm aware that 'cruft' is commonly used in these discussions, I'm saying that it's not an argument in itself. My point is that you don't actually present an argument for deletion. Nick mallory (talk) 23:07, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the extensive evaluative annotations would appear to be OR, and the mere list of books is not encyclopedic, so there's no usable content DGG (talk) 12:03, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: On the surface I find Bibliographies in Wikipedia very useful. There are currently 57 bibliographies listed under Category: Bibliographies by subject. I suspect there are more that are not categorized. All these bibliographies have one thing in common—they are a list of well cited references related to a particular subject. With the WP emphasis on citing sources, these bibliographies are important. Although their formats differ, their content is essentially the same. If this particular article is Non-Wikipedic then they all are which I believe is not the case. I would be hard pressed to provide a rationale to delete: Bibliography of the Western Apache (or any other bibliography) on grounds other than Bibliographies are not encyclopedic—a premise that I disagree with. The other rationale for Keeping this and other bibliographies is that most of them have been embraced and referenced in their respective Project pages. Members of a project find bibliographies very useful in working on new and existing articles as well as expanding their overall knowledge about the Project subject. To delete this or any other bibliography would be a disservice to knowledge on the related subject.--Mike Cline (talk) 13:47, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 12:18, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not seeing the OR here. There's the occasional unsourced statement one wonders whether it's from the jacket flap or whatnot, but by and large the comments contain statements thare would be patently obvious to anyone who had the book in hand. Furthermore, as noted above, this is the sort of research that compilers of encyclopedias are supposed to be doing. Think of it as a "For further reading" section split off for summary style reasons from all the flyfishing articles. Keep —Quasirandom (talk) 14:56, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's certainly a lot of unsourced personal opinion masquerading as fact and weasel wording ("an argument that today seems", "readable but comprehensive", "excellent read", "probably the most", "beautiful compilation", "masterfully", "transcends the cavalier attitude", "very nicely written", "superbly told", and so forth). Uncle G (talk) 15:34, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This looks more like a collection of short book reviews than a bibliography. It contains unsourced, NPOV violating statements like "Skues was the greatest early twentieth-century authority on nymph fishing for trout" and "The first definitive biography of the father of dry fly fishing". The information is not independent or verifiable. I have a feeling that some may also by copyright violations which is difficult to determine because the statements aren't sourced. If these statements are copyvios they are probably original research (actually, opinion may be a more appropriate term). Pilotbob (talk) 17:47, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to a subpage of WikiProject Fishing instead of deleting (and trim out the opinion/annotations). -- Quiddity (talk) 19:23, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Some of the annotations need to be fixed, but overall I find this article very useful. If it is deleted it should be moved to a page in WikiProject Fishing, as above. themcman1 talk 17:13, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Usefulness is not a good argument. See WP:ITSUSEFUL Pilotbob (talk) 20:03, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Master of Puppets Call me MoP!☺ 04:42, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - some good arguments from both sides but I do see it as useful. I never knew about "The Joys of Trout" (sounds somewhat familiar though?) so if I hadn't scanned through that bibliography I never would have know it was there! All jokes aside though it's good for reference purposes and to me that's what an encyclopedia is all about. The fact that there are currently 57 bibliographies listed under Category: Bibliographies by subject also helped me say keep. Sting_au Talk 06:12, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. нмŵוτнτ 02:43, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alt.arts.poetry.comments

[edit]
Alt.arts.poetry.comments (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete No sources to indicate any notability, nor any found after a quick search. Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 04:25, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was No consensus - default to keep. Nonadmin close. Xymmax (talk) 14:56, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BluejackQ

[edit]

Article isn't notable per WP:WEB, all news articles are significantly out of date on the media page. Also the forum on the site themself have had no new posts in the last 5 days (as of this writing) which leads me to believe that the site itself is also dead. Additionally, there has been one previous AfD and several attempts to prod this page, here and here ShakataGaNai (talk) 07:49, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Correct. But take a look through some of those links on their media page. A number of those links are duplicates (the print copy of the online edition, the radio/tv version of the print edition, etc), and a few are to non-reliable groups ex: "weblog diffusion index". Also 5 of the websites in the "Website" section alone goto 404's, or otherwise invalid links. --ShakataGaNai (talk) 18:54, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - As I've noted in the original AfD commentary - along with the fact that I simply don't think this site was noteable outside of its tiny little nitch and for a short period of time. What it boils down to is that within a few years of this site shutting down - no one will be looking for the article. The article is also basically an orphan (only 2 links). --ShakataGaNai (talk) 18:54, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Xymmax (talk) 04:25, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:03, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

