Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 June 1
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Keep, as per consensus; there are no calls for deletion outside of the nominator. Non-admin closure. Pastor Theo (talk) 00:00, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Kid Dakota[edit]
- Kid Dakota (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
No sources found, speedy declined. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 23:34, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 00:08, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Found some sources: [1], [2], [3], [4]. There's a fair bit more too. Quantpole (talk) 00:14, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Passes WP:MUSIC #10 by being part of a compilation album and #5 by having three albums on two sufficiently notable indie record labels: Graveface which has an article and Chairkickers which has no article but is listed on some search results in wikipedia. ZabMilenko 05:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, passes WP:MUSIC#C1 for the above mentioned ref's, and there's 2 rated reviews at Allmusic, [5], [6] as well. What's up TPH, this is not like you to miss those? Esradekan Gibb "Klat" 10:55, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - The band (or its albums) have the subject of many reliable sources as noted above (found an additional review here [7]). With these sources the article satisfies the general notability guideline. –Megaboz (talk) 14:42, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, passes WP:MUSIC easily with the additional sourcing. Ironholds (talk) 23:36, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Chan Poling[edit]
- Chan Poling (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
One third party source but not enough for WP:N it seems. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 22:44, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete; subject (User:Chanpol) wrote it, in his sole edit three years ago, and it doesn't appear to have been substantively improved since then. --Golbez (talk) 22:49, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 00:07, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Further sources are available [8], [9], [10], [11] etc. Clearly enough to satisfy notability and verifiability requirements. Quantpole (talk) 00:26, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The NYT reference convinced me.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:28, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Article needs work but subject notable enough - Emmy award winner. Lame Name (talk) 10:50, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Pardon me, fellows, but if these references are so great, perhaps one of you would like to put it in the article? After seeing three keeps in a row mentioning a half dozen valid references, I went back and ... the article remains completely unchanged, and thus my vote remains a delete. --Golbez (talk) 14:37, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not a vote. This is a sounding of the general consensus amongst editors. Maybe, just maybe, people are at work, or enjoying a sunny afternoon, or waiting to see what the general consensus is, and have not the time or inclination to rewrite an article, which, a couple of minutes with Google reveals, has obviously erroneously been proposed for deletion, right now but will get back to it as soon as possible. Lame Name (talk) 15:21, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, but have you even read WP:DEL#REASON or WP:BEFORE? We don't delete articles because they aren't currently good enough, we delete them because they can't become good enough (with some exceptions like copyvios).
- "Articles for which all attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed" So we are allowed to keep a BLP with entirely inadequate sourcing so long as AFD has found sources? All I ask is that sources be placed in a BLP. --Golbez (talk) 16:11, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- But that doesn't say anything about putting those sources in the article itself. It's not up to those voting keep to make the article better, that's the general job of all editors. All we do is assess whether it meets wikipedia's requirements, which this blatantly does. If the sources are there to verify an article it is totally against the deletion process to delete. Quantpole (talk) 16:20, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've added Quantpole's references into the article. One of them was apparently already there, and the last one probably belongs in The Suburbs article. "Articles for which all attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed" hardly applies here since the reliable sources have already been presented. Jafeluv (talk) 22:02, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "Articles for which all attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed" So we are allowed to keep a BLP with entirely inadequate sourcing so long as AFD has found sources? All I ask is that sources be placed in a BLP. --Golbez (talk) 16:11, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, but have you even read WP:DEL#REASON or WP:BEFORE? We don't delete articles because they aren't currently good enough, we delete them because they can't become good enough (with some exceptions like copyvios).
- Keep. Easily meets WP:MUSICBIO as an Emmy winner and, as Quantpole pointed out, covered in several reliable sources independent from the subject. Jafeluv (talk) 22:02, 6 June 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 per Michael Q. Schmidt. Obviously I have horrible Google-fu. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 16:40, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Melody Gilbert[edit]
- Melody Gilbert (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
WP:1S, no real notability asserted beyond directing four questionably notable documentaries, no sources found. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 22:37, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Woah man, if you're gonna delete all my pages, at least give me half an hour to change things and figure out what you want. Not saying you're right in that I need more references, but let me at least breath. You're deleting a lot of hard work without letting me argue my side. sloggerbum —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sloggerbum (talk • contribs) 22:38, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You have an entire week to argue your side, unless this qualifies for speedy deletion. Hairhorn (talk) 23:01, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 00:07, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep the stub and expand and further source. I did a bit of a search and feel There is enough available for Melody Gilbert to meet WP:GNG, as her documetaries receive multiple positive reviews. The article just needs to grow past stub size... get itself fleshed out a bit. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 06:20, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I began working on this one. Its gonna be a strong keeper. Sure the original author did nothing but start one sentence with some poor referencing... but its already looking better. The lady's films get some very decent coverage. We'll have no problem pushing this waaaaayy over the GNG bar. A quick check found eFilm Critic, Rift Magazine, Minnesota Public Radio 1, Cannes, Variety, San Francisco Examiner, Sundance Channel, Minnesota Stories, Minnesota Daily 1, Minnisota Daily 2, Wisconsin Public Television 1, Wisconsin Public television 2, Chicago Doc Festival, Minnesota Public Radio 2, Minnesota Public Radio 3, WCCO, CUFF, EDU Filmfest, MinnPost, CITWF, Minnesota Council of Foundations, Indie Wire, Hollywood Bitchslap, IFP Minnesota, Newslab, TCUEC... and a whole lot more. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 07:44, 2 June 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 What Golbez said Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 22:34, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thommy Price[edit]
- Thommy Price (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Fails WP:MUSIC, no sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 22:31, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedied; fails WP:MUSIC. --Golbez (talk) 22:33, 1 June 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. I redirected this at first, but on second thoughts the term isn't really close enough to the name of this 'Vitaminwater' product to serve as a useful redirect, it would apply equally well to something like Berocca, so I'm just deleting. Flowerparty☀ 01:15, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Vitamin drink[edit]
- Vitamin drink (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Seems too much like an advert, difficult to imagine being able to rescue this. Oscarthecat (talk) 22:26, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. This isn't an article on vitamin drinks. It's a badly written article on the Vitaminwater product, which is described badly at Energy Brands. There's some potential for an article at the redirect Vitaminwater, but none of this text is likely to be useful there - it's far too advertorial. Zetawoof(ζ) 23:42, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 00:07, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Is this any different from the AfD yesterday for a similar article? Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 May 31#Vitamin drinks -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 00:42, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Redirect - there are already 4 permutations of this, all of which redir to Energy Brands. I strongly dislike multiple unlikely spelling / caps / spacing redirects, but others will argue that a redirect in this case is better than a blank page which leaves people open to re-creating this problem again. 7 talk | Δ | 04:20, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Has "Vitamin Drink" ever been used as a trade name for Vitaminwater, though? I'm not opposed to redirects in principle, but a redirect from a generic term to a specific product smacks of bias. Zetawoof(ζ) 05:35, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Googling that terms shows the Glaceau website as the second link here. I am sure it's not trademarked (probably can't be) but may be used for it. Believe me, I agree about redirects. If this is deleted then great. I just suspect we'll all be back here in a few days/weeks having the same coversation. 7 talk | Δ | 06:03, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect per that being the appropriate course of action. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:23, 2 June 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 What Golbez said Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 22:34, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Jimi Bones[edit]
- Jimi Bones (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Appears to be a hoax, not backed up by the sources. Insufficient coverage in sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 22:24, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedied; fails WP:MUSIC. --Golbez (talk) 22:33, 1 June 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 --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 16:45, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
AJ - Ace Junior[edit]
- AJ - Ace Junior (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
promotional article for an artist with only one newly released album, therefore fails WP:MUSICIAN Passportguy (talk) 21:52, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 00:07, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete per A7, biography with no indication of importance. This was tagged as such, but one of the primary contributors removed the speedy tag without comment and without fixing the problem. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:15, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete, as noted above. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 13:05, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Not notable. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:47, 2 June 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 A7 Indeed a real band, but didn't assert notability per WP:MUSIC. NAC. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 22:32, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A.L.X.[edit]
- A.L.X. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This is a little complex. I can't quite tell if just the name was made up (i.e. the band was real but the name was created) or if there might be a hoax going on here that that just looks similar to the bands linked to. Nowhere is a band called A.L.X. referred to in the sources, after all, and the names in the band do certainly beg the question of whether this is a hoax with links designed to obfuscate that fact. Tyrenon (talk) 21:31, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- G3 Copy-paste hoax. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 21:41, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, sorry about the hoax confusion - I used the template from the Fartz so I didn't have to make the page from scratch. I should have started with a sandbox, so my bad. It's a real band, they have quite a few shows in the area - it's made up of a bunch of old rock veterans. heard them at a show, realized these are big wigs that should be in here. Hope that helps. I still want to do more cleanup. sloggerbum —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sloggerbum (talk • contribs) 22:25, 1 June 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. Alexf(talk) 12:06, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Joe vaughan[edit]
- Joe vaughan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Likely hoax. Player not listed at http://www.ebbsfleetunited.co.uk/eufc/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=5&Itemid=86 Passportguy (talk) 21:24, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 00:07, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as probable hoax and additionally non-notable. Should be speediable per no claim top fame as even if any claim listed were true, Ebbsfleet is below notability level for payers per WP:ATHLETE --ClubOranjeT 01:26, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:56, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete WP:CSD#G3 blatant misinformation, so tagged - the Ebbsfleet team's listed on their website and he's not in it, no need to wait 7 days to zap this. JohnCD (talk) 10:07, 2 June 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 Article needs expansion, not deletion. Cheers. I'mperator 17:34, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Only You (112 song)[edit]
- Only You (112 song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
The article falls short of notability for singles by a substantial margin from all appearances. Tyrenon (talk) 21:21, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 00:06, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Released single by a very popular group and, I don't know what the source is on this (probably Billboard Magazine), but the 112_(album) article indicates this song did chart, reaching #1 on Billboard Magazine's Hot Dance Singles Sales. --Oakshade (talk) 03:14, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Oakshade. The article needs some expansion, however. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 03:16, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as a non-plausible redirect term, fails to meet the criteria per WP:MUSIC#Songs. While it has charted, there is not "enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article". This is very unlikely to grow beyond a stub, and there is already a sourced mention in the album article, so there is nothing to merge. Esradekan Gibb "Klat" 11:00, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course there's more potential content for a "reasonably detailed article". What was the writing process? Where did they record it? How were the sessions? Did they record several versions or just one? What was the process in getting Notorious B.I.G. to perform on the track? How was he during the recordings? What were the gross sales? What charts was it on? How long did it chart on each of them? Does 112 still perform it live? How are the live performances different from the studio track?--Oakshade (talk) 18:51, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sweet as. If you can supply reliable, third-party, sources to back all of that up, I'll be more than happy to change my vote. Esradekan Gibb "Klat" 02:22, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia has no deadline. I currently don't have the time nor inclination to research and write an entire in-depth article with sources just to please an impatient Wikipedia user who doesn't understand how a one-day old article of a #1 charted song can be expanded, which was my point. --Oakshade (talk) 02:33, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sweet as. If you can supply reliable, third-party, sources to back all of that up, I'll be more than happy to change my vote. Esradekan Gibb "Klat" 02:22, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per WP:N and WP:MUSIC. Was a major hit in the mid-1990s that received tons of airplay, and still receives airplay every now and then to this day. Shaliya waya (talk) 01:59, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Shaliya waya, notable song. feydey (talk) 11:08, 3 June 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 redirected to 3ABN. Jamie☆S93 21:19, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
K38IM[edit]
- K38IM (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
While the station appears to have a permit, I see no other assertion that it exists. I might be getting over-eager here, but I think this might fail WP:N. On top of this, the call letters are non-standard. Tyrenon (talk) 21:16, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I can't find the notability guidelines for TV stations. K38IM is a "translator station", meaning it does not produce any of its own programming. It also seems to be a low-power station. Hairhorn (talk) 22:11, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Translators are not generally considered TV stations, since they just re-transmit the programming of an actual TV station at low power for a small area. They have not been judged notable in past AFDs I have seen. Fails notability due to lack of significant coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources and should go because Wikipedia is not a directory of everything that exists in a government license database. Edison (talk) 00:00, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 00:06, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to 3ABN, the owner of the station whose programming it carries. The station is in the ABQ TV template and since it just airs that network, there's no need to do anything else. Also Tyrenon, television translator calls in the United States are in the format of W02AA, and they are correct. Nate • (chatter) 05:32, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to 3ABN, standard practice with these translator stations. DHowell (talk) 03:24, 6 June 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. Keeper | 76 04:06, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Lion King 4[edit]
- The Lion King 4 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Appears to fail WP:FILM and WP:CRYSTAL. Tyrenon (talk) 21:10, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Probably a hoax, no information. Is there even a Lion King 3? CTJF83Talk 22:06, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- G3 Obvious hoax, as indeed there isn't even a 3 yet. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 22:18, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There is a 3. It's about meerkats. It's awesome. see? Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 23:38, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That's only half of 3. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 00:25, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 00:05, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 00:06, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete Hoax entry --mhking (talk) 00:25, 2 June 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 NAC. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 23:27, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Battle of Montjuïc[edit]
- Battle of Montjuïc (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
A disambig page which leads to only redlinks. Tyrenon (talk) 21:05, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep You need to give the author of the article a bit of time. One link is now blue. Passportguy (talk) 21:19, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Withdrawn. I just generally expect the disambig pages to come after the other pages are in place, not before.Tyrenon (talk) 21:44, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cello Sonata (Poulenc)[edit]
- Cello Sonata (Poulenc) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This lacks sources and appears to be a non-notable classical composition. Tyrenon (talk) 21:01, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The article may lack sources but that does not mean that they do not exist. At the very least this should be merged and redirected to Francis Poulenc. Drawn Some (talk) 21:24, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 00:05, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I would think any composition of one of the most prestigoius composers of the 20th Century is worthy of inclusion. This piece has been played and recored by some very distinctive musicians on notable labels; Jean-Guihen Queyras and Alexandre Tharaud on Harmonia Mundi [12], Raphael Wallfisch and John York on ASV Records [13] and Gilbert Kalish and Joel Krosnick on Arabesque Records[14] for examples. Also recorded and released on Naxos Records [15]. Even the sheet music was published by a notable publisher, United Music Publishers.[16]. For the nom who identifies him/herself as an "educationist", this isn't helping students. --Oakshade (talk) 02:51, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Don't understand the nominator's suggestion that this piece is non-notable. The article certainly needs improvement but that is not a valid reason for deletion. Rlendog (talk) 19:18, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. It is described as "magnificent" in a book, The adventures of a cello.
- Keep. It was understandable that deletion was proposed when the 391 byte page was added by a brand-new editor, but we've got this page up to stub level (~1k) now. It could certainly use more expansion, but stubs of this size are not uncommon in WP:CM.DavidRF (talk) 19:32, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The sonatas by Francis Poulenc represent an important part of his oeuvre, and each sonata should have separated article. --Vejvančický (talk) 08:12, 7 June 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 (NAC). American Eagle (talk) 02:44, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hone Taiapa[edit]
- Hone Taiapa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
While there is technically an assertion of notability, I don't think it makes the cut. The article doesn't even contain a DoB, and the person was the head of a department within the institution, not the institution itself. Tyrenon (talk) 20:56, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep With some work, I am finding sources. Here's a detailed article, with a cite to his obituary: [17]. Two brief mentions refer to this person as a "Master Carver": [18], [19]. This book: [20] also mentions him as a "great classical master". This source: [21] says that he trained hundreds of carvers. These things all contribute to establish notability. We have to keep in mind that due to his timing, location, and culture, it is likely that most available sources are not available electronically. This source: [22] cites what would perhaps be another good source? And I have nowhere near exhausted what google gave me, it's just a lot of work to sort through it. Cazort (talk) 21:19, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per sources above establishing notability, plus OBE. Drawn Some (talk) 21:33, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I just edited the article a bit, it's still a stub but it now has more basic info and references the honor of induction into The Most Excellent Order of the British Empire, which also contributes to notability. Cazort (talk) 21:40, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:33, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, having an entry in the Dictionary of New Zealand Biography is sufficient to establish notability.-gadfium 06:56, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, the DNZB entry meets WP:N. XLerate (talk) 03:18, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, per gadfium and XLerate, and Cazort. Other possible sources include Building Art in the Maori Tradition - John Taiapa and the Carved Meeting House of To-day and several listed in his entry here. There's a bit of human interest here, too: First Person: Carved shield comes home. -- Avenue (talk) 13:15, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep Hone Taiapa is regarded as the most important Master Carver for Maori in modern history. Whakairoor Maori Carving is known as the written language of Maori, this makes Hone Taiapa one of Maoridom's most famous and significant historians.
- As for a DoB, 1912 with no month listed, and PoB was Tikitiki on the East Coast of the North Island, NZ. [23] An unassuming, modest leader of the Maori people in his own right.
- Comment Oral reference from Hone Taiapa's daughter, Molly Taiapa, who works as a guide at the NZ Maori Arts & Crafts Institute records his birthday as the 10th August, 1912.—Preceding unsigned comment added by TePuia (talk • contribs) 02:36, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The argument that someone "doesn't think it makes the cut," was easily dealt with by finding multiple references without any effort, and by showing, through these references, that reliable sources such as other encyclopedias and experts on the topic of Maori culture, the real judges of what "makes the cut," think this man does. And this[24] doesn't list "article doesn't even contain a DoB," so nomination appears irrelevant.--69.226.103.13 (talk) 04:13, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep he is notable, even if it's not conveyed well in the article, I'd certainly heard of him. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:26, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. My keep is based on its current state. However, maybe a {{stub}} would have done the trick as well. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 03:04, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep per WP:OUTCOMES (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:31, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Khawina, California[edit]
- Khawina, California (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
It seems to be former Pomo settlement day on Wikipedia. As before, I find that this falls well short of notability. Tyrenon (talk) 20:47, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What exactly is your issue with articles on former Pomo settlements? --Oakshade (talk) 05:37, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 00:04, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep As I said at the Kaci-Badon discussion: "we have proof of its existence, and widespread consensus is that all actual communities are notable, even former ones." This is the same situation. Nyttend (talk) 02:06, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as per Nyttend. Edward321 (talk) 12:30, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Nyttend. It was a real community and an historic one of a race that almost went extinct to boot. --Oakshade (talk) 02:01, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Prodigal Trilogy[edit]
- The Prodigal Trilogy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
No sources, only non-notable people involved. Only one of the five awards is from a notable festival, and even then I don't think that's enough for it to pass muster. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 20:46, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 00:03, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 00:03, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - mostly for winning best dramatic short at the San Antonio Independent Christian Film Festival, but also for this reliable source review: Praise Pictures and these two pieces on Hildebrand: Alliance.ca Christian-movie.com. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:10, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep – ThaddeusB has shown some pretty good sources, and it has won many awards at film competitions/festivals. Not over-the-top, but enough for GNG. American Eagle (talk) 03:59, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep 1) the Prodigal Trilogy is, upon examination, both a play and a film adaptation of that play; Google shows coverage for both the one-man show and the film/DVD. 2) As such, it meets the GNG, and should be kept even if the awards don't rise to the level envisioned by WP:NF. I've added a couple of references and some external links. Jclemens (talk) 05:21, 2 June 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 --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 15:34, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Melanie loades[edit]
- Melanie loades (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
While some assertion of notability is hinted at, I think this is a case where the person falls a bit short. Of the two links offered, one is the person's MySpace entry. Tyrenon (talk) 20:42, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not sufficient notability. Passportguy (talk) 21:00, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 00:03, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 00:03, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, tried to find something to verify the information about the patents.
When I tried to verify it at http://patft.uspto.gov/ there is no indication that she holds any patents.I don't think the freshpatents site is reliable source for this info. A new name 2008 (talk) 01:02, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]- Comment, my search for the Patents was in the wrong spot. That does not change my opinion. There is not enough to say she is notable even with the patents. Many people hold patents, but just that fact does not make one notable. A new name 2008 (talk) 01:13, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:20, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The patent aren't held in the US, but are European patents as per: http://v3.espacenet.com/searchResults?locale=en_GB&IN=Melanie+Loades&compact=false&DB=EPODOC--Simonhw (talk) 21:06, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep per WP:OUTCOMES (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:30, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Kaci-badon, California[edit]
- Kaci-badon, California (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
The location is a place on a map with no particular assertion of notability. Tyrenon (talk) 20:39, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Named settlements are considered worthy of inclusion regardless of size. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 20:46, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 00:02, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - The village really did exist.[25] An historical village of an ethnic group that almost went extinct is an assertion of notability. Just being a village would be so too. --Oakshade (talk) 00:08, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep — we have proof of its existence, and widespread consensus is that all actual communities are notable, even former ones. Nyttend (talk) 02:06, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as per everyone but nominator. Edward321 (talk) 12:35, 2 June 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 --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 16:48, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Adam Noble[edit]
- Adam Noble (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
While the article asserts that he played professionally, it provides no evidence of this and no indication that he played at a major league level of any sort, thereby falling short of notability. Further, the article is unsourced. Tyrenon (talk) 20:32, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 00:02, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete All listed teams are not fully professional. Checking for sources, the only Ghit is this article. [26] Edward321 (talk) 13:05, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Most likely a hoax as he does not appear listed at hockeydb.com which would list him as playing for the teams the article claims he has played for. And even if he had played for those teams he would fail WP:ATHLETE as he hasn't played pro yet. -Djsasso (talk) 14:04, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I can't find any verification that he was on the Mooseheads, which as the highest level of play noted in the article, still falls short of WP:ATHLETE as amateur. ccwaters (talk) 14:29, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete hoax, no such player. Article implies that he was still playing junior at age 21, which is impossible in Canada, at least. Resolute 16:40, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, fails to assert notability. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 23:59, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Looks like a piece of personal advertisement...[27]. Definately fails WP:N. – Nurmsook! talk... 00:28, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- ...And personal fantasy. Scratch Major juniors and swap in one season as a backup goaltender at Div-III NCAA Salve Regina http://www.uscho.com/stats/player.php?pid=11132&gender=m ccwaters (talk) 01:59, 3 June 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. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:06, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
James J. Greco[edit]
- James J. Greco (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Not notable - essentially zero secondary source mentions. worthawholebean talkcontribs 20:16, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, and clean it up. Needs more information for it - a LOT more. I'm going off of not WP:BIO, but precedent - see Frederick W. Smith for such a precedent. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:35, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There is a huge difference between FedEx and a small bagel chain though. 76.127.178.193 (talk) 21:14, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not convinced that size really matters in this context. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 13:51, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There is a huge difference between FedEx and a small bagel chain though. 76.127.178.193 (talk) 21:14, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 00:02, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Deleteas a copyright violation from http://www.brueggers.com/about-us/leadership-team -- Whpq (talk) 15:49, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]- Delete - coverage consists of quites from him about the company. No coverage about him. -- Whpq (talk) 16:47, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep Bruegger's is much more than a "small bagel chain" it is a fast casual restaurant very similar to Panera Bread. Bruegger's is not a small company either; it is comprised of over 300 stores, fairly large in the restaurant industry. James Greco has done much more beyond just running Bruegger's, though. He was recently named Restaurateur of the Year by Nation's Restaurant News, the leading publication of the food service industry. James Greco is frequently mentioned in various news media and is definitely worthy of a Wikipedia page.68.109.18.69 (talk) 22:50, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you cite sources for this? Being mentioned isn't sufficient to meet notability. Can you point to an article written about his award as restauranteur of the year? -- Whpq (talk) 00:31, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Here are links to several recent articles about either Mr. Greco or significantly quoting him on his company: http://www.nationsrestaurantnews-digital.com/nationsrestaurantnews/20090518/?pg=64,
http://www.nationsrestaurantnews-digital.com/nationsrestaurantnews/20090511/?pg=56, http://www.faremagazine.com/ME2/dirmod.asp?sid=&nm=&type=Publishing&mod=Publications%3A%3AArticle&mid=8F3A7027421841978F18BE895F87F791&tier=4&id=52D7168A259A440ABF429933A03841C0, http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS119746+07-May-2009+BW20090507, http://www.nrn.com/article.aspx?keyword=&menu_id=-1&id=346982. There are plenty more, simply google "James J. Greco" or "James J. Greco Bruegger's" and your search will be filled with articles. He is an important man to the industry, the business world and beyond and thus it is important that he have a Wikipedia article.68.109.18.69 (talk) 02:16, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and clean up as Dennis said. Via WP:BIO, most of anonymous's articles qualify, as do others with a google search (For just one example, if you have a high beam account, you can check out the chain leader one here: http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-142569319.html). He does have a notable award, and it seems like his contribution as CEO for this brand has contributed it to being as big a chain as it is today, perhaps even "part of the enduring historical record". -User:Umdunno 04:22, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The references in the article plus the ones above are sufficient to convince me that the subject meets WP:BIO and WP:N.--Kubigula (talk) 19:20, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Company is notable, subject is not. لennavecia 21:16, 8 June 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. Notability established and nom appears withdrawn. However, the article still needs some of theose many hits incorporated as references...--Kubigula (talk) 19:23, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Country Pure Foods[edit]
- Country Pure Foods (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable; no Google News mentions, for example. worthawholebean talkcontribs 20:28, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment There are plenty of Google News mentions: [28] Zagalejo^^^ 21:47, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 00:01, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 00:01, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep
manifestlyVery notable and numerous google news hits. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:54, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply] - Strong keep A very notable company in the food industry, more than worthy of a Wikipedia article.68.109.18.69 (talk) 22:41, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oops. I wasn't using the right settings on News search, sorry. worthawholebean talkcontribs 04:01, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No worries. We all make mistakes. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:15, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Not a problem. Glad we're all on the same page now.68.109.18.69 (talk) 01:24, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Arctic Monkeys 2009 Album[edit]
- Arctic Monkeys 2009 Album (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
As yet unreleased album with no particular assertion of notability. Also, I believe it fails WP:CRYSTAL Tyrenon (talk) 20:14, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- DO NOT DELETE - This information was just released via their fb fan page, to suggest the AM are not notable given their awards is ridiculous. -- Erroneuz1 (talk) 20:16, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, meets WP:NALBUMS. ninety:one 20:22, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't quite meet WP:NALBUMS. I'm going off of WP:HAMMER for this one. Are there more reliable sources we can verify with? If so, I'll change my mind. Note, Facebook is not a reliable source. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:33, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, their official website, which I added to the article. -- Erroneuz1 (talk) 21:28, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Good enough. Keep. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 14:20, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:HAMMER, do I really need to say anything else? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 20:39, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 00:01, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep. The article only has one source, but it's a good enough source to prove notability. Sorry, Hammer, but your law doesn't apply here. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 00:49, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Verifiable and notable due to the status of the band. Quantpole (talk) 00:57, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- FYI: the article should be kept, but that's not a valid reason. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 03:23, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, any band could put out a press release saying they are releasing an album, but they wouldn't all warrant an article. This album is notable due to the notability of the band. Quantpole (talk) 08:22, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Your second sentence contradicted your first sentence. Notability isn't inherited. But we can move on. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 17:18, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- For the record, WP:NALBUMS specifically allows inherited notability ;) ninety:one 00:27, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Your second sentence contradicted your first sentence. Notability isn't inherited. But we can move on. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 17:18, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, any band could put out a press release saying they are releasing an album, but they wouldn't all warrant an article. This album is notable due to the notability of the band. Quantpole (talk) 08:22, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- FYI: the article should be kept, but that's not a valid reason. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 03:23, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - We've got the track list, the record label, the producers, the release date, and the fact this is a release by a significantly notable band. I think that is sufficient to pass WP:NALBUMS, even though they haven't figured out the title yet. Perhaps they will simply name it "Arctic Monkeys 2009 Album" and poke some fun at us. Grandmartin11 (talk) 04:34, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - As we've got everything on that page other than the title (although I do like the comment above), this surely passes Wp:NALBUMS - and I also consider their own website as verifianle. (And, to quote Wp:HAMMER, "There are occasional exceptions to this law, as sometimes a future album will contain enough verifiable information for a decent article even if the title is not known". Surely this is one of them. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 09:48, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep - This is a) notable, b) well sourced, and c) verifiable. Absolutely no rationale for deletion. DJR (T) 17:39, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notable album by a somewhat notable group with reliable sources (i don't even know why this article was nominated). DeletionMojoMan (talk) 00:09, 6 June 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. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:05, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Chip zdarsky[edit]
- Chip zdarsky (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Appears to be a blatant hoax. The one source offers a date of death of 2038, and no other assertion of notability which can be verified is offered. Tyrenon (talk) 20:10, 1 June 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. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:spa|username}} ; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}} . |
Comment I have tagged it for CSD as blatant hoax. Passportguy (talk) 20:10, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]- We may have been a bit quick on this one, as the author has now posted a source which seems to be genuine (http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/afterword/archive/2009/05/07/toronto-comic-arts-festival-2009-q-amp-a-with-chip-zdarsky.aspx). However it is still questionable if this person (whatever his real name may be) is sufficiently notable. Passportguy (talk) 20:45, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- How exactly anyone can make the claim that Chip Zdarsky, as a popular regular writer for a national newspaper, is not "notable," yet there are lengthy articles about Sectaurs: Warriors of Symbion and Manimal defies comprehension. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.247.198 (talk) 21:35, 1 June 2009 (UTC) — 65.92.247.198 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- I've had the "pleasure" of meeting Chip Zdarsky several times and I can assure everyone here that he is real but most definitely not as notable as Sectaurs. 99.233.100.79 (talk) 22:42, 1 June 2009 (UTC) — 99.233.100.79 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- How exactly anyone can make the claim that Chip Zdarsky, as a popular regular writer for a national newspaper, is not "notable," yet there are lengthy articles about Sectaurs: Warriors of Symbion and Manimal defies comprehension. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.247.198 (talk) 21:35, 1 June 2009 (UTC) — 65.92.247.198 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Speedy Delete G3 (hoax). Already tagged. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:30, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]- Changing my !vote to Weak keep. Article shoudl probably be cleaned up a bit, and more resources should be found - but I have a good feeling that, given the effort put forth, more can be found about the man. =) --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 14:40, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete Nonsense, hoax, A7. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 20:41, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Not a hoax now that references have been added; easy to see how the editors above could be confused. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.68.123.134 (talk) 22:47, 1 June 2009 (UTC) — 76.68.123.134 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Keep Chip is a very real cartoonist and dear friend. Photographic evidence of his existence--one of many: http://www.flickr.com/photos/roguesgallerytx/2849021225/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by NaseemH (talk • contribs) 00:00, 2 June 2009 (UTC) — NaseemH (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
