The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The AfD is being closed many years later, because it was never properly closed back then, because it was never visible, because it was never transcluded on any of the daily logpages. Technically, it has still been open this whole time.
Nobody else could ever be admitted here, because this door was made only for you. I am now going to shut it. (non-admin closure)jp×g 04:42, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Muviro article was nominated for deletion by Firestorm at User_talk:Das_Baz#AfD_nomination_of_Muviro, with the comment that the nomination would be explained on this page. He did not bother doing so, and the page was actually created with the below vote to keep by Das Baz, below. Presumably, Firestorm's vote is to Delete. (This comment added by BPK (talk) 15:16, 23 March 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Keep. Muviro is an important character in a famous novel, a long-running series of comic books and comic strips, and a popular cartoon series. It would be very wrong to delete him. Das Baz, aka Erudil 19:07, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Muviro is an important character not just in one "famous novel," but but at least nine of Edgar Rice Burroughs's Tarzan novels, as well as an additional novel in his Pellucidar series. He's important enough to retain. BPK (talk) 15:08, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Muviro is an important character. - Ret.Prof (talk) 15:20, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy delete. G10, attack page. Googling a combination ("Antonio Juazerio" murder) turns up no relevant results. Since it's likely to be an attack on the habbo player, I'm deleting this until someone can provide corroborating evidence. Mgm|(talk) 23:29, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A virtual teen "habbo", 1--Jmundo (talk) 00:11, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Can't find any information to support the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nathan Orth (talk • contribs) 01:45, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. Stifle (talk) 17:41, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Original research, un-notable appliance Tavix(talk) 23:30, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Appears to be an article about a home made oven type device. Googling 'hot box' does not return any results that match the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nathan Orth (talk • contribs) 00:03, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just because it's not in google doesn't make it not real. Heck, there's the phrase 'pictures speak louder than words', and the article has two or three. If you're so sure that you know what's right, go ahead and delete it. I'm not going to fight this fight. LP-mn (talk) 03:12, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone with an internet connection can edit Wikipedia, because of this - in order to create a high quality encyclopaedia - the content of articles must be based on information from reliable sources. Can you provide any sources such as books, newspaper or magazine articles, etc. which could be used to verify the information in the article? Guest9999 (talk) 22:01, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The reliability of the references I found seem to be lacking to some agree, but Nathan's Googling could use some finesse. I searched and found several pages: [1][2][3][4]. What I found suggests that such a cabinet is not used to heat food but to either store epoxy or dry this substance when for example used on skis. Perhaps more details can be found on reliable skiing or construction websites (or in related magazines) with more detailed keywords - Mgm|(talk) 23:25, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I think the subject m sure the article is real, but the improvised nature of the apparatus will make it hard to find references. (additionally, some microwave ovens are now made using supplemental heat from halogen light bulbs [5], [6].) DGG (talk) 04:56, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems that the subject is real, just uncommon and very improvised. Definitely article-worthy though. Master of PuppetsCall me MoP! :D 01:54, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
There is no such term as "psychoforeign", so this is pure original research. (Neither Google web nor Google Scholar get any hits, and there are no sources.) Looie496 (talk) 23:15, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a non-notable neologism. "Psychoforeign" gets no hits related to the definition given in this article at Google scholar or Google books. Seems to be original research. Edison (talk) 23:59, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--Original research. --Jmundo (talk) 01:02, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--OR, neologism. Term is not used in the one source listed. Jlg4104 (talk) 01:52, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Boston (talk) 01:19, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This is a table-top RPG, not a video game. Obviously a sensible criterion for video games likely makes a sensible criterion for other games, but I thought I'd point out that WP:VG doesn't technically cover this. Olaf Davis (talk) 00:31, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Appears to be a 'home brew' game created by a few friends. References do not appear to mention the game itself. Nathan Orth (talk) 23:18, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable game from redlinked company by redlinked designers. Edward321 (talk) 00:56, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This is an original research essay. Seems to be a how-to guide. Tavix(talk) 22:54, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Creator understands concrete but not how Wikipedia works. Should contribute to existing articles until he gets the feel of it. Looie496 (talk) 23:30, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Partial merge with Concrete or userfy. Article has several issues, but isn't all how-to guide. Part of it could be saved and the process is probably encyclopedic enough to a point that the article would be worth keeping if he worked on it a little more, hence my !vote.. - Mgm|(talk) 23:12, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Concrete curing or merge both (in due course) with Concrete. Lots of useful information, which is cited in this article's companion, Concrete curing. Obviously the existence of that article gives another target for merging, shows another article that might need to be merged, and brings up more issues about the article under discussion and its author. ConcreteCuring says that he is new to WP and there are no obvious signs of bad faith. There are issues about the cites in 'Concrete curing'. Note that these issues exist on Concrete also, see File:Curing-concrete-columns.jpg by Builder Bill; a good example of a user who is so useful we have incentive to not challenge potential advertising issues. User: ConcreteCuring on the other 2 articles seems to be less involved; the contributions are less useful. Anarchangel (talk) 20:07, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. King of♥♦♣ ♠ 08:18, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can't believe someone would create such a useless list. Are we going to create a list of universities for every subject? Adoniscik(t, c) 22:43, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per non. Archivey (talk) 00:20, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep and Speedy close Nominator listed no policy reasons why this article should be deleted. Wikipedia:Arguments_to_avoid_in_deletion_discussionsWP:USEFUL states: But just saying something is useful or useless without providing context is not helpful or persuasive in the discussion. Remember, you need to tell us why the article is useful or useless, and whether it meets Wikipedia's policies. Article meets WP:LIST. Just because it is not valuable to the editor, does not mean it is not valuable to someone else. Nominators reasoning is short sighted. If I wanted to go into school in this area I would love this list. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a reason for deletion. travb (talk) 03:17, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It seems useful and potentially encyclopedic although it tends a bit towards a directory. It has some potential for improvement to make it more than just a category. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:05, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How is soil science different from Geology and wouldn't this basically include 80% of the world's universities if complete?- Mgm|(talk) 23:03, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect soil science and geology aren't the same thing. But I'm not an expert. Are they? ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:17, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, they're not the same. Such a list is likely valuable to someone intending to specialize in this discipline, which is offered at only a relatively small subset of universities, U.S. and international, the apparent length of the list notwithstanding.PBarak (talk) 01:42, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a list without serious context, and which won't be much other than an ad for those universities. I see nothing in the article which presents anything of any use, and while USEFUL alone isn't any good, a list that does nothing at all but list something which cannot be contextualized is trivia, and trivia isn't acceptable as the basis of an article. Further, it does NOT pass WP:LIST, as it meets none of the accepted categories. ThuranX (talk) 22:45, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--Per WP:LIST, the list is a "valuable information source" for somebody searching this topic.--J.Mundo (talk) 00:33, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:NOT#DIR. Also from WP:NOT: Wikipedia is not a "mere collections of external links or Internet directories" Scapler (talk) 21:46, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree with PBarak in that I think this is a useful list, given that soil science is not found everywhere. It's not really an ad, as long as future expansion of the entries is kept in check (as is advised on the talk page, advice which I followed in an edit just now). As for the speedy close which was called for, well, there's no need for that--the process is fine. Drmies (talk) 22:32, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. MBisanztalk 01:41, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Redirect to The Gospel of Luke. If every individual verse in the Bible had an article it would be an administrative nightmare.TonyBallioni (talk) 23:20, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. Out of the Bible verses, this one isn't even that well-known anyway. Tavix(talk) 23:32, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Might be justifiable if it included commentary/criticism, but not as it stands. Looie496 (talk) 23:33, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A article for individual verses is excessive. Ndenisontalk 23:35, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with a preference for Merge/Redirect to Woes of the Pharisees. Redirects are cheap, and someone who may be searching for info on that specific verse could be redirected to the article where we are discussing the context surrounding this verse and the parallel story from Matthew. As it stands, notability isn't established by wikipedia standards. The so-far supplied "references" don't support the notability of the verse itself, but instead the pericope from which the verse is found. Hopefully Tony can agree with me that a redirect to a more specific article is better than redirecting to the main gospel article.-Andrew c[talk] 23:48, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy/Strong Redirect it is only the creator's 6th article. He probably didn't know any better. travb (talk) 03:23, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note This Article Is derived from the Idea of the stance on personal beliefs, and Jesus is warning us of misleading other by our own lawfulness and or lack of faith thereof. I thought this teaching made a reasonable point given many of the leaders today. I find this passage quite Audacious.Intelligentlove(talk) 05:30, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Userify and Redirect per Andrew c and Inclusionist, with no prejudice to putting it back here once it has some more encyclopedic substance to it. Just about any verse of the Bible has enough commentaries (independent RS) to merit its own article, but there's work to be done on this one. Jclemens (talk) 06:51, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy and Delete, since it'll be userfied, I don't see a need for a redirect 76.66.198.171 (talk) 07:07, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no redirect - The article has one sentence that isn't a simple statement of fact that's self-evident from the words "Luke 11:52," and that sentence ("This Scripture has challenged many theologians for It's stand against legalism's of traditional Christianity") isn't shown to be notable. Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 07:25, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—no indication that this particular bible verse is notable, and what content there is look and smells like OR. 88.233.36.11 (talk) 13:55, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Redirect to the Woes of the Pharisees. would work for this passage ... As we all know, once an article has this much opposition - It can barley stand a chance of It's survival. Thank You IntelligentloveIntelligentlove 18:22, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not a notable verse, and OR and POV. Empire3131 (talk) 02:33, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, NO redirect. Oppose a redirect, lest every single chapter and verse suddenly get a redirect article to it. Delete as a SOAPBOX vio, and because different bibles exist, with different material at differing chapters and verses. ThuranX (talk) 22:41, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to and/or merge with Woes of the Pharisees. There are useful bits of trivia, but not enough for a stand-alone article. Bearian (talk) 21:05, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
delete Per above arguments, and Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It is not a bible study guide. This is not wikisource or a concordance. There is nothing about this verse that makes it notable above all other verses. Much that is said about the verse could be said about many verses. There is no point to userfycation, and no gain from a redirect. Dlohcierekim 03:54, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. King of♥♦♣ ♠ 08:20, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod. There is not a single indication that this restaurant chain (of five locations, with a sixth upcoming, per the company website) meets any of the criteria of WP:CORP. Aecis·(away)talk 22:22, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So you know exactly what I did, how I did it and when I did it? Aecis·(away)talk 12:19, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Probably not, but since he found sources you didn't and since you didn't mention any of such attempts, the idea you haven't tried it is a likely assumption. - Mgm|(talk) 23:00, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It just a restaurant chain--and most of those touted news links appear to be press releases. Come back when you have something other to say than, "it's a restaurant chain that got some financing according to these here press releases." --Calton | Talk 05:47, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This just isn't Redstone American Grill's day, as witness this article from Thursday, January 8: [8]. Mandsford (talk) 19:26, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That story seems to add some notability to the subject. Did I read elsewhere that the chain is one of several the guy owns? Is there a place to merge it? Is the founder notable? ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:18, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:NOT#DIR. Verifiability is not the same thing as Notability. Just because this place exists and someone decided to write something, somewhere about it, doesn't make it notable. Trusilver 08:28, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I just recently expanded the article with several sources that more than meet the standards of WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:PSTS. All combined the article easily meet the standards of WP:Note. --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 08:30, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. While the article has been improved a lot, the sources provided only establish the company's existence (which was never in doubt), not its notability. The only reliable source is Bizjournals, but their article is about Vlahos, not about Redstone. Aecis·(away)talk 21:06, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry that you disagree, but when major publications do a story on a subject, that usually indicates notability. Nation's Restaurant News and McClatchy-Tribune are major publications and news services and their articles are about the subject. --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 03:00, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Star Tribune story is substantial coverage. And the articles discussing the owner relate to the restaurant and let's not forget there is no article on the founder so he is covered only here as part of this article. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:42, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. Stifle (talk) 17:42, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This article has only one reference, which leads to a blank page. Furthermore, a google search on the name Christopher Rojas reveals this wikipedia entry as the first result, followed by a number of social networking sites and other community sites that do not prove any notability. This reads like a CV, without much to support the claims. Delaque (talk) 22:10, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Changed from weak to strong once I found his discography and counted the number of platinum records he was involved in. WP:MUSICBIO does not demand articles or interviews of the subject. Further, it specifically allows him to be "credited as one of 20 or more people in the production" as that IS an ensemble... all the IS required is that he meet ANY ONE of the multiple attributed isted.. and he sure does. Schmidt,MICHAEL Q. 07:41, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Of the five links on Google news, two are from the Philippines, one from Malaysia and two are about another person. None of the articles are available without registration or payment, but it seems the name is mentioned in passing. Of the ones at straight Google first page, at least 4 seems to be catchall sites with little or no content, and where Rojas is credited (which he indeed is at a couple of places), he is credited as one of 20 or more people in the production. At no place could I find any articles or written interviews with Mr. Rojas. Delaque (talk) 05:27, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Concerns with the nom stating that the article's reference led to a blank page... when I was easily able to access the Christopher Rojas discography at All Music Guide. Strange. Songs composed by him, and his list of credits. It might seem that the assertions of notability were easy to find if one looked: Platinum album: I'm Not Dead, It seems that this artist should easiily easily pass several of the criteria (only one being required) at WP:MUSICBIO which states "A musician or ensemble (note that this includes a band, singer, rapper, orchestra, DJ, musical theatre group, etc.) is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria:" (my emphasis)... and I again suggest expansion and sourcing rather than deletion. Schmidt,MICHAEL Q. 07:04, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article reference was incorrect at the time. I made no claim that the person was impossible to find by other means than the supplied link. Thank you for adding the correct one to the article. I would say that to be included in an ensemble, one would have to have a more permanent affiliation with the artist than being a studio musician, and in my mind, having five different credits on a single work of art makes it less likely that any of those roles were a significant one. Delaque (talk) 08:16, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator, there is insufficient notability here per our guidelines. JBsupreme (talk) 07:41, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For the Platinum recordI'm Not Dead he was "violin, engineer, mixing, keyboard, and programmer". Did you somehow miss that? Schmidt,MICHAEL Q. 07:48, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
POINT OF INFORMATION: there was no "first" AfD. The article is only a few days old. The tag of this being a "2nd" is misleading. Schmidt,MICHAEL Q. 08:12, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you look at the [deletion of Christopher Rojas|User page] you will see that there is a proposed deletion notice there for this article from Nov 30, 2008. I might have misunderstood the instructions on how to do the next step and chosen the wrong template, thereby claiming a 2nd AfD incorrectly. If so, I apologize. However, if the page is only a couple of days old, I can only assume that is because it has already been removed at least once previously. Delaque (talk) 08:34, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Then by all means please provide the link to that previous deletion discussion... because a check of the author's contributions do not show any such article being created in November... nor does the history of User:JasonGrand show that he prodded anything as asserted. This is quite the mystery. Thank you. Schmidt,MICHAEL Q. 08:48, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was not involved in the original debate, and since I had no reason to mistrust the authenticity of the notice on the Author's talk page, I made no attempts to find the page. Indeed, I assumed that the page had been there all this time, and that the prod had been removed previously, with the current page being at least that old. Delaque (talk) 09:08, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
After a little bit of poking around, I found the deletion in the logs, by User:Buckshot06, (WP:PROD, reason was 'notability, no reference links, article reads like advertising '.) I can't be sure the page looked the same then, of course.
Thank you for that... pity the discussion is no longer available. Schmidt,MICHAEL Q. 10:06, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If I understand PROD correctly, there most likely was no discussion, or at least no objections, because anyone objecting to the removal would have simply had to remove the relevant tag from the page. Delaque (talk) 10:29, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is also worth pointing out that the author uploaded a picture of Christopher Rojas on January 9, 2007, with the comment '(photo by Christopher Rojas (myself)', which would make this a verified likely autobiography.
Yes. Wikipedia discourages autobiographies.HOWEVER.... and now that the article belongs to Wiki... if an assertion is being made that per WP:MUSICBIO this individual was part of a band or group or ensemble that had a charted hit on any national music chart, OR had a record certified gold or higher in at least one country, OR released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels, OR contains at least one notable musician, OR won or been nominated for a major music award, OR Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g. a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film, 'inclusion on a compilation album', then that person is notable... even without having writen coverage in media as is the usual case, as WP:MUSICBIO does not require it... only that any ONE of the listed criteria be met.
I would still say that this person is not part of the ensemble just because they are a studio musician, there is a difference between touring with the artist, and simply appearing with an instrument credit on an individual song. I can't see how this would constitute notability.
When it comes to composing, of the three current references to platinum selling albums on the subjects page, none of these is as a composer according to allmusic.com (see my previous point). (Although, he has partial composer credits for a bonus track on the Backstreet Boys album Never Gone, according to tripatlas.com). I don't know that all songs on a notable album automatically qualify as notable, but if "Song for the unloved" is notable in and of itself, then the person is notable according to WP:MUSICBIO, which as far as I can tell claims that the song itself, rather than the album it was on, needs to have achieved notability on it's own. I don't believe this is the case here, however. Delaque (talk) 18:31, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:MUSICBIO states: "A musician or ensemble (note that this includes a band, singer, rapper, orchestra, DJ, musical theatre group, etc.) is notable if it meets any ONE of the following criteria: 3. Has had a record certified gold or higher in at least one country. He went platinum, he deserves to be on wikipedia. Why are you exerting so much energy, nitpicking and wikilawyering to delete other editors contributions? travb (talk) 03:01, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article will benefit from editing, not erasure. Notability appears to be confirmed. Ecoleetage (talk) 13:32, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin: I am currently involved in revising the article to address concerns brought up here at the AfD and at the talk page for Notabilty (music). It may be deleted before all improvements are in (unless relisted to give me more time), so I ask that if it IS to be deleted, it be userfied to User:MichaelQSchmidt/workspace Christopher Rojas. Thank you. Schmidt,MICHAEL Q. 21:58, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG KEEP/SPEEDY KEEP
Note to closing admin: The article has been completed reworked and edited recently, with several well referenced sources. travb (talk) 01:01, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sourcing an article is always good, of course. However, the main point of the discussion, although starting out with source problems has since moved on to the notability of the subject based on those sources. No further evidence of notability has come up as part of the rewrite, who still doesn't meet the WP:MUSICBIO notability guidelines. Listing lots of non-notable contributions does make the page look meatier, but doesn't increase the notability of the subject himself. Delaque (talk) 02:16, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As per Schmidt above: "On the Platinum record I'm Not Dead [Christopher Rojas] was [a] "violin[ist], engineer, mixing, keyboard, and programmer" WP:MUSICBIO states: "A musician or ensemble (note that this includes a band, singer, rapper, orchestra, DJ, musical theatre group, etc.) is notable if it meets any ONE of the following criteria: 3. Has had a record certified gold or higher in at least one country. "Wikipedia was like a giant community leaf-raking project in which everyone was ...a groundsman...And then self-promoted leaf-pile guards appeared....who would look ...at your...handful and shake their heads, saying that your leaves were too crumpled or too slimy or too common, throwing them to the side." travb (talk) 02:44, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As per the discussion above, the subject hasn't, neither as a part of an ensemble nor on his own, had a record certified gold or higher in at least one country. The notability for this record goes to the recording artist, not to the studio musicians or other supporting cast involved in one or a few of the songs on the record. This is a misinterpretation of (at least) the wikipedia definition of ensemble. Further discussion that is interesting and relevant to this discussion can be found on the WP:MUSICBIO Talk page. Delaque (talk) 01:10, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Article on an island in a non-notable series. Even if the series was to be assumed notable for the sake of argument, this island clearly fails WP:FICT and should be deleted TonyBallioni (talk) 22:05, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable, and if it isn't released yet, it is either a leak of proprietary information or the author is attempting to promote her material, and is a conflict of interest. Pstanton 22:08, 9 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pstanton (talk • contribs)
Delete, if the series is not notable (and it is not notable if it hasn't been released yet), fictional islands in the series certainly aren't notable. Aecis·(away)talk 22:25, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, should be A7. Looie496 (talk) 23:37, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A simple google search could find nothing about the series or the author making both unverifiable. Since we don't have the basics covered, there's no good reason to keep an article on a detail in said universe. It not being released yet, and not covered by anything but Wikipedia also suggests there are no reliable sources to be found. Article also doesn't make it clear how important the planet or the island is within the universe. - Mgm|(talk) 22:58, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The author, named Rarecpus, originally had a short blurb about rare CPUs followed by a link to rarecpus.com. The author has since then (improperly) removed speedy deletion tags for advertising twice and has removed a PROD tag. In the meantime, the author has added a list of numerous sites related to rare CPUs—and the link for rarecpus.com remains at the top.
At one point, the author briefly included text noting that these sites have NOTHING to sell or gain by having their link posted", but that's immaterial because promotion for the purpose of increasing traffic to websites is also against Wikipedia policy.
The person who had placed the PROD notice had claimed "non-notable hobby" as a reason for deletion. —Largo Plazo (talk) 19:37, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article mostly reads like an essay but worse than that, the topic violates WP:NPOV. What makes a CPU "rare"? And what makes rare CPUs an encyclopedic topic? Themfromspace (talk) 03:36, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Update The author has just removed the long list of links—while leaving the link to what I assume is his site, strengthening my conviction that promoting that site is the primary intent behind the article. Even in the absence of that link, the article still appears to be a personal analysis. —Largo Plazo (talk) 06:10, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Update I just discovered that the text of the article is copied from the author's own web page, which has an "all rights reserved" copyright notice on it, so there is also a WP:permission issue. In addition, the site doesn't really supplement the article, in that it doesn't provide additional reference information about the topic. It also means the article is WP:original research. Finally, on that website it says, "I have joined thousands of people worldwide in an effort to publicize this new hobby, chip collecting." So this is a new hobby, making it less likely that WP:notability is established. —Largo Plazo (talk) 17:09, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In that case could we speedy-delete it as a copyright violation? Themfromspace (talk) 19:26, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Probably not, no. As long as we believe the author really is the author the page (which seems highly likely) he is quite entitled to publish his work twice under two different licenses. JulesH (talk) 10:55, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached (and because I discovered today that it had somehow not been included previously on a daily log). Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Largo Plazo (talk) 21:59, 9 January 2009 (UTC) —Largo Plazo (talk) 21:59, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete For all the above reasons Pstanton 22:03, 9 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pstanton (talk • contribs)
Comment Also, I think the creator, rarecpus has a conflict of interest in writing an article like this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pstanton (talk • contribs) 22:05, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure I agree with that. The article doesn't seem to be promotional, just a topic that the author is clearly quite involved in. We don't want to disqualify experts from contributing to their subjects. JulesH (talk) 10:55, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete original research sourced only from self-published sources produced by the article's author (and, in the current version, completely unsourced). JulesH (talk) 10:55, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This cites no sources, the definition is so vague as to be meaningless, and Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Contested PROD. JohnCD (talk) 21:24, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; plus, without references I strongly question the phrase's notability. --A More Perfect Onion (talk) 21:26, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Really, you could have done a speedy delete in my opinion, I added the neologism and original research tags for good measure, I'm expecting this article will soon be gone. Pstanton 21:47, 9 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pstanton (talk • contribs)
Delete per all above. If sources could be found and added to the article I might reconsider, but as it stands now the article has no place in Wikipedia. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:10, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above (I was original prodder). NawlinWiki (talk) 22:16, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom.--Truco 23:15, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Merge/Redirect Consensus seems to favor merger, agree as nominator. (non-admin close) Beeblebrox (talk) 23:15, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can see creator User:Zachdegner is making a good faith effort to make this article a good quality article for wikipedia.travb (talk) 16:36, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with gratitude to Zachdegner. I have added the trail article to the larger article at Riding Mountain National Park... essentially a pre-emptive merge. This is where readers might expect to find it. Nice job. I have used the pemican.org article as a referenced source and did not simply "copy" the information. Schmidt,MICHAEL Q. 18:03, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Merge/Redirect there seems to be a broad consensus that merger is appropriate in these type of cases, and as nominator I agree. (Non-admin close) Beeblebrox (talk) 22:56, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree, not notable and Wikipedia isn't a travel guide Pstanton 21:49, 9 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pstanton (talk • contribs)
Merge with larger park. Don't delete. There is a lot of useful information here. If needs be userfy. travb (talk) 03:38, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm getting rather fed up with people who think that all one needs to do to create a Wikipedia article is paste in some material from another Web site. Yes, the source of this article is licensed under a "Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 3.0 Unported License", which may well be compatible with our license (I have no idea, really), but which requires attribution to the author or licensor, which I'm not seeing in this article. Can't people at least make an effort to write about something they care about and can reference to reliable sources rather than just copying text from elsewhere? Deor (talk) 03:53, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The grand majority of articles which are deleted are by new editors, who get a slap in the face and a "your not welcome here" by delete editors. In general, established editors don't get their articles deleted because they know how to make an article look good, with the appropriate sections, references, templates, and categories.
Maybe instead of whining about how editors don't know how to create articles, you can become an Wikipedia:Adopt-a-User and help those users build a better article.
