Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 May 20
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:41, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sam Bonfante (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Contested speedy deletion by multiple editors, no reason given. Non-notable person. No verifiable or reliable sources. A total of 4 GNews hits. Most GHits were self-promotional sites or social networking. GregJackP (talk) 23:50, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That would be a mistake given whats going on —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.80.4.160 (talk) 00:42, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The Chronicle of Higher Education is highly notable, and so is the editor in chief and the publisher, but not necessarily people in such positions as Associate Publisher. Additionally, this article shows clear signs of having been copied from a press release. DGG ( talk ) 05:29, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No significant evidence of notability of this person. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:37, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - No coverage about him in reliable sources to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 12:53, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - DGG said it best. Also, I find it strange that several new accounts are editing the same article. APK whisper in my ear 01:17, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:41, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speed Our Republic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Appears to fail WP:N. SchuminWeb (Talk) 23:46, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fails WP:NSONG (or WP:N if that doesn't apply here either), no 3rd party sources to back up notability, author's page does not exist. Apparently A9 only applies to recordings, not songs. --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 01:02, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I decided to go on the side of caution here. A9 as I understand it is intended to close a hole in the speedy deletion process for albums by little "Myspace bands". We could speedy the Myspace band under A7, but we couldn't speedy their albums, and thus had to take them through AFD even though the article for the band itself was long gone. SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:54, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 and speedy deleted G11. Considering the sockpuppet activity on this AFD and a re-reading of the original article, this easily fits the requirement of blatant advertising. SchuminWeb (Talk) 22:51, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- GD3 Data (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Declined A7, but still fails WP:CORP. SchuminWeb (Talk) 23:30, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ben, I've added quite a few external references to show notability of the business. I think there are currently 3 independent references. Here's a fourth CEPro Article on metadata. I'm not exactly sure what you really are looking for. The business was known as "Get Digital Data" for nearly 4 years, so many of the Google notability searches may be under that name. Also, "GD3 database" "GD3 Metadata". It's kind of scattered around and a big reason why we change our name to GD3 Data so that these can be consolidated. How many independent references do you need to be considered "notable"? Thanks for your assistance. Dougstrach (talk) 00:58, 21 May 2010 (UTC)Dougstrach — Dougstrach (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Please Keep — As a consultant in the consumer electronics industry I have found that GetDigital's GD3 Data entry on Wikipedia serves many useful purposes:
- Helps International companies identify the various technologies and intellectual property offered
- Explains the company's name changes
- Serves as an important historical record which will aid future historians track an important transitional period from physical to digital in the music/movie industry.
- I urge you to retain this entry.
Stevekukla (talk) 13:48, 21 May 2010 (UTC)Stretchy54 — Stevekukla (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- So essentially, you believe that this is article is supposed to be an advertising vehicle. If that's the case, I can speedy delete the whole thing right now as blatant advertising and be done with it. Was that your intention? SchuminWeb (Talk) 19:55, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — One reference to their own website, two product announcements, and one product review on a self–published site do not constitute demonstrate "significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources." Non–notable. — TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 15:26, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:51, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Seems that TransporterMan is the only one with a problem with the GD3 page (likely a competitor who just doesn't want information about our company available). CEPro is the most reliable Consumer Electronics publication in the professional space and is recognized as an industry standard for Consumer Electonics--hardly a "self-published" site. Get Digital has also been reviewed by Scott Alexander and published in Playboy Magazine, as well as Fortune (Peter Lewis) IBJ Article on Get Digital, Men's Health and USA Today. If you'd like print versions of these articles, please let me have your fax number and I can forward. They aren't available online, and I cannot republish for obvious copyright reasons. I also do not believe that references to companies who license GD3--just like CDDB references all their customers on a page is a product announcement. These are encyclopedic references. 66.61.160.210 (talk) 19:28, 22 May 2010 (UTC)Dougstrach[reply]
- Comment struck for sockpuppetry. SchuminWeb (Talk) 22:47, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:41, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Cicely Scheiner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Declined A7 nominee. The organization that Scheiner works for appears that it may be notable (note "may"), but nothing major about Scheiner from what I can tell that would establish notability. Thus appears to fail WP:BIO. SchuminWeb (Talk) 23:24, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:50, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The only truly "reliable source" given is the Florida Sentinel article, which gives her only a few one-sentence quotes. There is really nothing about her specifically. And the only thing I found in a Google search was the state listing of her incorporation. So I don't think she makes it as notable, at least not at this time. --MelanieN (talk) 01:16, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:41, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Dennis Nerland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Declined A7, still fails WP:BIO. SchuminWeb (Talk) 23:17, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Plenty of Ghits, but all appear to be either passing mentions or brief profiles on websites of companies on whose boards the subject sits. I can find nothing that approaches significant coverage. -- Rrburke (talk) 00:08, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:48, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:48, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:41, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The Mossimovies Movie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable film lacking GHits and GNEWS. Appears to fail WP:NOTFILM and WP:CRYSTAL. ttonyb (talk) 23:09, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. GregJackP (talk) 23:17, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Meets or exceeds WP:MADEUP. ----moreno oso (talk) 23:35, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: I found zero sources. Joe Chill (talk) 00:36, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:47, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WAY TOOSOON. Granting that while it may not actually be WP:MADEUP, and while this film seems to represent a desire for "Mossimovies" to move from youtube videos to mainstream, it as yet does not have enough coverage to meet WP:NF. Maybe sometime in the future... or maybe not... but certainly not at present. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 03:18, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:41, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The Toy Soldier (2010 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unreleased student project. Author contests it is a student project although this suggests otherwise. Regardless, there is no indication of notability. I42 (talk) 21:55, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - the link provided actually lends credence to the assertion that this is not a student project. It is a project by film students done outside of school activity. Perhaps that is a bit of hair splitting, but the film was not made as part of a film school curriculum which is how I would define a student film project. -- Whpq (talk) 13:04, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - There is no coverage about this film in reliable sources. Their own website, Flickr, vimeo and facebook are the only results that turn up in a google search. -- Whpq (talk) 13:06, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Student project or not, it has no third party sources and no indication of notability. gnfnrf (talk) 19:42, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:45, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Maybe later it might receive coverage and be worth considering for return, but as for now, it's just TOOSOON. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 00:37, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:40, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Construction document communication (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Another unreferenced WP:ESSAY about an "emerging area" of some field. — e. ripley\talk 21:54, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Nothing to differentiate it from Document Management. No independant coverage. Looks like an advert.--Savonneux (talk) 23:23, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as spam. The article is an excuse to mention a website. The author of the article would appear to be associated with said website based on the CCI appendage to the name stem and teh webs site is from Construction Connect, Inc. -- Whpq (talk) 13:09, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, spam: Construction Document Communication tools, such as www.BuilditLive.com, go beyond merely the management of documents. CDC applications not only centralize the most critical construction documents, such as drawings, specifications, schdules, change orders, and punch lists, but they also provide mechanisms where by a central 'site owner' can easily manage the invitation and permissions of all the users of the site. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:09, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:09, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:40, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Andy Ogle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
no notability. Hasn't fought for any major English promotions, hasn't fought any notable opponents Paralympiakos (talk) 21:11, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:44, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:44, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This is essentially an unreferenced BLP of a non-notable MMA fighter. He's just starting out, so he may become notable, but he's not there yet. Papaursa (talk) 00:13, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not yet notable. Astudent0 (talk) 13:02, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Shimeru (talk) 21:51, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Rich Pecci (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Seems to fail WP:ENT. Most of his filmography is for non-notable roles such as Cop #1 and Loud Club Wannabe. His most notable role seems to be his latest one in the film Life During Wartime, but in most of the film reviews I've found, his role in the film isn't even mentioned. Millbrooky (talk) 20:42, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete None of the roles seem significant, can't see any evidence he passes WP:ENT. I also could not find significant coverage in reliable sources of him. Jujutacular T · C 21:02, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —Jujutacular T · C 21:02, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - His roles are not significant. Even the role in Life During Wartime is described in the only reference in the article as a "show-stopping cameo from Rich Pecci as a dour systems analyst with an unshakable belief in the rising power of China." Cameo? That doesn't speak to a significant role although he did a good enough job to be mentioned in at least one other review here. -- Whpq (talk) 13:14, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Respectfully, one shouldn't confuse a "cameo role" with a "walk-on" role. My understanding is that labeling a role as a cameo is an acknowledgment of its significant impact within the show. Evalpor (talk) 17:50, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply - That wasn't my understanding, but regardless, the coverage of his work in that role does not rise to the level that would establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 18:40, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Shimeru (talk) 21:52, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Renata Laxova (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The few listed sources are not about the subject, they include the subject, which is not the same thing. Guy (Help!) 20:22, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. She discovered the "Neu-Laxová syndrome" which yields over a half million Google hits when the search is done requiring an exact phrase. A similar search on her name yields over a thousand results. A similar search with her name in Google Books yields 75 results, which should establish notability. NYCRuss ☎ 22:42, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- So will you e adding sources about the subject rather than quoting the subject? Guy (Help!) 13:21, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Having a well written, well sourced article is not necessary to avoid deletion. Being notable is. If sources do indeed exist to establish notability (I haven't checked them, but it seems likely that they do), then there is no need for anyone to improve the article for it to survive here. If you don't like how it's sourced, fix it yourself. AFD isn't cleanup. Buddy431 (talk) 21:18, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- So will you e adding sources about the subject rather than quoting the subject? Guy (Help!) 13:21, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:42, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:43, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:43, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - definitely notable - UtherSRG (talk) 06:52, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Sources are clearly available. Edward321 (talk) 16:55, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:40, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Micronational Song Contest (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
A highly whimsical concept, but the article completely fails WP:GNG. Joal Beal (talk) 19:52, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as non-notable and a promotion limited to people who have their very own micronation, which is why none of us are invited. "It will be broadcast on YouTube" pretty well says it all. Yeah, and so will a video of my cat climbing the curtains. Mandsford 19:59, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete At least as interesting as the Eurovision Song Contest, but that's not the criterion we employ. As for notability, there is none. The two references quoted appear to be self-published, and according to Google web and news search, they are alone in the universe. Favonian (talk) 20:02, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails WP:N. Edison (talk) 23:17, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Fails WP:WEB. Joe Chill (talk) 00:22, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:41, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per original poster. Cool Hand Luke 16:25, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Duplicates Brain-computer interface, speedily deleted. Fences&Windows 21:59, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Synthetic telepathy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Apparent POV fork of brain-computer interface, most recently cleaned up after being loaded down with conspiracy theories identical to mind control. G-book searches reveal the term "synthetic telepathy" has a large following among conspiracy buffs and those who claim the government is reading their minds. Very little coverage by WP:RS reliable sources, most of which are specific to military research already existing at brain-computer interface. LuckyLouie (talk) 19:46, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to brain-computer interface. Agreed that there is not enough for an article on its own, but this topic is different from brain-computer interface. A BCI is about using the mind to tell a computer to do something. S-telepathy is about communication between two people. There are multiple sources about this area of research (some cited in the BCI article) showing that it is a topic with possibilities even if those possibilities have not yet been realised sufficiently to create a separate article. The fact that the conspiracy theorists have got their claws into it is a reason to be vigilant and to remove the rubbish whenever it appears, not a reason to delete the article entirely. But do delete Psychotronic (mind control), which was recently merged into Synthetic telepathy and I think is the root cause of some of the problems in the article. GDallimore (Talk) 21:44, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Keep" The information in the article is valid. Synthetic telepathy requires a BCI to work but is a separate subject with enough studies, research, and projects that support it having it's own article. I've referred to information provided in the synthetic telepathy article many times when writing the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence requesting an investigation into government agencies that use certain technologies. I was a straight A student accepted to UC Berkeley to study astrophysics before my life was ruined by an individual using remote electronic mind control and synthetic telepathy technology. Not all of us are conspiracy theorists and delusional hypochondriacs. Some of us are credible victims who need help. You can find documentation of research on manipulating brain waves using electromagnetic radiation and on microwave hearing dating back 50 years. It is important that a credible and easily accessible source of information on the subject exists, rather than the distorted truths and propaganda provided on conspiracy websites. I am concerned that the psychotronic article was recently deleted and now the synthetic telepathy article. In addition, there is no information about technology based research in the mind control article. It is evident to me that a group of people have collaborated to delete and redirect certain information. It should concern you as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.198.21.135 (talk) 07:36, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree on redirect. Content relating to academic use of the term should first be developed at brain-computer interface and then moved to its own article when significant content appears. - LuckyLouie (talk) 23:28, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Brain-computer interface. It appears that this is a real term used for such an interface, albeit with no particular consistent definition. The present contents represent a particular fringe/OR viewpoint that appears to be nonsense to me. It's best to just redirect this to the existing, neutral article. — Gavia immer (talk) 23:22, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect/merge with brain-computer interface, which is a much stronger article covering much of the same ground. May be worth mentioning Dewan and Malech's work in the BCI article. --McGeddon (talk) 07:58, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect as above. I'm feeling pretty silly for not having noticed that Brain–computer interface exists when I encountered Synthetic telepathy recently. There was a tremendous amount of nonsense in the article 24 hours ago (misinterpretations of sources, and wild WP:OR, and use of some overly-hyperbolic sources). The current article still has some exaggerated language for what the 60 minutes story showed, and keeping the article would make it a target for further POV exaggerations. Synthetic telepathy is simply a form of brain–computer interface and that's were this material belongs. Johnuniq (talk) 08:34, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I just noticed brain-computer interface has a large number of watchers, so it's better equipped to keep this topic out of the hands of the psychotronics crowd. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:14, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Psychtronics is a Czech term and nothing to do with the link you have provided. In scientific terms, it relates to soviet research into directed energy weapons that manipulates the psysiological state of the human brain as to effect the conscious mind. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.147.141.9 (talk) 19:55, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge/Redirect per above. I think the BCI article has everything in this article, including all valid references, but a check would be useful. Ravensfire (talk) 20:45, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unqualified Editors The article has been vandalized by a small number of editors that claimed to understand the technology, but when tested (see talk page) failed to demonstrate any comprehension of the material. The arguments put forward rely on a false interpretation (i.e. lack of knowledge) of terms, phrases and technology. One small example is the failure to understand TMS is writing information to the brain, apparently, this small group of editors feel that perceptible alterations can be performed without any form of non-invasive communication. Synthetic telepathy and BCI are two fundamentally different disciplines. BCI is an interface and relates how to connect with the brain. Synthetic telepathy is just one form of application that can be performed when a BCI exists. As such, it is clear that GDallimore, Gavia immer and LuckyLouie are unqualified to be editing, or commenting, on the validity of this article or its citations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.149.244.240 (talk) 03:25, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- However, we do have a good understanding of Wikipedia procedures. Please start at WP:V and WP:NPOV. Johnuniq (talk) 08:34, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If you can't understand the terminology or technical relevance of citations, then Wikipedia's procedures cannot be applied properly. Leave editing to the qualified. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.149.244.240 (talk) 09:32, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- WP policies apply to ALL articles. If you cannot understand and follow them, then you should expect your additions to be reverted/removed. The requirements for inclusion in WP are determined by WP, not by each individual editor. You do not have a choice about following them. Ravensfire (talk) 20:48, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- WP Policies were followed, the articles cited could not be understood by a small group of editors. Most of them require an advanced technological knowledge in the field to be able to put them in their appropriate context. What do you want me to do? Educate your editors? I can't do that. They are looking for words and phrases verbatim, unfortunately, the documents are not written like that and require translation. The significance is not always apparent as a result. That's just how it is.78.147.141.9 (talk) 21:05, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- WP policies apply to ALL articles. If you cannot understand and follow them, then you should expect your additions to be reverted/removed. The requirements for inclusion in WP are determined by WP, not by each individual editor. You do not have a choice about following them. Ravensfire (talk) 20:48, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If you can't understand the terminology or technical relevance of citations, then Wikipedia's procedures cannot be applied properly. Leave editing to the qualified. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.149.244.240 (talk) 09:32, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In the News This has hit the newswire...back soon with links... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.149.244.240 (talk) 10:39, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Meat Puppetry This article has been vandalised by a group of editors that have violated Wikipedia's standards on sock puppetry. All editors on this page have deleted substantial portions and made subtle edits, as a team, before nominating it for deletion. Further, no attempt was made to enter into discussion before such edits occurred. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.147.141.9 (talk) 20:02, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A Quick Example Spot the inconsistancies:
1. An article today that states extensive training would be required to detect speech: http://www.physorg.com/news137863959.html
2. 60 Minutes segment shows that no training is required and that a generalisable pattern exists: http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=5119805n&tag=related;photovideo
This is what you are really up against...classified versus unclassified material. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.147.141.9 (talk) 21:53, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- An article "today" (Oohhhhh! Ooohhhhh! Found the inconsistancy!), that is dated August 2008 versus something from June 2009, nearly a year later. I'm shocked, shocked to see that things change. Ravensfire (talk) 22:00, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Pedantic as usual and still missing the point. These are different projects, the report was "updated" in June, but published in Jan. Meaning, they were able to do this, even as the military fund project denied any knowledge of generalized patterns. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.147.141.9 (talk) 22:46, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This technology has advanced sufficiently that there are now mass market toys such as Mindflex. The uses of such interfaces are numerous and telepathy is just one of them. Synthetic telepathy seems a good title for this topic and there are numerous sources. Editing this material into a satisfactory state is not a matter for AFD. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:11, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Mindflex and other similar toys are BCIs - they do not permit telepathy. GDallimore (Talk) 22:56, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Have you got a citation to back that up? It is a form of telepathy and uses the same principle. That is, matching a generalizable neural pattern through statistical analysis to an action or event. Once again, you prove your lack of understanding of the technology.78.147.141.9 (talk) 23:02, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Here is Tan Le demonstrating her mind control device linked to a PC...live demonstration:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=40L3SGmcPDQ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.147.141.9 (talk) 22:49, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment O'RLY? This has got to involve the indef'd User:Frei Hans; some of the IPs, I expect. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Telepathy and war and all the drama he caused. Sincerely, Jack Merridew 22:53, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:39, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:39, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What? No monkeys with robotic arms?
