Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 March 8
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Valley2city‽ 20:23, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Concept algebra[edit]
- Concept algebra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Neologism. Only sources I could find are Wikipedia mirrors, blogs, and books by the originator of the concept. Originating editor's sole contributions are to this article, the prodded Logic thinking automation, and redirects to the latter (both articles are concepts originated by Shilong Wu). Contested prod; I brought it here when someone tried to reinstate the prod. B.Wind (talk) 23:50, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research.WillOakland (talk) 05:24, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WillOakland (talk) 17:43, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If there is a "concept algebra" other than what's described here, I see no harm in deleting this article anyway until someone is prepared to write something verifiable. WillOakland (talk) 07:47, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per above arguments. Akerbeltz (talk) 10:42, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If we're heading for "keep" then we ought to cut the current impregnable article down to a one-sentence stub that states what concept algebra is. So the topic may be notable after all but no matter how many times I read it, the current format leaves me none the wiser and we have no way of getting at the source of this bad translation. Akerbeltz (talk) 23:32, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There are appear to be several, but related definitions of concept algebra in the literature. It's unclear if this stuff by Shilong Wu has anything to do with it, but the Wu stuff appears to be OR.
- Keep - It appears that "Concept Algebra" is a topic of mathematics and computer science that has relevancy to software engineering. Examples: [1], [2], [3], [4]. The article could stand some drastic improvement but concept algebra appears to be a bona fide topic. -- Whpq (talk) 15:45, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- While the third reference cited above mentions the term trivially, the first and the fourth look promising if they are actually incorporated into the article. Frankly, it still might be best to scrape this article clean and start anew but using reliable sources that actually give more than a nominal mention of the topic. B.Wind (talk) 04:03, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per above and the paper here on IEEE page. Also has a google group. BigDuncTalk 22:59, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note
the paper was co-authored by Shilong Wu.Note also that the "host" of the Google Group is named Shilong Wu. Neither is a reliable source independent of the topic of the article or the originator of the topic. B.Wind (talk) 03:52, 10 March 2009 (UTC) Retracting first statement as I had misread the names of the authors of the paper. B.Wind (talk) 04:39, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]- On what basis do you say Wu is a co-author? Not listed as one. Even if s/he were, we don't generally require that a published reference in a peer-reviewed publication (not that I'm saying this is one such, hard to tell) not have the originator of a concept as an author. The fact of publication by an independent peer review is sufficient. --C S (talk) 04:09, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Retracted per above. Note the requirements of WP:V, WP:N, and WP:RS for Wikipedia inclusion for articles. B.Wind (talk) 04:39, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note
- Comment My initial suspicion was that this is related to the idea of a concept lattice. I haven't investigated further. Michael Hardy (talk) 02:37, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I Googled it, and looked through the first two pages of results. Some of those seem to be legitimate scientific sites. The article needs some improvement, and proper references of course, but no reason to delete it. Dream Focus 11:02, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment viz Michael Hardy + Akerbeltz, concept algebras do appear to be sub-classes of concept lattices, it would be nice to find a formal definition somewhere in the literature but I have failed so far. What this article mainly needs is rewriting and referencing. pablohablo. 12:54, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep You should really look through google scholar before nominating a mathematical concept for deletion. This might not turn up in the New York Times, but it's well talked about in academic journals. [5], [6], and [7] appear to be valid sources. As for implementation, well I'm not a mathematician so I'd tag this article as being in need of an expert or perhaps go to the relevant Wikiproject. Themfromspace (talk) 20:17, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The reason concept algebra got nominated for deletion is because the user in question created two pages, concept algebra and Logic thinking automation, both fairly incomprehensible and because an (admittedly) casual review of what Google threw up didn't seem to point to anything that the language in the article matched to apart from the author's stuff. So nominating both for deletion was not an unfounded step. But given the discussion, I agree that keeping concept algebra makes sense but only if we can at least find a one-liner that defines the subject. Because as it stands, it's about as informative as an Ikea leaflet. Akerbeltz (talk) 20:46, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
*Delete, with no prejudice to rewrite a new article on completely different bases. The present article is pretty useless, as it gives just generic technobabble about "thinking" and "reasoning" and "calculation", and no definitions or examples or precise statements. Moreover, as can be seen in at least one of the above cited books, the concept of a "concept algebra" (no pun) predates "the beginning of 21st century", if both refer to the same subject; if not, we have no way of saying whether any of the texts cited has anything to do with the present subject. Finally, saying that a concept algebra is not a Boolean algebra is quite unhelpful, as we have not been told what it is. Goochelaar (talk) 20:52, 12 March 2009 (UTC) Keep after Hans Adler's rewriting. Thanks, Hans! Goochelaar (talk) 00:30, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: A mathscinet search turns up the following references to "concept algebra":
MR0641266 (83i:68106) Gergely, T. Algebraic representation of language hierarchies. Acta Cybernet. 5 (1980/81), no. 3, 307--323.
MR1203147 (93k:68062) Dionne, Robert; Mays, Eric; Oles, Frank J. A non-well-founded approach to terminological cycles. AAAI-92. Proceedings, Tenth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (San Jose, CA, 1992), 761--766, Amer. Assoc. Artif. Intell., Menlo Park, CA, 1992.
MR2136468 (2006a:06006) Kwuida, Léonard Congruences of concept algebras. Novi Sad J. Math. 34 (2004), no. 2, 141--152.
MR2308909 (2008a:03120) Ganter, Bernhard; Kwuida, Léonard Finite distributive concept algebras. Order 23 (2006), no. 2-3, 235--248.
Also many of the references listed above (in computer science / engineering journals that are not listed on mathscinet) appear to be legitimate. From this I conclude:
1) There is a sufficiently well-established notion of concept algebra in the literature to merit a wikipedia article. (I believe that Michael Hardy is correct that the, er, concept, is related to concept lattices.) It should be possible to track down one or more of these references and write a short article giving at least the definition of a concept algebra.
2) The claim that "concept algebra" was invented by Shilong Wu in the 21st century is at best misleading, since documented instances of the term go back at least to 1980/1981.
Now an opinion: the current article is worthless. It has neither informative content nor reputable source material (a link to a blog is certainly not sufficient). It is not even possible to tell from the current article whether Shilong Wu's use of the term "concept algebra" is compatible with the published literature in this area. (There are no mathscinet publications for Shilong Wu. Are there any other academic publications by him/her?) It would seem appropriate that the article be rewritten completely so as to pertain to the version of "concept algebra" appearing in the literature, but before doing so it would be nice to know if there is in fact any connection between the two notions. Plclark (talk) 22:16, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The Google Scholar search mentioned above shows a few good sources about the topic. [8] [9] [10] I learned from them that concept algebras were defined by Rudolf Wille, the founder of formal concept analysis, in a paper that appeared in 2000. This appears to be very solid and reasonable mathematics in the area between mathematical logic and computer science. Any uses of "concept algebra" before 2000 refer to different definitions. I believe the one by Wille is the correct one to have an article about.
- The present article, however, is based on a very dubious blog by one Shilong Wu who has trouble expressing themselves in English and who also writes about "Einstein’s Four Hypothesizes of Relativity Calculated By Concept Calculator". For all intents and purposes this blog is indistinguishable from pseudomathematics. – The two concepts do not only share a name, they are also remarkably similar. However, as is often the case with pseudomathematics, it seems impossible to find out what the definition of Wu's notion is. Note that Wu also calls it "General Wu[!] algebra".
- We could simply redirect this article to formal concept analysis and treat the topic there in a single paragraph. But as it fits my professional interests pretty well I am going to rewrite the article instead. --Hans Adler (talk) 22:35, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I have rewritten the article so that only the title remains of the original version. It is no longer fringe or OR now. The subject is clearly notable, with a lot of recent research activity. I have removed the expert and cleanup tags, which no longer apply. --Hans Adler (talk) 00:20, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep after Adler's rewrite. It's not obvious from the current contents why this is sufficiently distinct from formal concept analysis to have a separate article rather than being part of the same article, but at least it's now a topic of mainstream published research. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:13, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As you have probably seen, the relation is analogous to that between ring (mathematics) and group theory, except it's of course much less notable. Doesn't weak keep mean you are not sure whether it should be deleted anyway? (As in: not merged.) If that's what you meant, I would like to know why. --Hans Adler (talk) 18:41, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- week keep/redirect Formal concept analysis the new version. --Salix (talk): 08:55, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect as there is already an article about the encyclopedic concept and people can't be bothered to understand the difference. WillOakland (talk) 17:44, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That's rude after someone has rewritten the article. --Hans Adler (talk) 18:41, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - now has a definition and references, HUGE improvement on the amorphous blob that gave rise to the Afd, well done Hans Adler. actually a 'blob' can't really be amorphous I suppose, what with being blob-shaped. pablohablo. 18:58, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was merge to Chariton School District. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 23:45, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Chariton middle school[edit]
- Chariton middle school (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Prodded and was promptly removed with no discussion. Obviously fails WP:N §hawnpoo 23:31, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All schools are notable per WP:OUTCOMES if it can be reasonably verified that they exist.Merge or Redirect to Chariton School District since there is no material for the school to satisfy WP:N in its own right, I wasn't able to find anything through a quick google search. Consensus has been that an article on a school can only be deleted via the full five day AFD process, not ProD and never CSD, no matter how clear cut the case is. Even if the ProD tag hadn't been removed by the author, its unlikely that the reviewing admin would have deleted the article, instead referring to AFD. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 23:49, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 00:55, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into the district. All schools are not notable, and that is a misinterpretation of OUTCOMES as well as what OUTCOMES is based on, which is the trend of consistent decisions at afd. The consistent decisions here are that all secondary schools are notable, and thatin the absence of special notability, elmentary and middle schools will be merged to the town or district or diocese or whatever is appropriate. DGG (talk) 03:30, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the clarification. I knew that OUTCOMES wasn't an official policy but a collection of AfD consensus trends, but I wasn't aware that secondary schools were the only category of K-12 schools that always qualified as notable. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 05:14, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename to fix the capitalization and merge with the school district. I was unable to find enough information to support an article. While I don't agree that any school is automatically notable, I don't agree with a prod either. Prods are for non-controversial deletions only and no matter what the state of the article, school article deletions are always contentious. - Mgm|(talk) 09:27, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge/redirect to Chariton School District. TerriersFan (talk) 12:18, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 23:48, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Maradonia and the Seven Bridges[edit]
- Maradonia and the Seven Bridges (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
A self-published book by a fairly young writer who has made unsubstantiated claims of being the world's youngest author. The book itself does not meet WP:BK standards. Pastor Theo (talk) 23:27, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete.To my certain knowledge the "world's youngest author" claim is false, even if it's supposed to refer to published authors--see [11]. I really don't see how this meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines for books so I can't see grounds for keeping this.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 00:47, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm. The article doesn't claim she's the world's youngest author but the world's youngest person to have completed a full-length novel which has been (self)-published. That could potentially be true, so I'm retracting my delete !vote while I check.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 00:50, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, the claim's not obviously disproveable. I'll run with
Moveto Gloria Tesch because if it's true, it's her that's notable rather than the book.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 00:58, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, the claim's not obviously disproveable. I'll run with
- Delete because I attach no value to the moniker "youngest ever to...", unless it involves climbing Mt. Everest. (Sorry, S M.)There is media coverage: an article in the online Suncoast News (and she is a cutie petootie), and a mention in The Times from South Africa (which helps establish the "youngest" claim). There is nothing more, not for the author either, in Google News, and so either way there is no reason for me to suggest keeping this. Drmies (talk) 04:26, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Reads more like a book review than it does a Wikipedia article. The last sentence, "The fans of Stephen King, Anne Rice, Stephenie Meyer, and J.K. Rowling will have to prepare another shelf to collect the treasured works of this outstanding new and young author, Gloria Tesch.", reads like an advertisement, making this article fail in WP:NOTDIRECTORY - Fastily (talk) 07:05, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment(after swearing at the screen for the spam filter killing my contribution) I'll do it without links this time. To name a few: Libby Rees, McKenna Andrews and Al Wilde were all younger when they got published (the latter one is a full length novelist too). And that's just the names I could dig up or remember. I'm positive that more exist I'm unaware of. - Mgm|(talk) 09:19, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Also a comment, I cleaned it up some, thinking that *ahem* the author might have something to do with the other author, so to speak, and that they might want it userfied in a somewhat encyclopedic style. However, the article history seems a bit strange to me--I can't figure out what the allegiances are. If someone claims "ownership" they are welcome to have it, if the admin will send it on. Drmies (talk) 15:11, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Maradonia and the Seven Bridges should be improved, and spell checked, "Tescha"? it is really Tesch. Before you post anything it should be improved and supported by other reasources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiapedia (fact finder) (talk • contribs) 19:12, March 9, 2009
- Your comments on the actual novel are best uttered on Amazon or some other forum. I would urge you to not reinstate completely unencyclopedic language to an article, especially if it is unverified and full of praise that sounds like a publisher's blurb. Wikipedia is not a billboard. Also, I don't need to be supported by resources, I don't think, except for financial resources. Are you the writer of the book? Drmies (talk) 02:38, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete fails WP:BOOK especially since it's self published, lacks notability. some minor Google hits, but not enough attention from 3rd party sources.--Rtphokie (talk) 03:27, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please ask yourself, has there every been a novelist who wrote an 800 page debut novel at that age, and yet completed another novel with nearly the same ammount of pages as the first one, at this very young age? Do your reasearch and not saying authors of short stories are the youngest novelists. Please include in the article that she is not the youngest writer , but instead, she is the youngest novelistItalic text. I hope your editing changes do well, and follow correct information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiapedia (fact finder) (talk • contribs) 03:46, 10 March 2009 (UTC) — Wikiapedia (fact finder) (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- I shouldn't have to ask myself--if you believe this to be a fact, you should prove it, and add references to the article that verify that claim. So far, you've managed to only take sourced information away from the article and to add unencyclopedic and unverifiable language. And by the way, I did in fact do my 'reasearch' (didn't you tell me to check spelling?) by adding verifiable information with the proper sources to the article, thank you very much. Drmies (talk) 04:52, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Tesch isn't the world's youngest novelist, there's a younger author named Nancy Yi Fan who published (with HarperCollins) when she was 11. Technically Fan's work is a novella, not a novel as it comes in at around 30,000 words, but it still qualifies her as a 'novelist'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leriano (talk • contribs) 10:37, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This has obviously gone completely off topic, but rather than edit another editor's comment I thought I would add a link: Nancy Yi Fan. 72.70.2.74 (talk) 14:46, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, I'm now satisfied she's not the world's youngest published novelist.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 16:24, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 23:48, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
ISPsystem[edit]
- ISPsystem (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
No sources, no indication of notability, just like the other products of the company (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 March 5#IPmanager) Peni (talk) 22:57, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I would say speedy if this hadn't been up so long, I couldn't find anything other than their own website. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 23:31, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as above. -- samj inout 00:04, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - no coverage in reliable sources -- Whpq (talk) 15:51, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Nomination withdrawn. PhilKnight (talk) 12:22, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See What You Know[edit]
- See What You Know (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Based on the following searches:
- Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
- Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
the subject appears to lack significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject, and therefore doesn't comply with the notability guideline. PhilKnight (talk) 22:22, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep given that this is a tv show ending in 1949, not finding sources in the googles means very little, even if there isn't anything. However, right there up in the nomination, for the 2nd google books search, it shows 4 good sources to verify it. All network shows are notable. Phil? Your turn. DGG (talk) 04:38, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- DGG, when you deproded the article, you didn't find any online sources either. Thanks for pointing out the sources, but you could be more cooperative. PhilKnight (talk) 12:13, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy delete as A7, nn band. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 04:47, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In Love & War (band)[edit]
- In Love & War (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Doesn't seem to assert notability per WP:BAND. It was prodded before, but the prod was contested. Admiral Norton (talk) 22:53, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No evidence it meets WP:BAND I will prod the many articles about this non-notable bands non-notable songs and non-notable albums but no doubt they will be in AFD before the sun sets Porturology (talk) 23:12, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete You know its not good when the first thing that comes up for "In Love & War" on google is a silent movie listing on IMDB. A search for "In Love & War, band" didn't turn up anything either - just their profile on a unsigned.com (which any band can submit their profile to) and myspace. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 23:36, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The band is known AS STALINS WAR, but they have recently changed there name!!!—Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.243.211.107 (talk • contribs) 15:39, 9 March 2009
- And??????
- Speedy, I concur with the speedy delete. Band fails notability per WP:MUSIC. Searching pulls up no reliable, third-party, sources. Esradekan Gibb "Talk" 03:14, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete for non-notability. Drmies (talk) 04:28, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 23:50, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Joshua Colangelo-Bryan[edit]
- Joshua Colangelo-Bryan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Law firm associate: notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. All secondary sources are about his case, not about him. Redundant with existing articles. THF (talk) 22:40, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. —THF (talk) 22:47, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. —THF (talk) 22:47, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Guantanamo Bay detainment camp-related deletion discussions. —Geo Swan (talk) 22:51, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom, notability is not inherited. Ariticle also looks like a WP:COATRACK for another issue. See also WP:BLP1E. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 23:51, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as the subject is not notable. Notability is not inherited. The person the attorney represents may be notable, but it is a stretch to say this makes the attorney notable as well. As it stands, article appears to be WP:COATRACK.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 17:53, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No sign of anything other than incidental coverage of the subject. RayTalk 21:44, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, it's hard not to assume bad-faith when a core group of friends all decide they want to delete a set of all related biographies -- first all Guantanamo detainees, and failing that, they've turned to all lawyers who represent Guantanamo detainees. In this case, as in Snyder, it's a poor choice since defending multiple terrorists before military tribunal proceedings and their build-up is clearly enough to establish notability -- same as we have Third Reich and Nuremburg legal clerks listed. Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 01:38, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If someone created an article about a law-firm associate who had a minor role in one of the minor Nuremberg trials, and that attorney didn't go on to establish notability otherwise, you darn well bet I'd AFD them. Try to create an article for Maurice C. Myers or Raymond J. McMahon, Jr., and see what happens. There isn't even an article for Friedrich Bergold--and Bergold was actually a lead defense counsel in the Milch Trial. (Actually, do take a look at Milch Trial--it's filled with red-links and unlinked attorneys.) Please WP:AGF, which is easier to do when the policy argument for keeping or deleting goes beyond WP:BECAUSEISAYSO. THF (talk) 03:29, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - One must assume good faith, Sherucij. It would be better to avoid personal attacks in these discussions, and stick to making points regarding why the subject passes notability. My response is your point actually works against you. The events themselves are notable, not the attorneys involved because they participated in the event. Thank you.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 04:01, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Now that we're comparing GB to the Nuremberg Trials, which one of the Category:Nuremberg Trial attorneys (I'm not even going to bother clicking "Show preview" because I'm sure I'm not creating a redlink) do you think is unnotable?--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:12, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No evidence of a single biographical source about this person (and I looked). WP:BLP1E applies. His color quote about the reasons for suicide probably shouldn't be included in Guantanamo suicide attempts, represents the normal advocacy of a lawyer for their client rather than an independent viewpoint, so I don't see anything to merge. With nothing to merge, deletion is the right outcome. GRBerry 21:34, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy deleted by Alexf, CSD G7: One author who has requested deletion or blanked the page. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:05, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Pamela Rogers Chepiga[edit]
- Pamela Rogers Chepiga (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
WP:BIO notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. Lots of lawyers file amicus briefs (indeed, I have, and no one on Wikipedia thought it was notable). One source is WP:PRIMARY, the other mentions her in one sentence in the context of the larger litigation. THF (talk) 22:38, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. —THF (talk) 22:47, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. —THF (talk) 22:47, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Guantanamo Bay detainment camp-related deletion discussions. —Geo Swan (talk) 22:52, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom, notability is not inherited. Ariticle also looks like a WP:COATRACK for another issue. See also WP:BLP1E. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 23:51, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No evidence of significant coverage as required by WP:BIO. RayTalk 21:42, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, if specific detainees are added, Keep, otherwise, Delete Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 01:42, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Even if names are added of clients, the subject still fails notability. Notability is not inherited, and it is not ascribed by rubbing shoulders with notable people either. --Yachtsman1 (talk) 04:11, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Explanation -- Let me own up to having tunnel vision, and creating this, and a few other articles, without anticipating them being challenged, or that they would not survive those challenges. Let me acknowledge this article will not survive this {{afd}}. I requested advice here about moving articles to user space, while they were deing discussed for deletion. Based on this advice I am going to move this article to my user space, where I will look for more coverage. If I can't find enough to justify an expansion and move back to article space I will cannibalize the references for use elsewhere. If I think I have found better references and expanded it to the point it won't be challenged, I will consult others, including the administrator who closed this discussion. Geo Swan (talk) 10:12, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Withdrawn by nominator.. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 03:16, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
National Sexuality Resource Center[edit]
- National Sexuality Resource Center (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Self-promo article created by subject. Should have been db-spam'ed on creation, but got in under the radar. (Link to user's talk page Archive #1, scroll down to 3rd section). Wikipedia is not a venue for self-promoting by organizations. If subject desires a Monobook skin on its self-published content, it is free to install its own MediaWiki software. Outsider80 (talk) 22:35, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator withdraws objections, see comment at bottom Outsider80 (talk) 16:44, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete May not be spam anymore but its a textbook A7 case: non-notable organization, no assertion of notability and no sources. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 02:08, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sources do exist, even if they have not yet been added. I have declined the speedy. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 02:31, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I could only find one questionable article (which sounded very promotional in tone) and a few directory entries. Google news turns up nothing except for a few press-releases written by NSRC. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 05:30, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have not yet had a chance to go through them to look at them in detail, but a search on Google News shows that the director of the center, identified as such, is often quoted in major media regarding current issues about sexuality. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 22:56, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If that is the case, then it seems that the director might be notable, but notability is not inherited. I have yet to find any sources that confirm the notability of the center itself. -Senseless!... says you, says me 01:11, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There's plenty of coverage of the NSRC in a variety of sources. Reuters and the Associated Press both covered the Center's opening, and various projects of the Center have received media coverage since then. I have now added a sampling of the sources, and there are more. The article's subject easily meets our general notability guideline. Keep. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 03:24, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment (nominator withdraws objections) -- article sourced & not as POV-sounding now, withdraw my reasons for nomination, & good work to the editor who sourced it. :-) Outsider80 (talk) 16:43, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Per sources already added and available. -- Banjeboi 19:37, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep While it may have merited deletion in it's original form, this one is good. Ks64q2 (talk) 02:02, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy deleted by Alexf, CSD G7: One author who has requested deletion or blanked the page. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:05, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
John A. Chandler[edit]
- John A. Chandler (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Flunks WP:BIO by a long shot. One news story about his leaving his law firm; three briefs (lawyers file hundreds of briefs; they don't create notability); and a WP:PRIMARY law-firm piece about his pro bono work. Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. THF (talk) 22:33, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. —THF (talk) 22:47, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. —THF (talk) 22:47, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Guantanamo Bay detainment camp-related deletion discussions. —Geo Swan (talk) 22:54, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom, notability is not inherited. Ariticle also looks like a WP:COATRACK for another issue. See also WP:BLP1E. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 23:52, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per nom. Flunks WP:BIO outright. RayTalk 21:41, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Explanation -- Let me own up to having tunnel vision, and creating this, and a few other articles, without anticipating them being challenged, or that they would not survive those challenges. Let me acknowledge this article will not survive this {{afd}}. I requested advice here about moving articles to user space, while they were deing discussed for deletion. Based on this advice I am going to move this article to my user space, where I will look for more coverage. If I can't find enough to justify an expansion and move back to article space I will cannibalize the references for use elsewhere. If I think I have found better references and expanded it to the point it won't be challenged, I will consult others, including the administrator who closed this discussion. Geo Swan (talk) 10:13, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:00, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Angela L. Campbell[edit]
- Angela L. Campbell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Flunks WP:BIO; entire article is really about her cases. Three sources: two are WP:PRIMARY, one mentions her in passing in discussing one of her barely-notable cases. NB notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. Does not yet meet WP:ACADEMIC. THF (talk) 22:28, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. —THF (talk) 22:28, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. —THF (talk) 22:28, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Guantanamo Bay detainment camp-related deletion discussions. —Geo Swan (talk) 22:42, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom, notability is not inherited. Ariticle also looks like a WP:COATRACK for another issue. See also WP:BLP1E. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 23:52, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete fails WP:BLP1E. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 06:12, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, coatrack/BLP1E. Stifle (talk) 13:59, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was merge to Timeline of LGBT history. Merge articles by decade The Helpful One 16:26, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1871 in LGBT rights[edit]