As User:MichaelQSchmidt wrote: "I'd Rather fix the damn pipe rather than complain about having wet feet." travb (talk) 16:32, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Actually, I'm the original author of the material in this article and could change the above license to something more compatible if that would help. It was written for Pemmican.org in order to kick off a web presence for the trail. There seems to be very little information available online about any of the frequently used trails in this province (with the exception of the Mantario Trail). Even if this information were merged with say the Spruce Woods Provincial Park article, it could prove very useful to hikers and bikers in the province during the summer. --Zachdegner (talk) 05:08, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Merge and set redirect with respects to the author. I was a little bold... and after looking at the Newfoundland Trail article, it made sense to include the information in the article on Spruce Woods Provincial Park... so I did so. The information is not lost to Wiki and the author's work improves the larger article. And with respects to the author, that is pretty much where folks might expect to find information about a trail in the park... the park article itself. So the trail article can go... with our thanks to Zachdegner... as I have already effectively merged it to where is might be expected. No wet feet for me. Schmidt,MICHAEL Q. 17:30, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As the information was merged, deletion is not the appropriate option. So I have redirected, to complete the merge. This is maybe a bit premature, but as the article was proposed for speedy deletion and had already been merged, I concluded bold action was reasonable. The redirect preserves the history, so if some part should have been merged but wasn't, or someone expands the trail section in the park article and it is determined to be notable and to warrant an independent article (which seems unlikely) it can be split back out. I think this is a good outcome, and I thank the contributor who created this article. Notable trail information that meets guidelines (ie isn't travel guidesque) is certainly useful and makes the encyclopedia better. I hope you'll continue to contribute and I'm sure you'll get a hang of the rules and procedures as you go. We all had to figure out Wikipedia works and it takes a long time. I still have no idea how it all works, and soemtimes I'm not sure it does. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:00, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
User:NE2 deleted the merge as a copyvio. I have addressed that problem and re-inserted the information. If he kicks it out again, I do not know what to do. Schmidt,MICHAEL Q. 18:29, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm unclear as to whether these are copyvios or not. The source [9] is licensed under [10]. Is that compatible with GFDL or not? Beeblebrox (talk) 21:12, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's no longer a concern. When the author of the original material at Pemmican.org (see above) copied his original material into Wiki, he owned the rights and could do so... with OTRS confirmation of his identity. When I originally moved that same information to the park article, I did not have those permisssions so they were removed. However, after studying the complete text of article, I could then include certain facts without "copying" them and show the article as the source... as is done for everything in Wiki. We're cool now as there is no hint of copyvio. And yes, the creative commons license is compatible with GDFL, but I did not have to go that route, as I did not "copy" the text... only used it to souce the added informations. Better safe than sorry. Schmidt,MICHAEL Q. 22:12, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
thank you for clarifying that for me. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:54, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Notability not established, appears to be promotion for upcoming student production. JNW (talk) 20:50, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. The film appears to be a student project and hasn't even been made yet. -- Whpq (talk) 20:57, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice as the future project curently fails WP:NFF. If or when it begins principal filming AND gets coverage in reliable sources, then bring it back. Too soon... too soon. Schmidt,MICHAEL Q. 01:57, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy so material is available to edit when there is principal filming (as per MICHAEL Q.) travb (talk) 03:41, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Delete. It's just too soon. -- Banjeboi 15:01, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DO NOT DELETE So the issue here is that this article is in production, so (under your apparently intelligent eyes) you feel that no one would be interested in learning about the film?! You can't be serious. The whole purpose of Wikipedia is to make information (correct information, I add) available to the public. What does this say for Wikipedia's policy when they're deleting an article about a film because it is still "in production?!" I'm sorry, but I'm sure there are A LOT of people out there that would still be interested in reading about the page and if our film's page and the correct information posted on that page is causing this much of an issue with Wikipedia, then I strongly have underminded a credibly-reliable source. Feel free to respond back, I'm sure your claims will make much more sense than mine. Camper2207 (talk) 20:58, 10 January 2009 (UTC)Michael Campanizzi[reply]
Notability?! That's exactly what I've been defending! Try this out, show me how we have less notability when this film is coming out (being "released") in 2013: Boyhood (film). Or this one about a (quote) "planned film": John Carter of Mars (film). There's these as well: King of the Elves (film) and Newt (film). Maybe Wikipedia should take a step back and stop trying to promote themselves by only allowing BIG BUDGET COMPANIES to post films-in-the-process pages. Camper2207 (talk) 21:21, 10 January 2009 (UTC)Campanizzi[reply]
The movies you mention have either been discussed in reliable newspapers or are already shooting (or both, remember creating cartoons while done with computers nowadays still takes ages to complete). "Boyhood" in particular is a film by a notable person the creation of which is particular noteworthy because it's rare for a piece of fiction to be shot over a period of 12 years using the same actor (instead of casting several people for the role). - Mgm|(talk) 22:39, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But you're not doing a good job of it. The article does not have significant coverage in reliable sources. Other stuff exists is not a good reason to keep this. If you think that the other ones should be deleted, nominate them for AFD. Schuym1 (talk) 21:24, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think they should be deleted, do you not understand that?! Despite only being in development, those films have just as much right as we do to have a page! Is it our fault that we're not Disney or 20th Century Fox? Because The 2380 Project or Militia Hill Entertainment isn't some nationally known production company (yet), I guess that's a good reason why Wikipedia should forbid their films to have a page. WIKIPEDIA IS HOW PEOPLE GET THEIR INFORMATION THESE DAYS! WHY WOULD YOU FORBID THEM FROM GETTING JUST THAT WHEN IT COMES TO OUR MOVIE?! Camper2207 (talk) 21:35, 10 January 2009 (UTC)Campanizzi[reply]
The internet is the way people get their information. Not every single bit of information needs to go into Wikipedia. If you want to inform people about the film, creating a website and properly promoting it would be the way to go. - Mgm|(talk) 22:39, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
BECAUSE WIKIPEDIA IS AN ENCYCLOPEDIA AND ENCYCLOPEDIAS ARE FOR NOTABLE TOPICS. THE ARTICLE DOES NOT HAVE SIGNIFICANT COVERAGE IN RELIABLE SOURCES. Schuym1 (talk) 21:38, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You do not have the right to have an article on Wikipedia about a non-notable film. Schuym1 (talk) 21:41, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Same with the articles that you mentioned if they don't get improved. Schuym1 (talk) 21:41, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do you understand that? Schuym1 (talk) 21:46, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I do understand that, but what I don't understand is why they have a "Details will change as the release date approaches and more information becomes available." logo at the top of their page, when ours is up for deletion? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Camper2207 (talk • contribs) 21:48, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That "details may change" notice is placed on ALL articles about films thathave not yet been released. It indicates that cast/crew/script/production schedule are mutable. That notice is seperate from whether the film actually has enough coveage in sources indpendent of the project to warrant an article in the first place. That would require an article or a review or an interview. Listings in outside locations may provide WP:verification, but not neccessarily proof of notability. Schmidt,MICHAEL Q. 23:12, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Articles about future films are alright if they have significant coverage in reliable sources. If you search for reliable sources and you can't find significant coverage, you can nominate them for AFD. Schuym1 (talk) 21:51, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So I guess the "Big Cartoon DataBase" qualifies as a reliable source? Maybe in wikipedia's eyes. Camper2207 (talk)Campanizzi —Preceding undated comment was added at 21:56, 10 January 2009 (UTC).[reply]
It qualifies as a reliable source, but it is not significant coverage because it is just like TV.com and IMDB. Schuym1 (talk) 22:01, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Then please explain to me why King of the Elves has a "Details will change as the release date approaches and more information becomes available." at the top of their page and ours (much farther into production than that film) has a deletion notice. Camper2207 (talk) 22:04, 10 January 2009 (UTC)Campanizzi[reply]
Like I said before, if someone can't find reliable sources with significant coverage (as in multiple like WP:NF and the other guidelines say), they can nominate the article for AFD. Schuym1 (talk) 22:06, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. All the sources link to people or organizations related to the production which means sources are not independent. I accept use of primary sources to a certain degree for facts reliable third party sources wouldn't cover like newspapers rarely covering people's birthdays, but if the film has any sort of impact, it should be covered by newspapers or magazines. To the creator: see WP:MOVIE. There's bound to be articles about other films that also need to be deleted, but have yet to be discovered. We can have articles about films that haven't yet been shot or released as long as independent reliable sources have discussed the production like what happened prior to the release of Birth (movie) about the supposed nude scene. (sorry can't think of another example at the moment.) - Mgm|(talk) 22:30, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, so would it be a "significantly-reliably-independent" source if I put up our audition announcement that was in the Akron Beacon Journal, do I need to scan the cutout that I have from the newspaper? I just can't believe Wikipedia won't allow something on its site because not a lot of people know about it yet; isn't that the whole purpose of the site: for people to learn about things they didn't already know? Camper2207 (talk) 01:38, 11 January 2009 (UTC)Campanizzi[reply]
Yes, if the topic is notable. Schuym1 (talk) 01:49, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In response to your audition announcement: That is not independent of the subject because the announcement was made by the producers. Schuym1 (talk) 01:52, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sorry, fellers. I wish you luck with it and hope to see you and your work becoming notable. However, when at this stage there is only $200 in the kitty and $600 is needed for a scene, coupled with the current financial situation, I feel that there is a very good chance the film may not materialise. As to the role of Wikipedia, we're here not to promote but to record. Another point is the notability of a student production or other amateur or semi-amateur project. Wikipedia cannot record everything. I wouldn't expect the film work I've taken part in the production of to merit a place here. When your film is released and playing in cinemas off campus, you'll find an article appearing without you having to do anything. Hope you get there. And hope you understand why we aren't here to help you. That's up to you. Peridon (talk) 02:06, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, first and foremost I would like to apologize to everyone on this page because there must be something wrong with me: I do not and will probably NEVER understand the grounds that everyone is claiming our page not to follow. I don't quite understand why it is such a detrimental thing to Wikipedia to have information about a low-budget, lesser-known film on its site for people who are and will become interested to learn more about it. I have always thought that was Wikipedia's purpose, to teach people about things they didn't already know, but apparently I have been mistaken; it is only the widely-recognized, big-named pages that are permitted usage on Wikipedia's all-mighty website. With that said, I have added a few NON-RELATED SOURCES to our page. Please feel free to check them all out and respond back to me with your continuous references as to why our lesser-known film should still be forbidden a page. Hope to hear from you all soon! Camper2207 (talk) 02:08, 11 January 2009 (UTC)Michael Campanizzi[reply]
The reason for all this notability stuff is because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Schuym1 (talk) 02:10, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well it's no wonder schools and universities won't accept it as a credible source. Camper2207 (talk) 02:40, 11 January 2009 (UTC)Campanizzi[reply]
I think that it is stupid that schools think that Wikipedia is unreliable because if there is sourced information such as from something like the New York Times, it is reliable info. If something is unsourced, then students can just not add it to their paper. Schuym1 (talk) 03:00, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As a matter of fact, wikipedia doesn't think that wikipedia is a reliable source. Buit that's not relevant to this discussion. -- Whpq (talk) 12:43, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment To Camper2207, and as I just stated on your talk page, I have copied the entire thing to a workspace I created at User:MichaelQSchmidt/sandbox Myra (film). I am willing to work with you to help the article meet the concerns brought up in this discussion and then bring it back to main space when it is ready. Schmidt,MICHAEL Q. 03:18, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and call the author a waaahmbulance. If he can't see that John Carter of Mars (film) gets a page because a 77 year history of trying to produce one is documented by numerous sources thoroughly unrelated to the film, the production company of the film, or the film's own casting call are used as sources, then he's not going to get that we need real sources independent of the film asserting that it is notable. Myra, however, uses only those references, all of which make this a SPAM vio. ThuranX (talk) 23:04, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Not only spamming, but a major WP:COI problem, as a look at the article's talk page makes clear. The impetus appears to be the promotion of the endeavor, not the dissemination of information on a subject whose notability is established. Surprised this is still open... JNW (talk) 01:59, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This is a pencil, and lacks independent notability. Delete (or merge into Pentel, if need be). ZimZalaBimtalk 20:21, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Pentel#Pentel Sharp. There is a section in the Pentel article covering this already. -- Whpq (talk) 21:04, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Whpq. The article is mostly miscellaneous information on the pencil, anyway, which isn't exactly encyclopedic. Λύκος 21:20, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete per WP:SNOW. Nick-D (talk) 00:07, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod so doing this the long way. I normally disapprove of deletion-tagging newly created articles, but in this case I think it's better to have the decision now, before someone puts time into work on this. Personal essay, with no possibility it can ever be more than a content fork of Nuclear power, and no purpose would be served in redirecting it. – iridescent 20:04, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Personal essay with a typo in the title Czolgolz (talk) 20:08, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Essay and a fork, no possibility of being a reasonable article as stated above. Davewild (talk) 20:15, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Bad ... err ... I mean delete as impossible to be anything other than OR. I briefly toyed with suggesting a redirect to nuclear debate, but then noticed there's a spelling error in the article title anyway. JulesH (talk) 20:18, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - If by some chance this article survives AFD, please at least correct the spelling of the title. — Realist2 20:18, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Essay. -Atmoz (talk) 20:34, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball Delete The title is awful, the content is an essay, not an encyclopedic article, does not have a chance in Hell of becoming a proper encyclopedic article. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:02, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball delete. One glance at the article is all you need. --Lockley (talk) 21:14, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As Lockley said, one glance is really all you need. Although a section on Ethics could probably be added to a nuclear power article Pstanton 21:16, 9 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pstanton (talk • contribs)
Delete - WP:ESSAY--Truco 23:16, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Non notable company. Two previous incarnations of this page have been speedy deleted already today. The cited sources are all press releases, not at all conforming to the requirement that sources establishing notability consist of independent, third party sources. Nothing in the article indicates the company is notable, and nothing elsewhere that I can find online indicates anything remarkable about this company that would justify inclusion, nor could I find reliable sources to establish notability of this company. Theseeker4 (talk) 19:48, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following related page(s) because it is the identical article under multiple names:
Keep - In just a quick scan on Google Scholar, was able to find these three references that are from creditable – reliable and 3rd party sources out of a listing 123. IEEE [11] 52 cites, and here [12]. In addition, Science Direct [13]. With just minimal research, I believe this company meets our guideline standards for inclusion. Thanks ShoesssSTalk 20:14, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was first told that the article was deleted because it did not meet wikipedia standards. Now I am being told that this is not the case, and that the company is non-notable.
As has been stated, there are numerous articles on the internet, and in magazines all citing Palmchip's contributions to the SoC (System on Chip) technology. It is also a multi-million dollar company.
I have been trying to make a wikipedia article for all the SoC related companies in the Silicon valley. Palmchip was listed in the list of SoC companies on Wikipedia, which I believe makes it clear that there is a need for this article. Thanks.Saritul (talk) 20:31, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This "incident" based on the eyewitness account of a single person is sourced through RCMP reports and a small file in the DND that has been all but ignored. Has not generated the press attention of other big-name UFO incidents. Any useful content can be merged into Falcon Lake, Manitoba. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:24, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--Notability: Chapter 12: The Falcon Lake Incident. Although not all the sites in a Google search can be use as reliable sources and some of them are mirrors of Wikipedia, the search is evidence of the notability of the subject.--Jmundo (talk) 20:06, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the source linked by Jmundo which is independent and in-depth. --Oakshade (talk) 20:14, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Independent of what? Looks like it's written by UFO crazies to me. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:27, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Independent of those who were the subject of the article. Your opinion that they are "UFO crazies" is noted, but doesn't mean they aren't independent of the topic.--Oakshade (talk) 21:47, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Credulous reports are not independent, by definition. Otherwise, Weekly World News would be an "independent source" that could confer notability. ScienceApologist (talk) 04:37, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The source meets the WP:reliable: "The Canadian UFO Report will pique the interest of many teen readers, making it a useful addition to a public or school library collection. (Elizabeth Larssen CM Magazine )1. The book was published by "The Dundurn Group", one of the largest publishers of adult and children’s fiction and non-fiction in Canada. 1--Jmundo (talk) 20:45, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A listing in a librarian's supplemental review journal (which reviews literally thousands of books a year with pithy one-liners like that) hardly confers "independence" on said book. I'm sure plenty of children and teens will love to read the accounts of UFO crazies too, that doesn't make the source independent by Wikipedia's standards. Puh-leeze. It's enlightening that the publisher often publishes fiction. It's perhaps a good way to characeterize this particular "incident". ScienceApologist (talk) 20:49, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Independent by Wikipedia's standards means written or approved by somebody who isn't the subject of the article. I've spent a lot of time hanging around the talk pages of WP:V and (when it was a policy) WP:ATT, so I think I understand these policies. "Written by somebody specialising in the same field of interest as the subject" doesn't make something not independent. JulesH (talk) 21:27, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but you're wrong, or at least, you are completely forgetting that reliability of the source must be established before we declare anything "independent". Otherwise, I could simply write a website about this incident on geocities and declare it to be an independent source. A book by a UFO enthusiast is not a reliable, third-party independent source. That's a non-starter. ScienceApologist (talk) 04:39, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Jules is right. If the Source is in the same field as the subject it doesn't neccesarily mean they're not independent. Case in point (no, not this point). If Scientific American and Nature (journal) write about the same subject they're still independent sources, regardless of the fact both of the editing staff can be assumed to be science enthusiasts. Whether the the publication is reliable is another question, but they're certainly independent. - Mgm|(talk) 22:14, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The last thing we want to be doing is merging details from ufology articles into the places where the supposed events took place. JulesH (talk) 21:27, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article says a man consumed some beer, then had a close encounter with a UFO which landed, and that it was investigated by the police. Many things make it into police reports which do not deserve encyclopedia entries. Lacking is significant coverage of this unverified claimed UFO encounter in multiple reliable and independent sources. Wikipedia is [[WP:NOT#NEWS], not that this really made the news to any significant extent. UFO fancier magazines do not constitute reliable sources, in my view. I see nothing here which requires merging into an article about the location. Edison (talk) 00:09, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're leaving out a lot of important details. He claimed to have been burned by the craft's exhaust vent which was covered by an ovular grid, for example. And he had "unexplained" health issues afterwards. Coincidence? And what about "RCMP officers together identified a semicircle on the rock face at the scene, 15 feet in diameter, where the moss had been somehow removed." Fifteen feet in diameter! ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:27, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe these details say anything about whether or not this article should exist. Until the Wikipedia:Semicircle moss absence size notability criteria guideline is written. As soon as we write that, I'll probably go remove a 15 foot in diameter semi-circular moss ring from Riverside Park and write about the Riverside Park Incident. In other words, ChildofMidnight is pulling our collective legs. ScienceApologist (talk) 04:36, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
He claimed the UFO had an "ovular grid?" I know of no guideline saying that extraordinary unverified claims make something notable. He could have said he saw JFK and Amelia Earhart in the UFO dancing the foxtrot, and it would not add one bit to notability or verifiability. Lots of people have "unexplained health issues." Lots of people have the technical ability and physical strength to remove some moss, or even to make a crop circle. Edison (talk) 05:17, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If this example is notable, where are the other references to it outside the primary sources, the self published book, and the one book chapter? There are hundreds of works of UFOs from all sort of perspectives. Do none of them cite it? If some of the major ones do--even those major ones from UFO-believers-- then certainly keep it. But not if those mentioned here are all there is. No prejudice against re-creation if anyone finds some good sources. DGG (talk) 04:45, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Lack of citations is not a valid reason to delete an article. --BarkerJr (talk) 04:47, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it is. If there are no citations and none forthcoming, then the article must go. ScienceApologist (talk) 05:08, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:ATD. There is no proof of attempts to locate references. --BarkerJr (talk) 23:49, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources establish notabiity and look good enough to me. Gandalf61 (talk) 10:31, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - sufficient sources have been found to justify keeping article. Springnuts (talk) 09:46, 11 January 2009 (UTC) Delete - has only one good source and WP:RS is clear that sources means more than one. Find another and it should stay. Springnuts (talk) 16:43, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're confusing WP:RS and WP:N. One good source suffices. Our notability guidelines are indicated in WP:N. That there is an "s" at the end of "secondary source" is simply an affectation.--Oakshade (talk) 17:25, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I disagree, though on occasion of course it is appropriate to ignore all rules. Let's see what the consensus is here. Springnuts (talk) 18:49, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:N. Has not received significant coverage in reliable sources. --brewcrewer(yada, yada) 18:41, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While I don't worry about UFOs, this apparently is notable in that community [14]. It won't take a little green man to add sources to this. Mandsford (talk) 19:29, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Just because a lot of coverage is by UFO enthusiasts, doesn't mean the coverage doesn't meet WP:RS. If said enthusiasts wrote about it (and not simply copied the existing material) it's reliable and independent. Besides, no matter what sources you draw from, if you dig deep enough, at some point all the information is going to be based of the eyewitness reports no matter how far it got. That applies to everything; not just UFOs. More importantly (for anyone who agrees with me on that), I also found coverage that is unrelated to UFOlogists. 1) HowStuffWorks covered it. The site is maintained by an individual who does extensive research on everything he writes; anything not written by him is written by experts or people doing extensive research as much as he does. 2) There's coverage in the CBC.ca archives. 3) A Google search on "falcon lake UFO" suggests more potential sources exist and I haven't even looked for paper resources. - Mgm|(talk) 22:08, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has some notability. Might be worth merging into a list of Canadian UFO incidents or some such article if one exists, but worth including in the encyclopedia. We shouldn't bury this kind of thing, it makes for entertaining reading. And we're one mothership away from realizing these kooks were right after all. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:27, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems plenty notable to me. Passes the search engine test and is published by the media. --BarkerJr (talk) 23:49, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not a notable UFO incident. If it were the incident Fire in the Sky was based on, then I'd say keep. This, however, is one of hundreds of UFO sightings reported each year. Not every one of those is notable. A book reporting a UFO case is 'unsolved' is also no indication of notability; how many cases are considered 'solved'? ThuranX (talk) 23:00, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter to WP:N that the secondary source considers it "unsolved," but that the secondary source covered it.--Oakshade (talk) 23:04, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per DGG. Stifle (talk) 11:26, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete fails notability and considering the fact that we haven't made contact with any alien species, there really isn't any such thing as exopolitics Pstanton 21:56, 9 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pstanton (talk • contribs)
Delete - Fails notability, in my opinion. The new version of the article is complete enough to not bother me, one way or the other. ClovisPt (talk) 00:45, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Merge to Exopolitics, an article that is long overdue. One of the citations for this article has some legitimacy, but there's lots and lots of substantial expopolitical coverage. So, thank goodness, we have a good target to merge this to. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:28, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Unfortunately, exopolitics is edit protected, so I can't edit the page or merge to it. Here are some of the sources on exopolitcs: [15] "Exopolitics is a new and emerging field of study that examines the implications of possible contact between humans and extraterrestrial civilizations." A perfectly legitimate subject. Here's a book on the subject [16], here's another story with exopolitics in the headline [17], here's another article [18], it mentions these sources:
Walking A Tightrope, by Richard M. Dolan
Exopolitics or Xenopolitics? by Steven M. Greer M.D., Director, the Disclosure Project
The Day After Contact: Forecasting Reactions to Extraterrestrial Life, by Albert A. Harrison, PhD. and Colm A. Kelleher, PhD., NIDS
Exopolitics versus Exospin: A Response to Dr. Steven Greer, by Michael E. Salla, PhD.
Here are google news stories just from the past month [19].
Here's a Toronto Star story: [20], Washington Post story [21] and Wirednews [22] Vermont Guardian [23], Bloomberg [24], Rolling Stone article about the Muse (band) song about exopolitics [25]
And there's lots more. As soon as an admin. undoes the block we can get to work on this subject. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:43, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Here's a few more sources: Edmonton Sun [26], Globe and Mail [27], Bloomberg/ Business Report [28] National Ledger [29], America's intelligence wire[30] access needed, but temporary password would work, National Ledger [31]. etc. ChildofMidnight (talk) 08:00, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete though when the article on Exopolitics is written the Institute will get a mention I am sure. For now, lack of WP:RS means it goes. Springnuts (talk) 16:46, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have requested that the exopolitics be made editable. Please hold off deleting this article so that I can redirect it and include the relevant bits in the new article. Thanks so much for you kind cooperation. I hope it's as sunny where all of you are as it is here where I am. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:00, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
delete this non-notable organization. No reliable sources sufficient to establish notability.Bali ultimate (talk) 20:01, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Okay, I have redirected to the Exopolitics article. I hope this outcome is satisfactory to everyone involved. Just trying to be bold! :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:19, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and also re-delete exopolitics as a blatant end-run around deletion policy. These nutters should find their own website, not keep polluting ours with this twaddle. Guy (Help!) 21:53, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear, it is not an end run around deletion. Looking into this AfD I investigated the subject of exopolitics. It did not have an article, but as it appears to be very notable and has had lots of substantial coverage I created one. In creating that article I thought it appropriate to include information on this organization. In order to do so in good faith I've tried to preserve the edit history of those who created this content by redirecting. This is a common practice quite equivalent to deletion. There is no copyvio or personal attack, so there's no reason to delete the history. If you think exopolitics is not notable or the new article on it isn't worth keeping, please nominate it for AfD. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:09, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Content with ChildofMidnight (talk)'s solution which seems to me to be the best way forward. Thanks. Springnuts (talk) 09:41, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Original research synthesis of examples of animals that stayed alive after being encased in stone. Relevant, factual information can be included at frog or toad. Otherwise, as a subject, this article does not deserve to exist as it is essentially a POV-fork. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:15, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's not an original synthesis. The topic of entombed animals has been discussed in multiple sources, which are cited in the article. What POV am I pushing? I include a section describing the explanations put forward. Zagalejo^^^ 19:25, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're pushing the forteana POV which is, essentially, that perceived "anomalies" are notable simply because they are anomalies. We can cover all these "cases" at the articles on the respective animals. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:27, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Even if this is all bollocks, the idea of frogs and toads in stone is an important piece of folklore. Buckland's experiment received a lot of attention in the nineteenth century: [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], etc. (I started this article without knowing about Google Books. But now, I could probably expand it fivefold!) Zagalejo^^^ 19:41, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are ignoring the reasons posted for deletion. Discussing the folklore of frogs and toad entombed in stone seems to be a reasonable thing to discuss at frog and toad. You might even make mention of Buckland's experiment on those pages. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:45, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be an awkward digression in the frog and toad articles. Zagalejo^^^ 19:48, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There's no way to move this information there unless you chop it down to one or two sentences, which I think is a bit extreme. Zagalejo^^^ 20:31, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Extreme" only if you are a fortean. However, if you look for third-party independent sources, I think you'll find that one to two sentences is more than sufficient for issues of WP:WEIGHT, WP:RS, and WP:V. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:40, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
'Comment 2 or three sentences sounds about right, along with reliable scientific data on the ability of some amphibians to survive harsh conditions for extreme periods. Many sources such as [38] say frogs can freeze solid all winter and revive in the spring, or can estivate in a state of slowed respirationduring a hot dry summer. Edison (talk) 00:51, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteBooks turns up a few hits, mostly from the turn of the last century. Recent uses are about what you would expect; the entombed animal is dead. Scholar has 3 hits, none related to the article. News shows 2 hits (same article) about an unrelated topic. The 4 citations in the article are either not third-party or not reliable. Conclusion: topic is not notable for an encyclopedia unless third-party, reliable sources can be found.
It's a letter to the editor. Not every letter to the editor about a subject confers enough sourcing/notability on the subject for an entire article. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:15, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, you're selectively quoting from that note. This quote seems to summarize it (IMO):
The true interpretation of these experiences appears to be this—a frog or toad is hopping about while a stone is being broken and the non-scientific observer immediately rushes to the conclusion that he has seen a creature dropping out of the stone itself. One thing is certainly remarkable, that although numbers of field geologists and collectors of specimens of rocks, fossils, and minerals are hammering away all over the world, not one of these investigators has ever come upon a specimen of a live frog or toad imbedded in stone or in coal.