The term "synthetic telepathy" does seem to have some currency, although what people mean by it differs. Synthesising a non-existent ability is an odd proposition. pablohablo. 00:14, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There's the problem: Synthetic Telepathy is a serious field of scientific investigation (example). It involves using an external sensor on someone to detect patterns of thought that imply a message and destination, and an electronic communication system to convey the message to the intended recipient. The research is at the baby-footstep level, although it can do some interesting party tricks. The problem of course is that using the overloaded term "telepathy" attracts the interest of certain fringe dwellers who conflate what a reliable source actually says and what some random website claims. The concepts are exactly the same as brain-computer interface. Johnuniq (talk) 01:54, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Why would a technology, with such high value to intelligence be unclassified? Why is there a gap in development of approx. 25 years in its development? This technology is not in its infancy, a completely false history is being created to cover the classified projects that continued after MKULTRA was supposedly shut down.78.148.48.31 (talk) 12:32, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Administrator note 78.147.141.9 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has been blocked 1 week as a sock puppet of indefinitely-blocked user Frei Hans (talk · contribs). –MuZemike 02:44, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This claim has been fabricated, good luck with blocking too, I'm on a VERY large dynamic pool of addresses.78.148.48.31 (talk) 11:33, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Where is your evidence???
- That's fine. We can have the AFD semi-protected then, just as SlimVirgin has done. –MuZemike 16:17, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The disruptive IP is now hitting the entry at Fringe Theories Noticeboard. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:26, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to brain-computer interface per above. Dbrodbeck (talk) 13:33, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to brain-computer interface per above arguments. Seems like this could be quickly closed and the article redirected; the only dissenting voice is that of a banned user. ClovisPt (talk) 19:49, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect as the core material is covered at brain-computer interface - developments in the field of telepathy will of course be covered if they happen. Let's get empirical, pirical, I wanna get empirical ... pablohablo. 20:39, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Speedy deleted as hopelessly nonencyclpedic both by me and M Bisantz. DGG ( talk ) 03:00, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Course Selection at Earl Haig Secondary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Wholly non-notable; how-to page TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 19:29, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete Not a speedy, unfortunately, but it should be deleted along with some advice about not using Wikipedia as a webhost. The school has its own website. Either this is a case of someone authorized to speak on behalf of the school, in which case I would say this is a misuse of Wikipedia; or someone not authorized, in which case this is a misuse of Wikipedia. A polite warning against articles of this nature would be appropriate. Mandsford 20:18, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:40, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Chandana Prasanna (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Please note, this article was simultaneously tagged for speedy deletion, prod, and an incomplete AfD nomination. Since it is not eligible for speedy deletion (it contains at least a weak assertion of notability) I have removed everything else and raised this AfD.
Here is the deletion rationale provided by User:Wipeouting:
The Person who represents this article is not a notable person or Film maker or writer in Sri Lanka. Information which wrote in Wikipedia is totally incorrect and there are no any references or links. This is a self promotional construction by a person who works in Media field. I suggest to delete this article , because this is not suitable for worldwide encyclopedia.
Thparkth (talk) 19:29, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. —Jarkeld (talk) 22:07, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - It's not clear what festival and what award was given to the short film. I can find no coverage about him. And although I recognize this may be a result of English language bias, if we accept the unverified information in the article, this still would eb the resume of somebody just starting out, and not yet notable. -- Whpq (talk) 13:33, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete-I have find out this article about a self promotion from a ordinary person. person who represent on the article is not notable and Information he provides is totally incorrect. there are no any sophisticate reference or link or resources. what is the way put this kind of Article worldwide encyclopedia ?(wipe 18:11, 21 May 2010 (UTC)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wipeouting (talk • contribs)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:37, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete no real coverage. 2 of these hits refer to a cricket player. [1]. LibStar (talk) 14:41, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as possible self-promotion of non-notable individual. Claritas (talk) 15:16, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete Article is a Self Promotion . Peron is not Notable or Importance in Sri Lanka --Anilpresantha (talk) 07:51, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Shimeru (talk) 22:03, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Positive Alternatives to Homosexuality (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Not notable. moɳo 19:02, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Correct, it isn't notable. Merge and redirect to Ex-gay, which is.—S Marshall T/C 19:20, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep It appears to meet notability requirements [2] [3] [4] separate from the ex-gay topic itself. Mandsford 20:26, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- it is notable because it is a worldwide organisation. --Diskriminierung (talk) 21:11, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep—Appears notable. I'm not sure about the neutrality of the word "therapies" in this context though, as the definition implies treatment of a health problem or disability.—RJH (talk) 21:14, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:N: received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. I cited a few of this sources in the article. --Diskriminierung (talk) 12:50, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:36, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:36, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep It appears to meet notability requirements. 80.187.111.78 (talk) 19:46, 24 May 2010 (UTC) — 80.187.111.78 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep. 80.187.111.78 (talk) 19:47, 24 May 2010 (UTC)Striking through duplicate !vote without further comment --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:19, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]- Keep. I don't believe they're anywhere near right, but they seem to be a substantial organization.Spoonkymonkey (talk) 16:41, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 by G11. TNXMan 18:07, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Camp Good Days and Special Times Inc. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Contested Prod. Non-notable camp, no verifiable or reliable references, creator has conflict of interest. GregJackP (talk) 17:44, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete as spam per G11, so tagged, and username reported to WP:UAA as a spamname. ukexpat (talk) 17:48, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:40, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Jay Losk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Propose deletion: Unsourced article for person with no ghits and no reference to him in either of the External Links provided. Original editor removed, with no explanation, an earlier speedy deletion nomination. Another editor suspects it to be a hoax. No dates given for person or his invention, so cannot know whether it should be a {{Prod blp}}! PamD (talk) 17:01, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Can't find a mention of him anywhere and article cites nothing to support what it says. Apart from that, I would question that there is a credible claim for notability. Being an 'inventor' doesn't make you notable. I've nothing to confirm my suspicion it is a hoax, except I'm puzzled how you can 'discover' a cleaning liquid formula. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 22:34, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I can find no mention of him not derived from Wikipedia
except for possibly one page which causes my web browser to crash whenever I try to access it. Certainly no evidence of notability. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:11, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Update I have now managed to look at the troublesome page I mentioned. Its mention of Jay Losk is, in fact, a link to Wikipedia, so that leaves no non-Wikipedia derived mention of him at all. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:36, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:40, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Girls of Canada calendar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Thoroughly nonnotable commercial product; no indication the subject can satisfy the GNG or any relevant guideline. No independent sourcing; article is mainly OR plus a list of credits copied from the product. No nontrivial GNews coverage. PROD removed without any assertion of notability. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:03, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as a non-notable commercial product. -- Whpq (talk) 13:40, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:33, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, per nom. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:25, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 05:46, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Jenn Sterger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No WP:V or WP:RS for notability. delete UtherSRG (talk) 16:56, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Clearly notable per the following refs:
- Also note that there are over 29K GImage hits and over 180K GHits. GregJackP (talk) 17:18, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - reasons stated by GregJackP, user UtherSRG demonstrates quickness to nominate articles for deletion without proper consideration. Perhaps mommy didn't love him enough. Eatmocake (talk) 17:59, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - meets WP:V and W:RS per the links above. — MrDolomite • Talk 19:02, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Greg. Joal Beal (talk) 19:29, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Careless nomination, WP:BEFORE should be a requirement, to avoid nominations such as this. DGG ( talk ) 05:33, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep - absolutely no reason to delete. NorwalkJames (talk) 20:22, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:29, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:30, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - this AfD is an over-reaction to a comment made in this other, unrelated AfD. This is clearly a careless and possibly bad faith nomination and should be snow closed. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:33, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Shimeru (talk) 22:04, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Mark Lugo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This orphan page is created and mostly maintained by self-promoting, non-notable businessman advertising his activities. Violates WP:NOT, WP:Notability, WP:AUTO, and WP:CONFLICT. Scarce online references to subject are self-created vanity pages and self-authored promotional pieces. No substantial or voluminous third party references available to establish notability. Ischium (talk) 15:59, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Looks to be promotional and gives no reliable references to back up claims. The subject seems to have had quite a few businesses, but we aren't told what they are/were. This indicates to me that they are not particularly of note. Whether the article is self-promotional or just promotional I leave to others with more knowledge of the subject. Peridon (talk) 20:17, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:28, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Most text in this article has been removed since proposal for deletion using the same Amnet ISP in Costa Rica where most earlier maintenance edits originated (identified using tracert command on User:186.4.16.41). Subject of article lives in Costa Rica, as stated in the longer, earlier version of the article. Article subject may be attempting to evade deletion by minimising presence? This action violates the explicit instruction forbidding blanking included in the deletion notice. Article history shows most article content was self-authored by user:Marklugo or from Costa Rican addresses (186.4.16.41, 196.40.10.246, 190.10.10.157, 186.32.56.95) identified as Amnet/RACSA ISPs using tracert. User featured already in a past WikiProject Spam/COIReport (entry #841). Current article is a complete orphan with no citations and additionally violates WP:CONFLICT and WP:BIO. Ischium (talk) 18:43, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It seems like once again I am confused by Wiki. I tried to offer an explanation and could not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.4.16.41 (talk) 18:46, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is what I understood: "Feel free to edit the article, but the article must not be blanked, and this notice must not be removed, until the discussion is closed"... What did I do differently? MarkLugo —Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.4.16.41 (talk) 19:09, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Gross article reduction from 399 words to 55 word stub violates blanking rule. Following deletion proposal, subject of article removed evidence of self-promotion and advertising by deleting link to own website marklugo.com promoting a product he proposes to sell commencing June 2010 (external links section of article). Self-authored and -maintained article appears intended to exploit Wikipedia to promote private commerce by advertising this link, violating WP:COI, WP:OR, WP:NPOV, WP:SOAP, WP:NOTADVERTISING. Ischium (talk) 19:51, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What do you recommend I do. My intentions are to oblige by the Wiki terms and conditions. I was only trying to add things I felt relative to me and my professional career. **I really don't even know how I got on Wiki in the first place to be totaaly honest. Well, many thanks and good night. Marklugo —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.10.0.78 (talk) 03:39, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Since its shearing, the article looks ready for a Speedy Deletion as not indicating any notability and being unreferenced BLP into the bargain. Peridon (talk) 09:17, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment shearing... Speedy Deletion versus not so Speedy Deletion? BLP... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.10.0.78 (talk) 19:29, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, can't find any significant coverage. Marklugo, since you asked, please read this and this and WP:SOAP for some information on why this article is up for deletion, drop me a note at my talk page if you have questions. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:31, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:40, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Amerigine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Although the articles subject purports to be a theoretical pre-Clovis culture existing in the western hemisphere which evolved in situ, it fails to offer any supporting references beyond a single (self published?) paper from 1961 and also fails to explain why this apparent fringe theory should be considered notable. Deconstructhis (talk) 15:49, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I can find no evidence that this is notable. I did find uses of the word to mean Native American (one on Google Books, several here [5] and this [6] is clearly relevant. An article by the guy is at Wikisource: [7]. And we have an article on Savant, founded by "a group of poets and avant-garde writers and artists". Jonson is a poet. I note the obvious original research in the article. Dougweller (talk) 20:40, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- A request for a redirect has just popped up for this article:[8] Deconstructhis (talk) 05:40, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:26, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- delete - not used in real science. fictional. From Wikisource: "Amerigine is a scientific treatise written by American writer and poet B. Jonson and published in 1979 by Savant, a not-for-profit literary publisher." - UtherSRG (talk) 06:32, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- delete I am having trouble finding sources that use this phrase in the context of the articel.Slatersteven (talk) 14:06, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. A Google Scholar search for Amerigine turns up only one hit, and that from a book on how to talk to children about world art that mentions in passing that it is another way of referring to American Indians and looks suspiciously like the article Indigenous peoples of the Americas before Amerigine was removed for giving undue credence to a fringe theory. The word failed a request for verification at the Wiktionary (pointed to by Dougweller above) and was deleted. I'd say this fails to meet the minimum threshold for having received "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources." RJC TalkContribs 23:52, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:40, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Melanie Walsh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:PORNBIO and WP:ENT; only three trivial roles in films, most notable claimed role is as an unnamed "red light district girl" in a crowd scene; no indication the subject can meet the GNG or any other specialized guideline; no reliable sourcing. Original PROD removed with unexplained claim of notability. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:43, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Per nom, no reliable sourcing to establish notability. Fails GNG and all other notability guidelines. EuroPride (talk) 15:53, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Scientizzle 20:05, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The Pretty Reckless (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable band, fails WP:BAND, should be merged with Taylor Momsen, who is notable. Refs are either self-published (#1,3,5) or refer primarily to Momsen (#2, 4). No awards, charted songs, etc. GregJackP (talk) 15:35, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Passes WP:BAND Namely (Has been placed in rotation nationally by any major radio network.) BBC Radio 1 'A' Playlist - http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio1/playlist/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.112.136.223 (talk) 21:47, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This should probably not be deleted. It's a good article, reads well, has some references. It also seems to meet our criteria (if barely). But if it is deleted, make sure the content is not lost. I would expect the album release to generate enough press (or even chart success) to definitely warrant an article. And rewriting it would be a bitch. Pepve (talk) 21:41, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Pretty Reckless got a positive review in the NY Post on May 18 2010 - http://www.nypost.com/p/blogs/music/the_pretty_reckless_is_pretty_good_3BDBeRmliITw2CPhfqslEM More reason to keep the article.