- 1871 in LGBT rights (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Redundant as the main article Timeline of LGBT history covers the topic better. DGG has requested for a centralized discussion at User_talk:Unionsoap#1960s in LGBT rights so I am creating an AFD thread for it. Smallman12q (talk) 22:22, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- 1886 in LGBT rights (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- 1950 in LGBT rights (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- 1955 in LGBT rights (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Delete - All listed AfD's are for pre-1965 LGBT rights articles. Starting with the 1965 article, there are multiple events per year. Prior to the 1965 article, it's just random specs of blue in a sea of red (and the specs of blue either just have 1 event, or are only a birth of someone that will be notable decades down the road -- for events that are covered in the relevent year's article (decades down the road). Outsider80 (talk) 22:44, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]- Change vote: Merge events into decade-based lists, delete births (or century-based list, in the case of the 1870s one) -- Any duplication with "Timeline" is not relevent as the 2 articles have different scopes, & Timeline has never been the "main" article of this series. (see my comment below) Outsider80 (talk) 01:34, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all individual year articles prior to 1960, maybe even 1961 in LGBT rights and 1962 in LGBT rights as well - single events aren't useful in "YEAR in TOPIC" articles, especially when the event is the passing of a law which will later be struck down or the birth of a person who will later become important. Someone needs to resolve the duplication between these articles and the Timeline of LGBT history, though; as it stands, there's a lot of incomplete overlap between the two. One compromise might be to broaden "YEAR in LGBT rights" articles prior to 1960 to decades (i.e, 1950s in LGBT rights), and further broaden it to centuries before 1900 (i.e, 19th century in LGBT rights). This would still leave some empty or underpopulated articles prior to the 18th century, though - any suggestions? Zetawoof(ζ) 23:26, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
*Delete all as they are Redundant to main article Timeline of LGBT history. The following should also be added to this list to delete
- 1969 in LGBT rights
- 1968 in LGBT rights
- 1967 in LGBT rights
- 1966 in LGBT rights
- 1965 in LGBT rights
- 1962 in LGBT rights
- 1961 in LGBT rights
- 1957 in LGBT rights
- 1934 in LGBT rights
- 1928 in LGBT rights
Unionsoap (talk) 00:17, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I voted delete on the initial batch of noms, but an important point has to be made here... "Redundant with timeline article" isn't reason enough to delete any lists in the (Year) in LGBT rights series. The "Timeline" list is not, & never has been (afaik), the "main" article to this series. The Timeline list is for LGBT history in general, whereas the (Year) in LGBT rights lists are specific to LGBT rights. Any redundancy is not relevent to the discussion of an AfD (as the 2 articles have different scope). However.... if the issue is that are too many small-size "(Year) in LGBT rights" lists, then a more reasonable proposal IMHO would be merging them into decade lists. This would result in an overlap w/ the 1970s in LGBT rights prose article, though (and also, from around 2000 onward or so, the lists are large enough where I'm not sure merging into a decade list would be a good idea, due to size reasons) Outsider80 (talk) 01:16, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, mostly because not enough significant events happened in LGBT rights that year. Lists with one or very few items are useless. CapitalSasha ~ talk 01:26, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge by decade; then there will be enough. This doesnt need afd. DGG (talk) 03:35, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well you suggested for a central discussion and since the articles were being prodded, I figured I would open an afd.Smallman12q (talk) 22:23, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per DGG. Drmies (talk) 04:30, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge by decade. I don't agree with mass deletions, nor do I agree that 'there isn't enough history'. There is LOTS of history, but much of it has always been suppressed/overlooked/unpublished because of bigotry. Pulling it together from tons of obscure sources (where it's often treated without details or references) is a difficult and time consuming job.(glbtq.com is doing yeoman pioneering work here.) Keep in mind that much of this history is just being re-discovered and collated *in these times*. It's not appropriate to confine the history of 100s of millions of people worldwide to one (boring) timeline .... the space WILL be needed later. Count on it. And in case anyone thinks that they can keep this history suppressed, you're nuts. Twang (talk) 20:50, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per DGG, but I would keep 1969 and 1981 as especially important years. Bearian (talk) 00:07, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've merged a couple of these in the past. Merging all to into decade articles seems like a good start. Even the significant years are better treated in the decade, or they have to waste space giving context. Merge by decade (maybe later will need larger grouping for early years).YobMod 07:32, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge appropriately, this should have preceeded AfD, IMHO. -- Banjeboi 19:38, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into decade style lists. If a yearly breakdown is needed at a later point, then it can be split off. But as said already, a list with one or two items fails WP:NOTE Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 01:22, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge everything into the main article. If that article becomes too large, it can take out categories, putting them to a side article, with just a summary and link to them. If any one event is large enough to warrant its own article, then so be it. Dream Focus 12:21, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy deleted as a blatant copyright infringement (CSD G12). --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:10, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Program Management Professional[edit]
- Program Management Professional (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
University program with no assertion of notability. The article concentrates on the inscription process. Delete. Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 22:17, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - the certification is provided by the Project Management Institute which is not a university; it's more of an "industry accepted" body. They provide the rather ubiquitous PMP distinction in the project management world; this seems to be another flavor of it. Notability is not inherited from that, however, and I've never seen anyone profess to hold the program-centered certification so I couldn't attest with my own "original research". Kuru talk 22:39, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Doesn't appear to be notable, only related links on google were hosted at www.pmi.org, which is the "school"'s website. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 06:14, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Also appears to be a copyright violation of [12]. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 06:18, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:00, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Edmund Burke (human rights lawyer)[edit]
- Edmund Burke (human rights lawyer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Entire article is based on one single Honolulu Weekly story, with a passing mention from the Maui News. Flunks WP:BIO and WP:NOT#NEWS. Article is full of WP:SYN, and puffed by a poster that has nothing to do with Burke. Salting of the article with the adjective "notable" doesn't convey notability. THF (talk) 22:06, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. —THF (talk) 22:16, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. —THF (talk) 22:16, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Guantanamo Bay detainment camp-related deletion discussions. —Geo Swan (talk) 22:40, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment -- Nominator cites WP:PUFF as if it were a wikipedia policy. In fact it is an essay, started by the nominator him or herself. Geo Swan (talk) 22:40, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom, notability is not inherited. Ariticle also looks like a WP:COATRACK for another issue. See also WP:BLP1E. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 23:53, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, coatrack/BLP1E. Stifle (talk) 13:59, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails WP:BIO. I looked on Gnews, got nothing significant -- in fact, even with Guantanamo included as a search term, Mr. Burke is overshadowed by his 200 years-dead namesake. RayTalk 21:53, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:BLP1E. All lawyers have at least one major case in their careers, so this is nothing special. Bearian (talk) 00:06, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedily deleted (G7, author requested) by Nja247. Non-admin closure. Deor (talk) 13:39, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Peter C. Bradford[edit]
- Peter C. Bradford (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable attorney. Flunks WP:BIO. Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED from his barely notable client. THF (talk) 22:02, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Unless a demonstration of notability by a reliable source can be found. Chillum 22:08, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. —THF (talk) 22:16, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. —THF (talk) 22:16, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Guantanamo Bay detainment camp-related deletion discussions. —Geo Swan (talk) 22:41, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom, notability is not inherited. Ariticle also looks like a WP:COATRACK for another issue. See also WP:BLP1E. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 23:53, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What the heck was I thinking? -- I started this article. That was about fifteen months ago. Why did I start it? I don't actually remember. I think I must have just finished transcribing a memo Lieutenant Bradford wrote -- Wikisource:Legal sufficiency review of Combatant Status Review Tribunal for Detainee ISN 940 (2005-01-25). This is an interesting memo. It is the only memo I have come across that showed a CSR Tribunal had reached a split decision. I must have thought I would come across additional documents by Bradford, or about Bradford. I was clearly wrong. As the sole author of the intellectual content of this article I would like to save the time of others and bring this discussion to a quick close by putting a {{db-author}} on the article. FWIW, My mistake fifteen months ago was a good faith mistake. Geo Swan (talk) 07:34, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy deleted by Alexf, CSD G7: One author who has requested deletion or blanked the page. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:05, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Andrea J. Prasow[edit]
- Andrea J. Prasow (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Flunks WP:BIO. An associate with an American law firm, not independently notable, notwithstanding WP:PUFF in biography. THF (talk) 21:59, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. —THF (talk) 22:16, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. —THF (talk) 22:16, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Guantanamo Bay detainment camp-related deletion discussions. —Geo Swan (talk) 22:38, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment -- Nominator cites WP:PUFF as if it were a wikipedia policy. In fact it is an essay, started by the nominator him or herself. Geo Swan (talk) 22:38, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom, notability is not inherited. Ariticle also looks like a WP:COATRACK for another issue. See also WP:BLP1E. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 23:54, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No evidence of independent notability (and I tried searching for biographic sources) no content we should have that is not already in Salim Hamdan. With nothing to merge, the usual BLP1E solution of merging doesn't apply. With no notability, deletion is appropriate. GRBerry 02:00, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, coatrack. Stifle (talk) 13:58, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:COATRACK and WP:BLP1E. The subject is simply not notable.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 17:40, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Explanation -- Let me own up to having tunnel vision, and creating this, and a few other articles, without anticipating them being challenged, or that they would not survive those challenges. Let me acknowledge this article will not survive this {{afd}}. I requested advice here about moving articles to user space, while they were deing discussed for deletion. Based on this advice I am going to move this article to my user space, where I will look for more coverage. If I can't find enough to justify an expansion and move back to article space I will cannibalize the references for use elsewhere. If I think I have found better references and expanded it to the point it won't be challenged, I will consult others, including the administrator who closed this discussion. Geo Swan (talk) 10:10, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. After the requisite time for AfD it is obvious that there is no consensus. Valley2city‽ 20:30, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rebecca S. Snyder[edit]
- Rebecca S. Snyder (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
The entire article is WP:PRIMARY sources and passing quotes of an attorney who is not the lead counsel on any notable cases. Flunks WP:BIO. A similar article can be written WP:PUFFing tens of thousands of other associates in law firms by using similar primary sources. At best it is a BLP1E that should be redirected to Omar Khadr, who is barely notable himself. THF (talk) 21:55, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What has changed since the last AfD where consensus found it exceeded the requirements of notability? Chillum 22:02, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:NOTABILITY is a guideline not a policy. WP:CONSENSUS is a policy. Chillum 22:11, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- ...and the policy dictates that consensus can change.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:11, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes brew, that is why I asked if anything has changed. Chillum 05:00, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Consensus can change even if nothing else changes. Especially, when the previous afd, for some reason, turned into a runaway inclusionist train with nobody showing how she meets WP:BIO. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:05, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes brew, that is why I asked if anything has changed. Chillum 05:00, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- ...and the policy dictates that consensus can change.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:11, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't participate in the original AFD. This COATRACK of an article violates guidelines and policies, and is redundant of existing articles. THF (talk) 22:15, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- In an article 10k bytes in size, I see only two quotes by the subject; one could argue that only one is necessary, but I definitely don't understand how one can argue this is just a collection of tertiary quotes. Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 02:34, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, lets see what happens this time. I will review the sources later and give an opinion. Chillum 22:16, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Guantanamo Bay detainment camp-related deletion discussions. —Geo Swan (talk) 22:02, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. —THF (talk) 22:17, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. —THF (talk) 22:17, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Question -- Nominator asserts Snyder's only claim to notability is her association with a single Guantanamao captive, and wrote: "...should be redirected to Omar Khadr, who is barely notable himself." I always thought those making a nomination for deletion should actually read the article, so their nomination doesn't contain factual errors. Snyder has helped at least two Guantanamo captives, Khadr and David Hicks -- "the Australian Taliban". [13], [14], [15]. Geo Swan (talk) 23:24, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep -- Disclaimer, I started this article. Having said that -- the assertion that similar articles could be created for tens of thousands of other lawyers -- well, if thousands of other lawyers have received substantive world-wide coverage of their activities, over several years, for several aspects of their activities, then lets have articles on all of them, even if there are thousands. Geo Swan (talk) 23:24, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom, notability is not inherited. Ariticle also looks like a WP:COATRACK for another issue. See also WP:BLP1E. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 23:53, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Snyder has had extensive coverage, outside the USA. It is important to remember that the wikipedia is not a solely American project. I am mystified as to what an assertion of BLP1E means, when the individual has multiple, extensive reports spanning several years. WRT WP:COATRACK -- it is an interesting essay, but I have found that it is frequently cited by individuals, who, when asked for clarification, can't explain how it applies to the current article. Geo Swan (talk) 02:22, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- A couple of years ago a wiseguy made the argument that the article on Tony Blair violated BLP1E, because, after all, no-one would have ever heard of him if he hadn't supported George W. Bush. They suggested the Tony Blair article should be redirected to the George W. Bush article. Geo Swan (talk) 02:22, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Saying that Snyder has received significant coverage doesn't change the fact that she hasn't, especially when the article's list of references are mostly court documents dressed up as coverage. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:07, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Zero independent sources of biographical material about her. The resume at her current employer is not indpendent, and such exists for essentially all lawyers who work for a law firm. Khadr is adequately covered, nothing merits merging there, or anywhere else. While the normal solution to a WP:BLP1E problem is to merge, with nothing to merge deletion is the right outcome. GRBerry 01:56, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, for the same reasons as the 12 people who snowballed "Keep" on the first attempt to delete this biography. The fact the nominator suggests Omar Khadr (307,000 individual Google hits) is also "barely notable" suggests he is either severely lacking in context of these issues - or purposely employing rhetoric to try and have articles deleted. Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 02:02, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Would you like to point out which one of the 12 keeps rationals are most in tune with WP's policies ? --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:34, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "absolutely passes WP:N"
- "coverage in multiple reliable third-party sources."
- "sources from major newspapers in two countries."
- "A lot of publicity, many good sources, certainly is a notable lawyer."
- "adequately referenced and she seems to be moderately notable."
- "demonstrates notability beyond question"
- "Notability established and explained and a couple of independent sources provided in article"
- Take your choice of any of the above, they all seem to be based on WP policy. Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 03:40, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- making unsupported matter-of-fact claims that contradict reality is not WP policy. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:42, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Take your choice of any of the above, they all seem to be based on WP policy. Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 03:40, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Her role is more significant than most of these nominated., enough for individual notability. DGG (talk) 03:37, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This looks like a good article. I don't see the failure of notability, the person is covered. Chillum 03:48, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Question: covered by what? Miscellaneous 10 U.S.C. §950(g) court filings where she's the number two attorney? (That's footnote 3 by the way: pure WP:PUFF.) Is it really that easy for lawyers to jump over the notability bar, simply by looking up docket sheets? THF (talk) 12:53, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, coatrack. Part of a very large walled garden of articles which rely on each other for notability. Stifle (talk) 13:58, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete for many of the reasons already stated, including coatrack. The subject is known for one event, and her case history, which is irrelevant in any case, consists of four entire cases. In the legal profession, that's the number of cases any decent litigator gets assigned in a month (a slow one at that). The subject is simply not notable. I agree that the best course would be to delete this article, and move the sources to Omar Khadr, where her quotes can be utilized in that article in their proper context.Yachtsman1 (talk) 17:27, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete WP:BLP1E as well as straight WP:BIO -- no significant secondary source articles with Ms. Snyder as the subject. RayTalk 21:38, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: well referenced article on figure with substantial international coverage. For instance, press reports from the most prominent Canadian papers on her government testimony, her opinion on US and Canadian government policy, clearly passes substantial coverage. To argue that she is only famous for defending Guantanamo detainees is to ignore her coverage as an expert and actor in this field. T L Miles (talk) 02:47, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy delete. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 04:42, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
St. Peter's Episcopal Church (Salem, Massachusetts)[edit]
- St. Peter's Episcopal Church (Salem, Massachusetts) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Fails WP:ORG due to a lack of references and no assertion of notability beyond a purely local sphere. Google doesn't turn up any third party, non-trivial sources. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 21:30, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete see copyright violation notice on the page
- Speedy Delete as a copyvio. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 23:28, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:02, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Restaurantslang[edit]
- Restaurantslang (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Wikipedia is not dictionary DimaG (talk) 20:56, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nomination, WP:NOTDICT. --Nick—Contact/Contribs 21:04, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, WP:NOTDICT, WP:OR, and WP:SYNTH all apply here. -Lilac Soul (talk • contribs • count) 21:31, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Agreed with the above. --♪♫The New Mikemoraltalkcontribs 21:41, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete after Wiktionary have taken any material they need.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 22:37, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and follow S Marshall's suggestion. Drmies (talk) 04:32, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:03, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Albion Nation[edit]
- Albion Nation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Recognised geographical areas (a village, a hamlet) are normally notable by default. Made-up geographical areas (the bit around a hamlet, my room) are not. This falls quite obviously into the second category. If I write an article about the Nation of Ironholds Stinky Piss-Poor University Flat and how involved its citizens are in general sarcasm, sardonism and other borderline-rude things beginning with S it doesn't make it worthy of inclusion. Somebody leave me a message when this "nation" is recognised by the UN. Ironholds (talk) 20:56, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Albion, California. I do not see how this article could provide for any different subject matter than the one that already exists. --Nick—Contact/Contribs 21:06, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, despite the somewhat cranky nomination. No third-party, reliable sources. The only reference is the subject's own website. This is a local phenomenon applying to only one small community, and may in fact be entirely made up by the author of the website. There is no evidence of any notability outside the local community, nor even within the community. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 21:13, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I cannot find any reliable sources anywhere regarding this. Seems like a hoax. §hawnpoo 21:30, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, and do not redirect. This is not notable, and is not a plausible search term. -Lilac Soul (talk • contribs • count) 21:33, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Speedy delete as vandalism. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:14, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Michael Schoenhofer[edit]
- Michael Schoenhofer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Hoax biography. Gsearch not supporting this info; several of the refs checked at random don't mention this individual. Vandalism speedy request and hoax tag removed by IP editor without comment. Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:07, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:08, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete as tagged per CSD G3. --Nick—Contact/Contribs 21:08, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. WP:SNOW MBisanz talk 00:28, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Second Northern Ireland Revolt[edit]
- Second Northern Ireland Revolt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This article is a recreation of a speedily deleted page. It's a flagrant breach of WP:OR and especially WP:SYN, and I feel there are serious NPOV problems, too. No reliable news source is reporting these attacks as part of a 'second revolt'. The word 'revolt' is especially loaded, but the general implication of the article is that a state of conflict and revolt exists between the various parties named, when no reliable source is saying so. User:Jersay has a long track record of not engaging in discussion and carrying out highly tendentious edits to the various pages about current wars and conflicts; the general thrust of these edits being to claim that a discrete conflict exists every time there's a riot, or any other form of civil disturbance. I try to assume good faith, but this really is stretching it. AlexTiefling (talk) 19:59, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with Alex's assessment that this is original research. Delete. Majoreditor (talk) 20:54, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as original research. Salt as title is inherently disruptive and it would not be possible to create a NPOV article with this title.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 21:43, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Original research and synthesis as listed by nom. Nuttah (talk) 21:48, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Nick-D (talk) 22:37, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Original research and speculation Nick-D (talk) 22:37, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and salt: Synthesis speculation. Ryan4314 (talk) 22:47, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - A new Terrorist group has made threats and has followed through on two of them leaving at least three people dead. Need I remind you the U.N definition of a conflict is 25 deaths a year. This should be monitored for an uptake in violence in Northern Ireland as there is tension in the region as of the deaths. ( Jersay (talk) 19:36, 9 March 2009 (UTC) )[reply]
- Comment - This is Wikipedia, not the United Nations. We'll settle on our own definitions, within reason. Three people are dead; you don't need to be very good at maths to realise that three is less than twenty-five. There's no need to take a hectoring tone and say 'need I remind you...'; what you are proposing goes against the intent of WP:CRYSTAL. The Real IRA is not a new terrorist group, and the other group mentioned is not attested by reliable, independent sources. There is no reasonable claim being made that the two attacks are directly linked to each other, or to the anonymous phone call. That's why I flagged this as a violation of WP:SYN. Claiming that a state of open conflict exists when one doesn't, or doesn't appear to, is needlessly inflammatory, inherently biased, and entirely inappropriate. This is Wikipedia, not the Daily Mail (or some even more partisan publication). Oh, and please format and sign your comments properly. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:47, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I have changed the name to Republican Violence in Northern Ireland. The Drug dealer killed on February 11 is believed to be killed in a paramilitary attack, after drug pushers and dealers were targetted in a republican group's message. Therefore, a start of a new conflict. Then on March 7th, 2009 foreigners (as considered by Republican militants) were targetted in an attack. Therefore changing it to Republican Violence in Northern Ireland should suit, especially if more violent incidents continue in 2009. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jersay (talk • contribs) 14:50, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Moving an article during a deletion debate is highly unhelpful. The title is only part of the problem; the article still breaches WP:SYN all over the place. Your comments about 'foreigners', even couched in terms of alleged Republican terminology, are unhelpful and misleading. The subject of violence in Northern Ireland perpetrated by or on behalf of those regarding themselves as Republicans in much broader than this latest outbreak, so your new title title is highly inappropriate. And please sign your posts by putting four tildes (~) at the end; and format them properly. AlexTiefling (talk) 15:28, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Look at the links provided. These are Northern Ireland sources of what has been stated by what appears to be Republican dissidents, as attributed to Real IRA admitting to attacking British military base in County Antrim (March 7th, 2009). ( Jersay (talk) 19:36, 9 March 2009 (UTC) )—Preceding unsigned comment added by Jersay (talk • contribs) 19:11, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- CommentSo from my understanding getting a source that states Northern Ireland is at risk, by a police personnel would cover the requirements under WP:SYN. Therefore I will post that Sir Hugh Orde states the risk of Republicans —Preceding unsigned comment added by ( Jersay (talk) 19:36, 9 March 2009 (UTC) )Jersay (talk • contribs) 19:26, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - It's not a question of getting any one killer source (pardon the expression) which will save this article from deletion. The article itself represents a claim that a state of military conflict exists, with the British armed forces and the PSNI on one side, and the Real IRA and these other people, the Irish Republican Brotherhood (known only through an anonymous phone call) on the other. This claim is simply your point of view: it doesn't meet your own preferred UN definition of a conflict, and the way you've lined up the two 'sides' seriously misrepresents the real state of affairs. AlexTiefling (talk) 19:48, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Then most of the conflicts in the list of wars can be deleted as a state of war has not been issued in a majority of the conflicts. The Real IRA have targetted the British Military. They are in conflict with the military of the United Kingdom since at least March 7 2009. Also, a drug dealer was directly targetted by a republican group possibly the IRB or by the Real IRA as promised in a February 6th 2009 declaration of violence against drug dealers and foreign forces (British Forces). Both a drug dealer and the United Kingdom military have been targetted, and British forces and Northern Ireland police service are looking to target "republican forces" therefore a state of war exist(Jersay (talk) 21:13, 9 March 2009 (UTC))[reply]
- Reply - Is every outbreak of violence between (say) two gangs a war? Any unilateral terror campaign? (Such as the one culminating in the Admiral Duncan bombing, say.) But your problem is right there with the word 'therefore'. that's what WP:SYN is all about. The PSNI are carrying out criminal investigations, not planning armed retaliation. This is only a military matter in that soldiers are among the victims (along with pizza-delivery guys), and because of the longer history of the Province, separate from this outbreak. And seriously - how is an anonymous phone call a reliable source? AlexTiefling (talk) 22:40, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply To your first question yes, Mexican Drug War (cartel vs cartel mostly). As of March, 9th 2009 a Police Service of Northern Ireland Constable was shot and killed in County Armagh Craigavon and a second wounded. Please look at Times Guardian or Sky news or "Northern Ireland Police Officer Killed March 9, 2009" This is proceeding to a new war with four deaths, since February 11, and three security personnel in 48 hours. (Jersay (talk) 00:51, 10 March 2009 (UTC))[reply]
- Response - Yes, I saw the news. It's a terrible series of events; but I feel you're exploiting it to make your point. Your latest edit to the article under discussion implies that the original Irish Republican Brotherhood, defunct these several decades, is among the 'belligerents'. You really don't seem to have taken my point about WP:SYN. Can you find me a reliable source that actually suggests, as you are suggesting, that the entire UK military is in a state of open armed conflict with the two terrorist groups you name? AlexTiefling (talk) 01:05, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply - To be honest I didn't know what the Irish Republican Brotherhood was until I began to research the issue. I have updated it to United Kingdom Military; Northern Ireland as the United Kingdom forces in Northern Ireland have been attacked along with the Police Service by either the Real IRA or the Irish Republican Brotherhood. Therefore 5,000 military personnel and 9,200 Police officers are up against Republican dissidents. This will be updated if Loyalist organizations begin to target Catholics or Republican dissidents. (Jersay (talk) 01:25, 10 March 2009 (UTC))[reply]
- Delete and saltOriginal research / synthesis Kernel Saunters (talk) 15:53, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:05, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
James Pepper[edit]
- James Pepper (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Article about an unnotable creator of an unnotable franchise (I get 117 Ghits on the franchise). -Lilac Soul (talk • contribs • count) 19:49, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment If deleted, please also delete the redirect James pepper. -Lilac Soul (talk • contribs • count) 19:54, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
personally i believe james qualifies because of this rule: The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, James created a pilot for a channel 4 show and is now working on a 6 episode series.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:James_Pepper"
- Speedy Delete I did research for this so-called franchise before looking at the 'website'. I only found the franchise here in this article. I then went to the 'website'. I would recommend Wikipedia editors considering the future of this article to do likewise. The contact is a google mail address;
the shop link doesn't work;there are two items in the pictures section; there is one item in the videos section. The first date in the history of the site is 1/1/09 (when the pictures were added) which puzzles me, as supposedly this is "the website which obtained a popular cult status towards the end of 2008.". Cult status must be getting easier to achieve if you can do it before the site is fully created, and especially with rubbish like this. I say nothing about the future television work, other than WP:CRYSTAL. Future work must be thoroughly and reliably referenced. So far, it isn't even referenced. On the whole, I think darts might be a better option for Mr Pepper on the showing so far. Peridon (talk) 20:54, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Correction The shop link now seems to work. It takes you to a section at www.cafepress.com, which seems to be a sort of lulu.com for T-shirts: "Make your own t-shirts and gifts at CafePress.com". There are masses of things available with the Only Human Media logo (I suppose) on them. I think I'll pass. Peridon (talk) 21:08, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Peridon... i fear rudeness accomplishes nothing, but i will let it go. if you had properly researched this you wouldve found that the site has recently undergone a redesign and most content removed because it is to be used in the tv series.
update: article has been tweaked in an effort to satisfy the wiki fascists.
also... since when does an individuals choice of email client have and bearing on anything?