How was that selectively quoting? I got the gist of the idea; I wasn't trying to hide anything. By the way, you probably won't find a lot under the exact phrase "entombed animal". That's the phrase used by Jerome Clark in his book, but other sources will simply use phrases like "frogs found in stone", or something like that. Counting Google hits will do no good with this subject. Zagalejo^^^ 22:04, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a fairly well-known "phenomenon" which was widely discussed in the Victorian era and has resulted in some pop-culture references. The Nature letter alone seems sufficient to verify outside the world of the Fortean Times. The fact that the phenomenon is likely to result from mis-observations does not make it any less valid, and I don't see any problem with original synthesis; the article needs better referencing, like most in the encyclopedia, but otherwise seems fine to me. Espresso Addict (talk) 21:06, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is a letter to the editor written in Nature, and the letter only obliquely mentions the subject. We cannot base an entire article on it, obviously. We can simply put it in the Frog or Toad article and leave it at that. Did you even read the letter? ScienceApologist (talk) 21:15, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a subscription to Nature, so I could only read the snippet view in Google Books. I believe that a non-trivial discussion in a letter to Nature, probably at that date the top science journal in the world, is sufficient notability for our encyclopedia. Espresso Addict (talk) 21:55, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There's more than just that letter. Look at the Google Books links I provided above, all referring to Buckland's experiment. Zagalejo^^^ 22:04, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You should add some of these to the article, Zagalejo. The Blackwood's Edinburgh Magazine one is particularly useful in establishing notability, as this is a detailed description in one of the major periodicals of its time. Espresso Addict (talk) 22:22, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a couple new refs. Zagalejo^^^ 22:29, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Here are some additional sources: [39], [40], [41]. Again, I ask that people chiming in on this discussion not limit themselves to the exact phrase "entombed animal". Zagalejo^^^ 22:13, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article does not appear to be original synthesis, nor a POV fork. It's just a pretty straightforward compilation of info on a weird subject. As Espresso Addict notes, having an article is in no way an endorsement of any particular viewpoint on the "phenomenon".--ragesoss (talk) 22:27, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge relevant bits of the article to the articles on Toad and Frog. The article says belief in prolonged entombed survival generally relates to these animals. The 1820 scientific report of such animals surviving for one year (but not two) sealed in porous limestone, and any modern observations of amphibians ability to survive for extended periods in conditions which would kill most animals seems highly important. If this is presented as biological science rather than mysticism, the 19th century anecdotes are not the reliable sources required to support extreme claims. The sources presented to show belief in their very long term (years? millenia?) survival in coal lumps do not make the case that this is an important bit of folklore or an important area of pseudoscience, outside the Fortean realm. The article does not show reports of or belief in higher animals surviving prolonged entombment. I note that the Toad article is extremely stubby for such a well known and important animal. One letter to the editor of Nature in 1910 does not go far toward saving the article.This can be related to Estivation and the ability of some frogs to freeze solid and revive [42]. Hop to it! Edison (talk) 00:44, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why must something like this be important "outside of the Fortean realm"? I've seen similar arguments at AFD before. To me, it's like demanding a baseball player be discussed in botany journals. As long as an article makes it clear that claims are merely claims, what's the harm in discussing a bit of Forteana? (I'd argue that the entombed animal phenomena is notable enough outside of the Fortean community, but I'm not sure what more I can do to convince everyone.) Zagalejo^^^ 04:15, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Numerous sources have been shown by Zagalejo. Edward321 (talk) 01:07, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If this were just the Forteana I could see it, but the idea was pretty common a while back. Ol' Rip the Horned Toad does not really cover the whole topic, and no other merge targets seem likely. A rename might be in order, though. - Eldereft (cont.) 02:33, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Bondeson's Fortean Times article is an edited extract from his book Bondeson, Jan (2006). The Cat Orchestra & the Elephant Butler: The Strange History of Amazing Animals. Tempus Publishing, Limited. ISBN0-7524-3934-0., so should qualify as a RS. There is his earlier Cornell U Press book, reviewed in ISIS, that I added to further reading, and the pages in Living Wonders by Bob Rickard and John Michell cited in the Fortean Times book extract. Together with the other sources cited above by Zagalejo and others, notability and even recent interest.is clearly shown.John Z (talk) 04:25, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable fable. The historical material alone is sufficient to justify an article. I don't always think highly of the Guardian's science & especially medical coverage, but their article did an adequate job on this DGG (talk) 04:48, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The belief is a real subject, which has been handled by more people than are currently cited in the article (I vaguely remember a discussion in a popular science writer, perhaps Steven Jay Gould or Martin Gardner). The falsity of the belief is not something that should be addressed via Articles for deletion. N p holmes (talk) 10:01, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per above. Also, the subject is interesting enough that I've decided to look into it. The article has value, even if it describes a subject that is possibly mythical in nature. Elucidate(light up) 10:46, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Fails WP:BIO. His "awards" are inclusion in Who's Who and the AIA -- they aren't really awards. Nor do his books confer notability on his person. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:13, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable in anyway whatsoever. If the only claims needed for notability are membership in Who's Who and AIA there would be a massive amount of articles on people who are not notable in any way, shape, or form. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:26, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If the "awards" section is any indication, this person is not notable at all. ChildofMidnight (talk) 08:04, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Baccarini is mentioned in quite a few websites, but these seem, generally, to be either promotional or trivial. I can't find anything I would term notable. Tim Ross(talk) 14:06, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable for academic or creative achievements. No reliable secondary sources for notability. Springnuts (talk) 16:53, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Some of these Google News hits seem to provide substantial coverage in reliable sources, especially this, this and this, but my Italian is rather rudimentary and my Hungarian non-existent, so confirmation would be useful. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:20, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete Definitely not notable. Rates a blurb in the founders article, maybe, but not its own independent one. Pstanton 21:18, 9 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pstanton (talk • contribs)
Delete for no-notability. Springnuts (talk) 16:48, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Midnight. Mandsford (talk) 19:34, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Vote changed to merge: per ChildofMidnight. Schuym1 20:30, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Appears to be a modified version of the "Medicinal Leech" article that describes a nonexistent species of leech. No description of Picklescott's Leech can be found in non-Wikipedia-derived online sources, and the sources cited do not mention Picklescott's leech. Antidespotic (talk) 18:50, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Likely hoax. Slightly modified content from European Medical Leech. No Google Scholar or Books or News hits. Citations in article are not about Picklescott's leech, but leeches in general. -Atmoz (talk) 20:45, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - obvious hoax, in view of lack of relevant information in references and Scholar, and amount of material copy-pasted from European Medical Leech. JohnCD (talk) 21:09, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - obvious hoax, Hirudo interegus is claimed as a binomial name (which does not exist) while the infobox still calls it H. medicinalis. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:52, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Merge I would boldly merge and redirect. ChildofMidnight (talk) 08:07, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Once it's merged and redirected, this will become a moot point, and good riddance. The article dates from 2005, when even an IP address could create a page. I can think of few things more boring than a detailed description of a Paper Mate pencil, other than a blog review of a pencil. To his credit, the author did try to make this creative instrument sound sorta erotic, what with the fat design, the side lead advancer and the rubbery grip, if ya know what I mean. Mandsford (talk) 19:45, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Props to Mandsford, for making AfD less of a chore to look over. and Merge. ThuranX (talk) 23:10, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Topic of article is local minima of stock market indicators. Content is generally a haphazard recapitulation of market trend, technical analysis, and related articles. The fundamental problem here is the topic scope. Although entirely organized as bullet points, there is little conceptual organization. It is anecdotal and howto. References are provided to examples, but never to authoritative sources such as a textbook.
The article is not orphaned, but a quick look at backlinks turns up capitulation (surrender) which clearly doesn't belong. Many other backlinks exist solely in See Also sections. The term is not used commonly enough to integrate this article with others on investing and economics.
Article has been marked as OR for its six-month life. No substantial material has been added except by the original author. This is likely because the scope is unclear. Analytical concepts and historical facts should go into articles on analysis and history. Local minima are just a fact of any non-monotonic graph (which economic graphs, quite unfortunately, all are). Thus the topic subsumes all market analysis—and not only of stocks. Potatoswatter (talk) 18:16, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I had initially marked this article as being possibly OR back in October and posted my concerns to WP:ORN (now archived here). While I'm not up to date on what's in the article, and absolutely not a specialist in economics (which is why I'd marked it as {{expert-subject}} for economics), I do believe this article is seriously concerning. However, I'm not sure if deletion rather than reduction/rewriting into a basic definition is appropriate. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 20:20, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge somewhere, or delete if all the material is already covered. I spent some time reading technical analysis articles and books last year, and I've never seen bottoms covered separately from tops; they're intrinsically linked concepts, mirror images of each other. The concept of a bottom or top is notable, because the primary point of technical analysis is to try to identify these when they occur. But I don't think they're notable independently of each other. JulesH (talk) 20:25, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I understand the OR concerns involved with the article. Any chance of spelling them out in more detail? JulesH (talk) 20:31, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The OR concern is simply that the article cites anecdotal advice pages and raw data, but not authoritative sources or any article of pure theory. The intent does appear to be pure theory, however. To extract overarching theory or connect ideas which aren't connected in an article (even if the individual ideas are explained) is synthesis and hence OR.
Also, as you said, tops and bottoms relate similarly to technical analysis. But more importantly, tops and bottoms aren't intrinsically linked to technical analysis in particular. Potatoswatter (talk) 01:19, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Doesn't look like OR to me. Encyclopedic topic, neutral tone. Could do with some re-ordering and re-writing, but that is not grounds for deletion. Gandalf61 (talk) 10:20, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Market trend where the term is already mentioned, albeit briefly. This is just a simple technical term, and an easily understood one at that, not part of an esoteric theoretical construct, as this article would seem to be promoting. Some of the lead, (up to the Baron Rothschild quote but minus the pompous first sentence) could usefully be merged in to the Market trend article. Most of the rest is written as a "how to" guide and fails WP:NOTHOWTO, not appropriate material and should be deleted. SpinningSpark 18:48, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
redirect per Spinning, who has done more research and holds a better grasp than I do, but agree with above commenters that it looks too much like OR, and could be merged per Spinning. ThuranX (talk) 23:09, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. MBisanztalk 01:33, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Now, when I first came onto Wikipedia a few years ago, I used to defend the deletion of articles like this (because don't get me wrong; it is entertaining). And although I do remember a lot of these changes, the article is really a whole lot of listcruft with a clear blur of fact and fiction throughout, not to mention original research. And as far as the four(?!) references the article has, one is a blog for an unsourced wiki and the other three are dead links. Also, the only external link is to jumptheshark.com, which is not a reliable source. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL (talk) 18:08, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I forgot to mention that maybe the article can be retained if some real sources can be added. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL (talk) 18:58, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wow, that is some list(cruft). Drmies (talk) 18:55, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Delete. Has information in it that needs to be saved. This information is not in other articles. 143.165.8.50 (talk) 19:14, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You should go ahead and register a screen name if you want your comment to be fully considered. Rather than "don't delete", you can preface your comment with "keep". Mandsford (talk) 19:57, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
...- Wow. I just don't know. On one hand, it does seem to be a valid encylopedic concept that should be covered. On the other hand, the execution seen here is just... I don't know how to describe it. Its certainly not encyclopedic. Some of it I think can be sourced (the information on Doctor Who, or Chuck Cunningham, for example), but in order to be a valid article, most of it would have to go out the window. Consider me undecided. Umbralcorax (talk) 19:21, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Way too broad a topic, unsourced, impossible to keep up to date or to properly police for accuracy. The anon's comment about "don't lose the information" is irrelevant because this is the type of information that most likely IS included in the articles on the appropriate series, or can be added. I don't even think the topic is encyclopedic because the concept that TV series change cast members from time to time is not notable in any way. There are some series that are notable by their cast changes, such as Law & Order and Doctor Who, while some cast changes generate short-term notability (i.e. Grissom leaving CSI is big news this month). But any such notability can and should be discussed in the appropriate series article. 23skidoo (talk) 22:40, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and 23skidoo. This topic is too diffuse, including not just changes where different actors played the same character, but changes where an actor left and a different actor was brought in to play a different character who served a similar function, and even actors leaving and not being replaced by anyone. I wouldn't want to discourage the existence of separate articles that deal with the more interesting aspects of this topic -- for example, Chuck Cunningham is interesting because not only did his character cease to appear on the show, but his existence was written out of the show's continuity. But trying to list all, or even most, of the comings and goings of actors on television series for the past sixty years or so has not generated a quality article, nor is it likely to ever do so. --Metropolitan90(talk) 05:47, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete reasons well covered by others. There's no reason for this minutiae to be here. JuJube (talk) 09:00, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As far as "show business" is concerned, replacing a cast member is just as much "business" as it is "show". Keeping the viewers watching is critical to the revenue generated by advertising sales and future syndication. I'm going to take on the nominator's challenge and try to add some relevant sources. Mandsford (talk) 19:57, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rework Casting changes are far too common, which would make this list unmaintainable. It's better to cover casting changes in the relevant show articles. Something that I would support is a list of roles that were played by different characters, because that is far less common (outside of Doctor Who, that is). - Mgm|(talk) 20:35, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
delete. Can't see a good way to save that. Most of the articles already have the relevant material. Metropolitan also makes good arguments above. ThuranX (talk) 23:07, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It doesn't take original research to note that something is "television show cast change" and the topic has certainly been addressed by reliable sources, though perhaps not as comprehensively as this article. But I have no doubt that most, if not all, of the facts in this list are verifiable. Also, that citations have dead links is no reason to delete the article, as the citations are clear enough to find the articles. That they are called "blogs" does not mean they are not reliable sources, especially when they are published on a reputable newspaper's website. If back issues of TV Guide were available online, I have no doubt we would find a plethora of source material to support this article. DHowell (talk) 05:16, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A blog and a back issue are not the same thing. And those "sources" are from subscription-based sites. How are we supposed to know what they even say? THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 08:16, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was
speedy keep, it's snowing. (NAC) --J.Mundo (talk) 00:37, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close: Bad faith AfD. See this edit by nominator, as well as Special:Undelete/London Anarcho Racist Centre (for those who can't see, was created by nominator), this poorly sourced and controversial edit (reverted several times), and again here, and of course, the insulting comments on my talk page, where I'm accused of being paid by the centre, and am wished a 'bad day on the killing fields' (I'm in the Navy). I'm calling a duck a duck here - having failed to label the centre 'anarcho-racist', we're obviously heading down the 'deletion' route. Excuse me for not assuming good faith, but I think that in this case, it would be unwarranted. Notable or not, that's something for a different discussion to decide, not one like this, nominated in bad faith. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 00:09, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The debate on the discussion page of the article calls for AfD - not me but other editors brought the idea up and the idea of 'non notability' comes from other editors on the debate page - i'm just following it through. There has been a long going edit war - with quite a few editors - some of whose only edits are on this page. 'Chase me' has assumed bad faith with me from the start, making bitchy comments about me and my 'attitude' and protected the page after deleting my edits obviously taking sides in something s/he knows nothing about because s/he hasn't read through the discusion properly. it was after that that i questioned her loyalties - its common knowledge that members of the police etc are paid to make edits on wikipedia - i asked an honest and simple question that s/he couldn't answer and didn't even have the curtosy to reply! . i wished her a bad day killing because that s an old expression meaning i hope u survive and i thought s/he would know that. since unprotecting the page, it's lost most of its content and the discussion is towards delete. thats all. Paki.tv (talk) 08:52, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Times article seems to contain significant coverage, and the title of the Standard's article implies that it does too (though I haven't read it since there's no online copy linked). If the nominator disagrees and has a genuine objection I suggest they provide a more detailed explanation of it than 'JNN'. Olaf Davis (talk) 00:44, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Could somebody please rescue this article? It's quite obviously notable, the two sources at the bottom show that but the article itself has nothing in it that could be called redeeming. (I know this falls under: do it yourself but if it is nominated for a speedy close I don't have the time and it is utterly awful) PanydThe muffin is not subtle 01:31, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Since speedy close refers to speedy keep, there's plenty of time. Olaf Davis (talk) 23:17, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Olaf Davis's rationale. In the context of this longstanding edit war going on here -- see the talk page -- there needs to be a stronger case for deletion. --Lockley (talk) 05:14, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Independent sources establish notabiity. No good reason to delete. Gandalf61 (talk) 10:22, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the page, keep paki.tv and harrypotter away from it long enough for someone who is not a vandal to make a decent page out of this stub. fair play to 'chase me ladies' for maintaining a stiff upper lip. i'm biased, i have also been involved in the edit war and at one point recommended deletion just because it seemed the only option left... wikiprocedure is not really working here .. i would love it if a new person were to get involved and make this page better...Mujinga (talk) 22:11, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete no reason to keep this...Modernist (talk) 12:09, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable yet. (For what it's worth, there is no article on this artist in the French Wikipedia.) Tim Ross(talk) 15:10, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep: "non-notable" is a relative concept. This artist makes several appearances on Internet search engines. I think the page should be kept, seeing how none of the information is contradictory/false.
Assessments of notability is based on agreed upon policy herewp:notability. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:49, 12 January 2009 (UTC) As such, there is no information mentioned there that deems this artist as non-notable.[reply]
Delete: insufficient 3rd party sources WP:MUSIC. JamesBurns (talk) 00:56, 13 January 2009 (UTC). I disagree; among 3rd party sources found: www.unsigned.com, www.myspace.com, www.razvanalbu.ro, www.bandizmo.com, www.facebook.com, as well as dozens of entries in web directories.[reply]
Delete No evidence that it meets inclusion guidelines. OhNoitsJamieTalk 22:47, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Band with no released albums, no claim in article of meeting WP:MUSIC. No entry found at allmusic.com, no professional reviews found at metacritic. Prod removed by IP user without comment. Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:06, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. You don't state whether or not you did a Google search, but I found significant coverage in The Fly ([43]) and Metro ([44]), which should be enough for a keep, plus these additional sources that may or may not be reliable: Daily Music Guide and Sandman magazine.--Michig (talk) 18:12, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Speedy delete g3 vandalism. "when Swedish farmer, Shlotsken Wheisenheimer spilled a bucket of milk he had just milked from one of his cows."? Please. NawlinWiki (talk) 16:24, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn neologism Mayalld (talk) 15:43, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the absence of any reliable or independent sources to verify the notability (or even existence of) the word in this context. At best, it would be something for Wiktionary, but I've found no independent sources, so it probably doesn't belong there either. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 15:52, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was '. moot. Has been speedied by another admin. Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:27, 9 January 2009 (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 speedily deleted as a hoax. Elkman(Elkspeak) 21:31, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hoax article. Was nominated for speedy deletion but nomination challenged. Article concerns a giant clam, whose maximum length, according to the article, can be 60 metres. This beast goes by the name of Maximus Plebidonax deltoides. There is a Plebidonax deltoides to be sure, and it is referred to as a pipi, but the gigantic version in this article has no references or sources to verify its existence, despite one of its characteristics being "... killers of fishermen for trophies." The one reference given links to the Encyclopedia Britannica. online edition, but there's no mention of the clam there. No other sources found FlowerpotmaN·(t) 15:31, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The first three paragraphs of the article were copied directly from Plebidonax deltoides with all the size adjectives changed to imply monstrousness. Someone was having fun. Rklear (talk) 15:43, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "Someone was having fun.". Yup, I was thinking of one heck of a bowl of chowder myself :) FlowerpotmaN·(t) 15:47, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Obvious hoax. Hehe, he said pipi. -Atmoz (talk) 17:03, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wait: the pictures did not convince you? OK, delete. Hoax. Though I want this to be true. Drmies (talk) 19:02, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Fails WP:NOTE, two of the three references do not even mention the company. Smacks of self-promotion, essentially an ADVERT. Delete as non-notable. Meatychode (talk) 15:26, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. MBisanztalk 01:31, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn band, fails WP:MUSIC (note that the Tokio Hot 100 is a single radio station playlist, rather than a legitimate music chart) Mayalld (talk) 15:21, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The reference to Tokio Hot 100 has now been removed (author) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rolluprob (talk • contribs) 16:24, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No significant coverage found. Dodds appears to have been in Jay Kay's backing band for about a year, but I don't feel that's enough to justify an article.--Michig (talk) 21:43, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. MBisanztalk 01:31, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
List has no real content, nearly no documentation, no indication that any of the companies are notable, is almost a business directory, and even claims that it can never be accurate or exhaustive. It is not helpful in any encyclopedic sense, and is therefore not encyclopedic. NJGW (talk) 15:20, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That is actually list of notable photovoltaic companies, and survived an AFD because it made that distinction. The info is getting outdated however. NJGW (talk) 18:59, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a directory (WP:NOTDIRECTORY) and is not a place for articles that are mere collections of internal links (WP:LINKFARM). This information is available to users through properly categorized articles (perhaps Category:Photovoltaics manufacturers). This article offers no additional information above a category (unlike List of photovoltaics companies, which provides comparison information between firms). - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 16:02, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete advertisement for nn product Mayalld (talk) 15:15, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. There appear to be articles about this machine in Assembly magazine (June 1 2000) and in Machine Designhere. These are very specialist magazines, but still probably warrant keeping the article. JulesH (talk) 16:32, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no attempt to establish notability. All news.google hits are ads or "product announcements". No scholar hits. Don't see how this could become a referenced article. NJGW (talk) 16:50, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subject isn't sufficiently notable to justify coverage. PTFE thread tape is notable, a machine to automate the simple hand process isn't. If there's a thread tape article, then this deserves a mention and reference, but no more. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:48, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. MBisanztalk 01:31, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Despite Robert Ham's assertions about logic, either this page is about something that exists or it isn't. The page claims that the AGC is an extraterrestrial organisation, whose existence is asserted by certain people. To make such a claim, it must be backed up with verifiable evidence from reliable sources - and with the exception with the article on Vrillon, which is a noted and documented (although possible hoax) event, this article relies on some fairly shakey sources, none of which seem to pass Wikipedia's guidelines for a reliable source. Perhaps sources exist, but I'm not convinced that any of the sources on here are anything other than self-published and/or unreliable. Perhaps a merge to Vrillon would be the best solution? I thought it would be worth offering it up for discussion in any case. Richard Hock (talk) 15:11, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm not really sure what you think is wrong with this article. It's backed up by a number of sources that are apparently independent of each other. I see no reason to believe that these sources don't back up the claim made by the article (which is that some so-called "contactees" assert that this organization exists, not that the organization actually exists as you appear to interpret it). At least some of the sources quoted are not self-published, and assuming the information in the article is correct, most of the others aren't either. Due to their fringe bias, some of the sources may be dubious from the perspective of validating the actual existence of this organization, but they are only being used for the purposes of verifying what contactees claim, which I see no reason to believe they are not reliable for. The other sources are reliable with respect to the TV interruption. If there's to be a merge, I'd suggest the other way around would be more reasonable: as the Ashtar Command idea predates the "Vrillon" incident, which was clearly inspired by the preexisting ideas about this organization, merging it here is more appropriate. JulesH (talk) 16:42, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails verifiability due to a lack of reliable and independent sources. This makes a major assertion of truth that extraterrestrials are in contact with us earthlings, and that if someone introduced spurious material into a TV transmission, and claimed to be extraterrestrial, that is the best explanation, rather than a hacker at work. Other sources are ufo fancier magazines, a "channeler" and "News of the World," which is known for stories of the "Bigfoot is Elvis's son" variety. It is also of questionable notability. Edison (talk) 17:47, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment No it doesn't; it asserts that certain people claim this. This claim is much more easily verified, by reference to the people who do in fact claim it. JulesH (talk) 18:03, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article does not state that certain people make a fringe claim. It says the claim is true. "Ashtar Galactic Command (or Ashtar Command) is an extraterrestrial organization whose existence and purpose are asserted by contactees, New Age believers and channellers, including American Ufologist George Van Tassel. The Command consists of several named beings with distinctly defined roles." This is like stating "Jesus is the Son of God," which religious article avoid. The article asserts the truth of a fringe belief based on true believer sources. There is also no evidence that the "movement" is large or notable. Edison (talk) 19:32, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's more like saying "Jesus is the Son of God, according to Christians," which is accurate if poorly phrased. Anyway, this isn't worth arguing over... I'll go and clear up the article so that it's less ambiguous. JulesH (talk) 20:35, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep-- Hoax or not, the fact is that independent sources assert the notability of the subject. Only four sources from Google Books, but how many mainstream media are going to cover an "extraterrestrial organization"? --Jmundo (talk) 18:10, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Needs a serious rewrite to remove the implication that it is in any way true, or that the Command is extraterrestrial, but it does cite 3 newspapers, which easily covers both the existence of the believe and notable reach of the idea. Long live ashtartology. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 22:38, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Speedy Delete Fails WP:ORG as stated in the nom, also could be speedy deleted as a non-notable group. Wildthing61476 (talk) 14:44, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This article is simply an advert and an apologia for a non-notable figure. The only way he could deserve a mention is in relation to Hani and Darby-Lewis, which is already being dealt with there. User:BillMasen 14:26, 9 January 2009
Not so. The article WAS well-sourced, accurate and described notability. The history of this page reveals that what has happened is that the subject of the article, Arthur Kemp, has himself set up a WIkipedia account in order to edit it in his own favour. (See warnings etc posted on User talk:Arthur Kemp.) The article does not need deleting; it needs reverting to some earlier version before Mr Kemp turned it into a self-serving autobiography. Keep. Emeraude (talk) 16:55, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The original "article" was nothing but a politcally biased attack upon myself, quoting as "source" a series of unprovable, unsubstantiated allegations, all of which are outright lies. If the article is to be maintained, it is only fair that the lies and inaccuracies are removed.
As I have pointed out elsewhere, it is patently unfair to set up an entry on Wikipedia, make all sorts of defamatory allegations, and then when the subject calls the article into question, and puts in references refuting the lies, then that person's changes are rejected because "they are a point of view." What then, I may ask, was the original article, if not just that.
Arthur Kemp (talk) 17:24, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
keep - Mr. Kemp appears to be a notable enough author and political activist. NPOV is not a reason for deletion. fix the article, don't whine about losing an attack piece. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 19:00, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"losing an attack piece"? If I'm supposed to be the one who's whining, I don't even know what that means. BillMasen (talk) 19:30, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, though there's lots of problems with this article, it meets notability standards, and is simply in need of some serious cleanup. SDJ 19:25, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
neutral - I think that Mr. Kemp is notable, his Victory or violence: The story of the AWB was also published in Czech language. More serious problem was sourcing by unreliable defamatory sources like Southern Poverty Law Center, Searchlight (magazine) or some left wing blog called Lancaster Unity. --Dezidor (talk) 09:12, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If the SPLC's outrageously false allegations against me are to be included, then it is only fair that my rebuttal of them also be included.
