The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy delete as a wholly unsourced biography that makes assertions of criminal activity, per the Wikipedia:Biography of living persons policy. I also did some checking, and like the nominator couldn't find any mention of any such person. Uncle G (talk) 00:05, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The author, Donbascano1 (talk·contribs), has created both Robert "Bobby The Clam" Porfidio and Robert "Bobby the Clam" Porfidio. The former is now a redirect to the latter. I haven't been able to find any mention of this person outside of Wikipedia, under any permutation and with any combination of name and nickname. Add to that the serious allegations, insinuations and rumours in this article.I say we delete this per WP:BLP and WP:V. AecisBrievenbus 23:55, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per BLP unless someone can verify the article. When it comes to biographies of living people, we have to play it safe. faithless(speak) 00:00, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Coredesat 05:09, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable person. Article was prodded earlier, but prod tag was removed with reason "article is accurate". Article does not contain any verifiable claims to notability and I therefore propose its deletion. Crusio (talk) 23:52, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The issue is notability, not accuracy. -- P L E A T H E R talk 04:20, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing notability - appears to be a teenage actor with local credits only. Tony Fox(arf!) 04:49, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. No opinion, this is a close call. The formatting is a mess. 17:42, 14 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bearian (talk • contribs)
Delete. "active in the Minneapolis performing arts community" does not equate to notability, even if he has been in a few plays (it makes no mention of how major/minor his parts have been). Doesn't help that the article was apparently created by his agent. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 18:41, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no reliable sources to attest to notability -- Whpq (talk) 17:18, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
weak delete. Seems to have a career started, but not yet enough for an encyclopedia. Found one reference that is independent of the subject (mnartists.org is a project of Walker Art Center) that has his bio. Says he won an award for his work in Costa Rica (I have no idea if that is significant or not though). Seems to be on track for an article someday.. Keeper | 76 20:10, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment - the MNArtists.org site appears to be user generated content, so it's not clear what editorial oversight is exercised for the information contained within it. -- Whpq (talk) 20:20, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I guess I missed that- I saw "project of Walker" on homepage and dug no further:-). It looks like Whpq is right - artists (of many genres) are able to post their "art" and bios at this site for free exposure. Probably accurate? Yes. Independent of artist? Not really. Encyclopedically reliable? no. Confirms my delete vote. Keeper | 76 20:29, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, then recreate as redirect→Go! (Mario album) --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:11, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This song is apparently a future single from an album released just a few days ago. Perhaps it will be notable some day, but it isn't yet. We can't predict the future. faithless(speak) 23:53, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. DS (talk) 04:01, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - looks an awful lot like a hoax to me - none of the albums turn up in searches, and one would think that even an early-'90s Universal release would be available someplace; the book mentioned doesn't turn up, the band gets minimal returns itself. This is, as it stands, completely unverifiable. Tony Fox(arf!) 04:53, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The book with the ISBN listed in the article does provide a hit at the Library of Congress. The title is "Mary Thomas’s dictionary of embroidery stitches". I agree with Tony, serious verifiability issues coupled with a fake source. Sjakkalle(Check!) 09:40, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Book source (actual title for ISBN: Mary Thomas's dictionary of embroidery stitches) is clearly bogus. --slakr\ talk / 14:10, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The book source is, I noticed that too (shame on me for not removing it), bogus. But there is plenty of stuff that seems to indicate there is a music group called MR HILARIOUS (yes, in all caps) including videos on youtube. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:14, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I never claimed that the article should be kept (see my delete !vote below), but I was just noting that I'm not too sure if it is a hoax. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:26, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe it to be an out and out hoax. I believe it to be utterly non-notable, sprinkled with fake citations in an attempt to make it look notable. That, to my mind is vandalism Mayalld (talk) 14:29, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And possibly WP:SOCK behaviour, as the different articles were created by different users, who have very much the same editing style, and interests. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:35, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. per above. Band's information at [1] and [2]WARNING - these pages are noisy is clearly specious. TonywaltonTalk 14:24, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For example, those sites claim the band played at "Live Aid 2005" (Live 8, presumably) with U2. No mention of them playing London (where U2 played) or anywhere else here or here (the latter site currently down, but was up 10 minutes ago; same applies to Part 2 on that site). There appears to be [www.cafepress.com/mrhilarious merchandise] here but I can't find anything, including www.allmusic.com independently confirming their existence (and anyone can print a few T-shirts). TonywaltonTalk 14:45, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Singularity 09:43, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Coredesat 05:10, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOT#NEWS, thousands of earthquakes happens every year, no reason why this one is significant from others, no sources indicating the notabilty of this earthquake, prod removed DeleteSecretaccount 23:46, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep significant, considering that its about a season of seismic events in a region where this is a big issue. ShivaeVolved 00:00, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unsourced, synthesis, not notable because the region has earthquakes all the time. This would be like an article on "June 2005 thunderstorms in Brazil". AnteaterZot (talk) 00:29, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Earthquakes happen frequently in California. I see no evidence that these are more notable than the rest. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 00:30, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless there is scientific, not anecdotal, evidence that this was a notable string of quakes. --Dhartung | Talk 04:34, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This information could be incorporated into another article, since the 7.2 magnitude quake (off the coast) prompted tsunami warnings, but, fortunately, caused no damage. I think all of the comments above have merit. I'm not surprised that it caused some residents to think it was a portent of "The Big One", given the magnitude and the close timing, as Shiva notes. Happily, it turned out to be non-notable as others have observed. Mandsford (talk) 22:54, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. "Due to these earthquakes, some residents have begun preparing for the "big one", a large hypothetical earthquake" suggests this wasn't taken as just anotehr earthquake. But then there should be reliable sources discussing the notable aftermath. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:27, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unrelated series of events; Truckee, Anza, and Crescent City are so far apart as to make any seismic connection between them highly implausible, and only the Crescent City quake was large enough to have any potential notability. As for the speculation at the end, delete it twice as hard. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:59, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 all --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:31, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Lira is the lead singer of the band Inept. The band appears to be (barely) notable but the individual members are not. Each band member article consists solely of an infobox and one sentence saying what instrument they play. I originally put up PROD notices but they were all removed without comment by User:Chiman84 who is the creator and principal contributor to the band article, the band member articles and the band's album article. All of this user's edits except around six concern this band and its members. TM 22:59, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Here are the other four band member articles I am nominating:
The band itself seems to scrape by with notability on the grounds that they've played at some notable festivals but they don't appear to have released any albums yet so someone more familiar with this stuff may want to consider nominating the article for the band itself or the article for their EP. --TM 23:12, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. ShivaeVolved 23:54, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As much as I hate these articles, if the band is notable, it follows that the band members are also notable.KnightLago (talk) 00:00, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect is the best solution. KnightLago (talk) 03:14, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I don't think it does. I think the consensus is that if a band is very notable then all the members are consequently notable. Just being in a band that barely meets notability guidelines has never been sufficient as far as I recall.--TM 00:07, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't looked at the band, but if the band is not notable, delete all the members as that is their sole claim for notability. KnightLago (talk) 00:56, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a link to the discussion or know where I can find it? KnightLago (talk) 00:10, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have anything to support the claim that all band members of any notable band are therefore notable? Best I can do for my case is cite Wikipedia:Notability (music), which nowhere states that an individual musician is notable simply because they are part of a notable ensemble or band. One could interpret the guideline according to your understanding however (ie. a musician goes on tour (as part of a band) and is therefore notable). One example of individual band member articles being redirected is with Kevin Barnes; I created the article a couple years ago and it was redirected to the band article repeatedly, first by others, and later by myself, since it added no new information and Barnes, as an individual did not meet WP:MUSIC. --TM 00:27, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, I just think that (not is this case as it appears this band is nn) the members of a notable band are notable. They are the band. I can see cases where not every member of a band is notable, like a backup singer, but when there are a few members of a band it follows that the band members are notable. But this is purely a hypothetical at this point. KnightLago (talk) 00:56, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all Everything notable about the individual musicians can be stated on the band's article. Watchsmart (talk) 00:57, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Which is surely more a case of