hi: just wanted to let you know i've updated the article with more references to a variety of his published works, and also another article stating his popularity. hopefully this will help turn the tide when a decision has been made on this article. i plan to flush it out still more, but have to sign off for tonight. i have done some clicking around though and can assure you that the toronto comics scene is vibrant and notable and there are people who will be happy to find chip zdarsky listed here. i will also be doing an entry for j. bone, and other comics creators. Wiki leedetailed (talk) 22:10, 1 June 2009 (UTC)Wiki leedetailed[reply]
i also wanted to let you know that i have added a redirect but it is only because there was a lower case z in zdarsky. more and more i believe that this is the right name for the entry because this is comics persona. my example of Carrot Top seems to be a viable one. anyway, will research more secondary sources as soon as possible but i would like to note that there are several other canadian comic artists in that list that would probably demur to be on the list when chip zdarsky is not, and that there are several articles there that are not as fleshed out as this one is.. Wiki leedetailed (talk) 23:03, 1 June 2009 (UTC)Wiki leedetailed[reply]
i would like to note that Passport guy has warned against the use of "sockpuppeting" in this matter. in short, i let friends know i was working on an article re: chip zdarsky for wikipedia -- my first! and that it might be deleted. it is likely that these friends took it upon themselves to champion the article. as i have noted above, toronto has a well-respected and thriving comics community and they would find it hard not to see chip as notable. i however, would like to state implicitly here that i have not asked anybody to champion this article, and have been trying to comply with all suggestions that have been made for its improvement by Passport guy. the thing about chip zdarsky is he is unique and crazy and to list him as his birth name "steve murray" would be like calling harpo marx, adolph marx, his real name. chip zdarsky is chip zdarsky which is likely why he was first looked at by wikipedia as a hoax whereas he is instead an incredibly talented artist and writer. Wiki leedetailed (talk) 23:16, 1 June 2009 (UTC)Wiki leedetailed[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 00:00, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It's now been established that this isn't a hoax, so that matter can be dropped. A deletion discussion should mainly focus on notability and whether references are verifiable. His main claim to notability is writing for the National Post, where he's credited by his real name, Steve Murray. If the result of this discussion is keep, the article should be renamed Steve Murray, with a redirect from Chip Zdarsky. It should be noted that Murray writes for the National Post's blog, as opposed to its print edition. This wouldn't necessarily make him less notable, but it may explain a lack of third-party sources. I'm remaining neutral for the moment: I'm not convinced that there is enough to establish notability at this time. freshacconci talktalk 00:22, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Tons of Murray's stuff has been in print in the Post. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.68.123.134 (talk) 02:17, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- For example, this page: http://chipzdarsky.livejournal.com/73550.html mentions how his feature on Scott Pilgrim appeared on the May 2nd edition of the National Post as well as online. Wow, who would have thought that a Wikipedia editor would have been underinformed —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.68.123.134 (talk) 02:27, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Tons of Murray's stuff has been in print in the Post. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.68.123.134 (talk) 02:17, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as the article does not appear to meet the minium requiremenst as spelled out in WP:N. The references are all to works by this person, but there does not appear to be much independent material published ABOUT this person, so it does not appear that anyone writing for a reliable source finds him particularly notable. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:17, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Linked in the article actually are several articles ABOUT the person. Here's one from one of our national newspapers! http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/afterword/archive/2009/05/07/toronto-comic-arts-festival-2009-q-amp-a-with-chip-zdarsky.aspx Honestly it is not that hard Jayron32 to read the article before forming an opinion —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.68.123.134 (talk) 11:26, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep i'm back again to give my final argument in favour of this article. i authored it because i am convinced of chip zdarsky's notability. i have every intention of doing more toronto-based comic artist articles because i do think that they are notable, and that toronto is acknowledged as a hub in the comic book industry, as evidenced by the very successful toronto comic art festival (which incidentally i also plan to create an article for, since it shockingly is not listed in wikipedia) which chip zdarsky was a significant part of this year, on panels with significant comic people like scott mccloud and paul pope. if you look at the other q&a with toronto comic artists (at least a dozen that were done in the Post's series about the toronto comic art festival), you will see that several cite chip zdarsky as someone that is notable([[29]][30][31][32][33]). this last article, entitled Christopher Butcher discusses the Toronto Comic Arts Festival: “Toronto is, to be honest, one of the greatest comic cities in North America."[34]gives an overview of the festival by one of the founders where he ironically references "some guy" chip zdarsky's prison funnies launch which was merged with doug wright awards this year. my feeling is that the people who think this article should be deleted were firstly thrown off by the improbable name of chip zdarsky and then concluded he was not notable because they were unfamiliar with his work and influence. Writing about these people and events will only enrich the wikipedia, not defuse it, and educate the people who are unaware of the contributions that are being made to this art form in my city. this is not a personal argument. i am not personally upset that my first article for wikipedia might be deleted. but i do think you would be doing a disservice to this community by disregarding one of its influences as not notable and worthy of deletion. Wiki leedetailed (talk) 05:48, 4 June 2009 (UTC)Wiki leedetailed[reply]
- Weak Delete it isn't the name--we're quite used to odd names for real people, and especially to odd pen names for writers in certain generes. Rather, an article whose bio reads "It is said he was born in Barrie Ontario, to a set of parents, and has an uncle, named Melvin Zdarsky[6], who charms women and men, young and old. " will inevitably be suspected of being either a hoax or puffery. There is no evidence in the article that any of the work is significant. The only substantial reference is the interview cited here with him [35] in connection with the festival. I'm not sure that's enough. DGG (talk) 18:16, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment thank you for your feedback. nobody has mentioned that line would be controversial up to this point, so i can change it to be less jocular -- it was meant to be in the spirit of the character chip zdarsky. i am in the process of looking for more secondary sources, but life keeps getting in the way. i don't want to cite precedent because i don't want to cause a raft of deletions on wikipedia but i have bumped into several articles in the course of this discussion that i would consider much less fleshed out than this one, for comic book artists, and they seemed to have passed the "significant" and "notable" test. either that or the people who vetted them were not as diligent. in any event, i'm not referencing them because i think that they're significant, and they should be here. is there a time limit on how long i have to find further secondary references? Wiki leedetailed (talk) 19:50, 4 June 2009 (UTC)Wiki leedetailed[reply]
- Deletion discussions last 7 days. I should also point out that one guideline for AfD discussions is that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. In other words, the existence of an article that does not seem to be up to Wikipedia standards can't be used as a reason to keep this one. There are plenty of articles that are sub-par, that should not be here, or that need much improvement. We tend to focus on the article at hand and not worry about the others (right now). freshacconci talktalk 20:04, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment thank you for that information. i wasn't trying to use my discoveries as an argument per se, but thank you for clarifying the guidelines for me. i am still having trouble understanding how you rate notability. in my last defence of the article, i listed five different q&as which referenced zdarsky, as well as an article that makes it clear that the toronto comic community finds him notable. some of the articles of the wikipedia seem rarefied to *me* but it is because i am unfamiliar with the genres and the people, not because these aren't notable people. at this point, i am not sure what i can do to convince you that this is a notable person. he writes for a national newspaper. he has been published. he makes a large contribution to the comics community in toronto. i think the links i have provided show this already. i am worried about spending a significant amount of time looking for more secondary references, only to have the article deleted. it is also discouraging because i have plans to do more articles around this community but i'm starting to feel that if i do those they might also been seen as not notable. i guess this is the chance you take when you are trying to help develop a resource in an area where there hasn't heretofore been a lot of effort made? Wiki leedetailed (talk) 20:15, 4 June 2009 (UTC)Wiki leedetailed[reply]
- Reply I can't speak for everyone here, but I can certainly say that the last thing I'd want to do is discourage someone from continuing work here, especially around under-represented areas. I can certainly understand your frustration, and we all started at some point. I've had editors question the notability of an artist simply because they'd never heard of them (again, that would be a bad argument to make in a discussion and a good administrator would ignore it). What you are looking for is substantial third-party coverage. Yes, he's published in a national newspaper, but so are many others who do not have articles. What we need is coverage in publications and other media that have no connection to the subject. Is there any magazine coverage, articles and so on? Other newspapers? Substantial TV coverage? The two main guidelines we go by are notability and a subcategory on creative professionals. If the closing administrator decides on delete, the article can be userfied so you can keep it and work on improving it. Articles can always be recreated as long they are improved in some way. I'd also suggest working on a more general article on the Toronto comics scene if there's a great deal of coverage out there. This may be a more successful way of writing about this topic and from there you can branch out to individual artists. freshacconci talktalk 20:40, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply again, i appreciate this -- i am learning a lot. i am definitely decided that my next article will be on the toronto comic art festival itself which hopefully will be easier to document and verify. i have already started to collect resources for it. we'll see how that is received, and go on from there. in the meantime, i have a few more links to include that i think i can easily get tomorrow for this entry, and will migrate it to my personal space if it is decided against, as you suggest. Wiki leedetailed (talk) 01:08, 5 June 2009 (UTC)Wiki leedetailed[reply]
- Reply I can't speak for everyone here, but I can certainly say that the last thing I'd want to do is discourage someone from continuing work here, especially around under-represented areas. I can certainly understand your frustration, and we all started at some point. I've had editors question the notability of an artist simply because they'd never heard of them (again, that would be a bad argument to make in a discussion and a good administrator would ignore it). What you are looking for is substantial third-party coverage. Yes, he's published in a national newspaper, but so are many others who do not have articles. What we need is coverage in publications and other media that have no connection to the subject. Is there any magazine coverage, articles and so on? Other newspapers? Substantial TV coverage? The two main guidelines we go by are notability and a subcategory on creative professionals. If the closing administrator decides on delete, the article can be userfied so you can keep it and work on improving it. Articles can always be recreated as long they are improved in some way. I'd also suggest working on a more general article on the Toronto comics scene if there's a great deal of coverage out there. This may be a more successful way of writing about this topic and from there you can branch out to individual artists. freshacconci talktalk 20:40, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment thank you for your feedback. nobody has mentioned that line would be controversial up to this point, so i can change it to be less jocular -- it was meant to be in the spirit of the character chip zdarsky. i am in the process of looking for more secondary sources, but life keeps getting in the way. i don't want to cite precedent because i don't want to cause a raft of deletions on wikipedia but i have bumped into several articles in the course of this discussion that i would consider much less fleshed out than this one, for comic book artists, and they seemed to have passed the "significant" and "notable" test. either that or the people who vetted them were not as diligent. in any event, i'm not referencing them because i think that they're significant, and they should be here. is there a time limit on how long i have to find further secondary references? Wiki leedetailed (talk) 19:50, 4 June 2009 (UTC)Wiki leedetailed[reply]
- Delete I agree with DGG's reasoning here. He's been published but that doesn't automatically make someone notable. freshacconci talktalk 18:44, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply What do you make of the interviews with other Toronto artists who mention him? Thses aren't him being published, it's him being mentioned by other creators in the field. Here's him being referenced by Warren Ellis. http://www.warrenellis.com/?p=6786 Lot 49atalk 21:57, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There's the issue that the coverage has to be substantial and not merely incedental. Its not sufficient to find a person's name mentioned in independent references, one must show that those references provide enough information to add meaningful, indepth content to the article. Read WP:N for more details on this. We need to be certain that there exists enough independent coverage of a subject that we can provide a balanced neutral view of a subject. If there is little meaningful independent writing about this subject, then it is impossible to write and reference an article that meets out core policies of verifiability, neutrality, and being published elsewhere first. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:00, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply What do you make of the interviews with other Toronto artists who mention him? Thses aren't him being published, it's him being mentioned by other creators in the field. Here's him being referenced by Warren Ellis. http://www.warrenellis.com/?p=6786 Lot 49atalk 21:57, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
*Delete - It's one of the many articles on wikipedia that is non notabale. DeletionMojoMan (talk) 00:26, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - "Chip Zdarsky" is a name that's demonstrably associated with both the Toronto comics community as well as the National Post, a publication which has been (somewhat inexplicably) clearly at the forefront of identifying, showcasing, and promoting notable Canadian comic creators (amongst many others: Kate Beaton, Doug Wright, Gary Clement, Seth, Mariko and Jillian Tamaki). It's my opinion that Zdarsky clearly meets notability criteria - leaving only the issue of (obvious) pseudonym which has been frequently allowed elsewhere without issue. Especially in the cartooning field where pen names are quite common. It's also worth noting that in those cases (as well as many others) the more notable pen name has been allowed to stand as the article title without a re-direct to the less notable given name. I also note that many of the arguments given for deletion are due to article quality, not notability, and deletion processes rarely improve articles. --TheBigSmoke (talk) 06:45, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:03, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 12:51, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just Close Your Eyes[edit]
- Just Close Your Eyes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Music article with a questionable-at-best assertion of notability. Not every song which gets used by a single wrestling star meets the criteria for notability as a song, and no other assertion of notability is provided. In a sense, this feels like wrestling cruft after a fashion. Tyrenon (talk) 20:06, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This is a significant pro wrestling theme song and I don't think this article should be deleted. It's one of the most talked-about and searched-for themes on the Internet today. It's an Internet sensation and it's all over all of the websites like YouTube, Dailymotion, etc. (DarkSword)
- Delete doesn't assert notability per WP:NSONGS, no coverage in reliable sources (YouTube and Dailymotion are not reliable sources). Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 20:44, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 00:00, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 00:00, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, not notable. Nikki♥311 00:20, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete no notability, only cites that Youtube and Daily motion have the song uploaded frequently. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 01:34, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Very Very Very Strong Delete: completely useless, non-notable theme song. It is a theme song, enough said. There is not enough sources for it to even justify a note in my opinion. Most theme songs today are given names by the fans so it is even hard to be correct with the title, the band, and in some cases the wrestler. If any note should be made regrading the song then it is in Music in professional wrestling, Cage's article, or if it is featured on one of WWE's CD releases. Other than that, it is no big name hit, which means there is very little sources = not notable enough for its own article.--WillC 02:19, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete it does not warrant an article, it only deserves a little note on the artists pages. Afkatk (talk) 09:19, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 12:51, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
When I Look At You (All I Think About Is Sex)[edit]
- When I Look At You (All I Think About Is Sex) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
As yet unreleased single; fails notability for music. Tyrenon (talk) 19:51, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Single hasn't released yet, slobbering fanboy syndrome again. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 19:58, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:59, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as a non-plausible search term, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Songs. No awards, no chart, no covers, no WP:RS. Esradekan Gibb "Klat" 11:11, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 12:51, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Polish American Pharmacists Association[edit]
- Polish American Pharmacists Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable organization with no reliable sources as to its notability. All sources are just that it exists. My speedy deletion tag was removed. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 19:13, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:59, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:59, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Delete I do not really see the encyclopedic notability of this organization on the international level.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:33, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No notability. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:54, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - insufficient sources to establish notability. The only source of subtance is the Polish News article, but I can't read Polish, and in any case, that's not enough. -- Whpq (talk) 15:58, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete only trivial and very limited coverage. [36] LibStar (talk) 03:56, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 12:51, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Eddy Fox[edit]
- Eddy Fox (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Not notable fictional character of a soap opera that hasn't even made his first appearance yet Passportguy (talk) 18:14, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Slobbering fangirls this time? Seriously, wait until he's established notability as a major character important to the plot. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 18:21, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete It's hard enough to prove notability for a TV character that has appeared many times, yet alone one that has yet to even appear in a episode. TJ Spyke 19:47, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:57, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:58, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 12:51, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Madden's law[edit]
- Madden's law (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This usage not found in the 32 non-wiki ghits. Prod contested by IP editor without comment. Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:09, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete Gee, no article mentioning John Madden would be complete without an ad for Ace Hardware Stores. Mandsford (talk) 19:53, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - funny, but not notable; sources are not reliable. Bearian (talk) 20:15, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Yet another variant on Finagle's Law. Or Murphy's Law, depending on who you ask. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:27, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was deleted as hoax; user blocked as hoaxer. DS (talk) 18:24, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ghetto Dayz[edit]
- Ghetto Dayz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
A recording that would be significant for the guest artists it features, if only any proof could be ascertained that there is any truth to this article. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 18:06, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- G3 Hoax. User has no good faith edits and has only made musical hoaxes. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 18:11, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Juhi Babbar[edit]
- Juhi Babbar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
There is a rise and a trend among entries from India that try and create SEO tricks to influence engines for proper indexing. In a way, there are advertising agencies that are creating wiki articles for not-so-established models and actors. In majority of the cases, these articles sound like a cut-paste prose form of their resume. They have no citation, notability and in most cases lack any published external link. This wiki bio fits under the trend described above. As a platform of repute and source of encyclopedic knowledge, I am on a mission to form a like-minded team of wiki admins/users to identify such biographic 'fake' wiki and mark them for Afd. In most cases they are db-spam —Preceding unsigned comment added by Socialprof (talk • contribs) 10:22, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Passes WP:BIO. See the numerous reliable sources in this Google News Archive search. Cunard (talk) 18:00, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Passes WP:BIO -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 18:10, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —SpacemanSpiff (talk) 18:10, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Google News search above. Multiple independent sources over a period of several years tends to indicate notability.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:11, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The article needs to be sourced and a bit of wikification and copyediting would help, but the subject clearly meets the WP:ENTERTAINER standard as demonstrated by coverage in mainstream media. Aside: The nominator seems well-meaning but should perhaps take some time to familiarize himself with wikipedia's policy on notability before nominating any more articles. An AFD nomination should specify why the particular article fails the relevant notability guideline; and should not a be a mission statement against "SEO tricks" and undeserving class of subjects. A wiki bio is not a reward (or punishment) for its subject, but rather a service to our readers who may want to learn more about a notable person. Abecedare (talk) 18:54, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Notable enough per Google news search. Priyanath talk 03:25, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Temporary Keep Needs references soon or else can be nominated again for AfD. She does figure in Mumbai's drama circuits quite frequently. --Deepak D'Souza 08:41, 5 June 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. Will consider userfication for Wikimjb if they request it, so that th article may be improved and then reviewed for a return to the article space. Discuss this with me on my talk page. Fritzpoll (talk) 07:33, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Immigration Advocates Network[edit]
- Immigration Advocates Network (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Contested PROD, the prod was deleted after the long list of external links was deleted, but I think the bigger problem is lack of notability. Only 4 Google news hits, and 3 of them are press releases. 145 Google hits, but I still don't see significant, reliable, independent coverage - these are all blogs, press releases, facebook hits, etc. I don't believe the fact that the organisation's website was nominated for, but didn't win, a Webby is enough on its own to prove that the organisation itself is notable. Note that the article's author was blocked for COI for this article, and that the proposed deletion tag was removed by a brand new single purpose account user. Delete. Dawn Bard (talk) 17:54, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. —Dawn Bard (talk) 17:54, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Regretful delete. Reliable sourcing is not there yet.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:17, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
weak KEEP. What about wp:BEFORE? There are source problems here, but the article is only a few days old. I say fact tag it and wait a little while. - JeffJonez (talk) 20:27, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I reviewed the site in an attempt to find more material for this article, but most of the sections are behind a memberwall. While I support their (seeming) advocacy for immigrants issues, they don't offer enough content to evaluate the potential for future coverage of their efforts. - JeffJonez (talk) 00:42, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- KEEP I don't see how this article is different from others in the legal organizations category http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Legal_organizations. With regards to the issue of notability, it is a collaboration of some of the most notable nonprofit legal organizations in the United States, including the ACLU and the National Immigration Law Center, among others. It was also nominated for a Webby Award (is there a more notable general, juried website award?)one year after its launch. It seems to me that you have to look and quality as well as quantity (i.e. number of search results). Even so, the “search” example given above is inaccurate. In addition to press releases, it has been mentioned in the Huffington Post and many other independent online sources. Wikimjb (talk) 20:51, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The difference between this and others in the "Legal organisations" category is reliable, independent sources offering significant coverage, per Wikipedia's notability guidelines. If you have additional citations, by all means, add them to the article - this AFD can be withdrawn if notability is established. I will say that I was looking at quality more than quantity in checking for sources, though - which is why I disregard all the press releases, blogs and social networking sites. Dawn Bard (talk) 21:02, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Included objective, third party references to address sourcing issues. Also added Wikipedia links to partner organizations, nearly half of which are already on Wikipedia, to further substantiate notability. Wikimjb (talk) 03:38, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Please see the WP:CLUB standard. This article is about a non-commercial organization that is national in scale (it has members from all 50 states in the United States) and the information about the organization and its activities are verified by third-party, independent, reliable sources. Wikimjb (talk) 04:23, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Can I take this opportunity to point out that the only article that Wikimjb has done anything with is this one? I'm starting to suspect a WP:SPA and possibly a WP:COI Niteshift36 (talk) 04:29, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- My understanding was that I was being directly asked to make this article better, albeit in a short period of time (although, please see wp:BEFORE). I have only made edits that directly address issues raised here. Wikimjb (talk) 04:49, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Then let me just ask directly: Are you affiliated with the Immigration Advocates Network in any way and if so, in what manner? Niteshift36 (talk) 05:31, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, that's my point. The standard for a conflict of interest per WP:COI is "Where advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest." There is no evidence whatsoever of that. There is nothing non-neutral in the article and everything is sourced. The question is whether or not this article meets the WP:CLUB standard, which it clearly does. Wikimjb (talk) 14:57, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe you missied it so I will repeat my question and I would really like you to answer it directly: Are you affiliated with the Immigration Advocates Network in any way and if so, in what manner? Niteshift36 (talk) 15:00, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What is uncivil about asking for disclosure of a potential COI? I'd rather see someone come clean voluntarily than escalate this to a WP:CHECKUSER request. I've asked twice, politely. Now I'll take the matter elsewhere. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:23, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have already said that I am affiliated, and that there is no conflict of interest based on the guidelines at WP:COI. I am concerned that your interest in deleting this article is based on your personal views, not the guidelines and policies of Wikipedia, which I have consistently references and you have not addressed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.166.193.171 (talk) 18:17, 2 June 2009
- Actually, Niteshift36, and I, and others have addressed notability guidelines - we just disagree with you that notability has been established. And, given that you are the one who is affiliated with IAN, have you considered the possibility that your interest in keeping the article is based on your personal views and not the guidelines and policies of Wikipedia? I'd never heard of them before seeing this Wikipedia article, so I have no preformed opinion, no "personal views" on the subject, which is probably the case for most of the other contributors to this AFD. Dawn Bard (talk) 18:30, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You have not addressed the WP:CLUB standard. You have also not established lack of notability based on the plain language of the Wikipedia guidelines: "Evidence of attention by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability." Huffington Post qualifies, as do the other sources, to establish notability. I have referenced guidelines and policies all along for just that reason. Others have referenced "notability" only abstractly. (As for an indication of potential bias, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Niteshift36). Wikimjb (talk) 18:54, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Be specific. What COI do you see on my user page? There is nothing there related to immigration, attorney's or any of the organizations that make up this network. So if you're going to make this kind of allegation, please do the ethical thing and tell us all exactly what on my user page shows a COI. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:15, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, I don't like the implication that anything on Niteshift36's page indicates any sort of bias. Nothing there, or in his edits, suggests that he has anything against the Immigration Advocates Network, just that he doesn't think it meets the notability guidelines for inclusion, so I hope you aren't making the suggestion just because he seems to lean towards the right wing politically. As to my not addressing WP:CLUB, my original post covered it just fine - from WP:CLUB, "Information about the organization and its activities can be verified by third-party, independent, reliable sources" - and one HuffPo article doesn't change my mind that the standard has not been met. Dawn Bard (talk) 21:32, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Every sentence of this article is sourced, including IAN's inclusion as a resource on U.S. immigration law by the Harvard Law Library (just added). A Google search for "Immigration Advocates Network" shows nearly 10,000 results (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22immigration+advocates+network%22&btnG=Search&aq=f&oq=&aqi=), including hundreds of links from organizations, law firms, and other independent, reputable third-party sources linking and commenting on IAN. Obviously one cannot include them all. References to potential bias are just that, highlighting what may be of concern to others reviewing this. It's difficult for me to understand why this article was subjected to such a lightening quick AfD and is being held to seemingly abstract standards. This doesn't seem aligned with the policies, guidance or spirit of Wikipedia or wp:BEFORE, which clearly anticipates that articles will mature and evolve over time. Wikimjb (talk) 22:50, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- First off, your talk of "potential bias" is not WP:AGF. Second, bias and conflict of interest are not the same. Third, I didn't nominate the article, I simply rendered my opinion. Lastly, for you to think that you know about me based on a couple of user boxes (some of which are in jest) is ridiculous. If I had a box about immigration or the ACLU, you might even be able to spin a justification for your accusation. But simply presuming that you know my opinions on immigration based solely on the fact that I am politically conservative really does little to make it look like you are assuming good faith. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:53, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have responded to Nightshift36 on my talk page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Wikimjb). I will not make any more edits to this article and will leave it to others to improve it and decide whether it meets Wikipedia standards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikimjb (talk • contribs) 03:49, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, first of all, it's good that every sentence is sourced, but nobody who has voted to delete has said they are doing it because they doubted the truth of the article. The sources have been updated slightly, but I'm still not seeing "significant coverage in reliable independent sources". As to the Google search, if you just click through to the 16th page, you'll see that there are just 154 results when Google eliminates duplicate entries. This is your search, I clicked on your link. My mind is not changed. Dawn Bard (talk) 23:10, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You have not shown any comparable evidence to justify your position. You have to compare apples to apples. In the Legal organizations category (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Legal_organizations), many of the articles don't include any sources and many have duplicative and non-duplicative (whatever your measure) search results at similar or lower levels than IAN. Same goes for the Legal aid (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Legal_aid)and Non-profit organizations based in the United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Non-profit_organizations_based_in_the_United_States) categories. You also continue to cite "significant coverage in reliable independent sources" as though it isn't an abstract standard, when other concrete guidelines like "Evidence of attention by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability" exist in the guidelines. Wikimjb (talk) 00:50, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- (edit conflict - this reply is to Niteshift36) And for what it's worth, the article's original author was blocked indefinitely for using their account only to promote Immigration Advocates Network. Dawn Bard (talk) 04:52, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Lack of notability. There are notable orgs involved in it, but their notability doesn't transfer to this. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:48, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Isn't the fact that notable organizations collaborate together on a project also notable? See, for example, the Collaboration Prize http://www.thecollaborationprize.org/ Wikimjb (talk) 03:31, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Not to me it isn't. Being a Nobel prize winner is notable. If 4 Nobel winners get together for dinner, it might even get mentioned in the news, but it's not an event worthy of its own article. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:12, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Both notability and sourcing issues suggest deletion is the best course. -- Rydra Wong (talk) 01:07, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete due to lack of notability, including general notability. Notability is not transitive: just because some members of the venture are notable doesn't make the venture itself notable. —C.Fred (talk) 04:30, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Notability is not transitive, but this organization is notable by virtue of the fact that it is a joint project of so many well-known organizations. The notability of the organizations is not being carried over, but the fact that they are cooperating in this way is notable. The organization has been noted in a whole bunch of web sites. Some of these may not qualify as reliable sources is a separate question from whether they are indicia of notability. If the article can't be kept, I think it would be worthwhile to find an appropriate other article into which to merge the content. Lets' not bog down on the issue of Wikimjb's potential COI. That's got nothing to do with notability of the article. If someone has an issue with any particular edits, raise them on the article's talk page. TJRC (talk) 18:49, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 12:51, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Edward Longley[edit]
- Edward Longley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Does not appear to currently meet WP:N as required for any WP:BLP subjects. rootology/equality 17:56, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No significant coverage whatsoever in reliable sources. The references provided in the article are either not independent or just passing mentions (Classmates.com, really?). Could almost be speedied, since there is hardly any assertion of notability in the article. SheepNotGoats (Talk) 18:49, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, I'd just as soon it not be speedied, given the factors surrounding it's creation, and request no admin close this early unless it's some monstrous deluge of policy-based deletes (which paid editing is NOT one, no matter what a handful of users here believe). The last time this sort of thing came up it was handled in as about of a clusterfrakked up manner as is realistically possible. I won't allow a repeat. rootology/equality 18:53, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I hear you. I have struggled with meeting the notability requirement myself and have found it difficult. There are mentions of Mr. Longley in The Real Deal online magazine and New York Times, but they have been archived and I haven't been able to retrieve the archives or as of yet. Petrosianii (talk) 19:25, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No reliable sources cited in article, and I could not find any on Google News, Books or Scholar. No indication in the article or from looking through Google results that he is more notable than any other real estate investor. Just being one is not notable. --Apoc2400 (talk) 19:37, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have contacted the editors of The Real Deal magazine and they are digging into the archives for Longley mentions. This is a reliable secondary source by Wikipedia standards. Will this satisfy your requirement? Petrosianii (talk) 19:39, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't mean to argue. Really, I don't. I truly admire your editorial standards and everything Wikipedia stands for. But, if you would please show me in the Notability clause where it states that the subject must be "more notable" than another real estate investor, I would appreciate it. Because, I don't see that. What it says is that the subject is notability if there are a "significant" number od reliable secondary sources mentioning him. What exactly determines significant, I suppose, would be up for debate. However, obviously 100 mentions would be significant, whereas two would probably not be. But I don't see anywhere where it states that notability is based on being "more notable" than some one else in the same industry or profession? Petrosianii (talk) 20:00, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Petroiannii, there is no such requirement; I believe that was just an analogy. The requirements for notability for "living people" (WP:BLP's) are really actually simple: do they meet this notability standard, here, on their own? If so, the next question is, are they what we call a WP:BLP1E, a living person really only notable for one event? This is typically like a criminal, or victim, for example. Unless the that one event is so monumentally famous or infamous, they rarely are kept. A good example would be that confessed rapist in Germany that imprisoned his daughter (I forget his name)--only famous for that. Or someone that appeared, say on just one reality television show and then vanished. As long as you're not a borderline BLP1E and you pass WP:N, you're good to go. The WP:N is the first and major hurdle, though. If you want examples of what is is notable, go look through the past few days of WP:AFD, and read the debates about articles about living people. Those would be real-time examples. That's really the only core metric of whether an article stays or goes, pretty much regardless of what anyone else may tell you. "Paid editing" is not against any rules, and how could it be? Unless you told us, we'd have no idea, and once told... so what? Once you publish the article here, you have zero control over it more than any other editor, and neither do your clients--we get a nice free article, hopefully with sources, hopefully that passes WP:N. If not... we delete it. I hope that helps. rootology/equality 20:08, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This is fun!