In this regard, I can show how the SPLC article about me on their own web site has been repeatedly edited by that organisation as one after another of their lies fall apart. For example, they originally claimed that I live and work from a spare bedroom of the National Alliance chairman's house in Ohio (in fact I live in Britain); that I spoke at the 2006 Barnes Review conference in Washington DC (I did not), that I spoke at a NDP meeting in Germany (I never have) and a whole list of other gross, serious and libellous factual errors, far too long to list individually here.
As each of these gross lies were exposed, the SPLC edited them out of their original article. Fortunately I kept screen shots of all of the versions.
Now, anyone who actually thinks that they are still a 'reliable' resource on anything, except their own invented lies, needs their head read.
As I have said before, if the SPLC's lies are to be allowed in, I must be given an equal opportunity to refute them. Otherwise the whole Wikipedia system of 'neutrality' will fall down.
Keep Subject certainly appears to be notable, but article has many issues and has not necessarily been improved by many of the edits, may have to be carefully patrolled. PasteTalk 16:38, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject of the article seems to be notable enough, whatever the article is like. It's the subject that's at the centre of the discussion. As to the contents, probably a rewrite is desirable - by someone with no axe to grind. Either way. And with reliable sources - not personal or organisation websites or blogs, or personal knowledge with no backup outside. Peridon (talk) 17:17, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: If this article is kept, it needs serious work, neutral editors, and a careful watch. The fact that the subject is an activist in a extreme right political party, is editing his own article, and accusing (along with other Wikipedia editors here) two of the most prominent, mainstream anti-hate groups in the Anglophone world -- the Southern Poverty Law Center and Searchlight (magazine) -- as "unreliable defamatory sources". This concerns me greatly. T L Miles (talk) 03:14, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was reminded of what Buddha said. "Hate can not end hate. Only love can end hate." Steve Dufour (talk) 13:23, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Definite KEEP to any "pre-User:ArthurKemp version.. and tell 'em that sometimes things are a lot better before he fixes them. Schmidt,MICHAEL Q. 03:24, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He is a notable person. The article is not so bad now. It will probably not be very good ever because people only edit it to push one agenda or the other. There is no interest in telling his story to inform readers. But that is life on WP. Steve Dufour (talk) 13:22, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. King of♥♦♣ ♠ 08:25, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A self-taught fashion, beauty, and celebrity photographer [. . . whose] photography career started in 2004 with the purchase of his first camera. And just four years later, he started this article about himself. A Vietnamese American, he's been profiled by a magazine for Vietnamese Americans. In 2007, he got his first major break in the fashion photography world when he won the 10th Annual Avant Guardian Award from Surface. I can't claim much of a knowledge of the fashion photography world, but this article tells you and me that the award went to twelve photographers (thirteen if "Reed + Rader" are two) that year. Google has not terribly many hits for this achievement, and I start to wonder if the Avant Guardian Award is really that big a deal. Luke Duval (Vu) certainly has his fans (see the article's discussion page), but neither he nor they nor anyone else has come back to put more meat into the article since it was slapped with a "Notability" template in August. Duval did indeed win Pilsner Urquell International Photography Awards in 2006, but, uh, so did quite a number of people. I think what we have here is one of those "emerging" artists (or anyway artisans) who should be allowed to emerge and bloom before getting the articles that their blooms will then merit, and which won't need to be written by themselves. -- Hoary (talk) 14:27, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Perhaps some years from now, there will be enough material for somebody to write something about this guy, but not yet now. --Crusio (talk) 14:48, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nom seems to get it right. An aspiring photographer that hasn't achieved the kind of coverage that would warrant inclusion per notability guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 08:13, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and clean up. Awards etc won by subject are verifiable. They are no less substantial as those conferring Wikipedia notability in other fields. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:00, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There are two award events cited. I don't believe that either gets that much attention, even if the associated beer does. Neither is in Category:Photography awards but then neither is the genuinely notable Deutsche Börse Photography Prize so I won't hold lack of an article against it; still, it seems safe to say that winning at either is neither an acknowledgement of nor a passport into renown. One is handed out by a somewhat obscure fashion magazine, a dozen at a time, to people who haven't had editorial features. It appears to be a "promising newcomers" award (plural intentional), and seems little noted beyond the blogosphere. As for the beery one, see my comment below. -- Hoary (talk) 01:15, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Those so-called other winners were in different categories or won something below 1st prize. The number of winners here is not really relevant. - Mgm|(talk) 20:18, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: That first prize was for a nonprofessional photographer of advertising. To me, nonprofessional advertising photographer sounds an oxymoron: why would you help advertise a product if not for money? Well, to show that you've mastered some skills that can turn you into a notable pro photographer. So again, it's a "promising newcomers" or "may go far" award. If he has promise, excellent: let's see the promise flourish, and when it does flourish (books, solo exhibitions, etc) he'll deserve and get his article, written by somebody other than himself. -- Hoary (talk) 01:15, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This photographer is promising but not notable, once he crosses over into the mainstream fashion magazines perhaps he will be ready.MagazineHound (talk) 05:31, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
No assertion of notability per WP:BIO, as well as having no sources. Online search brings up nothing. XenocideTalk|Contributions 13:51, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete under CSD A7 as a an article with no indication of importance whatever. Marked as such.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:42, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete This could have been speedied as spam? 82.32.73.70 (talk) 15:19, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
delete yeah, this is just spam and could have been speedied. Pstanton 22:00, 9 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pstanton (talk • contribs)
Redirect to air filter. The term googles fine, but it seems to be nothing more than a variation on the regular filters. Until something solid is written, a redirect seems the most sensible thing to do. - Mgm|(talk) 20:14, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
it was never a single..it should not have a page....should be deleted as soon as possible....notability not established WP:CRYSTALAnywhere But Home (talk) 12:54, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete, speedily. Gwen Gale (talk) 05:32, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete obvious hoax. All sources are facebook, but made to appear as NYT or MSN or Billboard. Suggest snowball close and block of this editor for socking, vandalism (removing AFD tag), and hoaxes. NJGW (talk) 16:32, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note I see this has been deleted before on December 30, 2008. May need to salt. NJGW (talk) 16:37, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Calling for a snowball close is premature (only two of us have commented). This AFD should run its course, not least because a full AfD process ensures that further infractions are easier to deal with (which is why I removed your speedy). Likewise, talk of punitive blosks is premature. The editor has been warned. He will either heed the warnings, and become a productive editor or he won't, and will be blocked. Rushing to a block before giving an opprtunity to behave isn't necessary. Mayalld (talk) 16:37, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, but you're the one that called him tendentious. I assumed you meant that this behaviour had been going on for a while, so the socking seemed blatant. NJGW (talk) 17:00, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
He has done a fair bit of silly creation in two "slots" over the past two weeks, and has now been warned. If he continues, he will end up blocked. The fact that this is going AfD rather than speedy will mean that it is a more powerful argument that he ought to KNOW that he is out of order. Mayalld (talk) 17:10, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no trace of notability (no independent sources discussing the subject). Wikipedia is not a place for people to publish their bios. Facebook is. Aymatth2 (talk) 17:38, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Restored the Afd notice again. Edward321 (talk) 01:38, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have restored the Afd notice once again after an IP vandal removed it (obviously the creator or a meat puppet). This childishness has gone on far too long. I removed the falsified sources which point only to facebook, and reissued the Speedy request. If this behavior is all this editor can give us, then a speedy will send a better message than this drawn out process. NJGW (talk) 05:20, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This article about a drag entertainer may not be suitable for inclusion. Although notability is asserted, the person may not in fact be notable enough. Some of the assertions ('has become one of the highest-paid and most sought after drag-entertainers in the world') are not backed up by reliable sources. Richard Cavell (talk) 11:52, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with nominator that this is not notable enough. It could possibly be a hoax; I could not find any sources at all on this subject, plus the "official" website www.carmenmalone.com doesn't seem to exist. Chamaltalk 12:04, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Very suspicious. Looks like an attack page to me. Even if not, it's the only page created by its editor, and no sources provided. --Lockley (talk) 13:54, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Either a hoax or attack. No valid references can be found for individual. ttonyb1 (talk) 17:27, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. If he really was "one of the highest-paid and most sought after drag-entertainers in the world" there would be sources and I can't find any. Fails not only WP:BIO but WP:V. Smile a While (talk) 19:14, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was No consensus/keep. Stifle (talk) 17:42, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:NEOLOGISM. There is no such thing as "reverse acting" - there is merely running a camera in reverse with an actor in front of it. This happens frequently for a variety of reasons, and is not always meant to be noticed. (e.g. certain effects shots) There certainly is no discipline known as reverse acting either. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 10:01, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to Keep because of Uncle G's rewrite (with sources) and rename (as a film technique rather than an acting technique). Very nice work. Question: new location has no history—does the current rewrite retain nothing from the previous version? / edg☺☭ 13:03, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If there was a place to merge this, I'd say merge. It's really a film-technique that an actor adapts to, rather than an acting technique. I got a laugh out of someone tagging this as a "theatre stub". Imagine the Broadway production of "Stac", complete with a bunch of reverse actors singing "Yromem". Mandsford (talk) 17:54, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a neologism; without reliable sources, not worth keeping nor merging. —Erik (talk • contrib) 06:26, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per new, non-neological term and reliable sources backing said term ("reverse motion"). —Erik (talk • contrib) 15:43, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice to recreation in an encyclopedic form. I think that the article will ultimately be deleted for lack of sourcing, although I'm saving the information on my hard drive. The article provides a lot of notable examples of the use of a technique that seems to have no agreed upon name. As with other filming techniques that have no article ("undercranking" a/k/a "fast motion" would be an example), it's a legitimate topic. I agree that "reverse acting" was a bad choice of title, though I understand the author's point concerning an actor's role in complying with a directorial choice. Mandsford (talk) 18:26, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete. From the description given - a fan film made by some guys at a boarding school - it doesn't seem notable, and googling gives only the film itself (on MySpace) and a post about it on a fan films forum (here) which confirms said description. Pretty clearly fails WP:N and WP:MOVIE. Well done to the producers for making it, but unfortunately it isn't really the sort of film that Wikipedia is designed to cover. Nasica (talk) 11:24, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lack of general notability. —Erik (talk • contrib) 06:27, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable fanfilm. JuJube (talk) 09:01, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Non-notable fictional character that is sufficiently addressed in main article. Bongomatic 09:09, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
merge as one of the key characters in major series. The material in the main article is inadequate to explain his role, and the material here is written in the worse TV guide style. Any article on fiction that ends with a question, such as here: " Will he win Josie/Dyosa's heart?" is either copypaste or an original imitation of trailer style. People will judge us by the quality of our coverage, not how we divide it up--but this article is too weak to be worth salvaging. Probably there should be a redirect. DGG (talk) 17:57, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Parent subject is notable so merging and redirecting seems reasonable. ChildofMidnight (talk) 08:16, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Non-notable fictional character that is sufficiently addressed in main article. Bongomatic 09:08, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into list of minor characters. Such should be the default way to deal with these, and it does not take AfD. This group of nominations seems not very discriminate, containing both the central character of the series and some much less important ones. it makes a difference. I understand the desire to take care of these before too many others of the sort for the rest of the dozens of characters get written, but merging would do it just fine. DGG (talk) 18:02, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Okay to include as part of coverage of show. ChildofMidnight (talk) 08:18, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have an opinion on if any of these should have a separate article, but if they don't a bold redirect is the way to go to point readers to the coverage we have. - Mgm|(talk) 19:56, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. While possibly notable, as is, the article consists mostly of original research. King of♥♦♣ ♠ 08:39, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Wikipedia should cover Shorty Street but not in an unsourced original-researchish way like this. The claim of a website created by the boadcaster specific to the storyline adds a hint of real-world context, but alas, the site doesn't exist at the stated URI. dramatic (talk) 08:57, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was aware of that, but the URI given was still dead when I tried it manually. I see that it is working today. dramatic (talk) 19:10, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I assume this is the between-season cliff-hanger which is common with Shortland St and other shows. I can't really see how this is notable and the article comes across a little too detailed ( and unrefed). Perhaps add it back if the whole country starts talking about it but SS isn't that popular. - SimonLyall (talk) 10:00, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability. The TVNZ website is working now, but it's not independent so doesn't affect notability anyway. Ryan Paddy (talk) 15:55, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, NZ Herald article specifically on the subject, satisfies WP:NOTE. The show is in the top 1% of NZ articles, according to page hits. XLerate (talk) 22:36, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rewrite, subject is notable, but article is horribly written. Minfo (talk) 05:42, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Weak Delete - Appears in a book, but there isn't really a notability guideline for software, but I think only one source isn't enough. DARTH PANDAduel • work 15:00, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice. A software product with insufficient indicia of notability. The book found on Google Books does not appear to be about this product, but mentions it as an example. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:08, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was
speedy keep, nomination withdrawn. (NAC) --J.Mundo (talk) 15:27, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The topic of a poem that someone found in a magazine somewhere. Non-notable, plenty of weird g-hits, but no reliable sources. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 08:11, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a strange one, but I'm convinced it's worth keeping. "Gone to the Rainbow Bridge" is a very common expression among certain pet owners to describe a pet that has died. Numerous pet funeral services, etc, include references to this in their names. Sometimes referenced in books on pet care (e.g. Choron, Choron & Moore, Planet Cat, Houghton Mifflin Harcourt 2007, ISBN0618812598). Another possibly useful source: [45], which suggests that "[p]erhaps more than any other written piece in history, The Rainbow Bridge has brought comfort and solace to pet owners trying to cope with the grief of loss of a beloved cat, dog, or other pet." JulesH (talk) 17:03, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Does saying "gone to the rainbow bridge" count as significant coverage? The about.com link, I would say, would probably count, as long as they are a reliable source. As far as I knew, I though they just mirrored WP? ~ JohnnyMrNinja 17:16, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that so many people say it indicates notability, IMO. About.com have a wikipedia mirror, but they also have a number of edited sections they have paid to have written on popular topics, in this case cat care. JulesH (talk) 11:01, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The first book is from Partners/West, a non-notable publisher (possibly a vanity press? I can't tell). The second is a brief mention in a best seller, which doesn't count as "significant coverage". And WP:GHITS. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 17:16, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The publisher may be non-notable, but can you prove that the book isn't a reliable source? I think that the two books do show notability. Schuym1 (talk) 17:23, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mean this to sound snide, but doesn't it have to be shown to be reliable? I can't even find if the publisher still exists, or really any info on it. 17:42, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps true, but we still have two professionally published books discussing the idea (the second linked in fabrictramp's comment, and the one referenced in mine) as well as a whole host of web sites. This is more than enough, I think. JulesH (talk) 10:58, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per Fabrictramp. Schuym1 (talk) 23:58, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The concept may be complete fabricated rubbish, not supported by any theology, and reeking of mawkish sentimentality, but if someone for whatever reason wanted to look up "rainbow bridge", it is good to know that they might find some explanation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.167.186.145 (talk) 13:58, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think the "15 jazillion ghits" should about cover it. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 17:16, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
!Vote crossed out: I have no opinion about if this should be kept or deleted. Schuym1 (talk) 18:03, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. "Rainbow Bridge" is a VERY common expressions - at least among my family and friends in California and Florida, used as the place where pets go when they pass. It is a lovely poem. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.159.211.210 (talk) 03:56, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn - Based on the books and the response here, I'd like to withdraw the nomination (I don't know how to close these). Though the article needs to be re-written almost completely to focus on that notability, and the copyvio should leave (just because you don't know who wrote a poem doesn't mean it's PD). ~ JohnnyMrNinja 10:31, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Previously nominated for speedy/prod but de-prodded. Fails WP:BIO. Article seems like a copy-paste job from a resume/curriculum vitae with little encyclopedic value even if it did pass WP:BIO (which it doesn't). Only sources given are blogs quite possibly by the subject itself. Author is (for now) single-purpose account, non-responsive on talk page. Shrumster (talk) 07:08, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG DELETE. Highly promotional article on a non-notable person. Fails WP:PROMOTION and WP:SOAP. To the subject or article creator: go ahead, try to go Lira Luis on this, we're ready for you.--Eaglestorm (talk) 14:28, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This was nominated for speedy deletion as {{db-nonsense}}. I replaced that with a PROD tag as it barely met the criteria to avoid A7. Another editor prefers AFD to PROD so here we are. One advantage to AFD: The same article won't come back, see {{db-g4}}. My PROD edit summary pretty much says it all: This is hopeless - doesn't meet any speedy criteria so I'm PRODding it - not notable despite claims that prevent A7.davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 15:05, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete The author is apparently dedicated to making an overly promotional and unencyclopedic article; I strongly advise him to post his article somewhere else, like Wikifilipinas. Blake Gripling (talk) 00:00, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete vain vanity in vain. JuJube (talk) 09:02, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This is a non-notable term used only by one side of the conflict. It should be deleted or merged and redirected into 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict. Cerejota (talk) 06:56, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It surely is notable. It's a newsworthy military procedure. The fact that it's only used by one side of the military conflict surely isn't a basis for deletion. --brewcrewer(yada, yada) 07:04, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am undecided on inclusion notability (there are RS who mention this, but the V is thin)... But notable enough for its own article? Convince us. This is threading on WP:POVFORK grounds, but I am not sure so I am soliciting opinions. --Cerejota (talk) 07:20, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I have read my fair share of articles and never encountered the word. Do a search on it, does it pull up a variety of sources? No, Wikipedia's purpose isn't to make things notable. --68.123.141.153 (talk) 07:24, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. The IDF has been doing this for a while now. [46] However, only recently have I read it called "roof knocking" and it only turns up 13 hits on Google News. [47]JCDenton2052 (talk) 07:50, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
*'Delete,'Redirect. This is a minor new thing that has been a part of 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict. If it, the term and the practice, does not gain some usage outside of that it shouldn't merit its own article. Nableezy (talk) 07:49, 9 January 2009 (UTC) As it is currently taking on a bigger subject than originally, I change to keep as redirect to Warnings to civilians before air strikesNableezy (talk) 11:20, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, if we are going to keep changing back and forth in the middle of this discussion what the article is called, I change my vote back to Delete. Nobody has yet given an example where this term was used outside of its current context. This could be a section of an article on warning civilians of srikes, but as its own article this is non-notable. Nableezy (talk) 19:42, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah that's kind of were I am was going... I have no doubt the term is notable, but I am not convinced it is notable enough for its own article. Thats why I suggested a merge/redirect as a possible outcome, even if my first instinct was delete. For example "Black Saturday Massacre" is how Hamas officially described the first air strikes, but it doesn't have a page of its own, because its not worth it. The exact same content would go into the main article without problem. --Cerejota (talk) 09:39, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One event is not analogous to type of military procedure. This procedure was also used by the IDF in prior conflicts [48].--brewcrewer(yada, yada) 09:52, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What was it named then?--Cerejota (talk) 06:18, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I would like to point out that the 100-odd ghits in Google News is an underestimation of the term's notability. As this term originates in Israel, its main coverage would be in Israel and in Hebrew language news sources. Surely, nobody is arguing that a term notable in another country does not satisfy WP:N because it does not come up with a few hundred english language ghits?--brewcrewer(yada, yada) 08:10, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How many of those sources refer to the term outside of its present context? Nableezy (talk) 08:25, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know Hebrew. I can't answer that with any certainty. But surely I'm not going out on a limb if I suggest that there are far more Hebrew language news sources that give coverage to a military procedure that originated in Israel. Do you understand Hebrew?--brewcrewer(yada, yada) 08:33, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No I don't just asked because you said its main coverage was in Israel. Im sure somebody who does know Hebrew will be along though to answer that :) Nableezy (talk) 08:40, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Brecrewer, you miss the point: we all believe the term to be notable, just not notable enough for its own article? You follow?--Cerejota (talk) 09:42, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you agree that the term is notable, but think it should be merged into another article I suggest that you withdraw your nom and speedy close this discussion. This is a forum for articles for deletion. Merge discussion belong at the articles talk pages. --brewcrewer(yada, yada) 09:50, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I dont think it is notable outside of the current usage. Nableezy (talk) 09:54, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What happened? I thought you agreed to wait for feedback from someone who understands Hebrew? --brewcrewer(yada, yada) 10:01, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I am still open to persuasion, but until somebody can show something that references this phrase, not necessarily in English, to something before this conflict I currently think it is not notable. Nableezy (talk) 10:15, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This practice has been used for years in many different conflicts Israel has been involved in so it doesn't make sense to redirect it to 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict. --PiMaster3talk 08:36, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah the practice exists, and is mentioned in other articles. This name, however, was given now, and this article is about this practice as it relates to this conflict, not the general practice. If we can source information and find a notable name for this phenomenon, then we can make an article about that. But your comment is not adressing the point of this AfD. --Cerejota (talk) 09:51, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, his comment was right on point. He maintains that this type of military operation has been around for a long time and is thus notable. --brewcrewer(yada, yada) 09:59, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pointless to have such a small article, better to merge it into the larger article.Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 08:46, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Are you sure that is what the term means ? I thought it was when non-lethal-ish missiles were used to disperse people from building prior to an attack. Brewcrewer, will you disambig to slaughter prep, or massacre logistics if those terms come up in a few hundred Arabic media sources ? Just curious. :) Sean.hoyland - talk 08:48, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I remember from my textbook in 6th grade that the Americans use this technique before they staarted bombing Tokyo, but my school changed textbooks, so I can't cite that :( Leujohn(talk) 09:09, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See above: you are not addressing the article's content. This article is not Warnings to civilians before air strikes, it is about the naming of this practice by the IDF and its opinion that this practice means that they can legally bomb civilian areas. --Cerejota (talk) 09:51, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cerejota, the article says nothing about the legality of bombing civilians, that is something you have brought into the conversation.WacoJacko (talk) 06:29, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's wrong. The article is about a type of military procedure. If you think the article should be renamed, bring it up at the articles talk page. --brewcrewer(yada, yada) 09:57, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the article is certainly not in good shape, even at its current size, but this is no reason to delete. The fact that it was created as a result of the recent conflict is not a reason to delete either, it just means that someone needs to include more information on how this practice was used in the past. -- Ynhockey(Talk) 09:55, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed it up a little, and renamed it to Warnings to civilians before air strikes, as clearly the term Roof knocking was not known before the present conflict in Gaza. If we can fix it to globalize beyond the examples from Israel, I am sure we can keep.--Cerejota (talk) 10:43, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I live in Israel and listen to the news at least four times a day, read the newspapers, and know pretty much what is going on. While it is true that the Israeli military issues telephoned warnings to inhabitants to evacuate, this hardly rates an article in the Wikipedia. --Ravpapa (talk) 11:35, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but expand to include other conflicts. WWII is a good start. If we can find reliable sources for other instances in which civilians were warned before air strikes, this warrants inclusion, but leaving the article as it is isn't an option. Graymornings(talk) 11:40, 9 January 2009 (UTC) I made this comment after the article was renamed to Warnings to civilians before air strikes. Now the change seems to have been reverted, so I support deletion unless the article is renamed and broadened to other civilian air-strike warnings. Graymornings(talk) 18:01, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question - does it make a difference that, according to the Ha'aretz article, this practice is code-named "roof-knocking" by the IDF? Is this a kind of official language? Or is the author of the article just using "code-named" because it sounds cool? And, on a related note, do all such highly specific military actions merit pages (e.g., surgical strike) or no? Jlg4104 (talk) 12:06, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: The tactic/method or whatever you call it, is notable enough I think (isn't it notable when you get a standard warning that your house is going to blown up?) and should be covered. I think it should be kept if it can be expanded. Chamaltalk 12:15, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It appears the change of purpose and content to Warnings to civilians before air strikes is not consensus and all changes that de-specify this as a general article on the topic to an specific one for a term used only by the IDF and only recently. Hence, I restore delete or redirect to 2008-2009 Israel-Gaza conflict. Should the consensus move towards the generic topic, closing editor/admin can consider me as keep. I apologize for the confusion, but I really thought a consensus solution had emerged.--Cerejota (talk) 20:01, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to 2008-2009 Israel-Gaza conflict: unless anyone can provide evidence that this practice (and the term 'roof knocking') have been used before recent years, this seems like an example of recentism and should be merged back into the main conflict article. I'm not convinced lasting notability has been established here. Terraxos (talk) 15:10, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-- Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms: Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and so articles simply attempting to define a neologism are inappropriate....We must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term—not books and papers that use the term. This article is a model example of this policy.--Jmundo (talk) 15:34, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Did you bother reading the article before !voting? The sources within the article clearly define the term. --brewcrewer(yada, yada) 17:39, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A couple of sentences don't clearly define the term. The articles are about the strikes not about the term.--Jmundo (talk) 18:16, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete under avoid neologisms, under Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and under recentism. There are no sources that talk about this term as a new term. Furthermore, this article plays into Israeli claims that it is somehow protecting innocents in its air raids. Such propaganda--even if it is true that the IDF is dropping leaflets (on the roofs of people cowering in their basements) and/or making phone calls (into a non-functional cell phone network)--is not appropriate for Wikipedia. Propaganda comes in three flavors, white, grey, and black. We cannot be sure which kind this is, so it might well fail WP:V as well. Fee Fi Foe Fum (talk) 15:40, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Notable propaganda is notable. Also, your hatred for Israel does not belong on this talk page. See WP:NOT#SOAPBOX. --brewcrewer(yada, yada) 17:37, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a directory of every code name used by every military, and not a directory of neologisms. Edison (talk) 18:03, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This has nothing to do with directories. Lucian Sunday (talk) 18:43, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename and keep- its a valid concept that's hardly new. More sourcing and broadening the focus to a more global one would be extremely helpful however. Umbralcorax (talk) 20:06, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If the concept is not new, why all the secondary sources are from 2009? Where are the books and academics papers about this neologism?--Jmundo (talk) 22:40, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It's a very interesting piece that has no logical resting place in a single other article. Various other military strategies are documented, and this particular article is attributed as much as any other. -SJG 81.98.113.58 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 20:44, 9 January 2009 (UTC). — 81.98.113.58 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Strong keep. Military tactics are notable enough for inclusion, and this one has received enough reliable, NPOV, third party coverage: [49], [50], [51], [52], [53], [54], [55], [56]. Bsimmons666 (talk) Friend? 00:25, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oops. Looks like a lot of those are the references in the article. My position still stands. Bsimmons666 (talk) Friend? 00:28, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All the secondary sources provided are from January, 2009. Again, neologism are words and terms that have recently been coined, generally do not appear in any dictionary, but may be used widely or within certain communities". --Jmundo (talk) 00:36, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article is about the notable military tactic not about the word. --brewcrewer(yada, yada) 00:38, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Then it should be renamed, expanded and rewritten to reflect this. As it is, this is a WP:COATRACK/WP:POVFORK that belongs in 2008-2009 Israel-Gaza conflict as a minor par tof it. You are given undue weight importance otherwise: does wikipedia really want this? --Cerejota (talk) 02:19, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's about the specific Israeli military operation. As for the other wikilinks and your parting question, I really have no idea what you're trying to say. --brewcrewer(yada, yada) 02:21, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do we wnat every little term that anyone uses to refer to something in an given event to have its own article, simply because it can be sourced, as opposed to including it in the parent article? This seems like a way to split a legitimate editing dispute into two articles for POV reasons. Its done all the time, and the community generally frowns upon it and deletes, althought things like New antisemitism (should go into Antisemitism in amuch more abriged form) and Israel and the apartheid analogy (should go into some humanrights article also abriged) have flaunted it as real aberrations. Its all about all sides of the I-P conflict thinking they are the center of the universe instead of thinking about creating a quality encyclopedia.--Cerejota (talk) 02:44, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can you cite any military history book that talks about this notable tactic?--Jmundo (talk) 00:41, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I heard that Americans used it when bombing British subjects during the Revolutionary War. Kidding. Point is, being historic is not prerequisite to notability. See, for example, 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict, an article about something that is not mentioned in any military history books. --brewcrewer(yada, yada) 00:49, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you in that. What I do not agree with is that the term as used in this conflict warrants its own article. BTW, Jmundo, dear friend, WP:NEO doesn't apply here: neo-logism are new words not novel uses of existing words. --Cerejota (talk) 02:22, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong KeepThis is not specific at all to the 2008-2009 conflict. Israel has been doing this for years. It has only come to more common knowledge since this latest confrontation. It's a Jewish tradition to be concerned about hurting civilians. Even the Jewish underground in '46, the famous episode of "Jewish terrorism" ie the bombing of the King David Hotel, the "terrorists" called the hotel first. The term may be relatively new, but it is something done by Israelis since before there was an Israel. They did the same thing in the Hezbollah conflict. The recent conflict is a good opportunity to educate people on this excellent practice, rather than trying to delete it. Perhaps the Palestinians can take a page from Israel and phone before firing. Tundrabuggy (talk) 04:08, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How considerate of them. If this tradition has been happening for years, where are the sources? (WP:RELIABLE). --Jmundo (talk) 04:54, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly Tundrabuggy, while I commend the IDF for doing something rather than nothing, your views on this simply don't fit well with the closest thing we have to objective reality, namely the pronoucements of many international bodies, human rights groups, journalists in the various battlefields over the years and so forth whenever these conlicts occur. They're usually highly critical of the steps the IDF take to avoid civilian casualities (which after all they are legally obliged to take). I'm not taking sides here, I'm just saying that your views seem questionable given the amount of evidence to the contrary. If we're going to talk about opportunities to educate people with this article as you say then we better get it right. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:34, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not only does this practice exist, the Palestinians have been taking advantage of it for some time, as per this article from 2006 [57]. Pay particular attention to the Palestinian quote regarding the "Zionist policy":