(Above post replaced by Peridon who considers it as a valid criticism to be answered.)
- Response It is easy to view the history of a Wikipedia article or discussion. It is very difficult to see the history of an outside website's history unless one has admin powers for that site. To be used in the TV series? Maybe. (It looks to me like a fairly recent lash-up. Prove me wrong. I'm always happy to be PROVED wrong.) We still have no reliable evidence of the existence of this TV series so WP:CRYSTAL still applies. Email? I would have expected an enterprise of the notability claimed to have a more impressive or appropriate address. You are right that one's choice is one's choice. In business, little details like this matter, however. (It's like the presentation of a CV.) For example, [email protected] looks so much better than [email protected]. Anyway, I still believe that notability has not been established. Peridon (talk) 23:00, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The article pretty much says it already: "Pepper has said little about what the show will contain, maintaining he wants to keep the viewers in the dark for now." As long as the public is kept in the dark about what the show entails and when exactly it will air, there is nothing Wikipedia can reliably confirm, which in turn means we can't prove Pepper was the creator of a notable work. Notability for shows tends to be gained after they start airing, and that's the appropriate time to create an article about Pepper assuming other people have discussed him. (Side note: I recommend Pepper to do something about the website; it doesn't look too professional in my opinion. It wouldn't be a bad idea to learn design or shell out some cash to let someone else do it. The site violates some basic principles for good website design) - Mgm|(talk) 23:08, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would say that all the points raised here are unimportant. ie you not liking the layout of peppers website? If you knew about business or even web hosting you would know that most of the time domain hosting comes with email hosting. the fact that someone chooses not to use it does not actually have any relavance whatsoever. but in the lack of any real evidence against peppers presence, this is all you have to go with. and since that warrants a deletion it proves that wikipedias arrogance gets in the way of its use as a reliable source which i think is sad. of course, when the series is screened there will an influx of false facts on james' page that will be left to rot here for eternity.
- Comment We're very arrogant here. We do insist on petty details like verification of statements. And reliable sources, which we're not seeing here. (We are NOT a starting point for info but a recording and concentration of it.) If you have any, then for your own sake post them. We don't want to delete things that are right. But if we have no proof, we reckon things are not right. That's the policy. When and if the series is screened, you can remake the page. Some of us do know about web hosting and emails and domains. My point ties in with MGM's point about unprofessional look. Up to now, we're discussing the only things we can discuss, because you don't give us anything more. And we can't find it. Peridon (talk) 23:56, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - no notable achievements are listed other than a vague and totally unsubstantiated claim about his website having gained "cult status". If subject has indeed created a series for Channel 4 (which again is completely unsubstantiated) then maybe he might be notable further down the line, but for now he most certainly isn't -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:59, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete - pure nn-bio. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 12:54, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. There's no compelling reason to overturn Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sonic fangames, which deleted this article and Sonic: Time Attacked over notability and verifiability concerns, concerns which have dogged this article from day 1 (May 1, 2005, for those keeping score at home). If after four years and 300+ edits these concerns cannot be addressed then I despair that they ever will be. Mackensen (talk) 02:30, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sonic Robo Blast 2[edit]
- Sonic Robo Blast 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Survived the AfD on nothing more than vote stuffing and majority rule, neither of which constitutes a legitimate reason for keeping. The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 19:40, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, request immediate speedy deletion, as I only just realized that this is the third nomination for deletion, and the second one was successful. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 19:46, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]- Comment - No, the second nomination isnt this the same thing as this article as this. Legend of Black Chaos is an expansion not the game itself. Speedy Delete does not apply here. §hawnpoo 20:01, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, nevermind then. Regardless, this article is absolutely non-notable. Not one single assertion of notability. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 20:08, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 21:16, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The previous discussion had a whole lot of talk about how big the project was and how many people played it (even an "other articles exist"-argument came along which compared websites and webcomics to the game). All the previous comments ignored the fact that without reliable sources this amounts to nothing more than an advertisement. I was unable to find sources unrelated to the creators of the game. - Mgm|(talk) 23:00, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fancruft §hawnpoo 23:04, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: GamesRadar mentions SRB2 in one of its Top 7 lists here, and the SRB2 website itself lists/shows scans of various video game magazines that have mentioned SRB2 within the past three years here. Arrowned (talk) 23:35, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to a lack of reliable third-party sources, thus failing WP:V, WP:N, and WP:OR. Previous "consensus" was contaminated by votestacking, and consensus has changed anyway. The consensus at the first AFD, to delete, is probably closer to the truth, and no new sources have appeared since then. Randomran (talk) 23:41, 8 March 2009 (UTC)Neutral: looks like Arrowned has identified some sources that were not available by web search, which may be persuasive. Some mods become worthy of notice in reliable third-party sources. Randomran (talk) 23:44, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]- Keep - Nom misreperesents closing admin's decision on first AfD, and as Arrowned just pointed out, there are various print sources which have covered the game, which Nom could have found with a couple of minutes of research before actually starting an AfD, and we'd be arguing on whether these sources are sufficient to write and maintain a NPOV article. "It's cruft" or "I don't like the result of the last AfD" aren't valid reasons to delete, sorry. MLauba (talk) 23:49, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Honestly, I read over the entire article, and found NO reason whatsoever to remove it. It holds factual encyclopediac information and the game is popular enough that people will check wikipedia to learn more about it. I could care less about the articles about mods that are also marked, but the main SRB2 page should be kept. Chaos Knux (talk) 00:08, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This is Chaos Knux's first edit! I smell meatpuppet! Here is a link to his contribs [16] §hawnpoo 01:27, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per MLauba. However, the article really should cite said sources and/or get a complete rewrite - it's rather lousy as it stands. --Shadow Hog (talk) 00:13, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Whether this article stays or goes comes down to whether it will be rewritten properly. There's a lot that 'could' be added, but there's also many things that the game has yet to included. However, the next public release is scheduled for May 2009, so there's a bunch more that could be added later. Thing is, though, that the article up for debate centers around the current release, not a future one. -BlueZero4 (talk) 01:25, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep – the sources are there to establish notability of the game; click under "Press" on the navbar [17] (another reason I despise the usage of frames on web pages). MuZemike 03:28, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well then, since it seems that there are some sources and the article is simply just poorly-written and w/o them, I suppose I'll withdraw. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 05:04, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete (CSD G4).Rewrite. I love SRB2 and all that, but the article has been deleted three times before, and I still think the article content is not good enough for a proper Wikipedia entry. It has the sources, but the article itself is crap and always has been,and until someone can make a great article (which IMO is what SRB2 deserves) my vote stands.If the article IS going to be rewritten to make it better, I revoke my speedy deletion claim, otherwise it SHOULD be deleted, because in its current state it's not worth keeping on Wikipedia. カラム 06:48, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]- Comment - Whether or not an article is badly written, last I checked, does not determine if it is notable enough to appear on Wikipedia. Also, as has been observed earlier in this discussion, speedy deletion does not apply. ~Mecha DarkWarrior 07:08, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Doom WAD and add to the list of mods there. The two sources provided (gamesradar and kombo) are good, but not significant enough to warrant its own article (WP:N). Marasmusine (talk) 11:56, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails inclusion criteria as per WP:NOTE. Sources provided all consist of trivial coverage.--Sloane (talk) 04:27, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Sloane and nom. Andre (talk) 21:37, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to Murder of Mary Quigley. MBisanz talk 00:39, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Richard Archibeque[edit]
- Richard Archibeque (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Lacks Notability, Biography of Living Person Criteria Poettobe (talk) 19:23, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Why are Richard Ramirez, Richard Allen Davis and the multitude of others here "notoable", while Richard Archibeque, a serial rapist and murderer who raped and murdered and hung a teenage high school student on a cyclone fence naked in a public place not notable? Also, checkout the Wiki Crime Project at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Crime_and_Criminal_Biography Cloudswrest (talk) 21:07, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Tragic news content is not necessarily notable or biographical. The mission of the Wikipedia encyclopedia is to catalog material with enduring usefulness, not to be a crime registry and/or a repository of current events and memorials. Update: Because all the information in this article is about the case, not the person, it should be merged with the article about the case Murder of Mary Quigley, although I do not think that article should be kept either since the case lacks landmarks as noted by MacGyverMagic. Since the perpetrator has no distinct profile, he should also be referred to as "Richard Armand Archibeque" the way three names are used for the Richard Allen Davis profile rather than just Richard Archibeque since search engines bring up multiple people named Richard Archibeque (ie Business Ad for Cement Mason Richard Archibeque from NM- the first hit on Yahoo [18]. The three names creates distinction [19])). Three names should probably also be used for Richard Ramirez, although at least he has a profile name, "The Night Stalker".--Poettobe (talk) 06:56, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Richard Ramirez had some relevance to the work of AC/DC and Richard Allen Davis (I'm not too happy with how his record is included there) had an effect on California's "Three strikes law" for repeat offenders. Crimes tend to be covered when they are important in a greater context or have lasting consequences on law/justice. - Mgm|(talk) 22:53, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. There's no biographical information in the "biography" at all. It's based entirely on his latest conviction and the case surrounding it. The event may be notable, but he is not. If that case is notable, the information should be written into an article on the case. Perhaps merging this article to Murder of Mary Quigley would be best. ₳dam Zel 14:05, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Maybe an entire article should be created for "Cold cases solved with DNA" since this is not the only case. The Rape and Murder of Linda Bennitt took place in 1984. The case was reopened in 2007. Mark "" Erler was charged in August 2008 and convicted February 2009. [20] [21]. There is a whole list of these cases for Denver alone, and there is a name to the project, DENVER COLD CASE PROJECT [22]. Update: There is already a similar cold case solved by DNA example in Wikipedia: Cold case- Characteristics of a criminal cold case- Notable Examples: 2005 Edmond Jay Marr pleaded guilty to the March 1983 kidnap and murder of Elaine Graham [23]. I do not know if the Elaine Graham case is the first of this kind. ABC News also has several article on this issue, and suggests that DNA follow-up could be appropriate for tens of thousands of cases [24]--Poettobe (talk) 08:28, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pastor Theo (talk) 02:34, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply] - Delete per WP:BLP1E and WP:NOT#NEWS. Even the event itself does not appear to be terribly notable as a murderer/rape case, so I don't see that there's much here for long-term encyclopedic relevence. The article seems to violate WP:NOT#MEMORIAL as the article seems to be little more than a memorial to one of his victims (check the external links section) and there does not appear to be any lasting importance of this case according to any reliable sources. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:56, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Murder of Mary Quigley since the name of the killer is a likely search term. If that article happens to go up for deletion, the redirect would go as a result. - Mgm|(talk) 10:47, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep secondary, reliably sourced content, with a suggestion to merge to Murder of Mary Quigley per WP:BLP1E and WP:NOT#NEWS. -Atmoz (talk) 19:29, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Murder of Mary Quigley per Mgm. JohnCD (talk) 21:49, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:05, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cricket Coverage[edit]
- Cricket Coverage (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Borderline advertising/Wikipedia is not a directory Deb (talk) 19:25, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This is actually not advertising, I took a section from the Cricket Communications article, cleaned it up, and made it into it's own article. I have done the same thing with MetroPCS on MetroPCS Coverage --Christopher Kraus (talk) 19:30, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Seems database-ish (WP:IINFO) and of questionable encyclopedicness; would do better to just link to the coverage webpage of the provider. --Cybercobra (talk) 21:28, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Wikipedia is not a web host or directory, and this material is not encyclopaedic. Nuttah (talk) 21:52, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Question I am wondering why this is an issue if MetroPCS Coverage, a page with a similar concept, started by splitting off as a section of the original article, was never an AfD? --Christopher Kraus (talk) 00:41, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Rectified: WP:Articles_for_deletion/MetroPCS_Coverage --Cybercobra (talk) 02:28, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not necessary, a link to Cricket's coverage map along with a sentence or two about their service area would be sufficient to cover the topic in an encyclopedic manner. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 02:41, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- OK Delete-Need assistance with expanding on a paragraph about their coverage on the main page, Thanks --Christopher Kraus (talk) 22:54, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete If this info belongs anywhere, it belongs in the main article Cricket Communications, not a separate article. --nemonoman (talk) 04:31, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was merge to Philistines. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:06, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
List of battles between Israel and the Philistines[edit]
- List of battles between Israel and the Philistines (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Too specific. Not notable in its own right. While List of biblical battles would be appropriate, this is just too minor and specific; it encourages articles like List of battles between Israel and the Canaanites, List of battles between Israel and the Assyrians, and List of battles between Israel and the Greeks, which would all suffer from the same issue Clinkophonist (talk) 19:14, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I concur, but would prefer to merge and redirect this into an existing article / list, if one could be found. I'm usually against list on Wikipedia, but this is well-defined enough that it could go into a larger, less specific list. -Lilac Soul (talk • contribs • count) 19:26, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - A category would be more appropriate. Deb (talk) 19:28, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Redirecting to an appropriate article would be preferrred. Catgeorization may work in tandem with a redirect. Majoreditor (talk) 20:58, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge Into Philistines. The two redlinks should be addressed, too. Pastor Theo (talk) 22:42, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge content into two separate places: Philistines and List of battles before 601. SMSpivey (talk) 18:02, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - this list as it stands doesn't accomplish much (and is incomplete), and could stand deletion. But a full article about Battles between Israel and the Philistines rather than a mere list would seem appropriate. Maybe this list could form the beginning of such an article.Rlendog (talk) 01:25, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy deleted as vandalism (CSD G3). --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:34, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Andrao Gabito[edit]
- Andrao Gabito (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Looks like a hoax, no sources found. There was no such player in both FC Enerhetyk Burshtyn and FC Dniester Ovidiopol, even if he played under another name in 2004/05 he could not get 36 appearances for Enerhetyk because Enerhetyk played only 28 games and could not score 17 goals because league's top scorer had 13 — NickK (talk) 19:06, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as hoax. -Lilac Soul (talk • contribs • count) 19:14, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:02, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as hoax. Current club AC Betty Swallocks... :-) cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:31, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as a right load of BS -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:39, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as a severe case of the Betties. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 11:14, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete as hoax. GiantSnowman 18:18, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete obvious hoax, even the club names are fake Skitzo (talk) 22:38, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete clearly a hoax...AC Betty Swallocks is obviously a fae team. Uksam88 (talk) 15:25, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete - obvious hoax. Jogurney (talk) 16:13, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to Gautreks saga. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:07, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First Battle of Telemark[edit]
- First Battle of Telemark (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
An article about a viking battle that noone knows if has taken place, nor where og when it took place, nor if the alleged combattants ever has excisted. The only source to this possible battle is the legendary saga Gautreks saga, which only by a competent reader can be used as a historical source in some, limited areas. It should be an indicator that norwegian wp doesn't have an article on this subject. If not deleted, I suggest merge and/or redirect to Gautreks saga. Bw, Orland (talk) 18:56, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. —Orland (talk) 18:56, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following related pages because the relate to the same legendary king, and the same saga:
- Battle at Lake Vænir (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Second Battle of Telemark (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Redirect and (possibly) merge to Gautreks saga - if part of a larger saga, it may as well be in there, unless so expansive and in-depth that a split was needed (which isn't the case here). -Lilac Soul (talk • contribs • count) 19:17, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd say delete, fictional battle. It doesn't seem to be a central part of Gautreks saga so merger probably isn't right here. As for redir, there has been a lot of battles in Telemark, and I see no reason why this should be called "the first" or "the second". Battle at Lake Vænir could be a redir imo. (althougn I don't really see the purpose) Finn Rindahl (talk) 19:54, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Gautreks saga. I agree with Lilac Soul's reasoning.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 22:07, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, or at least redirect/merge. I agrees with Orland's arguments. --FinnWiki (talk) 22:37, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —meco (talk) 08:11, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect and merge as per lilac Soul. Edward321 (talk) 14:37, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:09, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Pissed consumer[edit]
- Pissed consumer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable social network; Can't find any reliable sources which demonstrate notability. Read like an spam. No G-hits in news, scholar, or books, but "normal" G-hits are mostly sub-pages of the main page, with a page for each company with a "pissed consumer." Patar knight - chat/contributions 18:52, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Not much to add. -Lilac Soul (talk • contribs • count) 19:11, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete A7 or G11 LetsdrinkTea 19:26, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This was a declined A7. It seemed pointy to go immediately for another speedy, so here it is. --Patar knight - chat/contributions 22:11, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No non-trivial third-party references demonstrating notability. --DAJF (talk) 13:55, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy deleted as there was no indication of significance or importance (CSD A7). --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:55, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Forum Nintendo[edit]
- Forum Nintendo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable website - a forum with 233 members is almost bound to fail notability. -Lilac Soul (talk • contribs • count) 18:29, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I will have to concur. It's also a conflict of interest, as a user named Forum-Nintendo wrote the article. (I've rescued a couple COIs of late with either a full rewrite or revert, but this one has never been neutral.) Raymie Humbert (local radar | current conditions) 18:35, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. —Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:40, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Possibly speedy. Non-notable forum, spam, COI, etc. Lugnuts (talk) 19:13, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete per WP:CSD A7: an article about a website which does not assert that its subject is notable.--Unscented (talk) 19:35, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Concur with speedy deletion. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 19:44, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete as above. -- samj inout 20:50, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy keep. It's snowing. Nom concerns have been addressed and consensus is it's improvable and does not need deletion. StarM 12:15, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ælfric of Hampshire[edit]
- Ælfric of Hampshire (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non notable. Has many google hits but they mention him, they are not about him. §hawnpoo 18:23, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, according to WP:BIO, sources don't have to be about him. They just mustn't be trivial mentions, and according to your nomination, this doesn't seem to be the case. The article needs some serious work, though, as it is 99 % useless as it is. -Lilac Soul (talk • contribs • count) 18:35, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep if expandable. At this date, the entire article consists of, "Ælfric of Hampshire was a late 10th century Anglo-Saxon Ealdorman of Hampshire." That is a pathetically small stub, almost seems pointless to include it. But I favor keeping stubs that something may grow from them. Ventifax (talk) 18:47, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Has a biography in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (I have added a date of death and the ODNB as a source). If he is good enough for ODNB then he's good enough for Wikipedia! :) --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:58, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Tentative keep. The subject appears to meet notability criteria, but the article needs to be developed. Majoreditor (talk) 21:02, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, perhaps to something like Nobles of 11th Century England. He was a politician senior enough to pass the notability guidelines with flying colours, but I doubt if we'll find enough about him to make a standalone article. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle omits him, which isn't a good sign when it comes to sourcing people from this period.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 21:10, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]- Keep Merge if possible. --Sloane (talk) 22:45, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep First, he has a full article in the DNB--that has always been considered here proof of notability, as well as giving enough information for a very complete WP article. There's a lot of sources other than the AS Chronicle; the dozen primary ones are listed in the DNB entry, and Google Book Search gives at least three modern secondary sources. --[25]. And, anyway, he is in the the AS Chronicle, for 992, 1003 (a remarkably unheroic figure, by the way-see the text in Project Gutenberg for yourself, I'm not going to give a spoiler :) ), and his death in 1016. DGG (talk) 04:19, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- And that'll teach me to search for more variant spellings. Changing my not-vote to Keep, with thanks to DGG.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 08:24, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Marshall and DGG. Which one of you is going to turn the one-liner into an exciting account of cowardice codified for the ages? Brave, brave alderman Elfric! Drmies (talk) 15:18, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As my penance for a serious research failure, I'll work on the article.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 15:50, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed, this is ready to be closed as a keeper. Majoreditor (talk) 03:37, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Snow keep. Per sourcing and points shown above. -- Banjeboi 05:52, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. The other article has more or less the same content, one may consider a nomination as well. Tone 17:50, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
JoakimInterFest[edit]
- JoakimInterFest (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
The lack of reliable third-party sources establishing notability is telling. That the author admits to doing marketing for the event is no surprise: note the second sentence, which treats Wikipedia as if it will be lasting less than a year. Similar problems also plague Joakimfest, though I suppose that has marginal notability. In any case, delete as advertising. Biruitorul Talk 18:18, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Once again, the question of whether Wikipedia's attractiveness as a publicity outlet should spur us to let it become a publicity outlet. I wonder. Ventifax (talk) 18:49, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The only way this event can hope for some actual notoriety is if wikipedia allows it to linger on. I wish the festival organizers all the luck, but come back when this even has proved itself mentionable in the outside world, and in reliable sources. I for one think the pictures need to go too, commons or no commons, as I doubt the equivalent articles using them can justify notoriety. Dahn (talk) 19:21, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom and Dahn. twirligigLeave one! ⋄ Check me out! 20:45, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Twirligig --128.54.193.47 (talk) 21:20, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy deleted. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:44, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
CodeFx[edit]
- CodeFx (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Delete. Advertisement, poorly written, all Google hits are for another product, obscure, non-notable. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 18:09, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Frecklefoot --128.54.193.47 (talk) 21:25, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy delete. It's SNOWing early. Wikipedia is not the place for cooperative writing on a RPG game. If the creator wishes to get a copy to give it a new home, they can contact me on my talk page. Mgm|(talk) 22:44, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Flogg Gellhog[edit]
- Flogg Gellhog (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Page is not encyclopaedic. This belongs on a D&D wikia not en.wiki Cabe6403 (Talk•Sign!) 17:39, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:40, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete. Cabe beat me to the nom by seconds. My prod, which the article creator removed without comment, was "RPG game character class with no claim of meeting WP:Notability. Also Wikipedia is not a game guide or your web host." I was waivering between prod and an IAR speedy deletion, and my heart wouldn't be broken if it went away quickly.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:42, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete, per WP:MADEUP - I know that no speedy criteria apply, but per SNOW, this is NEVER going to stay. -Lilac Soul (talk • contribs • count) 19:02, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Snow delete as something made-up one day. Hobit (talk) 20:14, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep, per WP:SNOW, as he clearly meets WP:ATHLETE. Non-admin closure. -Lilac Soul (talk • contribs • count) 19:05, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Derick Etwaroo[edit]
- Derick Etwaroo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Seems unnotable. §hawnpoo 17:32, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - a member of a national cricket team surely meets WP:ATHLETE. JohnCD (talk) 17:36, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - should be obvious really - member of a national side in a major worldwide sport for twelve years, has competed in a major international sporting event and has played List A cricket - the highest level of one day cricket below international level - equivalent to playing in, say, Major League Baseball or the NHL. So in other words, clearly meets WP:CRIN and therefore WP:ATHLETE and WP:Bio. Andrew nixon (talk) 17:38, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Tone 17:52, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Two hundred fifty-sixth note[edit]