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:24, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The band passes #1 ( Glasswerk, About.com, NY Daily, + more just on google news), #2 (#16 on UK Singles Chart), #10 (Make Me Wanna Die from Kick Ass) and #11 (rotation on BBC Radio 1) of WP:BAND. I don't see why it should be deleted. liquidluck✽talk 00:20, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Liquidluck's references, in particular the one that confirms of their songs has charted on a notable national singles chart (UK Singles Chart). However, it should be noted that the song debuted on the UK Singles Chart after this AfD was opened, so the nominator was indeed correct that the artist did not have a charting single before the nomination. However, they do indeed now pass criterion #2. Doc StrangeMailboxLogbook 20:15, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Charting band, featured in a chart-topping Hollywood movie, album on the verge of release, well-known lead singer. Definitely notable, and will be even more so in a matter of months. It would be a shame for the current content to go to waste in the mean time. Saint91 (talk) 22:06, 25 May 2010 (UTC) — Saint91 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Comment - since the band has had a song hit the charts subsequent to this AfD nomination, it renders this discussion moot. I would like to withdraw my nomination and close as !keep. GregJackP (talk) 14:27, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. * 03:28, 25 May 2010 Nyttend (talk | contribs) deleted "Cardiology billing" (G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement of http://www.cardiologybilling.us/) (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:24, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Cardiology billing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article is pure original research. I don't see how the topic is relevant in the slightest; any similar article (dentistry billing, getting the check at a restaurant, plumbing bill) seems just as nonsensical as this. No clear CSD category; using AFD primarily because of absolute lack of notability and original research which precludes any chance of reliable third-party sources. — Timneu22 · talk 15:22, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, this material is already better covered at Medical billing (United States), which is itself poorly referenced but written in much more systematic detail. No need for this spinoff. I do not agree that this topic is inherently unnotable, however: medical billing procedures are a significant part of the overall health care crisis in the United States.--Arxiloxos (talk) 15:43, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No question that medical billing is notable; especially notable for its inefficiency in the US! ;-) — Timneu22 · talk 15:45, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:23, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:23, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Deleted; it was rightly identified as a copyvio of http://www.cardiologybilling.us. Nyttend (talk) 03:28, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 via G4. This AFD was already created. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Timneu22 (talk • contribs)
- Ariana Kelly (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Person appears to be non-notable. Lack of third-party resources to validate notability; is the campaign director of an abortion organization notable? Also, as she has not yet won the state delegate office, I don't see notability there either. Seems rather promotional to have created this article. — Timneu22 · talk 14:52, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. A primary source is sufficient for verification in a case such as this, so the rationale for deletion has been addressed. Shimeru (talk) 22:20, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Former Presidents of Oxford University Conservative Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails verifiability policy, has been tagged so since April 2009 (13 Months). Not even listed on the Association's own website. Codf1977 (talk) 14:51, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I strongly disagree - the article (which was moved from the main Oxford University Conservative Association article for reasons of space) is filled with notable personalities, including William Hague, Margaret Thatcher, Edward Heath, Daniel Hannan, Jacob Rees-Mogg, Jeremy Hunt, Nick Robinson, Dominic Grieve, Julian Brazier, Nigel Waterson, Jonathan Aitken, Alan Haselhurst, William Rees-Mogg, Julian Amery, Quintin Hogg, etc, etc - many, many cabinet ministers and MPs. It adds much-needed context, because so many of their own wikipedia entries mention their OUCA Presidency, and this makes some sense of all the references by putting them in perspective, and showing who was a contemporary of whom.
- Agreed there was no source given - but I've actually found one. The official 1995 history of OUCA has lists all of them for 1924-1995, so I have happily inserted the reference for that. Wikipedia's main OUCA article has been going since 2005, so the regularly-updated OUCA website has been the source since 2005.
- So we have sources for 1924-1995 and 2005-present, and if anyone wishes to contest the order of the names of past presidents for 1995-2005 (which I can't exactly see being a controversial point), then they're welcome to!
- I would also politely direct you to List of Presidents of the Oxford Union for a precedent of a similar article. While this list has fewer links to notable people (since it only starts in 1924, while the other stretches back to 1823), it has a similar number of links for the period covered, and seems a legitimate way to cut down the size of the already-long main article on OUCA.
- Politico234 (talk) 15:41, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What part of the nom do you disagree with? - The fact that it filled as you put it "with notable personalities" is not the issue here it is the verifiability of the page that is in question, and has been for over a year. The source you give is clearly self-published, do you have anything else and what about the period post 1995 ? Codf1977 (talk) 16:46, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- BelovedFreak 20:11, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The information is a reasonable appendix to the main article and adequately supported by the histories which exist, as well as the numerous citations available for particular individuals. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:53, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- But it is missing any verification post 1995 and pre 1995 there is only a self-published primary one. Codf1977 (talk) 00:47, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Verification would be swell. Retention harms no one or nothing. Carrite (talk) 03:20, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Problem being, one of WP polices is that all content should be verifiable so yes it DOES harm if there is not Verification. Codf1977 (talk) 07:28, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Verification is required if entries are challenged. I see no reason to challenge any of the entries as the self-published source is more likely to be accurate than other sources. Why would they get it wrong? As many of the people concerned are notable enough for their own articles, putting them in the context of a full list is valuable. --Bduke (Discussion) 10:33, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well by creating this AfD aren't I not challenging it? We know at least one mistake has been made in the list (see here) so how can we be sure that the rest of the list is correct ? Codf1977 (talk) 10:46, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Then remove the ones that are challenged and make it clear that the rest are "according to the Oxford University Conservative Association". The change you linked to is not sourced either. Do we know that it was wrong? It is not a reason to delete the whole article. --Bduke (Discussion) 11:01, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I am not saying which version was correct with the dif I posted, but either one or both are wrong. When I created the AfD, I could not find any source for any of the article (even the Associations own website does not have this list), it had been tagged for 13 months, so there was a reason to propose it be deleted, even since I started this AfD there is still 15 Years of un-sourced items. Codf1977 (talk) 12:31, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Then remove the ones that are challenged and make it clear that the rest are "according to the Oxford University Conservative Association". The change you linked to is not sourced either. Do we know that it was wrong? It is not a reason to delete the whole article. --Bduke (Discussion) 11:01, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jayjg (talk) 03:35, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Alexandra Dreyfus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I am nominating this article for deletion because of the questionable validity of the sources and the questionable notability of the person. This is not a television actress but someone who appeared in ONE YouTube web series. Reference 1 and 9 are the person's own MySpace page. Reference 7 is a video that does not even contain the person in the article. The line, 'She also starred in a psychological-thriller feature called Copy, Credit, Meals Provided which was screened by Lion's Gate, among others. The movie was the first full-length feature that she starred in.' is supposedly backed by reference 4. That is a video interview that contains no mention of a film reviewed by Lionsgate. The line ' Dreyfus is currently working on music for her forthcoming debut record.' is backed by her own MySpace page and was referenced 3 years ago and there has been no evidence of such an album coming to fruition. Bunzo1984 (talk) 14:20, 20 May 2010 (UTC) — Bunzo1984 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Keep: This was one of the primary actors on Lonelygirl15, and later starred in the subsequent series The Resistance. Saying she starred in "ONE YouTube web series" is not technically correct, and Lonelygirl15 was the most covered webseries of all time, making top of the decade lists, etc. I think the nomination shows that the article needs improvement not deletion. There are valid sources aside from the refs to the actresses' Myspace.--Milowent (talk) 14:32, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- My main issue is not that it was only one web series. My main issue is the references are mainly MySpace, a video interview that is used to reference information about Lionsgate Studios but contains nothing of the sort, and a video about Dubplate Drama that I watched in its entirety and did not contain the person in question. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bunzo1984 (talk • contribs) 14:35, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I know she appeared in season 3 of dubplate drama because I watched it, we simply need a better source for that. I removed the odd myspace ref regarding skinny girls. As for the Lionsgate movie reference, I notified Zoeydahling of the AfD because she apparently added that information.--Milowent (talk) 14:45, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think when using the name of a reputable studio such as Lion's Gate you need to take care and reference properly. Surely the little information that is left on this page can be merged into the page on lonelygirl15. This person does not seem to be an active actress. You saying that you watched Dubplate Drama does not verify it. The reference video used does not contain this actress. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bunzo1984 (talk • contribs) 14:54, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- [9]imdb says she was in dubplate drama, which is a british TV show. Arguing that an article can be improved is not a reason for deletion. Since her roles were not limited only lonelygirl15, it doesn't makes sense to merge into that, see, e.g., Yousef Abu-Taleb --Milowent (talk) 15:07, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thus far you have used imbd to prove that she was supposedly an extra in a Channel 4 online series but the video of the episode is still devoid of this. You also haven't cleared up the issues of Lion's Gate. Nor the issue regarding a forthcoming record (that was forthcoming 3 years ago). All in all this article has an air of self-promotion about it. It discusses the actress's involvement in one play at a community college. Not even established actors such as Robert DeNiro etc. contain such trivia. I nominated for deletion because I feel the dubious information offers little to wikipedia users. 94.1.122.129 (talk) 17:14, 20 May 2010 (UTC)— 94.1.122.129 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Getting way OT here, but from DeNiro's article, "the direction of his future had already been determined by his stage debut at age ten playing the Cowardly Lion in his school's production of The Wizard of Oz".--Milowent (talk) 19:02, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Goodness me you missed the point I was making. That sentence From DeNiro's page is anecdotal in the context of him becoming a Hollywood A-lister. It's not stand-alone trivia. You pick up on points so as to shift focus away from the issue at hand here. MySpace references, inaccurate references about Lion's Gate Studios and video references that do not contain the actress. Your emotive behaviour leads me to believe you have a vested personal interest in this issue. Be objective and realise that filling wikipedia with absolute trivia about non-notable people is not constructive. 94.1.122.129 (talk) 22:14, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Getting way OT here, but from DeNiro's article, "the direction of his future had already been determined by his stage debut at age ten playing the Cowardly Lion in his school's production of The Wizard of Oz".--Milowent (talk) 19:02, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thus far you have used imbd to prove that she was supposedly an extra in a Channel 4 online series but the video of the episode is still devoid of this. You also haven't cleared up the issues of Lion's Gate. Nor the issue regarding a forthcoming record (that was forthcoming 3 years ago). All in all this article has an air of self-promotion about it. It discusses the actress's involvement in one play at a community college. Not even established actors such as Robert DeNiro etc. contain such trivia. I nominated for deletion because I feel the dubious information offers little to wikipedia users. 94.1.122.129 (talk) 17:14, 20 May 2010 (UTC)— 94.1.122.129 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- [9]imdb says she was in dubplate drama, which is a british TV show. Arguing that an article can be improved is not a reason for deletion. Since her roles were not limited only lonelygirl15, it doesn't makes sense to merge into that, see, e.g., Yousef Abu-Taleb --Milowent (talk) 15:07, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think when using the name of a reputable studio such as Lion's Gate you need to take care and reference properly. Surely the little information that is left on this page can be merged into the page on lonelygirl15. This person does not seem to be an active actress. You saying that you watched Dubplate Drama does not verify it. The reference video used does not contain this actress. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bunzo1984 (talk • contribs) 14:54, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I know she appeared in season 3 of dubplate drama because I watched it, we simply need a better source for that. I removed the odd myspace ref regarding skinny girls. As for the Lionsgate movie reference, I notified Zoeydahling of the AfD because she apparently added that information.--Milowent (talk) 14:45, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- My main issue is not that it was only one web series. My main issue is the references are mainly MySpace, a video interview that is used to reference information about Lionsgate Studios but contains nothing of the sort, and a video about Dubplate Drama that I watched in its entirety and did not contain the person in question. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bunzo1984 (talk • contribs) 14:35, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: The nominator's information about the sources is incorrect. The video about Lion's Gate clearly states that it's been screened by the company. The video on Dubplate Drama is 1/3, so if the nom continued watching, they would notice her in a good part of the rest of the episode, hardly making her an "extra." I will change the reference so it links to the TV show though so there is no further confusion. There are a number of good sources, meeting WP:N. I agree with Milowent, this article needs work, not deletion. --Zoeydahling (talk) 23:11, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No that video is not proof that Lion's Gate screened it. In fact this has annoyed me so much that I have emailed Lion's Gate. Even the smallest of films appear on IMDB and there is no mention of this on there or any film festival site etc. If Lion's Gate screened it surely someone would have given it a mention in 3 years. The film and television section of wikipedia is the worst referenced because of vested interests and it is silly. The sections on law, history, finance and others are so well done. I think Film and Television should be treated like any other discipline. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.1.122.129 (talk) 23:43, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I am a bit confused about what your argumentation is here. First you said it was not mentioned in the video and now you are agreeing that it is in the video but claiming that the video is not proof? Since Dreyfus clearly states that the movie was screened by Lion's Gate in the interview, I am not sure why you do not think it is proof. Your emailing Lion's Gate holds no weight here, since that is original research and we can only go off of published materials, such as the cited interview, when building Wikipedia pages. IMDb is not infallible, as the movies and credits listed there are user submitted, and it is entirely plausible that this particular movie slipped through the cracks. Additionally, your claim about "vested interests" troubles me. Are you saying that myself and Milowent and any other users who might argue for this page to be kept are not coming from a neutral POV? If so, that is a very serious claim and I hope you have some proof to back that up. --Zoeydahling (talk) 00:54, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I do not care whether or not wikipedia considers me contacting Lion's Gate valid because I know, as a public liability company, they will ensure their name is removed if that claim is false. This leaves a sour taste. People, me included, work hard to build and protect our businesses and brands. Using someone's name on hearsay is inexcusable. And no, I do not think you two are coming from a neutral point of view. You wrote most of this, and other pages of a similar nature. The other user, Milowent, is a self-proclaimed 'inclusionist'. I stumbled across this page by accident. I am not involved in film and television in any way. I could not believe that such trivial, mainly unsubstantiated rantings could be included in an encyclopaedia. 94.1.122.129 (talk) 11:48, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "they will ensure their name is removed if that claim is false" - LOL, I highly doubt that, companies don't troll wikipedia 24/7, which is why its always better to improve the sourcing of articles.--Milowent (talk) 04:06, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- None of the things you just asserted make any difference in whether an editor has a conflict of intrest in editing this page. Many people enjoy writing about actors and many people are inclusionists, but that does not make their POVs any less valid or more/less biased in this debate. You might notice that even this debate was listed on talk pages for relevant discussion boards, thereby encouraging interested editors to contribute. That alone should tell you that Wikipedia encourages users with an interest in a topic to weigh in about whether a topic is notable, and again, speaks to the fact that Milowent, myself, and any other editors who may weigh in have every right to do so. Additionally, please remember to assume good faith about other editors and their intentions.
- I do not care whether or not wikipedia considers me contacting Lion's Gate valid because I know, as a public liability company, they will ensure their name is removed if that claim is false. This leaves a sour taste. People, me included, work hard to build and protect our businesses and brands. Using someone's name on hearsay is inexcusable. And no, I do not think you two are coming from a neutral point of view. You wrote most of this, and other pages of a similar nature. The other user, Milowent, is a self-proclaimed 'inclusionist'. I stumbled across this page by accident. I am not involved in film and television in any way. I could not believe that such trivial, mainly unsubstantiated rantings could be included in an encyclopaedia. 94.1.122.129 (talk) 11:48, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I am a bit confused about what your argumentation is here. First you said it was not mentioned in the video and now you are agreeing that it is in the video but claiming that the video is not proof? Since Dreyfus clearly states that the movie was screened by Lion's Gate in the interview, I am not sure why you do not think it is proof. Your emailing Lion's Gate holds no weight here, since that is original research and we can only go off of published materials, such as the cited interview, when building Wikipedia pages. IMDb is not infallible, as the movies and credits listed there are user submitted, and it is entirely plausible that this particular movie slipped through the cracks. Additionally, your claim about "vested interests" troubles me. Are you saying that myself and Milowent and any other users who might argue for this page to be kept are not coming from a neutral POV? If so, that is a very serious claim and I hope you have some proof to back that up. --Zoeydahling (talk) 00:54, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No that video is not proof that Lion's Gate screened it. In fact this has annoyed me so much that I have emailed Lion's Gate. Even the smallest of films appear on IMDB and there is no mention of this on there or any film festival site etc. If Lion's Gate screened it surely someone would have given it a mention in 3 years. The film and television section of wikipedia is the worst referenced because of vested interests and it is silly. The sections on law, history, finance and others are so well done. I think Film and Television should be treated like any other discipline. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.1.122.129 (talk) 23:43, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If you do not care about Wikipedia policies, I am not sure why you are bothering to edit Wikipedia. A published interview is not "hearsay," but a reliable source, unlike an e-mail that you privately sought out on your own. As a company with a vested interest in the truth about this claim, Lion's Gate itself would be unable to edit the page directly due to a conflict of interest. If they'd like to put out a public statement regarding this film, they are more than welcome to, but if not, we must go off of what is publicly published in creating Wiki pages. And as long as you continue to edit on Wikipedia, you must abide by these rules.