"Palestinians use 'human ring' to protect senior official: Hundreds of Palestinians gather at house of wanted man after IDF warned residents to distance themselves from building because it is about to be bombed. 'We came to prove that the Zionist policy can be beat,' said civilians, who stayed on site until wanted man escaped."Tundrabuggy (talk) 18:21, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep This is an interesting and informative article. What is the use of Wikipedia if we turn it into another Encarta? The huge diversity of articles is what makes Wikipedia wonderfull...articles like this!WacoJacko (talk) 05:03, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No one here is speaking or has spoken about the tactic being new, its the name that is new. I find it interesting that the "topic" is being changed but not the name. --Cerejota (talk) 05:58, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Even if it is new, it would still be notable based on all of the sources.WacoJacko (talk) 06:32, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is only notable in relation to the event in which it has been coined, it certainly deserves a spot in the main article, but as its own? Nableezy (talk) 07:57, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep an important feature of current IDF tactics, and certainly covered by enough reliable sources (even if they don't use the exact name 'roof knocking', they describe what this article covers) to become a decent quality article with time. Cynical (talk) 13:23, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep its a useful and developing term. Superpie (talk) 16:24, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question:How real and notable in this "strategy", when the death toll is now 800 and 90 percent of the cellphone network is down? I don't think we need an article about this inconsequential practice. --J.Mundo (talk) 01:34, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Answer: Notability is determined by coverage in reliable sources. --brewcrewer(yada, yada) 03:49, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect somewhere. This term is poorly defined—is it shooting at the corners of roofs only, or does it include the much older practice of dropping leaflets? It should be redirected to 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict or somewhere more general. 66.57.190.166 (talk) 07:12, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've read everything here, it is not a definition, it is about a notable military tactic (which can be seen with several NPOV third pary coverage). Cannot be merged into 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict since the IDF has been doing this for many years. Epson291 (talk) 10:58, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Interesting article. That it is used by only one side of the conflict is no reason at all to delete it. --Adoniscik(t, c) 16:41, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Let's not discuss this while emotions are running high; surely people have better things to do right now? cojoco (talk) 12:29, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We're Wikipedians - that is simply never true. ;-) Graymornings(talk) 19:57, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Speedy deleted because of a copyright violation. No prejudice against creating a new article on the subject.. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 18:25, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are very few multi-day hiking trails in the province of Manitoba (only around a dozen of them), which makes this a notable trail in the area. --Zachdegner (talk) 06:43, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to appropriate target (ie. park where it is located). ChildofMidnight (talk) 08:20, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Withdrawn. TheAEtalk/sign 18:50, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the google books and news results are pretty impressive. Usrnme h8er (talk) 13:31, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, subject is clearly notable after taking a look at the links provided by Jmundo. And it would have been nice to know why the nominator thought this article was suitable for deletion?--Captain-tucker (talk) 13:48, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I hit "enter" with TW without making my summary. :) At the time, the article looked like this, it has been greatly improved and sourced since. It looked like a not-notable writer who promotes her party. I guess I'll withdraw this, per Jmundo's work and consensus. TheAEtalk/sign 18:50, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The article is about a hip-hop group / label that does not meet notability in general or that specific to a music group. The label/group has put out a coupe of mix tapes. There is no coverage about the group in reliable sources. Whpq (talk) 05:13, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sign of notability, and I can't find anything on this group. Google shows only mirrors of Wikipedia pages and the group's own MySpace page. Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 02:00, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of sources in article and investigation in good faith by my fellow editors. ChildofMidnight (talk) 08:22, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Speedy deleted per CSD A7. Nick-D (talk) 07:21, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A non-notable cricket club that does not meet WP:ORG or WP:CRIN. The article is original research, citing no sources whatsoever and the creating editor has a clear conflict of interest, using terms such as "our" and the article certainly is not written from a neutral point of view. The sub-district level is essentially amateur, with perhaps only one club pro paid to play. Mattinbgn\talk 05:13, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. MBisanztalk 01:26, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Page probably created for advertising. Pages that link to it contain either irrelevant content or refer to Gigaset, a cordless telephone for which a redirect was created (by the author of this page, see here). Contains no reliable sources (all of them are the own corporation's page and/or blogs). Created by Cenora (talk·contribs), with a long history of deleted pages. Most of the interwikis added are false or were deleted when created, such as in pt.wiki (my home wiki), in which it was created by an ip who insisted on removind the speedy deletion tag on an automatically translated article, with copy & paste of most of the original page. Fails WP:ORGDaimoremsg 05:05, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Page created for information on company products, most information on the products are indeed found in Gigaset website, but that doesn't mean the source is not reliable. Company was established recently, so not enough time to be on major new sources. I don't know what interwikis are. I tried to make the translation to portuguese, but wikipedia asked for another account (doesn't make sense), and not enough time to translate everything. I don't insist on removing anything. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.102.1.220 (talk) 10:11, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WikiNot:Advertising and WP:N. The previous IP contributor to this discussion mentions "Company was established recently, so not enough time to be on major new sources." which is exactly the point of WP:V and WP:N. Usrnme h8er (talk) 13:28, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is a pretty simply keep in my opinion. If the nominator had taken the time to simply go to the company's website, it would become clear that this is a multinational subsidiary of Siemens, one of the largest electronics conglomerates in the world. This specific business and its products are covered in a variety of publications in English as well as a wide variety of other languages [58],[59] and therefore passes WP:CORP. As far as the other indictment, interestingly, the article is not even particularly salesy in tone. The article is unreferenced (not counting the links to the company's website) which needs to be fixed. However if the issue with an article is "advertising" as the nominator suggests the correct course of action per WP:CORP#Special note: advertising and promotion is as follows:
Clean up per Wikipedia:neutral point of view
Delete remaining advertising content from the article
Delete the article
I think it is the nominator's responsibility to follow this course before nominating for deletion. Also, if this user is having trouble with articles being deleted, I would suggest someone provide some guidance as to what the article could look like once revised |►ϋrbanяenewaℓ • TALK◄| 15:29, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - so as not to just talk, I went to the article, included a few references about the recent sale of the company from the New York Times, stripped out most of the weblinks that the author had included, removed all of the excessive linkage to the company's sublogos and tried to clean up the more problematic text. I think the article could still use more work from someone who is more familiar with this space. |►ϋrbanяenewaℓ • TALK◄| 16:27, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This article is about a book novel that does not meet requirements of general notability nor specifically for books. The article is promotional in nature being written like a dust jacket blurb. There are no reviews of the book in reliable sources, nor has it won any awards or otherwise distinguishes itself. Whpq (talk) 05:05, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete = Fails notability for books. Also, at least part of the article is a copyright violation of the text found at [60] and [61]. The second link has a date that predates the creation of the WP article, so this definitely isn't a case where someone copied WP text to a different website. Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 05:26, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing WP:N and a copyvio. Verbalchat 07:29, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Book from a publisher with only one book in print => almost certainly self published. JulesH (talk) 07:46, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What is notability? The guide: Within Wikipedia, notability is an inclusion criterion based on encyclopedic suitability of a topic for a Wikipedia article. The topic of an article should be notable, or "worthy of notice." Notability is distinct from "fame," "importance," or "popularity," although these may positively correlate with it ... This page gives some rough guidelines intended to be used by Wikipedia editors to decide whether a book should or should not have an article on Wikipedia. While satisfying these notability guidelines generally indicates a book warrants an article, failing to satisfy them is not a criterion for speedy deletion.
It is irrelevant that the novel has not won awards, and according to their website it is under review by the Science Fiction Writers of America who award the Nebula prize. Fact is that the book has been/is being read by hundreds of people all over the world, according to the publisher, and I assume they know who they ship to and where. I have read the book, and as a contributor to Wikipedia thought it would be informational for people who have asked about the book to have an article available here. People do not come to Wikipedia to buy books. The article does not indicate where/how/how much for the book, does not glorify it, makes no attempt to sell the book. The information in the article was taken from websites, presumebly provided by the author and or publisher, Amazon provides Search Inside for the novel. There are no copywrite violations.
All that being said the novel itself has a warning about reading or promoting it which I took from the Amazon site for the novel:
From the Back Cover ... A warning to the reader ... You may not wish for people to know you are reading this book. In some jurisdictions such material is banned, and in some there may be severe penalties should you be caught with it in your possession. Even in places with free speech some authorities, and some of your neighbors will be suspicious if they open and read portions of this book, and find you reading it. In the near future the consequences could be much worse. You may not wish to read it at all.
If you purpose is to suppress any information on this book then by all means delete it. It will not keep everyone from reading it.
You will note that The Shack and Tarzan are both self-published novels which have articles in Wikipedia. If you bothered to check you would know that the publisher is the US subsidiary of a European publisher with hundreds and hundreds of titles. DasV (talk) 08:10, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If the book only has hundreds of readers then it's not doing very well. Notability for books is outlined here. Please desist from making further personal attacks or you will be blocked. See WP:CIVILVerbalchat 08:21, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You have accomplished your purpose Verbal; enjoy the fruits of your labor. DasV (talk) 08:32, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As a final note I sent the publisher an email with a copy of the article page and this discussion page. I think it will add to their advertising ... BANNED BY WIKIPEDIA ... I'm sure they will want to thank you all. Please do hasten the deletion process; oh I forgot Verbal has already blocked the content anyway. DasV (talk) 08:49, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article is neither banned nor blocked. Verbalchat 09:01, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I looked into the claim, above, that the book is being reviewed for a Nebula award. This statement isn't as meaningful as one might think. The book is in the SFWA Circulating Book Plan[62]. This is a bunch of books that are mailed around between members of the SFWA who choose to be in the Book Plan; the books were sent in by the publisher.[63] It's therefore as unselective as a slushpile. The purpose of the Circulating Book Plan is to get as many of the books that were published within the eligibility period read as possible so they can be considered for good or ill. Also, by definition all genre books are under consideration for a Nebula,[64] so being under consideration for one is meaningless. Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 09:55, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: None of the links that DasV typed in above show us anything meaningful about this book. I'll explain:
The following six links are to places to buy the book; all of them are sales websites that will sell anything at all that you pay them to sell:
The following are "vote for things you like on this list" pages. There are three, three, and two votes for this book on these three pages, respectively. For comparison, 667 people voted for Ender's Game on the second list.
You are twisting words. There was no claim that the novel was being reviewed for a Nebula Award. This is what I said, 'it is under review by the Science Fiction Writers of America who award the Nebula prize', which is true. This from the website, 'Since these pages follow the Nebula Awards rules for "rolling eligibility," rules I feel certain are explained somewhere on this vast web site, I only keep 12 month's worth of stuff up here.' which means the novel is eligible ... nothing more. The book has only been out for 6 months or so. Of the novels you saw under review is the Sword & Soceress 23rd issue ... I guess this is meaningless also, but the series has an article in Wikipedia ... why don't you delete it? The links simply show that the book is being read and commented on, as is any other book many of which have Wikipedia articles. Just get on with the deletion, don't waste your time finding reasons or actually reading the book ... just ban it and move on. DasV (talk) 10:16, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't twist words. I wrote: "I looked into the claim, above, that the book is being reviewed for a Nebula award." You said: "it is under review by the Science Fiction Writers of America who award the Nebula prize." In other words, I paraphrased you properly. Then I demonstrated that your statement wasn't of any use in determining whether or not the article on this book should be kept on Wikipedia. This is not an attempt to ban the book. The book will still be read, as you claim, by hundreds of people, and will still be available for purchase. I was polite, reasonable, and sensible. I gave references for everything I said. If you have a real argument to make, rather than just throwing around wild complaints that I'm trying to ban something, please make that reasoned argument. Otherwise, you're just making yourself look foolish. Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 11:48, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Technically, every book of speculative ficiton is "eligible" for a Nebula Award. But there is absolutely no evidence that is actually being considered for one. -- Whpq (talk) 11:56, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for failing the notability criteria for books, and for obviously being a copyvio. Not too impressed by the, ahem, verbose defence put forwards above... It would be a good idea if the author familiarised themselves with WP's core policies before continuing along their current path. onebravemonkey 13:39, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I understand now the perspectives of the contributors here. This is not the place for an article on this book. You should move quickly to delete it and insure that no references to the novel make their way into Wikipedia. Thank you all for your insight, I apologize for using this forum, for my verbosity, and for looking foolish. DasV 155.87.150.1 (talk) 14:07, 9 January 2009 (UTC) talk) 14:05, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please log in to leave comments? Thanks, Verbalchat 14:25, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We will be glad to include it if it becomes notable enough to win a major prize, or to get substantial press comments. All books are treated just the same. Doing otherwise is prejudice for the book, otherwise known as promotion or advertising. ,DGG (talk) 18:08, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The article has been replaced by the copyvio notice, suggesting it was taken from Amazon's website. Given the nature of the discussion above, it's hard to pass judgement on this article based upon whether the copyvio tag was accurately applied, or if an edit occurred that made it a copyvio. As I wouldn't go so far as to call this a WP:SNOWBALL delete yet (only a few people have actually expressed opinion), I'm almost going to recommend peroguing this discussion (that's a word I learned from our parliament here in Canada) until the copyvio issue is rectified. If the copyvio notice was placed in good faith and the article in question was copyvio to begin with, then it may qualify for speedy deletion right now, with no prejudice to recreation with original wording. As it stands, I can't make one call or another on it. 23skidoo (talk) 22:45, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your interesting and amusing email. The comments on the discussion are pretty much to be expected. I do not understand the supposed copyright infringement, since all of the information is available on sale and commentary sites, and even if it weren’t it would still be Fair Use.
I personally do not use Wikipedia for informational purposes, and I am told by those who do that the content is unremarkable, since it is usually a reprint from other sources. However, I’m sure it serves the public for the purpose of general subject knowledge. On this point I would have to agree with those voting for deletion of your article; Fe Fi FOE Comes is certainly not mainstream material.
When we decided to publish the novel we were aware that it had been rejected by mass-market publishers, and that institutional sources such as libraries would likely not pick up the book. We also knew that conventional reviewers would probably not review it. We published it because it is an entertaining story, and because the subject matter is diametrically opposed to conventional standards. The latter being an obstacle itself to mass-market appeal in this day and age. No one expected to get rich from this project.
Surprisingly, the book has gone forward by word of mouth, and from reader to reader without the marketing assets available to the mainline presses. I find that copies are with booksellers in diverse locations such as London, Germany, Italy, and several in the United States. We’ve had letters and emails from soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as soldiers and other fans in US and Europe. As a mostly mainstream rejected novel, it is in very good company historically.
I wouldn’t be too hard on those voting for deletion of your article. These are ordinary everyday people who have the ability to form a consensus regarding information that is allowed in Wikipedia; it is not surprising that the negative will almost always outweigh the positive in such situations. Too Fe Fi FOE Comes is legally banned in several countries, due to content, and the popularity of the novel will be proportional to the negative input regarding it. Both Liberals and Conservatives will almost surely agree that this is a book that should never have been published. Still it is amusing that the novel will be voted out of Wikipedia, and exclusively by people who have not and will likely never read it. It would be curious to see a list of all the books there is no room for in the encyclopedia.
Please let me know when the deletion occurs; we enjoyed your Banned by Wikipedia commentary.
S.C. Morsak, Editor
Vel North Editions Europe
DasV (talk) 07:07, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is no copyright violation. Never was, the publisher has confirmed this. [email protected] they hold the first publication rights to the novel, and are the vendor for all of the sale sites.
The novel is ‘notable’ if for no other reason than it cannot be marketed, advertised, sold, or possessed in certain countries. Try taking a copy to Red China or North Korea … please. It will soon be notable for being banned from Wikipedia also. ‘BANNED’ 2: to prohibit especially by legal means <ban discrimination> ; also : to prohibit the use, performance, or distribution of <ban a book> <ban a pesticide> Merriam Webster. Using the word ‘delete’ does not change the fact that the book will be struck from Wikipedia shelves. Since Wikipedia has an article on Banned Books you would think all of the books that Wikipedia editors have ‘deleted’ would be included on that page in all fairness.
The novel is not a ‘mass-market’ publication. In other words it is not a product of the almost complete monopoly enjoyed by the major publishers, which is supported by Wikipedia Policy. Because it is not a mass-market publication it does not have the publicity advantage enjoyed by the major publishers, which is supported by Wikipedia Policy. And it does not get the automatic reviews by major review sources enjoyed by the major publishers, which is supported by Wikipedia Policy. All of these things preserve and protect the publishing monopoly, as do the Wikipedia members. This also serves to limit the choices the reading public has de facto.
Amazingly this monopolistic support goes on proudly, and with a sneer for those who have the audacity not to simply accept rejection at all levels, and keep their manuscripts in the desk drawer. Poe should never have self published Tamerlane, Burroughs should have never published his series, and no one should ever break away from the publishing monopoly and find a small press that will dare to put out a controversial print. When The Shack has sold millions and millions, then Wikipedia might have an article on it, but there will be no article on this amazing little book to inform anyone before everyone is already reading it. Besides those voting for deletion have no time or interest in actually determining what it is they are deleting.
Besides this is the first English novel imprint for Vel North, such nerve to stain Wikipedia’s shelves with a single book in the portfolio! Of course Jim Baen and Tom Doherty broke away and started Baen Books and Tor respectively, both published David Drake’s early books; I guess at some point they had only published one book. I guess they would not have been entitled to articles at that point either.
This has been a wonderfully educational experience, and I thank you all for showing me the workings of Wikipedia. You are right, I must heartily agree with you. This is no place for Fe Fi FOE Comes.DasV (talk) 06:24, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The copyvio is from amazon, not the publisher. Verbalchat 09:45, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Amazon's description of items is usually provided by the publisher. Chances are the publisher wrote the text in question, which it seems was used with permission here. Doesn't look like a copyvio to me. Still non-notable, but no copyvio. JulesH (talk) 11:08, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Jim Baen and Tom Doherty were both respected editors with a lot of books under their belts when they formed their respective publishers. Google has apparently never heard of 'S. C. Morsak', except in relation to this particular book. The comparison is, frankly, laughable. JulesH (talk) 11:15, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Quite obviously true as anyone knows. The purpose of inserting the copyright block had nothing to do with any copyright violation. What do you find notable about The Lottery by Shirley Jackson? DasV (talk) 15:04, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that it has been discussed in, among other sources, a book on its author published my a mainstream press, American Literature, and Essays in Literature, and has been filmed not once but twice, the later production being described by an authoratitive source of one of the best films ever made in its genre. These things, among others, make it notable. What can be said similarly about the book in question here? JulesH (talk) 09:27, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Lottery was a short story published in a magazine 60 years ago. It rose to fame because of the negative response and was BANNED in North America. It was that reaction which made the story 'notable' and eventually led to its popularity. The book in question here likewise has content which is prohibited - banned - elsewhere. The exclusion you seek is not based on any merit, other than a lack of any second hand praise or criticism at some arbitrary level, but nevertheless the exclusion will be notable. That too will be worth saying about the book. DasV (talk) 10:26, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Your parochialism is handicapping your search efforts with Google. I count 10 hits on the first page when I'm not limited to English. The comparison serves to illustrate the absurdity of the policy. Books cannot not be told by their cover, by their ads, by their reviews, who publishes them, or even who chooses to ban them. DasV (talk) 15:04, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Then the owner of the copyright has to follow the instructions on the copyvio notice. I think it has something to do with OTRS? Verbalchat 11:24, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Um. Okay. Now I'm certain you're pulling our legs, because I search Google in all languages, with safe search turned off, and turn up NOTHING for "S. C. Morsak" other than Wiki pages discussing this article and a page on the Goodreads site that DasV linked to rather far above my comment here. I even tried using both "S.C" and "S. C." to see if the spacing mattered at all.[65][66] Are you using some Google other than google.com? Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 21:57, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Really? Let me pull your leg some more then: Try a search on google.de for Morsak.
Germans are notoriously reticent to discuss personal or business information with strangers. However from perusing the websites it appears that the Morsak – Stecher family operated Morsak Verlag from 1884 until 2003 when it was sold. All of the titles in the catalog before that date were published by that family. Since then members of the family have organized another verlag (this means publishing) and have done something like 20 books, spinning off Vel North to do their first English novel due to ISBN issues and marketing in the US. Probably S.C. Morsak is a member of the immediate family. You are welcome to send them an email, I doubt they will provide any details, but will likely confirm their publishing of the pre 2003 titles and the current ones under the new company. [email protected] You will note that ‘googlemail’ is a European name for Google. The novel copyright page indicates it was printed in the European Union. DasV (talk) 09:31, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You mean this search on Google.de for S.C Morsak which turns up nothing? We said that S.C. Morsak doesn't appear to exist in Google. This shows that he doesn't exist in either the English or German Google searches. Vel North similarly publishes only this one book. You will note that we have said both of these things and your responses have been almost non sequiturs. Are you listening at all when people talk to you? Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 10:09, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I give up. Enjoy your perspective. DasV (talk) 10:32, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Another excercise in futility. DasV (talk) 15:04, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment; have updated my views above as the copyvio claim is not so obvious and variously muddied. As for the article itself: if the book is as notorious as has been claimed then surely more press coverage is to be expected in the future, which could pave the way for a rewritten version of this article. As for the moment, though, it is a dead horse and not getting any less dead. onebravemonkey 12:24, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. MBisanztalk 01:25, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:BIO criteria, received a notable honor - the Akino Memorial Research Project on Central Asia from the UN University in Japan (The Armenia-Azerbaijan Conflict over Karabakh, p. 11). Japanese sites which mention: TUFS, here and here, Digitalasia.sfc.keio.ac.jp, Src-home.slav.hokudai.ac.jp. --Brandспойт 12:05, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Relatively junior academic, associate professor. No indication that the award received is notable. The links given by Brandmeister show that she has been a speaker at a symposium, is a member of "Digital Asia Regional Reserch (sic) Center", and has presented a seminar at the Slavic Research Center of Hokkaido University. The references in the article show that she has published. All of these activities are normal for any academic, nothing shows that she's above the average. Perhaps she will become notable in a few years, but WP is not a crystal ball. --Crusio (talk) 12:44, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
'Keep'. Akino memorial fellowship, given by notable university, appears to be award as substantial as those conferring Wikipedia notability in other fields. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:03, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per Crusio. The grant from the UN University in Japan appears to be basically a regular research grant, not of the kind that would satisfy criterion 2 of WP:PROF. There is relatively little in the record to indicate passing any of the other criteria of WP:PROF (as Crusio notes, publishing papers and speaking at conferences are regular academic activities, done even by the most junior academics). It may be that we are missing some sources in Japanese that cover her work but somebody would still have to find and identify them. Nsk92 (talk) 20:45, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The person may satisfy only one criterion as per WP:PROF#Criteria. She actually meets criteria 2 (the person has received... an honor at a national or international level) and 6 (the person has held a major... appointed academic post at an academic institution). She is also published in non-Japanese sources. --Brandспойт 09:41, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are mistaken and you quote the criteria incompletely. Criteria 2 actually says something about "a highly prestigious academic award or honor". Nothing indicates that the UN grant is highly prestigious. Grants are actually not ordinarily cnsidered to be honors or awards. Criteria 6 says "a major highest-level elected or appointed academic post". Again, you omit the words "highest level". Associate professor definitely is not highest level and not even full professor makes one auto;atically notable. That she's published in non-Japanese sources is immaterial, all academics publish. --Crusio (talk) 10:56, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if so, I consider to look through 8 (WP:PROF#Notes and Examples): Some lesser significant academic honors and awards that confer a high level of academic prestige also can be used to satisfy Criterion 2. Examples may include certain awards, honors and prizes of notable academic societies, of notable foundations and trusts. The link to Akino Fellowship has been fixed. --Brandспойт 13:29, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think the operative terms here are "significant" and "high level". This link and this one show that the award is given only to undergraduate and graduate students and to postdocs. That doesn't sound like a significant high level academic award to me. --Crusio (talk) 14:04, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Could not find enough to establish notability under WP:PROF. Does not seem to pass WP:BIO either. Could become notable in the future, but not there yet. The author apparently publishes primarily in English. Yet there are few entries and holdings based on WorldCat, and very few citations. As noted by Crusio, the grant is not enough to meet WP:PROF criterion #2 (highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level). Similarly, the fellowship is not a the level required to meet WP:PROF criterion #3 (elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association; fellow of a major scholarly society for which that is a highly selective honor).--Eric Yurken (talk) 17:39, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A fellowship from an individual university is almost never sufficient--I don;t want to say never, because "fellowship" has many meanings, and some of them might be sufficient for notability. But in such cases there would always be other things also. Here there are not. A few minor publication only. DGG (talk) 00:17, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Those are different Yoko Hirose's (I guess its a popular name in Japan). The one for this AFD is an associate professor in Central Asian studies. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 00:43, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And even if they were the same person, the highest number of citations is 14, which is far from being notable. --Crusio (talk) 07:14, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Procedural nom; Curious27 will write the reason why. NuclearWarfare(Talk) 04:59, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.