- Two hundred fifty-sixth note (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Is this note ever used frequently enough for people to recognize it?? Georgia guy (talk) 17:10, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment That's a good question, and I see no reason to vote keep unless someone shows that this is actually used. Starting with the idea that anything is possible, the article is essentially about one-half of a 1/128th note, which is used; the 1/256th note, which one webpage calls a "demisemihemidemisemiquaver" would theoretically be produced by a computer. I note only 19 Google hits for this "what if" of notes, and I see no evidence that it's been done (would anyone notice it if they heard it?). In theory, we could go for 1/512th or 1/1024th of a note, and call it a hemidemisemihemidemi forget about it. Mandsford (talk) 18:11, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and Redirect to 1/128th note. §hawnpoo 18:28, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect per Shawnpoo. -Lilac Soul (talk • contribs • count) 19:08, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as complete original research. Source doesn't even mention any of what is said in article. Redirect not possible does to it being a non-plausible search term. Merge not possible due to the fact there are zero reliable, third-party, sources. Esradekan Gibb "Talk" 02:16, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep It does not have to be used frequently-- if its used in one musical work its enough. This is not an abridged encyclopedia. DGG (talk) 04:25, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What about verifiability and reliable sources as called for in WP:notability? Esradekan Gibb "Talk" 04:30, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- But it does aim to be an accurate one, that doesn't document the heretofore undocumented with stuff that Wikipedia editors have made up off the tops of their heads because it seems right to them. Uncle G (talk) 05:35, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as original research. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 13:19, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pastor Theo (talk) 02:30, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I would have said merge any verifiable information into Musical note, but there does not appear to BE any verifiable information. My favorite line in the whole article is "256th notes are exceptionally rare, obviously more so than one hundred twenty-eighth notes. Likewise, a 256th rest is virtually unknown, but no evidence says that neither of them don't exist." No evidence says it doesn't exist? What sort of doublespeak is that??? Seriously, even if there WAS something here worth perserving as information, I don't see why there needs to be an entire article for it. It can be more efficiently mentioned in other articles. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:00, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - completely agree with Jayron32. --Nick—Contact/Contribs 03:55, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Jayron32 is right about the doublespeak. Clearly this is an attempt to defend the existence of the subject in the article itself, based upon an argument about the reasonableness of the idea rather than based upon the verifiability of the content. A search for sources reveals no documentation in any treatise on music of any note shorter than the semihemidemisemiquaver, which is documented (in Grove's Dictionary of Music, for starters). This, is not. Delete. Uncle G (talk) 05:35, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Unverifiable, original research, basically nothing to say that isn't simply a logical extrapolation of rules given in Musical note. JulesH (talk) 08:13, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I see no evidence that this is original research, in fact I think it's likely that the note exists. However, there's no indication that it's ever been used, and even if it has, it's incredibly rare. I don't agree with DGG's non-abridged encyclopedia idea; we all know that the Notability criteria means that lots of things don't get included in all fields. --GedUK 14:38, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete demisemihemidemisemiquaver, that's a new one on me! Anyhow, it's all original research. There isn't even a mention of the note's usage in any notable pieces of music, unlike the good example at the 128th note page. Themfromspace (talk) 15:46, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Delete as hoax DGG (talk) 07:59, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Andrew Pace[edit]
- Andrew Pace (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
The article is written about a professor Andrew Pace that graduated from U of W. Some content is about Andrew K. Pace, a different person who is a librarian. I prodded the article because Andrew Pace (grad of U of W) does not have any information about about him that I could find to source the article. Since the prod tag was removed and information was added confusing the two people (again), then I'm putting it up for Afd. If someone wants to write an article about the other Pace (Andrew K.) then they can. But let's not confuse the two by using this article as the start for Andrew K.'s entry. FloNight♥♥♥ 17:02, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Why not just split it into two articles with a disambig? Ventifax (talk) 18:41, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Because there is not any verifiable information for this Andrew Pace. The article has been on site for a substantial amount of time without good sources being added. The current information if true is likely outdated. If someone is able to added verifiable content for this person then an article can be re-created. Keeping information about a living person on site that is not known to be accurate is not good. FloNight♥♥♥ 18:48, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - this is getting confusing. Andrew K. Pace has now appeared; he also "graduated summa cum laude from the University of Wyoming and is a professor emeritus at University of Pennsylvania's Wharton A-B College." Somebody, perhaps the two article authors Thepenumbra and Esasus, needs to disentangle these two Paces before we can tell whether either or both is notable. JohnCD (talk) 18:49, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed! A few days ago I researched the two Paces and found a blog entry where Andrew K. Pace mentions the error in the Andrew Pace article. Artificial Unintelligence. Thepenumbra is not a regular contributor so asking him will not get a prompt reply. This factored into my decision to prod and now Afd this article. FloNight♥♥♥ 19:13, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This should be sorted out - it's a BLP issue, these are real people (at least one of them is) and we should not be showing muddled biographies. Andrew K. is definitely the librarian and wrote the book; I can't immediately find any trace of the other - e.g. Google finds nothing for "Professor Andrew Pace", nor can I find him on the Wharton web-site. I'm beginning to wonder if he's a hoax. I'll try to find time for more research tomorrow. JohnCD (talk) 21:19, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed! A few days ago I researched the two Paces and found a blog entry where Andrew K. Pace mentions the error in the Andrew Pace article. Artificial Unintelligence. Thepenumbra is not a regular contributor so asking him will not get a prompt reply. This factored into my decision to prod and now Afd this article. FloNight♥♥♥ 19:13, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I have searched and found nothing anywhere about an Andrew Pace fitting the description given. Of course I might find something if I searched further, but if he really were "known for revolutionizing the artificial intelligence industry" then it would be trivially easy to find loads of information about him. For example, a Google search for "Andrew Pace" "University of Pennsylvania" should hit gold immediately for such a famous professor of that university. In fact if he were "known for revolutionizing the artificial intelligence industry" then I would be surprised I had not already heard of him. The only citation given in the article is a link to a web page which gives access to a list of professors at the University of Pennsylvania, but no professor Pace is listed, which is odd for someone currently teaching four courses at the university. Since he is not mentioned there the citation is spurious, and I shall delete it. I doubt that he exists, but if he does he is certainly not as eminent as the article claims. Actually whether he exists is irrelevant, because even if he does he is clearly not at all notable, and the article lacks any sources at all. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:36, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- After I wrote the above it occurred to me to check the spuriously cited page again (the one giving a list of professors). The citation is attached to the statement "He is co-teaching MATH 029 Discrete Mathematics with Professor Shimamoto", so I checked for Professor Shimamoto as well, and would you believe he/she is also not listed? JamesBWatson (talk) 21:45, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I just want to mention that an emeritus professor is very likely not to be listed on a current university page, even if he is real. (which i agree may not be the case here) DGG (talk) 23:15, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I thought of that. However, he is listed as currently teaching 4 courses: it is, of course, improbable that an emeritus professor would be doing so, but if he were he would still be likely to be listed. That, in fact, is why I bothered to specify "which is odd for someone currently teaching four courses at the university". (I know an emeritus professor who has continued to do a little casual teaching in his retirement, but not four regular courses.) JamesBWatson (talk) 09:30, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As I note below, these courses don't appear to be taught at Pennsylvania/Wharton, but they are all taught at Swarthmore, where there is not only a student Andrew Pace, but also a Prof. Shimamoto who teaches, or has taught, MATH029 Discrete Mathematics. I think this is undoubtedly a Swarthmore-originated hoax. The original author Thepenumbra has edited the Swarthmore article. JohnCD (talk) 10:05, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I thought of that. However, he is listed as currently teaching 4 courses: it is, of course, improbable that an emeritus professor would be doing so, but if he were he would still be likely to be listed. That, in fact, is why I bothered to specify "which is odd for someone currently teaching four courses at the university". (I know an emeritus professor who has continued to do a little casual teaching in his retirement, but not four regular courses.) JamesBWatson (talk) 09:30, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I just want to mention that an emeritus professor is very likely not to be listed on a current university page, even if he is real. (which i agree may not be the case here) DGG (talk) 23:15, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- After I wrote the above it occurred to me to check the spuriously cited page again (the one giving a list of professors). The citation is attached to the statement "He is co-teaching MATH 029 Discrete Mathematics with Professor Shimamoto", so I checked for Professor Shimamoto as well, and would you believe he/she is also not listed? JamesBWatson (talk) 21:45, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - this is a hoax. Even the original version by Thepenumbra had only two references - Andrew K. Pace's book, and a link to "Rate My Professor" for the U. of Pennsylvania, which does not show any Professor Pace. So no reference to establish the existence of Professor Pace. The article was then tinkered with by three IPs registered to Swarthmore College, on whose web-site we find, surprise, in a class list a student called Andrew Pace. As noted above, searches find nothing for the Professor. Conclusion: there is no evidence that he ever existed, and this article should go. That leaves Andrew K. Pace, reduced to a stub now that User:FloNight has removed from that article the fictitious material about the U. of Wyoming and "renowned for his work in engineering"; whether he is notable is another question. JohnCD (talk) 23:27, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Footnote - Google searches on the names of the courses the Prof. is supposed to be teaching, which were in the original article, all turn up Swarthmore College, not Wharton or the U. of Pennsylvania. It looks as if Swarthmore is where the hoax originated. JohnCD (talk) 23:34, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —John Z (talk) 23:55, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I also tried and failed to find any useful information about this Andrew Pace. All I found was the other guy, the librarian. We should delete this because it fails verifiability, but also because its potentially-hoaxy nature clouds the information we have about a real living person. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:03, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- delete per David Eppstein's reasoning. Pete.Hurd (talk) 02:30, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete without prejudice to Andrew K. Pace. Bongomatic 21:10, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per BLP and notability. I also strongly suggest that others examine the edit history of the editor who removed the prod tag with the bad reasoning, as his actions on other articles suggest a longstanding severe problem of similar behavior on other articles. If someone could mentor this person on our actual rules for establishing notability and reliable sources a lot of trouble for many editors trying to clean up after him would be avoided in the first place. DreamGuy (talk) 19:14, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Esasus's habit of removing prod tags without giving any reason, and arguing to keep articles in ways which suggest a lack of effort to determine the facts, and without paying much attention to Wikipedia policies and guidelines, have been mentioned repeatedly, on his talk page and elsewhere, including the Administrators' noticeboard. I am not sure anything can be done about it as long as so many Wikipedia editors take the line "he is not breaking any rule by removing prods without reason, and we won't take action merely because someone is being a nuisance, but not actually breaking any rules". JamesBWatson (talk) 20:55, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:09, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Muscle cramp causing chest pain[edit]
- Muscle cramp causing chest pain (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This is not a medical advice forum. Also non notable. §hawnpoo 16:01, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Original research, medical articles in particular require a high amount of inline references, as whilst Wikipedia does not issue medical advice, many people use us as a source of information for things in that area, and therefore it is important that we get our facts right. — neuro(talk) 16:37, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:OR and WP:NOTMANUAL. -Lilac Soul (talk • contribs • count) 16:46, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:OR, WP:NOTMANUAL, and maybe WP:ADVERT as well. Versus22 talk 16:52, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete before someone gets hurt! Deb (talk) 12:44, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- defeinately do not delete
Thank you for comments and constructive criticisms - I am working on the page currently and you are all welcome to view its progress...
(Steep learning curve and i'm new to this site so please bear with me!!)
Thank you for your time
(M0rK & m1nDy (talk) 16:47, 9 March 2009 (UTC))[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy delete. Tone 17:52, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Bookworm Short Stories[edit]
- Bookworm Short Stories (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Appears to fail WP:N. SchuminWeb (Talk) 15:27, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete as a WP:CSD#G3 hoax, according to the previous AfD on this article. -Lilac Soul (talk • contribs • count) 16:01, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete - Concur with Lilac, G3 if this is the same or a similar article. — neuro(talk) 16:41, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedydelete -Though, I would tag it A7 since it's not blanted vandalism. However, that is my own opinion.I do support the nominator as not notable. Versus22 talk 17:07, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]- Speedy delete - I placed CSD#G3 on it. --Triwbe (talk) 17:24, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:10, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Orange Avenue (band)[edit]
- Orange Avenue (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
A search on the band is hard due to the number of places that have a street called Orange Avenue, however other than the band's own page, there's no evidence that they've won the award or evidence of coverage in the news sources mentioned in the article. StarM 14:56, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. -- StarM 14:57, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- StarM 14:58, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Well, if you consider the Crystal Reel is actually to honor outstanding achievement in the Motion Picture, Television etc. it seems impossible that a rock band could win this in any way as the Crystal Reel award is the articles strongest claim of notability which the band can't have achieved, but if the band received an award of that name, then it would probably be a less notable reward which calls into question the assertations of notability. I Grave Rob«talk» 15:43, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:BAND; A search on Google for "Orange Avenue" band indicates a lack of notability beyond the purely local level, which is not enough for notability. If they have received coverage, as claimed, in That's Entertainment Magazine, that could indicate notability, but the article has been tagged for so long that I think it's unlikely that we'll see this confirmed. -Lilac Soul (talk • contribs • count) 16:07, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:BAND, I live relatively close to Orlando FL (supposedly where they are) and have never heard a word about them let alone know them. §hawnpoo 16:19, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Discussion to redirect can take place at the article's talk page. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:10, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One Tree Hill episode titles[edit]
- One Tree Hill episode titles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
There is absolutely no need for a second episode list. I have added the Band/artist parameter into a new column into List of One Tree Hill episodes,[26] but this was reverted. I think that the band/artist list is either relevant for the episode list and should be included there, or it is irrelevant anywhere and should be deleted. (I am neutral about its inclusion in the LoE as long as the separate list goes.) – sgeureka t•c 14:39, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to List of One Tree Hill episodes. I don't care much whether the band names are included in the main list, but that's something that should be discussed. Having it in a separate list makes it an unneccesary fork. (The title is nevertheless perfect to turn into a redirect), which would make merging easier if consensus among a larger number of editors is reached. - Mgm|(talk) 15:20, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect and merge per MacGyverMagic. Seems encyclopic enough to be in the existing article. -Lilac Soul (talk • contribs • count) 16:10, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No need for this to be anywhere on the site. It also brings down the episode list if it is added to that.Russell [ Talk ] 20:04, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: WP:LISTCRUFT, WP:NOTDIRECTORY. JamesBurns (talk) 05:42, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep. This is the kind of list that Wikipedia ought to encourage. It provides useful information to people. Not everyone will recognize the music involved, and lots of people will want to know what it is. The problem with the article is 1) the title is bad and 2) that the article does not link to the entries for the songs. Wikipedia should be user-friendly. As I have said elsewhere I volunteer in my local library. Several times a week (probably lots more but I just know from my desk time) we get people looking for information about songs they have heard on TV shows or movies, or recognized as mentioned in other ways. Aside from asking them if it's "Hallelujah" it's hard for us to help. This is the sort of helpful article that should be encouraged. Change the title to something like "Songs Used As Titles of One Tree Hill Episodes" and fix the internal links. I'll start with the links now. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:44, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as a helpful information & navigation device or redirect to List of One Tree Hill episodes. The information here is also included in the season articles (One Tree Hill (season 1), One Tree Hill (season 2), etc.). We should at least keep the edit history around for GFDL attribution purposes as this list may have been used to update the equivalent information in the season articles. DHowell (talk) 22:08, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:11, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Kasbah Nightclub[edit]
- Kasbah Nightclub (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
There is no indication that this club is at all notable. Is everywhere notable bands play going to become notable in itself? Where a festival to include a similar lineup all together, that might be different. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 14:33, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, per WP:CORP. The article has had plenty of time to establish notability, according to the tags on it. -Lilac Soul (talk • contribs • count) 16:13, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as non notable. Notability is not inherited and there is a dearth of substantial coverage of the club. Nuttah (talk) 22:03, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. original nominator changed to keep, meets WP:BAND. Since band is notable, offical album is notable (non-admin closure) Wigglesoinkswaddles 19:47, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Kill Memory Crash[edit]
- Kill Memory Crash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This band seems to fail WP:MUSIC, only claim to fame is having signed a record deal - many, many bands achieve that and little more. I am also nominating their non-notable album, American Automatic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), for the same reasoning. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 14:25, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
*Delete per nom, been tagged for long enough to establish notability if notability existed. -Lilac Soul (talk • contribs • count) 16:16, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed to keep per GreenRunner below. -Lilac Soul (talk • contribs • count) 06:47, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: trivial coverage. JamesBurns (talk) 08:25, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. twirligigLeave one! ⋄ Check me out! 20:51, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete notability not established.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:17, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]- Keep per GreenRunner.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:57, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep How can they not pass WP:MUSIC? Don't they have at least two albums released on a major label? GreenRunner0 03:38, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm, I guess you're right, Ghostly International does appear to fulfill the major indie label requirement as set down by WP:BAND, so the band must be notable. I'm changing my "vote" above. -Lilac Soul (talk • contribs • count) 06:47, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Change from nom of both articles to keep the band's article per WP:BAND, they do indeed meet the criterea, and delete the album as still not meeting WP:MUSIC. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 17:21, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep the album as well. According to WP:MUSIC, In general, if the musician or ensemble that recorded an album is considered notable, then officially released albums may have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia. -Lilac Soul (talk • contribs • count) 18:34, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You are correct. I had thought the 'song' and the 'album' notability guideline were really one and the same, whereas in reality it is easier for albums. I will, however, leave the discussion running since there are still three users who previously advocated deletion who either still do or have not yet responded to the new developments. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 18:49, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:11, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Heavier Than Gravity[edit]
- Heavier Than Gravity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This article is about a nonnotable joint venture. A google search turns up no reliable sources to show that this pairing has been written about nor are the assertations in this article verifiable. Themfromspace (talk) 13:23, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, nothing indicating WP:CORP notability. -Lilac Soul (talk • contribs • count) 16:18, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete If notable sources discussing those collabs can be found, it can be recreated. Ancemy (talk) 17:10, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - not notable, and it's advertising too. Deb (talk) 19:43, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Merge and redirect to Young Jedi Knights. The Helpful One 16:28, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Heirs of the Force[edit]
- Heirs of the Force (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Article about a book that contains all plot summary from an in-universe standpoint. The book itself isn't notable per the general notability guideline nor per the notability guidelines for books. No nontrivial detail has been found about this book after a google search, a google books search, and a google scholar search. Notability isn't inherited from the parent series. Themfromspace (talk) 13:18, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Addition by other user: I'm also nominating these for deletion, since they're books in the same series, so whatever we decide with this AfD should go for all of these books. -Lilac Soul (talk • contribs • count) 16:25, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The Shadow Academy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Darkest Knight (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Jedi Under Siege (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Jedi Shadow (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- The Lost Ones (Star Wars) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Shards of Alderaan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Lightsabers (novel) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Diversity Alliance (novel) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Delusions of Grandeur (novel) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Jedi Bounty (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- The Emperor's Plague (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Return to Ord Mantell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Trouble on Cloud City (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Crisis at Crystal Reef (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Template:Young Jedi Knights (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) - template of these books; if we end up deleting or redirecting these articles, we should delete the template here as obsolete
- Keep and trim. Yes, there's too much plot detail, but we're talking about a book in a major media tie-in series coauthored by two notable authors, one of whom would likely feature on any list of the most important authors working in tie-in series at the moment. Book was published before most book reviews were published online, so paper sources are likely to be the best bet, but I'll guarantee there are plenty of them for this one. JulesH (talk) 13:30, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- How can this book be covered from an encyclopedic standpoint? What can be mentioned in the article outside of plot and trivia? What reliable sources document this from a real-world perspective? Themfromspace (talk) 14:46, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge, trim and redirect to Kevin J. Anderson or Young Jedi Knights. This is a possible search term, so it should not be a redlink and deletion is not appropriate, but I agree with User:Themfromspace that there's not enough there to make a separate, encyclopaedic article.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 15:32, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect, with substantially shorter and less in-universe plot-sections, to Young Jedi Knights. Also note that I've co-nominated the rest of the series as well. -Lilac Soul (talk • contribs • count) 16:44, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Notable Star Wars series co-written by a major SF author. I'm quite sure reviews of the books can be found with a careful search of young adult literature magazines, since this series was huge when it came out. The age of the series is likely the limiting factor on a purely Internet based approach. Ancemy (talk) 17:09, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: There is currently such little encyclopedic content on the individual titles that it would seem much more interesting to any reader to be led to the main article of the entire series, where more encyclopedic information may be found. -Lilac Soul (talk • contribs • count) 17:13, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It's not the series itself that's nonnotable, but the individual books within it. That's why the parent article isn't up for deletion. Themfromspace (talk) 17:16, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Question the wikipedia page for the first author claims that this series is was a NYT best seller. Can anyone confirm that? Hobit (talk) 20:11, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect to Young Jedi Knights, the series is definitely notable so there's no reason to leave redlinks. I'm not entirely convinced that these articles are unsalvageable, but my suspicion is that since there are basically three story arcs here it might be better to cover them in the series article anyway. BryanG (talk) 20:34, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge all to Young Jedi Knights. The book series is notable as part of a major franchise and deserves inclusion, but this doesn't extend to individual items as stand-alone articles. – sgeureka t•c 10:53, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep all. If they have been on the bestseller's list, which all of the first writer's books seem to have been [27] then they are notable enough to have their own article. I know current notability guidelines require reviews from places that don't review books of this genre, thus making it impossible for them to meet that requirement, so I'm invoking the wikipedia law of common sense and ignore all rules in this case. Dream Focus 12:38, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect to Young Jedi Knights - lack of significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. If reliable sources can be found, then individual articles can be created, but these plot summaries aren't appropriate. PhilKnight (talk) 19:32, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect all to Young Jedi Knights. There doesn't seem to be enough to say about most of these books (other than 'it exists; here's a plot summary') to justify having their own articles. With the amount of content we have at the moment, they can all be satisfactorily covered in one article; if anyone feels they can develop any of the articles on these books into longer ones, then they can spin them out again, but until they do so there's no need for separate articles.