- Lastly, I would remind you to please maintain a civil tone when dealing with other editors. This conversation does not need to deteriorate into accusations about motivations and Wikipedia as a whole, but instead should be a civil debate about whether or not this particular article meets Wikipedia guidelines to merit inclusion. Thank you. --Zoeydahling (talk) 18:42, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Played a major character in two webseries, would be easier if she had one or two more credits to her name, but I think her contribution is sufficient to meet the criteria as I understand it. Mathieas (talk) 03:03, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Meets WP:ENT if we accept that a major webseries is notable. Thparkth (talk) 00:34, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:18, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:18, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:39, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Debt Collection & Recovery Software (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Strange and too authoritative WP:ESSAY along the lines of debt collection software best practices. — e. ripley\talk 13:54, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that this article is neither strange or authoritative. It is the description of a very widespread financial and banking software that it is not referred or cited nowhere inside Wikipedia. Someone who is working for a banking institution or a collection agency is not able to find information about the business software that is suitable for the needs of the organisation that is working for. The characteristics of this kind of software can only be described by bullets, because of the limitation that it is only an article and not a white paper or a business guide. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nfragk (talk • contribs) 14:52, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as non-notable software per above statement "that it is not referred or cited nowhere" - if there are no secondary sources, it is not for Wikipedia to publish an article on it. GregJackP (talk) 15:20, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Unreferenced essay, consisting mostly of how-to material, apparently seeking to sell the merits of software or consulting businesses: In order to build positive working relationships between customers and collection call center agents or negotiators, it is important to provide the latter with accurate and easily accessible information. The introducing of debt collection software supports the financial institutions in achieving higher collection and recovery rates, accompanied by a reduction in operating costs resulting in the automation of redundant and time-consuming activities and allowing agents to spend more time working directly with customers. A complete and sound approach to manage growing delinquencies must at least cater for the following.... - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:01, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:01, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Unsure. This is actually not about a specific software but a rather valid software category. However, the article itself needs a lot of improvements to become encyclopedic.Pxtreme75 (talk) 20:07, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I see Pxtreme75's point - it is possible that an appropriate and encyclopedic article could be written about this subject, but this article is not it. The article is completely promotional in tone, with the original (now deleted) version containing the link to the actual product being promoted. We would need to start from scratch to turn this into an appropriate WP article.--Kubigula (talk) 00:00, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As Pxtreme75 stated, it is a valid software category that is being used from the collection agencies (that's the reason that there is a link between the article about collection agencies) and from the debt collection departments of all banking institutes. So the reason for deletion that GregJackP referred, I think that it's pointless. The article maybe it's not so "encyclopedic" as you want, but I wanted it to be as descriptive as an article about a software category can be, to explain the characteristics and the usage of it. I am willing to make improvements and of course it is open for everyone who interests about this business software to write his knowledge and expand the article. Obviously, since the link is erased, there is no intention for advertisement or for selling and the segment of the article that Ihcoyc|Smerdis of Tlön referred it is a statement, a description and not a catchy phrase for selling. Certainly it seems that we have different way for presenting and describing some things but if you see the articles about Business Intelligence, Business Process Management (where there is also a link to Oracle; isn't that an advertisement?), ERP (also there are links to all the big software companies) or CRM, you will not notice such a big difference in the way which the words are being used. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nfragk (talk • contribs) 14:43, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. No consensus to delete. The issue of merging, moving, redirecting, or what have you can continue on the article's talk page. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:32, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Dinosaurland Fossil Museum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
A small non-notable commercially run museum in an area where there are a number of similar organisations. This article serves only to advertise the museum and should be removed. Simple Bob (talk) 13:39, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep — there are a number of references, some now added, and this museum is located in a historic church building associated with the fossil hunter Mary Anning. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 14:04, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment — I don't believe that WP:BEFORE has been followed here. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 14:28, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- On the contrary, I have read the policy and successfully followed the deletion process several times. The building may be notable due to its link with Anning, and should at the very least be mentioned in both her article and the Lyme Regis article, but I stand by my assertion that the museum itself is not notable, is a commercial-only venture (unlike the nearby Lyme Regis Museum and Charmouth Heritage Coast Centre) and to me the article serves no purpose but to advertise the business. --Simple Bob (talk) 14:37, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: More specifically, the article was not previously marked with {{notability}} (see #3 in the bullet point list under WP:BEFORE), #9 was not done effectively (see the references found by others below) and #10 (for a newly created article like this) was not followed either ("If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD."). I believe the museum is notable from the references available. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 21:50, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- On the contrary, I have read the policy and successfully followed the deletion process several times. The building may be notable due to its link with Anning, and should at the very least be mentioned in both her article and the Lyme Regis article, but I stand by my assertion that the museum itself is not notable, is a commercial-only venture (unlike the nearby Lyme Regis Museum and Charmouth Heritage Coast Centre) and to me the article serves no purpose but to advertise the business. --Simple Bob (talk) 14:37, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I have found some slight coverage, http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=963H_WwdUVUC&pg=PA283&dq=Dinosaurland+Fossil+Museum&hl=en&ei=xEf1S6rpFIrQmgONkbTgCA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CDUQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=Dinosaurland%20Fossil%20Museum&f=false http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/familyholidays/4962822/Cutting-the-cost-of-an-Easter-break.html but all these do is establish existence, not notability. Its only notability seems to be to Ms Anning, and notability is not inherited from others. This is a pity as its link is interesting. But a lot more sources are needed.Slatersteven (talk) 14:36, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The building itself shown in this ref is Grade I listed - which is generally accepted as being inherently notable by WP:HSITES etc. An infobox for museum or historic building might help.— Rod talk 15:07, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Then this should be about the building, with a brief mention of the museum, so the article needs a lot of work.It should be moved to an article about the building.Slatersteven (talk) 15:25, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed. --Simple Bob (talk) 15:36, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - There are many small commercial museums with articles on Wikipedia. The museum is listed on Visit Britain and other area travel websites. The article helps readers find this museum in Dorset that features fossils, if that is their interest. By having information such as this, Wikipedia helps smaller institutions get attention that is otherwise not deemed commercially important for print publications. Jllm06 (talk) 19:13, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as per above.Spoonkymonkey (talk) 15:46, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect and merge to Mary Anning. Not notable enough for its own article. SnottyWong talk 22:37, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:56, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:56, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The Google news search at the top of the AFD shows four results. Their summaries seem to indicate notability. Dream Focus 05:48, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Not delete. It might be more appropriate to have an article on the church and put the museum into that article, but it looks like there is enough coverage one way or the other for some sort of mention. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 07:07, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The Google News, Scholar & Books searches find more evidence of notability if you search for "Dinosaurland Lyme Regis" instead of "Dinosaurland Fossil Museum", as it's often known simply as Dinosaurland. This academic book chapter (p32-33) makes it clear that it's currently the main museum for fossil exhibits in Lyme Regis (a town noted for its fossils), rather than the Philpot Museum (now renamed the Lyme Regis Museum): "many of the spectacular fossils that were on loan for the latter went to Dinosaurland". --Qwfp (talk) 09:33, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:38, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Hari Thalapalli (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Elevating another Mahindra Satyam bio. delete UtherSRG (talk) 12:35, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Salih (talk) 16:35, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:57, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete He is relatively junior in the company hierarchy and does not have indepth coverage in reliable sources.--Sodabottle (talk) 04:20, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:38, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sanjay Kalra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Elevating another Mahindra Satyam bio. delete UtherSRG (talk) 12:32, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Salih (talk) 16:35, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete He does not have indepth coverage in Reliable sources.--Sodabottle (talk) 04:22, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy deleted per CSD G7: One author who has requested deletion or blanked the page. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:21, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sholu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fictional drug in a non-notable novel. ALI nom nom 11:55, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I can find no significant coverage of the novel: if the novel isn't notable, then, obviously, neither is its fictional drug. -- Rrburke (talk) 18:04, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
dw817's defense entry: May 20 2010
[edit]I hope this is the correct area to defend my article.
Barrier is a 194 page Ebook novel posted publicly on Booksie.com.
It has been readily made into PDF format so can be read by Kindle and other digital media.
I searched Wikipedia to see if there was an existing definition for Sholu, finding none I knew readers would inquire as to what it was so I thought it would be useful to my readers to build a definition page for it on Wikipedia.
There are over 700 readers to this novel not counting those not tabulated by Booksie alone so I think I am permitted to take offense when you use words like, "non-notable."
I have worked long days writing Barrier and an insult or misnomer, from someone as respected as ALI and Rrburke (from reading their profiles) can hurt an author's motivation considerably.
I understand you are just trying to help and would like to leave this matter open to discussion.
Thank you.
David W —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dw817 (talk • contribs) 18:08, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It would appear that you are the author of said book. Without significant coverage by reliable sources, the book does not appear notable enough for inclusion. Likewise, fictional elements in books are rarely given their own articles, unless the books have reached an extremely high bar of notability. See Wikipedia:Notability (books). I'm not trying to insult you personally. ALI nom nom 18:32, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
dw817's final defense entry: May 20 2010
[edit]Apology accepted, ALI.
Agreed, and worded succinctly, thank you. What I am seeing is three things.
[1] The word "Sholu" does not exist in Wikipedia. Had it been so, I would never have attempted an entry, despite its previous meaning. I did not choose the word for the sake of Wikipedia. The word "Sholu" is not to be defined in Wikipedia.
[2] My novel will never meet your standards for a definition of any kind, ever, no matter how much readership I get, with or without the meaning of the page, unless Wikipedia changes its policies. That is disappointing, but there is no room for argument here; Wikipedia is an exclusive arrangement, though change is consistent.
[3] Barrier will gain readership and ultimately be read by a thousand people as I have projected 2 volumes exceeding 500 pages total. I am glad for that and thank Booksie for having low enough standards to accept and project my writing.
As you desire to erase my page since it cannot achieve your current standards, please do so now with my thanks..
I have archived a copy of the definition page and this final mediation page should Wikipedia change its policies or request or require either or both pages in the future, you know how to reach me.
Sincerely,
David Wicker
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Dw817 (talk • contribs) 19:29, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:38, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Ali Paterson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Two contested proposed deletions, one for an article (biography) deleted two years ago through AfD, and one for a film he made. ProD's were removed by a new editor who made no edits outside these two prod removals. No improvements, no comments. Proposed deletion reason for Ali Paterson was: "Fails WP:BIO. No evidence that he has received any attention. His major feature, Third testament, hasn't received any attention in reliable independent sources (no Google News hits or significant Google hits)". Proposed deletion reason for the film The Third Testament: The Antichrist and the Harlot was "No evidence that this film is notable. Fails WP:N. No Google News hits, only 48 distinct Google hits, most of these download sites, imdb sites, or wikipedia mirrors." Fram (talk) 11:40, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following related pages:
- The Third Testament: The Antichrist and the Harlot (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Delete both per nom. GregJackP (talk) 19:50, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:10, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:10, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete both per TOOSOON. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 00:42, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Akirn (talk) 06:18, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Stack Jones (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I can find no evidence that this singer meets WP:N or WP:BAND - none of the references given verify the information in the article, and I could find nothing that would help with this. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 10:55, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Apart from the fact that the main editor to this article (Stackjones (talk · contribs)) appears to have a massive conflict of interest, none of the references verify the information given:
Detailed analysis of the references in the article
|
---|
The first Spinout gig took place at Manor Lanes Bowling Alley in Fort Lauderdale, Florida.
Bob Marlowe, entertainment writer for the Miami Herald wrote; "Stack Jones writes tunes that segue into a set like a hand into a well-worn glove. Boring is one adjective I'd never use to describe this guy."
In 1983, The Spinouts released a single on Pete Moss', Juke Box titled; Shake Like A Hurricane. This compilation album can be found at The Pete Moss Memorial All-Night Record Shop. The record is described as a snapshot of the South Florida punk/new wave scene at the time
In 1985, Jones won Best Guitarist Award at the first Miami Music Awards show
Jones appeared as a guest speaker on WSVN News Radio, WQAM Miami, Piper High School WKPX radio and University of Miami radio station WVUM. This was during the time when conservatives were trying to impose an Explicit Lyrics and Parental Advisory Labeling scheme on record albums.
Jones argued that labeling music would circumvent the First Amendment right of free speech guaranteed under the Constitution of the U.S. [quote of amendment]
In 1987, during the Smidek era, Stack Jones and Amazing Grace recorded the band's second album with producer Hal Hansford titled; On And On
In 1989, the band recorded an album with nine-time nominated and two-time Grammy Award winning producer Karl Richardson.
With all the legal troubles that the band was experiencing, it was difficult to remain a cohesive unit. To make matters worse for the band, Jamie Shoop was hospitalized with severe liver ailments, fell into a coma and nearly died from Tylenol poisoning. At the time it was not known that Acetaminophen (Tylenol) caused serious liver damage. See WebMD.com.
In 1997, he received audio/video engineering certification from Soundmaster Recording Institute, which was owned and operated by legendary record producer/engineer, and former MCA president, Brian Ingoldsby. The audio/video school has sinced changed its name to Pinnacle College.
He began to write and develop projects for Japanese TV production company, Tsuburaya Productions and with two-time Emmy Award winning producer Alan Sacks, [11] creator of Welcome Back Cotter the show that began John Travolta's entertainment career.
Sally got Jack his first break in the film industry when she sent a copy of his screenplay, Vow Of Silence to legendary film producer Marvin Worth
In 1999, Jack Stone was credited for doing stunts for comedian Carrot Top in, Chairman Of The Board.
2002 Jack Stone is credited for editing the award-winning Young Man Kang, Korean/American film, Soap Girl.
The film was released on DVD in 2006.