There has been a WAVE of SPAs at this. I've put them in this box so that they don't misrepresent consensus
Delete it, seems to be an autobiographical vanity page. Or at the very least, everything cited to his own website should be removed. NeoMetal (talk) 05:22, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wiki is supposed to be a source of FACTS, not your friggin myspace, delete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lolqueeuqlol (talk • contribs) 05:31, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It appears Larry West is once again referring himself in the 3rd person in a persisent attempt to salvage his page and mask his actions, he seems to perceive everyone gullible enough to fail to realize this, the "impact" he speaks of is nothing more than a reminder of his apparent egotistical crusade as when compared with other actual notable artists his achievements pale in comparison, and DO NOT warrant a wikientry in the slightest (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 13:04, 9 January 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. If Larry West/Luvataciousskull is allowed to maintain his own wikipedia page, it sets a dangerous precedent. The evidence shows that Luvataciousskull and Larry West are one in the same, and that he's been monitoring edits to the page. Wikipedia should be a source of shared information and gathering of knowledge; not another Myspace or Facebook. This page serves no purpose other than acting as a vanity page and link to West's own website. While Mr. West may feel incredibly important that he ran for an office he couln't legally be voted into, it would be akin to my 7 year-old daughter saying that she's going to be president; she's too young, it can't legally happen, and she certainly shouldn't have a Wikipedia page dedicated to her because of it.
Delete The page itself appears to be nothing more than a vanity page, as the links above seem to suggest and in which case this page merits a speedy deletion. Perhaps a line or two mentioning Skull's/West's futile attempts to become mayor could be inserted into the elections page itself once it has been revised due to Skull's/West's reckless editing of it to sooth his ego and bring an end to this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by kdma87 (talk • contribs) 08:32, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Editing this page does not rule out the fact that this page holds no barring on the history of Philadelphia. This is yet another attempt at Mr. West to keep his personal vanity page up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.9.75.245 (talk) 13:49, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to make notice of the above user's(208.236.9.10) repeated warnings on his contributions page and that it is a shared IP and therefore possibly another of Mr. West/Skull's vain and borderline schizophrenic "keep" comments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by kdma87 (talk) 14:23, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As I have stated previously, if Larry West were notable enough for a wikipedia biography, somebody else would have written it. Not only did Larry West clearly author his biography, but he sourced his own websites, and has been defending the page more or less alone ever since its inception. Had Larry West not been masquerading around referring to himself in the third person and fighting to no end in what is clearly some rather shallow struggle to allocate to himself some facet of self-impmortance, the page would surely have been deleted by now. It is of no significance or notability. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.236.148.55 (talk) 17:11, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have to note that the history of everyone voting to delete or keep this page should have their user history looked at before deletion since most of the votes seem to come from people who have only edited the Larry West page or this page alone. These members seem less likely to actually care about Wikipedia and it standards, less about making sure this article is noteworthy, and more about attacking Mr. West and myself. Before any decision is made, I ask that the history of every user is checked to ensure that the people asking to delete it have an actual history or point. LuvataciousSkull (talk) 17:27, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Since we are being called on to look at user histories, I feel it's important to remind everyone in this discussion, that LuvataciousSkull IS Larry West. He continues to speak of himself in the 3rd person to try to fool everyone here. He posts on the Megadeth music forums as user "Luvatacious Skull" and advertises his "Mark Skull pirate radio" station broadcasts there. He also advertises the same radio station from his Larry West owned website http://www.morisecomics.com/markskullpirateradio/. When this wiki page was first created, he called upon members of the same Megadeth forum to assist him with corrections, proofreading etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ejankov (talk • contribs) 18:27, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteI'm unsure what voters' history has to do with the fact that LuvataciousSkull is Larry West. This is undeniable, and the fact that Mr. West continues to refer to himself in the 3rd person in an attempt to hide it is laughable. He's trying to redirect attention from that FACT, thinking that by pointing fingers elsewhere, nobody will notice that he created this page. This page was nominated for deletion because there is nothing of merit on it....it's a vanity page, invented to feed the ego of a young man who seems to crave attention, plain and simple. That's our point, Mr. West/LuvataciousSkull. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.27.182.88 (talk) 18:31, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doing a design for someone's guitar is not worthy of a wikipedia article, Larry West should cease his intensely stubborn quest to keep his page, I further suggest that he be banned from wikipedia to prevent his penchant for exploiting services for his gain to occur here again
Delete Larry, please stop referring to yourself in third person, it's insulting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.236.148.55 (talk) 00:15, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Larry West's page is nothing more than a MySpace for him. He is trying to make himself notable, but he's indeed not. He has entirely no reason to be here, except for maybe a small blurb in the mayoral election article. He is not notable enough for a single entry that is seperate from his one small grasp on fame, which really wasn't much. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.9.75.245 (talk) 00:48, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Superscript text
Delete. Rules forbid you from creating a page for yourself, that infraction alone warrants this article's deletion, not to mention the absolute lack of educational signifigance to it. As much as it's creator would like to think differently and for his own gain this article is nothing more than a self-serving conceited effort on his part to promote himself by exploiting the services of wikipedia.org
There is no further course but for immediate deletion, this sort of avaricious corruption should not be tolerated —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vernier Pomp (talk • contribs) 11:50, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've taken a stab at re-writing the article in order to keep it. I noted some the references point out by the user with the IP Address 98.235.167.191 and the comments by DMacks. I think the article may just need some more editing and that isn't enough reason to delete the page. My take. LuvataciousSkull (talk) 13:43, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Apparently did get mentioned in local news, but seems like a WP:BLP1E at best (a sentence or two in Philadelphia mayoral election, 2007 would suffice) and fails WP:POLITICIAN. Even notability of the 1E is suspect: he looks like a write-in candidate with no party affiliation who waged a battle that was doomed from the start by his age, who got minimal votes. In the past 18 months since the first AfD, is there any evidence that he has had lasting impact or that his activities have historical worth? If in the future his battle becomes more than (what sounds like) a one-man self-serving crusade or he becomes a viable candidate, or somehow else becomes involved in something with lasting impact or historical worth, then I think he would have the notability to deserve an article. The cited refs don't seem up to WP:RSMetro appears to be a freebie publication meant for for quick reads of major important headlines and misc items of local interest piled at commuter stops, more "newsy/serious" than an indie rag but not nearly up to status of a real newspaper. If this person is really important even just in Philly-local politics, I would assume he would have substantial coverage in multiple mainstream media...there are numerous TV stations, major newspapers, and other publications in town. DMacks (talk) 05:43, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete DMacks said it best and hit the points I was concerned with, but I also want to add that a quick Google search of LuvataciousSkull and Larry West shows that they are one and the same. LuvataciousSkull is a handle Larry West appears to use on various Internet sites. LuvataciousSkull is also the author and protector of this wiki, ruling it with a terrible bias. For the identity evidence, here are a few URL's:
Delete This is obviously Larry West's vanity page. He wrote it himself, including personal comments not cited on other websites. He cites his own website as a source. There is no proof that he was awarded the Ruth and Bernard Petlock Award in 2005, nor a description of what it is. He wasn't of legal age to run and was never a candidate. Even if he received a majority of votes, he wouldn't win. Luvatacious isn't even a word. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Psykill333 (talk • contribs) 07:42, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are too few credible sources. If you remove links to blogs and own sites (WP:SELFPUB), (WP:EL), there would be nothing left. Subject is not notable, as stated above. Nelson50T 10:37, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Larry West himself (LuvataciousSkull) is the creator and obsessive maintainer of this article, which offers no educational value. He has abused 3RR multiple times in its preservation, and when I tried to nominate it for deletion, he removed it with comment, "You are not in a position to nominate an article for deletion. Please refrain from your vandalism. Vandalism is not tolerated by Wikipedia." He refers to himself in third person to mask his bias while defending himself on the talk pages of his article as well as the philadelphia mayoral one, of which I suggest his mentioning is removed as well (he was not a legally recognized or notable candidate, and there is no record of any votes received). Writing and defending an autobiographical article on Wikipedia is "strongly discouraged" (Wikipedia:Autobiography) and most of the material in the Larry West page would be more appropriate on LuvataciousSkull's user page. Spinecraft (talk) 11:30, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does anybody really even know who this guy is? People from Philly, feel free to chime in on this. I don't live there, but I have family that does, so I talked to them frequently about the ongoing race. Never once had I heard of Larry West, even in passing, until I read his vanity page here. As far as I knew, Wikipedia didn't allow these kinds of things. Especially with such pointless information as video about him making macaroni and cheese. There's plenty of people on YouTube that post videos of themselves doing ordinary activities. Do they all deserve their own Wikipedia articles? Not to mention, previous votes for deleting the article have said that Larry created the page himself, which I wouldn't doubt based on some of the things in it.The Myst (talk) 11:35, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm looking a the comments left by a few people here about why to keep and delete this... it seems there are a lot of allegations about if "Larry West" created the page and is editing it like a loon, and a lot of people who seem to be making comments on both ends (Delete and Keep) only edited pages related to Larry West and nothing else. It seems like a LOT of the comments for deleting it come from people who only edited the Larry West page or the 2007 Philadelphia Mayoral Election page, and it seems they have something against him personally. I learned about him a few days ago during a web search on young people who ran for office. It seems like he's worth a Wiki page to me. I've seen Wiki pages dedicate to obscure bands, albums, singles, etc... things it only seems 50 people care or even know about. Looking at the history of the Larry West page and the discussion, this looks more like a sort of witch hunt than about protecting Wikipedia. 208.236.9.10 (talk) 14:01, 9 January 2009 (UTC)— 208.236.9.10 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Strong Keep The main reason to keep this article is simple: Larry West was the youngest person to try and run for office in the city of Philadelphia. While I agree that not much has happened lately in the public eye, he did have some impact at the time. There are numerous articles on Wikipedia about bands, artists, people, tv shows, etc, that had only a limited impact at the time they came out, and the lasting aspect of them didn't appear until much later, if at all.
The Philadelphia Metro is a reliable free newspaper with national recognition as a respected newspaper. The other references to this article, including the Philadelphia Daily News, rely on hard copies since the articles are no longer online. Larry West also was mentioned and written about in Philadelphia City Paper and Philadelphia Weekly. It seems that most of the references were deleted, either purposely by others or by accident, so for the purpose of restoring notability and historical significance, here are the links in question:
What isn't mentioned in the article is how Larry West fought to help musicians play in the Rittenhouse Square, or how he confronted then-mayor John Street about standing in line for an iPhone instead of working, as noted by the Associated Press and Philadelphia Inquirer.
I agree, Wikipedia isn't a place for vanity, but historical facts. A lot of facts are missing from this page, as well as references to the above articles. Larry West has proven to have a lasting impact in the fact that he fought for musicians rights and the possible impact he might have on future elections. I think deleting the page now would be a bad idea since it was agreed to keep it based on the notability guidelines that were established by Wikipedia. 98.235.167.191 (talk) 12:05, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please demonstrate how Larry West has had a lasting impact with musicians rights. I have seen nothing on that.Curious27 (talk) 14:45, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Let it be noted that upon reading this IP address's history, the only other edit it's ever made is to add Larry West back to the "Philadelphia mayoral election, 2007" article two days ago. Seems suspicious to me. I see no proof that any of those things will leave a lasting impact on anything, even locally in Philidelphia. I'm almost sure this is Larry trying to boost his own reputation again.The Myst (talk) 12:33, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a good reason to keep this page...the article needs to stand on its own merits, not just be the bag on top by the curb. We're trying to clean up the neighborhood one block at a time...just because there might be another delinquent tenant also doesn't mean a landlord shouldn't try to evict a certain one that he cares enough to take to court.
Deletion due to lack of notability is for now, not forever: there is no ban on an article being written in the future, if and when it becomes apparent that there really is lasting/historically-significant impact.
There do appear to be WP:SPA (and maybe WP:SOCK) here on both sides. Regarding whether LuvataciousSkull is indeed Larry West, consider also as evidence (NB: only admins can see it, but any admin can confirm it) that LS uploaded File:LarryWest1.jpg with an annotation of "Source=self-made|Author=Larry West". DMacks (talk) 18:41, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Deletion due to lack of notability is for now, not forever: there is no ban on an article being written in the future, if and when it becomes apparent that there really is lasting/historically-significant impact." Sounds fair and reasonable to me. :) Change my vote to "Delete". LuvataciousSkull (talk) 19:07, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there have been a few other wikipedia pages for other write in candidates in elections Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Piotr Blass (2nd nomination) come to mind which had a tortured history until eventual deletion. I don't think just standing in an election is enough to warrent inclusion. Much the same seems to apply here. I am reasonable convinced that LuvataciousSkull and Larry West are one and the same [67] which make the page largely a self written page, or worse a use of wikipedia as part of an ongoing political campaign. Printed press coverage making it borderine for WP:NOTE at best. I had initially thought that West's megadeath connection might have been been worthy of inclusion but that does not seem strong enough to warrent inclusion[68].
I do have some concern that a number of the deletes come from new users and there does seem to be quite an anti campain witnessed by the number of vandalistinc edits to the Larry West page. Which resulted in me semi-protecting the page.
Salix, first off, thanks for all the help! The Megadeth part actually struck a tone in me because I forgot that, yes, Larry West has had more of a lasting impact outside the world of Philadelphia politics! He did a design that was used on the guitar of Dave Mustaine for some time:
I think that should be taken into consideration, too. LuvataciousSkull (talk) 23:40, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can a mod force Larry (LuvataciousSkull) to stop speaking in the thrid person. It has been proven it is him, and frankly it is insulting to the conversation and everyone trying to participate. Everyone here is intelligent, and if the links posted were not enough proof, Dmacks provided more proof. Isn't this a violation of Wikipedia policy? If so, is there a disciplinary action that is taken against users who do? As pointed out, this article is not noteworthy, Larry West himself said it should be deleted, and he is just grasping at straws to keep it up; again proving it is his vanity page.Curious27 (talk) 01:01, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not appear to be notable. If a person were to write a research paper on Philadelphia's events in 2007, I doubt Larry West would be included. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr.Krowley (talk • contribs) 20:07, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: it's a neat job done by the author of pulling the wool over our eyes with what appears to be a well written article, but cut through the guff and you'll find very little of substance here. Fails notability, just. sparkl!sm hey! 20:15, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
as per WP:NOTDIR, hardly any on these list are even notable, many are just simple public libraries. Michellecrisp (talk) 04:46, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
question: How you know that the libraries in the list are not notable? --Jmundo (talk) 05:20, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
best indicator would be if they had their own article or had a reference. this looks simply a list of mainly public libraries you would find in any large city. Michellecrisp (talk) 05:27, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's not a reasonable idea. Not even all notable libraries in the Western world are covered; expecting any library in Karachi to be covered assumes someone in a very small group made a specific edit, the chance of which is very unlikely. Another evaluation method is needed. - Mgm|(talk) 23:41, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That wasn't the sole measure I was considering. given that a significant part of the list is ordinary municipal libraries, I think overall it doesn't warrant a stand alone article. Michellecrisp (talk) 11:39, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep considering the cultural bias, this is the first step in writing articles about the notable among them. And they do not have to be individually notable if this is done as a combination article. In fact, we usually do not make individual articles on local libraries, but discuss them under a combined article for libraries in a larger subunit. DGG (talk) 05:52, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
yes but I've never seen a list of local libraries on Wikipedia. even collectively it's hard to justify an article out of this in my opinion. Michellecrisp (talk) 05:54, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDIR; a list of libraries in London or New York would also not be likely to survive an AfD for the same reason. Nick-D (talk) 07:12, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if one or several of the libraries are notable, articles should be created for them. WP:NOTDIR effectively means that inclusion and notability requirements are not lower in a list of items than in mainspace articles. Usrnme h8er (talk) 13:05, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--WP:CSB, we don't have any evidence that the libraries are not notable. How many people in Karachi have access to to the internet? The fact that the libraries don't have their own articles is not an indicator of notability in this case. The list is a good start, WP:DEADLINE. --Jmundo (talk) 00:00, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep perfectly valid use of a list and better than having articles on all the individual libraries. StarM 03:17, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in the list of nine "List of libraries in X" : Bangladesh, Barnet, Gary, Hong Kong, Istanbul, Karachi, Singapore, Taipei, Thailand. Note, as DGG said, that individual libraries on this list are not under consideration, but rather the list itself, therefore "hardly any on these list are even notable" does not apply. Usefulness of this page is empirically observable; please show that 'simply a list of libraries' is a distinction that merits consideration for deletion. Comparison with other articles is hazardous, especially when one is comparing with the non-existence of similar articles (refuted above), or with the hypothetical result of a hypothetical AfD of a hypothetical article such as Libraries in New York. I hope to see new additions to this list, particularly since there are no major cities in this list west of Istanbul. Gary "is the largest city in Lake County, Indiana," not a person who eats libraries. Anarchangel (talk) 20:42, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and perhaps add libraries from other parts of the country and rename to List of libraries in Pakistan to expand the scope to a more reasonable level. DHowell (talk) 06:20, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
A one-hit wonder whose single gets play on a single local station and popularity in "midwest dance clubs" doesn't meet notability criteria. This AfD is related to the discussion held here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Noys, closing admin believes a separate discussion is required for this. Deadly∀ssassin 04:29, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No significant coverage found, and I could also find nothing to indicate a hit single - chart aggregator acharts.us had nothing - which makes them no-hit non-wonders.--Michig (talk) 18:16, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: non-notable artist with a non-notable single. JamesBurns (talk) 05:12, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete per AfterMidnight on list of Lists-related deletion discussions; I have taken the liberty of inserting a link to the Pakistan Post Office list of postal codes on page Pakistan, and therefore the same situation now exists as did for US codes. Anarchangel (talk) 21:00, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and refactor into something less directory-like; perhaps into an article about the history of the use of postal codes in Karachi, which might or might not be merged in with the article on Karachi. I don't think this article sets a precedent for lists of postal codes for every city in the world—Karachi is the 20th largest city in the world. I also don't think the deletion of the zip code lists by state should be considered a precedent; they were deleted without a clear consensus to do so. DHowell (talk) 04:50, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was reduce and keep. King of♥♦♣ ♠ 08:40, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reduce and Keep - I agree that the list of Dental Surgeries do not belong here - particularly as the page professes to be a list of major hospitals. I'll discuss the article on Monday with one of my colleagues who did her medical training in Karachi. In the meantime I've tagged the Comments subpage of the Talk page for CSD - G11 (Spam). Beeswaxcandle (talk) 05:33, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reduce and Keep, Conditional pending new developments, agree with Beeswaxcandle. No robust, ie government or medical society, external link to listings as yet. If one is found, then appropriately link to it elsewhere and delete. Anarchangel (talk) 21:05, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reduce and keep, as my intuition tells me that "Muhammad Dental Clinic Basera Apartment block-2" is probably not a "major hospital". DHowell (talk) 06:26, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - OK. As promised I've had a discussion with my colleague. She says that the Public Institutions are major hospitals and that most of the Dental Surgeries are not. She went through the list of Private Institutions and marked the ones she knew to be major - unfortunately I can't do anything to the article based on her list as that would be WP:OR. I haven't deleted any of the institutions and we really need someone who has the time (and reads Urdu) to go through the list and look for sources. I have tidied up the mixture of bold and non-bold text and have removed addresses where I could. I have also heavily cut the Dental Surgeries to just the three that appear to be hospitals. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:22, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. MBisanztalk 01:25, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This article appears to be autobiography, as it was written entirely by AprilGriffin (talk·contribs). While we do not delete articles concerning clearly notable people solely due to the author's conflict of interest, in cases such as this where an article's subject is only marginally notable at best, COI issues weigh heavily in favor of deletion. John254 03:39, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete appears to be self autobiography of member of School Board.Naraht (talk) 03:57, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is not an autobiography. April is an elected official in Hillsborough County, Florida. I am her aide. I created the wikipedia account in HER name so that April may retain control should there be staff turn over, etc. If April does not qualify for an article as a county wide elected official then I would submit that the Wikipedia Article Tampa Mayor Pam Ioro (Who is not a State of Florida Constitutional Officer as April is and thus even less "marginally notable") should also be have her article deleted under the same premise. If we want to play with semantics I could always create another account and post this article to side step the "conflict of interest". I don't think someone who won an election for a state constitutional office with 237,000 votes is marginally notable by any standard. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AprilGriffin (talk • contribs) 03:58, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
While mayors of large cities are inherently notable, the same presumption does not apply to local school board members. The fact that you are a paid employee under the direct supervision of April Griffin rather than actually being April Griffin herself hardly serves to mitigate the conflict of interest present here. Attempts to "create another account and post this article to side step the 'conflict of interest'"[69] are unlikely to prove successful, as we have effective means by which to detect abusive sockpuppetry. John254 04:11, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as copyright violation. We cannot use material copied from another website, even if you allege on the talk page that there is no copyright -- you must have it clearly stated on the page from which the text is copied that the content is under a free license such as the WP:GFDL. If you rewrite the content in your own words -- using the web site as a source for content but not exact phrasing -- then we can reconsider. Thanks, Antandrus (talk) 04:36, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - there is certainly the makings of a case for notability but an OTRS ticket needs to be obtained first to resolve the copyvio issue - see talk. TerriersFan (talk) 04:40, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
State Constitutional Officer such as school board members have been legally determine to be Public Officials and Public Persons by Florida Statute as well as the Florida Supreme Court, the Federal Appellate Courts, and the United States Supreme Court. As a matter of fact, the very defamation scenarios that are discussed in the deletion policy apply to April and this was covered with her as part of her legal briefing when she was elected. Legally speaking, when a person is barred from the protection of anti-defamation statues, they are inherently notable. Additionally per the Wikipedia deletion policy in regards to biographies for living persons, the requirement is that the "great care" must be excercised to maintain neutrality in the post presenting relevant, truthful, verifiable facts. Everything in this article is truthful and verifiable and this article does not digress into opinions or positions. The deletion policy is very clear in that provided there is neutrality in the article, the existence of a biography or auto-biography of a Public Person should only be deleted as a last resort. Additionally an executive officer of a school board that manages the 8th largest school district in the United States is just as inherently notable as a Mayor of a city that is smaller than the county that is served by this school district. Copyright permissions were sent to [email protected] to allow use of the material on the Hillsborough County Public Schools website.AprilGriffin—Preceding undated comment was added at 04:46, 9 January 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Since this is an AFD discussion, not a libel lawsuit, the public person/private person distinction as it affects the standard of proof for defamation claims does not apply here. Wikipedia's gold standard of notability is the general notability guideline; a review of the third party, non-blog sources cited in the article indicates coverage of April Griffin that may not rise to the level of significance that we require. While we can often use person's status as a heuristic for determining that coverage in third-party reliable sources satisfying the general notability guideline can eventually be found, school board membership won't cut the mustard. Also, per [70], this article is an autobiography, and therefore presents a conflict of interest. John254 05:17, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia brought up the legal definition of Public Persons in their deletion policy. In your opinion school board won't cut the mustard, however when legal citations are used in Wikipedia's own delection policy that undermines your position and would seem to indicate that legal designation is indeed significant and sufficient. General notability is not the only condition cited in the deletion policy. Public persons are also a consideration. I also find it interesting that you have an award for reverting vandalism on to the Port Charlotte High School article. Port Charlotte is a pretty small town here in Flordia... not very notable. What is it's signifigance that warrants an article? {AprilGriffin (talk) 05:24, 9 January 2009 (UTC)}[reply]
Our deletion policy makes no mention of the defamation law public person/private person distinction. While our biographies of living persons policy does draw a contrast between "Well-known public figures" and "People who are relatively unknown (Non public figure = NPF), it should be clear that this is not the same thing as the defamation law principle, formost because the biographies of living persons policy deals with questions wholly outside the remit of defamation law -- e.g. a claim may not be libelous because one could later establish its truth, but only via reliance on sources or evidence that would constitute original research, an inappropriate use of primary sources, or otherwise run afoul of our content standards for material touching upon living persons. Also, unlike in the context of defamation law in which one can defend against a libel lawsuit by establishing a claim's truth only after the fact, our biographies of living persons policy requires that controversial assertions concerning living persons be reliably sourced ab initio. John254 05:49, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ordinarily, I believe that AFD nominations should be used sparingly, and only in the most obvious cases, to avoid destroying the work of editors who may have invested substantial effort in researching and writing articles. Such a rationale for temperance in deletionism is inapplicable here, since this article is simply a cut-and-paste reproduction of [71] with a few sources attached, involving essentially no original authorship at all. Even if we have permission to use the text under the GFDL, this reposted autobiography isn't the sort of content that I would regard as worthy of retention, being in violation of WP:COI and likely inconsistent with WP:NPOV. If uninvolved editors want to write an actual article on April Griffin (provided sufficient coverage in third-party reliable sources could be found), it would be far more efficient to start over. John254 05:33, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Regardless of copyright, school board members are not normally notable, and nothing particularly notable is shown here. But I disagree that the motive in keeping articles is to avoid hurting the feelings of contributors. Our obligation to their feelings is to treat them politely by giving serious and fair consideration here, explaining to them what does and does not belong in an encyclopedia. DGG (talk) 05:59, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"What does and does not belong in an encyclopedia" is not always clear-cut. Content which is obviously non-notable, according to the general consensus of editors, should be sent to AFD, of course. However, consideration should also be given to articles whose subjects are on the borderline of notability, which, if nominated, will produce controversial AFD discussions with no apparent consensus, resulting in deletion or retention of the articles as a function of the whims of the closing administrators (or, as it is more politely described, the closing administrators' weighing of the "strength of arguments"). It is in this latter situation that substantial restraint in AFD nominations is advisable, both to preserve what many editors regard as legitimate encyclopedic content, and to avoid insult and discouragement to editors who have invested substantial efforts in writing content that reasonably could have been regarded as acceptable for inclusion. The latter consideration supposes, of course, that the articles in question reflect actual research. John254 06:17, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable person. JuJube (talk) 07:42, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There is an OTRS ticket at OTRS:2333681 regarding the copyright and licensing issue (of the "we want to release the content" variety, rather than the "take this down before we have to DMCA you" variety). I have replied to it requesting further details. Stifle (talk) 13:41, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep subject to the OTRS ticket being satisfactorily clarified. In addition to the sources in the article, additional sources are available here that meet WP:BIO. Involved in sufficient controversies to become notable. TerriersFan (talk) 17:32, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I've added the {{copyvio}} notice until the OTRS ticket is processed. The revision prior to mine is located here. – Toon(talk) 21:06, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy. Based upon the pre-ticket version, doesn't appear to be notable beyond a small area, and the additional sources still only seem to suggest local notability. If this is an autobiographical article written by a Wikipedia editor, then it's appropriate for the person's user page (assuming the copyvio is addressed). The user AprilGriffin (I'm assuming good faith that the user is actually the subject of the article) asks above about why a school article exists but this one is causing an issue. Wikipedia uses different notability criteria for different subject matter. For example, geographic locations regardless of population are considered notable and eligible as long as they can be verified to exist. Some topics require coverage in academic media. Schools and other major buildings are considered inherently notable, though this is sometimes disputed. Articles on people require certain notability criteria to be met that, yes, often do make it more difficult for an article on a person to be eligible. And the WP:BLP makes things even more tighter at times. 23skidoo (talk) 22:49, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Autobio. When they become notable someone with no COI will write them up here. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 08:20, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
A recent previous attempt to speedy for G11 plus NOTDIR and NOTSPAM was declined, same nominator put it up for AFD but didn't do it right. He then realized it had been deleted before and might qualify for G4. I removed that on the grounds that the 1st nomination could easily have gone "no consensus." That, plus the fact that this new version had been up for months, indicates consensus might have changed. Therefore, I'm putting it up for discussion rather than letting the G4 stand. If this version and the old version are substantially identical, I have no objections to a speedy-delete G4 closure, but I would prefer to wait 24 hours to see if consensus has indeed changed before G4'ing it. Might as well avoid the drama of a DRV.