- In reference to the additional nominations, which weren't listed when I commented above: Keep at least some of these books. I don't have time to examine all of them, but at least The Lost Ones (Star Wars) is a USA today best seller, which should be a valid reason to keep. Also, appending additional articles to an already-running AFD after several comments have already been made seems procedurally dubious. JulesH (talk) 14:10, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As are The Emperor's Plague, Diversity Alliance (novel), Jedi Under Siege, Lightsabers (novel), Shards of Alderaan, Crisis at Crystal Reef, Darkest Night, Delusions of Grandeur (novel), Jedi Bounty, Return to Ord Mantell, Shadow Academy JulesH (talk) 14:17, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy delete. Too many issues with this article. Besides, the mathematical formulation is weak. In any case, SNOW will apply here. Tone 17:55, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hong's paradox[edit]
- Hong's paradox (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This is not notable and may even be something made up one day. There are no hits in Google Scholar; in Google the only reference is a 2002 post on a Dungeons and Dragons forum. The links given are about Zeno's paradoxes and say nothing about Hong's. I have not checked the book reference, but it was published in 2000 when the discoverer of the paradox was 11 years old. Possible hoax, certainly not verifiable. Contested PROD. Delete. JohnCD (talk) 13:05, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. (n.b. I was the one who originally PROD'd it, for the reasons outlined above). One might also like to add that Google finds nothing regarding the paradox's author, either. - Jarry1250 (t, c) 13:08, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, WP:NFT. Though the concept is quite famous! 88.112.63.253 (talk) 13:14, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Since a book is given as a reference I performed this search to no result. Unless citations can be found this fails all tests for inclusion Fiddle Faddle (talk) 13:18, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What makes you think he read the book right after it was published? And why do you think young, anonymous scientist can't make any discoveries? Ygmmasta (talk) 13:30, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That is not the point being made above. Please read our Wikipedia:No original research policy. This is an encyclopaedia, a tertiary source. It is not the place for creating and publishing new ideas. Nor is it the place for laying claim to invention of existing old ideas. Uncle G (talk) 13:42, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- To spell it out: if the book is cited as a reference because it says that Hong discovered his paradox, he must have done so when he was 11 or younger since he was said (in the first version of the article) to have been born in 1989, and the book was published in 2000. If it doesn't say he discovered it, it is no use as a reference for this article. JohnCD (talk) 14:49, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete this unreferenced and unreferenceable original research per WP:BURDEN and WP:SNOW.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 15:27, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - per nominator. Versus22 talk 15:44, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, WP:MADEUP, WP:HOAX, possibly WP:OR, or this Google search would yield more than two hits. And may I add that the article reads like complete nonsense to me! -Lilac Soul (talk • contribs • count) 16:51, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Well, technically there is only two because one of them is from Wikipedia. Versus22 talk 16:54, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 09:41, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hillcrest Mennonite Church[edit]
- Hillcrest Mennonite Church (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Article about a nonnotable church that fails WP:ORG. No assertions of notability are made in the article itself and a google search and google news search fail to turn up the reliable sources needed to establish notability. Themfromspace (talk) 12:57, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as there is little to note that would make it more notable than any other church like it. Tavix (talk) 16:16, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom, no WP:ORG notability. -Lilac Soul (talk • contribs • count) 16:54, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Although some of the churches mentioned in the article New Hamburg, Ontario have links to their own webpages, Hillcrest doesn't; However, from WP:NOTWEBHOST, "Wikipedia is not a blog, webspace provider, social networking, or memorial site". Mandsford (talk) 18:16, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The nominator summed it up succinctly. Pastor Theo (talk) 22:44, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete. Eluchil404 (talk) 22:55, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Caron Myers[edit]
- Caron Myers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Does not appear to satisfy WP:NOTE. Cirt (talk) 12:19, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep. Though the article doesn't currently indicate WP:BIO notability, a Google search in citation marks gives about 22,000 hits which, though by no means unfallible, suggests that there may be some notability going on; none of the hits I browsed through, however, clearly established this as WP:RS reliable secondary sources, so I'm still largely undecided. My "vote" of weak keep is based on giving the article the benefit of the reasonable doubt. -Lilac Soul (talk • contribs • count) 16:58, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Amount of Google hits is not really the best rationale, per Wikipedia:Search_engine_test#Notability. Cirt (talk) 17:31, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Most Google News hits I can find for the subject are articles she wrote as a journalist for a television station, and the more recent ones only mention her as giving statements in her capacity as spokeswoman for a school system. Unless some sources can be found that actually discuss her, rather than just being written by her or mentioning her as speaking for her employer, my inclination is to support deletion. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 21:25, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I can find articles written by Meyers, and I can find articles where she is quoted in her capacity as a spokesperson. What I cannot find are articles written about her. She is not the subject of coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 16:45, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pastor Theo (talk) 02:24, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 09:40, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Aaron Poisson[edit]
- Aaron Poisson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Article about a person who is known for a single event, focuses only on the negative aspects of that person (BLP violation). The crime, while shocking had no remarkable effects on law or the world in general. Mgm|(talk) 12:17, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:BLP1E and WP:NOT#NEWS. JohnCD (talk) 13:58, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:BLP1E and WP:NOT#NEWS. On looking at the article's author's talk page I see he wasn't notified of this AfD. I'll correct that now, with a gentle piscine caress for the nominator.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 15:41, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per both of the above. -Lilac Soul (talk • contribs • count) 17:01, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Err on the side of Keep Ventifax (talk) 18:55, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not really an argument. Care to elaborate your opinion? -Lilac Soul (talk • contribs • count) 18:58, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Mostly, I'm extremely inclusionist on historical persons. I tend to favor keeping an article on any person that a reader might want to look up unless they are completely non-noteworthy. Frankly, it's more trouble to have these votes over & over as the articles keep respawning than just to leave them alone. And this person excited a small controversy on the net, & this page most likely will respawn. Ventifax (talk) 03:56, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. MBisanz talk 05:36, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ming Freeman[edit]
- Ming Freeman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This person simply doesn't seem notable enough under WP:MUSIC. (I will note that there are concert schedules on his Web site that suggests notable tours; however, there is nothing independent that I think I can see that suggests that it gets "nontrivial coverage" as WP:MUSIC requires.) Delete. --Nlu (talk) 13:08, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I wanted to say keep, but I can't find significant coverage anywhere. Jenuk1985 | Talk 13:41, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 14:24, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete I'm a bit surprised by this one too... if the information in the article is true, you'd think there would be good sources. There aren't any that I can find. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:50, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: insufficient independent 3rd party coverage WP:MUSICBIO. JamesBurns (talk) 23:51, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep (as the original author). This artist has toured with many notable artists, including Yanni for whom he has participated in live world tour album/video recordings such as: Tribute, Yanni Live at Royal Albert Hall, and Yanni Live! The Concert Event and will be participating in Yanni's upcoming 2009 tour as well. Also endorsements with numerous companies including MUSE RESEARCH (Receptor) and Korg [28] but admittedly unsure how this relates to notability guidelines of WP:Music. ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 20:36, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I share the sentiments expressed above that, while the description would have me believe this person is notable, I cannot find any independent sources either, and have to agree with deletion. If even one good source is found, that would change the picture; two good sources would be almost a SNOW keep. I will watch this page and if someone finds and adds sources, I will reconsider. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 18:02, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I would of course like to see this article stay, but I am admittedly having trouble finding independent sources myself, other than the endorsements, but there is no musician criteria that mentions endorsements. Hmmmm. Seems it should, ordinary musicians don't get endorsements I'm guessing. Anyway, I haven't visited the criteria for quite some time - but I remember there being one that included extensive touring, but I don't see that one any more. I'm sure I created his article on that basis a few years ago. Anyway, I have been in hopes of finding one current criteria where this artist fits, as he only has to meet one, (independent sources is only one of those) but to no avail. Kinda doesn't make sense though because of all the notable artists he has toured or recorded with and the notable live concert films to which he is linked. ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 01:24, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Additional note: This note is at the bottom of the criteria: Members of two notable bands are generally notable enough for their own article. Would this apply as meeting the one required criterion? ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 01:34, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I would of course like to see this article stay, but I am admittedly having trouble finding independent sources myself, other than the endorsements, but there is no musician criteria that mentions endorsements. Hmmmm. Seems it should, ordinary musicians don't get endorsements I'm guessing. Anyway, I haven't visited the criteria for quite some time - but I remember there being one that included extensive touring, but I don't see that one any more. I'm sure I created his article on that basis a few years ago. Anyway, I have been in hopes of finding one current criteria where this artist fits, as he only has to meet one, (independent sources is only one of those) but to no avail. Kinda doesn't make sense though because of all the notable artists he has toured or recorded with and the notable live concert films to which he is linked. ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 01:24, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Update While I cannot access any of the new sources directly, I'll second the points made below by Paul Erik and Lilac Soul and assume the content of these sources does deem notability, and thus make it right to keep this article. I second too the desire for links or just better access information, but the asserted experience of this person makes me lenient in demanding same. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 03:05, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached - an unusual one this, giving it more time for sources to be found. If none can be, then delete would be the only option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite 12:02, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've added 9 references just now. Freeman gets many "hits" in a search of my database of newspaper articles, mostly for concert tours with Yanni (although I also found one mention for a tour with Paula Abdul and another with Ronnie Laws). Although some of the reviews do nothing more than confirm he was in Yanni's band, other reviewers have gone out of their way to discuss Freeman's skill as a keyboardist and his role in the performances. With non-trivial mentions in multiple newspapers, I'd say he meets criterion #1 of WP:MUSICBIO. Keep. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 15:42, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment and possible keep, it is difficult to determine whether the mentions are non-trivial, as required by WP:GNG and specifically WP:MUSICBIO. However, in a leap of good faith, I'm assuming that what you dug out actually is non-trivial, and if so, I'll vote to keep the article. It would be great, however, if you could link to free online versions of these reviews and articles, if such exist, so the rest of us can easily verify notability. -Lilac Soul (talk • contribs • count) 17:08, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not aware of any of these newspapers offering free online versions for these time periods. If it helps, an example of a source I did not include is this article, since it does nothing more than confirm that Freeman was keyboardist for Yanni. All the sources I added represent more significant coverage than this brief mention. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 22:28, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment and possible keep, it is difficult to determine whether the mentions are non-trivial, as required by WP:GNG and specifically WP:MUSICBIO. However, in a leap of good faith, I'm assuming that what you dug out actually is non-trivial, and if so, I'll vote to keep the article. It would be great, however, if you could link to free online versions of these reviews and articles, if such exist, so the rest of us can easily verify notability. -Lilac Soul (talk • contribs • count) 17:08, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep There are now sufficient sources to be make it notable. Ancemy (talk) 17:15, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Meets WP:RS standards. Pastor Theo (talk) 22:45, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:12, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Vegan Society of Australia[edit]
- Vegan Society of Australia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable organisation. The only hits on Google are various directory-style entries, news and book searches bring up nothing whatsoever. Would not appear to meet the WP:ORG notability guideline. Contested prod. Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:02, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:03, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —WWGB (talk) 12:28, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. —WWGB (talk) 12:28, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No independent referencing, fails notability under WP:GROUP. WWGB (talk) 12:04, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as failing WP:ORG. -Lilac Soul (talk • contribs • count) 17:10, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Doesn't appear to be any sources about them. Ancemy (talk) 17:14, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - no coverage about the group in reliable sources. The references provided in the article establish existence, but not notability. -- Whpq (talk) 16:51, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy delete. blatant hoax. StarM 15:10, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sir John Balamory[edit]
- Sir John Balamory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
A nice, apparently well-referenced article on a non-existent person, complete with fake photo. Delete as hoax. Rcawsey (talk) 10:15, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. All the links either point to domains, error pages or non-existent pages. Nothing verifiable. - Mgm|(talk) 11:14, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, almost certainly a hoax. Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 11:35, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - the references work now, at least they take you to websites; but none of them mention the subject, even if you search them for "Balamory". The picture is of Air Marshal Sir Peter Drummond and has been copied from his article. False references and picture mean it's a deliberate hoax. No Ghits but this article, either. JohnCD (talk) 14:06, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy delete. A7/G11, take your pic, it's spam for a n-n new chain with one location. Author allowed to remove PROD but not speedy StarM 15:10, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Somnio hostels[edit]
- Somnio hostels (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Has been both CSD'ed and PROD'ded. Im just copying the PRODders rationale here, as I agree: This article was originally a copyright violation - the author removed the speedy tag and rewrote the article so that it is no longer a copyright violation, but it still reads like an advert and has no indication of notability - sources are not independent. -Lilac Soul (talk • contribs • count) 10:05, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete As original PROD'er (above) - Article author is continually removing whatever is put on this article (CSD, PROD, tags) and ignoring warnings, so this is the next step. No indication of notability is given for these hostels, and the article is written as an advertisement. No indication of meeting WP:CORP. FlyingToaster 10:09, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, notability not established, limited non-commercial ghits and the sources in the article are sources for Flashpacking, not Somnio. This article however does not meet any of the WP:CSD. Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 11:55, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy delete. spam. Other one was copyvio, can't find evidence this one is. StarM 15:31, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Simple Event Management Protocol[edit]
- Simple Event Management Protocol (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Strong Delete article with essentially zero notability outside of this article and the author's own spam. For more about the WP:COI problems see COI/N incident. See also Monitoring as a service AfD. -- samj inout 07:42, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete (G11) as processed meat by a small Minnesota company. The attempt to add Category:Cloud standards into the article es a dead giveaway as to the purpose behind this page. MuZemike 07:55, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note – these pages look like a textbook walled garden for promotion of CloudAssets. Strongly consider taking G11 on the related articles also. MuZemike 08:00, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Agreed. Also worth noting is that there are 5 redlinks in the monitoring as a service article which would suggest that they're just settling in. -- samj inout 08:09, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 08:31, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy keep , first as wrong venue. If sensitive information is being posted in the sandbox, then oversight should be considered. In any case, it would be WP:MFD that would handle non-mainspace things like this, but this is clearly not that case. Non-admin closure. MuZemike 08:07, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Sandbox[edit]
BCtalk to me 07:35, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy delete. A7. No notability established, no refs other than band's website and Myspace. Tone 15:47, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Akoustic Odyssey[edit]
- Akoustic Odyssey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
- Speedy-delele-tagging queried in its talk page "Take it to AfD, 1400 Ghits.--Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord2 07:23, 8 March 2009 (UTC)" Anthony Appleyard (talk) 07:32, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: It should be said that the article was tagged for CSD-A7 within three minutes, despite being in good shape, plus being about a band with quite some Ghits. --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord2 07:51, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete - unremarkable band. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 08:32, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Lots of Google hits but mostly from blogs, download sites and MySpace. Nothing major of note. WP:BAND JamesBurns (talk) 09:20, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Does not assert notability, web search is not promising, has not charted on the ARIA Charts which are Australia's equivalent of the Billboards. Orderinchaos 10:04, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No assertion of notability per WP:Band 140 Unique Ghits - mostly blogs and vanity piecesPorturology (talk) 11:20, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 05:35, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dr.V.U[edit]
- Dr.V.U (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
A google search tells me this person exists but I am unable to verify any of the claims to notability RenegadeMonster (talk) 07:02, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - article too confused, non-notable... ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 08:34, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Salih (talk) 09:34, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete for being pretty close to nonsense. And non-notable. Drmies (talk) 04:49, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I did actually find a Dr. V. Udhayakumar, but it doesn't seem to be the one described in the article. In fact, I can't find any evidence the person described in the article actually exists. Not saying it's a hoax, but certainly doesn't seem notable. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:29, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:13, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hilliard Guy Griffin[edit]
- Hilliard Guy Griffin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
unreferenced, non notable, created by COI editor - see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gerald R. Griffin Mfield (talk) 06:56, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- DeleteA search shows up nothing that suggests this person meets our notability guidelines. dougweller (talk) 10:20, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —John Z (talk) 23:55, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, a search produces no evidence of notability. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:59, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. As with the other editors above, my search returned nothing. No citations on Google Scholar; no hits on Google News; no book entries on WorldCat. The subject seems to exist, but passes neither WP:PROF nor WP:BIO.--Eric Yurken (talk) 01:17, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:15, 13 March 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 Unopposed withdrawal by nom -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:08, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Herresta[edit]
- Herresta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
There is no sourcing to verify notability, and the unsourced text gives no reason to consider the building notable. It does exist in Norwegian and Swedish wikipedia, but that's not really relevant. Cerejota (talk) 06:29, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is included in Nordisk familjebok, as indicated in the article. L-mariefred (talk) 06:36, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Noted after the AfD nomination. However, why is that a claim to notability?--Cerejota (talk) 06:42, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Because Nordisk familjebok is a recognized Swedish encyclopedia which would only include notable subjects? Herresta is not a building, it is a large estate/manor in Sweden with a long history. There are several other articles on such manors in Wikipedia. L-mariefred (talk) 06:47, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. It would be possible to write a well-sourced, encyclopaedic article with this title (or translate one from a Scandinavian wiki), so deletion is inappropriate.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 10:55, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Nominator is mistaken when saying it's not sourced. Would like to see more about the architecture of the place though. - Mgm|(talk) 11:01, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Expansion needed, but I have little doubt that the article is about a notable building. One might also legitimately compare its history to that of many of the early, bot-imported articles - as in, a single referenced, stub start. - Jarry1250 (t, c) 11:29, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Close request from nominator I think adding the Nordisk familjebok as a source, and the discussion reveals there is notability. So please close.--Cerejota (talk) 19:36, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:19, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
United Grocers Forum of 1982[edit]
- United Grocers Forum of 1982 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Does not meet WP:NOTE, orphan, not important Teen Sleepover Kid (talk) 06:10, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Does not assert notabilty or show it. §hawnpoo 06:22, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - A bit of essay, possible WP:OR and hard to source. §FreeRangeFrog 07:27, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Unsourced, poorly written, not enough information to suggest notability of an event in 1982. From the article: "What was Accomplished? To be quite honest, very little was accomplished..." Mandsford (talk) 15:37, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Doesn't appear to have found its way into the history books. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:43, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep per WP:SNOW. Non admin closure. §hawnpoo 22:51, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mostly Ghostly: Who Let the Ghosts Out?[edit]
- Mostly Ghostly: Who Let the Ghosts Out? (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Straight-to-video film. No suggestion of greater impact or notice. A PROD tag was added, but removed with the evidence-free edit summary, 'm the actors in the movie are notable and so is the director. It's a popular movie among children.' CalendarWatcher (talk) 05:51, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - What type of impact are you looking for? THe movie is full of notable actors and actress as well as the Director. It had a huge debut September 30, 2008. Some movies go straight to video that doesn't make them unnotable. THe book and movie are popular among children. Fighting for Justice (talk) 06:14, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Did you list this here by accident? You stated yourself the actors and directors are notable and it is popular among kids. Also a simple google search here shows that this is a notable movie. §hawnpoo 06:23, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Notable video after google searches. Let's focus on the article, not the nom. Shadowjams (talk) 06:54, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and add decent references. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 08:34, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep for reasons mentions above. Dream Focus 10:07, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The removal of the PROD might've been without added evidence, but for a deletion to work you've got to check for sources yourself. Anyone who calls work by R.L. Stine after that must not have searched in the right places. - Mgm|(talk) 10:59, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep While I will note notability is WP:NOTINHERITED, the sheer number of highly notable people involved makes this a clearly notable movie. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 14:13, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy delete. fra fra. a fake dog doesn't bark StarM 15:26, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hawaiian mastiff[edit]
- Hawaiian mastiff (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Seems to be a hoax. Cannot find any google hits whatsoever. §hawnpoo 05:36, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: also not finding evidence of a separate breed called the "Hawaiian mastiff" (I'd expect evidence to be readily available if it did exist), just Hawaiian Poi Dogs and a few Bullmastiffs in Hawaii. Baileypalblue (talk) 05:54, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete as hoax. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 08:35, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - hoax. I actually found one reference, but that's (a) Myspace and (b) doesn't show a dog, but a person wearing a dog mask. JohnCD (talk) 11:33, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. WP:SNOW MBisanz talk 08:59, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
George Norcross III[edit]
- George Norcross III (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-Notable person, Small time politician and insurance/bank executive from New Jersey, Is not known outside of that state. Rosie, Queen of Corona (talk) 05:07, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, update, and improve. CEO who easily satisfies WP:BIO.page 2; [29] [30]. THF (talk) 05:35, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The political career too is significant. In NJ, and possibly elsewhere, the Chairman of a county party is a major political figure, in some counties, including this one, probably as important as a mayor. There shouldbe additional sources. DGG (talk) 17:42, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep New Jersey has a population the size of a small country. Not being know outside of it, isn't really a reason for not including him. I think there's just enough major coverage of him to warrant inclusion. Though I'd like to see more.--Sloane (talk) 22:53, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Well then why don't we include every county chairman for every Democratic and Republican party in the United States? If we did then Wikipedia would be jammed with so many articles it would be ridiculous. Rosie, Queen of Corona (talk) 23:29, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, seems fine now. Stifle (talk) 15:24, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, I've removed "dropout" per RS and BLP but as a stub this seems reasonable to me. While it's young converting the footnotes to citations would help. -- Banjeboi 06:03, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Discussion to merge should take place at the article's talk page. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:17, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yamassee[edit]
- Yamassee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This article is about a non-notable organization... The subject of the article is a cult that fell apart when it's leader was sent to prison... They did nothing notable as a group, and the only G-news hits for the group are mere mentions in stories about the leaders (another of their leaders was sued by the Justice Department)... Further discussion and reasoning can be found on the article's talk page... Appears to fail WP:ORG, WP:V, and WP:UNDUE (since the bulk of the article, as well as information online about it, are in regards to the previous leader's court case)... I would say WP:NOTINHERITED also, if an organization could qualify for that... I am not 100% sure on the outcome, but I suggest either deletion, redirect to Dwight York (previous leader), or redirect to Yamasee (notable Native American tribe)... Adolphus79 (talk) 04:53, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Dab Redirecting to either one means losing out on the information the other link could give. I think including both on the page is a reasonable compromise. - Mgm|(talk) 10:52, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge with Dwight York, as much of the information here would seem to fit in that article, and add a hatnote at the top of the article explaining the redirect and linking to the article on the Native American tribe.--Unscented (talk) 15:05, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep — the Yamassee group and York's Nuwaubians are occasionally-allied and somewhat-overlapping but distinct groups. A merge would not be appropriate for this reason. -— (talk) 17:09, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- according to all the references I found, they are the same group, and just changed their name after he went to jail... do you have any references that show them as seperate groups? - Adolphus79 (talk) 17:35, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete andMerge with Nuwaubianismor Dwight York. Very very little reliable sourcing for this apparent splinter group from York's Nuwaubians. This articles contents could easily be accommodated by being included as a brief note ineither ofthe previously mentioned articles. Deconstructhis (talk) 07:01, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]- Merge content to Nuwaubianism and turn it into a disambiguation page directing to Nuwaubianism and Yamasee. Earlier names of the Nuwaubian movement (Ansaaru Allah Community) already exist as redirects. The claims to be "Yamassee" started with York himself, and formed part of his trial defence (as a "native" Moor he was apparently not subject to US law). The relevant material should be added as part of the continuing saga of Nuwaubianism after York's incarceration. Paul B (talk) 14:39, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- So far as I can tell, York did not start or invent the "Yamassee" group, but merely stepped in and appropriated it for a time, appointing himself chief and so forth when he was in his native-american phase. Today, though, the Nuwaubians and the Yamassee are certainly distinct, and so I think a merge with Nuwaubianism would be inadvisable. Perhaps a merge with Washitaw Nation would be more appropriate, as I think the Yamassee group began as a splinter group of the Washitaw Nation, and certainly the ideological and mythological ties are closer between those two groups than between either of them and the Nuwaubians. - — (talk) 17:19, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Not sure where you're looking, but both MSNBC and the Macon Telegraph say it's the same group... York created "The United Nuwaubian Nation of Moors", and since he went to jail, the group has changed it's name to "The Yamassee Native Americans of the Creek Nation"... I keep reading that statement over and over... If the third party reliable sources think it's the same group, who are we to argue? Either way, this group is not notable enough to hold it's own article, and after reading the other !votes, I am leaning towards merge with Nuwaubianism or Dwight York article, and disambig this page... - Adolphus79 (talk) 17:45, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You may be right that York took over a pre-existing, even more obscure, claim. That's another reason for turning it into a disambiguation page, including the Washitaw Nation in the dab, if there's evidence linking the Yamassee label to them. Paul B (talk) 17:01, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- So far as I can tell, York did not start or invent the "Yamassee" group, but merely stepped in and appropriated it for a time, appointing himself chief and so forth when he was in his native-american phase. Today, though, the Nuwaubians and the Yamassee are certainly distinct, and so I think a merge with Nuwaubianism would be inadvisable. Perhaps a merge with Washitaw Nation would be more appropriate, as I think the Yamassee group began as a splinter group of the Washitaw Nation, and certainly the ideological and mythological ties are closer between those two groups than between either of them and the Nuwaubians. - — (talk) 17:19, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedily deleted. Non admin closure. §hawnpoo 07:41, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
List of CSI: Crime Scene Investigation episodes/archive[edit]
- List of CSI: Crime Scene Investigation episodes/archive (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Odd article "archive", improper use of mainspace. MBisanz talk 04:26, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete or userfy. THF (talk) 05:36, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Speedy delete - Misuse of space and it is a partial duplication of the main page §hawnpoo 05:56, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete per WP:SUBPAGE -- Teen Sleepover Kid (talk) 06:02, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete: incorrect subpage use. Alexius08 (talk) 07:09, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. MBisanz talk 05:35, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Henry Mortensen (actor)[edit]
- Henry Mortensen (actor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable child of Viggo Mortensen. Only has done small bit parts in movies. Notability is not inherited. Gogo Dodo (talk) 04:10, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Per nom, not much more to say. Maybe one day. Heck, I'd be OK with a redirect. But not a standalone bio. §FreeRangeFrog 04:15, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom, but I do not agree with a redirect. §hawnpoo 04:47, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom, although his father is a famous he is not and therefore does not qualify for inclusion in Wikipedia. Rosie, Queen of Corona (talk) 05:11, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as he's also done some records, with his father as well as other notable artists such as Buckethead and Travis Dickerson, not to mention Elijah Wood and his mother Exene Cervenka. I will do what I can to find some good sources and improve the article.