- I totally get it now. Thank you, Rootology, for the clarification. I was always a bit confounded by that "notable for one event" clause. Now I see. So what the guidelines state is that, just because the person is in the news, doesn't necessarily make him notable. It's only if the person is the subject of an event that is important in a broader socio-cultural sense. So, in the case of a real estate investor - if Longley had written a book about real estate investing that was a bestseller, or he had sold the most expensive home ever in the guiness book of world records or something - then he'd be notable, as a real estate investor? Do I have that right? Petrosianii (talk) 20:29, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You're welcome, and pretty much yeah -- but not if he was ONLY famous for the one Guiness record, generally speaking. For the book sales, that's often a different story. JK Rowling would have certainly counted after the first Harry Potter book, for example. Or lots of little events--if your subject is the feature of various news stories, again and again over time. Like, say if over 10 years 20 different newspapers do features on him. He would be a "lock" certainly. rootology/equality 20:33, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not a single reliable independent source providing anything approaching non-trivial, in-depth coverage available to establish notability. Likely his employer is not notable, either. His mother may or may not be notable. Looks like a nice guy. Also, what school did he get his highest degree from? Drawn Some (talk) 21:56, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:55, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete = No reliable resources. Not notable. The article even includes a grasping-at-straws attempt to show notability in the form of a statement that his mother has books vanity-published through Iuniverse. Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 06:12, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Non notable guy. Hipocrite (talk) 14:41, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - there is no coverage about him in reliable sources. Being quoted a few times doesn't make one notable. -- Whpq (talk) 16:08, 2 June 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. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:04, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
List of Parliamentary constituencies in Cleveland[edit]
- List of Parliamentary constituencies in Cleveland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
It seems silly to me to list constituencies in an area that doesn't exist any more (Cleveland, England was abolished inthe 90s). I expect boundries have changed since the county anyway and that this is out of date. Computerjoe's talk 17:54, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Computerjoe's talk 18:41, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- Computerjoe's talk 18:41, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above.Tyrenon (talk) 20:33, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep or Merge into the corresponding articles for County Durham and North Yorkshire. There are plenty of lists like this broken down by county, so the only question should be where this information best belongs. Cleveland is an unusual case. Normally when a county council ceases to exist, the county unequivocally remains, such as Tyne and Wear or greater Manchester. In the case of Cleveland, however, there was a lot of pressure to go back to North Yorkshire and County Durham. As a result a decision was made with areas north and south of the Tees being "associated" with the two counties, whatever that means. A further complication is that whilst most unitary authorities work together based on the old county boundaries, the four boroughs that made up Cleveland now also work with Darlington as "Tees Valley", in an area that has never fitted any known county. In short, it's a mess. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 21:30, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, and a further complication is that Cleveland is still used by the Royal Mail when determining addresses. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 21:32, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as it existed when the boundaries where drawn up for the 2005 general election, the same situation exists for Humberside with List of Parliamentary constituencies in Humberside. Obviously these things change over time and we cannot always impose today's state on the articles. Keith D (talk) 23:15, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Cleveland was abolished in the 1990s, Keith. Computerjoe's talk 16:03, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Although the Boundary Commission, who are primarily responsible for redrawing constituency boundaries, still treat Cleveland as an area [37]. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 16:51, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Cleveland was abolished in the 1990s, Keith. Computerjoe's talk 16:03, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - the encyclopedia doesn't just document things exactly as they are today so I fail to see any good rationale to delete. -- Whpq (talk) 16:10, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Cleveland has gone through so many reincarnations. Should we have an article of List of Parliamentary constituencies in Teesside and one for Stockton-on-Tees? Computerjoe's talk 16:33, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment by creator of article copied from article talk page Keith D (talk) 15:01, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Computerjoe's rationale for deletion (posted on my talk page as article creator) was:
Cleveland doesn't exist; why on earth is there an article on its parliamentary composition?
The reason this area is treated separately is that the Boundary Commission for England treated it separately from North Yorkshire and County Durham in the 2004/5 boundary review. Their web site lists this review as "Cleveland", although the detailed press releases refer to "the area covered by the unitary authorities of Hartlepool, Middlesbrough, Redcar and Cleveland, and Stockton-on-Tees". I do not think there would be much enthusiasm for article titles like List of Parliamentary constituencies in the area covered by the unitary authorities of Hartlepool, Middlesbrough, Redcar and Cleveland, and Stockton-on-Tees. This is one of a set of short lists / articles covering the whole of England, see Category:Lists of UK Parliamentary constituencies in England, and if simply deleted would leave this area undescribed. The areas of the former counties of Avon and Humberside are treated the same way - Berkshire, Cheshire and Bedfordshire are slightly different as they are still ceremonial counties.
As to whether it should be "List of ..." or not, as mentioned by Martin Klein above, it seemed right as there is no actual information about the individual constituencies here, merely pointers to their own articles.--Keith Edkins ( Talk ) 08:09, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Notability goes back in time to the beginning. The specific role of writing, & more specifically reference books like encyclopedias, is to preserve the notable things of the past as well as the present. It's true that our format lends itself particularly well, better than pre-electronic formats, to covering the present, but it needn't hurt our historical coverage either. I wish more people would do this sort of work here, there is room for as many articles as necessary--which, come to think of it, gives us the advantage for the past also. DGG (talk) 18:57, 4 June 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 as A7 - page does not indicate why its subject is important or significant. TerriersFan (talk) 19:19, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Kings college ten pin bowling club[edit]
- Kings college ten pin bowling club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable club. Speedy declined by single-purpose-account whose only edits have been to remove the db tag from this article (twice). WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 17:48, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:04, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
John Paul II's speech at Israel's Holocaust Memorial[edit]
- John Paul II's speech at Israel's Holocaust Memorial (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This article was tagged for transwiki to Wikisource; now it's tagged as a possible copyright violation, and either way, it's not encyclopedic. KurtRaschke (talk) 17:34, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:NOTREPOSITORY. Deor (talk) 17:51, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:55, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:55, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Transwiki to Wikisource if not a copyvio, Delete from Wikipedia regardless. Jclemens (talk) 00:29, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Transwiki relevant parts to WikiQuote. —Ynhockey (Talk) 11:46, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as copyvio. Perfect copy-paste job. Sebwite (talk) 22:37, 4 June 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. Roofio clearly exists. However, there is no indication of notability. Sources are all self-publsihed by the school, no indication of 3rd party coverage. And the killer sentence: Roofio is a truly King's School Sport currently played (at King's) by only the Upper Sixth Form GedUK 15:49, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Roofio[edit]
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:spa|username}} ; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}} . |
- Roofio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable school game Passportguy (talk) 17:22, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Hey, Thanks for your comments. I understand how you may view Roofio as un-important, however as a school sport, and one which we hope will - one day - be widely played throughout, perhaps, the world, we feel that Roofio is deservant of a place on Wikipedia. The school website is to be updated this week to include a Roofio section. Thanks for your time, Roofio. King's Roofio (talk) 19:27, 3 June 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.44.135.120 (talk) 17:55, 1 June 2009 (UTC) — 217.44.135.120 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Comment, Tetherball is an article we have. Why? and, subsequently, why not this roofio (wasn't a character in "peter pan" named roofio?) Anyhow, how have we justified tetherball? just because it is played in the US and we all know it? How exactly did we or do we measure how many kids have played tetherball or play it currently? Just a thought. Turqoise127 (talk) 18:22, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Thanks for the comment "Turqoise". To follow on from your comment, maybe it's time small time sports were given a chance to rise to the top. If Wikipedia were to deem every new sport as "non-notable", what chance in hell do any sports like Roofio have of ever becoming popular?
Give Roofio a chance, heck, maybe even play it. But deleting it from the Wikipedia system will be no way to help unknown and amateur sports become the greater successes they deserve.
Let's put Roofio on the internet map, starting with Wikipedia!
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.149.81.1 (talk) — 86.149.81.1 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Please sign your comments. The game is not comparable to Tetherball as it is far less notable due to lack of reliable sources, notice that the only sources provided are from blogs or facebook groups. the championship might have 100 people according to reference by facebook?!... this is hardly a reliable source or notable subject. wikipedia is not grounds for advertisement of new sports but an encyclopedia of notable articles. this sport is not notable yet-- Rmzadeh ► 18:38, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable if only played by a group of students at one school. Wikipedia is not the place to promote your new game. Beach drifter (talk) 18:52, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep It's not about promoting the sport at all. It is a brainchild of a sport currently, and for anybody to learn about the sport, given it's rising crop as one over the last month, Wikipedia, like so many other topics, is the first port of call for the public to learn about something, especially if its got a buzz about it like Roofio has!
So to delete the article would be deleting the chance for anybody wishing to play the game the opportunity to learn how it works/the protocols etc. It is a sad, sad day that members of the Wikipedia community are willing to put down an idea that is merely being fully described here. Wikipedia is meant to be the peoples encylopedia, and a platform for groundbreaking content to be contributed to. The people have a right to learn about sports and ideas through the medium of Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.149.81.1 (talk) 19:12, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Surely it can be classed as 'notable' if it has become part of a school's history, why should certain parts of a school's heritage be denied, even if it is a new edition to it's heritage. It has become very 'notable'. "wikipedia is not grounds for advertisement of new sports but an encyclopedia of notable articles" - What kind of encylopedia should not try to archive new sports, from the well played to the emerging. -- King's School —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.32.124.6 (talk) 19:25, 1 June 2009 (UTC) — 212.32.124.6 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Delete. Another user that thinks that wikipedia is for making stuff notable, rather than documenting stuff that's already notable. Hairhorn (talk) 22:25, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:54, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia does not have as a purpose the publicizing of things made up in school one day. Fails notability. Edison (talk) 00:05, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This game has quickly become a major part of the 6th form society to one of the oldest running schools in England, The King's School, Grantham. How some people can deny the progress of this school and say just because they haven't heard of 'Roofio' that it doesn't deserve a place on this online encyclopedia! I have come across many more ridiculous articles that have earned there place on wikipedia just because they are well known. But how the world can deny this sport from Wikipedia, i will never understand. It is a well known sport in the town of Grantham, just because it is not well known internationally shouldn't have any effect upon your decision. The King's School itself isn't exactly renowned nationwide, but it has a place on wikipedia because it exists! ROOFIO EXISTS! So why delete it? Probably because you have nothing better to do. It is an important part of sixth form life that rivals football in Manchester, tennis in WImbledon etc etc. and I am sure it will reach that level given the time and acceptance that it deserves! And when it is big, maybe when you've deleted this you will have your regrets. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DaveyWundaBoi (talk • contribs) 09:06, 2 June 2009 (UTC) — DaveyWundaBoi (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- When it is big, then other people will have written about it, and we can use those sources to create a proper encyclopedia article. No one doubts that this game exists; the problem is that no one has written about it in reliable sources, so we have nothing on which to base an article. Powers T 12:37, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How about if we had video evidence of the school championships forthcoming? Would that be evidence enough that it is a large enough sport and worthy of a page? We could even have a log book kept. unsigned comment added by DaveyWundaBoi (talk
- No, please read Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Original research. Powers T 13:24, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Surely the fact that it has been mentioned in the numerous external references is evidence enough of reliability of the game's article? It also appears to conform to Wikipedia's description of "Reliable Sources". The fact that I have written on it is proof of it being important, as well as existing, and the fact that it has been edited by others, supports this? King's Roofio (talk) 19:27, 3 June 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by King's Roofio (talk • contribs) 15:47, 2 June 2009 (UTC) — King's Roofio (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Keep I understand the above - I think we're all agreed as to the fact that Roofio exists. The question is, what do you deem as a reliable source? I have read Wikipedia's guidelines and believe that the articles conforms. Perhaps an external author could travel to Grantham and observe one of the many games which occur all over the town. Cricket isn't played everywhere but there is still an article on it. What's to say that part of it - if not all of it - wasn't written by an avid cricketer? Roofio is a notable game, in that it exists, is played and is spreading fast, the fact that it was written by Roofio fans only enhances its credibility. The article aims not to promote or advertise the sport, simply to describe and inform readers about the sport, its rules and some of its interesting background. The article is referenced and, in contrast with some of the other articles on the list of Game-related deletion discussions,informative and in keeping with Wikipedia protocol. The article will, with time, and the additions of other editors, become referenced further and even more credible than it is now. King's Roofio (talk) 19:27, 3 June 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.44.135.120 (talk) 22:44, 2 June 2009 (UTC) — 217.44.135.120 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- If "an external author" were to travel to Grantham and observe a game, and writes an article that gets published in a major newspaper or magazine, then we might be able to write an encyclopedia article on the topic. Do you understand the difference between some guy writing something on a blog and a professional reporter having an article published in a periodical? Powers T 02:05, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Deletio The first sentence of the article asserts non-notability and the lack of any independant sources proves it. Edward321 (talk) 00:50, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment If I may suggest, the best solution is to merge this article with the school in question. make a category under the school page whereby people interested in the sport can read all about it. In my mind this is not notable enough to be an article of its own but can make a good category under the sport section of the school article. I already have a delete vote on top so I didn't vote but I believe Merging to be the best course of action. Rmzadeh ► 02:47, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete textbook case of WP:NFT Percy Snoodle (talk) 11:28, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep/Merge Roofio is not a textbook case of WP:NFTThe game is recorded and documented with match reviews, score sheets and competiters' details. Roofio was not made up one day, it has evolved from centuries of sport at one of the oldest schools in England. As stated above, the article is not aimed at promoting the game - Promotion should be a side product of the real reason that I have written the article, to add to Wikipedia, informative and widely relevant material. The article is referenced in many places, none of which I am the author of. I will merge an edit of the page with the school site although I am still adamant that it should be an article in its own right. King's Roofio (talk) 19:27, 3 June 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by King's Roofio (talk • contribs) 13:46, 3 June 2009 (UTC) — King's Roofio (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Keep/Merge Powers, are you suggesting that something should only be added to Wikipedia once it has been written about in a major magazine or newspaper? I can think of many less notable stubs that have no grounding in popular media but remain here nonetheless. I would suggest that this page be merged with the school's article until such time as it warrants its own page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by B90 b91 (talk • contribs) 15:56, 3 June 2009 (UTC) — B90 b91 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
* Keep/Merge Thank you. On this note, allow me to draw your attention to Eton Fives , a self admitted "uncommon sport", not dissimilar to although admittedly slightly more widespread than Roofio. Eton Fives has none of the references you speak of and is linked to similar pages as Roofio. Even more striking is the resemblence between Roofio and the article on the Eton Wall Game. I cannot distinguish enough of a difference in this instance to remove Roofio without removing articles on numerous other sports. King's Roofio (talk) 19:27, 3 June 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by King's Roofio (talk • contribs) 16:12, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment You can't vote twice. I might also add that all this sock- and meatpuppetry is not helping your cause. 17:18, 3 June 2009 (UTC) 17:57, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Simply because I happen to have few other contributions to Wikipedia does not mean I should be considered a puppet of 'King's Roofio', I have made real-life contributions to Roofio as a sport and feel it should be represented in some way, in this I am in agreement with 'King's Roofio'. I do feel however, it is perhaps not deserving of its own page. Also, as has already been asked, please sign your comments. B90 b91 —Preceding undated comment added 17:39, 3 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]
- Comment I have duly tagged Eton Wall Game as refimprove. Thanks for pointing out that article. --A More Perfect Onion (talk) 19:44, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, don't merge Non-notable sport. Wikipedia is not for things made up in one day. Searches for sources return no reliable sources, but many blogs. The school's website doesn't mention this sport, so it's definitely made up and likely irrelevant to the history of the school. Cunard (talk) 17:47, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Roofio is not made up. Whether or not it is relevant to the history of the school is neither here nor there. Roofio is part of the school's history and should not be discounted any more than the fact that Newton was an Old Boy. More importantly the history of the school is important to Roofio and, Roofio, far from being "made up in one day" has in fact developed over centuries. Development of the sport as we know it today has been influenced by records of a Roofio based equivalent played for years. King's Roofio (talk) 19:25, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you have any reliable sources to verify your assertions? Cunard (talk) 19:26, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As I mentioned earlier, the school's website certainly had numerous references to Roofio - although I have been informed that the section on it has disappeared. I will speak to the system admin. as soon as possible and have this sorted. Other sources include the Grantham Journal. The Journal has reported the spread of Roofio and even included match reports. SJ Branson's book, "The King's School Grantham - 660 years of a Grammar School." also provides evidence to further Roofio's case. SJ Branson has been heavily involved in the school's archives for a number of years and I'm sure that if required, he would be available for comment. King's Roofio (talk) 19:35, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per no assertion of notability; come back when notability is established. Also: Article claims the sport was made up by "Brad Taylor," but the name redirects to List of Home Improvement characters. --A More Perfect Onion (talk) 19:37, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Apologies - the Brad Taylor referenced appears to be the incorrect person. I shall remove the link! However, if you read the article carefully, you will see that in fact it does not claim the sport was "made up" by him - instead that Roofio as we know it today has in fact developed over centuries. Brad Taylor was one of the people who helped "reinvent" the sport; deciding to write official rules, etc. King's Roofio (talk) 19:47, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Thanks for clearing up the bad redirect over Brad Taylor. Cunard's question stands: If roofio developed over several centuries, I expect multiple reliable sources will document its development. --A More Perfect Onion (talk) 19:50, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Reliable sources are available although, the papers described in the article are currently held by the King's School Archives and are not available in an electronic format. However, I will attempt to determine whether any local or national archives hold copies of the information and reference them straight away. King's Roofio (talk) 20:02, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete, it's a copyvio from http://roofio-sport.blogspot.com/. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 20:07, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Seems to me to be a case of WP:NFT, although probably some mention of this could be made in the article about the school in question. Accounting4Taste:talk 20:25, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Do Not Speedy delete Who then was a gentleman? thank you for your concern. Following your nomination for speedy deletion, the following has been agreed and forwarded to permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". Information in the article belongs to me and also to the author of the link you posted and we are both prepared to allow re-use. Please remove speedy deletion.
This is to confirm that Roofio and the author of the article (King's Roofio (talk) 20:30, 3 June 2009 (UTC)) have permission to use text from [1] and [2], awarded to them by the author of that site; "Luke.Johno". Other parts of [3] appear to be taken from my original article, on Wikipedia. I hereby give "Luke.Johno" rights to use this information freely. Both links contain the message "Re-use is permitted under the GFDL". King's Roofio (talk) 20:29, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
King's Roofio (talk) 20:35, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I wish to refer participants to the Eton Field Game article. This particle article has fewer citations than the Roofio page and yet is considered to be sufficiently relevant for publication. This begs the question, why is the Roofio page being targetted? While Roofio has rich history at the school, it is evidently a fledging nation sport and as of yet lacks reference in the wider press, yet this makes the information on the page no less credible. The Eton Football Variant articles rely upon their historical relevance to sport at Eton College, yet Roofio holds the same relevance to the sport at the King's School.Thelliwell (talk) 20:59, 3 June 2009 (UTC) — Thelliwell (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- STOP creating usernames to defend your position! this is getting out of hand here.. an article for deletion is no place to counjour up users, compare with other articles or any of the nonsense going on here... it is a place for editors to come to a consensus as to the merits of the article in question using the guidelines provided. This article is simply not notable enough! I am sure many more like this have escaped the editors and I'm sure that Wikipedia has many article in worst shape then this one but that is no excuse. if you find one, please report it to be csd'd, proded or afd'd... now back to this article... the consensus is to delete the article. there are some who believe that some the some material used could be transferred to the school wiki but other then that almost no one has voted to keep the article other then the article's authors. a game played amongst a few high-school kids is hardly a notable subject for Wikipedia. -- Rmzadeh ► 21:28, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Clearly a non-notable game, played only at one school. A multiplicity of meat/sockpuppet votes will, I trust, be discounted by the closing admin. --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 21:30, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, Not only is there no notable sources for this, the only sources listed are from a blog. This blog, aside from the three June 2009 entries is entirely empty. Not only that, but King's Roofio, you've also voted multiple times in this poll, which also isn't allowed. It fails notability, simple as that. Fyyer 21:32, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I am happy to discuss plans for the deletion of my article although I resent it being implied that my argument is "A multiplicity of meat/sockpuppet votes" and that I am inventing usernames. If I have read the relevant article/notification correctly, surely the number of votes is irrelevent - It is the content which counts. What benefit would I receive from creating multiple usernames!? I assure you that I am not. If there are other people who share my views then surely that is valuble to discussion. To the matter in hand, Roofio is not "a game played amongst a few high-school kids", it is a developing sport played by hundreds. It is notable, referenced and becoming more widely played every day. Removing Roofio is simply a way to stifle the growth of an exciting amateur sport and the enjoyment of a large number of people. King's Roofio (talk) 21:42, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You are sorely mistaken in the assumption that the original author is simply creating usernames to defend the article. I certainly am no puppet of the author, and although known to him, I like many others have contributed to this discussion of my own volition. Furthermore, I would ask you to consider the viewpoint that face of the media is changing. While in the past newspapers etc. have been regarded as the bastions of information and credibility, recent developments in personal media, such as blogs, have meant that personal information sharing has gained massively in terms of authority to the point that they are in regular use with esteemed writers and media agencies. Wikipedia itself is a child of the internet age, yet some members seem to refuse that the internet has completely changed information sharing and scoff at the use of blogs and social networking sites as citations, when these are possibly some of the most information rich resources available today. Thelliwell (talk) 21:52, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete A load of spherical objects. (Or possibly aged shoe repairers.) I might be interested to learn how Albert Ball and Newton managed to get balls from ASDA. Then again, I might not. Quote: "Removing Roofio is simply a way to stifle the growth of an exciting amateur sport and the enjoyment of a large number of people." Possibly. If this article is for the purpose of promoting this 'sport', then it falls foul of the rules on spam. Single purpose account support doesn't do a case much good - not that I see much case anyway. The bulk of the references come from a blog and do therefore not count as reliable evidence. I do not dispute that ASDA sell the balls. I am not so sure about the inaccessible references - mainly because there is no evidence to be had from them that I can get at. As to acceptability of blogs, Wikipedia does not accept Wikipedia as a reference for establishing evidence. Anything user-edited or self-published is suspect. Peridon (talk) 22:06, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My speedy delete tag for copyvio has been removed, despite the total lack of a legitimate GFDL claim. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:17, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, the blog that it was copied from has released the text to GFDL. That wasn't there at the time of my copyvio tag. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 18:40, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I removed the speedy tag as the article does not, in my view, qualify for deletion under the rules as a copyvio. But please not my comment above, and on User talk:Who then was a gentleman? --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 11:03, 6 June 2009 (UTC)]].[reply]
- Comment I suggest that Peridon re-reads the article and reminds himself that nowhere within it is a claim that Newton or Ball ever visited Asda. (The current rules of Roofio are a relatively recent addition to the sport) Also, if he cared to read the previous posts on this discussion, he would learn that the article on Roofio aims, in no way to promote the sport. At worst, it wishes only to promote understanding and to inform readers about it. The references have been selected on the basis that they are relevant. If you find an outdated or edited link, please direct me to it and I will be more than happy to amend.
I agree entirely that anything user-edited or self-published is suspect, including, as you suggest, large parts of Wikipedia. However, references to appropriate sources of this nature cannot be considered any more "suspect" than information published in say, a national newspaper or a thesis. There are many instances of respectable authors conveying misleading information to readers and so I do not believe that the use of user-edited material is an issue as long as there is consensus of its reliability - so far you have disagreed. As I have said, please direct me towards any problem links, I will attempt to solve problems as soon as possible in order to make the article more verifiable. I have also offered to obtain e-copies of paperwork citing Roofio as an traditional past time and developing sport. King's Roofio (talk) 22:30, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In reply to previous comments regarding the inconsistency in the application of Wikipedia protocol, I would wish to assert that if the rules are not applied uniformly, then there is no grounds to apply them at all. Effectively, what is happening is that members are targetting articles of their choice rather than acting as moderators. The call for deletion has become a matter of personal prerogative and therefore offers no valid grounds for deletion, hence rendering the call void. Furthermore, the notability of the topic is subjective and I do not think it is the place of any member to dictate what is notable to any particular individual. The Wikipedia guidelines governing notability are vague and seem to be open to interpretation by individual members. Thelliwell (talk) 22:39, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- How long have you been reading and editing at Wikipedia, that you are so much more well-versed in the rules than those who have been editing here for so long? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:43, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Admittedly, I am no seasoned editor of Wikipedia. However, I think the viewpoint of a new-comer offers a refreshing insight into a system that is fundamentally biased. My point is no less valid despite my lack of experience and I note that you have not directly addressed the issue I have raised, notably the flaws in this system of policing. No-one would stand for national laws which were randomly applied, so why should such intermittent rules be accepted here? The Wikipedia guidlines are the core of the deletion claim, yet I do not see how they can be regarded with any value if they are not applied uniformly. Again, on the notability issue, Roofio holds substantial notability amongst others, though admittedly not yourselves. Why do your opinions count above those who have interest in this sport? I've done all my homework thank you. Thelliwell (talk) 23:10, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As has been repeatedly explained above, all that is required is for someone, anyone to provide reliable sources, as per Wikipedia's long-standing, evenly-applied, WP:N requirements. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 23:23, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- More to the point, the long-standing, evenly-applied verifiability requirements. Article creator repeatedly claims sources exist to verify the statements in the article, but apparently hasn't added them to the article. As I understand WP:RS, a source doesn't have to be on the Internet, it just has to be reliable. I'm going to check the article's current state, and if sources have been duly added and they check out, I'll strikethrough much of this comment. --A More Perfect Onion (talk) 15:23, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Follow-up: The main references are a Blogspot site (blogs are not reliable, last I checked); the Asda site (which is a supermarket), the Roofball site (which doesn't list Roofio), and the school -- where I was unable to find the sport listed anywhere. I raise a strong question about verifiability. --A More Perfect Onion (talk) 15:35, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As has been repeatedly explained above, all that is required is for someone, anyone to provide reliable sources, as per Wikipedia's long-standing, evenly-applied, WP:N requirements. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 23:23, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Admittedly, I am no seasoned editor of Wikipedia. However, I think the viewpoint of a new-comer offers a refreshing insight into a system that is fundamentally biased. My point is no less valid despite my lack of experience and I note that you have not directly addressed the issue I have raised, notably the flaws in this system of policing. No-one would stand for national laws which were randomly applied, so why should such intermittent rules be accepted here? The Wikipedia guidlines are the core of the deletion claim, yet I do not see how they can be regarded with any value if they are not applied uniformly. Again, on the notability issue, Roofio holds substantial notability amongst others, though admittedly not yourselves. Why do your opinions count above those who have interest in this sport? I've done all my homework thank you. Thelliwell (talk) 23:10, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If only they spent half this time and effort on their homework. <sigh> Accounting4Taste:talk 22:58, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Anyone who wishes to change Wikipedia's policies about how it assesses articles that are undergoing an AfD process -- or any other policy -- is welcome, like everyone else, to make a case in the appropriate venue. That venue is not this discussion. The individual who will decide on whether or not to delete the article in question can only use the established guidelines and policies in making that decision; if s/he decides to abandon them, then it is very nearly guaranteed that the decision will be overturned in the Deletion Review process. If you'd care to spend a great deal of time working for the betterment of the encyclopedia, like everyone here has who has spent weeks, months and years learning Wikipedia's policies and how they are properly applied on a volunteer basis, you'd be welcome; learning those policies is an essential part of trying to change them, should you care to do that. But there is no point in trying to change policy in this venue; it isn't going to happen, period, full stop. Accounting4Taste:talk 23:38, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Accounting4Taste, neither Thelliwell nor King's Roofio have claimed to be seasoned Wikipedia editors, and the rules and regulations that surround the deletion policy were merely mentioned and in no way deserving of a patronising response from yourself. Such a comment was unneccessary and unhelpful to this article's discussion. The question is not of "learning the policies" in an attempt to change them, but of Roofio, the article which we find ourselves discussing.
Articles have been found just today that display a map of the School dating back to around the 1800's, possibly earlier (needs confirming), that clearly display an area designated to the playing of a ball game at free periods (break/lunch), the name of the game is stated on the map but it is rather unclear on first glance, and we have endeavoured to take the document to our local library for a closer inspection.