Delete because of WP:NOTDIR. this creates a precedent, do we start creating articles for other cities. Michellecrisp (talk) 03:51, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as previously deleted content. While consensus was not clear in the previous AfD, the closing administrators decision was soundly grounded in policy - WP:NOTDIR. Usrnme h8er (talk) 12:23, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above and result of previous AfD. Wikipedia is not a directory. Themfromspace (talk) 23:17, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I just want to say that the reason why i added this article is to provide information about the town-wise location of police stations in Karachi. yet it does not contain the contact numbers of the specific police stations. So how does it come under the classification of directory? nomi887 (talk) 12:47, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for ignoring the question about not being a directory, as that is less of a concern to me than the fact that this information is unencyclopedic. Below the national level of any country, very few police departments would warrant such a list, and even at the national level, few would. At best, you could add a summary of the content to Karachi#Government or one or more of the articles linked there. By summary, I mean just that: A count of the # of stations in each town. By and large, the names of the stations are wholly unencyclopedic. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 16:54, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The article is unsourced and possibly not notable. Interestingly, there has been a large amount of text removed from this article from previous edits, but no reverts? (I don't have rollback capabilities). Nothing indicating blatant vandalism, but can someone check it out? — KortaggioProclamationsDeclarations 02:44, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. A Google News search indicates that the subject was charged with advance-fee fraud but I haven't been able to find the result of his trial. Clearly there are sources that mention him but I am not sure how much information they actually provide. The fact that the article has been on Wikipedia for three years should be considered a point in favor of keeping it. Finally, anyone can check out the history of the article by looking at the versions found at the history page. --Metropolitan90(talk) 03:40, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly notable - the best known of the 419 advance-fee fraud artists. Generally, fraudsters and other criminals are not particularly notable, but this one has been getting international news coverage. I added some external links to the article, which needs expansion to cover the material provided in these sources. Something odd has been happening with the article. Looking at previous versions, sometimes they have nothing but praise for Fred Ajudua the philanthropist, sometimes nothing but anger about Fred Ajudua the criminal. References appear and are removed. Aymatth2 (talk) 18:42, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Expanded the article to include content from the external sources. If the decision is "keep", it will be interesting to see subsequent activity on the article. Aymatth2 (talk) 20:39, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question: This article focuses too much on negative parts of the person. Why would this be acceptable under BLP?- Mgm|(talk) 23:23, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Does the article represent fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources (WP:NPOV)? I just summarized content from the most obvious sources, which are all negative and focus on the criminal activity and damage it caused. Ajudua seems to be notable for his frauds. If there are reliable independent sources that are more positive, perhaps sources that describe Ajudua's philanthropic efforts mentioned in earlier versions of the article, this information should also be included. My cursory check did not turn up any. Aymatth2 (talk) 00:15, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There are a number of sources provided to establish notability. Scapler (talk) 21:48, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was
speedy keep, it's snowing. (NAC) --Jmundo (talk) 23:41, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Might I point out that Anime is not the same as TV programs? They're not really redundant... DARTH PANDAduel 03:06, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd argue that anime series deserve their own list because of its difference from most TV series. I personally wouldn't be against a merge into a list named "List of animated television series by episode count", but that's just me. DARTH PANDAduel 04:08, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Um, yes they are the same. TJSpyke 03:19, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry if you think that, but they're not entirely. Like Remurmur said, anime is a subcategory of TV programs. DARTH PANDAduel 04:08, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Redundant per nom. Why not "List of sitcoms by episode count" or "List of dramas by episode count"? TJSpyke 03:19, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, why not? No, seriously, I'm asking. 208.245.87.2 (talk) 14:58, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A list of shows concentrating on a specific medium is not suddenly redundant just because there is a larger list for all medium. A larger "universal" list does not offer relevance to articles within wp:Anime's scope and provides no context for it. This list maintained by the same project does. Dandy Sephy (talk) 03:56, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and change the generic television list to only include shows with 500+ episodes. Not only would that eliminate almost all overlap, but it would reduce a range of series lengths which is far too wide, IMO. When the top series on the list has over 30,000 episodes, it seems a little absurd to have the bottom of the list be 150 episodes. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 03:58, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It contains not just television, but also direct to video series, and it seems useful to have this separate list per Dandy Sephy.--ragesoss (talk) 04:00, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I would like to point out that the television list is also sortable by genre, allowing one to view a list of just the anime mentions.--Remurmur (talk) 07:14, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Includes OAV/OVA which cannot be defined as television series by default. Shrumster (talk) 07:17, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If OVA's are not considered episodes, then they shouldn't be mentioned in any list on episode counts (that seems pretty obvious). TJSpyke 18:58, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
They are considered episodes, but they are not television episodes. Hence Shrumster's clarification. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 19:31, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Shrunster said that OVAs are not television series, not that they aren't or don't have episodes. No one here (or anywhere, for that matter) is going to argue that OVAs don't have episodes, so your argument there just falls apart. 「ダイノガイ千？！」(Dinoguy1000) 19:37, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Nihonjoe, Ragesoss, and Goodraise. AFAIK, there is no policy or guideline which actively discourages content duplication of this nature (content forks are discouraged, but this is hardly a fork - this list was started and is actively maintained separately from the main television programs list). 「ダイノガイ千？！」(Dinoguy1000) 19:37, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete: At first glance this seems like a reasonable article about a productive scientist, now dead, who wrote various publications. But a Google check shows almost nothing about him apart from some genealogy stuff and the UC Davis article. No evidence of notability other than this one article and the subject's papers - and any researcher is likely to publish a number of papers during their career. (The copyright infringement could be fixed easily - don't think this is the real issue). Aymatth2 (talk) 19:55, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to see how one finds "Blatant copyright infringement and conflict-of-interest". While facts in the two are similar (and the UC Davis article is specifically cited), the content in the Wikipedia article is more substantial and the text and presentation differ substantially. Specific details regarding any concern would be appreciated. The co-existence of an "R" and a "P" in the subject's name and the author's nom de Wiki is coincidental. Removal of a previous tag was inadvertant.
The above commenters have obviously contributed very significantly to Wikipedia and perform valuable service by reviewing new articles. However, I caution that Wikipedia needs to be careful: historians have a role in defining societal values, not just recording information. In this instance, contributors to articles on a second-rate pedophile rapper and a minor league pro wrestler would delete an article regarding a scientist who provided early warning of immense damage to a critical agricultural area and helped transfer agricultural knowledge to another country. I realize that what occurs with one article does not necessarily define the notability of another, but relative balance is needed.--Rpclod (talk) 15:03, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I recognize your concern that an article about a scientist who has made valuable contributions is being considered for deletion, while articles about people whose importance in your view (and mine) is highly questionable are retained. But Wikipedia does have basic guidelines about what can be included and what cannot, and a key one is notability. Although often violated, the principle is that all content should be backed up by reliable sources that are independent of the subject (e.g. not self-published) and that an article should have "several" such independent sources. Everyone has different views on what subjects are important: the notability test avoids the issue. Paris Hilton is notable because there is a great deal of independent commentary about her. Whatever my personal views, I am not notable in the Wikipedia sense: nobody has written about me. If you could find independent sources that discuss Hunziker's life or works other than the one UC Davis article, that would establish notability. Aymatth2 (talk) 17:18, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. This doesn't seem to be a blatant copyvio or conflict-of-interest, but on the other hand, I don't think it passes WP:PROF either. Ruppert Hunziker may well have made plenty of useful contributions to science, but there needs to be evidence that he was particularly highly-regarded as an expert in his field - not all academics deserve articles. I'd prefer if someone more knowledgeable in the area than me could judge this one, though. Terraxos (talk) 00:56, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Side Comments: there is a minor copyvio - one paragraph copied from the UC Davis article. Trivial to fix. I can't see the conflict of interest with an soil chemist who died aged 80 five years ago. Maybe the big agri-combos are watching this debate with bated breath. I doubt it. Personally, I think "conflict of interest" is not a very useful idea. If an article is neutral, balanced, fully backed up reputable independent sources, I don't care who wrote it. But I want sources. Aymatth2 (talk) 02:32, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jerrydelusional ¤ kangaroo 02:16, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't think there will be sources. He was a doctoral graduate who went into commercial work and published a few papers, which apparently have not been cited since, at least as far as the journals in Scopus & Web of Science are concerned, but also checking the miscellany of material in Google scholar, which lists just his Masters and doctoral theses and nothing else. We have had this problem before with scientists who do all their work in industry in many different fields; if nobody writes about them, and they don't publish significantly in journals, or write widely used textbooks, it's almost impossible with available sources to find out how they may have influenced people or been regarded as an authority. There may be sources eventually, in various agricultural publications in the area or published memoirs, but normally this is something we just cannot find evidence for, except in the very rare sporadic cases where some specialist historian has actually written something. DGG (talk) 06:51, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
COMMENT: I've added a COPYVIO tag to the article at the start of the two paragraph copyright violation. The second paragraph might have an extra sentence at the start but from then on it's a copy from an online source. I've also added the article to Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2009 January 9. Even though a deletion does seem to be in the works. Future participants in this deletion discussion may want to look at the untagged version of the page hereUsrnme h8er (talk) 12:11, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Gscholar only turns up one hit. The UCD link doesn't indicate he was a professor, and the online site for the Davis newspaper (behind a paywall, but I have a subscription) doesn't turn up any hits. There are lots and lots of PhDs in soil science working for private companies in this valley, and I'm not finding anything to distinguish this particular one.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:25, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per the minor copyvios and the lack of reliable sourcess. Appears to fail notability guidelines, as is shown by the low number of search results on both Google and Gscholar. Elucidate(light up) 10:29, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete. Not notable. Decltype (talk) 14:45, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –JuliancoltonTropicalCyclone 01:59, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Morgan Jackson-King and set redirect. Minor notability for this little guy has NOW been found and added to the article. However, since he is only 4 years old, it is minor and all in association with his character. Schmidt,MICHAEL Q. 06:35, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and merge appropriate amount to Morgan Jackson-King. Anyone who has seen my edits knows I'm all for articles on notable kids, but this needs to go (along with some refs) because it gives no information that can't be covered by mentioning it in the article of his character. SMSO is a Wikipedia mirror and the article on Wellard doesn't mention Devon or his character. Since there's no biographical info for the kid, an article on him is not yet viable. -0 Mgm|(talk) 23:13, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to character article as all the content of the article can be accommodated in the target without undue weight. Skomorokh 20:38, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Vote changed to merge: to character article. Schuym1 (talk) 21:33, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete the article lacks content that tells us anything about the company (founding that, owners, sales, location, etc) let alone notability. The one band we have an article for on the list released one song with them. - Mgm|(talk) 23:07, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: article fails to establish notability WP:CORP. JamesBurns (talk) 05:24, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Totally uncyclopedic, not really a part of the Vampirates series, could be merged with Vampirates. TopGearFreak 18:52, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it would seem that is one of four articles on the Vampirates series of books (one for each book in the series). There does not seem to be an article for the series at all. I would suggest the creation of a Vampirates (series) article, killing the redirect/disambiguation, and merging the information from all four articles into the series article (with appropriate redirects, of course). I'm not entirely convinced that any of them are notable enough in themselves to warrant an individual article. 74.224.50.124 (talk) 20:03, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, StarM 23:38, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into the Vampirates article. Shoester (talk) 21:17, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –JuliancoltonTropicalCyclone 01:51, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
KeepVampirates links to the first book in the series. Combining all books or even two of them will make infoboxes clash and there's plenty of potential for expansion in all of them that suggests keeping them separate is a good idea. If it ends up being merged, then it should be merged to the book that was released prior to this one. - Mgm|(talk) 23:04, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Vampirates. Article is over 2 years old and is still nothing more than a plot-stub, so it should better be covered in a main article until it's time to WP:SPINOUT. – sgeurekat•c 17:56, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was
speedy keep, nomination withdrawn. (NAC) --Jmundo (talk) 22:48, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This article has been tagged for notability since June 2007, and I could not verify that the references cited sufficed for WP:N nor did an online search turn up any that did. This is a procedural nomination and I have no strong opinion on the fate of the article. Skomorokh 16:21, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Needs improvement, further improvement and references. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.214.185.206 (talk) 23:41, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per my previous prod. --Stormbay (talk) 04:01, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The naming may be off but those organizations who employ canes in the step-dancing routines certainly have helped define this dance form independent of regular Stepping - another article that also needs work. The only issue remains sourcing which hardly seems improbable. These fraternities stage shows and competitions so it makes more sense to talk about the dance style than the fraternities or competitions themselves. We're also dealing with WP:CSB when dealing with minority groups and not having their reliable sources being listed alongside google news hits. here's a book on the subject; cane dancing, btw, is an old artform of African dance /tap and jazz. This dance form is directly tied to the National Pan-Hellenic Council, and more broadly, African American Greek lettered fraternities and sororities. -- Banjeboi 05:58, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, StarM 23:46, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –JuliancoltonTropicalCyclone 01:50, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep There seem to be sources at present. DGG (talk)`
Keep--WP:CBS, we should help to develop articles on subjects neglected by the encyclopedia as a whole. --Jmundo (talk) 18:27, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have faith in Benjiboi's judgement, and so trust that the sources suffice to write a decent article. Skomorokh 19:32, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
I do not believe this organization meets WP:Notability (organizations and companies), as I see no "significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources". If someone can find major sources, that would be a different story, but as of now, I nominate to delete this ad-sounding article. Scapler (talk) 01:50, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
No notability established, no sources or even website given, just a ridiculous image and caption and a bogus 'See also' Wasted Time R (talk) 15:51, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The institute does seem to exist in some sense, but as far as I can tell Roberts is the only person who's ever been associated with it, so anything about it should just be covered in his article. The title itself seems quite common, so I'd suggest making it a disambig. page after deletion. --Delirium (talk) 20:30, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias//discussion 00:08, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanztalk 01:48, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Seems to exist and have around $6m in assets according to an IRS source Google turned up, but nothing to prove notability, so fails WP:ORG.Jo7hs2 (talk) 02:21, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would also support Merge as a possible option. Jo7hs2 (talk) 21:03, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to Paul Craig Roberts. Since it's his vehicle, it's probably worth a mention in his article, and the redirect would be useful to people looking for information about this institute. Rklear (talk) 02:53, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to Paul Craig Roberts. Independent notability nor compliance with WP:ORG has not been established. However, there are enough sources - [72] - to make the linkage and the merge looks a very good idea. Smile a While (talk) 19:46, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete looks like it isn't notable and only exists on paper. Pstanton 22:15, 9 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pstanton (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.
Same issue with other pages from this author: UPMT and VAJLEBKA. Wonder why software is exempt from CSD#a7 :/ --Unpopular Opinion (talk) 13:18, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
do NOT delete. Project under construction, page will be updated early. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sudanec (talk • contribs) 16:05, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias//discussion 00:08, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanztalk 01:47, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Withdraw Nomination per WP:SNOW. Tavix(talk) 22:33, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This was previously prodded, but was removed by an IP only hours before the five days were up. Original prod said "Original Research and barely notable bit based almost exclusively on primary materials". Taking it here because of notability concerns. Tavix(talk) 01:37, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I would have said merge, but space opera in scientology is too long already. Sufficiently notable within the topic of Scientology. While the article could definitely use more secondary sources, there are 4 already, which is far from being "almost exclusively" based on primary materials. -Neitherday (talk) 02:12, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Sufficient third-party non-trivial mentions in reliable sources to meet WP:Notability. Jo7hs2 (talk) 02:24, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: To merge the articles would make it overly long, and to delete it outright would eliminate a key element of Scientology's cosmology. Regarding sourcing, I agree with Neitherday above. StealthBadger (talk) 03:03, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete My searches didn't come up with anything. Insufficient notability per guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:47, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--the literary equivalent of a MySpace artist, without notability or coverage (except for that review he published on a BBC website--a review he wrote of his own book). Drmies (talk) 03:28, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with extreme prejudice I don't judge an award on who got that. If that determines if it's worth anything I'd have dropped the Oscars ages ago. Unfortunately, this author has been duped. The International Society of Poets is part of a scam [73] linked to poetry.com [74]. If the organization is a scammer, then the award is obviously meaningless. Pooh and Cheney were probably added to the list to make it sound more prestigious than it really is. - Mgm|(talk) 22:59, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Additional note to author and others: please investigate publishers and companies you want to deal with before you do so. There's numerous websites out there that will give you advice and share warnings from other people. Use it to your advantage and don't let yourself be scammed. - Mgm|(talk) 23:01, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. MBisanztalk 01:22, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I was in a hurry and had to put something down fast. Rephrasing: Money factor is just another word for interest rate or APR. It's a pitiful concept. The article (in its current state) is just a definition and a horrifically vague formula. The trouble is, that's all it'll ever be. You can't expand on it any more than it already is. It's a non-notable concept whose Wikipedia article is equally non-notable, and is destined to stay that way forever. And the dictionary clause still applies. flaminglawyerc 06:29, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No, flaming, it's worse than that. "Money factor", according to every source, including this article, is just another term for "interest rate" in the auto finance industry. WP:NOTDICDEF? Try WP:NOTTHESAURUS. At the very most, a half-sentence added in somewhere in Interest rate could be done, but even that is not necessary, IMO. Unschool 06:04, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article describes a standard term in auto leasing industry. I have added more information on derivation and relation to APR, with additional sources. No longer just a dicdef. Gandalf61 (talk) 09:01, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:23, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to interest rate. Gsearch shows it's a widely used term, redirects are cheap, so help the reader out. But there's no need to have two articles when one will do.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:31, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:20, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no significant indpendent 3rd party coverage WP:CORP. JamesBurns (talk) 05:25, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability. OhNoitsJamieTalk 22:45, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
No evidence of notability. Many of the links that pose as refs either don't mentiion the topic or don't support that statement they are attached to. Seems to be a Nat Semi term for some of their chips, that's all. Dicklyon (talk) 04:04, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Some of the linked articles (a company history) have changed, yes. However, even though today DNR may or may not be "a Nat Semi term for some of their chips" it was, for a brief time in the 1980s, the company's attempt to create a noise-reduction brand, and found use primarily in car stereos (by Blaupunkt and others [75]), most notably on the "breakthrough" GM Delco Bose system (note the DNR logo [76]). ProhibitOnions(T) 09:12, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge, I can't find any sources which give more than a name-drop on this particular subject. Absent more comprehensive independent sourcing, a full article on it can't be sustained. However, this does seem the type of topic where a suitable merge target is likely to exist. SeraphimbladeTalk to me 10:19, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, but I'm not sure to where. Sources are all over the radar.... --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 15:22, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:20, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge in that case. To Noise_reduction#In_audio, where it would be OK to mention it even though it's not notable enough to have an article. (nom) Dicklyon (talk) 02:29, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No. It's not a generic term - that's why it's capitalized. You can find DNR in the U.S. Trademark Search at [77]. The reason none of you have heard of it is because the trademark was abandoned in 1991, after DNR failed to take the world by storm; however, that doesn't mean it isn't notable: There are plenty of obsolete and obscure technologies with their own articles on Wikipedia. In the early to mid 1980s, DNR was marketed as a single-sided noise reduction system that could work on cassettes, FM, etc. The idea was that it could coexist with the ubiquitous Dolby B and provide further hiss reduction, and as such it was first found in some premium products (such as the much-touted Delco Bose system). However, what happened was some low-end makers (i.e. Sparkomatic) added it so they could claim "DNR noise reduction" without paying the higher royalties for a Dolby B decoder; a Dolby-encoded cassette with DNR but no Dolby sounded worse than a Dolby cassette through a Dolby decoder. Since DNR took some explaining, and few systems, particularly car stereos, had room for more than one noise reduction system, DNR faded away by the end of the decade.
It seems that a couple of the sources in the article that once described DNR now do not; why not start by finding new sources? Google searches aren't helped by the fact that "dynamic noise reduction" is also used generically and DNR is often used to mean "Dolby noise reduction" (a possible intentional confusion on the part of Nat Semi). However, contemporary issues of Stereo Review, Audio, etc. describe the system. ProhibitOnions(T) 10:25, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that what you say largely agrees with the marginal notability of this trademarked scheme. Why not just mention it in a more generic article. We don't need separate articles on every failed trademarked hack. Dicklyon (talk) 17:09, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean I've never heard of it? The stock stereo in my belated 1989 Oldsmobile 98 had it. It did OK, unless I was playing anything by Orbital - but I digress. The problem remains, and I'm pretty much with Dicklyon on this one. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 03:04, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
He isn't a top prospect and has never played major league baseball. He isn't even with a team as of January 3, 2009. He's not notable. Alex (talk) 04:10, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:20, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. He's played several full seasons at AA, which some people consider fully professional and some don't. (I haven't figured out where I stand on AA). Gnews turns up lots of passing mentions, but nothing substantial enough to make me say definitely keep.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:38, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't meet notibility requirments agreed upon for minor league baseball players. Hardnfast (talk) 03:27, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Lengthy article to promote a non-notable musician. Never signed for a notable label. Major accomplishments seem to be just working with other musicians promoted by the same user. Damiens.rf 04:44, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:18, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless references can be provided. Deb (talk) 14:28, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. MBisanztalk 01:20, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--Meets criteria #5 of WP:MUSIC, group has 3 albums on indie label, 1, 2. Also, the band has won a major music award, 1.--Jmundo (talk) 17:30, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One of the groupe members own the indie label in question, and the music award you mention is not "major". It's just 6 years old and is explicitly directed to beginners. --Damiens.rf 21:18, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The fact it's aimed at beginners is irrelevant. Awards aimed at beginners can be notable too. Is it covered extensively in the media? - Mgm|(talk) 13:58, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:17, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. MBisanztalk 01:19, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep-- She has an extensive discography: 1, 2, meets criteria #5 of WP:MUSIC.--Jmundo (talk) 17:16, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Together with her husband, she owns the indie label that releases her records. That are self-published albums. --Damiens.rf 21:19, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no independent verifiable 3rd party sources WP:MUSIC. JamesBurns (talk) 01:24, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:17, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – She was nominated for a Latin Grammy for Best Brazilian Song (for "Cancao Transparente") in 2005. (Source: Los Angeles Times August 24, 2005, p. E1.) And her albums have been reviewed in major newspapers such as Reforma (September 22, 2002, p. 12). Paul Erik(talk)(contribs) 21:23, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Changed vote to keep: per Paul Erik. Not because of the album reviews, but because of being nominated for a major award. Schuym1 (talk) 21:30, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. MBisanztalk 01:20, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete He has received some coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. That coverage is not significant enough to warrant an article though:
The book "Don't be sad" is ranked #433,053 on Amazon, so evidently they aren't best sellers.
The only news article he's ever been mentioned in is this one in Malaysia Today. That was a trivial mention an does not establish notability. ANd even if it was non-trivial Malaysia Today is little more than a news blog.