In 2009, Jones returned to music and signed a recording contract with Cherry Street Records
Ric O'Barry is notable for his contribution as an animal rights activist and the Academy Award documentary, The Cove
Jones is writing a screenplay, and developing a film project based on Pramoedya Ananta Toer's, Bumi Manusia Quartet
In 2010, Jones is collaborating with Kenneth Andrews, formerly of the band, Casino Drive, [19] and KRH Studios, [20]
|
- I can find no reliable sources for any of the information in the article -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 11:16, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Nom. Probable COI issues as well. Nominator has done a great analysis. Kittybrewster ☎ 11:18, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —-- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 11:19, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - PhantomSteve did a great job of analyzing the references. I didn't get a chance to review them prior to this but what I have looked for I could not find. ~~ GB fan ~~ talk 11:38, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Given the analysis above, I see no evidence of notability. Dougweller (talk) 12:09, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per all of the above. (GregJackP (talk) 16:16, 20 May 2010 (UTC))[reply]
- Delete per the analysis provided above. Fails WP:BIO. --Cameron Scott (talk) 14:14, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per exhaustive work by nom. Drmies (talk) 16:40, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Snow delete. How can anyone possibly counter Phantomsteve's detailed and devastating analysis? This material is doomed.—S Marshall T/C 19:26, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I came across this article via a copyvio that got uploaded to Commons by Stack. The whole thing is such an obvious ego piece that it's kinda disgusting... EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:58, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Notice I just indefinitely blocked the author, Stackjones (talk · contribs), due to his continued poor behavior; specifically, insulting people that have participated in this AfD. (he'd already been blocked as an IP, 221.184.245.235 (talk)) He's not here to improve the encyclopedia, and this was the final straw. EVula // talk // ☯ // 13:57, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: no reliable sources or significant coverage, no evidence of real (though plenty of imaginary) notability, massive NPOV issues. The nominator has done an excellent job of researching the "sources"... such as they are. Also, the author seems to be a little bit of a nutjob, such as these two rants:[10] & [11] (massive incivility, asumptions of bad faith, unfounded paranoia, and a story involving Oliver North, drug running, dead Marines, and a plane crash). bahamut0013wordsdeeds 16:05, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Although I do love his implication that British people would obviously only edit an article on an American out of spite. BTW, when deleting an article on EN for non-nobility, is it acceptable to also delete the corresponding non-notable images on Commons? (Commons:Special:Contributions/Stackjones) The deletion process over there takes between 2 weeks to a year. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 05:59, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Usually not unless they go unused for a very long time; the assumption being that they may be useful somewhere else. However, there may be copyright issues to bring up, especially with the .ogg files. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 14:06, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Screw that, it's all for spamming, which is covered under Commons' speedy deletion policy. As a result, they're all gone. EVula // talk // ☯ // 14:44, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nominator has withdrawn but this discussion has been open long enough and has enough participation for a "keep" close. I will also be redirecting the album article per WP:BOLD. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:53, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Dieselhed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The article has been unreferenced and flagged as not meeting the notability guideline for 14 months. A google search shows the wikipedia article, a small fan following of around 250 people on facebook, and the band's listing on a couple of band database and mp3-download sites. Doesn't seem notable. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 10:12, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I am also nominating Tales of a Brown Dragon, an album by this band. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 10:19, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:09, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep – Multiple albums released on Amarillo Records, toured the US, played SXSW, has notable band members, and an Allmusic bio. I've added multiple citations just now. The subject meets WP:BAND, and the general notability guideline. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 16:19, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Withdraw both per Paul Erik. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 16:31, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Dieselhed as meeting notability requirements, but merge the album article unless someone puts some real content there (preferably more than just a track listing). --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 06:11, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:38, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- ITag (photo software) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Not notable Tajymoid (talk) 10:02, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No evidence of notability at all. The only references are a link to iTag's own site and one to the WHOIS database. Since anyone can set up a website and have it listed on WHOIS, this is no indication of notability at all. On searching I found no independent coverage at all. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:16, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: I found plenty of sources in Google Books for a different software called iTag, but none that showed notability for this. Joe Chill (talk) 00:41, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I too found plenty of hits for something completely different called "itag". JamesBWatson (talk) 08:07, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:07, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Jejemon. Shimeru (talk) 22:25, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Jejemons (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Delete No evidence of notability. No reliable sources cited. (Only links are to Urbandictionary, facebook, and a YouTube video.) No reliable sources found on searching. All in all this seems to be a non-notable neologism. In addition, the article is rather like a dictionary entry, not encyclopedic. Note: PROD was removed without any explanation. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:06, 20 May 2010 (UTC) JamesBWatson (talk) 09:06, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as a neologism lacking any kind of notability. Note that the article Jejemon also exists. That article is better written than this one and includes a few references, but nothing to suggest that the notability of the subject is any more than temporary (WP:N states that notability cannot be temporary). I therefore recommend that BOTH articles should be included in this AfD. —gorgan_almighty (talk) 09:48, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteRedirect to Jejemon the article looks like a dictionary entry and looks like it cannot be improved, although it is a viable search item so redirect it. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 10:18, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. —Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 10:18, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Jejemon, the true article. - Gabby 18:46, 22 May 2010 (PST)
- Redirect as Gabby had said. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 11:22, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect Clearly, not a case of deletion. I was the editor who had proposed this article initially for deletion. Given Gabby's link, and the target article's referencing (which could be improved surely), this case seems like a strong redirect case than a deletion case. ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ ―Œ ♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣ 18:33, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. No consensus to delete, but there appears to be consensus to remove the links. Shimeru (talk) 22:27, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- List of Coptic Orthodox Churches in the United States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This clearly runs afoul of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. The page is a directory of Coptic parishes in the US. Most entries are plain text with just the church name and a city. Many that aren't plain text contain links to the parish's own website. No encyclopedic content. oknazevad (talk) 03:38, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, this is something that belongs on the Orthodox Wiki, not here. Nyttend (talk) 12:28, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Very very informative, but Wikipedia's rule WP:NOTDIR is one of the fundamentals of what Wikipedia is not. The way this would be handled would be to put a link to an existing directory into the article about Coptic Orthodox Church. Tempting as it is to help the reader by putting the directory right on a page rather than linking them to it, the directory rule is part of keeping the online encyclopedia from getting out of hand, whether one is attempting to list Coptic Orthodox churches or Southern Baptist churches or U.S.-based Rotary Clubs. Mandsford (talk) 14:38, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, with all due respect for the previous two contributors' opinions. My logic is that it would be appropriate to have a category for "US Coptic Orthodox Churches", and if one could have a category, then per WP:CLN, it would also be appropriate to have a list. WP:NOTDIR is not quite as relevant as it might seem. Point 1 ("Lists or repositories of loosely-associated topics") is probably the criterion under which Oknazevad suggests deleting the material, but the key word there is "loosely". I think these churches are more than loosely-associated.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 23:19, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- But a category would be limited to those churches that have their own separate articles. You raise a good point with association-- I don't know if the Coptic church has dioceses the way the Roman Catholic and the Episcopalian churches do, or if it's a set of independent churches the way Baptists and Methodists are. The directory ban is what prevents Wikipedia from degenerating into yellowpages.com, much as the ban against memorials keeps us from becoming heritage.com; people have figured out ways to save the information without violating the rule. Mandsford (talk) 00:21, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- While it is true that the Coptic Church has a heirarchical diocesan structure, and therefore these are certainly more connected than a group of congregationalist churches, I genuinely believe that this looks exactly like the sort of directory of parishes that would appear on the Coptic Church's official website. That, in my interpretation, is exactly what WP:NOTDIR is meant to guard against. oknazevad (talk) 01:26, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, this highlights a problem with negatively-phrased policies, particularly WP:NOT, which is that they're written in response to a particular need and then there's a natural (and understandable) tendency to generalise them beyond the immediate need so they end up being applied in ways the policy author never envisaged. I mean, you can imagine how this goes—first some well-meaning new user thinks it might help people if they write down, let's say, their favourite recipes and publish them on Wikipedia; then some other well-meaning users AfD all of them, leading to six months of AfDs and enough closely-argued text to fill a fair-sized fantasy trilogy. In the end our perfectly well-meaning users get together to create a guideline that says "Wikipedia is not a cookbook"; and two years later, they come back to find that with the help of more well-meaning users, WP:NOTCOOK has turned into an ambiguously-phrased four thousand word essay with thirty-seven separate bullet points and nineteen numbered exceptions, and yet another entirely well-intentioned editor is trying to use it to delete Chicken tikka masala. I do think the best defence against that kind of thing is to interpret negatively-worded policies quite narrowly.
Lists aren't articles, but they're still perfectly encyclopaedic. Every decent encyclopaedia needs an index, a table of contents, and ways to convey information that doesn't fit appropriately into article form, and lists are important. This list isn't spam, it isn't marketing, it isn't hype or promotional. It's entirely NPOV and entirely factual. It's also information a researcher or other encyclopaedia end-user might want, and I'm quite convinced that there's nothing inappropriate about containing this information on Wikipedia.
As a final consideration, the first pillar says that Wikipedia isn't just an encyclopaedia. It's also a gazetteer, and I should think that each of those churches would be a notable local landmark.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 02:41, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- And yet I got one of those articles deleted. Abductive (reasoning) 12:48, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, this highlights a problem with negatively-phrased policies, particularly WP:NOT, which is that they're written in response to a particular need and then there's a natural (and understandable) tendency to generalise them beyond the immediate need so they end up being applied in ways the policy author never envisaged. I mean, you can imagine how this goes—first some well-meaning new user thinks it might help people if they write down, let's say, their favourite recipes and publish them on Wikipedia; then some other well-meaning users AfD all of them, leading to six months of AfDs and enough closely-argued text to fill a fair-sized fantasy trilogy. In the end our perfectly well-meaning users get together to create a guideline that says "Wikipedia is not a cookbook"; and two years later, they come back to find that with the help of more well-meaning users, WP:NOTCOOK has turned into an ambiguously-phrased four thousand word essay with thirty-seven separate bullet points and nineteen numbered exceptions, and yet another entirely well-intentioned editor is trying to use it to delete Chicken tikka masala. I do think the best defence against that kind of thing is to interpret negatively-worded policies quite narrowly.
- While it is true that the Coptic Church has a heirarchical diocesan structure, and therefore these are certainly more connected than a group of congregationalist churches, I genuinely believe that this looks exactly like the sort of directory of parishes that would appear on the Coptic Church's official website. That, in my interpretation, is exactly what WP:NOTDIR is meant to guard against. oknazevad (talk) 01:26, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep of course. Very important and very pertinent to an encyclopedia. --λⲁⲛτερⲛιξ[talk] 21:28, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete - as per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Listings of parishes within perhaps a diocesan article might make sense, but a separate listing of this type seems to me to maybe cross the line. John Carter (talk) 18:22, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as per S Marshall Talk/Cont --Michael C. Price talk 18:31, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Might want to recheck your rationale, as I'm the one proposing deletion, and therefore am obviously in favor of deletion. oknazevad (talk) 04:44, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
[reply]
- Thanks. Amended original text. Wrong sig, right rationale. --Michael C. Price talk 08:39, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Might want to recheck your rationale, as I'm the one proposing deletion, and therefore am obviously in favor of deletion. oknazevad (talk) 04:44, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
[reply]
- Keep information on the Copts are not so much available. -Titensd (talk) 15:54, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Doesn't mean this is the right place for it. oknazevad (talk) 20:22, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Nor does it mean this is the wrong place for it. --Michael C. Price talk 09:22, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete per WP:LINKFARM. "Wikipedia is NOT... mere collections of external links or Internet directories." This article is precisely a collection of external links. SnottyWong talk 00:53, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The key word is mere. How does a number of articles which host links turn all of WP into the like? It doesn't, does it? --Michael C. Price talk 08:42, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Inclusionists seem to come up with most convoluted logic to interpret WP policies. So your assertion is that as long as there aren't too many linkfarm articles in WP, then WP itself is not a mere collection of external links. Therefore, we can keep a couple of linkfarm articles here and there. In other words, WP policies apply only to WP as a whole, not to specific individual articles. Where do you people come up with this stuff? By that same logic: One of Wikipedia's core policies is that WP has a neutral point of view. Well, a few articles here and there that aren't neutral aren't going to significantly affect WP's neutrality on the whole, so they don't need to be deleted or revised. I can't believe I'm wasting my time refuting this kindergarten logic. SnottyWong talk 02:06, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The key word is mere. How does a number of articles which host links turn all of WP into the like? It doesn't, does it? --Michael C. Price talk 08:42, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. This linkfarm has been bugging me for awhile now. Wikipedia is not a webhost. An external link in the main article should be sufficient. Abductive (reasoning) 03:13, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shimeru (talk) 08:55, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep the list, remove the links. The fact that most of these churches have their own web presence is hardly relevant. Once the individual articles are added, each one could have its relevant external link. However, the list itself is imho by no means indiscriminate. --Pgallert (talk) 15:37, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, as per S. Marshall, and lose the links to the individual churches. Joal Beal (talk) 19:33, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete both as a directory and as a linkfarm. A category is not an excuse to have a list. Both have seperate functions and while they may lap they do not overlap 100%. This is a good example of a category that doesn't need a list because the grouping is too broad (per WP:SALAT) to have an encyclopedic article built off of it. ThemFromSpace 19:38, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete with extreme prejudice i first scanned it to look for names without external links, and saw a few. THEN i noticed that almost all of those were only blue linked to the cities. the category for this subject shows, as suspected, fewer than a handful. this doesnt need more than a category at this time, regardless of the subjects clear inclusion criteria. if these churches listed here ever get articles written, then in the future if someone wants to create a list when we have, say, at least a dozen or so, fine. but now, WP list guidelines are clear: we dont use lists as placeholders for voluminous numbers of nonnotable subjects. Hardcore Inclusionists: just start creating articles for notable churches listed here(which i suspect will be hard with this less notable church).Mercurywoodrose (talk) 08:10, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep the list, Remove the external links. Churches are generally notable enough to warrant mention in their location articles, so we could conceivably add the churches to those articles and link the list to those. Buddy431 (talk) 18:55, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Highly useful and well constructed list. Carrite (talk) 03:24, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep - This appears to be a very useful list, but I'm not sure if we want to make an exception to WP:LIST, or rescue this by fixing it up to be more than just a directory. If someone who knows something about this denomination will adopt this list, I'd be happy. Rescue? Incubate? Bearian (talk) 16:56, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per editor Carrite. The encylopedia is here to be usesfull. FeydHuxtable (talk) 08:59, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Wikipedia is an wp:almanac, not a directory. This seems more like an almanac type entry to me. Dream Focus 09:17, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:37, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Horsehead (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
A band that existed for nine years, but they don't appear to have done anything other than releasing music — I don't see any evidence that they pass WP:BAND. Nyttend (talk) 12:23, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this band. Joe Chill (talk) 23:04, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, per nom. -Reconsider! 09:55, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep They've done more than just record, they toured a lot and played with many other notable acts such as Metallica (Sunday Mail, 29 March 1998, "SAD to the bone") Live (The West Australian, 8 May 1997, "Devotion Goes Live" by Ara Jansen) The Screaming Jets and The Angels (Illawarra Mercury, 27 November 1997, "Angels Fans Prepare For The Shock" by Julee Brienen) Alice Cooper and Hoodoo Gurus (McFarlane) and Local H, The Superjesus, Frenzal Rhomb, Primary (Newcastle Herald, 1 October 1998, "Finger-Lickin' Good" by Chad Watson). But more importantly, two albums thru Mushroom, Horsehead and Onism, and for significant coverage there is an entry in McFarlane, Ian (1999). Encyclopedia of Australian Rock and Pop. Allen & Unwin. ISBN 1-86448-768-2.; a 596 word article in Sydney Morning Herald, 10 December 1993, "Equine Tales" by Clayton Doughty; cd reviews in Newcastle Herald by Chad Watson, "Ramones" 15 July 1999 and "She Fell To Earth" 18 March 1999. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:43, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep McFarlane entry nails notability, see archive copy.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 06:00, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shimeru (talk) 08:46, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep We need to do more to acknowledge Australian musical talent.AWHS (talk) 00:44, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, meets criteria #6 (through having members associated with Uncanny X-Men (band) and Scott Kingman now plays with The Screaming Jets), and arguably #5 (via their albums coming out on Mushroom Records) of WP:MUSIC. Lankiveil (speak to me) 02:56, 22 May 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- Keep Satisfies WP:MUSIC. Orderinchaos 04:52, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and clean up Per Lankiveil this band passes WP:MUSIC, but it really really needs sources. Yilloslime TC 05:16, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:38, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- DreamSequence (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article fails the guidance of BAND for notability. I find no sources on Google News and the article has been without independent reliable sources since creation, a year ago. I have raised for discussion rather than PROD as a variety of editors have contributed in that time. Fæ (talk) 07:29, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Fæ (talk) 07:32, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- Fæ (talk) 07:32, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this band. Joe Chill (talk) 00:57, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: I'm looking into the criteria for band to see if they do meet any of those requirements I'll report back soon. Thanks. --Keithsuperk (talk) 10:20, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. — Scientizzle 20:03, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Valentin Koulikov (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No evidence for meeting WP:PROF criteria. Looks like a self-promotion page. Materialscientist (talk) 05:48, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. No evidence of notability per WP:PROF, looks promotional. --LordPistachio talk 06:14, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Wikipedia:Notability generally requires independent reliable sources discussing the subject (rather than just articles published by the subject himself), and none of the citations qualify; also doesn't seem to qualify under the specific guidelines for WP:PROF as noted above. Hypnosifl (talk) 20:38, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:41, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:41, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- delete - qualifies as speedy A7 - UtherSRG (talk) 04:13, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rebuttal
[edit]Despite my many references and valid points, you have not responded with much sense to my queries. I still have hope that the wiki community will see this discussion and join in with a spirit of objectivity. I want to take this oppotunity to mention once again that the whole point of placing Valentin's bio on wikipedia is simply to support the free sharing of information about ideas known to science. People deserve to know. Now, Valentin's biography is subject to debate despite my own info on the matter, but his ideas are not in dispute, and are very well referenced despite your incessant deletion of the sections mentioning them.