Once we have this document returned, we shall look to photograph/scan the map and place it upon the internet, citing it as an article which comfortably holds enough evidence to be used as a significant reference that "Roofio" was not in fact made up "in one day". Twbanks (talk) 14:52, 4 June 2009 (UTC) — Twbanks (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- That will, unfortunately, probably not count as third party reliable evidence. It will be self-published and contribute to the feeling that at best this is Original Research. If the game does in fact have a history, independent evidence (not blogs or self-published stuff) will be needed. You might not like this, but this is how it is. There are many games played at one school (at mine it was nurdling) that do not deserve articles. The Eton game referred to above is well documented and established. I personally do not regard Eton with the respect that many give it, but the documented notability is there. In the case of Roofio, it isn't. If there is a reference to it in the school website - not in a freely edited area - it might increase the chances of survival. Published on the web by students of the school - same value as a blog. Peridon (talk) 17:09, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Peridon, thank you for your comment. Further to what you were saying about self published sources, the sources to which we refer exist only in paper copy, either in a book or as original papers. To clarify, if we wish to reference these, must they be uploaded to a non-user-edited source? Thanks 81.159.169.229 (talk) 17:50, 4 June 2009 (UTC) — 81.159.169.229 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- The problem with 'papers' is that they are not usually 'published'. That is, made public. Books are usually published, but the self-published ones are normally discounted - with some rare exceptions caused by the notability (otherwise established) of the author. You might think we are ba=eing hard on you. You probably haven't seen some of the unutterable (and often only semi-literate) junk that lands here (and normally is disposed of fairly quickly...). Peridon (talk) 18:25, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Not at all, I understand that Wikipedia wouldn't be much of an encylopedia without at least some determination of the reliability of sources. So, would you consider a proper, relevant reference on a school website, in a local paper and in the aformentioned book a reliable source which would allow the Roofio article to remain? (Assuming that they really are relevant!) Thanks, 81.159.169.229 (talk) 18:29, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Many people learned to play many games long before Wikipedia came along, so if yours has been around for centuries, one article here (or not) shouldn't make any difference to the sport's future. If/when someone writes a book or two on the topic, or a few newspaper articles, then will be the right time to create the Wikipedia article in question. In the meantime, add any information you have that can be found in verifiable reliable sources to the school page... oh.... there isn't any solidly sourced information? Well, that's kind of the point, isn't it? — Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 08:38, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The article has now been referenced properly. User-edited links have been removed. Can it be kept? Thanks, King's Roofio (talk) 11:11, 8 June 2009 (UTC) (talk) 11:10, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete before the entire school votes keep. Blatantly non-notable. Merits a mention on the school's page perhaps, but no more. WP:NOTNEWS etc. Disembrangler (talk) 11:22, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment As mentioned before, the notability of Roofio in comparison with many of the other "sports" articles available on Wikipedia appears quite positive. Roofio's popularity and peoples' awareness of it is growing. It is well documented and efforts are being made to continue this and to develop its existance. 81.159.169.229 (talk) 12:53, 8 June 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 as a blatant advertisement. Jamie☆S93 18:14, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Logic Voice[edit]
- Logic Voice (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Blatant advert. The author, who is the company's chairman, could not even be bothered to write an encyclopedia article. Instead he submits an OTRS ticket to allow him to copy his own website. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 17:16, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete as spam. Copyvio was the fastest way to get this off, but it wasn't the only issue. I'll repeat my talk page comments, which I wrote as the AfD was being done: This is the height of lazy self-promotion. They can't be bothered to re-write a page that desperately needs re-writing (its =/= it's, for starters). This still looks like a spam speedy delete candidate, now that the copyvio issues are out of the way. Can't wikipedia refuse an offer of copyrighted material? Because this text is junk. Hairhorn (talk) 17:19, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- G11 Spammy spam is spammy. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 17:38, 1 June 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. Fritzpoll (talk) 10:06, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
World Heritage Memory Net[edit]
- World Heritage Memory Net (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
nn website plans. Google only 39 hits.[38] EWJNK (talk) 17:25, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I would think that http://whc.unesco.org/en/news/326 gives a certain notability. While CRYSTAL would normally be a concern with a future launch date, I doubt that it is here. This is evidence of the project's existence. I would also point out that the nominator is a new account whose activity seems mostly connected with AfD. Peridon (talk) 19:29, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete anyway, the one source cited by Peridon isn't enough. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 19:11, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into Global Memory Net --neon white talk 21:49, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - A "World+Heritage+Memory+Net" Google search turns up multiple sources. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:03, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jamie☆S93 17:03, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:54, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Since this website is apparently co-sponsored by UNESCO [39] I'm willing to give it the benefit of the doubt. Passportguy (talk) 12:02, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 12:10, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sheharyar Electronics[edit]
- Sheharyar Electronics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Claims to be a huge company ("The monthly expenses of the Sheharyar Electronics is $4.88 billion but the total income is $5.11 billion till January 2008") however Google gives zero relevant hits for "Sheharyar Electronics". I Afd-ed instead of tagging it as a hoax just in case there is a misspelling in the company name. Passportguy (talk) 16:54, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- G3 Hoax. "Anis Raisani" gets no hits at all, neither does "Pak Electronics". Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 16:59, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:53, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Non-notable at best. Edward321 (talk) 13:59, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- delete - fails verifiability -- Whpq (talk) 16:11, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 12:10, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Lu Gui Yao[edit]
- Lu Gui Yao (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Doesn't assert notability, no sources, sounds (to a Westerner) to be nonsensical. mynameincOttoman project Review me 16:29, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete but first...I'd rather enlist the support of someone who can read Chinese before we make a hasty decision. As far as I am concerned, this could be a complete joke. But it could also be real, and just a very badly written article. The name evidently is a name shared by other Chinese: [40], including a chemist, and if it is not a joke, this article is clearly not about a chemist. I did find one self-published source: [41] about the association and the person. But I can't find anything in reliable sources. Cazort (talk) 16:55, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Nom's 3rd rationale of WP:IDONTKNOWIT should be ignored. Vodello (talk) 00:19, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 00:38, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 00:38, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I read Chinese. This is just another article about a martial arts (liuhebafa, apparently) practitioner who has not been covered non-trivially in independent, reliable sources in any language. The 62 GHits on his name in Chinese consist entirely of forums, websites of places where he has worked, and a byline [42] for an article he wrote (not an article about him) in a magazine. No Chinese GBooks hits. The name of the association he founded (which contains his own name) has precisely 1 GHit, from a Wikipedia mirror. Any claims about how he is notable because of his teacher lineage should be referred to WP:NOTINHERITED. cab (talk) 00:38, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete non-notable seems to be promotional --Nate1481 12:11, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hillary Scott (singer)[edit]
- Hillary Scott (singer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
I tried redirecting this to Lady Antebellum, but it was declined by the author, who said that her winning an award from SESAC (verified here) and writing the majority of Lady Antebellum's material was enough for a standalone article. Besides the fact that she recorded a non-notable, self-released album with her mother (Linda Davis, who is irrefutably notable), I see absolutely nothing that makes her sufficiently notable for a standalone article. (Keep in mind that all of the band's material was co-written by the other two members as well.) This article, as it stands, repeats material from Lady Antebellum's article in a desperate attempt to not be a stub, but I think she still fails to meet the criterion for individual member of a band, as she has not "demonstrated individual notability for activity independent of the band, such as solo releases". Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 15:47, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge with Lady Antebellum-- Rmzadeh ► 15:54, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep!I Just created it two days days ago, so there's the article is in its infant stage. As to why this should be kept;
- Songwriter of the year from a "major" organization - SESAC CMT.com
- Listed as co-writer for 3 of the band's singles which have charted - Love Don't Live Here (#3) , Lookin' for a Good Time (#11), I Run to You (#9).
- As for significant coverage, see interview with the official blog of Vanderbilt baseball team, interview with metromix.com, coverage from GAC. This is all you need to pass WP:NOTE, since its significant coverage from reliable sources. More coverage about the Songwriter of the year award.
So, Award + Songwriter with songs that have charted + Significant Coverage = Keep. Article is thin now, but it can definitely be improved. Corpx (talk) 23:08, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:52, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - per Corpx's well reasoned argument. Even if this article was just a stub for now, that would not be a valid reason to delete. Rlendog (talk) 18:22, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep SESAC is a major performing rights organization. Its songwriter awards are notable, just like those from ASCAP or BMI. Having won a notable award from a notable organization, the subject is clearly an independently notable songwriter. Her possible lack of notability as a musician, the only thing the nominator took into account, is plainly irrelevant. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:33, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - per Corpx, I too, agree with Rlendog. Just because it's a stub doesn't mean is should be deleted. EnDaLeCoMpLeX (talk) 01:41, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:03, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A. Andrew Gonzalez[edit]
- A. Andrew Gonzalez (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Artist is not culturally significant; page originally created by artist's girlfriend Aletheia82 (talk) 15:16, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm tempted to call this a bad faith nomination. I can't verify the claim that the page was originally created by the artist's girlfriend, and the artist seems notable, but I can't verify all the references in the article due to NSFW content. I also find it suspicious that the AfD template was placed on the page by an IP, and the nom's first edit was to create the AfD discussion page. KuyaBriBriTalk 15:29, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I was the original IP who nominated the page for deletion, but I created this account when I didn't seem able to add a reason for the nomination as an unregistered user. re: the girlfriend, she notes as much at http://heidiallen.com/rapidfire/2006/07/02/a-andrew-gonzalez-artist/ (this is where I found the initial link to the article, by the way). The references given are all obscure sites--if any better sources exist, they should be cited instead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aletheia82 (talk • contribs) 15:42, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Even if these unsourced accusations are true, the source of the article is irrelevant. The artist is notable, and the article is only lacking a few inline citations. I find it even more suspicious that Aletheia82 is an account seemingly created only for this delete attempt. - JeffJonez (talk) 16:03, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You do realize that without any credible sources, the article Cannot be called notable right? Notability means significance coverage which means sources, the motives of the person electing the article is irrelevant. we are to assume good faith, the only matter is the quality of the article Rmzadeh ► 16:10, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I wrote that the artist is notable, which I based on the number of publications in which the artist has contributed. The article may not yet represent that notability in the opinion of some, but I believe that it is merely formatted poorly, contains some content that is currently unsourced, and in general needs a little TLC... not deletion - JeffJonez (talk) 16:16, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Jeff, the majority of the publications linked to no longer exist (three out of five lead to dead areas). Additionally, the quality of the publication should matter as well, no? A small newsletter and a self-published magazine probably don't qualify for the Wikipedia notability standards, from what I understand of them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aletheia82 (talk • contribs) 16:24, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I wrote that the artist is notable, which I based on the number of publications in which the artist has contributed. The article may not yet represent that notability in the opinion of some, but I believe that it is merely formatted poorly, contains some content that is currently unsourced, and in general needs a little TLC... not deletion - JeffJonez (talk) 16:16, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You do realize that without any credible sources, the article Cannot be called notable right? Notability means significance coverage which means sources, the motives of the person electing the article is irrelevant. we are to assume good faith, the only matter is the quality of the article Rmzadeh ► 16:10, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I made it quite clear in my initial response to Kuyabribri that I created this account in order to provide a reason for the nomination (for what it's worth, I don't personally know either the artist/his girlfriend). I find it a little curious that you don't perceive a conflict of interest in the article's creator re: the artist's significance, but you seem to see one in my account having nominated the article for deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aletheia82 (talk • contribs) 16:11, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If your claim is true, it's not automatically a conflict of interest if the article is notable and reflects a neutral point of view. What I find suspicious is that you either have chosen not to stake your reputation as a wikipedian on this effort, or that you have no previous experience editing here. - JeffJonez (talk) 16:21, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The claim on the website you linked proves nothing. That blog post was added in July 2006. I cannot find any indication that an article on this individual existed on Wikipedia until September 2006. Regardless, we can't prove Puroprana (talk · contribs) is Heidi Allen without using CheckUser, and I don't believe we can justify using CU in this case. Frankly, the original author's identity is irrelevant and should be disregarded, as COI on its own is not grounds for deletion. Notability, on the other hand, is grounds for deletion, and this discussion should focus on that. I will not make a judgment on notability until I can check the sources with NSFW content. KuyaBriBriTalk 16:26, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This is Heidi Allen (Puroprana). A couple of points:
- 1) I am A. Andrew Gonzalez's girlfriend. However, I did not create this Wikipedia entry.
- 2) A. Andrew Gonzalez is definitely culturally significant within the visionary art movement. If you follow the movement, you've heard of him and are probably familiar with his work.
- A little elaboration:
- When I originally came across this entry, it was a stub, and there was a request for an editor to work on it. I was already a Wikipedia editor, and had access to the necessary information, so it seemed like a natural fit.
- That was some time ago. I hadn't worked on the entry since then, although other editors have. I've just now finished an update to include more recent publications and to delete the section that listed some of his art shows.
- The updated Publications and Other Media sections should provide ample evidence of Mr. Gonzalez's significance as a visionary artist. My relationship to him has no bearing on the information that's presented there.
- Question any reviews? any work in museums? any solo exhibitions in major venues? any works in major juried exhibitions? any prizes? sand, any sources for the analysis in the Paintings section? I recognize that some of this is unlikely for new artistic movements, but we do have to wait until someone outside Wikipedia recognizes them.DGG (talk) 19:02, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your questions. I've created a new 'Shows, Exhibitions, Collections, Prizes' section. I've also added two links to analyses of Gonzalez's work in the 'Paintings' section. (I'll change the title of that section to 'Technique & Influences' once I'm done writing this, to better reflect the section's focus.) I do want to note that, although Gonzalez has won top prize at juried exhibitions at the past, artists tend to stop entering juried exhibitions once their careers reach a certain level. Just the same, I did include the references in my update. In hindsight, I'm glad this entry was challenged, because it's now much stronger, more focused and readable. :) Puroprana (talk) 06:13, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:52, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Notability has not been established. Fails WP:ARTIST. Article is also not written in an encyclopedic tone, rather it is more like what I would expect on a personal website. لennavecia 21:23, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 12:10, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Free Art Friday[edit]
- Free Art Friday (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This article is about an art movement that was described as new when the article was created in 2006. There does not appear to be any coverage in reliable sources to establish the notability of this movement. The only Google News results are for something behind a pay wall in the Yakima Herald and a short mention in the Irish Times. The Yakima Herlad article appears to be an event announcement based on the excerpt text provided. The Irish Times article] is a very short piece that reads like an event announcement and is insubstatial. Whpq (talk) 14:26, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Cool concept, but usually a grass-roots movement of this sort takes some time to become notable - and I don't think 3 years is really enough time. Hope it works out, though. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 15:32, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:51, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Nice idea, non-encyclopedic, but who knows in a few years...Modernist (talk) 23:57, 1 June 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. Fritzpoll (talk) 10:05, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mongolia–Pakistan relations[edit]
- Mongolia–Pakistan relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
non resident embassies, these bilateral articles are about relations between the nation states, so the historical context before either of these nations actually existed should be covered in Mughal Empire and Mongol Empire. the section of trade is really becoming a WP:NOT#NEWS section and actually a copy and paste from 1 article which violates WP:COPYVIO. there is a real lack of coverage of actual bilateral relations, their relations seem often in a multilateral regional context [43] . there's this article but it's the usual "we would like to cooperate". also the Pakistan foreign ministry says nothing of specific bilateral relations [44]. LibStar (talk) 13:38, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The section of the article on trade makes the lack of relations between this random pairing excruciatingly bare. References do not exist to support notability of this topic. Pre-modern relations are best dealt with elsewhere as the nominator points out, since even the idea of the modern nation-state did not exist in the regions where Mongolia and Pakistan are now located during the time periods discussed. Drawn Some (talk) 20:55, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:51, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mongolia-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:51, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails WP:N and not a directory. Edison (talk) 00:07, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No real relations worth talking about. A trade minister visiting means nothing and 100 pakistanis living there are insignificant even in relation to the low population of Mongolia. --Latebird (talk) 08:43, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Sources, especially those provided, demonstrate the lack of notability of these relations. Hipocrite (talk) 12:44, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The creator of this article, User:Ronaldochamp has not been notified by User:LibStar of this Afd.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 15:58, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete since no reliable sources discuss this topic, that is this bilateral relationship, in any depth at atll. There appears to be a copyvio problem as well, but no one seems to care about that anymore.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:33, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Article has no useful content. No sources discuss these relations. The history section (years 1221 and 1526) is properly covered in the linked articles. Johnuniq (talk) 11:05, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Very significant historical interaction--not just those two events but throughout the 6 centuries, ending as recently as the 19th century. That we do not have more information of the ethnic and cultural c interactions is a limitation we should try to overcome. The history is of course discussed in fuller detail elsewhere, but it's appropriate content here and would justify an article all by itself--there were a great many more people giving influence in both directions than those indicated. I'm not an expert, but I do know about it, & regret I havent time to do it, but the article has potential for expansion. DGG (talk) 19:13, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - not even the name "Pakistan" existed until the 1930s. To pretend that Mughal-Mongol Empire interactions had anything to do with the Islamic Republic of Pakistan and modern-day Mongolia is misguided at best, abusive at worst. Anything else in here is trivial, and merits deletion. - Biruitorul Talk 01:36, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The article mostly talks about interactions long before either nation existed in its modern form. A tiny bit about trade hardly makes the relations as a topic of the whole notable. --BlueSquadronRaven 04:50, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 12:10, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Musicotainment Unlimited[edit]
- Musicotainment Unlimited (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
No third-party coverage whatsoever. A possible COI looking at the creator's contributions. LeaveSleaves 13:37, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nomination. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:34, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:51, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:51, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Non-notable. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:57, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Not notable. Ward3001 (talk) 01:28, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 12:10, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
With All My Love[edit]
- With All My Love (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Declining WP:CSD#A9 speedy deletion and taking to AfD; there are some technical points about A9 and allmusic.com I'd like to discuss. The page University of North Florida Jazz Department exists; so does that mean, for the purposes of A9, that we should speedy or not, when the band is the "University of North Florida Jazz Ensemble I"? Also, I see "University of North Florida Jazz Ensemble" on allmusic.com, but the entry is very short; does that suggest we should have a page on the Jazz Ensemble in addition to the department? And finally, if I'm trying to make a call on A9, and there's no page on the band but I have reason to think we might want a page on the band, what do I do? Inquiring minds want to know. - Dank (push to talk) 18:17, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- - Dank (push to talk) 18:19, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. -- - Dank (push to talk) 18:19, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete As the creator of speedy criterion A9, I agree with the nominator. University of North Florida Jazz Department is close enough, and I don't know why the "I" is there. The Jazz Department's article indicates that it's indeed by them, but there're no sources to be found. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 18:32, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The band is listed as the "University of North Florida Jazz Ensemble I" because it is a specific group of musicians who are a part of the larger University of North Florida Jazz Department. There is a Jazz Ensemble II and III, as well as other groups like the UNF Guitar ensemble and UNF Wind Ensemble. The album "With All My Love" is listed as being by the "University of North Florida Jazz Ensemble I" because they are the specific group on the recording. I have included a link to the UNF Jazz Ensemble I's page on the UNF website. I hope this clears up any problems at that this article is not deleted because it is an important accomplishment by the music department of the University of North Florida.
-The222
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, I'mperator 13:32, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. A9 is indeed not applicable. Case of WP:MUSIC, this doesn't seem to hold to any of the criteria. Sure it's a good album, so I'm gonna have to give it a listen. =) --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 15:31, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I, article fails to establish notability per WP:MUSIC#Albums I. Esradekan Gibb "Klat" 11:14, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have added more outside sources to account for the album's notability. This article does meet the notability requirement, with four outside sources (even more are out there), as well as the Amazon page. I believe the article should remain. --The222 (talk) 04:05, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- All those resources say is that the album is for sale. Doesn't really connote notability. Try this as a guideline. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 15:05, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You do make a good point about all of the sources only detailing the album being for sale (one source does review the album though). I have added a few more outside sources, one from Yahoo music which shows that this is the fifth album released by the ensemble. I was unable to find many resources that did not try to sell to the album though. Maybe we should create an artist page for the UNF Jazz Ensemble I and merge the album information into the article, or we could expand the UNF Jazz Studies program article by creating a Jazz Ensemble I section. --The222 (talk) 21:49, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- All those resources say is that the album is for sale. Doesn't really connote notability. Try this as a guideline. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 15:05, 4 June 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. Fritzpoll (talk) 10:05, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Chicago_reggae[edit]
- Chicago_reggae (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non notability; almost every major city contains proponents of several popular genre's of music. Aside from a single appearance by Bob Marley in the late 70's (which is apparently not notable enough to garner it's own article) no effort is made to indicate why Reggae music in or from Chicago is noteworthy. Jesse (talk) 13:22, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- I'mperator 13:29, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Agree with nominator's arguments. Without significant corroboration in secondary sources, I don't see the required notability. There is very little content here. This seems to be "puffed." Vicenarian (T · C) 14:08, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, there does seem to be plenty of WP:OR. Vicenarian (T · C) 14:26, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not notable, also half the article is off-topic and most of the rest is original research.Northwestgnome (talk) 14:17, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above. Cosprings (talk) 16:26, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Off topic fluff. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 16:32, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Not notable. Ward3001 (talk) 01:29, 3 June 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. Fritzpoll (talk) 10:05, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Magic shot[edit]
- Magic shot (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_for_things_made_up_one_day Gigs (talk) 13:15, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Urban Dictionary is not a reliable source, and a Google search finds no evidence that this is notable. JohnCD (talk) 13:18, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - unsupported by a reliable source; no sign of notability; also WP:NOTGUIDE. Marasmusine (talk) 13:20, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Snowball delete, even. No evidence of notability, no reliable sources, seems that someone just made this up one day, and Wikipedia is not a bartending manual. Dawn Bard (talk) 13:52, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete per WP:MADEUP. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 17:39, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:49, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Redir to Magic bullet as it might be a viable search term. Redirs are cheap. Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 07:29, 5 June 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. Fritzpoll (talk) 10:04, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
P.R.Harikumar[edit]
- P.R.Harikumar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Article was previously deleted at CSD. It has since been recreated by a different author. Article has multiple issues, not much improved upon by the first version. Not eligible for CSD because of notability issues. No articles link to it, and it is a dead-end. Neutralle 12:39, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Neutralle 12:54, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Neutralle 12:54, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, post hatse. Way too promotional (self-promo?). Looks like it was written by his PR person, assuming that PR person wasn't very good at what he or she does. I realize that The Hindu is a reliable source, but something about the text in the references cited comes across as somewhat promotional as well. I just don't think he passes notability standards. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 16:48, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —SpacemanSpiff (talk) 17:03, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete of this self-promotion. Niteshift36 (talk) 06:09, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Even if we take his achivements at face value he does not seem to meet any notability criteria. He has one state level award althought the award's notability itself is debatable. --Deepak D'Souza 08:38, 5 June 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 redirected to Illinois-Indiana League. Non-admin closure. KuyaBriBriTalk 14:08, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Two-I League[edit]
- Two-I League (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Article is exact duplicate of Illinois-Indiana League and doesn't give any additional information. dashiellx (talk) 11:11, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:58, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:58, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:58, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Illinois-Indiana League Spanneraol (talk) 12:20, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was merge to Gun fu. No consensus to delete. The arguments for merging are slightly stronger then the arguments for keeping. Otherwise this is a tossup (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:25, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Gun Kata[edit]
- Gun Kata (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Trivial OR (also unreferenced of course) that only recounts plot details from the film Equilibrium, totally redundant to Gun Fu. Ryan4314 (talk) 10:57, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —Ryan4314 (talk) 11:02, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Ryan4314 (talk) 11:02, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. —Ryan4314 (talk) 11:02, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Gun Fu of which it seems to be a sub-branch. Besides having no secondary reliable sources this is about a fictional martial art which serves as a element in a couple of movies. No need for WP to have so much detail on it since this is supposed to be a general encyclopedia, not a movie fan site or a how-to guide for movie makers. Northwestgnome (talk) 14:09, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into the parent article per Northwestgnome. --Explodicle (T/C) 18:21, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: I somewhat agree with Northwestgnome, but I find this interesting, and has been done in enough films and even though this is probably crystal, it will probably be used in many more to come. With enough work, it could be a very good article.--WillC 04:38, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Personal interest is not a valid reason to keep an article, and without reliable secondary sources it can never be a good article. --Explodicle (T/C) 14:12, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not basing my keep on interest. I'm basing it on usage. It has been done in enough films and has gained a following. Third party sources are probably out there, but it involves people looking hard enough. Sometimes primary sources are the best sources to use. Primary sources didn't stop me from getting this to FL. Now yes, third party sources help establish notability, but there is always another step. Something can get major interest from people, but is so insignificant that it doesn't really needs its own article. But there is enough sorces out there. Thinking plainly on sources the entire time, really isn't correct.--WillC 19:55, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm curious, outside "Equilibrium" what other films has this, by name, actually been used in? The article has been around for years and has only mentioned Equilibrium and for a brief time had references to it being used in Ultraviolet that have since been removed from the article. Ultraviolet supposedly uses Gun Kata, but it's not mentioned on screen, and I'm unsure if they even refer to it in behind the scenes. No other films to my knowledge use this fictional technique. If you can provide examples, great - do so. If you can't - I'm not sure how much weight the argument that it's notable outside Equilibrium really holds. Radagast83 (talk) 05:36, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: I can understand why you might think it seems like an unimportant article, but having just stumbled on it and found it to be quite an interesting read, I think the article is worth saving. The whole point of Wikipedia is to inform its readers; I found it a useful article and I'm sure others will, so keep it. There are certainly sources out there, and if you're worried about it not being sourced, then look for references, don't delete.--Freelance Intellectual (talk) 22:07, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge relevant data into Gun fu (or Equilibrium article) and then kill off the rest. Gun Kata "appears" by name in one Kurt Wimmer film and "sorta" shows itself at one or two points in another one of his films, Ultraviolet. This is not notable enough to stand on its own with few sources if any to rely on. Radagast83 (talk) 06:02, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Evidently notable. Merger into Gun Fu seems sensible. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:30, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Has been used in multiple notable works. Also the article is large enough on its own, no need to merge it with another. Dream Focus 14:42, 5 June 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. ONEEVENT cannot apply here, and Banjeboi's presentation of sources is unquestioned - cannot accord consensus in either direction Fritzpoll (talk) 10:04, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Banky Edwards[edit]
- Banky Edwards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Notable? Stars in one movie, the sequel appearances seem to be bit more of just a trivial mention. Ryan4314 (talk) 10:53, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:57, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:57, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Stars in two films, but still not notable. Darrenhusted (talk) 15:13, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Woah, I just came to this page to improve it with information from the Journal of Bisexuality aricle "The Pleasure and Pain of Chasing Amy" which comments on the multiple interpretations of the characters as understood by viewers of different sexualities. The character is a minor figure of interest in queer studies, although this information has been heterowashed out by editors.~ZytheTalk to me! 00:34, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Person may be of trivial, questionable nature and it may qualify under WP:ONEEVENT. —Mr. E. Sánchez (that's me!)What I Do / What I Say 20:05, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually as a fictional character one event could not apply here. -- Banjeboi 18:41, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete this article consisting largely of original research about a fictional person of no established notabilty in the real world via reliable independent sources that discuss the fictional character in any depth.Bali ultimate (talk) 16:00, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually I think you mean primary research as the content is attributed to the primary sources themselves. Original research is serious but I'm not seeing that here. -- Banjeboi 18:39, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Reliable sources, including some of these books, this scholarly review, this likely helps, Ghits of news sources, some bits are likely here, and this one may help as well demonstrate the character is well covered and not just in the superficial sense. This seems to be an entire fictional universe they are in witha trilogy of popular films. A good article can be made here. -- Banjeboi 21:15, 6 June 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. Fritzpoll (talk) 10:02, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Aurum Ventures[edit]
- Aurum Ventures (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Has been Speedied a few times before. Still no indication of notability. Take it here to resolve remaining issue over notability. Shadowjams (talk) 10:45, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:57, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - there are hits that show the company exists, but I can't find any evidence of significant coverage in reliable, independent sources that are about the company. That it exists is not in question, but that alone does not make it notable. Frank | talk 12:52, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Not-notable, doesn't pass WP:Corp, this page was also deleted as G11 once. Around the same time, creator of the article also created pages Ashish Deora - A7ed, Aurum Foundation - G11-ed (former is CEO of the co, the latter is supposedly an NPO, but the text on there was mostly related to the company). If and when they do become notable, the page can be created. - SpacemanSpiff (talk) 17:12, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and salt. Repeatedly recreated advertizing. --Ryan Delaney talk 19:31, 1 June 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. Fritzpoll (talk) 10:01, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Shnarbles[edit]
- Shnarbles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Card game with no indication of notability. No google hits that appear related. Shadowjams (talk) 10:34, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:56, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I can't find any sources anywhere. Hobit (talk) 12:03, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No reliable sources. Pretty much a standard case of WP:NFT. Doc StrangeMailboxLogbook 14:58, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Sounds like a variant on Bridge (card game). Maybe redirect accordingly? --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 15:08, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Probably not, it seems to be an unlikely search term. Doc StrangeMailboxLogbook 17:35, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The reason why I made this page was because I was browsing the 'list of trick-taking games' page and saw a number of pages which I thought to be against notability guidelines but nevertheless in existence, for example Pedro. Shnarbles is a popular trick-taking game in Southwestern Canada. I seem to have been the first person to write about it on the internet. If the page needs to be deleted, that's fine. I'm just trying to get a feel for the notability boundaries, since the notability guidelines do not describe what a notable game is.--Tess55 (talk) 18:04, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You raise a good point, Tess, and thanks for the understanding. Couple the problem with notability of games is that one's first instinct is to look at WP:GAME - which has nothing to do with games of this sort. =) If anything, you will want to look at this guideline for some notability guidelines, and WP:V and WP:RS accordingly. Hope these help. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:38, 1 June 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. Fritzpoll (talk) 10:01, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agyaan[edit]
- Agyaan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Dictionary definition at best, although not even an english word. Shadowjams (talk) 10:32, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Europe22 (talk) 10:35, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as above
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:56, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No citations. Not much more than dictionary definition. Cnilep (talk) 14:48, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Dicdef, no evidence of general usage either -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 18:15, 1 June 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. Fritzpoll (talk) 10:01, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Softbrands[edit]
- Softbrands (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This article reads like an advertisement, and relies primarily on its own website for sources. Further, it seems all the external links are to Softbrands websites (seems like spam) and the already-existing orphan tags are a sign that this article was added for advertising purposes only. I do not see anything encyclopedic or particularly noteworthy about this topic. Also, as the primary editor of this article is a Softbrands employee, one can clearly see how this violates WP:COI. How can there be any doubt this is being used solely for advertising? Timneu22 (talk) 10:14, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:55, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:56, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. TexasAndroid pretty much says everything that I would say.--CyberGhostface (talk) 16:02, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Obvious delete per Timneu. ╟─TreasuryTag►ballotbox─╢ 11:18, 2 June 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. Fritzpoll (talk) 10:01, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Archibald Montgomerie, 16th Earl of Eglinton[edit]
- Archibald Montgomerie, 16th Earl of Eglinton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
I can't find any references to back any of this up, or to confer any notability. A Google search reveals many mirrors of this article, and a couple of other Earls of Eglinton with the same name, but basically nothing on this guy. ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 09:11, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep There are sources.[45] [46] He may not be as notable as other members of his family, but just being Earl of Eglinton and Earl of Winton is an assertion of notability. He was also Grand Master Mason of the Grand Lodge of Scotland. [47] Edward321 (talk) 00:25, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This site is a self-published source, and this not admissible on Wikipedia. Most of the results of the Google search are just mirrors of the Wikipedia page, except this, which doesn't form the basis for an article, it just mentions him once in passing. ╟─TreasuryTag►sundries─╢ 06:37, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Obvious keepMax Mux (talk) 08:10, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Sources are all unreliable and self-published. Fails WP:BIO. Ironholds (talk) 09:20, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. These books don't all appear to be unreliable and self-published. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:24, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep He had an obituary in The Scotsman and sat in the House of Lords. Kernel Saunters (talk) 15:51, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Why has the creator of the article not been informed of this deletion attempt? Kernel Saunters (talk) 15:59, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Clearly passes WP:POLITICIAN as a member of a national legislature. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:21, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Higher nobility in a country where they still have legal status is notable. (we rightly rejected this for baronets, but earls are several steps up) . And a member of a National Legislature is automatically notable-one of our established conventions. DGG (talk) 00:09, 6 June 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. Fritzpoll (talk) 10:00, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Former SL Benfica famous footballers[edit]
- Former SL Benfica famous footballers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
By its own admission, the article is based on a "reputation factor": i.e. it is POV and OR Kevin McE (talk) 08:44, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:55, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:22, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - a list akin to List of Arsenal F.C. players would be acceptable, but this is so far from that (and with a POV title) that it would be better to just junk it and start over if anyone feels like it -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:22, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Massive POV. Get rid. – PeeJay 21:24, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete half is just a list of names with no clear inclusion criteria (other than they have played for Benfica) and the Benfica category provides this information, and the other half is all subjective uncited POV with overly flowery prose. --ClubOranjeT 09:24, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete the title says it all. How do you define a 'famous footballer'? --Angelo (talk) 10:49, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Subjective and POV list. --Carioca (talk) 20:10, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. GiantSnowman 20:23, 7 June 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. Fritzpoll (talk) 10:00, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sibyll kalff[edit]
- Sibyll kalff (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Prod deleted with no improvements so AFD made: the document looks like a resume, number of irrelevant links with no relevant sourcing. notability highly in question and the quality is very much lacking. decide for your self Rmzadeh ► 08:00, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - No indication of notability. Websites exist, but they appear to be primary sources. Only one article on google news from the Tehran Times? Shadowjams (talk) 10:38, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:54, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:54, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:54, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No notability indicated, although I appreciate the minutiae listed in her resume. There are no references given; I doubt this could saved. What's that rule again about articles with lower-case surnames in the title? freshacconci talktalk 12:01, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedydelete: Having removed they copyvio resume[48], there's nothing left to show notability meets WP:SPEEDY#A7 (does not indicate why its subject is important or significant). --JD554 (talk) 12:23, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]- Comment - Letting the AfD close will allow easier speedy deletion in the event the same article is recreated later. As it stands now, some admins might decline speedy under A7 (despite the lack of any claim of notability). Shadowjams (talk) 21:01, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If the AfD was closed as a speedy delete it could still be used for a speedy G4 if recreated. That said, with the latest changes I believe that it now fails for an A7 as notability has been asserted, but I still vote delete as it hasn't been established. --JD554 (talk) 07:33, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Letting the AfD close will allow easier speedy deletion in the event the same article is recreated later. As it stands now, some admins might decline speedy under A7 (despite the lack of any claim of notability). Shadowjams (talk) 21:01, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above...Modernist (talk) 23:58, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:40, 2 June 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. Fritzpoll (talk) 09:46, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Austria–Uruguay relations[edit]
- Austria–Uruguay relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
noting that Austria has no resident embassy in Uruguay. only 2 minor agreements including 1 for the abolition of visas (which is something most western countries are doing). almost all coverage is in multilateral not bilateral context or about...football, English search, German search. LibStar (talk) 08:04, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:53, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Sources provided do not satisfy WP:N. Also Wikipedia is not a directory. Edison (talk) 00:09, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nominator and TexasAndroid. For a stand alone article on any topic including this one, we need evidence of significant coverage of this topic in reliable, independent sources. We don't have that here. Yilloslime TC 02:56, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No reliable sources adress these bilateral relations in the depth required for an article. Hipocrite (talk) 12:41, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Allow to develop. Research and add sourced references. Libstar's personal opinion that an agreement between two nation states regarding their legal relationships over visas is "minor" is completely subjective (and I would argue, wrong). The fact that these countries have a relationship in a multilateral context does not dispel the fact that they have a relationship. The relation between these two states is "worthy of notice". --Cdogsimmons (talk) 15:00, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- it may be subjective, but we are here to reach consensus on if the article meets WP:N. if you have significant independent coverage to prove this. LibStar (talk) 15:38, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete for lack of multiple, significant coverage in independent sources. Cdogsimmons, could you please review WP:PSTS? You can't take a primary-source document (an agreement) and proclaim "notable relationship!" out of that. We need sources discussing the relationship. - Biruitorul Talk 19:59, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete where are the reliable, independent sources that discuss this posited bilateral relationship at all, let alone in the depth one would expect to support an encyclopedia article. I find none.Bali ultimate (talk) 02:52, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Article has no useful content (pretty well no content, and very little prospect of anything worthwhile). No sources discuss these relations. Johnuniq (talk) 11:07, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Nothing provided to establish the notability of the topic as a whole, or even any real part of it. Unremarkable in world affairs. --BlueSquadronRaven 04:52, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails WP:N. no independent secondary sources....Yilloslime TC 06:41, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 11:57, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Art of Memory (company)[edit]
- Art of Memory (company) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Organization fails to meet notability requirements as per WP:COMPANY. Details provided here. Picatrix (talk) 13:31, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
*delete Seems to me from the article that it's "The Story of Glass" (which doesn't seem to have an article) which is notable, not the company that made it. And I'm not sure they were 'pioneering' in the use of CD-ROM and kiosks. Someone has collected a huge archive of references to kiosk development (unfortunately it's on a blacklisted server, but is not itself spam. Maybe a list of old spams. Can I post it not as a link or will I still get pulled up for spam?) and these guys don't seem to figure on it--Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:58, 17 May 2009 (UTC) *Keep: article seems fine now.[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- keep I've added references from several independent, reliable sources to Art of Memory and its works. Seems to meet WP:COMPANY now. Cantingle (talk) 03:54, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The references provided in the article contain no link to their corresponding web pages, so it is difficult to verify the depth of coverage about this company. I found links for the first two references, and neither are sufficient. The first source and the second source don't even mention this company. As a result, I didn't even bother to check the other sources. I did a Google News Archive search but have been unable to find reliable sources. If Cantingle lists which sources s/he thinks prove this company pass WP:COMPANY, I would recommend that they link to those sources here. Then, I might reconsider my vote. Cunard (talk) 06:39, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no requirement for Wikipedia sources to be online. To quote Wikipedia's policy on verifiablity: "The most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers.". Many such sources are not available online either because they are subscription journals, professional books or because they were published before the web became a mainstream publication media. And with respect, Art of Memory is mentioned in both the sources that you quote - just not in the abstracts available online. Cantingle (talk) 12:48, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Have to agree with Cantingle here. If he/she has found non-online sources, then they are still good - and good on Cantingle for looking them up. If you don't believe the sources, go check it out at a library.Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:07, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree with both of you. Sources don't need to be online, but in this case, they are. As I said above, the two I found didn't even mention this company. Even though those sources were abstracts, this poses serious problems with verifiability and causes me to question the validity of the other sources. These sources likely mention Art of Memory in passing, since the company name isn't used in the first 500 words. Cantingle, please cite which sources you believe that allow this company to pass the notability guidelines; then quote the information that is hidden behind the pay walls, so that I can see the depth of coverage of this company. Cunard (talk) 18:28, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- With the greatest respect, you can't see the sources online, just the abstracts. That is not an indication that the source does not meet the criteria.Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:58, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- By only seeing the abstracts, I cannot verify whether or not the sources even mention the subject. The lack of online sources is indicative that this company is non-notable. The article isn't about an obscure topic, such as a politician in Somalia; it is about a company in the UK, where there is great Internet presence. Verifiability is a core policy on Wikipedia. Again, I request that Cantingle choose four of the sources that s/he has cited in the article and quote the paragraph(s) that mention the Art of Memory Company. Without knowing the context of those articles, for all I know, Art of Memory may be mentioned only once in an article about a different topic. Cunard (talk) 21:28, 24 May 2009 (UTC
- Oh dear. Whatever happened to assuming good faith? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elen of the Roads (talk • contribs) 22:58, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not assuming bad faith. I just want to know how much coverage this company has really received. Cunard (talk) 23:22, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If you want to know how much coverage they've actually received, turn off your computer, get off your ass and find out. Where did this ridiculous idea come from that that verifiable means "hyperlinked"? There's a lot of information on the Internets, but it turns out that before the Internet, people still published information, except that it was on paper! Weird, I know. Anyway, there are these places called libraries, and if you go there, you can verify all sorts of things you can't verify from your computer. — Bdb484 (talk) 00:53, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Your sarcasm amuses me and your point is taken, but I don't have the time to research all those sources at the library. In fact, my local library is so small that it doesn't have any of those journals.