Weak keep. At least one of his books, "Don't be Sad", appears to be notable. Review here: [78]; discussion in an academic paper here: Bernard Haykel, "The Islamic Book Market," In The Index on Censorship, pp. 192-96. I expect there to be many more suitable sources available to speakers of Arabic. JulesH (talk) 19:39, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
He does he meets the criterion: "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." Creating a notable work of fiction is exactly what this point is supposed to cover. We generally delete albums if we don't have an article for the group that made it, so why would we write articles about notable books without covering the person who wrote it. - Mgm|(talk) 13:55, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
keep though with the sources immediately available it's relatively hard to tell. An author of multiple books, of which at least one is notable, is notable. In doubt, we should go with it being the author who's notable, for there are likely to be more books. It's only when there is literally only a single published book that the book might be notable but not the author. DGG (talk) 06:14, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or rename to La Tahzan (Don't be sad). This book is notable, 1 and is cited by different Muslim websites and bookstores, 2. Also, the book has been translated to Spanish, 3 --Jmundo (talk) 18:51, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:14, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the comment above I made in response to Patton123. - Mgm|(talk) 13:55, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Contested prod. I don't think Paul meets the general notability threshold. His only media credits are The Mole and some indy film that's not yet been released. The article also seems to have been written by Paul himself or some reeeaallly big fan of his. I love The Mole, but every wiki-fiber in my being says this article is a no-no. Don't fall asleepzzzzzz 20:21, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rewrite - really messy article, which makes it harder to judge. Wandering Courier (talk) 20:40, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to The Mole (U.S. Season 5) He received a small amount of coverage regarding his role in the show, but not enough for notability of a separate article. A redirect would perhaps be a good compromise though, since he's already mentioned in the show's article. Raven1977 (talk) 01:33, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:14, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Mole (U.S. Season 5) The article gives no indication why his other exploits are notable, leaving us with just the mention of The Mole, which needs a redirect to point readers to the existing coverage. - Mgm|(talk) 13:50, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I must agree with Don't fall asleepzzzzzz, this does very much look like Paul Grassi has done this himself, and the trail is a fishy one. It feels wrong. The IMDb source states ...
"IMDb is not responsible for the accuracy or completeness of the contents of this page, which have been supplied by a third party and have not been screened or verified."
There you have it ... third party. This could be Paul Grassi himself creating a false web. The other websites are week and are also YouTube. Credible? I don't think so. Wiki may be being used to further his career and fame ... not what it's meant for. --BSTemple (talk) 11:02, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.
Was prodded, editor removed the prod. Non notable equestrian fails WP:ATHLETE .Some of the sources don't mention Richard L Rockefeller-Silvia or Rick Silvia. The ones that do are about his horse and Dream Street Stallions not him. A Google search for Richard L Rockefeller-Silvia [79] and Rick Silvia [80] doesn't bring up non trivial third party sources to verify the claim. Sandahl (talk) 23:57, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- Article and subject meet both the athlete and notability requirements. I don't understand why this would be up for deletion. All of the referenced articles include information on the above named person.--32.179.9.171 (talk) 02:48, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a notable article. The subject has won the highest level of professional sport (Sport Horse Breeding). Plus the subject has received a Dressage Federation (US national governing body) Gold Medal. Owns a horse in the Hall of fame and has sent a horse to the World Championships. I also think being the youngest person to have been listed as the USEF leading owner is notable. This is one of the most note worthy people in Equestrian sport. A google search does show many results from third party publications. Including magazines published by the sports governing body, the Chronicle of The Horse, Dressage Today magazine, Dressagedaily.com, Eurodressage.com and many others. The name has been searched hundreds of thousands of times. Also, its a bit confusing as the individual has a - last name. Some articles only list Silvia, while others only list Rockefeller. --MetroBioAuthor (talk) 20:58, 6 January 2009 (UTC) — MetroBioAuthor (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep Richard L Rockefeller-Silvia meets the criteria for a notable equestrian. His program, riding, and horses have won both national and international championships. Winning Dressage at Devon is considered to be the one of the most notable things a professional equestrian can do. Further the sources linked to this page are very reliable. The Chronicle of The Horse is the oldest equestrian publication in America and Dressagedaily.com is one of the top ranked google sites when searching dressage. Richard Rockefeller-Silvia is the owner and founder of Dream Street Stallions and his horses are also noted in the USDF Hall of Fame. This article should NOT be deleted! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.203.10.87 (talk) 19:47, 6 January 2009 (UTC) — 98.203.10.87 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep This article is important to keep; Richard L Rockefeller-Silvia, regardless of the style in which his name is referenced through various search engines or media sources, is a unique and influencable character to their trade based on age and documentable actions. Reliable sources as mentioned above and throughout the article- as well as throughout numerous internet searches- such as USDF (United States Dressage Federation), USEF (United States Equestrian Federation), Dressage Today, EuroDressage, HorsesDaily, GOV (German Oldenburg Verband), as well as the FEI (Federation Equestre Internationale) have tagged this individual as one that has an extensive resume for international success in the equestrian field, more specifically that of Dressage (further defining this individual's athletic contribution) and Sport Horse Breeding. At an unprecedented young age this equestrian exhibits an obvious keen sense for selecting international caliber horses, training them, and competing them to various internationally recognizable titles, which in itself is also a contribution to his garnering an exhorbant amount of media and press. Richard L Rockefeller-Silvia has made a significant impact on Sport Horse Breeding in the United States. With reference to documentation used to support this article-his selection of interesting and successful equine bloodlines has not only directly influenced breeding in the United States but also the international opinion of the equestrian body. In comparing this individual with other equestrian athletes, Richard L Rockefeller-Silvia is one individual who has and currently is transforming equestrian history. This article needs to be a reference for the equestrian industry and community. Without Richard L Rockefeller-Silvia's contributions as an athlete as well as notable niche for Sport Horse Breeding and social networking, the industry would be missing a piece of the puzzle. --Ksl2009 (talk) 00:45, 7 January 2009 (UTC)ksl2009 — ksl2009 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:08, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisting comment This discussion could use some comments from experienced editors. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:11, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep No doubt he fails WP:ATHLETE, but it surely seems that he passes the basic WP:BIO standard of substantial coverage from reliable sources. It's not a high-quality article, and the referencing could be improved, but there's enough there I think to prove his notability. Nyttend (talk) 05:08, 9 January 2009 (UTC) • contribs) has made tons of edits outside this topic.[reply]
In response to what MetroBioAuthor says — Perhaps I'm misunderstanding things, but I understood the article to say that horses he owned did all these interesting things. The accomplishments that are plainly his, such as placing highly in the youth championships, I don't see as being the highest level of amateur sport required by WP:ATHLETE. Still, it's not like it matters that much for keep/delete purposes; to take a random example, Gerald Ford was a sportsperson who didn't pass the WP:ATHLETE criteria, but he's notable for other reasons. Nyttend (talk) 14:05, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In response to the comment listed directly above, There is no mention of youth championships in the article. Rather young horse championships, which is a professional sector of the sport. Further, the subject received a USDF Gold medal, which is the highest award for Olympic level sport given in the USA. Which does meet the WP:ATHLETE criteria. --MetroBioAuthor (talk) 00:19, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I have to agree with Nyttend subject passes general notability threshold. It's not a great article, and I'm really unhappy about the apparent shenanigans above, but it is improvable.Horrorshowj (talk) 06:00, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Person is notable enough, but needs improvement. ♣PrincessClown♥ 01:27, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Fails WP:MUSIC as remixes aren't notable in their own rights. Tavix(talk) 01:02, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not all of them are non-notable, but in this case it lacks the content to warrant a separate entry. - Mgm|(talk) 13:42, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Unecessessary disambiguation page. Only links to a single article. neon whitetalk 00:56, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Can't see any use for the page as long as the three other things mentioned don't have articles of their own. It's pointless to direct readers from Bottom feeder to Bottom feeder (disambiguation) for other uses when the other uses don't have articles. Matt(Talk) 07:37, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. dab pages that differ between two meanings should be made into hatnotes, pages themselves should differ between at least three meanings with articles. This dab lists only one page with an article and is thus useless. - Mgm|(talk) 13:40, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, articles listed are not ambiguous with "bottom feeder". -- JHunterJ (talk) 00:58, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete unref'ed article about software that seems part of some other software, etc. Is this notable? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:51, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. I can't make heads nor tails of it, which makes it an speedy for being incomprehensible and lacking context. - Mgm|(talk) 13:38, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete has no references. ♣PrincessClown♥ 01:25, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete per nom, Firestorm. Two commercial sex sites (of questionable notability) are linked as primary source evidence this term is used—this is inadequate for citation, and also fails to elevate the article above the WP:DICDEF standard. Not every ethnic slur merits a standalone article. / edg☺☭ 12:41, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per reasons given in nom and above comments. AletaSing 17:22, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks like a neologism and isn't notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pstanton (talk • contribs) 22:10, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
An unnotable and unreferenced board game. After reading the article, it appears to be an original research game guide. Delete per WP:GAMEGUIDE and WP:N. Tavix(talk) 00:40, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral but no objection to deletion. I deprodded it because I thought it deserved discussion. I thought about taking it to AFD right then and there but instead I asked for comments on WikiProject Board and Table Games. The lack of discussion since Jan. 3 is telling. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 01:20, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the same reason I prodded it: unreferenced gameguide for non-notable product. --EEMIV (talk) 04:32, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge a small and verifiable mention into Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace (the film it was based on). I don't think calling it nonnotable is warranted since Avalon Hill is a well-known games creator/distributor. Obviously game guide information needs to go, but a basic description and goal can be merged. - Mgm|(talk) 13:37, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Macgyver, no need for separate article, and no material to sustain it. As is, possible copyvio as it recreates the rules of the game. ThuranX (talk) 02:41, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
There is very little information at this time on the 2016 election. Delete the page now so editors don't put a lot of time and effort into it. Reinstate it once it's clear there's an article worth of information available.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.171.247.176 (talk) 04:20, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't really think this needs to be deleted, but I don't want a lot of editors doing a lot of work only to see it deleted later. So let's preemptively settle this now, and then move on. IF it gets deleted, please suggest a date after which it may be recreated. —Markles 00:30, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No need to have a page for an election almost nearly a decade away. Not to mention, the page is poorly written. Jason (talk) 00:37, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Response - The quality of the writing should not be an issue. I/we would be happy to improve it, but not if it's just going to be deleted. that's why I proposed discussing this AFD.—Markles 00:55, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
By poorly written I meant that it was formatted horribly whenever it was written. The citations aren't even real citations, they're just links. If it can't get enough attention to be correctly formatted, then it would be best to delete it until a later date. Besides, the 2012 election article wasn't even allowed to be created without being redirected to the main election article until recently. Why this instance should be any exception is beyond me. Jason (talk) 02:40, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can't believe that what is currently on the page is considered actual content. It's just all random disputable bits of information. Jason (talk) 23:48, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's well-sourced pieces of information relevant to the election of 2016. By all means, remove any info you think is poorly sourced, but by what rationale do you argue that information from major publications like Time, Vanity Fair, Chicago Magazine, and the National Journal should be deleted? Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 03:39, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Because it's all trivial. I can almost certainly guarantee that none of these people will be in the election come 2016. And besides, you even wrote on the talk page admitting that you purposely added false information without an original source. There is no need to have this article until after the 2012 election. Jason (talk) 20:06, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, do not accuse me of editing in bad faith. I did not add false information to this article. I did ask for help finding a source for a piece of information that I heard on television but was unable to verify in print. Please do not violate WP:AGF again. That said, I'll address your points... 1) Wikipedia policy does not exclude trivial information. 2) Your belief about the inaccuracy of notable sources is both original research and irrelevant to the fact that the sources reported it. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 23:11, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Followup... A slightly modified version of the statement that Jason claimed was false has now been sourced by the Washington Post and USA Today. Please do your research before you accuse people of being liars. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 23:29, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:CRYSTAL: the event is notable, almost certain to take place, and speculation about it is well documented. The article needs cleaning, including removal of links to forum postings, but content issues are not a reason for deletion. Ryan Paddy (talk) 01:20, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. The event is notable and will almost certainly take place, but I'm pretty sure there is no widespread speculation or discussion about it yet. Having an article on the 2012 election is worthwhile since people are speculating about that, but 2016 is pushing it. Firestorm (talk) 03:09, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — None of the sources I see so far are reliable as far as providing verifiable speculation is concerned. The information is unverifiable speculation as well as original research. Hence, textbook fail of WP:CRYSTAL. MuZemike (talk) 03:15, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Way to early to be creating this article. There is no sourced info that is relevant (just people speculating about who may run). TJSpyke 03:23, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Response - Some readers would find it educational and interesting to compare the early speculation about 2008 to the reality of that election. Just because the pundits' opinions were probably way off the mark does not mean that what they had to say has no lessons to teach. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 03:42, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Even the original AfD nominator doesn't think it should be deleted. The points made by those who support deleting it amount to "it's messy". This is admittedly true, but that's just an invitation to improve it. While it is a long way out, there has already been plenty of speculation. If you don't like the sources I provided off the cuff, then dig up some better ones; don't just trash other editors' work because you don't feel like doing the research. Besides, attempts will continue to be made to revive this article, and in the long run, it's WP:SNOWBALL so why work so hard to hold up development when you can spend your time better by improving what's already there? Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 03:37, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. It is way too early to have this article. Can be easily created four years later.—Chris!ct 03:55, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestion - Because this is an issue that is likely to come up over and over again whether the article gets deleted or not, I suggest we put in a WP:RfC so as to make sure we have enough input that the consensus for or against deletion is very strong and clear. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 03:59, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Certainly there has already been enough discussion of this in the media to create reasonable starting point, and there is only going to be more as time goes on. Nothing wrong with with covering predictions and crystal baller-y when it's not editors but high-profile sources that are doing the predicting.--ragesoss (talk) 04:10, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note - I think that WP:Crystal is being thrown around way too loosely here. The policy is intended to discourage editorial speculation, not to discourage the inclusion of notable speculation by reliable sources. Otherwise, would we even have articles like 2043, the 2150s, or the 31st century? Clearly, this topic is much more notable and relevant than many of the predictions made in those articles or the hundreds of others like them. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 04:20, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I just said. Please read more carefully! What I was saying was "If WP:Crystal were meant to exclude all speculation, then why do we have articles about the distant future?" This entire discussion suffers from knee-jerk responses and failure to read carefully, IMHO. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 16:35, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Most likely (in fact, almost certainly) this will take place. In time, sufficient information will exist. But at the moment, this is too far off to motivate it's own article. Certainly a mention in the 2016 article and maybe even in the United States presidential election, 2012 article. Recreate the article when planning/media speculation starts in ernest. Usrnme h8er (talk) 10:00, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - Media speculation has started early for upcoming elections. See list of references below. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 02:13, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is too far away. Any speculation that possible sources mention is completely baseless because a lot can happen in the next 8 years. Like others said, we wouldn't have known Obama was going to stand candidate 8 years ago. To answer the nom's question: let's keep election articles limited to current elections and ones next in the cycle (in this case 2012). - Mgm|(talk) 13:34, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note - References just added to Chicago Magazine, Vanity Fair, Time, National Journal. It takes a while to go through Google's five million returns for "2016 election" in order to find the best sources, but there is no doubt that there has been enough speculation by reputable sources to keep this article. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 14:28, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note It might help highlight the good sources if you also removed the ones that are not WP:RS. Remove the forum posts, and preferably blogs (unless they are by people who are seen as important commentators). Ryan Paddy (talk) 15:51, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I have no problem with illustrating a tendency in the blogosphere by providing links to the blogosphere. I realize, that other editors may disagree. They are welcome to whittle down the sources to the ones they believe are relevant. Regardless, the existence or nonexistence of extraneous material is not germane to whether the article should be deleted because there are enough clear WP:RS sources to provide backing for most of the article's content. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 16:40, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep People start planning early, and the refs added reflect it. Per WP:CRYSTAL, events that are almost certain to be held merit articles,and the example they give of something too far to be reasonable is the 2028 election. Thus, both this and the 2020 and 2024 elections would be reasonable topics. Speculation can be notable, even based on lack of firm data--we cant do the speculation, but if others do we can report it. DGG (talk) 17:46, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - since there is sourced speculation I see no problem with this page being kept. However, as a BTW, it needs the attention of an interested editor to thin out the long list of references, some of which are very tangential, keeping just the ones that can source inline specific points. Smile a While (talk) 22:42, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I have to go on the side of "too early" on this one. All we can possibly have in this article is speculation which, even if sourced, isn't enough for a viable article. If someone actually comes out and announces their candidacy for 2016, then let's talk. Otherwise, it's too early. I have never in my life encountered so much ballpark speculation regarding elections far into the future before the new president even enters office. There is definitely an article to be had on that topic, but not here. In answer to the nominator's question, I say the article should not be recreated until reliable media begins reporting on announced candidacies, a major change to the electoral map is approved by government, or the 2012 election occurs, whichever comes first. Yes, we know the election is scheduled for 2016, but we could keep adding articles at 4-year increments in finitum. There has to be a line drawn. If the article is kept, kill the "humorous suggestions" section - that undermines the article and might serve as a magnet for further AFD challenges. 23skidoo (talk) 22:58, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Metropoliton90. Eight years is way too far in advance to start planning for elections. Tavix(talk) 23:36, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - Tell that to the WP:RS's that are doing the speculation (See list of references below.) Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 02:16, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree with Metropolitan90. Sourced or not, speculation about possible candidates just isn't enough to sustain an article here given that the election is eight years and two cycles away, a lifetime in politics. Heck, even the electoral college map is an unofficial projection of how reapportionment will go after the next census. Unless someone actually officially declares their candidacy for 2016, wait until 2012. BryanG (talk) 02:07, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note - If you read the rationale for deleting the 2012 election article back in 2006 (linked to by original AfD nominator) was that it contained only original speculation, and most editors agreed that well referenced speculation was perfectly acceptable. Unlike the 2012 article back then, the article we're discussing now contains well referenced speculation by major publications. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 03:34, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note - The following sources should be plenty to demonstrate that the election of 2016 is already an important topic of conversation by well established political journals:
And this just what I can dig up in a few minutes on Google. A concerted effort is sure to turn up many more. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 03:50, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the Chicago Magazine article is not primarily about the 2016 election, but about whether Barack Obama should run in 2008 (the article was published in 2006). Furthermore, Alter suggests that among Obama's rivals if he waits until 2012 or 2016 will be "Sen. Harold Ford" (Ford did not win his election to the Senate in 2006), and Jones says that "the vice president" will run in 2016 (not identifying a person by name). This article was really just speculation about the 2008 election. --Metropolitan90(talk) 17:48, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Pure speculation, nobody knows whats going to happen. South Bay (talk) 08:41, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment But it's notable speculation, and therefore should have an article. The principal of general notability is that if independent reliable sources are covering a subject in significant detail, it should have an article. By that standard, this future event may be less notable than highly-discussed future events such as peak oil, but it's still far more notable than most future events. The sources available indicate sufficient notability for an article. Ryan Paddy (talk) 10:35, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The people doing the speculating might be notable, but the point is that no matter how much of an expert they are, they can't predict the future. No one saw that Barack Obama would be running for president let alone win 8 years ago, so there is a signficant chance that all the speculation will prove completely wrong. Speculation should only be included if it is based on reasonable assumptions and since these elections are still 8 years awa, the results of the 2012 election cycle will prove crucial in what will happen in 2016. We don't write about the 2010 Oscars 2 years in advance, nor do we write about global warming conventions 10 years from now, regardless of who is doing the speculation in question. Both of these depend too much on intervening events and the same should apply to elections -- no more than one cycle into the future, since the outcome of the upcoming one has an effect on the events that come after that. Once the 2012 elections have occured we'll know who is in a position to stand candidate so reasonable guesses can be made. - Mgm|(talk) 23:43, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're making a lot of assumptions about the accuracy of speculation. For all you know, perhaps some commentators did suggest Barack Obama (a long shot perhaps, but they certainly were speculating about Hillary Clinton and John McCain back then), and I think it would be very interesting to document the fact that John Kerry and Al Gore were considered as potential 2008 candidates back in 2000, but by the time the election rolled around, they were no longer considered likely. Our job as editors is not to make predictions about the accuracy of the speculation--as you are doing--but to document the speculation as it appears in print. If notable people are speculating, then the speculation is itself notable. Simple as that. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 00:07, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I support that notion. Jason (talk) 20:07, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - (I am the nominator, but I haven't commented yet — even in my nomination, above.) I think this article should be kept, but all the speculation about who might run should be removed. There is value in this article to the extent that it tells the reader the date, the electoral college vote distribution (based on 2010 census) , that neither Obama nor Biden will run, and that if the Republicans win in 2012, then they are likely to be running for re-election in 2016. Maybe a few more things. However, the speculation about other candidates is too speculative to the extent that it's just not useful to an encyclopedia: so remove all the speculation.—Markles 00:00, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note - As long as the speculators are notable, the speculations are also notable. Blocking the inclusion of notable speculations because an editor thinks they are far-fetched constitutes original research, and is itself a violation of WP:Crystal. Personally, I might think String Theory is too speculative to document, but Stephen Hawking probably disagrees...whose opinion do you think we should go with? Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 00:11, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note - Two more reputable sources added to back up statement that Biden is unlikely to run in 2016, which brings the grand total to sixseveneight solid sources plus a dozen or so blogs. At what point are we going to start doing our jobs and reporting what the sources say? Is there a consensus on the number of necessary WP:RS's for an article to stick? Seven? Twenty? A hundred? Tell me what you think the limit should be and I'll dig up the sources since nobody else here seems to be willing to do any research at all.
Delete.I concur with numerous editors here who invoke WP:CRYSTAL as a deletion reason. Although I agree it is likely to occur, that's all we know about it. Any speculation here is sufficiently UNFounded enough as to be nothing but spitballing by people with a microphone somewhere near them. As Metropolitan90 mentioned nothing predicted 8 years before this past election proved reasonable or correct. Further, statements of who will NOT run are equally insubstiantial, as minds may change, and deaths may preclude accurate 'denials of intent to run or not run'. 2012 is more substantial; the RNC has already made some comments, the GOP PACs are picking names already, but none of them are seriously looking at 2016; they're unwilling to seriously consider an 8 year Obama yet. ThuranX (talk) 02:31, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - First, the issue is not whether the speculation is reasonable or correct, the issue is whether it's notable speculation. Second, how do you know there was no reasonable or correct speculation about the last election, considering Wikipedia did not (and in your opinion, should not) document them? After all, isn't it important to document where pundits got it wrong just as much as where they got it right? Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 02:20, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
At this point relative to the 2008 election, there was no Wikipedia at all (the project launched January 15, 2001). If people want to document speculation, perhaps that can be done on another wiki such as the Future Wikia, and then they can copy the content here pursuant to the GFDL in November 2012. --Metropolitan90(talk) 09:38, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note - Because so many people seem to be using WP:Crystal incorrectly, I will provide quotes to the relevant portions. The policy does not ban all prediction, it simply spells out what types of prediction are appropriate. Specifically, there are three criteria that WP:Crystal uses to determine whether predictive articles are appropriate or not. I quote the summary lines below (emphasis mine), with parenthetical statements explaining why this article adheres to the relevant guidelines.
Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. If preparation for the event is not already in progress, speculation about it must be well documented. (Check and check--it's notable & nearly certain, and it's well-documented.)
Individual items from a predetermined list or a systematic pattern of names, pre-assigned to future events or discoveries, are not suitable article topics, if only generic information is known about the item. (Check--it's not a generic item from a list, so it doesn't really matter, but just for good measure... many specific things are know, such as when it will be held and at least some people who will not be eligible.)
Articles that present extrapolation, speculation, and "future history" are original research and therefore inappropriate. While scientific and cultural norms continually evolve, we must wait for this evolution to happen, rather than try to predict it. Of course, we do and should have articles about notable artistic works, essays, or credible research that embody predictions. (Check--contains links to work by credible sources.)
Comment As Aelffin pointed out, too many are quoting WP:CRYSTAL seemingly without regard to its content :
"Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. If preparation for the event is not already in progress, speculation about it must be well documented. Examples of appropriate topics include the 2010 U.S. Senate elections and -2016 Summer Olympics- (emphasis added). By comparison, the 2028 U.S. presidential election and 2048 Summer Olympics are not considered appropriate article topics because nothing can be said about them that is verifiable and not original research. Avoid predicted sports team line-ups, which are inherently unverifiable and speculative. A schedule of future events may be appropriate if it can be verified." - WP:CRYSTAL WP:CRYSTAL may be wrong on this point. But statements claiming WP:CRYSTAL proves that 2016 is too far away definitely are. Anarchangel (talk) 21:32, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
True, but comparing the 2016 Olympics to the 2016 presidential election is like comparing apples and oranges. The thing about the 2016 Olympics article is that its contents are largely not speculative. We know what four cities are being considered to host because the IOC already picked them last summer. Olympic games are planned years in advance because they have to be - consider all the infrastructure the winning city will need to build. By contrast, the 2016 presidential election article is essentially all speculation other than "it will (presumably) occur," which (at least for me) isn't enough. BryanG (talk) 01:48, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are welcome to your opinion, but neither you nor anybody else here has explained exactly how their opinions are consistent with the actual content of WP:Crystal. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 02:04, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sufficient unto the day -- but two full cycles is a very long time indeed. Using stare decisis would imply that if we did not allow a premature 2012 article until recently, the precise same arguments should hold for 2016. We hardly ever get a better example of Ouija Board articles than this. Collect (talk) 22:22, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Both 2012 and 2016 are more anticipated than most elections because of the extraordinary attention paid to 2008. Thus, there is more notable speculation, thus there is good reason to document that speculation. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 22:31, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Arguments to keep are based on the existence of reliable sources, as required by WP:CRYSTAL. Arguments to delete are based on a subjective opinion that 2009 is to early to be speculating about the 2016 election, despite the fact that reliable sources are in fact speculating about the 2016 election. DHowell (talk) 05:55, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Also the creation so far ahead of articles about US events in the absence of those in other countries fails WP:CSB. Stifle (talk) 17:43, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
No proof that this exists outside of non-broadcast YouTube stuff, and article creator is a known hoaxmonger.JuJube (talk) 00:02, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question According to the creator's contribution history, he only created one deleted article that was speedied A1. How did you come to the conclusion he's a known hoaxmonger?- Mgm|(talk) 13:30, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That was my mistake. The contributor of "Slovenia's Next Top Model" also contributed to this and in my rush, I confused that editor for the article creator. JuJube (talk) 00:15, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article doesn't seem to have any purpose at this point, as the show hasn't happened yet. Pstanton 21:22, 9 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pstanton (talk • contribs)
Delete per nom. Has no reliable 3rd party sources. ♣PrincessClown♥ 01:24, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