David L. Rubland

[edit]
David L. Rubland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Biographical hoax; zero ghits for the person, his birthplace, his orchestra, etc. Lockley (talk) 04:14, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Scientizzle 01:56, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Winter (Professional Wrestler)

[edit]
Matthew Winter (Professional Wrestler) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Hoax/vanity page. I suspect the creator is a sockpuppet for banned user User:Matthew Winter. Jfire (talk) 03:55, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:05, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cotman, Anni

[edit]
Cotman, Anni (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable artist. Googling yields only 5 hits, none of which have to do with her art. The article fails WP:N and WP:RS. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 03:11, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Scientizzle 01:54, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

J. E. Quidam

[edit]
J. E. Quidam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non notable self-promotion page. His claim to notability turns out to be an e-book. I had previously nominated this for speedy deletion but it failed. Teleomatic (talk) 03:09, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, nomination withdrawn with consensus for keeping. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 02:50, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Russell (locomotive)

[edit]
Russell (locomotive) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The page is about a single locomotive, and does not pass standards for notability. - mattbuck 02:13, 16 January 2008 (UTC) Withdraw nomination due to added refs and stuff, didn't think this one through, my bad. - mattbuck 02:37, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I've added three references to published sources discussing Russell, and I have a slew more which I will add. The three references should be enough on their own, I know of at least half a dozen more. This is an easily verifiable subject. The article would bear some improvements though. Gwernol 02:30, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


  • KEEP* Wikipedia is a project dedicated to building an extensive publicaly editable encyclopedia. Just because its one train does not mean its subject for deletion, using this logic, all biographical articles are subject for deletion, as they are specific to one entity. Jeffreh172 (talk) 02:33, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:07, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nerds (film)

[edit]
Nerds (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

non-notable film. advertising. no imdb, rt, amg page. Hubba! Hubba! Hubba! (talk) 22:41, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And the other two edits seem rather advanced for a newbie. I think perhaps I'm smelling a certain kind of laundry. LaMenta3 (talk) 05:56, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - However, the nom is correct. There is nothing to show that this ”film” is notable. Only hits are to the producer’s website. None of the actors’ IMDB profiles say anything about Nerds. —Travistalk 23:08, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom as non-notable and non-verifiable. I can't find any evidence that Nerds is more than a prank or, at best giving them every benefit of the doubt, a shoestring web project. --Lockley (talk) 16:58, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Transhumanist (talk) 02:09, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was No consensus (default keep). JERRY talk contribs 02:17, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pigs on Roger Waters solo tours

[edit]
Pigs on Roger Waters solo tours (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article was nominated for deletion by an unregisterd user. My opinion is Keep. Roger Waters is a very notable person, and the inflatable pig is a very notable show element for both Pink Floyd and Roger Waters. The way the pig is used by Roger Waters on tour illustrates his artistic personality and political views. I see a lot of encyclopedic value in that. --BeautifulFlying (talk) 01:56, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep but rename to Inflatable pigs on Roger Waters' tours (or something like that). The rename is because, of course, "Pigs" is a Pink Floyd song and the title is confusing. The keep is because the issue of the inflatable pig is notable and was one of the details of the Waters-Gilmore feud. The article provides enough sources for its notability independent of any other article. Torc2 (talk) 02:15, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/merge - yes, Roger Waters is notable, and so are pink floyd, but the level of detail here is truly excessive. A single paragraph in another article would suffice. Possibly merge into Pink Floyd Pigs. - mattbuck 02:17, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. нмŵוτнτ 02:02, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ImageOX