- Move to Henry Mortensen since the "(actor)" is more than misleading and the other is only a redirect anyway.--Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord2 05:14, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Doesn't look like he passes WP:MUSICBIO, barring further evidence, and he fails WP:ENTERTAINER. The relationship between father and son merits some coverage, so I would recommend merging those parts of this article to Viggo Mortensen (which already has a bit, but could be fleshed out). Baileypalblue (talk) 05:39, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Google does not say much I have to admit. But why his father and not his mother, Exene Cervenka? See the problem? --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord2 06:11, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Looking over the newly added material, I still don't think sufficient notability is established for a stand-alone article. None of the albums were major label releases, so barring RS coverage specifically on his work as a musician he fails WP:MUSICBIO. His work as a DJ, college writer and poet would likewise only be notable if it attracted independent RS coverage. His collaboration with his father seems much more substantial than with his mother (don't think he'll ever merit more than two sentences in her bio) so merge/redirecting to his father's article rather than his mother's seems to be in order. Baileypalblue (talk) 19:41, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- KEEP - I NOMINATE GOGO DODO BE BANNED FROM WIKIPEDIA - I suspect this person is the one who vandalized the director's page with rude remarks. I added films on the director's page and here for First Canyon Rain, because I noticed there was vandalism on the director's page that looks an awful lot like some of the remarks this Gogo Dodo is making all over the place this evening on pages I updated. I am not affiliated with the director or the films but noticed Henry Mortensen was debuting in his first short film and thought that shoudl be something added to Wikipedia. Also this person obviously knows nothing about film - the remarks made about the films added show they are not even mildly knowledgeable about any of the people Gogo Dodo is criticizing for their work all over Wikipedia tonight. WLaccount (talk) 07:02, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- First, please see WP:NPA. Second, WP:AFD is a system of checks and balances. No one is going to delete an article just because an editor wants it gone, it will be deleted or kept based on whether or not it meets the (very clear) guidelines for inclusion. §FreeRangeFrog 07:46, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep- Notability wasn't inherited from his father, looks like he went out and earned it on his own. Umbralcorax (talk) 08:00, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- COMMENT - It seems the editor and a few others want to criticize no matter what - the remarks state Henry Mortensen does not do work on his own but then when we post work he is doing on his own, they criticize that we posted work he's doing on his own. Not cool. WLaccount (talk) 08:05, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- WLaccount: Please withdraw your comments about Gogo Dodo. [addendum] And please withdraw your comments to Shawnpoo too. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 08:14, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete - I don't think that ad-actors are notable, and there's not enough else to assert it. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 08:36, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Where do you get this ad-actor from? Did you click the links? He worded and designed some anti-drug ads for a notable newspaper. People, please do your job thoroughly when it comes to deletion of an old article... --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord2 08:40, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I do apologise, I clearly misread the sources. I have failed in my entirely voluntary "job", certainly ;-) However, my !vote still stands, I don't consider ad-designers notable either, tbh. The fact that they're anti-drug ads is rather nice, but not relevant, as far as I can see. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 09:22, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep His list of work is quite notable. I'm not sure how anyone could look at that list, and believe otherwise. Dream Focus 10:23, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Delete, doesn't pass WP:BIO.--Sloane (talk) 23:11, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as it fails WP:BIO. Appearances are minor roles and some in non-notable films. Album credits do not appear to be for notable albums. Reading WP:MUSIC, it appears each of those album articles should also be deleted. ₳dam Zel 13:59, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - delete the albums? Why? WP:MUSIC reeads In general, if the musician or ensemble that recorded an album is considered notable, then officially released albums may have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia. Do you want to fatten the Viggo article? (Which would be the only place to merge the nine or ten albums.) The credits are quite impressive, if you ask me. But as there is no band or project name floating around, and the ensemble is different for every release, I don't see a better way to cover them than the status quo.--Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord2 21:42, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not going to AFD them, but they don't appear to be notable. I guess in that he is, you make a point that they are. In that some don't have a label listed and others have a non-notable label, along with the fact that they are mostly little more than a track listing, which could easily be obtained from any number of websites, they just seem pointless. But again, I'm not going to AFD them. I was just pointing it out. ₳dam Zel 00:15, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- They were set up not long ago within two days or so by User:Pachon and need some expanding, yes. Most of them were released/distributed by TDRS Music which should be notable enough if you look at the list of artists. --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord2 00:36, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - He's done plenty on his own A20anna (talk) 18:25, 9 March 2009 (UTC) — A20anna (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Comment - since this "notability is not inherited" claim still is flaoting around. I'm sure that notable musicians like ex-GN'R guitarist Buckethead (just put in Slash if you are more familiar with that guy) would not play on about ten albums with the child of a famous guy. One, maybe - maybe even two but probably not nine or ten. Also note that Henry did not play on one or two tracks on each of those albums, but was an integral part of the band, mostly playing bass. Also note that TDRS Music as stated before is quite notable, having released albums by Linda Ronstadt, Bill Laswell and Jethro Tull besides others. This is an independent label, yes - but it's without doubt notable. Also the notable newspaper he works for, this time completely without his Dad, is sure not letting him release drawings, essays and ads just for being a Mortensen. Not to mention recent theatre and movie projects. A quite impressive CV for 21 years I'd say and more and more out of the shadow of his old guy. Use common sense. --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord2 20:28, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as has created his own notability, just as Michael did even though the son of Kirk. Yes, he's not in the same league as the Douglas' but he passes... just. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 01:00, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Let me get this straight... you're comparing Henry Mortensen's work to Michael Douglas' work? -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 03:37, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Gee. No. You thought that? I believe my point was that a son does not gain notability from a father... that he gains it for himself, as Henry has. The Douglas situation was simply an example of son gaining notability seperate from the father, as many notables have offspring that are not themselves notable... and I am fairly certain that my words "he's not in the same league as the Douglas'" could not be miscontrued any other way. But thank you for the chuckle. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 07:43, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Delete Almost there. Clearly (actor) is not the most appropriate dab so the page should be moved if kept. Acting falls well short for now. First Canyon Rain may change that in the future but it is now only an unfinished short. As a musician he has played on many albums by a notable artist, however there is no evidence he was more than a studio player. Even if he was a member he needs something outside of that to justify his own article. The long list of artists who also contibuted to these albums does not help make Henry notable. Most of the albums show no notability beyond being by a notable artist with no independent coverage and as they should not have there own articles. Henry's writing for ads and The Fed are not reasons for notability. The closest he comes is with 3 Fools 4 April which is why this is a weak delete. Duffbeerforme (talk) 05:31, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Delete : agree with Duffbeer. A search indicates insufficient notability on his own. JamesBurns (talk) 09:56, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep He has acted and he is working on music as well. He may not be as well known as his dad, but he should have a page separate from his father, since he is not Viggo. Quistisffviii (talk) 03:52, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Speedy Delete per WP:CSD#A7. No claim to notability. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 06:53, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hirman rasid[edit]
- Hirman rasid (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
lacks notability, lacks siginificant coverage Rtphokie (talk) 04:07, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment How can i improve on the articleRushquirky (talk) 04:08, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - It seems this was A7'ed last year under Hirman. I can't see that this person meets WP:MUSIC. Since this is a Singapore topic, no prejudice at reversing if valid, reliable sources are provided. §FreeRangeFrog 04:20, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete - I'm Sparticus commented here that this was a good A7 candidate when he did his survey. Also Hirman lacks complete notability. §hawnpoo 04:53, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - An A7 a year ago is not necessarily grounds for deletion. Many things can happen in a year. An opinion to keep or delete should be based on the notability asserted in the article now and the sources given to back those up now. §FreeRangeFrog 05:30, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This dude's album is out soon.. so can i create an article after that?Rushquirky (talk) 04:08, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Speedy delete - Non-admin closure of speedy delete by User:Thingg §FreeRangeFrog 07:28, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Truth of the Gospel[edit]
- The Truth of the Gospel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Contested PROD; original research at best. §FreeRangeFrog 03:56, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete perhaps as CSD G? Seriously, let's get rid of this as quickly as possible since it's pretty embarrassing. Drmies (talk) 04:05, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There's no speedy for this (otherwise I would have tagged it), and the author obviously removed the PROD. There should be a way to speedy things like these. §FreeRangeFrog 04:10, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- CSD doesn't cover original research since there needs to be wider discussion and consensus in order to be determine that the content in question is indeed original research and not poorly covered, but nonetheless peer-reviewed or commonly accepted material. That being said, this is a fairly clear cut case, but the five day process is still needed as a safe-guard, since it is assumed that editors are submitting articles for inclusion in good faith Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 05:19, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand that to be a component of WP:BITE and I agree with it. In some cases what was blatant OR might even end up turning into a good article. But sometimes... §FreeRangeFrog 05:41, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- CSD doesn't cover original research since there needs to be wider discussion and consensus in order to be determine that the content in question is indeed original research and not poorly covered, but nonetheless peer-reviewed or commonly accepted material. That being said, this is a fairly clear cut case, but the five day process is still needed as a safe-guard, since it is assumed that editors are submitting articles for inclusion in good faith Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 05:19, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: openly admitted OR. Wikipedia does not acknowledge the Holy Spirit as a reliable source. Baileypalblue (talk) 04:35, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: obviously WP:OR §hawnpoo 04:56, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete Blatant original research, unsourced. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 05:19, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete WP:SNOW if not Speedy. THF (talk) 05:39, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete that research page in this hour without delay. Alexius08 (talk) 07:11, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete with slightly early WP:SNOWBALL closure. Articles moved to userspace per request. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 17:12, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Kriss Perras Running Waters[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}} . |
- Kriss Perras Running Waters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
I am also nominating the following related pages:
- Running Waters Productions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- First Canyon Rain (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Non-notable film industry worker. All movies appear to be self-released and occurring some time in the future. Fails WP:N, WP:CRYSTAL, WP:CORP, and WP:MOVIE. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 03:41, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all for a multitude of reasons. IMDB is not a valid source on it's own, as entries are user-submitted. Too many "credits" are unreleased films too far into the future to escape crystalballism. "Continuity Supervisor" is an inherently non-notable position. There are no independent sources whatsoever. DarkAudit (talk) 04:00, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all Darkaudit said most of it for me but I can add by saying that hits on google suggest no notabilty whatsoever §hawnpoo 04:58, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I do not agree at all with the comments made above - the films have notable film industry names associated with the productions and seem to be going through the same process as all films, a very slow gaining of industry support. The film "Fard Ayn" has Chase Brandon associated with it in the IMDb, and he wrote the film "The Recruit" and has worked with Ridley Scott, among other notable Hollywood types. Maybe you should call him and ask if he is involved - his number is easy to come by here it is at the CIA. He is the film liaison at the CIA - I did call him before about something else I am in the film industry, just not part of these projects)... Fard Ayn also has Henry Mortensen credited with the film. Same with the film Tiananmen Square. The film First Canyon Rain is a short and is likely to be produced by the director's company, as almost all shorts are made that way. It seems the person who wrote the comment above is not at all knowledgeable about how the film industry works and made a challenge that is not even at all credible. It is not easy to get credits into IMDb - there is a verification process a project must go through to get into IMDb. So if the films made into the IMDb, they're credible projects. Plus I've seen the projects Fard Ayn and Tiananmen Square listed in the Hollywood Reporter too. It is also hard to get a film listed in the Hollywood Reporter's production listings. There is a similar verification process a film must go through to get into that magazine. I'm the person who listed the projects into Wikipedia and am not affiliated with the films, and I updated the director's film page beuase I noticed it was not acurate with the IMDb and had some rude comments on the page that also did not seem accurate. I researched the projects prior to putting anything into Wikipedia. I thought it was cool Henry Mortensen was making his first debut in a leading role of a short and noticed the production company had many other films listed in the IMDb. Maybe you should research like I did before you make such uninformed comments and challenges about film projects. This industry is hard enough without people who do not know anything say things that are inaccurate. I also wonder if the comments made above are the same folks who posted the rude comments on the director's Wikipedia page that I deleted when I rewrote the page. If so the users above should be banned from Wikipedia. WLaccount (talk) 07:15, 8 March 2009 (UTC)t —Preceding unsigned comment added by WLaccount (talk • contribs) 06:19, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - IMDB is not a reliable source per WP:RELIABLE. This article is under reveiw by all of wikipedia, so if it's the community's wishes for it to stay, it will, if not so be it. §hawnpoo 07:05, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Administrative comment. This discussion should focus on the merits, or lack thereof, of the article. It is not the venue for discussing editors' conduct. —C.Fred (talk) 07:16, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Holywood Reporter is another source used for these inclusions. I'm very serious - there was vandalism on the director's page I deleted that sounds very much like the comments made by this Gogo Dodo tonight and the person nominating many pages for deletion that involve Henry Mortensen. WLaccount (talk) 07:15, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Please split the nominations, as they are all different cases. You can't throw a movie, a company and a person into one bucket. Otherwise one could come, merge them into one article and say each of them is one third of notable... --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord2 07:17, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I also do not think a film company or director would create an entire web page and press kit for a project if it was not a credible film - First Canyon Rain has an entire press kit for the project including film posters. It seems the director and Henry Mortensen would have told you by now to delete the film if he wasn't really part of this short and if the film wasn't a credible project. http://www.runningwatersproductions.com/film/firstcanyonrain.html http://www.runningwatersproductions.com/press/first-canyon-rain-press-kit.html WLaccount (talk) 07:27, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: One should read Talk:Kriss Perras Running Waters. But please leave Henry Mortensen (actor) out of this whole mess. --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord2 08:05, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Running Waters Productions since listing nine films in development or pre-development, without a single film finished, is just ridiculous. Dream Focus 10:41, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note "The film "Fard Ayn" has Chase Brandon associated with it in the IMDb, and he wrote the film "The Recruit" and has worked with Ridley Scott, among other notable Hollywood types. " This line of reasoning doesn't quite work. Notability doesn't inherit to a film just because one of the makers once worked with a notable figure in some capacity. The guideline calls for notable people to be directly associated with the specific production either in front or behind the camera. = Mgm|(talk) 10:45, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE: The "Fard Ayn" film also has Lloyd Ahern II as the DP who was a cinematographer on "Up close and Personal" andon the films "Kicking and Screaming" and "Dodgeball" and "We Were Soldiers" and he is an award winning cinematographer. And so does the "Tiananmen Square" film. Are you any of you guys in the film biz? Having films in pre-production and development are big feats in and of themselves. There is no recognition here for how hard it is just to get a film that far. It is a miracle when any film gets made or progresses along at all. It is a hard business. I did do research on these citations for about two hours, but it seems not worth it to post things in Wikipedia because all that time is lost so easy with no real reason behind it - your actions seem arbitrary
- Comment There are standards that any article must satify for inclusion. The first is that there must be reliable, verifiable, third-party sources that are independent of the subject. Let's run down the list, shall we? IMDB. Unreliable, as it's entries are user-submitted. It can be used to check the veracity of other sources, but not as a primary source on it's own. Lime Salted Water refers crew info to IMDB. Cinema Hill lists her name as Script Supervisor, but goes no further. Same for A through M. No trouble there, but nothing considered "notable". Then there's Running Waters Productions. Nothing there is usable. It's her own site. Not third-party, not independent. Absolutely invalid as a source. You seem to be taking this awfully personally for someone claiming to just be someone in the film industry, and accusing other editors of a specific vendetta against this person. Tell me, just WHY would I pick out *this particular woman and this particular article* for attack? DarkAudit (talk) 15:03, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: That is not what I said. I said I did not think it was right to pick out the article I posted with two hours of research using citations and request it for deletion - then leave in the article I requested for deletion that cites no sources whatsoever and claims the person wrote something that is obviously written by the site's owners - in addition the article I requested for deletion was not neutral and rules also say the postings are suppose to be neutral. That is what I'm saying, not whatever it is you think I'm saying. That is is not right. And there seems to be a lot of emphasis and credibility here going into a posting that did not leave a signature nor did they cite any sources - it is all opinion - and yet you seem to think it is credible. That does not say a whole lot about the process that is going on here to determine things. That is the other thing I am saying. Plus to say that IMDb is not a credible source is not right either. IMDb is the main source for films. The postings here cite IMDb can be posted by the user, which might be true, but the film has to meet certain criteria elsewhere that are not posted by the user to be included in IMDb. So being in film gives me a little more insight than what I see going on here is also what I'm saying. This will be my last post as this site has severely disappointed me. I used to consider Wikipedia very good place to read stuff because so many people posted on it, but not any more now that I see what happens on this site.
- Reply You're still not getting it about IMDb. It's data is user-submitted. Just as you cannot use another Wikipedia article as a source, you cannot use IMDb for the same reason. A person can go in and insert dozens of credits for themselves, and unless checked, those false entries could be there for months or years. You can use IMDb as a secondary reference to back up another, reliable and VERIFIABLE primary source, but not as a primary source itself. I really suggest you stop screaming at us, calm down, and read the guidelines. DarkAudit (talk) 15:51, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom and DarkAudit. Several policies failed. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 17:03, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete at least the film. Films not yet in production are almost never notable--with the obvious exception of some very major projects where there can be extensive news reporting at an early stage. A company with all its films not yet produced is also not notable in the absence of really strong evidence. Thesearticles were not an appropriate use of the rescue tag. DGG (talk) 18:02, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all No proper reliable sources and too much crystal ball.--Sloane (talk) 23:19, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete for non-notability and crystal ballery. Drmies (talk) 04:59, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all per DarkAudit and others, for multiple reasons. ₳dam Zel 13:48, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all. There is no coverage about Kriss Perras Running Waters in reliable sources. The production company has not actually produced a released film yet. And the short film also lacks coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 17:11, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - The thing that makes this director notable is she is a woman and one of only a few women in film that direct and write. I forgot what the exact statistic is and would have to look more to show you the study I saw last year, but it was something like 5% for women in directing and even less for women in writing in film. The only other thing is, delete the film credits that are from her production company only. Otherwise keep it all. A20anna (talk) 18:29, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- — A20anna (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Keep - I found this article off the feminism page - this page should be kept because of the statistical reasons above. Film is an industry that has historically discriminated against women. I agree the only thing that should be deleted are the films that are only on her site. This debate about IMDb is silly - Wiki has so many pages that only quote by an actor's IMDb credits that it is not even funny. So why pick just this one out. My vote is to keep all else. Go Women! Find the feminism page here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Gender_Studies/Feminism_Task_Force Lady1958 (talk) 18:44, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- — Lady1958 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Keep - I also found this article on the Feminism page and vote to keep for all the feminism reasons listed here. I also agree to delete the ones that are cited just from her Website alone. I also say One for the Women! Aalda3335 (talk) 18:51, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- — Aalda3335 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Keep - note to the note - we are feminists on a gmail group and were alerted to this article and what was hapening and absolutely disagree to its deletion for feminism reasons above. We are voting to keep it and are passing this page around the Web to vote to keep it. We read Wiki but have previously not felt a need to edit pages until now. Labina (talk) 19:01, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- — Labina (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Keep - how is it abusive to send an article around the web to do jsut what you said vote on it? We are Wiki users too - In any way I do know where those statistics can be found: For the third year in a row, women comprised 17% of all executive producers, producers, directors, writers, cinematographers, and editors. → Gains made by women in certain behind-the-scenes roles were met by losses in others. For example, while the percentage of women executive producers increased slightly (15% in 1999, 16% in 2000), the representation of women producers declined (27% in 1999, 24% in 2000). While the percentage of women writers increased by two percentage points (12% in 1999, 14% in 2000), the representation of female cinematographers fell by two percentage points (4% in 1999, 2% in 2000). Only women directors experienced a notable gain from 5% in 1999 to 11% in 2000 (9% in 1998). → Films with female executive producers and directors employed significantly greater percentages of women than films with male executive producers and directors. Here is the source: moviesbywomen.com/statistics.php —Preceding unsigned comment added by Radioglyph1942 (talk • contribs) 19:11, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- — Radioglyph1942 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Comment Throwing statistics at us about people who are not the subject will not change the fact that the article and it's sources fail to meet established guidelines. Newly created accounts that only show up to add noise to an AfD discussion are not only highly suspicious, but are generally discounted by admins for the process abusers that they are. DarkAudit (talk) 19:17, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - We're just a group of older women who meet at a library once a week. We've been around long enough to see this kind of thing become abusive on its own end and decided to take a stand. the only things I think that should be deleted are the films that are from her own Website. I know there is one in our group who disagrees with me but that is my input. And your own message told us the following that we can be part of the discussion: "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 a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. Nonetheless, you are welcome to participate and express your opinions. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding 72.84.6.181 (talk) 19:21, 9 March 2009 (UTC) at the end.[reply]
- note - sorry that was my post above - I did read the directions ladies but forgot to create an account Raindropt749 (talk) 19:24, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- note: also I just read that comment on the stats - you missed the point. Those stats DO apply to her as she is a women director and writer in film and that is what those stats are about. So you absolutely missed the point we are trying to make in the discussion here.Raindropt749 (talk) 19:26, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- note - sorry that was my post above - I did read the directions ladies but forgot to create an account Raindropt749 (talk) 19:24, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- — Raindropt749 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Comment The points are these. You and yours have publicly stated their intentions to perform a Cyber Sisters attack to disrupt these proceedings by repeatedly yelling "the guidelines don't have to apply to her, because she's a WOMAN!" You and yours have created accounts for the sole purpose of disrupting these proceedings in said manner. You have not contributed before in all the years Wikipedia has been online. Why should we expect you to contribute in a positive manner once this matter is closed one way or another? I suggest you all go and actually read the relevant guidelines the other editors have invoked in making an informed decision, and then make less noise here, and set to fixing your pet article. DarkAudit (talk) 19:47, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Per nomination of lack of notability and crystal balling. Being a woman has no weight here, unless she is the first female director or someone whose story of becoming a director is important. Simply being female and being a director, regardless of statistics, are not related. We don't have articles on every female soldier in the US Military, even though statistically they're a minority. This person has no notability. Being a female doesn't give instant notablity. The359 (talk) 20:31, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Sorry, but the issue of feminism is not relevant here. Notability is. Too much future - not enough reliable undisputable reference. Is a continuity supervisor notable? Essential, maybe, but then again so is the canteen supervisor. Vital but not stars. That's life. Library of Congress? If her poetry has been published in the USA it must by law be in the Library of Congress. Like the British Library, it is a Library of Deposit where one copy of every book should be sent (every book from that country, that is!). Look for the Cataloging in Progress record on the publication page - this is a time saver for the librarians. "First Canyon Rain"? I can find nothing independent on this title. I am ignoring YouTube and Feedage (entry dated today!). "Dunk Tank Priest"? Seems to be a YouTube shortie. I could be wrong. PROVE me wrong. (I never mind being proved wrong.) I would suggest to Ms Perras (or Waters - whichever) that she comes back when something solid is there to put here. A film in the can and distributed - not YouTubed - and getting audiences. Not necessarily large ones - a cult film doesn't have big audiences. But there must be reliable outside references - by reliable outside people. Peridon (talk) 21:50, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I would comment that while IMDb has its verification process, we at Wikipedia also have a verification process and a suitability process. This is part of it. Putting the article in front of the Wikipedia community for anyone to comment. Perhaps more weight may be given to regular participators than to one shot 'editors'. Perhaps not - depends on what they say. This is not a vote - no-one counts the Keeps and Deletes like in an election. A consensus should be reached. If not, it'll start again. If any of the Keep brigade have any reliable evidence, please put it before us. We can't find it - well, I can't anyway. We may have missed something. Peridon (talk) 22:02, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
KeepAccording to Wiki rules, "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." I think it is safe to say that everybody on this discussion board has heard of feminism and understands that there is a discrimination against women in Hollywood. Wiki guidelines also state that fame is not to be the determining factor in the article inclusion, which seems to be the thing that is being discussed here is that is this person "famous" - probably not, but she is notable according to the guidelines: "Within Wikipedia, notability refers to whether or not a topic merits its own article. Article topics need to be notable, or "worthy of notice." It is important to note that topic notability on Wikipedia is not necessarily dependent on things like fame, importance, or the popularity of a topic — although those may contribute." So the issue of feminism is relevant to the deletion and this article fits the guidelines of your notability requirements.A20anna (talk) 01:38, 10 March 2009 (UTC) — A20anna (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Adminstrator note A20anna: I have struck through your 'Keep' because you have already written 'Keep' further up the page and a second one may mislead the closing administrator. Your comment may stay, of course. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:56, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That makes absolutely no sense. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 01:40, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- NOTE ON DELETION: According to wiki rules "Neutral point of view is a fundamental Wikimedia principle and a cornerstone of Wikipedia. All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles, and of all article editors. " that talk page is not neutral and does use any sources and should be deleted. And the topic of fame is not to be the issue at hand here, according to Wiki rules. Sorry if I did not make the point clear. I am just saying this discussion seems to be about whether or that person is famous, and Wiki states that is not to be the determining factor here. However, the idea this person is a woman in film and is one of the few women in film does make her reference here fit within the Wiki guidelines for notability. Did that make what I am saying more clear?A20anna (talk) 01:45, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment on more weight to regulars: I don't think that is a fair process at all. People who contribute here are not necessarily experts on a subject more than people who are just starting out contributing. In fact if resumes were given it could yo find the new people have far more experience in matters here than the regular editors - maybe anyway - so try to stay open to everybody contributing to the discussion because it is silly to exclude people in an open database like this. Wiki is suppose to be an open discussion place. Also can you tell me how to contribute to this discussion without having to use th edit page feature or is that the right way to do it? A20anna (talk) 01:49, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- (edit conflict, reply to your first comment) Not really, you seem to be jumbling up several policies. I don't see at all how NPOV applies to the article, and I think you need to (re)read the relevant guidelines on notability (as opposed to fame), WP:N and WP:BIO, and the one for reliable sources, WP:RS, as sources determine eligibility for inclusion. Also, are you asserting that there is a conspiracy against women in film on Wikipedia? Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 01:58, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I see your point regarding new editors being at a disadvantage, but unfortunately discussions such as these are grounded in long-standing policies and guidelines which define the project. I am trying to engage you in discussion right now, but realistically this article is going to be deleted regardless of what we talk about unless you or someone else produces reliable secondary sources independent of the subject to establish her notability. Also, the "Edit" tab is the correct way to contribute. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 02:02, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment of course not. That's silly. I'm just saying that from what I see being discussed here is whether or not this person is fmaous. And the guidelines state that is not to be the determining factor. I do see and understand you IMDb rule. I'm just saying be open to new people in the database who are on the independent side of film, and especially to the women and especially because this is an open database written by the contributors. Plus to just use some of the ways you are talking about means you would only include corporatized films, which is boring. We all already know who those people are and it is fun to learn about new people who are not yet in the summer blockbusters. And thanks on the edit tab thing. And likely it will be but at least wiki editors should know people are watching and care about new lesser known people being included in this databaseA20anna (talk) 02:07, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply - What is being discussed is notability as defined in the guidelines WP:NOTABILITY, and WP:BIO. If you can point out which of the criteria are met, then we can have useful discussion. Reliable sources writing about her, her production company, and the movie would advance the discussion greatly. So you can put fame aside. Nobody here is discussing fame. -- Whpq (talk) 02:13, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No one has discussed being famous. What has been stated is that this person has not done anything notable, and there is almost no information from reliable, outside sources which discuss this person, the film, or the company.
- Being a woman or being independent does not get this article, or those who contribute to this article, special treatment. These articles are being nominated for deletion on their violation of policy, not because of some feminist mumbo jumbo. Your concern over the plight of women in the film industry has no weight in this debate. Wikipedia is not meant to promote an ideal, therefore attempting to include a woman simply because she is a woman would violate Wikipedia policy of neutrality.