First off, Materialscientist, you said yourself that you are familiar with the facts regarding the human eye's visual perception of infrared laser light. Why is it then, that you delete this info. Do you not want other people to know what you and many other scientists are already aware of? Forgive me, but why is it necessary to wait for these facts to be published in books, when we have literally dozens of secondary sources including the ones I link on the page (the article contains a direct reference to the paper that originally stated and described the first occasion where the effect was observed.)I do not see any logical reason to remove this info from the article, because wikipedia editing must be based on common sense (as is stated in the pertinent documents) and not on editors' bias.
Secondly, Ckatz, you still have not replied with any detail or supporting evidence to any one of my questions or points regarding your deletion of several sections of the Time Travel wiki page. Once again, common sense would suggest the removed section (dealing with the fermi paradox solution as explained by the use of light speed among advanced civilizations) is as simple as 2X2=4. It does not require dozens of secondary sources or supporting evidence, only the mind of an attentive reader. The statement itself is well sourced and is not controversial. It is infinitely verifiable.
Thirdly, Valentin's bio should be decided by the readers of wikipedia and how interesting they find his ideas. It has nothing to do with the mainstream as described by the editors, or even their distance from reality. This gentleman is only one among very many scientists in this field of many generally controversial ideas (all of which are mentioned in other wikipedia articles already), and has sufficiently interesting ideas that they would be of service to any readers who are interested in time or space travel. --AarCart (talk) 01:03, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Does not pass WP:PROF or WP:BIO. No verifiable evidence of significant citability or coverage of his work by other researchers, no significant academic awards, editorships, etc, or evidence of satisfying any of the criteria of WP:PROF. GBooks[12] and GScholar[13] searches for his name in Russian return basically nothing of relevance. Moreover, appears to be a WP:FRINGE case, so that WP:PROF also requires passing WP:BIO for inclusion. No evidence of significant biographical coverage by independent sources either. Nsk92 (talk) 11:50, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I agree with Nsk92 that WP:FRINGE appears to be more relevant than WP:PROF — the article does not indicate that he has an academic appointment and the theories it describes are highly nonstandard. But regardless of whether we consider WP:FRINGE, WP:PROF, or WP:GNG, he does not seem to pass — I can find nothing in Google books, Google news archive, and Google scholar to indicate that his theories have had any impact. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:31, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. This is a random list of facts about a fringe theorist. I can't see how he's notable, and none of the sources can verify that he's notable. Bearian (talk) 17:01, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Rebuttal. Nsk92 and David Eppstein - your blind faith in search engines is really stunning. I would like to believe you myself but unfortunately for you and others like you I have a huge list of scientific publications of this guy, over a hundred - in the fields from quantum electronics, radio electroncs, geophysics to formal linguistics and relativity. And I checked this list by making real official requests in real university libraries - just to be sure. By the way, just for your info, his name was spelled Kulikov, not Koulikov for long time and a lot of his works were published long before Internet epoch, etc., etc. And this guy is worth noting in Wiki not because of all these publications (they just make it sure that he is serious scientist) but because he in addition to that has a lot of other really interesting ideas - and the verifiable ones too.--AarCart (talk) 21:06, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not so much that I have faith in search engines finding everything — I know they don't, especially for pre-internet non-English writers — but that we need concrete evidence for his notability in order to keep the article. Often, search engines can find such evidence when it exists, and allow us to save an inadequately sourced article such as this one, but they have failed to do so this time, and we have nothing else. Your vague attestations that he has "interesting ideas" are not good enough, and neither is a long publication list — what we need is explicit evidence that significant numbers of other people have taken note of his ideas. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:28, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- AarCart, have you actually read the policies on notability (and the sub-articles on notability for people in general and notability for academics) that myself and others have linked to above? The mere fact that someone is a published author does not mean they should have a wikipedia article according to wikipedia's policies, nor does the fact that some readers might find the article interesting. Again, the general policy for notability of individuals is that there need to be reliable sources writing about the subject by third parties: to quote the notability-for-people article above, "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published[3] secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent,[4] and independent of the subject.[5]". And for academics, even if there are not such third-party sources they may be considered notable if one of the following criteria is met:
- The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources.
- The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level.
- The person is or has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g. a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society) or a Fellow of a major scholarly society for which that is a highly selective honor (e.g. the IEEE)
- The person's academic work has made a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions.
- The person holds or has held a named chair appointment or "Distinguished Professor" appointment at a major institution of higher education and research.
- The person has held a major highest-level elected or appointed academic post at an academic institution or major academic society.
- The person has made substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity.
- The person is or has been an editor-in-chief of a major well-established journal in their subject area.
- The person is in a field of literature (e.g writer or poet) or the fine arts (e.g. musician, composer, artist), and meets the standards for notability in that art, such as WP:CREATIVE or WP:MUSIC.
- Can you present evidence that Valentin Koulikov meets either the general criteria for notability of individuals or the specific criteria for notability of academics? If not, I think we should consider the case closed, as wikipedia's policies are pretty clear. Hypnosifl (talk) 14:28, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Evidence
[edit]As a matter of fact, I can, and very easily. This evidence is within the policy on notability of people.
"Within Wikipedia, notability is an inclusion criterion based on the encyclopedic suitability of an article topic. The topic of an article should be notable, or "worthy of notice"; that is, "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded."[1] Notable in the sense of being "famous", or "popular"—although not irrelevant—is secondary. This notability guideline for biographies[2] is not policy; however, it reflects consensus reached through discussions and reinforced by established practice, and informs decisions on whether an article on a person should be written, merged, deleted or further developed."
- Worthy of notice, significant, interesting or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded. Notable in the sense of being FAMOUS or POPULAR - although not irrelevant is SECONDARY. I understand this is a guideline, but it has been re-inforced by "established practice," and it should not be so easily revoked by a group of editors who do not read their own guidelines with attention.
- Furthermore, the bio can even be supported even under the provision of a creative writer as a
"person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique."
- Under verifiability, "self published sources," it says the following "Certain red flags should prompt editors to examine the sources for a given claim: claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community, or that would significantly alter mainstream assumptions, especially in science, medicine, history, politics, and biographies of living persons." Have the editors actually examined even the self-published claims? If they had read them, they should have seen that there is no charlatanism involved, but solid logical - scientific thinking. If anything, the very fact that this information could alter mainstream perception makes it all the more interesting to the wikipedia reader.
On top of that, there ARE available third party journals and they have been linked in the past. I will link them again here.
- http://www.philica.com/display_article.php?article_id=184
- http://www.philica.com/display_article.php?article_id=183
- http://www.philica.com/display_article.php?article_id=177
It is worth noting (notable) that Philica's motto is "where ideas are free." Philica is also far more selective about what it publishes than wikipedia; Its editors being members of the science community.
In short, I do not see that there is a problem with either notability or verifiability per wikipedia guidelines and policies. I ask the editors and any other readers to carefully re-read the policies as well as the article. At the very worst, the biography section is not verifiable because none of the editors knew who Valentin was before they read the article. His ideas, however, are solid and verifiable through other sources. They are not even original ideas! I am in fact, forced to wonder if the editors are as objective as they ought to be. --AarCart (talk) 14:43, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:38, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Rugrats in Australia: The Movie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable (GHits literally doesn't return anything on this title). WP:NFF. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 03:24, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Like the nominator, I literally could not find any evidence this film exists. Looks like a severe case of WP:CRYSTAL. --LordPistachio talk 06:18, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete for now fails WP:CRYSTAL, no IMDb page, not enough sources. Recreate when enough sources are found. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 11:15, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 11:20, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This is not from an SPA, but I'm not sure where in the world the article's creator would have gotten any facts, let alone in this amount of detail. Mandsford 18:54, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Yet more Nickcruft from somebody who doesn't know anything about the movie business. This would have been announced years ago, and studios which specialize in hand-drawn animation would probably cut off an arm before they ever let a CGI director lead a hand-drawn project. And in the end, "The voice actors of the film are the same"? Can we get a lazier hoax? Nate • (chatter) 22:45, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete-Seeing how Rugrats was cancelled a few years back and that I was surprised that they may be making a 4th movie plus no confirmation from any offical source means this is just a rumour. —Preceding unsigned comment added by S73W1E6R1FF1N (talk • contribs) 23:02, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete as clear and obvious hoax. Cannonbolt2 (talk) 11:54, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm reluctant to use the "h-word" on someone who has been a contributor here for six months and made hundreds of edits. However, it is clear that there are no reliable sources to support any rumors that may have been bandied about on discussion boards, and that the article should not have been written in the first place. Mandsford 13:12, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per TOOSOON. While I find enough hints online to not call it an outright hoax, it definitely fails criteria of WP:N and WP:NF. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 21:59, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Crystal and WP:NFF. I didn't even know Rugrats was still on or active? I thought it was All Grown Up that now airs. Hmm. Mike Allen 04:32, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Even All Grown Up! is no longer active (nor is any other Rugrats spin-off). I stand by my hoax claim, but in fairness, the article creator may have fallen for the hoax, rather than actually starting it. Cannonbolt2 (talk) 12:14, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well.. there you go. I think this will be snow deleted anyway. Mike Allen 06:51, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Even All Grown Up! is no longer active (nor is any other Rugrats spin-off). I stand by my hoax claim, but in fairness, the article creator may have fallen for the hoax, rather than actually starting it. Cannonbolt2 (talk) 12:14, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I am sure this is a hoax. Even with AGF, the creator of the article has made dubious edits before. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 19:08, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Shackleton Fracture Zone. Merge seeems acceptable to most, going with that. Shimeru (talk) 22:34, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- 2010 Drake Passage earthquake (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Per WP:NOTNEWS. No evidence of notability. —Mikemoral♪♫ 03:15, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. WP:NOTNEWS not appliable in this case. Well, when you try to delete an article on this basis you should look for news in the languages of regions that the article concerns. You don't expect it to be on the front page of NY Times.
- News reports:
- [14] - Venezuelan radio
- [15] - Argentine newspaper from Santa Cruz Province
- [16] - El Mercurio de Antofagasta newspaper
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS, although a merge to Shackleton Fracture Zone would be a fine alternative to keep this info preserved somewhere, though not its own separate article. Understandably, earthquakes at sea make more news now than they did before December 26, 2004, but in the absence of the tsunami warning system being triggered (which was a byproduct of the 2010 Chile earthquake, very few go into the books. Although I appreciate that Chiton looked for sources, these are all news stories from 17 Enero 2010, the day of the quake. Mandsford 19:07, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge to Shackleton Fracture Zone. No enduring notability, at least for its own article. RapidR (talk) 21:11, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not enough references to write a verifiable article, notability not established. Aditya Ex Machina 08:23, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 05:43, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- 2010 Cuba earthquake (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Per WP:NOTNEWS. No evidence of notability. —Mikemoral♪♫ 03:15, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep Although I don't want to encourage the excesses that have turned the rest of the Wikipedia community against breaking-news articles about quakes, this one probably has more impact afterward than most. I ran across this "Cuba Takes Earthquake Precautions" from April 8, where the Castro government responded to what one might call its other worry about what might happen from Guantanamo Bay, and this from April 14. Much of it, of course, has to do with Cuba's fears over what a Haiti-sized quake would do to its own buildings, which aren't able to withstand a larger quake. I'm expecting I'll get some boos over this, perhaps well-deserved, but this is more notable than most of the 2010 quake contributions. Mandsford 19:26, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cuba-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:38, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep in the wake of recent regional events. --Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 06:27, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:38, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- 2010 Huasco earthquake (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Per WP:NOTNEWS. No evidence of notability. —Mikemoral♪♫ 03:14, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Probably stronger than the subject most of the "quaking news" articles that we've gotten this year [17] but not historically significant. It's not related to, but is overshadowed, of course, by the quake earlier in the year. The template has 11 different articles about Chilean earthquakes, a prime example of why it makes more sense to put these on to a page about quakes in the region, rather than a separate article for every quake. Mandsford 19:48, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:37, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not enough coverage by reliable sources to write a verifiable article. Notability not established. WP:NOTNEWS Aditya Ex Machina 08:18, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:37, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- 2010 Bering Sea earthquakes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Per WP:NOTNEWS. —Mikemoral♪♫ 03:13, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Notability not established by the article. I'm willing to listen, nicely, to any arguments for long term notability with proof of something other than that day's news. Mandsford 19:50, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Notability not established. Not enough sources to write a verifiable article. Per nom. Aditya Ex Machina 08:06, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No evidence presented that these two earthquakes had any significance (notability). --MelanieN (talk) 23:56, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:34, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- 2010 Salta earthquake (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
WP:NOTNEWS. Article says itself that it's not notable, "The earthquake itself, though, barely made regional news." Fails to meet notability criteria and achieve historical significance. —Mikemoral♪♫ 03:12, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to disagree, but it DID make regional news. Please, do a YouTube search using the following Spanish words: Salta temblor terremoto 27 de febrero, and you will see several videos posted on the subject. It was the strongest earthquake in Salta since 1948 (when one person was killed) and the strongest in Argentina since the 1983 Mendoza earthquake. I suspect that this article was largely written by a foreign tourist (an American maybe?) who happened to be in Salta on February 27 and experienced the earthquake, because I don't see the hand of any Argentinian in this article. But it WAS a big event here. Kind regards, AndeanThunder (talk) 12:32, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- However, making local news is not evidence of notability. I could save someone's life in my city and I'd possibly make local news, but I would not notable. Likewise, WP:EVENT says, "Many events receive coverage in the news and yet are not of historic or lasting importance," and that, "Coverage should be in multiple reliable sources with national or global scope." This is a key reason why I nominated this article for deletion. —Mikemoral♪♫ 00:54, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:36, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not enough reliable sources to write a verifiable article. Notability not established. WP:NOTNEWS. Aditya Ex Machina 08:16, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The earthquake may not have made much news because it happened to occur on the same day as the Chile earthquake. However, it killed two people, so it should be kept. Av9 (talk) 00:17, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep As much as I'm all for getting rid of the less notable 2010 earthquakes, under the new guidelines earthquakes that kill people are notable. 2010 Algeria earthquake was kept because it killed 2 people, so if you want to be consistent this article should be kept. It's hard to say if it fails WP:NOTNEWS because any significant coverage would have been outweighed by the Chile earthquake on the same day. RapidR (talk) 00:23, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep People died, many were injured, there was damage; the article cites references from more than one continent; our objective assessment of the notability of this incident should not be affected by events taking place elsewhere on the same day, even if news channels are always affected when events coincide. — Hebrides (talk) 06:46, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Google search
[edit]A Google search (in English) using these words: Salta 2010 earthquake yields 639,000 results. Another Google search, in Spanish, using the following words: Salta temblor 27 de febrero, yields 238,000 results - not surprising, considering the fact that internet penetration in Spanish speaking countries is lower than in English speaking ones. In Argentina, less than half of households has the internet. But this DOES show that the earthquake was big enough to receive coverage by a great many online newspapers and media outlets. If you replace the word "temblor" and use "terremoto" instead (terremoto is a stronger Spanish word for quake than temblor) you will see that there are nearly 40,000 results.