[edit]
ImageOX (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete : I know that we have pages for sites like Photobucket and Flickr but ImageOX itself fails all guidelines for websites per WP:WEB. Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 01:55, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 and redirect to Photosphere. Sandstein (talk) 22:54, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Solar disk

[edit]
Solar disk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article is about a concept similar to a Alderson disk or Dyson sphere but has no valid references so it's probably an original research (maybe based on the preceding two concepts). Since - according to google - a solar disk seems to have only the trivial meaning "the disk made by the sun", deletion seems to be appropriate. I'm here because the article has been proposed for deletion twice but the creator has deleted the tags. Cenarium (talk) 01:38, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 and transwiki to Wikipopuli.   jj137 ♠ 16:32, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

James Patrick Dunne

[edit]
James Patrick Dunne (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Questionable notability and all other sources on the web seem to have been written by his PR company, as has this article.Cordless Larry (talk) 01:08, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:09, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alt.talk.creationism

[edit]
Alt.talk.creationism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete Internet discussion group of the subject of creationism, have a look, decide for yourself, but IMO N/N per WP:WEB. Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 00:36, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry it doens't look as if it will be around much longer, unless we get a late rush of fundamentalist Christians intent on preserving the page as it is now ;)! -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 02:25, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: It's actually a very old, long-forgotten, page that has been mouldering for years until I recently had the 'bright' idea of checking through, and where necessary templating, creationism stubs. No need for any urgency. HrafnTalkStalk 04:11, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:11, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mikey Nicholls

[edit]
Mikey Nicholls (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:N due to lack of independent third party sources. None can be found that satisfy WP:RS. !! Justa Punk !! 00:30, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus to delete. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:13, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clickair destinations