- There are many independent films and independent producers who have articles on Wikipedia. But they are included because they are notable within their field and outside sources have discussed them and their work. Being independent doesn't mean you automatically pass the criteria of inclusion.
- NOTE - OK no problem on the fame thing - it was just my thoughts on how I see what is being said here - also that is not what I meant about the outside. This Wiki thing is suppose to be an open thing, where people are talking about all people, and I did not see this as a positive nor open discussion so that is why I joined in to point out to try and stay open minded was all. Also this is my other thought - maybe the film articles ought to be treated like the feminism gender studies guidelines list that says the following: "Feel free to sign up under contributors. If you come across an article which either needs attention, or alternatively that doesn't exist (even though it should), add it to the lists under "Requested articles", "Requests for expansion", or "Requests for review/attention" headings. If articles under those headings seem mature enough to no longer need attention, feel free to clean them off the list. If there are categories or templates you come across on Wikipedia which may be of interest to contributors of this project, feel free to add them under "Useful Categories" or "Useful Templates". You can also 'adopt' an article, or use the Discussion page to discuss issues relating to Gender Studies on Wikipedia. Finally, beyond Wikipedia, some contributors of this project are working on a Wikibook (textbook) on Feminism at Wikibooks" In other words a mina admin person receives requests for articles and approves or disapproves before they are admitted into Wiki. That would save this whole discussion, at least I think anyway. There is a lot of sort of meanness in the replies here, which is not so nice. That is why I keep saying stay open to new ideas and let the encyclopedia grow. This thing is a cool idea if it stays open minded. A20anna (talk) 02:24, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If you want to discuss policy, this is not the place. WikiProject Gender Studies is the place to discuss the policies of Gender Studies on Wikipedia. People are already able to suggest articles and people create them if they feel it'll meet Wikipedia's criteria. There's no need for an administrator to judge it.
- Reply To All - I don't think a page should stay anyway if we do not represent the whole person in our depiction of them, that is what I really think. I mean if we have to by Wiki rules delete half or more of what that person is about because of certain Wiki rules, it is better for that person for the page to be deleted anyway. I mean, people work hard for their credentials no matter what their job is, because Wiki rules cannot give them their fair day, it is better to just delete the page. Those are my real feelings on deleting the page. But I wanted to stand up for the person because she was a woman, so I took a stand. A20anna (talk) 02:52, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think you're quire understanding what others are suggesting. If the person is notable, then of course we will cover them fully. No one is suggesting deleting only certain bits of the article. The subject of the article, this woman, is what is not passing our standards of notability. If the subject is not notable, then there's no article period. The359 (talk) 03:10, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A20anna has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
I put this here because I think this page has a lot of negative energy and needs a smile on it. I hope everybody can smile now.
- I appreciate that sentiment, A20anna; in the midst of heated discussion it's important to remember that we're all in this together. Baileypalblue (talk) 05:05, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That said, Delete all. First Canyon Rain is an unreleased film with no reliable source coverage and no indication that filming has begun, thus fails WP:NFF. Running Waters Productions has no RS coverage and no completed films. Kriss Perras Running Waters lacks the reliable source coverage necessary to establish a presumption of notability; work as continuity/script supervisor does not establish encyclopedic notability, nor (generally) does work on unreleased films, and there's no evidence that the subject's work as artist and poet satisfy WP:CREATIVE. Baileypalblue (talk) 05:05, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Thanks for the smile. To summarise a lot of the above as I see it: Feminism cannot be an issue as this is not an article about feminism, or about a feminist leader - unless there is another side tp her we haven't been told about; There is very little RELIABLE OUTSIDE referencing; Unmade or unreleased films are notable when Spielberg or similar is involved - not otherwise; No notability is indicated on the poetry, painting, acting or photography. Providing acceptable references might change our minds - but they need to be independent and reliable. The Sun and The National Enquirer are dubious, self-published is a no-no. All in all, I've got nothing against the subject of the article. Like with many others that have come to AfD, I do wish her well and enjoying success. When she gets there, her article will take its place. It's unfortunate for people starting up that Wikipedia cannot record them and help them up (or onto) the ladder. They have to be at least two or three rungs up (and referenced) for us to consider them of note. That's the way Wikipedia is set up. If people don't like it, they can always start their own encyclopaedia, or directory, or whatever. Peridon (talk) 17:35, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Your comment made me laugh Peridon! (e.g. if they don't like it they can start their own encyclopedia :0) Thanks!Happy Editing Love, Anna (talk) 01:10, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep ALL and discuss possibility of certain merges on the various talk pages. Continued research through the course of this AfD has shown notability. Good job. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 01:08, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Uh, where exactly? I don't see any reliable outside references added to any of the three articles which help establish notability, nor anything mentioned in this AFD. The359 (talk) 01:34, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Huh? What continued research are you referring to? Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 01:35, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment or it could be this person just has a different opinion and expressed it - like I said stay open to other ideas, whether or not they supported their side of the discussion is another issue entirely. It seems like they are saying the fact that so many people have commented here might mean something to them for notable but even I am not sure what they mean. :0) Happy Editing Love, Anna (talk) 02:38, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
::Comment - according to the rescue squad - "Every time an article is deleted, the contributions that were made to it are lost. Wikipedia administrators can access the information in deleted articles, but they are not necessarily experts on the article's topic. Once an article is deleted, its content, value and appropriateness can no longer be evaluated by the general public. In addition, the contributor who writes a poor article on a notable topic is likely to be inexperienced. If their first efforts are deleted, they may be discouraged and refrain from creating further articles, or even editing. Everyone starts somewhere and we should encourage better writing and better articles. Good faith efforts to contribute should be met with encouragement to improve." I think this article is a good example of that statement. The person who rewrote it from what I see here not only left the discussion but was sort of hurt by the effort to delete their work. Maybe we're trying really hard here to delete in our discussion rather than rescue. I see loads of, "ah hec get rid of it" and not a lot of hey this rule may apply to keep it. I am saying this for this reason here "Good faith efforts to contribute should be met with encouragement to improve." I tried to find a resource on another page and did find the verbatim article that was cited. Maybe we have not really looked enough for stuff to support this article? This is just a thought on our efforts to rescue rather than delete. Happy Editing Love, Anna (talk) 04:53, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- We don't keep articles because an editor takes it as an insult. It has nothing to do with the way the article it is written, it's because the person isn't notable. There is nothing to rescue if the subject does not pass Wikipedia's standards for inclusion! The majority of users here who are voting for delete are doing so because they understand Wikipedia's policy and they feel it fails to meet the criteria, no matter how well it's written. If you have something which makes this person notable, with referencing, now is the time to provide it. Nominating it for rescue and trying to turn it into an emotional ordeal is not going to stop deletion. The359 (talk) 08:44, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm posting the following to encourage all the new folks on this page to look around and find sources to support what you are saying that also fit with the Wiki rules. Maybe it might help. Happy Editing Love, Anna (talk) 04:58, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all. The person has not met any of the criteria of WP:CREATIVE or WP:ENTERTAINER. The film has not met any of the criteria of WP:NF. The company has not met any of the criteria of WP:CORP. While there may be relatively few women represented in the film industry, there are still numerous ones who have made significant contributions to notable projects (Penny Marshall, Jodie Foster, Mira Nair, Sofia Coppola). If there were no such individuals, and there were equally no other women who (like the subject of this AfD) had as of yet not made any significant contributions to notable projects, then some sort of uniqueness argument (as suggested above) might be applicable. However, those are not the facts about the world. Bongomatic 05:14, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete First Canyon Rain Unfinished film without significant independent coverage. Duffbeerforme (talk) 05:47, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No one would know the political affiliation of this person, and accusing editors of malice in their nominations for deletion requires evidence other than "this person edits articles on the opposite political spectrum of this person". There is nothing bad faith here, the page was a vanity page at the time of it's edit.
- Also note that User:Gogo Dodo nominated the article for deletion. The actions of an unregistered user to mark the article has a vanity page has zero bearing on this deletion discussion. We don't keep an article because someone might have done something wrong with it in the past. The359 (talk) 08:33, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Kriss Perras Running Waters No coverage by independent reliable sources. No evidence she has has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work. Satisfies no part of WP:CREATIVE. Duffbeerforme (talk) 06:31, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Running Waters Productions No coverage by independent reliable sources. The IMDB link does not support most of the claims it is used to reference. Duffbeerforme (talk)
- Delete Delete per the points mentioned out above. Can go into detail, but it obviously violates Notability and the Crystal Ball tests. Just because she is female, no offense, doesn't make her special and above the rules that the rest of the wiki goes by. Q T C 08:57, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment So it's gone from misogyny to a political vendetta? Please. Stop. Go and actually read The guidelines on notability and sources. Then read the guidelines on arguments to avoid. We are *not* talking about Penny Marshall or Jodie Foster here. We are talking about someone with no qualifying credits to their name, no notable achievements, and no significant coverage. What we have is a highly suspicious group of newcomers screaming persecution of what is most likely a personal friend. DarkAudit (talk) 12:42, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge - while I cannot yet cite the wiki source, I have moticed through looking at other pages tagged for rescue that maybe this one is something that should be merged on the various talk pages like it was suggested on my talk page too. I am not yet good neough at the wiki rules to tell you how I think it should stay but am trying so please no more mean notes to me. Happy Editing Love, Anna (talk) 17:14, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry - I posted it on my talk page because the note on my talk page said it should not be on this page but on the talk page - trying to follow what everybody is suggesting is getting disouraging. You can find all that I said on the my talk page - it is not deleted. Happy Editing Love, Anna (talk) 17:41, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- MichaelQSchmidt said to merge to talk pages and that was what I was commenting on - sorry if I was not clear. Also after reviewing the history of this page, it has been here since 2007, do you all think this is a page to consider for semi-protection from to prevent edits from anonymous users (IP addresses), as well as edits from accounts that are not autoconfirmed. It has been vandalized quite a few times but I do not know what the number is for a page to put into this status - that is even if this page is kept. Happy Editing Love, Anna (talk) 19:19, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I was reading on the WikiProject Gender Studies/Feminism Task Force page and hexaChord suggested userfying this page - which if I get it right, I agree with this. Happy Editing Love, Anna (talk) 21:21, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- After learning for sure what it means, I am going to userfy the Kriss Perras Running Waters page and help it grow as part of my Rescue Squad efforts. At present I am learning how to create the page so please give me a little time do to it. I am not at all capable with templates and stuff here. Happy Editing Love, Anna (talk) 21:37, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Page is moved to User:A20anna/Kriss Perras Running Waters, and the original is tagged for completing the userfication. DarkAudit (talk) 22:03, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I only moved one of them, and now I'm being told by #wikipedia to put it back until the AfD is over. A little *too* bold, I suppose. DarkAudit (talk) 22:13, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've reversed the page move per DarkAudit's request at AN.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:38, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I only moved one of them, and now I'm being told by #wikipedia to put it back until the AfD is over. A little *too* bold, I suppose. DarkAudit (talk) 22:13, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Page is moved to User:A20anna/Kriss Perras Running Waters, and the original is tagged for completing the userfication. DarkAudit (talk) 22:03, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note to closing Admmin: The author has requested that I "sponsor" her and has a continued interest in bringing these articles into line with standards. Now certainly in considering the arguments for keep and delete, and not seeing it simply as weight-of-numbers saying the same thing, there is a real possibility that these might be "kept" and tagged for improvement, as such is exactly what is hoped for... they not being unsalvagable. However, in the event that a closer feels the keep opinions are not convincing arguments toward keep or no-consensus, I ask that they be userfied to the author without prejudice so they can continue to be improved without worry of the ticking clock, and be welcomed back when AfD concerns have been met. Thank you, Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 23:31, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What persuasive keep argument is there here? I see a meatpuppet parade rambling about a conspiracy against feminism and your !vote, which isn't grounded in truth. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 00:06, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh? Did not see a link to the ongoing investigation. Sorry. Must have missed it. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 00:47, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What persuasive keep argument is there here? I see a meatpuppet parade rambling about a conspiracy against feminism and your !vote, which isn't grounded in truth. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 00:06, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know if you need to make such unsupported claims to get an article userified. There have been precisely zero credible rationales (that is to say, rationales consistent with policy or guideline) suggested for the notability of any of the articles nominated here. Bongomatic 00:34, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I need no "claims" one way or another to request a potentially decent article be userfied so that any AfD concerns can be met. And am quitre surprised at the vilification going on here. This is not the old west were not agreeing with someone means "I'm agin 'em". Nor is it the Reich where all must march in lockstep. I have an opinion and concerns. I voiced them. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 00:47, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know if you need to make such unsupported claims to get an article userified. There have been precisely zero credible rationales (that is to say, rationales consistent with policy or guideline) suggested for the notability of any of the articles nominated here. Bongomatic 00:34, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note to everybody - Let's keep this discussion focused on the merit of the article, and not the editors participating in the AFD. Civility please. -- Whpq (talk) 01:23, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Snow delete and userfy. Newby willing to work on article(s) in userspace as sources become available, perfectly reasonable. -- Banjeboi 14:47, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply - what does Snow Delete mean? I still want to userfy. Plus it gives me a chance to understand the rules better as I plan on asking some of the people I've met if a citation etc. meets the rules - that way it is solid prior to coming back out to the main space. I think it needs it now that I understand and actually saw the IMDb rule [Wikipedia:Citing IMDb]]. Happy Editing Love, Anna (talk) 15:19, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- See WP:SNOWBALL -- the suggestion is that the result of the AfD is inevitable, so it should be closed early. User:Benjiboi is endorsing userfication, which would result in the deletion of the mainspace article, and I agree with the reasoning. Baileypalblue (talk) 15:35, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply - what does Snow Delete mean? I still want to userfy. Plus it gives me a chance to understand the rules better as I plan on asking some of the people I've met if a citation etc. meets the rules - that way it is solid prior to coming back out to the main space. I think it needs it now that I understand and actually saw the IMDb rule [Wikipedia:Citing IMDb]]. Happy Editing Love, Anna (talk) 15:19, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. MBisanz talk 00:39, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Darius Sunawala[edit]
- Darius Sunawala (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Declined speedy. Local DJs are inherently non-notable. One needs many reliable, independent sources *where the person is the primary subject* to clear that hurdle. That does not appear to be the case here. Yes, there are mentions of this fellow in the Hindu Times, but virtually every one of them mentions him in passing. An article covering an event where this guy made a brief appearance as a presenter is inadequate coverage. DarkAudit (talk) 02:54, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. THF (talk) 03:04, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. For clarity, he's not a "local DJ", but rather a radio personality and radio station program director. Gnews finds a few reliable sources, [34], but I think it's safe to say there'd be a lot more hits for an American media personality of similar stature. We need to take care to avoid systemic bias when evaluating the notability of non-Western subjects. Baileypalblue (talk) 03:35, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply I'd say a program director would be even less notable than a DJ. A "radio personality" is a DJ. Don't parse my words. Looking at the write-up for Fever 104 FM, it sure looks like a local station to me. local is local, no matter where "local" may be. I checked Google News before I ever made the nomination. Just mentioning the guy for handing out an award is not sufficient coverage when the story is about the award, and not the presenter. DarkAudit (talk) 03:52, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Further Reply Do you have an actual reason to keep this article beyond accusing me of bias for being a "Westerner"? DarkAudit (talk) 04:05, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Not accusing you of anything -- everybody has to be aware of CSB problems while editing. It's your job to demonstrate a valid rationale for deletion, and so far you haven't done so. "Inherently non-notable" is a bad argument, and standard methods of measuring notability via sourcing don't work well for this type of subject. The article should be kept because it covers a notable media personality; again, if this were an American media personality of similar stature, I don't think this would even be an issue. Baileypalblue (talk) 04:58, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have to agree there. Multiple sources about the subject is one way to establish notability, but surely not the only one. Also, while it might not be a good idea to cover everything in the world, I have yet to find anything that is inherently non-notable. You might be thinking of verifiability. - Mgm|(talk) 10:38, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- When I talk of "inherently non-notable" here I mean that you're going to get lots of local press for a "radio personality" because he's, well, local. But go an hour or two down the highway in any direction, where that station may not reach, and you may be hard pressed to find anyone who cares one way or the other about the guy. You're certainly not going to see much in the way of media coverage about him once you get out that far. He's a big-city DJ,and the *local* press amounts to as much. Trivial coverage where he just happened to appear at an event that was the real focus of that coverage. The American DJs who are notable enough to warrant an article all have national audiences at numerous radio stations across the country. A guy at a single station in a single city, with media coverage to match, wouldn't. DarkAudit (talk) 14:43, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There's non non-local coverage clause for individuals as there is for organizations, but if there was one, this subject would not be a good test case for it. He's a media personality in Bangalore, the capital of Karnataka, which is larger than any US city except New York, and which has more population than about half of the world's countries. His current radio station (Fever 104 FM) broadcasts nationally; he previously worked at one of the largest radio networks in the world. Your suggestion that if you go an hour or two outside Bangalore people won't care about him is implausible, but even if true he'd still have "a large fan base" available in Bangalore (one of the criteria of WP:ENTERTAINER). Baileypalblue (talk) 17:36, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Just because the number is big, doesn't make it useful. The way I read that Fever 104 writeup, it's more of a collection of local stations under one banner name, each city with it's own set of personalities. By your standards, we would have articles on any DJ that works in a major city. I say that a DJ in NYC might be big in NYC, but in Philly, or even Trenton, you'd get "who?". DarkAudit (talk) 18:09, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Not every radio personality, just the culturally significant ones. Sunawala appears to have been considered one of the top two RJs in Bangalore along with Sunaina Lall. The fact that there are fawning celebrity articles on him suggests he's more culturally significant than the non-notable RJs who should be excluded. The fact that he's cited in articles on unrelated subjects suggests he's more influential than the average non-notable RJ. There's plenty of evidence available online which is not exactly suitable for use in the article, but nevertheless provides indirect evidence of notability. Baileypalblue (talk) 18:50, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Just because the number is big, doesn't make it useful. The way I read that Fever 104 writeup, it's more of a collection of local stations under one banner name, each city with it's own set of personalities. By your standards, we would have articles on any DJ that works in a major city. I say that a DJ in NYC might be big in NYC, but in Philly, or even Trenton, you'd get "who?". DarkAudit (talk) 18:09, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There's non non-local coverage clause for individuals as there is for organizations, but if there was one, this subject would not be a good test case for it. He's a media personality in Bangalore, the capital of Karnataka, which is larger than any US city except New York, and which has more population than about half of the world's countries. His current radio station (Fever 104 FM) broadcasts nationally; he previously worked at one of the largest radio networks in the world. Your suggestion that if you go an hour or two outside Bangalore people won't care about him is implausible, but even if true he'd still have "a large fan base" available in Bangalore (one of the criteria of WP:ENTERTAINER). Baileypalblue (talk) 17:36, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- When I talk of "inherently non-notable" here I mean that you're going to get lots of local press for a "radio personality" because he's, well, local. But go an hour or two down the highway in any direction, where that station may not reach, and you may be hard pressed to find anyone who cares one way or the other about the guy. You're certainly not going to see much in the way of media coverage about him once you get out that far. He's a big-city DJ,and the *local* press amounts to as much. Trivial coverage where he just happened to appear at an event that was the real focus of that coverage. The American DJs who are notable enough to warrant an article all have national audiences at numerous radio stations across the country. A guy at a single station in a single city, with media coverage to match, wouldn't. DarkAudit (talk) 14:43, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have to agree there. Multiple sources about the subject is one way to establish notability, but surely not the only one. Also, while it might not be a good idea to cover everything in the world, I have yet to find anything that is inherently non-notable. You might be thinking of verifiability. - Mgm|(talk) 10:38, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Not accusing you of anything -- everybody has to be aware of CSB problems while editing. It's your job to demonstrate a valid rationale for deletion, and so far you haven't done so. "Inherently non-notable" is a bad argument, and standard methods of measuring notability via sourcing don't work well for this type of subject. The article should be kept because it covers a notable media personality; again, if this were an American media personality of similar stature, I don't think this would even be an issue. Baileypalblue (talk) 04:58, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom unless other sources/info surfaces that can change my !vote §hawnpoo 05:45, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: trivial coverage. JamesBurns (talk) 09:12, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Several of the articles found by the Google News search linked above are in fact largely about the subject, including The Hindu saying that he "needs no introduction", which is a pretty obvious statement of notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:51, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I must agree with Phil Bridger. This person has had multiple, independent sources that show his notability. He's attacted celebrity and notice. Normally, DJs and the like aren't notable, but this seems to be an exception. Bearian (talk) 00:12, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pastor Theo (talk) 02:27, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- RayTalk 04:25, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- RayTalk 04:25, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I find Baileypalblue and Phil Bridger's arguments compelling. Whilst the range of 'local' coverage is limited, the 'local' area of Bangalore is enormous, US State size. WP:ENTERTAINER talks about Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following, and the local article imply this level of fandom, at least in the past, ti give notability. --GedUK 14:20, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedily-deleted per G4; recreation of content deleted via previous deletion discussion. Somno (talk) 08:41, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mall Day (film)[edit]
- Mall Day (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
unreleased, low budget film, lacks 3rd party references, non notable. Fails WP:NOTFILM Rtphokie (talk) 02:35, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: non-notable film hasn't started filming yet, thus fails WP:NFF. Not finding any reliable source coverage of this movie. Baileypalblue (talk) 03:00, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - WP:CRYSTAL if nothing else, but would probably fail WP:NFF if that wasn't the case anyway. §FreeRangeFrog 03:59, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I agree with all above statements. delete. §hawnpoo 05:32, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, fails WP:NFF. Possibly speedy delete if this is a reincarnation of the recently deleted Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mall Day (Movie). BryanG (talk) 06:43, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. NN blog seicer | talk | contribs 13:33, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Chris's Invincible Super-Blog[edit]
- Chris's Invincible Super-Blog (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Delete non-notable blog; it has been "featured" on a tv program, but so have all the losing contestants on every show been "featured", and many two-bit crooks are "featured" on the evening news. Alas, there is no significant coverage of this blog by independent reliable sources. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:26, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete non-notable web content, possibly spam. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 03:32, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete--a blog among many. The only references are on other blogs, and a mention on a TV program, a sentence and a half long. That is, this blog is not notable. Drmies (talk) 04:22, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Promotional piece for non-notable blog. §FreeRangeFrog 05:26, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - mmmm yummy spam §hawnpoo 06:27, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- Hiding T 12:37, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. No references, no Google references. seicer | talk | contribs 13:24, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sharon L Bailey[edit]
- Sharon L Bailey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
The article was originally proded by User:THEN WHO WAS PHONE? [35] in which the editor who created (User:Boaf123) the article removed it[36], which is why I've taken this to an AfD. The article makes a number of claims which should be easy to verify however Google doesn't even show this person (Only shows a Sharon Bailey who is in the American Jazz industry). This article could possibly be a hoax (Since the non-web sources can be made up) or she's just not notable in the Australian television industry that no media or entertainment websites have reports about her. Bidgee (talk) 01:47, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. —Bidgee (talk) 01:51, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Bidgee (talk) 01:51, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Bidgee (talk) 01:55, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No google hits imo = Delete.