Besides, if this was a small, insignificant event, how come this article has versions in three diferent languages? English, Spanish and Euskara? And please, do notice that I had absolutely nothing to do in writing any of them. AndeanThunder (talk) 02:22, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I preformed a Google News search which I think would make more sense. No results. —Mikemoral♪♫ 05:38, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment You still haven't answered my question. Why would an insignificant event deserve a Wikipedia article, in three languages, and written by different people? I have added more references, from the New York Times, NBC News, The Cleveland Leader and The Sydney Morning Herald, plus videos in the external links. AndeanThunder (talk) 13:32, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That's nice, but the earthquake does not have enduring notability. Aditya Ex Machina 14:07, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What about the 2008 Lincolnshire earthquake?
[edit]You know what? I have decided to nominate the 2008 Lincolnshire earthquake for deletion. My reasons are:
- It was a 5.2 magnitude earthquake, what makes it less powerful than the quake that hit Salta.
- There were NO victims. Absolutely zero fatalities. That makes it less serious than the Salta quake.
- In my country we never heard of it.
- I also performed your favourite method for determining notability: a Google News search (it makes sense, doesn't it). Guess what, I found nothing! Absolutely no results.
And I am seriously considering to nominate the 2008 Los Angeles earthquake for delition too, for the very same reasons. AndeanThunder (talk) 14:39, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Other stuff exists but you can go ahead and nominate them anyway. I don't think they satisfy the latest set of earthquake notability guidelines that are being discussed. Aditya Ex Machina 15:57, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on Google searches and notability
[edit]Results from Google searches vary according to your location and preferences. You may also get different results if you are logged in to googlemail or other google services. Google aims to give you the search results you will find useful, as distinct from search results that have absolute notability. As such, it is an unreliable notability metric. — Hebrides (talk) 06:53, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I got a lot more hits than AndeanThunder--three million for "Salta terremoto, half a million for "Salta temblor", and, as noted above, this earthquake killed two people, causing it to meet our proposed guideline for earthquakes. Heather (talk) 15:09, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This earthquake killed people, so is therefore notable. Justmeagain83 (talk) 05:50, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as others have noted, a natural disaster that takes human life is prima facie notable. There is plenty of independent coverage for this earthquake, and on a quieter news day there might have been much more. Thparkth (talk) 00:37, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:37, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- 2010 Calama earthquake (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Per WP:NOTNEWS and fails WP:EVENT. —Mikemoral♪♫ 03:10, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:35, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not enough reliable sources to write a verifiable article. Notability not established. WP:NOTNEWS. Aditya Ex Machina 15:51, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:37, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- April 2010 Solomon Islands earthquake (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Per WP:NOTNEWS. Article itself say it's non-notable, "it caused panic, but no casualties or major damage." —Mikemoral♪♫ 03:09, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I've seen far too many of this type of article lately, detailing an earthquake with nothing other than primary data drawn from USGS and (maybe) a wire service article. Abductive (reasoning) 05:30, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Notability not established. Not enough verifiable sources to write an article. WP:NOTNEWS. Aditya Ex Machina 08:07, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:37, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- 2010 Mindoro earthquake (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
per WP:NOTNEWS and fails WP:EVENT. No need for an article on each earthquake. —Mikemoral♪♫ 03:07, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:34, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not enough reliable sources to write a verifiable article. Notability not established. WP:NOTNEWS Aditya Ex Machina 08:13, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Insignificant for that part of the world. Had no significant news coverage and no lasting notability. Just another day in the Philippines. --MelanieN (talk) 00:20, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not notable. RapidR (talk) 12:57, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 indicated by Canterbury Tail below. Non-admin closure. Deor (talk) 13:34, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Panasonic: The Largest Corporate Restructuring in History (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable book. I cannot find any reliable sourcing for this book. Surely, the book exists, but I see no evidence that it is notable. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 02:59, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Actually I just speedied it as a blatant copyright violation of [18]. Canterbury Tail talk 12:50, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:37, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Girl (The Movie) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable film. I cannot find any verifiable sources regarding the film, let alone anything that can confer non-trivial notability. I have also nominated the film's director for deletion so, to an extent, this AfD is related to that one. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 02:53, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - seemingly part of a Wikipedia promotional campaign for the editors sister. Canterbury Tail talk 02:56, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I am not seeing how this film is notable, gSearch are false positives. fails WP:NF. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 11:20, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 11:20, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as a non-notable work in progress. Joal Beal (talk) 19:34, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Fails WP:NF. Joe Chill (talk) 01:09, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per TOOSOON, without prejudice toward recreation when or if the project receives coverage. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 22:01, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:37, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Kandeyce Jorden (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable actress/filmmaker/artist. GHits returns a number of hits incapable of conferring notability. GNews, GBooks, et al., return nothing. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 02:51, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Doesn't seem that notable. However my biggest concern is the image on that page was uploaded by a user who claims to be her sister, and the source page for the photo links back to Wikipedia, so it seems to be part of a profile raising promotional campaign. The page is edited almost solely by this sister (or if they're not the sister then they're making false claims when uploading images.) Canterbury Tail talk 02:55, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 11:21, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Canterbury Tail. (GregJackP (talk) 15:39, 20 May 2010 (UTC))[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:28, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete non-notable, not enough references. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 07:33, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per TOOSOON. Short career fails WP:ENT. Lack of coverage fails WP:GNG. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 00:49, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:37, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Castle on the Hudson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
A dab page with only one real entry. The film should be moved back. If the hotel gets an article, it can be handled with a hatnote. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:34, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and move film article to this title per WP:DAB#Disambiguation page or disambiguation links? Deor (talk) 13:47, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:28, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and move. -- JHunterJ (talk) 23:35, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Minor characters of Days of our Lives. Sourcing concerns prevail, but those sources are probably good enough for a mention in the list article. Shimeru (talk) 22:41, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Stephanie Johnson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
A rather massive article without any sources about a minor character in the soap opera days of our lives that has persisted for a vast amount of time. No reliable sources treat this fictional thing in the sort of depth that would allow for, or argue in favor of, having it treated in an encyclopedia. There is also no way to verify its accuracy through reliable independent sources. Bali ultimate (talk) 00:31, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge I would suggest this article be merged with Minor characters of Days of our Lives. I already attempted to move the information to child characters, but someone reverted it. My suggestion would be to merge it. Melanie has more notability than Stephanie. Sami50421 (talk) 00:43, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In fact I could do it myself. If you'd like.Sami50421 (talk) 00:47, 20 May 2010 (UTC) comment was removed by user. — Jack Merridew 02:50, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]- Please don't do that during this discussion; it's disruptive; see:
- Wikipedia:Guide to deletion#You may edit the article during the discussion
Specifically, the fifth bullet point
- Wikipedia:Guide to deletion#You may edit the article during the discussion
- Cheers, Jack Merridew 01:19, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Please don't do that during this discussion; it's disruptive; see:
- Delete as an unsourced and non-notable article. This sort of thing is better suited to fan-wikis such as on wikia.com. I expect it to be transwiki'd ASAP, so we'll be free of it. Sincerely, Jack Merridew 01:19, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- Jack Merridew 01:19, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge As Jack said it is deemed not notable, as Sami suggested merge with Minor characters of Days of our Lives. Gabriela Hernandez 02:31, 20 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gabi Hernandez (talk • contribs)
- Note: This article has been transwiki'd to annex.wikia.com -- Jack Merridew 18:23, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Hardly a minor character, the character is a Brady, one of the core members of the show, as well the child of one of the show's super couples. If this article is deleted because of sourcing issues, then almost every Days article should be deleted as well. Rather than try to think of ways to remove these articles, we should try to improve them by adding sources. Agree that sourcing is a problem. Rm994 (talk) 02:40, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I fixed the problems with the article. No need for deletion now. Sami50421 (talk) 01:13, 22 May 2010 (UTC)— Sami50421 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Delete or Merge - All the refs are for the actors, not the character. No indication that the character has any real-world notability. 76.102.27.141 (talk) 01:23, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Check the Stephanie Johnson Bio, that is for the character, on the official NBC site. Sami50421 (talk) 01:34, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Primary source, unsuitable for notability purposes. 76.102.27.141 (talk) 01:35, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Article has been fixed as I can see. A lot of problems with it, have been fixed. 75.69.115.225 (talk) 02:16, 22 May 2010 (UTC) — 75.69.115.225 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:36, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Barbadian Superstardom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unsourced and of no context it should be merged to the general page a Rihanna. Lil-unique1 (talk) 00:09, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete based on current unsourced content. I note that the article claims this DVD was produced by Rihanna herself, yet the video cover says at the top "The Unauthorized Biography". --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:18, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:26, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 with leave to speedy renominate. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 04:21, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Jog (moped) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Needs widespread consensus... poorly written, unsure if it is salvageable. UtherSRG (talk) 08:02, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- comment being poorly written is no excuse to delete, anything can be salvageable on wikipedia. here's a start, this appears to be an article for the Yamaha Jog model of scooter, one that is documented to exist. I would recommend moving the article to a better title and give it a rewrite. riffic (talk) 08:15, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:15, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- comment I renamed the article to Yamaha Jog riffic (talk) 06:28, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Very weak keep - well, the sources provided above demonstrate that this vehicle exists, and that it has received at least a small amount of coverage in reliable sources. More sources would be better to make the case for notability clearer, though. Robofish (talk) 01:32, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 aerotoxic syndrome. Since content has been merged, licensing as I understand it requires we retain the history by redirecting. Shimeru (talk) 22:50, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- AOPIS (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Orphaned article apparently set up for soapboxing by a single purpose account. Article has not expanded beyond stub since it was started in Oct 2006, and has had virtually no copyediting apart from tagging. Socrates2008 (Talk) 13:10, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I've added some sources to the article that verify notability. Because of my current AN3 involvement in related matters, I won't vote here. SilverserenC 19:05, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you, however I don't feel that these references address the fact that this article has been an orphaned stub for 3.5 years; its single paragraph amounts to an acronym definition, and would therefore be better placed as a brief mention in the aerotoxic syndrome article. Socrates2008 (Talk) 23:25, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- But the sources have enough information for the article to be expanded so it is more than just an acronym definition. SilverserenC 23:29, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not seeing how any potential expansion of this article will not involve a content fork of aerotoxic syndrome. So suggest that anything relevant is moved to there, and if sufficient content is established at some point in the future, then consideration be given at that time to spinning off a separate article. Socrates2008 (Talk) 23:52, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see how an article about a group can be a content fork for a syndrome. The group works in order to raise awareness and get information out about Aerotoxic syndrome, but that doesn't make it a content fork of that article about the syndrome. Where exactly would you put this information in that article? It's not about groups that are advocating for it. SilverserenC 23:56, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, but I disagree. A few lines in a new section in the Aerotoxic syndrome article about lobbying and pressure groups would be completely appropriate. I've gone ahead and created the new section, copying in the relevant prose from this article. Socrates2008 (Talk) 07:19, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What are you going to do if this AfD ends in Keep? SilverserenC 08:07, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, but I disagree. A few lines in a new section in the Aerotoxic syndrome article about lobbying and pressure groups would be completely appropriate. I've gone ahead and created the new section, copying in the relevant prose from this article. Socrates2008 (Talk) 07:19, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see how an article about a group can be a content fork for a syndrome. The group works in order to raise awareness and get information out about Aerotoxic syndrome, but that doesn't make it a content fork of that article about the syndrome. Where exactly would you put this information in that article? It's not about groups that are advocating for it. SilverserenC 23:56, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not seeing how any potential expansion of this article will not involve a content fork of aerotoxic syndrome. So suggest that anything relevant is moved to there, and if sufficient content is established at some point in the future, then consideration be given at that time to spinning off a separate article. Socrates2008 (Talk) 23:52, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: appears to fail coverage test. Set up in 2001, so one would expect at least passing mentions in Australian media findable on the internet. No mentions as acronym or with full name The Australian, for example.
Plenty of AOPIS online coverage. AOPIS website itself - or rather, the site it is a sly front door to - would appear to be a possible candidate for inclusion as an external link in the aerotoxic syndrome article subject, subject to EL vetting. --Shirt58 (talk) 10:48, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Stifle (talk) 11:51, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- GeoSOS (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Contested Prod. Non-notable software. With the exception of self-published references, there are no verifiable or reliable sources found. No significant GHits for GeoSOS among numerous hits for Geos OS. 1 GScholar hit (self-published). No GNews/Book hits. Li and Liu are both on the research team for the software, see here. GregJackP (talk) 16:34, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Looks promotional, no evidence of notability. --LordPistachio talk 06:24, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No evidence of notability per WP:N. Its hard to tell what the 'references' are actually referring to, but I suspect they're primary sources. —gorgan_almighty (talk) 10:00, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Article has been "despammed". The issue of merging can continue on the article's talk page. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 04:31, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Spurgeon's (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- It is advertisement. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 16:36, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It wasn't quite so blatant an advertisement until about 3 hours before it was nominated. Someone thought it would be helpful to throw in "Updated content from Spurgeons Marketing department". Here was what it looked like before the corporate makeover [21]. However, the history also indicates that it's never been sourced to anything other than the website, and I find surprisingly little in my search, whether under "Spurgeon's" or "Spurgeons". Mandsford 18:47, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment' - That update consists of material copied from the organisation's web site and was a copyvio. I've reverted the main content back to the version prior to the introduciton of the copyvio. -- Whpq (talk) 17:14, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The charity dates back to 1867 so there is likely much inthe way of siourcing that won't be easily available online. [22] and [23] provides some minor mentions. At the very least, it should be a merge to Charles Haddon Spurgeon who founded the charity. -- Whpq (talk) 17:25, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep or merge per Whpq's argument. —gorgan_almighty (talk) 10:04, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Shimeru (talk) 22:52, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Tha O Show (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I cannot find significant coverage for this topic. —fetch·comms 21:13, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Results found on google were about a television program, this article is about a radio program --Alpha Quadrant (talk) 21:18, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: [24] appears to describe a radio show; first google hit for "Tha O Show". They've run 167 shows as of May 13, 2010. Poor copy in the article, but seems every bit a real show. Also mentioned @ pulse wrestling. Wondering what google query found a television show. --Erik Garrison (talk) 21:50, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The show is real but the article lacks reliable secondary sources. Not notable. Wikispan (talk) 18:48, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:10, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please see my talk page User Talk:Alpha Quadrant#Tha O Show it was a AFC submission. I thought the google news sources were on this topic, when in fact the news articles were on a television show with the same name. --Alpha Quadrant (talk) 00:02, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply] - The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 05:25, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- CYBERKILL (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I do not believe that the subject of this article meets the criteria for book notability. Google brings up a lot of pages but they are mainly blog entries, booksellers, or sites that host the flash game. There are no mentions in review publications or newspapers, etc. ... discospinster talk 16:34, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:59, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would have to disagree, this is a real novel, I found it for sale on Amazon.com here:
http://www.amazon.com/CYBERKILL-F-F-Fiore/dp/1601458061
I am also finding considerable coverage of it on the internet and move it be accepted by Wikipedia, and considered a useful and valuable contribution to its community.
I am going to be watching this thread to see where it goes.
Dw817 (talk) 20:31, 20 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dw817 (talk • contribs) 20:24, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I usually can find some kinda significant review for books but this has none except for a passing mention in a blog that it came out. Fails WP:NBOOK "The book has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works", no awards, and no historical or literary significance.--Savonneux (talk) 23:46, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
dw817:
- The book is for sale in both hardcover and softcover.
If you do a Google Book Search for the title alone, his comes to the top.
I have found his book for sale in Fort Worth Texas at Barnes & Noble and Borders, I checked both, on the physical book shelf.
I can list their phone numbers and physical addresses if you need further proof.
These two companies are literary giants in the world today, there's your literary award, they have undeniably high standards or they would not carry his work.
Please support your findings with verifiable research as I have done, Savonneux. I would like to see the author's entry contested peacefully and fairly decided.Dw817 (talk) 00:59, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Being available for sale does not make a work notable. Being sold at Borders or Barnes & Noble is not equivalent to having received an award. (And they are not literary giants anyway, they sell books.) The onus is on the writer(s) of the article to show how the subject does meet WP:NBOOK. ... discospinster talk 01:25, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
dw817:
- I needed to hear this.