My only request is for Cantingle (talk · contribs) to quote the relevant information in the sources. That isn't an unreasonable request, is it? Once Cantingle has done that, I will be able to evaluate whether or not the company has received enough coverage to pass WP:CORP and hopefully change my vote to keep. Cunard (talk) 01:43, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not an unreasonable request; it just frustrates me when editors !vote to delete an article as unverifiable because they haven't personally verified the article. I appreciate you taking my sarcasm lightly, because I really don't mean to be a dick, but I don't understand why you're so heavily involved in this discussion when you don't have the time or resources or gumption to actually find out whether this article actually should be deleted. — Bdb484 (talk) 05:06, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Your sarcasm amuses me and your point is taken, but I don't have the time to research all those sources at the library. In fact, my local library is so small that it doesn't have any of those journals.
I appreciate that folks can become annoyed when editors vote to delete an article when they haven't first personally attempted to confirm the sources that are associated with it. However, I nominated the article for deletion after checking the available references (see the talk page for the article). I discussed why at length on the talk page (and received no response). I have already addressed the previous citations. As for the new ones, If Cantingle has access to the sources (and presumably he or she does, else how did these latest references materialize?) then why not simply indicate to us what they say? I'm all for assuming good faith, but why assume it when unquestionably establishing it (and, happily, any putative notability) is as easy as posting excerpts and summaries from the citations mentioned? As a matter of fact, when I post citations I provide excerpts for purposes of discussion. Is there some particular reason why bald citations without excerpts are being provided in this case? At any rate, when it comes to "getting off one's ass" one can quite reasonably ask people with access to citations to provide excerpts. When all the sources I can verify mention the company or one of its products in passing, it seems sensible to dig deeper when new ones are provided. If Cantingle really is interested in keeping the article why not post appropriate excerpts from the citations together with the publication information in the notes? Simply sticking citations on an article means nothing in itself; the citations provided should establish notability. How are these citations relevant to establishing notability? According to WP:COMPANY "An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability." None of these articles appear to be about "Art of Memory (company)". As best I am able to tell the new sources are no less anemic (as far as establishing notability goes) than the previously provided ones. Finally, I don't want to waste my time or anyone else's. If those citations establish notability then we can keep the article and go back to working on more important things. Hence, I ask Cantingle: please post illustrative excerpts. If Cantingle is unwilling to do so, can somebody else? If not, can we extend this review so that I have time to dig them all out one by one and to address them? --Picatrix (talk) 23:35, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Brief version: the new citations provided by Cantingle might be from reliable, independent sources. But the rest of the sentence that mandates the use of reliable, independent sources also specifies that the organization should have been the subject of significant coverage. It also specifies that trivial or incidental coverage is not sufficient. The interested editor will, I hope, note that "Art of Memory (company)" is not the subject of a single one of these articles. Of all the ones that I have been able to verify the 'coverage' is decidedly incidental at a best. Significant coverage, by any reasonable standard, would appear to involve at least one headline or article entirely devoted to the subject... Cantingle's edit summary specifies thing like "Reference to a review of their first CD-ROM" and "Add Reference to Chinese Ceramics". These summaries indicate that these references are to the products the company is responsible for. Again, these are in fact trivial or incidental references to the company's products, not the company itself. --Picatrix (talk) 08:46, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- According to WP:NOTABILITY "'Significant coverage' means that sources address the subject directly in detail" The subject of this article is "Art of Memory (company)".
- Each of the sources indicated are used to reference the fact that the company has produced products. None of the sources are about the company. These are citations which support statements about products the company has produced NOT about the company. They do not establish notability as per WP:COMPANY or WP:NOTABILITY. This is apparent if they are reviewed one by one:
- Kahn, David (May 1994). "Shakespeare's Twelfth Night or What You Will. (E-book Review)". Theatre Journal (Johns Hopkins University Press).
- From the information available online this appears to be a review of a CD ROM 'directed' by Graham Howard, one of the individuals associated with "Art of Memory (Company)". This is clearly a reference to a product produced by the company. This press is not 'about' the company, and hence does not constitute non-trivial, non-incidental coverage of the company.
- Nonnecke, Blair; Jacques Richard; McKerlie Diane and Preece Jenny (1995). "Video-based hypermedia: guiding design with users' questions". New Review of Hypermedia and Multimedia (Taylor & Francis) 1 (1): 185-187.
- As I have already pointed out, this article is about "Video-based hypermedia" and therefore is not an article about the company in question. Again we have here an incidental reference (if that, as I cannot verify the content beyond the summary provided).
- Dexter Lord, Gail (1997). "Visible storage at the Glass Gallery of the Victoria and Albert Museum, London". The manual of museum management (Rowman Altamira): 137. ISBN 075910249X.
- This title is available through Google books, but the page on which the content appears is restricted for preview viewing. But it is clear that this is a book about contemporary strategies in museum management. Here we see that incidental reference is made in the manual to the company, and it is overwhelmingly likely that this reference is made in the context of brief mention of a product for which they are responsible (if the company, rather than the product, is mentioned at all...).
- Watson, Oliver (1997). "The Story of Glass". Computers and the history of art (Routledge) 7. ISBN 9789057550447
- As I have already pointed out, this article, is not about "Art of Memory" (the company) either. It is again about the product, "The Story of Glass". Furthermore, this article was written by "Oliver Watson, the curator of Ceramics & Glass" at the V&A, under whose supervision the "interactive media product" was created. This would appear to call into question the independence of this secondary source.
- Bernier, Roxane (2003). USABILITY OF INTERACTIVE COMPUTERS IN EXHIBITIONS: DESIGNING KNOWLEDGEABLE INFORMATION FOR VISITORS. 28. p. 245 - 272.
- Given the title and abstract it seems that this article is also not about the company, nor is it about one of its products (though it seems likely a product is mentioned briefly). This is a particularly misleading citation because it shows the page numbers for the entire article which appears in a journal (pp 245-272), yet the entire article is not about the company. Here again an incidental mention in a highly-specialized journal.
- Beecham, Sarah; Howard, Graham (2006). "The Story Of Glass: Still Really Working 10 Years On" in Museums and the web 2006. Museums and the Web 2006: Proceedings.
- As I have already mentioned, this source is not acceptable as a way of establishing notability. This material was produced by two of the people working in the company: Graham Howard and Sarah Beecham (the former noted in this article as a founder, the latter indicated here [[49]] as the Director of "Art of Memory" (the company)). As specified at WP:COMPANY "Press releases; autobiographies; advertising for the company, corporation, organization, or group; and other works where the company, corporation, organization, or group talks about itself—whether published by the company, corporation, organization, or group itself, or re-printed by other people." are not acceptable as secondary sources. Also, as stated "Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject." [emphasis added]
- Crawford, Alan (January 2006). "A new Arts and Crafts Museum". Apollo Magazine.
- The full paragraph that includes mention of the company in this source is as follows:
- "Most museum displays consist of objects from their own collections. But the Trust cannot furnish this exhibition from its own collections and hope to do justice to the story. So the permanent exhibition at Court Barn will consist, probably for some years, partly of objects owned by the Trust and partly of loans from other museums and private owners (Fig. 7). In this connection, and in many other ways, Cheltenham Art Gallery and Museum, with its fine Arts and Crafts collections, has been unfailingly helpful. The exhibition is being designed by Gareth Hoskins Architects, a young, award-winning, Glasgow firm who were responsible for the new Architecture Gallery at the V&A, and have recently been appointed to carry out a multi-million-pound scheme at the Royal Scottish Museum in Chambers Street, Edinburgh. Court Barn may seem like small beer for this team, but they like the feel of the project. Digital collections-management is being designed by System Simulation, and the interactives and website will be by Art of Memory, based in Campden."
- The last sentence of this paragraph is an exemplary instance of incidental mention.
- "Chinese ceramics". Design Week. 15 November 2001
- This source is only available to online subscribers. I do not have access to it, but given the title of the article it seems likely that it will include a mention of the fact that the company produced a kiosk system for the Percival David Foundation of Chinese Art.
- There is no doubt that this company exists, and that it has produced interactive materials in a niche market, and that passing or incidental mention of the work they have produced has made it into specialized publications. It seems entirely clear to me that this company does not meet Wikipedia notability standards. Once again, from WP:NOTABILITY ""Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail". And yet here NOT ONE of the sources mentioned address the subject directly or in detail. Instead we have a (small) collection of incidental references to products or projects the company has worked on. These citations support statements about products or projects. Many editors working here could produce dozens of similar incidental references to work they have done that have appeared in trade-specific publications (I know I can), but that would not establish their notability, nor would it justify their creation of a Wikipedia article about themselves. How is this any different? --Picatrix (talk) 15:10, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Picatrix (talk) 14:26, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. —Picatrix (talk) 15:38, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Posting citations in support of individual sentences such as "Art of Memory has produced work for System Simulation Ltd including the gallery kiosk system at the Percival David Foundation of Chinese Art." is not the same thing as posting citations that establish notability.
Wikipedia's notability guidelines are particularly important in the case of articles about business entities providing commercial services, especially when the articles associated with these companies are basically a list of products they have created together with a link to the company website, as is the case here.
According to WP:SPAM "Articles considered advertisements include those that are solicitations for a business, product or service, or are public relations pieces designed to promote a company or individual. Wikispam articles are usually noted for sales-oriented language and external links to a commercial website." and "Adding external links to an article or user page for the purpose of promoting a website or a product is not allowed, and is considered to be spam." [emphasis added] ' --Picatrix (talk) 20:21, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:25, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I've relisted this AfD because it needs to have more discussion. Picatrix (talk · contribs) and I believe that this article should be deleted because we believe this company is non-notable and has not received significant coverage. Cantingle (talk · contribs) and Elen of the Roads (talk · contribs) believe that the article should be retained because they believe that the article has adequate sourcing. In their comments above, Picatrix has clearly shown why every single one of the offline references in the article is inadequate. Those sources are all passing mentions of the company, and some are not secondary. Cunard (talk) 06:25, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Not Notable, insufficient viable sources. insufficient detail Rmzadeh ► 08:21, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - per quote from WP:COMPANY: "Information on products and services should generally be included in the article on the company itself, unless the company article is so large that this would make the article unwieldy", and the following observation: That the product is notable has both been asserted by the article and backed by the references. A separate article on the product ("The Story of Glass") is not feasible considering the quote from the policy above. So the only solution is to keep the company article, as the policy does not cover the possibility of a non-notable company producing a notable product. But pls correct me if I'm wrong. --Pgallert (talk) 18:35, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Thanks for sharing your opinion. However, I take issue with the putative logic here. By this reasoning, discussion of notable films (i.e. "products") should be restricted exclusively to articles devoted to production companies tasked with creating them. By this reasoning, notable novels should be discussed only in articles devoted to their respective publishing houses. This would of course be ridiculous. As a matter of fact articles devoted to films and books sometimes indicate the name of the publisher or production company that created them. "[T]he only solution..."? There are many options here. One would be to do as you suggest, and allow this transparent ploy for increasing search engine visibility for a commercial company (and it's website) to remain right where it is. Another would be to delete it and discuss the company's products on an appropriate page or in an appropriate section: Interactive kiosk, Installation art#Interactive_installations, and Museum#Exhibition_design all come to mind. "The Story of Glass" might well satisfy the criteria for notability. The information on interactive museum installations provided here in brief as a tarted-up promotional piece might well have value if delivered in context, compared with other examples. It would be worth writing an article on precisely that, and the folks at "Art of Memory (company)" could probably do a good job contributing to it, as they at least grasp one fundamental contemporary application of an ancient art most people have forgotten. But this article is at present a tool for improving search engine ranking, rather than a useful, non-trivial contribution to human knowledge. Cantingle (talk · contribs) appeared out of nowhere when I first nominated this article for deletion, complete with references that supposedly support 'notability' (but that he or she is not actually willing to share). I'd say that this sudden arrival on the scene is perfectly timed for the creation of a new article on interactive museum exhibitions (certainly notable in and of themselves), in which "The Story of Glass" could receive precisely the brief mention it deserves. But the idea that this company deserves an article of its own in a modern encyclopedia, in the absence of any significant coverage addressing it directly and in detail cannot reasonably be supported. --Picatrix (talk) 19:31, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Wow! What do you do when something really pisses you off? Don't you think this is getting a little needlessly messianic?Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:35, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not pissed off at all, but if I were, and if I had chosen the name of a (Welsh) saint as my username I wouldn't be calling other people "messianic" for making constructive suggestions. Chipping Campden, where the company is located, is quite close to Wales isn't it? In any case we have here an instance of what I call a "suckerfish" (i.e. Remora) scam. The suckerfish ploy is a common branding strategy whereby a company chooses the name of a known entity or phenomenon and takes over the name in order to have access to immediate "brand equity" (e.g. Fort Knox gun safes, named after Ft. Knox and hence associated with security). It's what happened here with the article "Art of Memory (company)" which used to be the "Art of memory" article (a genuine and notable historical phenomenon). Now whenever a Wikipedia reader goes looking for "Art of Memory" they are likely to pull up this little shill article, which has fastened itself to the underbelly of a real encyclopedic topic. Assuming good faith is not the same thing as ignoring bad faith. I dislike spending time on AfD (a first for me, by the way). I prefer to work on articles and avoid this administrative drag. But I dislike seeing the blatant suckerfish hanging there even more. If you want to discuss this further, I suggest you address any future personal comments similar to the one above to my talk page. Thanks.--Picatrix (talk) 22:32, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Commenting the comment: I don't participate in AfD's frequently, either, but I do it often enough to remember that analogies are typically not the best way to argue here, and neither are arguments ad hominem. I see no point in outlining why the article has been created or by whom. Having said that, I found my logic quite standard - The policy says the product should be covered under the company. The installation is a product of the company. Therefore, the installation should be covered under the company. That's a syllogism, and I'm afraid I cannot make it clearer than that. Your claim that the company is the producer of the installation only as much as a copy shop is the producer of literature would of course invalidate my argument - but can you back that up with facts? As for the merging options: your verdict was "delete", that means "nothing salvageable in this article". If it can be merged, go ahead. --Pgallert (talk) 10:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ad hominem arguments are generally considered to be those made against a person. In this case I have not attacked a person rather than addressing the substance of the main line of argument. Instead, I have used the attested actions and relationships of the editor responsible for creating the article as an illustration intended to show that this non-notable content is more likely than not spam. As you appear to favor a reasoned approach with structure I provide you with the following:
- 1. We are discussing a Wikipedia article about a multimedia company for which secondary sources establishing notability are wanting. You yourself have indicated that you feel the company itself is non-notable ("policy does not cover the possibility of a non-notable company producing a notable product").
- 2. An article for a non-notable company which includes a link to the company's commercial website and a few non-informative PR factoids is likely to be spam. Spam is unwelcome here.
- 3. Notability determines whether or not the article stays, goes or is modified. The spam issue determines how it stays, goes or is modified.
- The discussion here is foremost about notability, and secondarily about spam. In many cases where spam is present, it is simple enough to remove the particular spam content. In this case we are dealing with an entire article which serves as search engine ranking spam, and as a "suckerfish". In such a case the notability and the spam issue become intertwined. Spam of whatever variety is advertising. And Wiki policy regarding advertising is as follows: "Advertising is prohibited as an official Wikipedia policy."
- Ad hominem arguments are generally considered to be those made against a person. In this case I have not attacked a person rather than addressing the substance of the main line of argument. Instead, I have used the attested actions and relationships of the editor responsible for creating the article as an illustration intended to show that this non-notable content is more likely than not spam. As you appear to favor a reasoned approach with structure I provide you with the following:
- I would submit to you that Wikipedia policy does not explicitly cover non-notable companies creating notable content because the solution is refreshingly simple: move the information about the notable product to an appropriate article or section, such as the ones dealing with exhibitions and installations I mentioned above. Precisely the same section about products and services being included in the articles about the company itself that you enjoy leaning so heavily upon notes: "If the product or service is notable, it can be broken out into its own article. If it is not notable, it should not be broken out into its own article but should have whatever verifiable information about it that exists presented within an article that has a broader scope, such as an article that deals with all of the company's products and services." You will note, I trust, that here there is no mandate that the content go into an article about the company, only that it be included in an article that deals with "all the company's products and services". Articles about museum installations, interactive exhibitions or multimedia in general would seem to conform to this guideline.
- To be precise I claimed that a company producing installations is analogous to a publisher producing books or a production company producing films. I said nothing about a copy shop my friend, and I suspect that any reasonable reader would find my analogy to be useful and accurate. Analogies can be quite useful, and I stand by the one I have presented in this case. Multimedia projects, like films, go through planning, production and post-production phases, often involve identical stages (e.g. storyboards, VO, animation, green screen, compression, etc.) and are in the end distributed as digital media.
- You, on the other hand, based on a selective and partial interpretation of one guideline, suggest that one of this company's particular products (the only one with multiple citations is "The Story of Glass") is sufficient to establish the article about the company as worthwhile content that should be included in Wikipedia, problems with notability and spam notwithstanding. This sounds rather circular, and an argument for a kind of 'statutory notability' ex nihilo is as amusing as it is surprising coming from someone who favors terms like "syllogism" and "ad hominem".
- As for merging content vs. deletion I stand by the vote for deletion. I'm not going to go to the trouble of taking these citations and using them to generate encyclopedic content, followed by the work involved in incorporating it into an existing article or creating an appropriate one. It is important to note that there is currently no content that would be worth incorporating into any other article. The material currently on the page reads like a PR bullet list. I have simply stated that if there are editors who feel strongly that removing a spam article with a couple of short sentences about museum installations will lead to a gaping hole appearing in the edifice of human knowledge, they can address this potential problem by adding mention of these installations in an appropriate article or section. However, at the moment we have only citations that would support the creation of such content. It's not there on the page now.--Picatrix (talk) 11:53, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Before I finally walk away from this conversation - I trust we both have made our points clear at this time - let me mention that
- The paragraph you quote from the policy directly follows the paragraph I quote. This indicates to me that my quote describes the general rule whereas your quote describes cases where the general rule does not apply. For if that wasn't so, the policy would be contradictory which someone else would have spotted before we do.
- A remark like "Cantingle (talk · contribs) appeared out of nowhere when I first nominated [...]" (author's emphasis) is a fine example of an ad hominem argument, even if your implicit accusation of puppetry was true.
- The producer/creator/maker of a book is its author, and not its publisher, because in the case of a book it touches intellectual achievement more than material one. An arts installation likewise is an intellectual product rather than a material one. That's why I claim your analogies are lame, and that's why I put another lame analogy (the copy shop) to illustrate my point.
- And finally, deletion discussions like this one cover whether the article asserts notability, and whether or not the sources back this assertion, common viewpoints like "Subject not notable" notwithstanding. Now this article asserts notability via one of the company products, and that is why we should discuss the notability of the product rather than that of the company - But this might well be my minority view of how to interpret the WP:N policy.
- --Pgallert (talk) 11:22, 3 June 2009 (UTC), inviting further philosophical discussions on my talk page.[reply]
- Before I finally walk away from this conversation - I trust we both have made our points clear at this time - let me mention that
- Thanks for sharing these details. As you address points pertinent to the AfD discussion I'll respond here, rather than on your talk page.
- The paragraph I quote does immediately follow the one you quoted. If you here have recourse to the argument that generalities trump particulars, I direct your attention to the over-arching Wikipedia policy regarding notability, which would certainly trump the specific instructions you believe apply in this case. The guiding general notability policy would seem to be of more importance than the particular guideline that products should, if possible, be discussed within the articles relating to the companies that produced them. My own opinion is that a notable product (if indeed it is notable) deserves its own article, in which case the main notability guidelines are adhered to (i.e. non-notable content does not creep in under cover of notable content). If instead, in this specific instance, we follow the guideline that products should be discussed in articles related to companies that produced them, and attempt to 'transfer' notability in this fashion, we still end up with an article devoted to a non-notable company. In one case we don't have a problem with non-notable content in the encyclopedia. In the other, we do.
- The remark about Cantingle was not intended as an argument for deleting the article, and hence is not an ad hominem argument. I simply observed that this fortuitous and unexpected arrival was perhaps a sign from the heavens that the time had come to create an article that usefully addresses interactive museum installations, in which "The Story of Glass" could perhaps receive mention. I believe that this is clear from the sentence immediately following the one you reference. While there is an implicit suggestion that something might be odd about this sudden appearance and defense of a non-notable article, the point was not to make an ad hominem attack, but rather to suggest that someone with a spontaneous impulse to defend (what I feel is) a crass PR piece must care about interactive museum installations quite a bit, and so might instead devote their attention to writing an article that could be useful and informative, and which could contain the potentially notable content. Then we could actually say "good on Cantingle" without it sounding like a shill quip. In the end the products in question could be mentioned in a context that means something, and, more importantly, the article would not be a waste of the general reader's time. Cheers! --Picatrix (talk) 15:08, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. It seems to me that the only credible assertions of notability come from the single software product. Common sense dictates then that company information would be mentioned on a product article, not rather than transfer the notability to the company when there is not really much else to write an article about. Dominic·t 11:16, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I genuinely hesitate to say anything more here, for fear of triggering another of Picatrix's rants. However, the fact remains (accusations of COI, sockpuppetry and Welshness aside - I'm from Yorkshire BTW) that The Story of Glass has genuine notability as a topic (in addition to references previously given, Coverage in international museums conference in 2006 - 10 yrs after launch. The Story of Glass at the V&A covered in FUTURES PAST. Thirty Years of Arts Computing CHArt YEARBOOK 2006 COMPUTERS AND THE HISTORY OF ART VOLUME 2 (CHart)). It is therefore not true that there is no notable info in this article. The issue is whether the company's products (particularly the Story of Glass) can and should be referred to in their own article rather than an article about the company, as opined by Pgallert Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:50, 4 June 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. Here the arguments to retain ranged from there being little information because the realtionship is young (which suggests supporting the postion of those seeking the article's deletion), WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, and "it's just notable" with some spurious and unspecified notability standard that is apparently below WP:N. These are not valid arguments for retention. I must comment, however, and say that I share DGG's apparent frustration that these things are still coming to AfD at all whilst there are ongoing efforts to merge the material to more suitable locations. What we end up with is inconsistency, where some of these are kept and some deleted - in this case, consensus favours deletion Fritzpoll (talk) 09:45, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Azerbaijan–Spain relations[edit]
- Azerbaijan–Spain relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
significant lack of coverage of these 2 nations relations except on the football and hockey field. [50]. A search of the Azerbaijan foreign ministry reveals close to nothing on Spain. Existence of embassy is already covered in List of diplomatic missions of Azerbaijan. LibStar (talk) 04:50, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:52, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:52, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Wikipedia ia not a mirror of the website of some country's foreign ministry, listing an article for each country the "have relations with." Fails WP:N as well. Edison (talk) 00:10, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No reliable sources adress these relations in any detail. Hipocrite (talk) 12:42, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The creator of this article User:Brandmeister has not been notified by User:LibStar of this Afd.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 16:16, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete who cares? They should be embarrased about creating an article with no reliable sources independent of the subject. I can find no reliable sources that discuss this topic, that is this bilateral relationship, and that it makes a clear fail of the notability guidelines.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:31, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The diplomatic relations are young, but I am inclined to keep (see for example "Friends of Azerbaijan Society" in Madrid, the Azerbaijan-Spain working group on interparliamentary relations or the Agreement between Azerbaijan University of Languages and the Spanish Agency for International Cooperation of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs). Once the topic becomes more informative, it may be submitted for undeletion though. brandt 18:40, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Per Brandmeister. I also found an internet source showing that bilateral relations exist between the two countries [51]. Develop, don't delete.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 02:17, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- that's a primary source. all nice "we will cooperate" type statements but how about some decent trade or perhaps trade agreements? LibStar (talk) 02:28, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete It feels dickish to do cite large chunks of WP:N in an AfD, but it also seems increasingly necessary, so here goes:
“ | If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article.