[edit]
Clickair destinations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Quite simply, fails WP:DIRECTORY and/or WP:IINFO. Yes, I know this was created in good faith and in accordance with "guidelines" set up by those who manage airline topics, but an exhaustive list telling where Clickair flies simply does not belong in an encyclopedia. I'd be fine with a paragraph in the main Clickair article informing readers that the line flies throughout Europe (with special emphasis on Spain and Italy) and to the Maghreb, but this is just excessive. Biruitorul (talk) 23:41, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Per nom. -- Librarianofages (talk) 23:43, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Article complies with the WikiProject Airlines guidelines in removing destinations lists longer than 10 from the main airline page to a dedicated page. Clickair destinations is one of over 200 airline desinations articles on Wikipedia. Most other airlines including many other Spanish airlines have a destinations page (see Vueling destinations, Iberia destinations, Spanair destinations to name a few) in accordance with the above guidelines. While I do not disagree with WP:DIRECTORY and/or WP:IINFO, if we are to remove this destinations list, we should remove them all, a debate better held at WikiProject Airlines. SempreVolando (talk) 00:12, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per User:SempreVolando. The article should be categorized. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 02:39, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This discussion has been held previously at Afd, here and here, and the result has been keep. The destinations to where an airline flies is the entire point of an airline, it an airline does not have destinations, there is no airline...simple. The problem that I personally have with the destinations pages is that the majority are not referenced inline with WP policy, and that should be looked at. --Russavia (talk) 09:17, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 11:48, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per SempreVolando and Russavia. MilborneOne (talk) 12:08, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Russavia. Hawaiian717 (talk) 16:53, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP is not company's website. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 18:16, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is at least the third time this and related nominations have been here. The reasons to keep have been summed up above again. Consensus can change, but how many times do we need to ask. Once notability is established, articles don't simply lose it. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:11, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is the definition of material that falls under both What Wikipedia is not sections cited in the nomination. Notability has not "been established". Notability means that a topic is the subject of significant treatment in reliable, independent sources; it is not shorthand for having been kept for reasons unrelated to notability or on bases that confuse the way we mean that word here for the vernacular. Are there any independent sources which treat the topic of where an airline flies to substantively? Probably not, but I'd be willing to be convinced. Yet this and every other similiarly situated article I just looked at (ten of them) had no independent sources cited whatever—all unverified and putatively non-notable. In any event, notability and other policies are separate. Even is this and related articles were shown to be notable, which looks impossible, topics can still violate WP:NOT and should be deleted on that independent basis. Wikipedia is not a directory, it is not a travel guide, it is not an indiscriminate collection of information and it is not stupid. The prior AfDs got it wrong as they ignored policy in favor of numerous arguments that appear right out of the examples at WP:AADD, such as I like it, it's interesting, it's useful, "people spent a great deal of time writing the material," etc. What is conspicuously absent from this page, thus far, is any policy-based rationale for keeping this material. The first keep cites to a wikiproject guideline which is not in keeping with policy and which begs the question as we already know the Wikiproject fosters the creation of these directories, followed by a classic WP:WAX argument. The only other rationale given is to refer to the previous debates about the larger class of articles. We are here. The nominator cites policy for deletion which appears to apply. I cite more policy for deletion which appears to apply. Does anyone have a policy-based reason these should be kept, or if not, why the policies cited are inapplicable?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:00, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. It sounds like you're considering these as standalone articles. Rather, they should be considered as subpages of the main airline article (e.g. Clickair/destinations) except that, unlike talk pages and user space, subpages aren't enabled for the main article space. They were split out because for the large airlines (such as American Airlines), the destinations list was so long it overwhelmed the rest of the article. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 17:13, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment WP:NOT#DIR is not relevant as the list is very precise for inclusion, that being, where this airline flies to, nor is it a 'yellow pages' type list. WP:NOT#TRAVEL is not relevant, as it is not a travel guide, but rather a list which provides precise detail as to the destinations this airline flies to, it is not a travel guide in the sense of what one would see on say virtualtourist.com. WP:IINFO is not relevant, as it is not indiscriminate, either the airline flies to these destinations or not. List of cities, towns, villages, hamlets Clickair flights pass over on their scheduled flights would be against WP:IINFO, this list is not. But yes, I do agree that the fact many of these destination lists are unreferenced is a concern (as I noted above), however, as these are not stand-alone lists, WP:V needn't necessarily be the be all and end all of inclusion of these lists, as WP:SELFPUB clearly comes into play. --Russavia (talk) 17:51, 12 January 2008 (UTC)c[reply]
Fuhghettaboutit, very well put. Hawaiian717 and Russavia: as far as I'm aware, WP:V (an official policy) still applies to non-stand-alone lists, and this list, along with its counterparts, fails. There's no lead section per WP:SAL explaining why this is relevant, or documenting that any third-party reference considers it notable. The fact that it's a "very precise" directory does not make it not a directory, for that is what it is -- a list of cities one airline happens to fly to -- and, incidentally, the primary audience for such a list would be tourists, so WP:TRAVEL also applies. "Indiscriminate" doesn't necessarily mean "untrue" -- WP:IINFO states "merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia". And that is the case here. Airline destination lists have not been shown to be notable, regardless of what the WikiProject panjandrums say. Biruitorul (talk) 22:36, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thank you Biruitorul. Regarding that it is a "not a stand alone article" (Russavia), it may be intended to function as a part of the article on the company but it doesn't. It is in the mainspace and is thus ipso facto stand alone. More importantly, while the distinction is at least colorably relevant for notability considerations, as that is a topic inclusion standard, it is irrelevant for WP:NOT and WP:V considerations as those are content inclusion standards. The issue is not why it became a separate article, but whether the content is appropriate, anywhere. In the article, or stand alone, the material suffers from the same defect. If it was still listed in the article, then it would be inapproriate there for the same reasons. The only difference is that because it is in the mainspace, we are here, rather than on Clickair's talk page, but the WP:NOT and verifiability issues would be the same.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:39, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If you believe that this does not belong, then please take a look at Aeroflot, in which the destination list is in the main article, and is referenced to a verifiable, third-party source, and it most certainly is not in violation of any of the other WP:NOTs mentioned above. What you are doing in this Afd is trying to tell the airline project what does and doesn't belong in airline articles. As there have been quite a few comments from airline project members here already on this Afd, why have you not come over to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Airlines to discuss this previously, as the airline project group as a whole is better able to judge what is and isn't needed in airline articles, rather than having article content dictated at Afd. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Russavia (talk • contribs) 21:53, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, actually, no one granted the WikiProject that sort of power. Of course, I respect the expertise of the people there, but WP:V and WP:NOT apply regardless of what the airline project has "judge[d] what is and isn't needed in airline articles". Biruitorul (talk) 16:53, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Redfarmer (talk) 00:29, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 CSD:A7 (unremarkable web content). --MCB (talk) 07:20, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bloody Hell