Also the only hit I can find is here but imdb is user submitted so that isnt enough alone to justify her existence let alone noability.§hawnpoo 05:07, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, seems awfully hoaxy. Willing to change my mind if solid evidence can be produced that this person exists and that she's had notable roles on TV. Lankiveil (speak to me) 10:54, 8 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]
- Delete, unverifiable and likely hoax. NawlinWiki (talk) 12:02, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment- I added a CSD G3 tag as I just discovered hoaxs are defined under WP:CSD#G3 now. Lets see what happens §hawnpoo 16:24, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've removed the G3 speedy tag per Wikipedia:CSD#Non-criteria. Please let the AfD run its course so that it can be shown that time was given for proper examination and consensus. -- zzuuzz (talk) 16:59, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Will do but please note for future use CSD criteria states this: Hoaxes:If even remotely plausible, a suspected hoax article should be subjected to further scrutiny in a wider forum. Note that "blatant and obvious hoaxes and misinformation" are subject to speedy deletion as vandalism. §hawnpoo 17:15, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've removed the G3 speedy tag per Wikipedia:CSD#Non-criteria. Please let the AfD run its course so that it can be shown that time was given for proper examination and consensus. -- zzuuzz (talk) 16:59, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No valid independent references can be sourced. Likely hoax, fails WP:VERIFY. WWGB (talk) 22:39, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Completely spamtastic; no notability established. seicer | talk | contribs 13:24, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Francesco Bellissimo[edit]
- Francesco Bellissimo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Seems to be cross-wiki spam. It was deleted on italian wikipedia. There are two other AfDs: Dutch and Portuguese. No independent reliable sources were presented. Does not meet WP:ENTERTAINER. AntiCross (talk) 01:13, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. —AntiCross (talk) 01:13, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Francesco Bellissimo is Tarento (Mass Media Personality in Japan)
[1] , [[37]] , [[38]]. Check Yahoo Japan Results [here] and Japan Talent Directory [here]. Thank You--Middlesbrough99 (talk) 02:28, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Argentoss and WP:AN#There's a funny thing goin' on... for deeper understanding. --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord2 02:38, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Doesn't meet WP:BIO. A Google search of Francesco Bellissimo returns various self-promotional material but no reliable sources: [39] Nick-D (talk) 03:04, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment For an important mass media personality his MySpace has only few guestbook entries I'd say. German WP lists him to do mangas but his MySpace links to lots of cooking videos on YouTube (and it's playing "Samba de Janeiro" - ugh - he can't be notable...), some person from it.wiki says that this article has been posted in 12 different languages. I asked him for help. --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord2 03:37, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Crosswiki spam evidence: Most inter-wiki pages were created by 219.17.25.117 (talk · contribs · count). [40], [41], [42], [43], [44], [45], [46], [47]. Japanese article created by 219.17.24.107 (talk · contribs · count): [48]. AntiCross (talk) 03:45, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Opened Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Middlesbrough99 to see if our friend comes from the same Japanese IP range. Man, one of you must be a sock - otherwise I'll eat mine... --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord2 04:37, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No independant sources. Unverified at best. Edward321 (talk) 05:03, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: why are there no other source given? Alexius08 (talk) 07:13, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - fails WP:BIO §hawnpoo 08:15, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Deleted in Polish and Spanish. I've also created another AFD: in French. AntiCross (talk) 08:17, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Hi (sorry for my english): I've found this page in october, during a Project:AntiSpam action. (AntiSpam is a italian project regarding suspect and "scientific" promotional material on Wikipedia). The tone is promotional and POV: no independant sources, no enciclopedic informations (president of Rome Soccer Fans Club in Japan, I remember), no periodical (what Manga?). But the attention was for the interwiki pages created by the same IP 219.17.25.117. I posted a question about the zero indipendent sources in discussion-page for some days: no answers from the IP, and others italian editors wrote that he's not enciclopedic-bio. So, I suggested the deletion of the page, and, some days ago, I advised some other wiki (en.sp.pl.nl.wiki): I made it only because for me it's a cross wiki spam: my action it's no correct? I've no signed in some cases (example) and for this I'm afraid, sorry. I dont't know about sockpuppets of Argentoss or AntiCross. Hope this comment be of service to you. Hi Soprano71 (from it.wiki) 12:24, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
- Delete. Cross-wiki spam for non-notable person. The article was twice deleted from the Italian Wikipedia and its re-creation has been blocked. DutchDevil (talk) 18:17, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- Hiding T 12:40, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. There is a complete lack of independent third party coverage, and a lack of details or reviews. Wait until it is released or at least declared more notable... seicer | talk | contribs 13:23, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Stephanie's Image[edit]
- Stephanie's Image (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This film totally fails WP:NF. The involvement of an Oscar nominee doesn't change that unless it is "a major part of his/her career" (from the guideline). The film is unreviewed. The film doesn't appear to have been picked up for distribution, let alone released. No prejudice if these milestones are achieved, but for now, it's not even close. Bongomatic 00:55, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - This is an interesting one. Had there been a few more gnews hits on this I would argue that the actress can drip some notability on the film, but as it stands the film itself fails WP:NFF at best. §FreeRangeFrog 04:03, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - although, really, this is what idmb is for. Ventifax (talk) 18:56, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Per my above statement. Spiesr (talk) 16:51, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - lacks the coverage in reliable sources to establish notability -- Whpq (talk) 17:14, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Insufficient independent 3rd party coverage. JamesBurns (talk) 05:45, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Speedy delete per CSD A7. Non Admin Closure §hawnpoo 08:00, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OverLord (Rapper)[edit]
- OverLord (Rapper) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This search reveals no relevant hits. Further, the article was created by User:Hekuran, which bears striking resemblance to the real name of the article's subject. Quantumobserver (talk) 00:49, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Fails WP:MUSIC as far as I can see. §FreeRangeFrog 01:31, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete A7: NN musician, no assertion of notability, no sources, possibly G11 as well. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 03:33, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Speedy delete - Non-admin closure of speedy deletion by User:DGG §FreeRangeFrog 05:08, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Death knights[edit]
- Death knights (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Appears to be a graffiti group of some nature. No references, no links, probably a vanity page. Wastedpixels (talk) 00:46, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete per WP:MADEUP; non-notable vanity page. JJL (talk) 01:55, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete per A7, unremarkable club. Tagged as such. DarkAudit (talk) 02:57, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. The inclusion of reliable sources satisfies guidelines. seicer | talk | contribs 13:22, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Brad Friedman[edit]
- Brad Friedman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
WP:BIO, and perhaps autobio of freelance journalist--most edits come from IP addresses. The lead calls him a "self-described" etc. etc., and self-described is what all of the footnotes in the article are. Lots of wikipuffery, zero substantial coverage in independent third-party sources, and the desperation in linking to blog posts and the like suggests there is none to be had; I didn't find any, though it's hard searching through all the false hits to Brad Friedmans out there. THF (talk) 23:30, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, While there is an assertion of notability, it's reading more of a resume. In particular, only one reference seems to be independent, and it's more of minutes for a meeting rather than news coverage. The best notability assertion is with Brad Friedman: Blog Bio & Testimonials..., where it at least lists quotes from other people (but not reference them.) --Sigma 7 (talk) 22:41, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Clearly the notability bar for "Creative professionals" is high and not reached by Friedman. Lot's of quotes from CourtTV don't make it a notable article. 12.3.62.130 (talk) 14:18, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This debate was originally closed as "delete" and reconsidered at deletion review. Result was to relist to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Chick Bowen 00:33, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete non notable, per WP:CREATIVE §hawnpoo 06:29, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep. Added sources not only easily satisfy the general notability guideline, which has primacy, but demonstrate that the subject is regarded as an important voting rights blogger who is often cited by his peers, hence WP:CREATIVE is satisfied. Baileypalblue (talk) 07:18, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. You might want to identify the three or four cites that you feel best show notability: out of the first two I randomly spot-checked, one was a blog, and the other was WP:LARD that barely mentioned Friedman, which doesn't give me faith that all those footnotes are real. THF (talk) 07:28, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Subject is profiled in The Beacon-News (see text here). An LA Times newspaper blog, which counts as a reliable source per Wikipedia:BLP#Reliable_sources, cites the subject as "the state's most persistent blogger-watchdog on the dangers of voting technology". [49] Rolling Stone cites the subject as having single-handedly kept a voting rights controversy alive via his "relentless blogging". The New York Times describes the subject as "perhaps the most dogged critic of electronic voting machine technology in the blogosphere" [50]. Another NYT article quotes the subject extensively on the subject of the role of bloggers as journalists. The subject is quoted in numerous other sources in the article and on the internet, satisfying one of the criteria of WP:CREATIVE. If you don't like the sources I've picked out of the article, please do your own due diligence research on the dozens of other reliable sources available online. I recognize it's hard sorting through the false hits on that Gnews search, but as AfD nominator you've got to make a better effort. Baileypalblue (talk) 09:33, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Edits aren't going to make someone notable. WP's got a high standard here and it's very clearly not met. This doesn't appear to me to be a question of article quality. 71.178.193.134 (talk) 08:31, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Edits aren't necessary to make the subject notable. Notability is established by at least ten reliable sources in the article, plus I would estimate several dozen more in Gnews (that refer to this Brad Friedman). Baileypalblue (talk) 08:51, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I must disagree with you. I encourage you to read WP:CREATIVE. I don't believe "refer to" is a qualification.71.178.193.134 (talk) 09:12, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Quoting from WP:CREATIVE: "The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors." This criteria is clearly satisfied: the subject is heavily quoted by his peers in the media on his subject of expertise, and multiple cited quotes in the article demonstrate that he is regarded as an important figure. Quoting from Wikipedia:CREATIVE#Basic_criteria: "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be needed to prove notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability." Unless you can demonstrate that all but one of the dozens of independent reliable sources online that cover the subject are "trivial", this criteria establishes the subject's notability. Better make sure you know what the term "trivial" means in this context before attempting this. Baileypalblue (talk) 09:50, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Baileypalblue. WP:CREATIVE does appear met. Ancemy (talk) 17:13, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep he does make regular appearances on KKGN radio 960 am in san francisco bay area. i think the article needs to be trimmed down, but he is notable, as he is heard and announced as an authority on a radio station that runs nationally syndicated shows.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 19:50, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete still not notable per guidelines. 166.199.58.8 (talk) 22:21, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep -- I see lots of references here to reliable sources. I don't see any record of the nominator voicing their concerns on the talk page. Geo Swan (talk) 22:30, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment -- Nominator cites wikipuffery as if it were one of the wikipedia's policies. It is not. It is an essay started by the nominator him or herself. Geo Swan (talk) 22:30, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep There appears to be enough coverage in reliable sources to show notability. DHowell (talk) 00:41, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. – sgeureka t•c 14:33, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Joe Estevez[edit]
- Joe Estevez (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Unremarkable minor actor whose only claim to notability appears to be that he is the brother of Martin Sheen. No awards listed at IMDB; no apparent feature roles in major films. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:46, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. However, he does seem to be a prolific B-movie actor. "Zombiegeddon" and "Motorcycle Cheerleading Mommas" FTW! --Sc straker (talk) 21:59, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep While not an Oscar-caliber actor, Mr. Estevez is very well known to fans of B-Movies. A Google News search confirms his standing in this genre: [51]. Pastor Theo (talk) 01:55, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:03, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Very weak keep per Theo. Ekes over the WP:BIO line, if not the WP:CREATIVE line. NB that many of those Google News hits are for Joe Estevez (mayor). THF (talk) 14:28, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:16, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. per theo. Mystache (talk) 03:05, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep He's an Estevez, that's notable enough (WP:SHEEN&ESTEVEZ?). The long film career clinches it, no matter how many B-movies are in it. Nate • (chatter) 05:14, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep per theo. §hawnpoo 08:45, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. At least two of his films, Soultaker (in which he has a major role) and Werewolf, were featured on Mystery Science Theater 3000, and he's gotten several mentions on that show. There is also an interview with him on Mystery Science Theater 3000: Volume XIV.SPNic (talk) 21:27, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedily deleted as a copyright violation. Non-admin closure. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 05:06, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Aeris Communications, Inc.[edit]
- Aeris Communications, Inc. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Blatant advertising. Written like a press release. Only Wiki links are from lists, such as Aeris disambiguation and list of providers. Google search is mostly press releases and similar PR. Knockwood (talk) 08:26, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:12, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "August, 2007 – Aeris selected to the Inc. 5000 list, an honor given to America’s fastest-growing private companies" if this is true, what prevents this from qualifying as reference ?YSWT (talk) 01:46, 8 March 2009 (UTC) (also, clearly needs edit out of 'advertising' language, but the issue is deletion, if am understanding correctly.[reply]
- Delete per nom. The "Inc. 5000 list," as one can tell by the number of companies named to it, does not confer Wikipedia notability. THF (talk) 03:10, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete Blatant copyright violation lovingly ripped off from various pages on the Aeris Corporate website: [52]. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 03:46, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 00:15, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wyatt Gray[edit]
- Wyatt Gray (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Fails WP:ENTERTAINER. IMDb just shows bit parts/uncredited roles. Nothing else the article says can be substantiated because there are no sources to be found. Mbinebri talk ← 15:33, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - non-notable, with no decent sources. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 20:20, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:10, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete Non notable, no substantial sources. §hawnpoo 05:49, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - minor, uncredited roles (even as Starfleet cadets) do not show notability; the article simply does not pass WP:ENTERTAINER. - Jarry1250 (t, c) 09:00, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 00:15, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Melisse[edit]
- Melisse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
The label doesn't seem to be too notable, besides the fact that it is mentioned in the Édouard Ferlet article. But this article doesn't add much more than what is in that article, so I propose this article be redirected to Édouard Ferlet. Belasted (talk) 18:06, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The nomination under this one is swallowing this. Someone please help. Belasted (talk) 20:05, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have fixed the issue by inserting the proper afd2 template at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Intelligence quotient. I also removed extra whitespace inserted by the nom of this AfD. KuyaBriBriTalk 20:30, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep.I found the official English website of the label ([53]) and it does have links to PDF files that appear to be clippings of coverage in third-party sources; unfortunately, most of those sources are in French and I have zero French knowledge. If someone with a better knowledge of French can prove these sources are or are not reliable I will reconsider my position. The article can be kept as a stub. (I thought I'd assess this nomination since the nom asked me for technical help) KuyaBriBriTalk 21:24, 3 March 2009 (UTC); edited KuyaBriBriTalk 21:27, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:10, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I looked at two of those PDFs on the website and all of the clippings in them are peripheral mentions of the label in the context of reviews of the artist's work. That's not the same as notability for the label. §FreeRangeFrog 07:26, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Based on the above comment I change my !vote to Redirect per nom. KuyaBriBriTalk 13:54, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, fails notability per WP:CORP. Searching pulls up no reliable, third-party, sources. Esradekan Gibb "Talk" 12:33, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete per CSD A7 and per WP:N §hawnpoo 16:51, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I added a couple of links to the article. They show that the label exists, but not that it is notable. Other Google hits are about the albums the label has issued, or the founder Édouard Ferlet who (correctly) has a Wikipedia entry, but not the label itself. Just another small label. Aymatth2 (talk) 21:09, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I re-emphasize my request that this be redirected to the Édouard Ferlet article, as the topic almost exclusively has to do with him. Belasted (talk) 21:23, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I support redirect. If the label achieves notability, the redirect can be turned into an article. Maybe the Édouard Ferlet article could be expanded to give a bit more on the label, based on sources. Aymatth2 (talk) 23:46, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Just made Melisse a section in the Édouard Ferlet article, which the redirect could point to. Aymatth2 (talk) 00:16, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. MBisanz talk 00:15, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nottingham Forest, Houston[edit]
- Nottingham Forest, Houston (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Subject does not appear to be notable, as a subsection of an undistinguished suburban housing subdivision Mmyers1976 (talk) 15:05, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. -- fr33kman -s- 15:20, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Non-notable neighborhood. Being on a list of most expensive neighborhoods in the city is not enough to establish notability. The article even frequently mentions "just like other neighborhoods in the area". Karanacs (talk) 15:27, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fritzpoll (talk) 09:48, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - not notable, Wikipedia is not a directory. Precedent from WP:OUTCOMES#Places is that "Smaller suburbs should generally be listed under the primary city article, except when they consist of legally separate municipalities or communes (e.g., having their own governments)." JohnCD (talk) 12:38, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I don't think WP:N is clear on places; I can't see the harm. -- Chzz ► 13:46, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:09, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Nottingham Forest, Houston is notable, it's even listed at the USGS as a populated place: see U.S. Geological Survey Geographic Names Information System: Articles for deletion/Log/2009 March 8. This article is about phase VIII of the neighborhood and phase VIII has no independent notability. This should be re-written for the entire neighborhood and then kept - or deleted and redone as an article on the whole neighborhood. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:36, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Generally I lean towards agreement with you that this has more of a chance of being notable if the article is rewritten to include all of Nottingham Forest, but I wonder about your assumption that USGS noting the existence of the entire neighborhood making it notabile. Elementary schools are included on USGS topo maps, but we all know that elementary schools are not generally notable. Mmyers1976 (talk) 14:15, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Rewrite - I agree with the above comment - the article should be rewritten to accommodate all the Nottingham Forest subdivisions. — JuWiki (Talk <> Resources) 05:40, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- See JohnCD's comment - the precedent seems pretty clear that even all of Nottingham Forest would not be notable enough to merit its own article. Perhaps "Memorial Area, Houston" would be encompassing enough to be notable.Mmyers1976 (talk) 14:38, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keepinformative article, I do not see why this is even here at AfD.Rewrite- See commment made by Mmyers1976. §hawnpoo 05:52, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Informative to whom? Other than the people living in Nottingham Forest, Section VIII, I can't see how it could be of any interest to anyone. Furthermore, read WP:GNG. In order for a subject to be notable, it has to have received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources "address[ing] the subject directly in detail and no original research is needed to extract the content." That is not the case for Nottingham Forest Section VIII - there is not a singlereference in the whole article which directly addresses Nottingham Forest Section VIII. Also, see precedent from WP:OUTCOMES#Places : "Smaller suburbs should generally be listed under the primary city article, except when they consist of legally separate municipalities or communes (e.g., having their own governments)." NF Sec. VIII is not a legally separate municipality. It isn't even its own municipal utility district. That is why this article is here at AfD. Mmyers1976 (talk) 14:15, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No, that is an argument for merger. AFD is only for hopeless cases per WP:BEFORE. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:37, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Rewrite I just moved to this neighborhood and found this article useful. I'd like to see the entry brought up to standard and saved. Stephenpace (talk) 15:23, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- See JohnCD's comment - the precedent seems pretty clear that even all of Nottingham Forest would not be notable enough to merit its own article. Perhaps "Memorial Area, Houston" would be encompassing enough to be notable.Mmyers1976 (talk) 14:38, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep/Rewrite This article could certainly be expanded to cover Nottingham Forest and such an article would be an asset to Wikipedia's coverage of Neighborhoods in Houston, Texas.
Mmyers1976— I suggest you read WP:POINT
Closing admin, note bias [54]
--Tothwolf (talk) 15:20, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I did not do anything to disrupt wikipedia, nor did I attempt to do so in order to prove a point. I suggest you read WP:AGF. Also, bringing up already deleted comments of mine from my own User Page which I have changed my mind about (hence the deletion) in an attempt to discredit me is poor form. I respectfully but firmly request that you edit your above comment to make it more neutral, stick to the issue at hand, and leave your baseless conjecture about other editors' current motives out of it.Mmyers1976 (talk) 15:32, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I suggest you also add WP:CIVIL to your reading list. Tothwolf (talk) 16:43, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Tothwolf, I'm not sure where you're coming from, but old revisions of someone's user page are only relevant if we are discussing a user or the deletion of their page. AfD is for discussion of whether or not Wikipedia should have an article on a particular subject, not discussion of the formerly held opinions of the persons involved, please assume good faith and stay on topic. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:52, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- (fixed formatting)
Because this isn't the place for this, Beeblebrox, I've left a much longer reply here: [55]
The short version is Mmyers1976's bias is very much a valid concern in this AfD, especially considering the fact that they are still attempting to browbeat anyone who expresses an opposing view. The very fact that Mmyers1976 has gone so far as to file a complaint against me at WP:WQA after reading WP:CIVIL in an attempt to force me to change my comments where I pointed out potential bias makes it even more obvious. If that wasn't enough, the comments Mmyers1976 left on my talk page [56] [57] [58] [59] show just how on track my suggestion that they read WP:POINT and WP:CIVIL really were.
--Tothwolf (talk) 19:26, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- (fixed formatting)
- Tothwolf, I'm not sure where you're coming from, but old revisions of someone's user page are only relevant if we are discussing a user or the deletion of their page. AfD is for discussion of whether or not Wikipedia should have an article on a particular subject, not discussion of the formerly held opinions of the persons involved, please assume good faith and stay on topic. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:52, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I suggest you also add WP:CIVIL to your reading list. Tothwolf (talk) 16:43, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. It has notable references in third party media sources. Doesn't that count? And there is nothing wrong with the article. I'd like to see articles like this for every town in the world. Dream Focus 23:02, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- References specific to Nottingham Forest, Section VIII? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mmyers1976 (talk • contribs) 02:14, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Since the article name now generally covers all the Nottingham Forests in Houston, we should simply rewrite the article to include the rest of them. The third party media sources refer to NF8 as "Nottingham Forest" as it is described by many - for example, Rand McNally refers to section 8 of Nottingham Forest as simply "Nottingham Forest" on its maps. — JuWiki (Talk <> Resources) 12:38, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep It is well-established that named areas of habitation are notable. This article seems fine. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:35, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Request to Close It has been over 5 days, and it seems time to close this discussion with a result of Keep and work on improving the article through the editing process. As the person who nominated the article for deletion, I'd like to ask if an admin could close the discussion. Thanks Mmyers1976 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:07, 11 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete Marasmusine (talk) 12:34, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ian Neil[edit]
- Ian Neil (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
WP:N Chzz ► 08:16, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 23:36, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete – I could not find any reliable secondary sources as shown here that can establish any notability of this person. I wished that this could be merged or redirected to Bulldog studios, but alas, I cannot (hint: redlink). MuZemike 00:08, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:08, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - non notable, only source I can find is here but its Bulldog Studios. No third party sources. §hawnpoo 08:18, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - May be notable, but doesn't belong here if sources can't prove it. — Levi van Tine (t – c) 11:42, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No reliable sources.--Sloane (talk) 04:37, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 00:15, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Heli USA[edit]
- Heli USA (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable company with very little coverage in third-party sources. Also reads like spam. Jeremiah (talk) 04:45, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This is pretty spammy - in fact, it could be deleted by G11 - Fastily (talk) 07:45, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
KeepDelete spam and document the helicopter crashes they've been involved in. -- Chzz ► 08:36, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 14:46, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete If the crashes are notable enough, perhaps they should be added to the appropriate list in Category:Helicopter accidents or Category:Aviation accidents and incidents but the company lacks sufficient notability.--Rtphokie (talk) 22:47, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:08, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Non notable and spam like. I would even suggest G11 or A7 to be in order. §hawnpoo 05:53, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete (but borderline) - It's almost the reverse of advertising (would you fly with them after reading that?) Deb (talk) 19:48, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Surely two fatal helicopter crashes is notable? Originally the article was nominated for deletion as spam; I added that info on the crashes - which is brief at the moment, but could easily be expanded. I'd argue that a heli company with 2 crashes is notable, and the article could be expanded to give further details. The spam has been removed, so I'm a bit puzzled as to what criterion it's now being considered for deletion? -- Chzz ► 08:22, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep - nominator states above that they recommend keeping -- Chzz ► 08:26, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Declined, as there are delete !vote in the discussion. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:55, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Tone 15:49, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Vanguard Championship Wrestling[edit]
- Vanguard Championship Wrestling (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Speedy declined on the grounds that the article claims local notability. All I could find in Google was an Alexa ranking in the millions and a lot of primary sources, many of which are on MySpace. Delete. Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 02:42, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The article is written like an advertisement. - Fastily (talk) 07:23, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:07, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete per A7. I tagged it earlier already. It asserts no notability and all google results are either its home page, a blog or two, or youtube/AOL video stuff. §hawnpoo 08:23, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 00:14, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nicholas Chan[edit]
- Nicholas Chan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Fails WP:BIO. This person is not a notable businessman or entrepreneur in Singapore. This was created to enhance his profile and reputation. The article is poorly written with references to insignificant episodes such as Army. The article is written by NcKnight, which is most likely the same person. Most of the references cannot be clicked on. There are a lot more Singaporeans with much more notable achievements.chase78 (talk)00:50, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 15:10, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 15:10, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I just added the missing AFD tag to the article. - Mgm|(talk) 18:44, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:03, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:06, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Essentially zero gnews hits. An amazing amount of information that simply does not add up to WP:BIO in any way. §FreeRangeFrog 05:20, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Also of note is the fact that the author Ncknight (talk • contribs • logs) of this article is an SPA seemingly tasked with creating this series of articles, including Azione Capital. §FreeRangeFrog 05:25, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. A3 in this case. Tone 15:50, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Devrukhe Brahmins - Kuladaiwatas[edit]
- Devrukhe Brahmins - Kuladaiwatas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Another from Devrukhe (see AfDs for linked) with a vague claim of context and no evidence of notability and no verifiability. Seems to have been a part of someone's project. StarM 02:10, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- StarM 02:10, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. -- StarM 02:10, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: The list is not sourced and unnecessary. --Redtigerxyz Talk 14:18, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:05, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete - I added a Speedy tag earlier today, list has no purpose it seems. §hawnpoo 08:20, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete Nancy talk 06:42, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Duroob Technology[edit]
- Duroob Technology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Contested speedy. Fails the first two sentences of WP:CORP (no significant media coverage found). Doesn't even assert notability. ~EdGl (talk) 00:33, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, fails notability per WP:CORP. Searching pulls up no reliable, third-party, sources. Esradekan Gibb "Talk" 02:50, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:04, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. as above. Mystache (talk) 03:04, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete no assertion of notability, no sources. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 05:10, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete agree with Mr. Senseless, he also added an A7 tag to it §hawnpoo 06:41, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Non-notable author. seicer | talk | contribs 13:21, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Lucrezia Lerro[edit]
- Lucrezia Lerro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Young italian writer. No major prize won, only applications. No real notability. --Invitamia (talk) 03:25, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I see some weak signs of notability via Books and Scholar, and also minor library holdings of Il rimedio perfetto on WorldCat, but not nearly enough to squeak by WP:CREATIVE. It's too soon for an encyclopedic bio on this author, with no prejudice to inclusion once she becomes a bit better known and published. §FreeRangeFrog 05:15, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Non notable §hawnpoo 06:39, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete --Invitamia (talk) 20:34, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.