A topic for which this criterion is deemed to have been met by consensus, is usually worthy of notice, and satisfies one of the criteria for a stand-alone article in the encyclopedia. Verifiable facts and content not supported by multiple independent sources may be appropriate for inclusion within another article. |
” |
- I see no evidence of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"--not in anything cited in the article or used as an WP:EL, nor in my own searches of the wider internet--therefore WP should not have on article on the topic of Azerbaijan–Spain relations. (Note: If someone can dig up sources that establish notability as defined above I'd not hesitate to change my !vote to !keep). The actual facts discussed in this article could be covered in WP--perhaps at Foreign relations of Spain and/or Foreign relations of Azerbaijan--just not in a standalone article. And primary/non-independent sources are fine for verifying those facts, just not for establishing notability. Yilloslime TC 03:55, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia is not just an encyclopedia but an almanac and a gazetteer. Almanac and gazetteer entries don't have the same standard for notability as, say, a biography. While my grandmom wouldn't meet the notability standards for inclusion in the encyclopedia portion, every township is included in the gazetteer portion. All almanac entries should be included too. Almanac entries and gazetteer entries are Wikipedia Pillars. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:29, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Article has no useful content. No sources discuss these relations. Hans Adler has explained that while numerous relations exist, many are not notable and are not suitable for an encyclopedic article. Johnuniq (talk) 11:13, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Well, if this article is to be deleted, then why there is Armenia–Spain_relations with similar content and no references? Why double standards? Atabəy (talk) 15:14, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS arguments should be avoided. the above argument does not address in anyway how WP:N is met. LibStar (talk) 05:18, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This article under discussion has had new information added that addresses concerns raised in this AFD at this point in the discussion. |
- Keep with the current additions. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:16, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Article is flimsy and needs improvement, but I see no valid reason for deleting it. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 20:38, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep the trade relations alone are notable. The other stuff exists fora good reason: the relationship between any two states that have sufficient trading and other connections to be worth the exchange of ambassadors is in fact notable. That these articles were introduced foolishly does not been the deletion is justified, just that we have a lot of work to do. of course, we can eliminate the need to work by rejecting all articles that are't perfect when first submitted.... . I wonder too why the community has not seen that having essentially the same full scale debate hundreds of times over is about as unproductive a use of erffort andtime as possible, and the worst possible way to go about building an encyclopedia. DGG (talk) 00:14, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - the embassies' presence is already documented. Several of the sources used are not independent, and thus breach WP:GNG. That Azerbaijan attended a NATO summit in Madrid has about zero to do with "Azerbaijan–Spain relations"; obviously, the meeting could have been held in any NATO capital. Let's stop cramming trivial articles with trivia about trivia, and instead focus on subjects that have been covered by outside parties, as opposed to a handful of Wikipedians. - Biruitorul Talk 01:50, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no restriction against using autobiographies or other dependent media for verifiability. A self published biography may not make you notable, but it is verifiable. The Obama article uses his autobiography extensively. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:06, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete only 17 years, with a handful of mundane agreements and treaties that most countries establish with each other over time, and a few figures regarding trade that probably doesn't amount to a lot that would make people sit up and take notice. No coverage of the topic as a whole or their significance in world affairs is documented. Non-notable. --BlueSquadronRaven 04:56, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Just so it's on the record--I've been watching this article evolve since nominated for deletion, and I feel my concerns raised above are still unaddressed. Yilloslime TC 06:45, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Have done likewise and concur. In fact, these misguided "rescue" attempts lead to a worse article than the one originally nomed, since it amounts to a group of disparate "citations" that don't address the topic of the article, but are dressed up as if they address the topic of the article (or, in other cases, are primary etc...)Bali ultimate (talk) 17:00, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Another random collection of facts with no evidence of a noteworthy relationship. Similar articles, such as New Zealand-Pakistani relations, have been deleted within the past 24 hours, so right now there seems to be consensus for deleting a lot of these X-and-Y articles. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 06:57, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete A chance for creative users to come up with colorful maps and copy-pastes of random non-notable events, but utterly non-notable as a topic. Dahn (talk) 10:58, 7 June 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. Fritzpoll (talk) 09:39, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Gregory McMillion[edit]
- Gregory McMillion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
- Delete. The classic WP:BLP: Was a regular dude prior to his 15 minutes of infamy and returned to being a regular dude when the 15 minutes were up. Article also seems like a WP:COATRACK for soldier misbehavior. brewcrewer (yada, yada) 04:35, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Not sure about this one. He's notable for one thing, but the one thing is a crime, not, say, bugging Barack Obama in front of a camera. And my usual position is that coatrack issues are best dealt with editing, not deletion. Otherwise we'd be deleting lots of stuff, starting with Pro-life or Irreducible complexity. Hairhorn (talk) 07:02, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to an article on looting in the Iraq War or one on wartime looting in general. It's clear that what he did was wrong. The article is about his crimes, not he himself. Northwestgnome (talk) 14:22, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree with a combo of Brewcrewer & Northwestgnome. If there's a more general article where the info fits merge it there, but doesn't look like there's a need for a standalone article based on this one incident.--Cube lurker (talk) 15:05, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree with Brewcrewer, Northwestgnome & Cube lurker :) If there were a general article about looting we can redirect the name there, but AFAIK there's no such article. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 15:08, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There should be articles on the general topic of wartime looting and on that which took place in Iraq. Northwestgnome (talk) 01:42, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. WP:BLP1E Niteshift36 (talk) 06:23, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Deletetion.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 11:16, 4 June 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. GNG requires coverage in multiple RS - consensus favours deletion given the wekaness of arguments for retention Fritzpoll (talk) 09:38, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Azerbaijan–Serbia relations[edit]
- Azerbaijan–Serbia relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
another random combination with non resident embassies. Serbian foreign ministry lists bilateral relations for about 80 countries but not Azerbaijan. Only relations seem on the football field [53]. would oppose redirect as there appears to be no relationship. not really rescuable. LibStar (talk) 04:20, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep - the most interesting and notable aspect of Azeri-Serbian relations was in connection with the Kosovo war, where Azerbaijan at first supported the NATO bombing similar to other predominantly Muslim countries, and then did not recognize the independence of Kosovo as it feared to set a precedence for the status of Nagorno-Karabakh. Source: [54] Stepopen (talk) 06:17, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:52, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:52, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Lacks sources to show notability and the robostub just illustrates the 20,000 articles which result from taking 200 or so countries two at a time. Wikipedia is not a directory. Edison (talk) 00:12, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No reliable sources adress these non-notable relations with any detail. Hipocrite (talk) 12:41, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Per Stepopen's source. I also object to this deletion discussion on the basis that the creator of the page User:Turkish Flame was never notified of this Afd discussion on his talk page per Wikipedia:Guide_to_deletion.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 15:21, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- that is ridiculous, you can't stop a nomination because of that, you better post that same comment on the 100s of articles that go up for deletion everyday, in almost all cases the creator is never notified. LibStar (talk) 15:22, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- My Keep is based on the substance of Stepopen's source. My comment that you haven't notified the creator of this article is based on wikipedia's WP:CIVIL policy as we have discussed on our talk pages. If you want to earn some brownie points in my book, you still have time to notify User:Turkish Flame of this discussion per my suggestion based on the above mentioned policy.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 16:13, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Apart from a directory factoid list, article has no useful content. No sources discuss these relations. The source presented above by Stepopen would justify a section in an article on the Kosovo war. Johnuniq (talk) 11:19, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and add the new references. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:33, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete in the absence of any sources that discuss this relationship in any depth. That a state expressed an opinion during the kosovo war does not this an encyclopedically notable topic make.Bali ultimate (talk) 19:16, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Stepopen. I also don't understand why the nominator didn't notify me. --Turkish Flame ☎ 19:29, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I don't understand why the creator abandoned it for six months if he thought it was a worthy topic. So the two countries are both members of some organizations. Big deal. That alone says nothing about relations between the two actual countries. Notability of the topic as a whole is not in any way shown. --BlueSquadronRaven 04:58, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was merge to Human rights in Estonia. Many conflicting arguments of varying merit in this discussion. The key deletion argument is WP:POVFORK, which hinges on both the title of the article and its contents. The arguments for retention don't focus on this, although they address it occasionally - instead there are arguments that it is verifiable from sources, that other articles like this exist (which is not a satisfactory argument for retention) ot that all the issues are cleanup issues. There appears to evidence of canvassing the debate as well, which muddies the waters somewhat. Ultimately, the balance of the arguments indicates a consensus that this article not exist in its current form on Wikipedia. That leaves me two options: merge/redirect or outright deletion. Deletion policy indicates that I should merge/redirect in order to preserve content - this close is therefore merge and redirect to bulk out the small amount of content at Human rights in Estonia#Allegations of discrimination. A redirect must be left for GFDL attribution preservation. I know this close will not please some of you - feel free to discuss this with me civilly at my talk page. Fritzpoll (talk) 09:33, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Discrimination of ethnic minorities in Estonia[edit]
- Discrimination of ethnic minorities in Estonia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This article is a pure content fork of History_of_Russians_in_Estonia#Allegations_of_discrimination and Anti-Russian_sentiment#Baltic_states, containing identical content as those mentioned sections. It is a POV fork created and supported by a number of Russian nationalist editors, as the title asserts discrimination as a fact when it is at most an allegation, and cherry picking of sources and text from the two articles mentioned to support that POV. As can be seen in the following search, this is the only article within Wikipedia prefixed with "Discrimination of ethnic minorities in ....". Martintg (talk) 03:35, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:POVFORK. ThuranX (talk) 04:46, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - there is plenty of information on discrimination in Estonia, not only against Russians, but against other ethnic and religious groups. Having just recently found this freshly-made article, I have already added more information about Estonia's discrimination issue. Please take care to note that article's title does not even deal only with the Russian minority; accordingly, there is considerable material for expansion, which I myself am going to see to. This is still a work in progress. PasswordUsername (talk) 04:57, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Right. Estonia is such an egalitarian society that it discriminates everybody equally. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 05:49, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Come on. You perfectly know what did PasswordUsername mean. There is discrimination not against Russians only, but against other Russophone ethnic minorities, too. FeelSunny (talk) 09:50, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Right. Estonia is such an egalitarian society that it discriminates everybody equally. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 05:49, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as a content fork. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 05:49, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - there is much more information, verifiable and from reliable sources, on discrimination. Both from Estonia, Finlandia, Russia, EU, other sources. Much more than can hold a small section called like "allegations of some people about discrimination in The Free Estonia", in a small article on Russians in Estonia. There is a big problem with Ethnic minorities, not only Russians, in Estonia. And other credible organizations, like Amnesty, like UN in general, UNDP know that. Where is this data, for example? Where is this one? Quotes from the UN: The Committee is concerned that some television programmes may portray discriminatory images of the Roma community, The Committee is concerned that persons belonging to Russian-speaking minorities are disproportionately represented in the population of convicted prisoners, The Committee reiterates its previous concern that article 48 of the Constitution recognizes the right of membership of political parties only for Estonian citizens, high rate of unemployment among members of minorities, in particular Russian-speaking minorities, limited proportion of Roma children who attend school, very few acts of racial discrimination have been prosecuted and punished in the State party, there are a large number of minorities in Estonia, in particular Russian speakers, the Committee is concerned that only 4.8 per cent of Estonian television has bilingual programming, current official definition of national minority, provided under the Law on Cultural Autonomy of National Minorities of 1993, excludes noncitizens, the absence in the State party of a national human rights institution established in accordance with the Principles relating to the status of national institutions for the promotion and protection of human rights, the Committee remains concerned about the absence of comprehensive anti-discrimination legislation, in particular legislation and regulations in the civil and administrative fields etc., etc. Do you want all this to be incorporated in one 20 lines paragraph? What people voting for deletion do, is just Gaming the system, and everybody here know this. And these continuing games perfectly deserve some attention from the administrators of English WikiPedia. FeelSunny (talk) 09:50, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- So far the only reference to a cited report based on institutional findings without a hyperlink is for the statement that "The European Commission conducted close monitoring of Estonia in 2000 and concluded that there is no evidence that these minorities are subject to discrimination." PasswordUsername (talk) 10:44, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete in current form, per WP:COATRACK and WP:POVFORK. Handpicking one-sided sources, including fringe positions, excluding relevant (and sourced) comments from the original section. Even the name of the article is a clear violation of NPOV, the underlying principle of all Wikipedia - not "Allegations of discrimination...", but "Discrimination of...". The article as it is now needs to go, however, there could be an article about allegations - perhaps Allegations of discrimination of Russophones in Estonia (as strangely enough, the article does not mention the discrimination of Setos, Jews, Tatars, Finns, Latvians or other non-russophonic national groups in Estonia). Also, FeelSunny needs to be reprimanded for gross violation of WP:AGF and an attempt to intimidate other users. -- Sander Säde 10:48, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Your last post with "needs to be reprimanded" towards me looks much more like intimidation than my "continuing games perfectly deserve some attention from the administrators". I would advise you to practice what you preach. On your "strangely enough, the article does not mention the discrimination of Setos, Jews, Tatars, Finns, Latvians" - feel free to add this information, if you find a source describing it. As to the other accusations of your post - would you please provide examples? FeelSunny (talk) 13:36, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sure more than a few of Setos would happily claim that the fact that Estonia signed a new border treaty with Russia without insisting that Petseri/Pechora be returned to Estonia under the Tartu Peace Treaty is a case of anti-Seto discrimination. After all, the current border does split the historical Seto lands into a Russian side and an Estonian side. And Dajan Ahmet has himself said repeatedly that he wouldn't be allowed to play Vargamäe Andres because of the way he looks -- a clear case of ethnicity-based employment discrimination. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 17:39, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply The end of your post reads to me "if you vote delete, you will be banned from Wikipedia". Therefore, it is really hard to fail to see it as a not even thinly veiled attempt to intimidate your content opponents. As for "feel free to add" - kinda hard to do, as I don't seem to have any materials about it. So, I must admit they don't seem to be discriminated against.
- Also, speaking of materials - if we create and edit controversial articles such as this, would it please be possible to use both modern materials (not 2005 with studies done in 2001..2002) and also include further comments on sources - for example, the article by James Hughes should not be mentioned without Rejoinder to James Hughes, Amnesty International study was extensively commented by The Economist, UN observations has also Positive aspects with progress made and so forth - excluding those sources and comments makes the article seem to be a classical POVFORK, created to further one's beliefs, which may or may not have anything to do with reality.
- And just completely my personal opinion - in articles such as this, we should avoid citing journals and magazines from countries that are not in top 100 of Worldwide Press Freedom Index as a primary source - ie. these should be only as secondary sources, supporting a primary source. -- Sander Säde 14:00, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply On your "FeelSunny needs to be reprimanded" - would you please explain this first before asking for any answers from me? On your claims about the article: we cite UN, I beleive it's somewhere over any top 100 Freedom Index composed by anyone. We use 2006, 2007 and 2008 sources, from any other state but Estonia and Russia, I dare to mention. Which are perfectly neutral, I dare to add. Again, if you feel the article lacks the opposite POV, feel free to add this. Lack of your favorite POV is absolutely not a reason for deletion, check the WP policy you are citing here and there. Accusations of WP:Forking are wrong, as your own previous post shows how much there is material which is not there in small sections of other articles. Overall, all these flaws in your position and positions of other users of your type show to me just how much does your position towards the matter of the article influences your behaviour towards the article of WP itself. This is definitely beyond any good will borders. PS. Please see Estonian_Jews#The_Holocaust to get something new about the history on discrimination of ethnic minorities in your country. Expanded, this info could also be included in the article. FeelSunny (talk) 18:13, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Your last post with "needs to be reprimanded" towards me looks much more like intimidation than my "continuing games perfectly deserve some attention from the administrators". I would advise you to practice what you preach. On your "strangely enough, the article does not mention the discrimination of Setos, Jews, Tatars, Finns, Latvians" - feel free to add this information, if you find a source describing it. As to the other accusations of your post - would you please provide examples? FeelSunny (talk) 13:36, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:50, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:51, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Colchicum (talk) 19:07, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. This is a significant subject, and we have a number of very high-quality sources such as Amnesty International and academic sources. The main reason why I created this page was because discussion of this subject seemed out of place in Anti-Russian sentiment and History of Russians in Estonia is already large enough, and should concentrate on history and not on the present-day discrimination. Also, when I was adding material about this subject to those two articles, User:Martintg (the nominator) kept removing my additions citing WP:UNDUE. Creating a separate article will allow for a more thorough discussion of the subject. Note that this article now contains material that is not present in either of those two articles. I think the article title is correct; I don't think anyone denies that there is at least some amount of minority discrimination in Estonia. Offliner (talk) 19:22, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this article was recently started, it's a day old, it has validly cited sources and is rather well written. The only valid counter-argument I see for deleting it, is that the other side isn't being provided. However those that want it deleted aren't even trying to provide the other side. This article, that has great potential, is trying to be shot down right away, for nothing except POV reasons. It's 1 day old. Give it a month. Provide the other side's viewpoints. And then talk about deleting it. Also, it's similar to this fine article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism_in_the_United_States. All the arguments used for the deletion of this article, can apply to the US article; but that article was given a chance to thrive, and it turned into a damn good article. Why not give this article a chance? If you can point me to any wikipedia article that was written in a day or in a week, I will bow to that article. So please, give it a chance! HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 20:55, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It is impossible "to provide other side" in a POV fork, and it is a fatal flaw. What part of WP:POVFORK do you guys fail to understand? Colchicum (talk) 21:01, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom, POV fork mainly of Anti-Russian sentiment listing all the same sources alleging discrimination. PetersV TALK 22:38, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. A content fork and a POV subject/title. One could create Human rights in Estonia instead.Biophys (talk) 22:41, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep to give it time to improve. I see nothing POV neither in content nor in title. The discrimination is notable, well documented. So just keep all the statements referenced and provide opportunity for the other side to express its view to avoid being blamed for POV. (Igny (talk) 02:02, 2 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]
- It tells:"The myth of occupation is a form of hate speech against the Russian population in Estonia. The only purpose of this myth is to accuse Russians of being criminals and murderers. This is racist propaganda against the Russian minority.". Nothing POV? Is not this article represents a racist propaganda?Biophys (talk) 02:33, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Please note, that the article is still under construction. It was a valid content fork before the material did not really fit into the History of Russians in Estonia and Anti-Russian sentiment as I've explained. And now it has much more material than those two already, so it is a new article and not a fork. If you think it's unbalanced, you are welcome to fix it. It's impossible to get everything right so quickly. The article was taken to AfD a mere hour after it was created. Allow it time to develop, and fix any problems you notice instead of deleting everything. Offliner (talk) 03:54, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This article is the equivalent of "Do you still beat your wife", the whole structure of the article is irredeemably biased to a particular view point which is impossible to balance. It is a classic WP:POVFORK. As Biophys said above, an article about Human rights in Estonia would be a more balanced way to cover this topic. --Martintg (talk) 04:25, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- the whole structure of the article is irredeemably biased to a particular view point which is impossible to balance - have you even tried? The structure can be changed. Why not launch a discussion on the talk page instead of just deleting everything? Offliner (talk) 04:34, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Then shouldn't you guys be arguing about changing the title's topic, rather then deleting it? Also, a loaded question is, and must always be, a question. I thought that was implied in the title, loaded question. This article isn't a question. Nothing has been said in the article's discussion page. And yet everyone wants to delete it, without even giving it a chance. Also, how is it a POV fork? Can someone explain that to me? HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 04:35, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- When an encyclopædia has an article titled "X", the article's title is the question, and the article's body is the answer. The question is, "What about X?" So, what about you not having stopped beating your wife? ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 07:32, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- In case the UN, Amnesty, and miriad of researchers from Europe and the US tell you that you beat your wife, you'd really better stop beating her. So - no loaded questions, and this discussion all goes to gaming the system again. FeelSunny (talk) 09:37, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I asked how it's a POV fork, and you responded with something that's very different! HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 20:03, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- When an encyclopædia has an article titled "X", the article's title is the question, and the article's body is the answer. The question is, "What about X?" So, what about you not having stopped beating your wife? ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 07:32, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This article is the equivalent of "Do you still beat your wife", the whole structure of the article is irredeemably biased to a particular view point which is impossible to balance. It is a classic WP:POVFORK. As Biophys said above, an article about Human rights in Estonia would be a more balanced way to cover this topic. --Martintg (talk) 04:25, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This is a valid subject and indeed is studied at PhD level in top British universities. But we need to be careful of POV disputes as it is likely to attract comment from the fringes of Russian nationalism and Baltic Russophobia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shotlandiya (talk • contribs) 09:10, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 13:40, June 2, 2009 (UTC)
- Note/Question - Earlier I've asked how this article is a POV fork. I've yet to recieve an answer from the myriad of people shouting "POV fork!" Also, it's not a loaded question, because the article's title isn't a question! In order for it to be a loaded question, it has to be a question! Why is this so hard to comprehend? The title is extremely similar to the Racism in the US article, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism_in_the_United_States. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 20:03, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The article was created as a rehash of all the same allegations, prominently featuring the Amnesty International report which has been pilloried in the press and a German journalist known to support the Kremlin line. Both without the balancing present in the original article where they also appear, hence POV, hence fork. PetersV TALK 22:45, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually no. "The Council of Europe has noted that "the Roma community in Estonia is still disproportionately affected by unemployment and discrimination in the field of education."[13] The European Commission conducted close monitoring of Estonia in 2000 and concluded that there is no evidence that these minorities are subject to discrimination.[14]" I haven't seen that allegation anywhere on Wikipedia. In addition to Amnesty International and a certain German Journalist, the article cites UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, the UNDP, the Euro-Center for minority issues, the European Center for minority issues, the International Federation for Human Rights, the Dutch Ambassador to Estonia, even the pro-Estonian US Dept. of State. And that's not including the Russian sources, such as Moscow News, Levada Center, Russia Today and RIA News. For instance, not only does this article document the discrimination against Roma, but also the marital violence against women in Estonia and points out that Estonia didn't criminalize marital rape. The article that you are arguing its "forking" from, doesn't contain any of the above mentioned fact. Also, the article is extremely well cited, and if you think the article is POV, put up a neutrality dispute.
- The article was created as a rehash of all the same allegations, prominently featuring the Amnesty International report which has been pilloried in the press and a German journalist known to support the Kremlin line. Both without the balancing present in the original article where they also appear, hence POV, hence fork. PetersV TALK 22:45, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Also POV forking requires, and here I qoute Wikipedia: "Since what qualifies as a "POV fork" is itself based on a POV judgement, do not refer to forks as "POV" except in extreme cases of persistent disruptive editing. Instead, apply Wikipedia's policy that requires a neutral point of view: regardless the reasons for making the fork, it still must be titled and written in a neutral point of view. It could be that the fork was a good idea, but was approached without balance, or that its creators mistakenly claimed ownership over it." There have been no extreme cases of persistent disruptive editing here. Nor in the original article by Offliner and FeelSunny. Hence it's not a POV fork according to Wikipedia's very own defenition. Furthermore: "The most blatant POV forks are those which insert consensus-dodging content under a title that should clearly be made a redirect to an existing article; in some cases, editors have even converted existing redirects into content forks. However, a new article can be a POV fork even if its title is not a synonym of an existing article's title. If one has tried to include one's personal theory that heavier-than-air flight is impossible in an existing article about aviation, but the consensus of editors has rejected it as patent nonsense, that does not justify creating an article named "Unanswered questions about heavier-than-air flight" to expound the rejected personal theory." There is no concensus dodging here. In fact the people editing the article are asking for your opinion to come to a concensus. Withholding your side of the story while crying "POV" won't get you anywhere on Wikipedia. We're not Fox News. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 00:28, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sounds like wiki-lawyering to me. People have already mentioned creating an article Human rights in Estonia would be the neutral approach, but this is being ignored. I'm certainly not going to waste my time editing this content fork which basically cherry picks sources to suit the POV being presented. --Martintg (talk) 01:10, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- So when someone else says something logical that you don't agree with, and you cannot offer a rebuttal, you complain about wiki-lawyering? HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 07:37, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- re "The most blatant POV forks are those which insert consensus-dodging content under a title that should clearly be made a redirect to an existing article" would exactly describe the Anti-Russian sentiment portions and allegations, as I indicated, reproduced sans counterpoint. Anything else is built on a house of POV intentions regardless of whether individual points may have merit. The only thing being withheld the last time I looked is the Baltic side of the story. And I see no point to "un-POV'ing" this by reproducing here what's already needed to be added to Anti-Russian sentiment, one of the sorrier concoctions of WP:SYNTH to be found. PetersV TALK 01:18, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've seen the article, there are sources that talk about discriminating against women and discriminating against the technologically inept "Roma" ethnic group. How's this related to racism in Russia? HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 07:37, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete pr. WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND & WP:NOTSOAPBOX. or else what's next? Discrimination of ethnic minorities in Russia? Or how about renaming Estonian_Russians#Third_influx to Illegal Soviet immigrants in Estonia? etc.--Termer (talk) 05:14, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There is a "Racism in Russia since 2000" article. Curious how many people here want to keep that one, but delete this one. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 07:37, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yep, there is a Racism in Russia during the 2000s article – and, curiously enough, Biophys – 1, Ostap – 2, Διγουρεν (all in favor of deleting Discrimination of ethnic minorities in Estonia) have contributed to it without any deletion nominations. Anyway, I'm personally for changing Racism in Russia during the 2000s to Racism in Russia (it's now just a redirect to the former) – let's expand that one as well. PasswordUsername (talk) 09:16, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- a title like Racism in Russia is not a judgmental title as there may or may not be racism in Russia, unlike the alleged discrimination in Estonia. After all, what this is all about, some Russian chauvinists still think that the only language in the region that everybody should speak should be Russian. And the requirement to learn Estonian in case you want to have a job in the public sector is considered discriminating. The irony is, most of the Russians in Estonia speak Estonian fluently already. But the Kremlin crowd keeps playing the old and outdated record at the time when the EU has not found any pattern of discrimination in Estonia.--Termer (talk) 14:00, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yep, there is a Racism in Russia during the 2000s article – and, curiously enough, Biophys – 1, Ostap – 2, Διγουρεν (all in favor of deleting Discrimination of ethnic minorities in Estonia) have contributed to it without any deletion nominations. Anyway, I'm personally for changing Racism in Russia during the 2000s to Racism in Russia (it's now just a redirect to the former) – let's expand that one as well. PasswordUsername (talk) 09:16, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Peltimikko (talk) 06:21, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom.--Staberinde (talk) 09:29, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Suggestion: 1) Create the article Human rights in Estonia; 2a) Move salvageable content of this article to that one (with an {{Unbalanced}} tag); 2b) Balance the new article with relevant information using sources such as this one. 3) Turn Discrimination of ethnic minorities in Estonia into a redirect to that article. n) If step 2b is not performed within two weeks - delete it per WP:COATRACK. --Illythr (talk) 11:24, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This is the American wikipedia and it must upheld the American viewpoint. If Washington says Estonian apartheid is good, it's got to be good, is it not? 12:55, 3 June 2009 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by NVO (talk • contribs)
- Proceed as suggested by Illythr or delete. Oth (talk) 13:52, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Gotta love the mobilization - Its pretty funny how user:HistoricWarrior007 rushed to announce this discussion at Wikiproject:Russia while he did not consider it neccessary to mention it at Wikiproject:Estonia. I guess that wikiproject for country where actual subject of article is supposed to take place is too trivial and unrelated for deserving any notices. Although he seems to try to act as somewhat neutral, its actually pretty easy to see how he calls people to vote. I guess it must be obviously honest mistake and nobody has ever told him what WP:Canvassing is, oh wait, looks like that it actually shouldn't be so new concept for him.--Staberinde (talk) 14:11, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete the article. This article was not creted with good faith and it is rather an aspect of the various disputes between the Russian and the Estonian users. Discriminations of ethnic minorities may occur in all the 192 states of the world. Even in Europe, Estonia is not one of the most problematic countries. They are even in Europe some countries (e.g. Greece) where even the existence of ethnic minorities is not officialy recognized and nobody ever came to the idea to write an article about the Discrimination of ethnic minorities in Greece. Why does nobody create articles like Russian minority in Estonia or Russian langauge in Estonia or Ethnic minorities in Estonia and insert the allegations concerning the discrimination in the proper section of such an article? --Olahus (talk) 14:34, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I completely agree, "allegations of.." anything should simply be a section in a "History of X in Y" article, e.g., History of Russians in Estonia, History of Roma peoples in Estonia, History of women's rights in Estonia, et al. That the article title is the only such article I am aware of that does not start with "Allegations of" screams POV. PetersV TALK 14:11, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Well referenced from reputable sources. Hence it is notable subject. Since there is much information, merge into somewhere is not necessary. However I looked in category:Discrimination and I see that probably the article must be renamed into a neutral title: Human rights in Estonia. Timurite (talk) 16:51, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Why simply rename if the topic is notable? Discrimination is the key point here: the phenomenon may or may not fit into the human rights-related articles, depending on the criteria – just as Wikipedia already has separate articles for Racism in the United States and Racism in Russia during the 2000s. (I can understand that Estonian editors might have reservations about the topic, but the solution is to help work on the material in order to fix its perceived flaws, rather than go into pretending that racism or discrimination in Estonia do not exist.) However, I agree that Estonia needs its own human rights article. PasswordUsername (talk) 17:58, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I understand feelings every Estonian editor on this page. I myself feel ashamed because of those neofashist groups acting in my country. However, the difference is: in Russia you will never see an institutionalized discrimination. This is the point of this article: there is a discrimination on the linguistical level in Estonia. Because if you are born in the country, and live there for 40 years, and then one day you become a non-citizen because you speak the wrong language - this is discrimination. You do not need to speak English to be a US citizen, neither Russian to be a Russian one, but it's not the case with Estonia. Be born in France, and live there for 6 years, and you get a citizenship. Even if your father came from Mozambique illegaly. But in Estonia, if your grand-grand father wasn't there in 1939, and you have lived in Estonia for 25 in 2001, you still need to prove you deserve the privelege (not a right) of getting a citizenship. And you definitely do not, if you do not speak Estonian. Does that sound at least a little bit disturbing to all those Estonian citizens on board? FeelSunny (talk) 18:40, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Per WP:DEL#REASON, content forking is a valid reason for deletion regardless of notability and verifiability. That aside, discrimination against foreign citizens and non-citizens is a normal thingTM and exists in every single country (otherwise the notion of citizenship doesn't make sense), discrimination against foreign languages is also widespread, though it is not universal. How many secondary schools in Russia provide state-funded education in Estonian? How many bureaucrats in Russia will handle requests in English, let alone Estonian? Are foreigners able to take part in the government in Russia? I guess, unlike in Estonia, in Russia they are unable even to vote in local elections. And discrimination against the Romani community may not be a good thing, but is certainly much more pronounced elsewhere. There is nothing notable here except for the dangerous size of the alien community, thanks to the Soviet policies of the past (and, as many sources confirm, this - rather than some perceived racism - is precisely the reason why Latvia and Estonia, unlike Lithuania, haven't granted them citizenship automatically, although their naturalization laws are still fairly liberal for a European nation). But (1) this is already covered elsewhere (2) it is not clear whether it has much to do with ethnicity. But this is not a forum. Ethnic minorities in Estonia would be almost ok (unlike the current loaded title), but many sources say about language minorities and foreign citizens/non-citizens rather than ethnic minorities, so Human rights in Estonia, properly balanced, is the best solution. And I am not an Estonian editor, as you know perfectly well. Sincerely, Traitor of the Motherland, a.k.a. Colchicum (talk) 18:54, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I understand feelings every Estonian editor on this page. I myself feel ashamed because of those neofashist groups acting in my country. However, the difference is: in Russia you will never see an institutionalized discrimination. This is the point of this article: there is a discrimination on the linguistical level in Estonia. Because if you are born in the country, and live there for 40 years, and then one day you become a non-citizen because you speak the wrong language - this is discrimination. You do not need to speak English to be a US citizen, neither Russian to be a Russian one, but it's not the case with Estonia. Be born in France, and live there for 6 years, and you get a citizenship. Even if your father came from Mozambique illegaly. But in Estonia, if your grand-grand father wasn't there in 1939, and you have lived in Estonia for 25 in 2001, you still need to prove you deserve the privelege (not a right) of getting a citizenship. And you definitely do not, if you do not speak Estonian. Does that sound at least a little bit disturbing to all those Estonian citizens on board? FeelSunny (talk) 18:40, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Why simply rename if the topic is notable? Discrimination is the key point here: the phenomenon may or may not fit into the human rights-related articles, depending on the criteria – just as Wikipedia already has separate articles for Racism in the United States and Racism in Russia during the 2000s. (I can understand that Estonian editors might have reservations about the topic, but the solution is to help work on the material in order to fix its perceived flaws, rather than go into pretending that racism or discrimination in Estonia do not exist.) However, I agree that Estonia needs its own human rights article. PasswordUsername (talk) 17:58, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "because of those neofashist groups acting in my country" - sorry, what country are you talking about exactly? Estonia has a handful of skinheads and some imported fascists (Johann Bäckman's friend and a translator of his books, Risto Teinonen, for example). However, we have a neighbouring country that can is a proud home of more than half neonazis in the world. So... sorry, Estonia really does not have nazis. Never had and I seriously doubt we ever will, as nazis are as disliked as communists here. -- Sander Säde 20:36, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Colchicum - didn't you really understand the main point of my last message? Discrimination is when you in 25 get a non citizen status when half of your school class get the citizen status automatically at the same day. Can you give me another example of such a country?