I am glad you were able to reach a settlement.
I looked up the definition of Encyclopedia recently. It's not a very long sentence.
Current Wikipedia does not meet its current definition.
Neither is Wikipedia included or defined in my own personal Encyclopedia (which I have in my hands), or even "http://www.encyclopedia.com." Apparently your free web service didn't meet their standards. Though you can find Encyclopedia the definition and its background listed in an Encyclopedia itself.
What you have done is taken a perfect doctrine, the true definition of Encyclopedia and added amendments to it, thereby destroying its original intention.
I'm glad you kids are having fun deleting works of others by quoting bylaws and regulations that only "award winning" entries can make, but that was never the original intent of the Encyclopedia itself. Never. And I am also fully aware that many of the laws made in Wikipedia are made directly by people such as yourself who delete other peoples entries and as such, you can change the laws to match the crime. I have no reply to that knowledge.
I also know I am talking DIRECTLY to to wrong people here. What I wrote will be ridiculed, at best recorded out of curiousity to tell others, but never taken seriously.
In Wikipedia's opening statement, it is not a dictionary.
I contest in final gentlemen that it is neither an Encyclopedia, free or otherwise.
Should any website that claims to provide Encyclopedia services to others decide to include Wikipedia as a valid entry in theirs, I might be so inclined to believe. Merely being listed in newspaper, magazine, and trade journals does not count. Those are my standards. You must be listed in ANY Encylopedia to be recognized as a true Encyclopedia yourself, though that is the smallest of my concerns.
I refer to my opening statement:
"I needed to hear this."
I hope these words will not fall on deaf ears, and if they do, I hope you have the courtesy to give them to someone who will listen to them and understand my concerns.
I'm recording a copy of this reply alone for my future records as I believe it holds merit.
And I truly do wish you, all of you, the very best of days ahead.
Sincerely,
David W
Dw817 (talk) 01:57, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/1192818/Wikipedia ... discospinster talk 02:03, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- On another note, the point of Wikipedia is not to document everything that has ever happened or come into existence. That is not the point of any encyclopedia. Do you think that this Cyberkill book would make it into Encyclopedia Britannica? I doubt it. Yes, Wikipedia is different from print encyclopedias in that it can be edited by anyone. However, because of this open concept, it is essential to have certain criteria for inclusion, otherwise the site will become nothing more than a free web host. The premise of the site is not "anything goes"; it is simply an acknowledgment that there are many people out there with knowledge and skills and so why not bring them all together to contribute to something useful? ... discospinster talk 02:20, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
dw817:
- Okay:
>> addition: Britannica is an encyclopedia. An encyclopedia is NOT Britannica. Wikipedia entry attempt failed.
Let's say you have a valid argument here.
Then I put it to you that Wikipedia is ill-equipped at defining specifically what it is designed for. This entry should never have been accepted, ever. You should not have raised the authors hope by giving them a chance to enter it, only to have it shot down.
This is an emotional statement of mine and I'm certain it has no place here.
Continuing,
I would enjoy seeing future Wikipedia stating very clearly that NO books of any kind are accepted from the 20th century (not 19th as there are notable works). Any books written today will clearly be shot down as there is absolutely no way they can meet Wikipedia's standards.
I understand there are literary works of merit today that Wikipedia, but novels are not one of them.
This is unnecessary but considered extreme courtesy, could you please point me (and others) reading this thread to a Wikipedia entry of any novel ever accepted that was written in 2009 or 2010 that has passed Wikipedia's standards.
If you cannot, I well understand and sympathize completely. However, then surely you must see the anguish you have caused this author by pretending to accept his literary work by allowing its entry.
I say, a good Wikipedia to me would be one that does not HAVE to go and waste an inordinate amount of time to go weeding through every single blessed entry from John Doe to Ezekiel Smith. No, instead it is one that lets the author know BEFORE they begin, that already, they do not qualify.
This can be done quite simply. Instead of allowing others to spend hours, days, and weeks, slaving over a highly creative definition page only to have it shot down, have a single line or two entry stating what they would REQUEST to add to Wikipedia's high standards.
And then you holy few (I apologize for the sarcasm) can review which are even ALLOWED to begin to build a page.
The bandwidth you would save alone limiting new entry requests to a single 256-char line would more than make up for the way it is now.
My concern now is, none of you, absolutely none of you have control over this. You were chosen by someone who chose someone else who chose someone else ad infinitum. Therefore Wikipedia will continue to entertain the notion of allowing others to enter pages into it only to have them shot down hours or days later.
I really don't think you know what that does to someone. For god sake's LIMIT entries without permitting someone to cheerfully make home and then have it burned down the next day.
If you contend that Wikipedia was not made for this then I HIGHLY suggest you do not allow an open frame to every single passerby who enters something in, not finding it, and decides, either maliciously for personal capital intent, or honest charitable reason, to build such a page, and, once again, having it burned down because it doesn't meet code.
DON'T ALLOW ANYONE TO BUILD A HOUSE HERE JUST SO YOU CAN BURN IT DOWN, and then rather cheerfully explain to them, it was a bad house anyway, and then go away broken-hearted.
<sarcasm>
==Job well done guys !==
</sarcasm>
I'm going to add this, because I appreciate the fact you are considering what I am writing. It inclines me to tell others that if they cannot find an encyclopedic entry to something on Wikipedia and they know what it is themselves and are frustrated that Wikipedia doesn't know, then DO NOT attempt an entry, it will be shot down, ESPECIALLY if they have no knowledge of how to build such an article and just want to type in one sentence for a definition to assist others and walk away. I will tell them DON'T DO IT. It may be valid in an encyclopedia but unless they read up on the myriads of how to build a proper Wikipedia page, they will not have a prayer.
Question: Do you support non-programmer encyclopedic entries at all ? And if not, that is not a requirement of Wikipedia, but a HANDICAP and limits its knowledge base.
On a different notes, I can point out HUNDREDs of entries in Wikipedia that will never ever be included in a standard encyclopedia ever, no matter how much or how little support they receive, so how did they make it in ?
I'm not trying to frustrate or anger you, I'm pointing out the numerous holes in the system.
Doubtless there is a great deal of handshaking going on under the table to accept entries. I place no accusations, but you must accept for a system of this size through ratio and probability alone, it is a solid granite fact.
I am not entertaining the notion you seek out these people as they will be impossible to find, but I AM stating, I find your findings based on individual preferences. There are laws and bylaws in Wikipedia, but they are ALWAYS subject to human interpretation.
The bottom-line of ALL of this is THIS:
Please stop shooting down entries that will obviously never make the grade. Either that or require stringent measures to prohibit ANY page entry by passerbys. If you want to be an exclusive company, that's fine STATE YOU ARE. Please don't be hypocritical and state you're free and open, the people's encyclopedia, for user entries when in fact your exclusive rules will burn down ALL entries unless someone is intimately familiar with the Wikipedia's staff and operating system, and I mean INTIMATELY gentlemen.
Pulling back in focus I am truly amazed at the depth and clarity this article scheduled for deletion has about his novel. I could never do that myself, which is probably not saying anything, but I doubt over 10,000 random people off the street couldn't do it either. This gentlemen is what you are deleting.
Are you SO concerned about the storage space this entry is taking that reasons are found to delete it, or in fact, it is considered an inferior and invalid entry to Wikipedia's definition of presentation, which I doubt most seriously. Why on EARTH did you let him work so hard at making this remarkable entry only to have it burned down ?
I'd like you to pause for a second. Disregard policy for ONE SECOND, and click the CYBERKILL at the top of the page to see the time and considerable effort the author has made into this entry. You should be ASHAMED for letting him work on it this long only knowing full well you are going to delete it, with or without a discussion.
If this sounds like an accusation it is, absolutely NO-ONE came to this man's defense except me, who hasn't even read the book, but admires the author enough to put serious work into his entry. Why are you EVEN debating about deleting it when you knew full well no-one could defend him, not me, my words hold no merit in his defense, you're going to delete it anyway and I'm going to sit here and SMILE while you do it.
We go beyond the point of you collecting and giving abstract ideas about why something should be deleted on this site, notwithstanding what this site does or does not stand for. YOU go beyond the fact that you have never failed in a deletion, whether or not it was "justified." You never lose in your attempt, no-one will ever stand against you, and I have to laugh out loud at that.
If this site is truly open architecture and you have NO power outside my own, any one's, as an individual, as we are all one so Wikipedia claims, then I must applaud you for standing while everyone else is seated.
Please have a seat.
Do the impossible. Do the right thing, and you won't find it written in a book.
Sincerely,
David W
Dw817 (talk) 02:44, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I can verify that it exists and is for sale. But beyond that, there is no coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 13:50, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
dw817:
Added >> Whpq: a book you can physically put in your hand is, in most conversation circles, considered a reliable source. It exists. I have no idea what you are referring to.
- Well, all of you, every time you speak, you jingle, with all your awards, medals, and trinkets. I am sure they are well-deserved. I'm tired, and I must agree what I wrote yesterday as a real brainweave, and I apologize for that .. there is room for improvement in Wikipedia, but as long as you keep allowing others to build houses here, wait until they are very satisfied with them, then burn them down by quoting regulations, rules, and the "laws" of a good and ethical society that Wikipedia is, and then decorate yourself with medals and trinkets for your manipulative logical games and cleverness, and even have the tenacity to try to psychologically manipulate those builders into believing that it was for the good of society you destroy their work (but wait until they finish it first so you can thoroughly enjoy their misery), you will have failed yourself as being recognized as anything more than petty arsons and vandals.
You have done the author of this page a great disservice by threatening to destroy his work by quoting regulations.
You continue to do yourselves an even greater disservice by allowing this mockery of a justice to occur, notwithstanding whether or not his page does or does not meet your qualifications, that is completely beside the point now.
I'm certain a great number of you now are delighted in my rants and eagerly look forward to more, amusing that I am. But the funniest thing of all, none of you understand what torment you've put the author through. None of you are willing to admit it, take responsibility for it, or even, god forbid, apologize. Just "* DELETE" there's the ticket.
I never thought I would find such remarkable and intelligent people who are learned beyond years in the ways of Justice and Punishment, yet crippled and completely debilitated in the ways of Compassion and Humility.
I'm done here. Kick the tires and light the fires kids. Maybe, eventually, someone will smack you in the head and say HEY, WHAT YOU'RE DOING IS WRONG. Why don't you try to help people here instead of constantly knocking them down. To HELP them build here.
Please correct me on this because I would like to be COMPLETELY wrong about all of you.
Sincerely,
David W
Dw817 (talk) 14:49, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - In what way have we caused the author of the article, user:Cmatney, "torment"? That editor has not made any statement that would lead to such a conclusion. And in any case, that is not relevant to this discussion. What is relevant is whether the book meets the inclusion criteria set out. And note that when creating a new article, there is a note specifically stating "When creating an article, provide references to reliable published sources. An article without references, especially a biography of a living person, may be deleted." I've tried to help. I've looked for sources to substantiate its inclusion on Wikipedia. But these sources simply don't exist. I'll be happy to be proved wrong. -- Whpq (talk) 15:09, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
dw817:
- I can't believe what I'm reading. The author MUST contact you and say, "Dear Chaps. I am tormented, have a lovely day." ANYONE who burns down someones house is tormented whether they say they are or not. It's a kind of after-effect in the human nature to feel loss when someone destroys our work. I'm sorry if that's difficult to understand.
The only thing relevant here is to delete this article. I know that, and YOU knew that when he started writing his first sentence. You were ALL AWARE of what he did and instead of deleting it immediately, you waited, and waited, and waited, for him to do a really nice polished job. And to ease your consciences you all gather around in this star-chamber trying to find logical reasons that meet Wikipedia's unique set of laws for for igniting his house. It's really a sick sense of justice, I'm sorry, I just don't get it.
Cut to the chase. STOP deliberating whether or not he qualifies to meet your criteria as he didn't the first sentence he wrote, BURN THE HOUSE ALREADY, and then MAYBE if you insist on being beneficial in the future, STOP others before they begin, actually talk to them, you have that ability, explain to them that you plan to burn their work down so they don't go through the TORMENT of seeing it destroyed later once they've gotten it looking really nice. Don't sit there and comfortably drool while someone slaves over their work and then when they leave to show their friends, burn it down in their absence and just as bad is to slap this notice to let them know it WILL be burned once the star-chamber has found sufficient evidence, and it will.
This article is being considered for deletion in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policy.
THAT IS WRONG PEOPLE.
Here is what really gets me. WHY ARE YOU HERE ? Every single indicator given is to burn the place and yet you meet here like a real sense of justice is being carried out. You're going to delete it, you ALL know you're going to delete it. Are you here JUST to ease your consciences and try to convince yourself that he had a fair trial by quoting rules, regulations, and pandering, I'm sorry, that was uncalled for, COLLECTING data to hang him ?
.
Why are you here .. it would almost make me think you care, but yet you have all stated very clearly "* delete" so I just don't get it. BURN and be done, unless there is some other process I am unaware of. Do you have to tabulate the timbers ?
Why are you here ? I know why I'm here, to question the mad ritual. Do YOU know why you are here ?
Sincerely,
dw817
Dw817 (talk) 15:21, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Unless you are user:Cmatney, I think it inappropriate and presumptuous to declare that he is tormented by having the article he created nominated for deletion. Not all editors in this situation will have the same reaction. As for why any of us are "here". Here (AFD) is where we review if an article is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. This is a form of quality control. An AFD discussion is based on the current consensus as reflected by policy and guideline. If you believe that these guidelines need to be changed, then you you should discuss that at the WP:VILLAGEPUMP. Discussing t here will not change anything. -- Whpq (talk) 15:57, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Unless sourcing can be provided from Reliable Sources, this fails WP:V. --Sodabottle (talk) 19:53, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
dw817:
- Quality Control ? There would be no QUALITY CONTROL if you didn't allow every Tom Dick and Henrietta to be encouraged to build a page the moment they couldn't find what they are looking for. I looked at your Wikctionary and you are to be APPLAUDED. That is a well-designed system that doesn't encourage page building when something isn't found.
I suggest you look to it and LOSE all this puffery about QUALITY CONTROL. A good system would not need this service if a screening process took place, but you have none here so it ENCOURAGES others to slap down new entries as 90% or more will never make the grade, ever.
No, you get back up on your high-chairs, deliberate, prospect, and "mediate" to decide who lives and who dies. I feel better with the knowledge knowing that ALL of you are at least aware of the shortcomings Wikipedia has, how they can be fixed, and how you choose NOT to fix them so you can continue to hold your positions of power.
That is the greatest of pleasures to me. I did reach you, all of you, whether you will admit it to yourselves or not.
I will close with this. Wikipedia is a marvelous system. It's a great accomplishment and I'm glad it exists. It's a shame it's also infested with a great many others who, while doing great good in many ways, also do great evil by seeking out and attacking pages that will NEVER make Wikipedia's cut. The builders should never be given the opportunity to build it.
May you never be judged the way you judge others. That is the nicest thing I can say to you now.
Closing up,
You are welcome to reply if you like, that me and others may read what you wrote in your defense, however, I will not be replying back myself after this message and hope SOMEONE who reads this understands a fraction of my concern here.
Final message copied and archived. David shakes his head and thanks Wikipedia works as well as it does as it is a great system indeed.
(After I leave there is a sigh of relief, "Is he FINALLY done now ? Can we FINALLY get back to what we were doing here ?") The brain maintains the void and my concerns, about the flaws in Wikipedia were NEVER addressed to THIS point. Carry on gentlemen. More awards await you in your deep state of myopia. Don't expect to get one for INSIGHT, however. Jingle on. ***
Dw817 (talk) 22:02, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment WP:DUCKSEASON--Savonneux (talk) 00:01, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Smacks of an ad. Carrite (talk) 03:30, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.