[edit]
Bloody Hell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Vanity page about a non-notable set of YouTube videos. Article even states that the creators are "not-so famous". No secondary sources. -- MisterHand (Talk to the Hand|Contribs) 00:27, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus, default to keep. Neıl ☎ 09:50, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SmashLAB

[edit]
SmashLAB (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This company does not appear to be more notable than any other design firm which is not allowed to have a page here. No references other than those coming from the company itself. As such, this fails WP:CORP. Delete. Tijuana Brass (talk) 00:22, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD also includes Design Can Change, a project of this company. If consensus is to delete, the deleting admin should check links to the article, since there are a few redirects. Tijuana Brass (talk) 00:24, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep both - notability is established within the international design community including Icograda, their work has been published in nearly a dozen books, and they've been invited by the AIGA to speak at conferences. International publications have been sourced in the updates to the page. Petiep (talk) 17:59, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: User's only edits are to these two articles and Sustainable graphic design, a closely related article also created by him. Tijuana Brass (talk) 23:09, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • WEAK delete - if WP:V can be satisfied, then I can be swayd to keep, but as it stands now, the 4 unverifiable References given are nearly useless. A company as Notable as this should be able to come up with Verifiable References to proove it belongs. Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 08:09, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • very weak keep - WP:V satisfied (barely, and some of thoes seem almost Primary Sourced). Petiep, Please read and understand the spirit of: WP:COI & WP:RS. My best suggestion would be not to try making an Advert. If the company is truely notable, then an Article will be made about it by Editors at large. Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 05:04, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding WP:RS and WP:V, I've provided "verifiable references" from printed publications, but I suppose Exit2DOS2000's issue is that they are not verifiable online. Thankfully, I've found 3 of the 4 articles cited reprinted online and have updated the article with links to them. These sources are well-regarded international publications which satisfies WP:N. I can provide many more references if required, but have just selected the MOST notable.

- "...the only references are ads for it and blog posts so it fails" - Nick Dowling. If you have checked the references in the references section you will know that this statement is untrue.

- If you have any other concerns or suggestions, I'd much appreciate them. Thanks. - Petiep (talk) 17:48, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The references that are available online offer such brief coverage that they don't provide enough material to write an article from. (Usually we prefer to summarize what others have written about the article subject, rather than rely exclusively on material created by the subject. The information on awards, while useful, is fragmentary and can't be used to tell a story). The agency is mentioned in one case as winning an award for an advertising entry along with what seems to be 50-100 other winners. Elsewhere their devotion to reducing the environmental impact of their work is praised as being a good idea. EdJohnston (talk) 06:30, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 -Djsasso (talk) 01:13, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen H. Webb

[edit]
Stephen H. Webb (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This one is tough to decide if it is notable at first glance. A quick search on Google finds plenty of primary source material, mostly articles and books written by the subject. However, I was unable to find any substantial secondary source material, meaning he fails WP:BIO as an author. Additionally, I believe he fails WP:PROF, as I cannot find any independent sources asserting his significance in his field. He doesn't seem to have won any awards, he hasn't really originated any new concepts. Non-notable in general. Redfarmer (talk) 00:13, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
  1. ^ Self-promotion and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopaedia article. The published works must be someone else writing about the musician, ensemble, composer, or lyricist. (See Wikipedia:Attribution#Self-published sources for details about the reliability of self-published sources, and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest for treatment of promotional, vanity material.) The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the subject itself have actually considered the musician, ensemble, composer, or lyricist notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works that focus upon it. The rationale for this is easy to see -- someone simply talking about themselves in their own personal blog, website, book publisher, etc. does not automatically mean they have sufficient attention in the world at large to be called notable. If that was so then everyone could have an article. Wikipedia is not a directory.
  2. ^ What constitutes a "published work" is deliberately broad.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2008_January_16&oldid=1081074536"