- Sander Säde, don't get started, I was talking about Russia, not Estonia. FeelSunny (talk) 20:40, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ahh, sorry, my bad - was too sleepy. Where is Suva with the coffee when you need him? -- Sander Säde 21:10, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- RE:FeelSunnyDiscrimination is when you in 25 get a non citizen status when half of your school class get the citizen status automatically at the same day. Can you give me another example of such a country? Any country in the world. If you're foreigner/immigrant you need to apply for the residence permit/citizenship of the country you'd like to live in. And all Soviet time immigrants in Estonia were eligible for the Russian citizenship as well. So it has always been up to everybody themselves, either apply for the Estonian or Russian citizenship. Just that why to bring such personal dilemmas to wikipedia and why to call this "discrimination", that everybody needs to choose their citizenship according to their free will, I have no idea.--Termer (talk) 23:42, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, there are some Third World countries that don't find immigration much of a problem. Unfortunately, these are generally countries that very few people would want to immigrate into in the first place. And even if you can vote in such a place, you can bet that the vote doesn't count for much. I sincerely hope FeelSunny wasn't saying that Estonia is such a Third World country. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 07:17, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I sincerely hope you do not think 8 % of Estonian non-citizen population are immigrants? FeelSunny (talk) 09:38, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia is not about what I think. The 8 % of the "Estonian non-citizen" = citizen of the former Soviet Union who moved to Estonia during the Soviet occupation and their descendants are immigrants according to the Estonian nationality law that is based on the principle of jus sanguinis that's common in Europe. Since the Soviet Union doesn't exist any more, those ex-Soviet citizens would need to choose a citizenship of any existing country including Estonia, Russia etc. and apply for it according to the relevant existing citizenship laws. Again, why are such personal dilemmas like choosing a citizenship brought to Wikipedia remains an unanswered question.--Termer (talk) 12:24, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I sincerely hope you do not think 8 % of Estonian non-citizen population are immigrants? FeelSunny (talk) 09:38, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, there are some Third World countries that don't find immigration much of a problem. Unfortunately, these are generally countries that very few people would want to immigrate into in the first place. And even if you can vote in such a place, you can bet that the vote doesn't count for much. I sincerely hope FeelSunny wasn't saying that Estonia is such a Third World country. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 07:17, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- RE:FeelSunnyDiscrimination is when you in 25 get a non citizen status when half of your school class get the citizen status automatically at the same day. Can you give me another example of such a country? Any country in the world. If you're foreigner/immigrant you need to apply for the residence permit/citizenship of the country you'd like to live in. And all Soviet time immigrants in Estonia were eligible for the Russian citizenship as well. So it has always been up to everybody themselves, either apply for the Estonian or Russian citizenship. Just that why to bring such personal dilemmas to wikipedia and why to call this "discrimination", that everybody needs to choose their citizenship according to their free will, I have no idea.--Termer (talk) 23:42, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ahh, sorry, my bad - was too sleepy. Where is Suva with the coffee when you need him? -- Sander Säde 21:10, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "because of those neofashist groups acting in my country" - sorry, what country are you talking about exactly? Estonia has a handful of skinheads and some imported fascists (Johann Bäckman's friend and a translator of his books, Risto Teinonen, for example). However, we have a neighbouring country that can is a proud home of more than half neonazis in the world. So... sorry, Estonia really does not have nazis. Never had and I seriously doubt we ever will, as nazis are as disliked as communists here. -- Sander Säde 20:36, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: For all those talking about forking and POV as a reason to delete the article: please consult this section of WP:Fork to see why an article you think is a POV can not be a fork at the same time. Please also apply this rule to the article next time you tell this a fork, a POV, and should be shot at sight. FeelSunny (talk) 20:46, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The text you linked includes "the point-of-view subject is presented neutrally". This article is anything but neutral. Please see WP:POVFORK. -- Sander Säde 21:12, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Please give one example of a non-neutral presentation of a source. FeelSunny (talk) 09:34, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Please read the sources given above. Even in this discussion there are at least four sources presenting opposite POV/criticism to the sources that article uses. And no, before you tell me to add those, this is not my duty. It is the duty of the editors of the article to make sure the topic is covered according to the NPOV principle. Right now all the sources in the article are cherry-picked to represent a certain POV. -- Sander Säde 09:57, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Please give one example of a non-neutral presentation of a source. FeelSunny (talk) 09:34, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The text you linked includes "the point-of-view subject is presented neutrally". This article is anything but neutral. Please see WP:POVFORK. -- Sander Säde 21:12, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - if you want to rename the article, then rename it. If you think it's biased, then show your side of the story. But you're asking for it to be deleted without giving it a chance. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 21:24, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:POVFORK and OR ([55]), but also merge salvageable content if any to ethnic minorities in Estonia. PS. I also like Illythr's suggestion to create human rights in Estonia; it has a neutral title and part if the series on human rights in Europe.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 08:05, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Oh, sure... Discrimination against homosexuals in Singapore, Discrimination against non-Muslims in Mauritania, Discrimination faced by the Bihari community in India, Discrimination against minorities in Japan, Discrimination against non-Muslims in Pakistan, Discriminatory law against Indonesian Chinese, Discrimination against non-Muslims in Saudi Arabia - shall I continue?? Are these all POVForks? FeelSunny (talk) 12:53, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, funnily enough, every single one of these is a redirect, not an article. I think that sort of invalidates the point you were trying to make. -- Sander Säde 13:05, 5 June 2009 (UTC)][reply]
- Thanks FeelSunny for taking the time and making it so clear that "Discrimination of ethnic minorities in Estonia" needs to be redirected to Human Rights in Estonia, exactly like the examples given by you all redirect to appropriate articles.--Termer (talk) 13:32, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed, examples provided clearly demonstrate that such article titles aren't used in wikipedia.--Staberinde (talk) 13:42, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I think I'll continue then. Category:Discrimination in the United States, Category:Racism in the United States, Stereotypes of East Asians in the United States, Stereotypes of Arabs and Muslims, Stereotypes of Native Americans, Sexism in India, Ethnic issues in Japan, Anti-Bihari sentiment in India, Fascism in New Zealand, Radical nationalism in Russia (eh, a clone of the Racism in Russia during the 2000s?? - well, big country, two articles, huh?), Fascism in Canada, Racism and discrimination in Ukraine, Male–female income disparity in the United States, etc. So, we can imply there exists gender and ethnic discrimination in India, fascism in New Zealand, Canada, Russia, rascism in Ukraine, rascism, discrimination and gender inequality in the US - but we may not tell there exists a discrimination in Estonia, when EU says the Estonian law on citizenship is unprecedented (excluding Latvia's). How come Estonia is so different from all other nations? FeelSunny (talk) 21:06, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(discussion moved to the talk page)
And why all of the sudden do we move the conversation away from the AfD? I think it's quite clear based on this latest exchange that "Discrimination of ethnic minorities in Estonia" is both POV in scope and an invitation to WP:COATRACK, while the appropriate article is "Human Rights in Estonia" which starts out with a history of human rights in Estonia (I think we can agree to limit this from independence on), then can include a section on current alleged misdeeds and current suggestions for perceived needs for improvement (both point and counterpoint as appropriate). I would consider this issue settled. I would NOT rename this article to Human Rights in Estonia. I suggest this article be deleted per original nom and the appropriate article be created from scratch. I am sure those wishing to contribute to allegations of inappropriate acts by the Estonian authorities or Estonian society will recreate their content, hopefully this time with the appropriate reputable opposing viewpoints as well. PetersV TALK 15:27, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Human rights in Estonia created. Peltimikko (talk) 15:54, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "Human rights" is a general subject. Since wikipedia is not paper, if a subtopic article becomes large enough, it may well be in a separate page, per wikipedia:Summary style. Mukadderat (talk) 17:40, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- keep. My second option is to redirect Human rights in Estonia after it assumes the correct structure. Mukadderat (talk) 17:48, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Justified by the sources. and "Human rights..." covers a much wider ground. Thesources show that this particular part of it is real enough to provide for a NPOV article. DGG (talk) 00:16, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Since "Human rights.." indeed covers much wider ground and would include also alternative opinions on the subject like for example according to Country Report on Human Rights Practices in Estonia: "The government generally respected the human rights of citizens and the large ethnic Russian noncitizen community". "Human rights.." would also cover for example Russification of Estonia [56], [57], Discrimination of Estonians [58], Soviet deportations from Estonia not to mention European Court of Human Rights cases on Occupation of Baltic States etc. So perhaps should we keep it simple and have just 2-3 analogue NPOV articles on wikipedia, Discrimination of ethnic minorities in Estonia, Protection of ethnic minorities in Estonia and how about Discrimination of ethnic majority in Estonia etc? Is that going to solve this complex and controversial subject? All suggestions welcome!--Termer (talk) 06:00, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I would indeed welcome median decision: every article which has considerable amount of sources should be here, as a distinct object of consideration. I am quite sure that all this fuzz above is not caused by the wish to clear up WP, and they show it periodically mentioning twin articles on fascism in Russia, etc. FeelSunny (talk) 09:16, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Hey, I got lot of sources saying that Estonia is a fascist country. So, shall we make an article? Please people, the number of sources does not mean that the issue is real. Human rights in Estonia is enough. Peltimikko (talk) 09:29, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Are they sources from Amnesty International, Peltimikko? Human rights organizations and scholars? PasswordUsername (talk) 17:31, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- First of all Amnesty International is a political organization, not a WP:RS by itself, meaning Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, third-party, published sources. Since Amnesty International simply currently repeats the statements coming out from Kremlin, it remains to be seen what kind of political agenda is behind it. Goming back to third-party, published sources, there are enough available at google scholar [59] and books [60] that speak about the alleged discrimination in Estonia. So once it's cited as "allaged discrimination" by such sources, how exactly is this article getting even close to WP:NPOV?--Termer (talk) 20:00, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Are they sources from Amnesty International, Peltimikko? Human rights organizations and scholars? PasswordUsername (talk) 17:31, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
PS.Here are some citations giving an an alternative perspective Immigration and emigration in historical perspective By Ann Katherine Isaacs, p 188 :
The question of alleged discrimination of the Russian-speaking population in the newly independent Baltic countries has served as a pretext to try to lock the region within a Russian sphere of influence...Russian hopes of maintaining direct control over the baltic states proved ineffective. At the same time Moscow's atemts to take political advantage of the issue of the Russophone minority were successful. Russia used virtually every international forum to present its claims of the violations of human rights in Estonia and Latvia etc.
--Termer (talk) 20:40, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Firstly, look at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Russian_influence_operations_in_Estonia, and notice the way that advocaters are voting. Voting keep for something that is on the fringes, but voting delete for something for which ufortunately there is a long and documented history of systematic discrimination against ethnic minorities in Estonia, particularly against the Russian community. Yes, we have an article on Russians in Estonia, but the history of Russians in Estonia goes back hundreds of years, in no small part due to Estonia being a part of the Russian Empire. Russophobia also covers anti-Russian feelings amongst a variety of groups (yet it is still missing a lot of information). This is not a WP:POVFORK, but a content fork on a notable topic. AfD is not an avenue to solve content disputes. --Russavia Dialogue 21:12, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As of the creation of Human rights in Estonia this is now a double fork (and POV on top). I've suggested quick delete to get this over with. As for Russophobia, it inappropriately redirects to Anti-Russian sentiment--I've already discussed there the need to separate Russophobia and Allegations of anti-Russian sentiment into their own articles to eliminate the WP:OR and WP:SYNTH conflating two distinct subjects. PetersV TALK 21:21, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - a quick glance reveals this is a content fork meant to shine a bad light on Estonia; material like this can easily be covered in neutral fashion at Human rights in Estonia. The two "point of view" sections are non-standard and forum-like. Citing Johan Bäckman doesn't boost the article's credibility; the man's a nutcase. Per WP:NOTAFORUM, WP:COATRACK, WP:FRINGE, WP:OR, WP:SYNTH and WP:V, delete. - Biruitorul Talk 01:32, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Time for quick delete[edit]
As Human rights in Estonia has already been created, an appropriate subject (and with the same allegations included as part of content critical of Estonia), I move this AfD go to quick delete. PetersV TALK 18:53, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
HELLO!! Why are we still arguing about whether or not to keep the article? PetersV TALK 21:26, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I guess not matter how loud you scream, it is time for another quick no consensus. (Igny (talk) 21:40, 6 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]
- This discussion hasn't even gone on for a week. People are coming up with ideas on how to save and/or merge the article, on how to improve it, on how to have it served Wikipedia's community better. We don't move at the speed of light, we're not paid. I remember a discussion lasting a whole month. And you want this done in a week. It's not Stalin's five year plan to be completed in four years. A month of discussion is more than reasonable. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 08:35, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The content in this article is aready covered in Human rights in Estonia, so it remains a POVFORK. --Martintg (talk) 00:16, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. No consensus is no longer viable, this discussion started before Human rights in Estonia was created, the appropriate place for allegations regarding human rights violations. PetersV TALK 01:12, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That may be a hard decision for an admin. I would keep the article to keep the edit history. And you can have your way by building a consensus to make it a redirect to whatever you want. (Igny (talk) 01:35, 7 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]
- Keep/merge. This is obviously notable and sourceable, what remains is integrating it or improving it. Those are clean-up issues. If it's a content fork then merge to parent article, clean-up and rebirth it. if it's an improvement issue than improve it -neither requires deletion. -- Banjeboi 08:28, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure it's sourced, but all POVFORKS are. The problem is that the central notion defined by the title is not a widely held viewpoint, but viewpoint that is contested in the literature. This article cherry picks only those sources that support the claim of discrimination while ignoring other sources that provide a rebuttal. --Martintg (talk) 12:10, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep If Amnesty International and the United Nations said it exists, then why do you doubt it? It has references, and is a legitimate topic for an article on its own. Dream Focus 12:04, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- why do you doubt it? Again, there are conflicting verifiable perspectives on the subject as evidenced by reliable sources. Please see the sources cited above, lets say the publication by European Network of Excellence, the cliohres.net -a Sixth Framework Programme Network of Excellence organized by a group of 45 universities. [61].--Termer (talk) 12:14, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- the United Nations said it exists? The United Nations Human Rights Council 48th Session Documents on Estonia: Report on the situation of human rights in Estonia and Latvia: Although the members of the Mission found no evidence of discrimination along ethnic or religious grounds, it confirmed the impression of prior observers that there is, on the part of the Russian, Belarusian and Ukrainian communities, considerable anxiety about the future...--Termer (talk) 12:28, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Also both the OSCE mission in Estonia and the OSCE High Commissioner on National Minorities have have declared that they cannot find a pattern of human rights violations or abuses in Estonia. This is also the view of European Centre for Minority Issues. But you wouldn't know it by reading this article. That's how POVFORKS work. --Martintg (talk) 12:17, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- the United Nations said it exists? The United Nations Human Rights Council 48th Session Documents on Estonia: Report on the situation of human rights in Estonia and Latvia: Although the members of the Mission found no evidence of discrimination along ethnic or religious grounds, it confirmed the impression of prior observers that there is, on the part of the Russian, Belarusian and Ukrainian communities, considerable anxiety about the future...--Termer (talk) 12:28, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How come I provide sources from 2004-2006 where they say discrimination exists, and you provide 1 link for both UN, AI and others, and then it's from 1993 anyway? Is it the way you understand verifiability? Then you're wrong. FeelSunny (talk) 13:56, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The latest 17/03/2008 United Nations Human Rights Council Report of the Special Rapporteu says under the "Views of the Russian-speaking community" (The POV of the Estonian Russians) that the most important form of discrimination in Estonia is not ethnic, but rather language-based.
- ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT OF THE SPECIAL RAPPORTEUR says: (the POV of the United Nations Human Rights Council report) that The Special Rapporteur noted the existence of political will by State authorities to fight the expressions of racism and discrimination in Estonia. Estonia, particularly through historical interactions with its neighbours, also developed a tradition of tolerance, multiculturalism and openness that still permeates Estonian society. Despite the existence of scars from the more recent historical experience of the Second World War, this tradition of tolerance and multiculturalism needs to be strengthened in the deployment of efforts to eradicate racism and discrimination.
- And regarding the Rome people Despite its small size, the Roma community in Estonia, as in most European countries, suffers from stigmatization and structural discrimination that manifests specifically in the realms of education, employment and cultural stereotypes.--Termer (talk) 14:31, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I have to reiterate that per WP:DEL#REASON, content forking is a valid reason for deletion regardless of notability and verifiability. Some users here seem to miss this, and the discussion in general became largely irrelevant. Colchicum (talk) 15:07, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as a clear violation of Wikipedia's most fundamental principle. As mentioned above, the article undoubtedly falls under WP:COATRACK and WP:POVFORK, and considering that even the name of the article is a transgression of NPOV: Article naming, I don't see how the earlier calls for improvement can possibly apply. — Rankiri (talk) 17:09, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, but merge some of its content with other Estonia-related articles (possibly Ethnic minorities in Estonia) in a NPOV manner. --KoberTalk 20:54, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The subject of discrimination can be sufficiently covered in the Russians in Estonia article and Anti-Russian sentiment. The Human Rights in Estonia subject just further eliminates the reason for this article.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:18, 7 June 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 by nominator. (non-admin closure) MacMedtalkstalk 21:33, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Felipe Solis[edit]
- Felipe Solis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Fails both WP:PROF and the mention of swine flu is only one event. MacMedtalkstalk 03:33, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Chzz ► 03:44, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The swine flu is irrelevant. Solis was Curator of the National Anthropology Museum, not just any curator, but THE Curator. 6. The person has held a major highest-level elected or appointed academic post at an academic institution or major academic society. He does not fail the WP:PROF test. He has also presented at major archaeological meetings. --Bejnar (talk) 06:50, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep By "the" curator Bejnar means Director of the NMA. He wrote a couple of dozen books and dozens of articles and was a professor for several universities and colleges and participated in some of the great archeological discoveries of the 20th century. I added a reference with a more balanced look at him than the swine flu silliness. http://www.artdaily.org/index.asp?int_sec=2&int_new=30490 The nominator may wish to withdraw this request because it's going to snow. Drawn Some (talk) 09:14, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The combination of the books/articles he has had published, his academic career and his position at the NMA seem to provide strong grounds for notability (note: I created the article). TigerShark (talk) 10:23, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:50, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, and quickly at that. Solis Olguin was one of the pre-eminent Mesoamericanist scholars from Mexico in the 20thC, of international renown. Even disregarding his latter directorship of Mexico's premier archaeological museum, his academic and research career achievements—author or editor of 30-odd books, a couple hundred journal papers, etc—are merit enough on their own. I understand the nominator may not have realised who he was, and the article's unfortunate focus on the bizarre media hoopla surrounding the circumstances of his death might've misled. But I strongly recommend withdrawing this nomination, it's embarrassing enough having coverage of his achievements reduced to noting the misreports on cause of death, let alone having it tagged for deletion at such a time. --cjllw ʘ TALK 14:27, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree, it is embarrassing to have this listed here. I hope a tabloid or blogger doesn't pick up on it as evidence of how the encyclopedia functions. Drawn Some (talk) 20:47, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:13, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sunzoo studios inc[edit]
- Sunzoo studios inc (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable company (only 600 ghits [62] (mostly self-promotion and corp linklists) and 2 gnews [63]). Smells like advertising (original poster name matched company name). Has been cleaned up and inappropriate EL have been removed, but still not notable. 7 talk | Δ | 02:47, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:24, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:24, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. It sure looks unnecessary and self-serving to me. -- Aatrek / TALK 15:48, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Though the article is named after the company, it is really about the owner of the company, and it fails WP:ONEEVENT. The only notable, verifiable claim on the page is creating the jingle that is promoting the Big Mac in the new Mcdonalds ad campaign, which isn't enough to warrant inclusion.FingersOnRoids 20:45, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Not notable and spam. Ward3001 (talk) 01:30, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to Power Pad . Fritzpoll (talk) 09:02, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Powerpad[edit]
- Powerpad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Fails WP:PRODUCT, non-notable software from a non-notable company. Gigs (talk) 02:43, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:23, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Restore redirect to the NES Power Pad and delete this article. Non-notable text editor. Nate • (chatter) 03:47, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to the NES Power pad article, as above. ThuranX (talk) 04:46, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as is. This app is listed on over 15 download sites. It should stay as is. 207.6.107.132 (talk) 06:59, 1 June 2009 (UTC) — 207.6.107.132 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Delete and redirect to the NES pad. 70.29.208.129 (talk) 07:34, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete:This software article has no 3rd party references or indication of notability.Dialectric (talk) 13:10, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As creater of this article, I would like to know if there would be any way to keep the article by providing independent 3rd party sources. What would constitute a reliable 3rd party source? Would an unbiased Softpedia review be sufficient? Some other company, perhaps? I understand the problem here, I just wanted to see if there could be any remedy. 207.6.106.6 (talk) 18:43, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Probably not, see WP:Reliable sources
- Then how about this: go ahead with the deletion, and over the next few weeks, I'll try to track down some independent reviews, and when I find some, I can recreate the article? Here is a link to some pages that might be relevant: [64] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.6.105.195 (talk) 20:53, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sites that are based on user-submitted content are often not reliable sources. I didn't see anything that sticks out at me in that search that would particularly qualify. If you recreate the article without reliable sources, it would be deleted quickly. You can ask for the article to be relocated to your userspace where you can work on improving it after it is deleted. You may want to ask for some editors to review your article before moving it back into the main name space. You can attract editor attention by using the
{{helpme}}
template, or you can ask some people in the Software Wikiproject for help. It will definitely help if you register an account as well. Please keep in mind that the username policy strongly discourages corporate names, so please create a personal account name. Gigs (talk) 22:55, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sites that are based on user-submitted content are often not reliable sources. I didn't see anything that sticks out at me in that search that would particularly qualify. If you recreate the article without reliable sources, it would be deleted quickly. You can ask for the article to be relocated to your userspace where you can work on improving it after it is deleted. You may want to ask for some editors to review your article before moving it back into the main name space. You can attract editor attention by using the
- Redirect back to Power Pad. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 01:36, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand. Can you give me an example of an independent 3rd party software site? (Maybe a couple of examples?) Thanks. 208.38.55.49 (talk) 04:39, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:13, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Self-referencing movie[edit]
- Self-referencing movie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This one appears to be veering too much into WP:DICDEF territory, compounded by not meeting WP:RS standards. The list itself seems extremely incomplete, too. Pastor Theo (talk) 02:05, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Not only is it like a definition, it almost seems to be a made up term. It's a movie that has a character say the title. Aren't 2/3s of movies named after a quote from it anyway? Yeah, in Forrest Gump someone says the title character's name. This is nothing unique whatsoever. Reywas92Talk 02:23, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fails the "is this interesting?" test. This is little more than a Family Guy joke. Hairhorn (talk) 02:28, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:23, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete dicdef at best, trivial, undefinable and pretty much unending at worse. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:40, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete But sir, what if he has total recall? JuJube (talk) 03:54, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, I don't see much point in this list. Saying the film's name in the film doesn't sound like a thing that would make a film more notable. JIP | Talk 04:16, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This seems like a joke. Any movie titled by the name of the main character is going to fit this definition, as well as lots of others with no intention by the film makers. I am sure there have been a few movies that admit they are movies, for instance Spaceballs. These should be the subject of this article, and were what I expected to see in it.Northwestgnome (talk) 14:29, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The definition posed is that a movie is "self-referencing" if "one of the characters in the movie says the title of the movie". In other words, the script happens to include a word or phrase that can also be found in the title, which always happens except in those instances where it does not happen. Where this really gets silly is when a character in the film is named Barbarella, Zoolander, Goldfinger, etc. If the example cited (with video link) was really self-referencing, Donald Moffat would say "These drug cartels represent a clear and present danger", and then he would look at the camera and wink. While this would make a good game to play on a car trip, it's not the basis for an article. Mandsford (talk) 14:37, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Triviacruft. List includes films that cannot help mentioning their title because they are about items/people with the same name. Doc StrangeMailboxLogbook 14:51, 1 June 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. If people think a merge is best, let that be an editorial decision outside of AfD - there is no consensus for anything here Fritzpoll (talk) 09:02, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Opening track[edit]
- Opening track (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This article doesn't make any sense, and is completely original research. It doesn't even meet with criteria that would make a Wikipedia article decent. Below are reasons--Jonah Ray Cobbs 01:56, 1 June 2009 (UTC)JRC3:
- No Copyright ViolationsY Rather, there is original research. So whoever wrote the article simply rushed through it.
- No Vandalism N I noted a lot of gibberish.
- No spam N The article describes an opening track in a way that is comparable to an advertisement.
- No Content forks. N This shouldn't have it's own article.
- Sourced information N There is no references at all. The article consists entirely of original research.
- Content suitable for Wikipedia. N This article is in no way of being a high-quallity encyclopedia article.
A article that respects the fact that Wikipedia is a high-quality online encyclopedia should meet what criteria is above. It only meets one out of six major reasons. Therefore, it shouldn't be an article.--Jonah Ray Cobbs 01:56, 1 June 2009 (UTC)JRC3
- Keep You sure have some interesting criteria there. They aren't the criteria we usually use to determine whether to keep or delete an article, however. Those are usually WP:N, WP:V and a few others like WP:NOT. This article is about a notable subject that is often written about, as the opening track often sets the theme for an album, and the choice of it sometimes garners special attention. Such as this [65], and surely others. Please review Wikipedia guidelines before nominating any more articles, thanks. Gigs (talk) 02:49, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:23, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete N as pure original research or personal essay. Drawn Some (talk) 03:43, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into Album and clean up Album.—C45207 | Talk 04:07, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I have cleaned up Opening track and added references. For a concept that is so often discussed, you all seem eager to get rid of this article. What's next, delete Musical note? Gigs (talk) 04:11, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Move per C45207. ThuranX (talk) 04:44, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Y as a legitimate topic for an encyclopedia, and per Gigs's cleanups. I don't see any particular reason for a merger Y. Many thanks to the nominator for showing us how to do Y and N. Although I'd rather that nobody ever do this again after this discussion, it's very colorful. Mandsford (talk) 14:43, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to album. Hekerui (talk) 18:30, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or merge. A dicdef at best. PC78 (talk) 18:37, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- A small stub is not a dicdef. I stubbed the article because there were WP:OR concerns (i.e. basically people didn't agree with what it said). Because people disagree about what makes a good opening track, there's plenty of words written on the subject, and some of them in reliable sources. Enough for a small but reasonable article, surely. Gigs (talk) 22:51, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep/Merge, this is similar to lead single and should echo how that article is presented. It's a well-known concept in marketing of albums, in the good old days and continues with a persistant culture of vinyl enthusiasts. Delete is innapropriate here. -- Banjeboi 23:37, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. It's nothing more than a dictionary entry with a reference, not encyclopedic. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:11, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete OR on dicdef. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:32, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Not enough for even a stub. Add to Wiktionary if it's not already there. Ward3001 (talk) 01:32, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was merge to Pantheism. Fritzpoll (talk) 08:59, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Classical pantheism[edit]
- Classical pantheism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
User:Naturalistic was trying to nominate this but wasn't completing the process properly. I have let this user know. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 01:32, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Maybe he was just playing around or changed his mind. It's hard to evaluate with no reason given for the proposed deletion. Drawn Some (talk) 01:59, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This comment he left on the talk page is probably his rationale:
This page is not only devoid of all sources, but is completely misleading and inaccurate. Naturalistic (talk) 01:29, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:22, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:22, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Sources? I don't need no stinkin' sources! I spit on sources! That may have been OK in 2003, but not anymore. Mandsford (talk) 15:01, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or Merge -- no separate notability or CFORK. Wikidas© 16:54, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Pantheism As per my comment above, not a distinct enough concept in the source material. Gigs (talk) 17:16, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to PantheismNaturalistic's comments about 'misleading and inaccurate' are questionable but merge would be appropriate, will attempt to do so given some time Jlrobertson (talk) 13:48, 3 June 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. Firstly, the article isn't advertising. Other delete !votes are generally around whether this article has room to grow. I think the added article in the bibliography indicates that it is very likely that there are many sources about this topic; academics love to study themselves and governments like to study other countries' systems. GedUK 13:59, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Academic job market[edit]
- Academic job market (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
A non-notable list of external websites. Feels like advertising, but I can't tell for which EL. 7 talk | Δ | 00:54, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete' Very thinly veiled advertising —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rotovia (talk • contribs) 01:05, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I don't think this is meant as advertising at all. It's just too vague a topic for an entry and it reads like a directory. Poor bastards are having a tough time this year. Hairhorn (talk) 01:32, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. As the academic job market is indeed different from on "ordinary" job search in many countries this is a viable topic. The German Wikipedia for example has an article on this topic, detailing the situation in Germany ([66]). Stepopen (talk) 01:42, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete As it stands, it violates WP:NOT because it's basically a directory listing. If it were expanded into an actual article about the academic job market, then keep. Gigs (talk) 03:02, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:22, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete If it's spammy that could probably be fixed through editing. So my question is whether this is an encyclopedic topic that just happens to have a bad article at the moment, and should be kept. I think there might be some notability in the overall issue of job availability for "academics", but it would vary so much from country to country and time-period that a general article on it seems less useful than covering it in specific articles like Professors in the United States for example. And that article does cover this topic albeit briefly. --Chiliad22 (talk) 03:30, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, but when we have a situation that varies from country to country, we like to have an overview article arranged by country as well as specific articles on each country: Legal systems of the world, Islam by country - a tabular overview of international situations is a well-established form of Wikipedia article. --Doric Loon (talk) 10:01, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete the article is WP:NOTDIR, and is not a well referenced article with third party sources on the subject. LibStar (talk) 04:24, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - obviously since I started it. First, it is certainly not advertising - I have nothing to advertise here. Secondly, the fact that an article is not referenced the day it is created is not a reason to delete it - these things need time to grow. I see someone has added a book title already, and there are plenty of others. Third, this is a topic which can be encyclopedic - the article Academia already reflects debate on the nature of the academic job market, and shows that there is literature on the topic, and hence scope. There are also big ethical issues which could be looked at here - equal opportunities, nepotism in many European countries, etc. Another user has already added a to-do list on the article's talk-page setting out questions to be pursued. So some very interesting things could be put in here and I'm clearly not the only one wanting to do it. Fourth, it was not the intention that this should be a list of websites, so much as a country-by-country discussion, though of course some of these will refer to websites. But most importantly, I am asking you to keep this because we desperately need it. People looking for information on the international situation simply can't find it at the moment. There is no website which looks beyond one country. The information I have included took quite some time to find. If other people can expand it, it will be a tremendously valuable resource. PLEASE don't block that for reasons which sound more bureaucratic than anything else - those might be reasons for discussing the from we present the information, but not for saying we can't present it. If Wikipedia can't be used to make practical information available to people who are desperate for it, then there's something wrong with our mission statement. --Doric Loon (talk) 09:46, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Deletion would not block the ability for you to recreate the article in a substantially different format. Gigs (talk) 11:54, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I thought deletion implied a ban on recreating the article? Why don't you help me modify this article instead? --Doric Loon (talk) 12:52, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You may not recreate the article if you do not address the problems that lead to it being deleted. I.e. you may not recreate it with substantially the same content. After deletion, you can ask for the article to be moved into your user space as a temporary holding place. You can there improve it, and then move it back into the main article space once it's suitable for inclusion. As it is a topic I know absolutely nothing about, I may not be the best person to help you edit it. The people at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Education can probably help. Gigs (talk) 13:12, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you, that's useful. --Doric Loon (talk) 14:36, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Doric Loon has asked me to reconsider my delete vote. I'm not going to strike anything out, but I will clarify that I think this in an article that could be saved. It needs less directory and a more general introduction (what so different about the academic market?) This is a subject I follow closely; it has lots of potential, particularly this year. The entry just needs to be something more than it is currently. Hairhorn (talk) 16:52, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete or redirect to job market. Yes we know there are lots of job markets, but we don't need an article on every non-notable submarket. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:35, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Given that there are articles in multiple magazines every week on this, and that the institution of tenure makes this market totally unique (tenure in the US, and with similar status in many other countries) there is certainly the basis for an article. It's not a matter of providing practical material, its a matter of there being serious dicussion and multiple studies of it. CoM is however right that similar articles in other industries might be justified as well. This is a good one to start, as academics do tend to study themselves. DGG (talk) 00:20, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:12, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
List of 'The Dave Dameshek Show' and 'Dave Dameshek On Demand' Podcasts[edit]
- List of 'The Dave Dameshek Show' and 'Dave Dameshek On Demand' Podcasts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
A list of podcasts recorded by some random local radio personalities, along with links to each episode, would seem to be outside our remit, no? Biruitorul Talk 00:31, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- List of 'Eye of the Sports Guy' and 'B.S. Report' Podcasts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Delete Not encyclopedic Rotovia (talk) 00:34, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:21, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —UnitedStatesian (talk) 12:25, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete both Completely non-encyclopedic lists that violate WP:NOTDIR. UnitedStatesian (talk) 03:30, 1 June 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. Discoutned multple !votes by one editor, and the arguments for retention are weak - sourcing does not automatically equate to notability, and there is a failure to address the WP:NOT#NEWS issue, which is is actually incorporated into the general notability guideline. The weight of argument thus lends itself to deletion Fritzpoll (talk) 08:57, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cyprus v Turkey (Attila Olgac Testimony of Alledged 1974 War Crimes)[edit]
- Cyprus v Turkey (Attila Olgac Testimony of Alledged 1974 War Crimes) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
this is WP:NOTNEWS and has WP:BLP issues; it would be an obvious merge into Attila Olgac but I can't find any info about the person. I've mentioned the episode in a sentence at Civilian casualties and displacements during the Cyprus conflict#Legal challenges, which seems quite sufficient. Rd232 talk 22:36, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete unless a redirect is thought necessary to support the GFDL for the material inserted. That would be a shame, for it's an unlikely search term. There is probably no justification for an article on Olgac, though that remains a possibility if there is additional information on him & he should be notable as an actor or a writer. DGG (talk) 00:11, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- A redirect isn't necessary. The sentence at Civilian casualties and displacements during the Cyprus conflict#Legal challenges is my own, as is the source I added there. Rd232 talk 10:10, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Nick-D (talk) 11:06, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This article is well sourced and thus verifiable. The article pertains to Cyprus v Turkey (based upon testimony of Attilla Olgac),and I wonder ifprevious objection to this article has been politically motivated. (Copperhead331 (talk) 21:58, 27 May 2009 (UTC))[reply]
- First, assume good faith. Second, the article doesn't explain which Cyprus v Turkey case it relates to, or how. Third, if Olgac had made this statement without retracting it that would be different in terms of notability. The article (from the title on, and the links to it from other articles) does its best to ignore the retraction. Fourth, if Olgac merited his own page (maybe he does, but there don't seem to be English sources) then much of this could be merged to his page (but it would still need to be treated as a retracted statement by an actor on a talk show, not as unretracted "testimony").Rd232 talk 23:17, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:27, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep Notable subject, well sourced, topic of interest. Rotovia (talk) 00:32, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: "alleged" is spelled incorrectly in the title of the page. Hairhorn (talk) 00:33, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That is the most obvious but by far the least important of the title's problems. See my comment above. A more accurate title would be Attila Olgac 2009 retracted talk show claims re 1974 Cyprus invasion. Does that sound notable, when we can't seem to scrape an article together for Attila Olgac? Rd232 talk 07:39, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:21, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. Rd232 talk 07:38, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. THF (talk) 13:46, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Cleanup needed. Article remains a matter of interest (these allegations actually came up in a tutorial of mine, recently) Rotovia (talk) 00:39, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
KeepAt worst, the article requires some attention to correct so-called problems. Objections to this article appear to have no basis, other than to spare Turkish military blushes with regards to a well-sourced and upcoming movement to the EU courts over Attila Olgacs claims. Perhaps, the article would be best fit into a more general article about war crimes in Cyprus committed by all sides, and associated court judgements and international measures. Copperhead331 (talk) 16:22, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not knowledgeable enough to express a view on keeping or otherwise, but "Alledged" is not a word. It's "ALLEGED". Please move it if you keep it (also it's a terribly long title anyway). Wikidea 19:52, 7 June 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. Ignored Greenman's non-commented vote. Fritzpoll (talk) 08:53, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FrameBuffer UI[edit]
- FrameBuffer UI (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Procedural nom for IP editor: rationale from talk page: i nominated this article for deletion, there is very little information on this software on the web, and no relevant references. all of the references point to pages created by the developer of the software, and therefore it doesn't meet Wikipedia's notability criteria, and is probably just self promotion. No opinion myself, due to my lack of knowledge of this subject area. ascidian | talk-to-me 22:33, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- delete the rationale for deleting is this, there are no links to reputable sources, just a freshmeat and a sourceforge page, both of which are assumed to be user created. If there was some writeup on it in a linux magazine or the like, then sweet as, keep. Another point to make is that this article seems to have been around for a while, and had plenty of edits, yet no references at all.119.224.40.127 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:41, 30 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:26, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete Self promotion, no independant sources Rotovia (talk) 00:41, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:20, 1 June 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. لennavecia 16:42, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tempo (artist)[edit]
- Tempo (artist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Subject does not meet notability standards for musicians. Article claims RIAA gold record status for a recording, but the only sources that mention this are from his own web site, the web site for his latest recording, or other sites that are word-for-word copies of the same material, or a press release (not reliable). Given that the gold-record statord status is dubious at best, I argue that he does not meet musician notability standards. If someone can find independent verification od the gold-record claims, I'll gladly reconsider. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 19:27, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No results for "Tempo" show up in the RIAA database, no idea what orifice they pulled those stats out of. No other sources found. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 19:53, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 02:56, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:26, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Speedy as copyvio. Hipocrite (talk) 00:34, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The copyvio material can be removed and it can be reduced to a stub. I found one source at least, "Rapero Tempo dirige desde la cárcel la producción de su nuevo disco", EFE News Service, 2008-11-24. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 00:50, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Article not in English, I could find no reliable English sources. ⁂ Unlikely repair of copyvio is possible Rotovia (talk) 01:03, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Rewrite if possible He has an album coming out this month on Sony [67]. Releasing a major label disc while in jail is pretty noteworthy. One track has backing music from the London Symphony (granted, they're a fee-for-hire symphony, but still...). He seems to be much better known in Spanish, but there is no requirement that all source material be in English. Hairhorn (talk) 02:15, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and stub If he's got multiple releases on a major label, then we should err on the side of caution. Gigs (talk) 03:05, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There are no sources and the label doesn't appear notable. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 15:33, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Per source searches above showing no relevant results nor source support for claims of gold album. factor in the copyvio, nad youv'e got non-notable nothing. ThuranX (talk) 04:48, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Is there any particular reason to discount sources that are not in English? Here is the EFE article to which I referred, reprinted in Billboard. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 16:06, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Not necessarily, but no sources in English makes it very difficult to verify for English Wikipedia. Besides, this is apparently the only relevant source so far. Needs more. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 18:19, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I know; it's just that editors in this discussion continued to claim there were "no sources" even after I provided that source. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 18:53, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Not necessarily, but no sources in English makes it very difficult to verify for English Wikipedia. Besides, this is apparently the only relevant source so far. Needs more. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 18:19, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I did some more searching around. Rolling Stone has taken note of the "Free Tempo" campaign. And here and here are two more Spanish-language sources. It appears there is enough verifiable material that can be put together into a reasonably well-sourced article, if a Spanish-speaking editor could help out. I would recommend keep per WP:MUSICBIO criterion #1. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 22:15, 1 June 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. Fritzpoll (talk) 08:53, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Christmas Lights Parade and Festival[edit]
- Christmas_Lights_Parade_and_Festival (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - ([[{{subst:FULLPAGENAME}}|View AfD]])
This article has absolutely no claims to notability. Its substance should be included in the Beloit, Wisconsin article. --Sift&Winnow 19:05, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- I'mperator 18:44, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:24, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:20, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep, I don't see much problems with this article. JIP | Talk 04:18, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I do. No citation, and the paltry content could be put into the benoit article. ThuranX (talk) 04:45, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into Beloit, Wisconsin with no prejudice against recreation if reliably sourced. No sources in the article, minimal content. Would fit in real nice if merged into the city's article. Royalbroil 03:04, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:11, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
IMBY[edit]
- IMBY (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Unpopular mapping tool with article based on a very close paraphrase of this blog post. Attempting to search for references would mean too many false positives. Alexius08 (talk) 09:20, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment- I haven't seen such an akward deletion rationale in a while. What exactly do you mean by Attempting to search for references would mean too many false positives. ?Smallman12q (talk) 13:01, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It appears to mean that the nominator doesn't know whether sources exist, because xe hasn't looked for them. So xe hasn't come across things like this or this, for examples, which show how this subject is generally addressed outside of Wikipedia, and so how it is best addressed inside Wikipedia — which can be achieved with the page renaming tool and the page editing tool in this case, given that no "list of" article appears to yet exist. Uncle G (talk) 15:53, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. —MLauba (talk) 20:22, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. —MLauba (talk) 20:26, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —MLauba (talk) 20:28, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Copyvio cleared as part of WikiProject Copyright Cleanup, no longer infringes. I've added two sources, the relevant wikiproject banners, delsorted and flagged for attention with WP:ENERGY. I'd further kindly request that the nominator please detail what steps he has taken in accordance to WP:BEFORE, thank you. MLauba (talk) 20:32, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:24, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I do not find the sources listed compelling, nor find this project of particular notability. Rotovia (talk) 00:37, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The sources offered seem to be mostly listings of similar software or interfces. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:42, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Delete The Forbes mention is not a listing of similar software, but it is also very brief. If there was slightly more coverage, I'd suggest merging & redirecting to NREL's page. Because there are so few sources, that doesn't seem to be needed. Not opposed to including this in NREL or even writing a new article if more sources came to light. --Karnesky (talk) 23:36, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to The Art Institute of Charlotte. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:21, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
American Business & Fashion Institute[edit]
- American Business & Fashion Institute (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
The page clearly states that this was an earlier name and provides a link to the page with the current name of this institute!! SpacemanSpiff (talk) 08:22, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge & redirect to The Art Institute of Charlotte. Not notable as a standalone but significant in the context of the parent article. Drawn Some (talk) 15:54, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:22, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect Relevant to main article Rotovia (talk) 00:23, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge & redirect These schools that change names should be treated in one article. Drawn Some (talk) 02:25, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:19, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:19, 1 June 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. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:10, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Noel McCullagh[edit]
- Noel McCullagh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable candidate for an election Passportguy (talk) 15:43, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
what exactly does non-notable mean? Barentsz (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:47, 25 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]
- Since it is a person, the implication is that sufficient in-depth coverage in independent reliable sources doesn't exist to satisfy WP:BIO but there are some other ways of meeting notability requirements. Drawn Some (talk) 16:16, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a selection of the EU-wide articles on this chap and also one from Russia. Does this qualify as notable and how/when does the notice above the page be permitted to take down (or is that something adm do themselves?) not quite sure: love to learn! Barentsz (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:59, 25 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]
- See here for more info: Wikipedia:Guide to deletion. Generally articles stay up for a week to allow time for discussion unless there is obvious consensus on the outcome. During that time the article may be edited and improved. The outcome is based on the merit of the arguments, not by a vote. At the end of the week the discussion will be reviewed and the case closed or re-listed for more discussion. I'll add links at your talk page to important information if it isn't there already. Drawn Some (talk) 23:40, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello everyone: drawn some and Passportguy. Hey> could you help me out? I'm searching for the function to organise the external links and the references. References: how do I link the text to the references below (like footnoting for a term paper)... ? I can see that there is a function as someone wrote the French version and they have done it on that version. where can I locate the instructions for that? Thanks very much ! Barentsz (talk) 12:15, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This may be what you are looking for: Wikipedia:Cite#Inline citations. Don't worry so much about the formatting though, wait until after this deletion discussion because if the article is not deleted there are editors who like to format references. Drawn Some (talk) 03:51, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:14, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Notable history, verified by indpendant sources. Some cleaning up needed Rotovia (talk) 00:21, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep It actually needs more than just some cleaning up. It is hard to understand what the article is all about. However the person seems to be notable based on news coverage.Borock (talk) 00:23, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:18, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:19, 1 June 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. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:10, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ed Kane's Water Taxi[edit]
- Ed Kane's Water Taxi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
NN corporation, fails WP:CORP Hipocrite (talk) 00:14, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Notability fails Rotovia (talk) 00:24, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:17, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:17, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Plenty of in-depth coverage available in reliable sources to meet notability per WP:CORP. I added a few of the references from the first page of Google search results including some coverage in books. This company has been providing transportation on the Baltimore Harbor for over 30 years. Drawn Some (talk) 21:15, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Evidently notable. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:05, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Included in various discussions of water taxis as commuter service, and whether this should be subsidized by taxpayers (added this discussion to the article, with references) LouScheffer (talk) 13:31, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Enough news coverage listed in the article to meet notability guidelines. Dream Focus 21:41, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep It's readable. It's got coverage in decent sources. It's cool. --Firefly322 (talk) 03:53, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. 16 million passengers over 30 years of history... a sort of floating landmark. Easily passes WP:GNG. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 07:38, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per expansion. Granite thump (talk) 18:21, 4 June 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 result was speedy delete - author agreed that it should be deleted on the talk page. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 05:31, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply] National Geographic Bee Sample Questions[edit]
Article appears to be purely hypothetical, original research. JNW (talk) 00:10, 1 June 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 keep. Whilst it is confusing, WP:CREATIVE is an extension of, not a substitute for WP:N. If it meets the latter, the former is irrelevant. Fritzpoll (talk) 08:52, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Emily Hagins[edit]
- Emily Hagins (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Fail WP:Bio/WP:Creative Only one minor independent film to credit, without release. Minor appearance at convention. Only one project project foreshadowed, with no indication will ever be completed. Not evidence of cult following, or interest extending much beyond immediate family. Notability fails. Guidelines see WP:CREATIVE Rotovia (talk) 23:59, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete WP:CREATIVE fails Rotovia (talk) 00:38, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:16, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Agreed that this doesn't pass WP:CREATIVE - Vartanza (talk) 05:19, 1 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]
- Keep - WP:CREATIVE is not relevant if the subject passes the general notability guidelines. The article already contains references to establish notability. And interest remains even after the initial coverage as evidenced in this Bloomberg article from January 2009. Aside from that, there is coverage in Dread Central, Atlanta Journal Constitution, Austin Chronicle, CITY News -- Whpq (talk) 16:43, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment A minor independant film (not realesed) is not sufficiant notability, and comes under WP: Creative anyway Rotovia (talk) 00:43, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply - We do not judge notability directly ourselves. We establish it because others have made note of the subject. These articles are not passing mentions. They are specifically about Emily Hagins. The fact that she has done what she has done as such a young age has been noted by multiple reliable sources which are independent of the subject. That is exactly what wikipedia notability is all about. WP:CREATIVE does not supplant the general notability guidelines. -- Whpq (talk) 00:58, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment A minor independant film (not realesed) is not sufficiant notability, and comes under WP: Creative anyway Rotovia (talk) 00:43, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as the article is not about a film, but is about the filmmaker... who has the coverage per guidline to surpass both WP:GNG and the basic inclusion criteria od WP:BIO. WP:CREATIVE is subordinant to them both. Kudos to Whpq for some fine digging. Nuff said. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 01:25, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete WP:CREATIVE is the applicable standard and even though this young person is probably a marvel amongst her family and friends, she is not notable in the sense that term is used here. --KenWalker | Talk 03:01, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Incorrect assertion. WP:CREATIVE is subordinant to applicable crtiteria of WP:GNG and the basic criteria of WP:BIO. You may as well be arguing that she does not pass WP:ATHLETE. That she meets WP:GNG is what gives here the pass, not a perceived failure of tertiary/subordinant guidelines. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 19:26, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed. If one carefully reads WP:CREATIVE, one will note that it is a section from WP:BIO, which includes under the "Additional criteria" section (of which WP:CREATIVE is part of) the following very explicit statement: Should a person fail to meet these additional criteria, they may still be notable under Wikipedia:Notability. which is exactly the situation here. -- Whpq (talk) 19:53, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Incorrect assertion. WP:CREATIVE is subordinant to applicable crtiteria of WP:GNG and the basic criteria of WP:BIO. You may as well be arguing that she does not pass WP:ATHLETE. That she meets WP:GNG is what gives here the pass, not a perceived failure of tertiary/subordinant guidelines. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 19:26, 4 June 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. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:13, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yerramilli[edit]
- Yerramilli (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Not clear what this article is actually about. About a surname, about a place, about the temple? Also, no references and no assertion of notability. Prod was removed, so I list it here. Tone 19:33, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Unfocused article with no sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 19:59, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Poor article of what looks like a historical temple, but needs time to improve not be deleted. Greenman (talk) 23:15, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- In order to have anything useful, this would need a complete rewrite. Keeping it as such is a bad idea. --Tone 12:23, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep Article should be edited to focus on temple, with peripheral comments on the legend behind its founding, and the family dynasty associated with it. Article should be reviewed in three months time to check compliance Rotovia (talk) 00:06, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:16, 1 June 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. Clear consensus not to have a separate article, but proposed merge target seems to already have sufficient coverage without merging material from here. Fritzpoll (talk) 08:50, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Starshine Roshell[edit]
- Starshine Roshell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Clear COI-violating BLP fails WP:AUTHOR -- only source given mentions this person in a passing way (mentioned she wore an evening gown at a union function in a gossip column that quickly moved onto other things). Keep Your Skirt On is only in three libraries as far as I can tell from WorldCat, failing standalone book notability guidelines. Real-Life Royalty is in some libraries, but certainly not an important body of work to give author a Wikipedia article, etc. per our standards. Slight argument to be made that the latter book might barely meet standards for an article on its own -- it at least meets some of the initial criteria instead of immediately failing, like the former book, but it looks like it'd be an uphill battle for even that. DreamGuy (talk) 18:23, 25 May 2009 (UTC) DreamGuy (talk) 18:23, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Delete She seems moderately prolific as an author and columnist, but I don't see any evidence of her works being cited, receiving any major notice, commentary. I would be convinced to keep if someone could turn up reliable, independent sources written about her, as opposed to written by her. I've been unable to find that. The only blurbs written about her that I find are in the context of promoting or introducing her column or books, and are thus not independent. Cazort (talk) 22:14, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:03, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep Multiple books, at least one in a number of libraries, seems to squeak by...COI is not relevant, just tacky - Vartanza (talk) 05:28, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete Fails notability, books fail notability —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rotovia (talk • contribs) 00:14, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:16, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge & redirect to Santa Barbara News-Press controversy, not notable but significant in that context, metnioned a couple of times in that article. Drawn Some (talk) 04:00, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. per nom. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:33, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Relevant info already in Santa Barbara News-Press controversy. لennavecia 15:46, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:07, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Doce tirada[edit]
- Doce tirada (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Does not appear to be notable. Since it's apparently one of several forms of some martial art I would've just merged it but there isn't an article on that and even if there were, is it notable? Sable232 (talk) 21:12, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Cannot find sources to establish notability or indeed verify the article. Been around since 2006 and no one else had been able to either. Davewild (talk) 15:37, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete Doce tirada is a subset of moves associated with a barely notable series of exercises associated with “Sayaw ng Lakan” Fillipino martial arts style. The information is not even relevant to the main article as it delves into the minutiae of varies names for exercise groups Rotovia (talk) 00:30, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:15, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete nn. JJL (talk) 03:24, 1 June 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. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:07, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sysomos[edit]
- Sysomos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
See Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#Sysomos. - Dank (push to talk) 17:51, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- - Dank (push to talk) 17:52, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. -- - Dank (push to talk) 17:52, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Provisional Delete This article has potential and it a perfect example of an article that in its current shape will fail at AFD, but with some effort and work on the part of the authors could be salvaged into a decent article. If it is improved upon, I am not opposed to changing my !vote.---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 22:18, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep Has three reliable sources covering it exclusively and is the result of a notable product (BlogScope), thus it has received coverage by multiple reliable sources independent of the subject that can be considered significant. Regards SoWhy 06:53, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, weakly. This is borderline; but while this reads like another make-money-fast-on-the-Internet scheme that promises more than it could reasonably hope to deliver, it has received disinterested coverage in general interest publications outside the trade, specifically the Toronto Star. Though that is technically only local media, it's fairly major local media. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:28, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:59, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Some notability, independent coverage. May also increase in notability as sites such as Facebook increasing turn to similar tools in search of profitability Rotovia (talk) 00:44, 1 June 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. Fritzpoll (talk) 08:48, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Pi Story[edit]
- Pi Story (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Short-lived, defunct MMORPG. The article is unclear as to whether it ever even made it out of beta. All references seem to be primary sources (official site, publishers' site, developers' site); there doesn't seem to be much in the way of substantive third-party sources about it. — Gwalla | Talk 22:14, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. —— Gwalla | Talk 22:22, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep per sourcing found at Google News. Seems to meet GNG, even if it wasn't launched... but not by much. Jclemens (talk) 01:39, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. Ost (talk) 18:51, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep It's been covered in independent game sources like WarCry [68] and IGN [69]. Short-lived and defunct isn't a sign of non-notability, WP:NTEMP, notability is not temporary. Yngvarr (t) (c) 12:16, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:59, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. You can't press release your way to notability, and the Google News hits are all press releases. Yngvarr's links above have no byline, identical text, and one is even marked press release at the bottom. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 00:23, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Press releases weren't even picked up by gaming sites, as far as I can tell. No independant verification. Rotovia (talk) 00:47, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep a web search turns up a large number of weak sources ([70] for example). I think there is enough to have a (short) sourced article. Hobit (talk) 12:08, 1 June 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. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:13, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Filmfront[edit]
- Filmfront (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This article do not appear to adhere to neither Wikipedia:Verifiability nor WP:WEB Nsaa (talk) 16:01, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 17:34, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't delete for now. I'm coming to the rescue. :D American Eagle (talk) 02:02, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep – Completely written with two major sources (many more are available, but this is enough for notability). American Eagle (talk) 03:55, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:59, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete No significant improvements. Majority of inbound links are from the site itself, or appear to be listed by persons closely associated with the site, and even then number only around 106. Little traffic. Notability fails Rotovia (talk) 00:52, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I dissent. There is somehow around 100 news sources available for the website (add quotes, many of them appear to be unrelated, most in Norwegian), such as this article (English version, now added). Notability is not established by incoming links or the top 100 on Alexa, it is done through published, reliable sources. American Eagle (talk) 01:57, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per American Eagle. Here's a more accurate link to Google News and another Google-translated site review. — Rankiri (talk) 19:02, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Question: How did you get " quotes " to format in the URL link? I have never been able to get my links to work if they have quotes in it at all, but your's did... American Eagle (talk) 20:59, 1 June 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.
- ^ Examples: The 360-page book by Sobel and the 528-page book by Black on IBM are plainly non-trivial. The one sentence mention by Walker of the band Three Blind Mice in a biography of Bill Clinton (Martin Walker (1992-01-06). "Tough love child of Kennedy". The Guardian.) is plainly trivial.
- ^ Self-promotion, autobiography, and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopedia article. The published works should be someone else writing independently about the topic. The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the topic itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, author, inventor, or vendor) have actually considered the topic notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works of their own that focus upon it. Otherwise, someone could give their own topic as much notability as they want by simply expounding on it outside of Wikipedia, which would defeat the purpose of the concept. Also, neutral sources should exist in order to guarantee a neutral article can be written — self-promotion is not neutral (obviously), and self-published sources often are biased if even unintentionally: see Wikipedia:Autobiography and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest for discussion of neutrality concerns of such sources. Even non-promotional self-published sources, in the rare cases they may exist, are still not evidence of notability as they do not measure the attention a subject has received by the world at large.
- ^ Including but not limited to newspapers, books and e-books, magazines, television and radio documentaries, reports by government agencies, scientific journals, etc. In the absence of multiple sources, it must be possible to verify that the source reflects a neutral point of view, is credible and provides sufficient detail for a comprehensive article.
- ^ Lack of multiple sources suggests that the topic may be more suitable for inclusion in an article on a broader topic. Mere republications of a single source or news wire service do not always constitute multiple works. Several journals simultaneously publishing articles in the same geographic region about an occurrence, does not always constitute multiple works, especially when the authors are relying on the same sources, and merely restating the same information. Specifically, several journals publishing the same article within the same geographic region from a news wire service is not a multiplicity of works.
- ^ Works produced by the subject, or those with a strong connection to them, are unlikely to be strong evidence of interest by the world at large. See also: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest for handling of such situations.
- ^ Moreover, not all coverage in reliable sources constitutes evidence of notability for the purposes of article creation; for example, directories and databases, advertisements, announcements columns, and minor news stories are all examples of coverage that may not actually support notability when examined, despite their existence as reliable sources.