Smerge and redirect, no? Which is standard practice in cases like this anyway. Grutness...wha? 01:36, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There isn't really much TO merge, but yeah I think you're right... Watchsmart (talk) 01:42, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If there's anything to merge, that would be a good thing, then redirect this and all the others to the band. Which, to be bluntly honest, doesn't really meet WP:MUSIC to me, with one EP out and no real media coverage that I've been able to find. I'm looking into the claims of touring, but may AFD that later on depending what I find. Tony Fox(arf!) 05:08, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just for the record (or for users browsing, closing admins, etc.) the only information to merge is date of birth/age and (apparently) place of birth (under origin in the infobox), although that information is unverified. Personally, I think redirects are unnecessary due to the lack of notability, but "WP is not paper" and as User:Grutness pointed out, merge and redirect is pretty much the standard in cases like this. --TM 05:21, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've just started an AFD for the band, so there might not be anywhere to merge to either. Tony Fox(arf!) 05:25, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Delete It looks like the article for the band is also going to get canned, so a merge might now work. This may have to be deleted. --Sharkface217 23:48, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. The band's article has been deleted (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Inept), so the same goes for the individual musicians' articles; there is no evidence of notability on any of the pages. --Paul Erik(talk)(contribs) 20:31, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Coredesat 05:11, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'd say non-notable since literally thousands can claim "small parts" in a movie, written articles; the "Improv" connection does not by itself merit this article. ShivaeVolved 23:57, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable --Hu12 (talk) 00:24, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This man's biggest claim to notability is as a journalist, and he wrote only in local papers. --Blanchardb-MeMyEarsMyMouth-timed 00:46, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't delete. Two separate New York Times sources verified[[User:fladgyglitz] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fladgyglitz (talk • contribs) 20:09, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment one of those links appears to be dead (this is after I logged into NYT). I'm not convinced the other article confers notability. I remember hearing about some of the other pranks on NPR, but that makes me think it might make more sense to merge Simmons into the article on Improv Everywhere for now. Katr67 (talk) 02:21, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please note you can't !vote more than once. See WP:AFD for more information about deletion discussions. And I'd say the brief mention in this review does nothing to establish Simmons' notability. Katr67 (talk) 22:43, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Keep. The improvements made since the AfD started have vastly improved the article. — Scientizzle 21:27, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A millitairy term, it doesn't seem that it can be expanded to a encyclopedic article Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 23:11, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete slang prolly fits better in a dictionary. ShivaeVolved 01:03, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are plenty of articles in Category:Military life about such fixtures of military life, and Jankers could easily be similarly expanded - as with KP duty - to explain what duties are required, and where it fits into the scheme of military punishments (it's one option in the British army equivalent of Nonjudicial punishment). The deal with jankers is that, unlike arduous but productive duties like KP, it tends to involve pointless activities - having to turn up for inspection in full kit, repeatedly; painting white posts white; and so on. The term is also used in British private schools and others that affect a military hierarchy. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 02:37, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well known and long standing term in the British "millitairy". There are plenty of references from the BBC [3] including its use in the first episode of 'It ain't half hot, mum? [4]. There are also plenty of references from memoirs covering army life and I've added some to the article. Nick mallory (talk) 04:01, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The other articles cited above show that this stub is capable of expansion. Also, the nominator is Dutch and I suspect some ulterior motive connected with that language in which the term may have other meanings. This is the English wikipedia. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:50, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Now now. The "ulterior motive" commentary is not needed. This was a good faith nominationbased on the condition of the article at present. Just because it is capable of expansion doesn't automatically mean keep. Per WP:HEY, I say expand it then. Without the promises. This AfD will be open at least a few days (and likely longer due to admin backlog). No need to attack the nominator. Keeper | 76 21:35, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I like to second that, I do not put up articles in english Wikipedia up for AfD because they have a different (funny?) meaning in Dutch. I might be Dutch, but I'm not stupid, a vandal, or trying to be funny. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 22:48, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Out of interest, what does it mean in Dutch? It crops up in a variety of contexts [5] that I can't make sense of. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 03:08, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Janken means to cry or to whine. Jankers would be a construction that means 'people that whine', and could be used as a word meaning something akin to 'crybabies'. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:18, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Doesn't seem like much more than a dictionary definition and is perhaps more appropriate to Wiktionary. With reliable, independent sources that tell why this is encyclopedic (beyond a definition), I'd say keep. History? Origins? Cultural relevance? Don't see it yet. Right now, it's dictionary material, and perhaps even a neologism of sorts. Jargon at best. Please don't accuse me of "ulterior motives" because I'm not British. This is a discussion about Jankers, not Martijn Hoekstra or Keeper76. Thanks in advance. Keeper | 76 21:35, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So you admit that it's already more than a dictionary definition but you're saying delete the article because it's not finished yet? Better delete everything else on Wikipedia too while you're at it, just in case. Do you know what a neologism is? It means a recently coined word not in general usage. If you'd read the article you'd see plenty of sources attesting to the fact that the word has been used at least since the Second World War and is in common use now. If Jankers is a neologism then so is every word coined since 1939. If well established "Jargon", e.g. a specialised term, is not notable then presumably you're going to nominate everything on this list [6], and the list itself for deletion in a moment or two. Have you considered trying to improve the article yourself? Just a thought. Thanks in advance.Nick mallory (talk) 02:25, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, can you just relax please? Put your claws in. Why the delete everything on Wikipedia DRAMA? I said Neologism of sorts. I know the word is old. But its just a word. Jargon. Dictionary. I did not admit that it's already more than a dicdef. I actually quite clearly said it's only a dicdef. If someone can prove its not (no one has) I would change my mind. I said if sources could be brought that tell why the word has a culturally importance, or has changed something, or done anything besides being only a word used by the British military, I'd change. And the accusation of "why don't you fix it" is completely unnecessary. You assume I just throw my 2c in to get my edit count up? Seriously? Of course I searched for jankers. It's only a word though. Anybody find an article title something like How "Jankers" has changed the way things work?? And as far as bringing out the tired argument called "other stuff", yes, I would hold the opinion to also delete the list of baseball jargon, because it is only a list of words. Thanks for drawing attention to it. Notice how the only reference in that list is called Dictionary of Baseball??. What makes it encyclopedic? Please, stop attacking the nominator (Colonel Warden) and stop attacking me (Nick Mallory). It detracts from the job at hand. Keeper | 76 16:24, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How "Jankers" has changed the way things work
This seems a very restrictive criterion. Look through Category:Military life. How have KP duty, the Pace stick and epaulettes changed the way things work? It's not "just a word" - it refers to a specific body of military practice in a particular army, and as such can be expanded to describe that practice and where it fits into the punishment hierarchy (i.e. it's a form of summary discipline for offences insufficiently serious to require a court martial). Gordonofcartoon (talk) 17:34, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the other examples. KP duty, as an article, is right now supported by exactly one reference called Dictionary of the United States Army Terms. Probably belongs in Wiktionary. Without further sourcing, it very easily could be nominated in the future (I won't; that would be Bad faith). I would also support a merge (of jankers and KP Duty and likely others) into a parent article that describes Military punishment hierarchy (to use your words). The other examples: A pace stick is an object, as are epaulettes. Perfectly acceptable for an encyclopedia, which describes objects (persons, places, things). Keeper | 76 18:00, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perfectly acceptable for an encyclopedia, which describes objects (persons, places, things)
We can ditch any claim that it's a neologism. Just checked the full OED: the earliest citation they have is 1916. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 03:08, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article is currently a good sourced stub and the subject is notable enough for mine. Capitalistroadster (talk) 02:45, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This piece has the potential to be a good article and should expand nicely using the cited material. --Stormbay (talk) 03:38, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge→??? (not sufficient for stand-alone article)—Perhaps this could become a stronger article, though I have doubts, and the result would most likely include significant original research or be of an inferential nature. All of the current online-available references in the article are incidental mentions of the term which support the meaning and context of use - which is essential for a dictionary definition; it is possible the 2006 book reference provides a different treatment. I am of the opinion that this article should be merged into an article relating methods of meting out punishment for breaches of military discipline in the British Armed Services, or more generally militaries of all kinds. It is unfortunate that Military discipline redirects to Military courtesy, because courtesy is only one aspect of discipline, and it stands to reason that the penalties for violating norms of courtesy can be quite distinct from those for violating a formal military code. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 04:22, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Coredesat 05:12, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is an essay that reads like an editorial and not like an encyclopedia article. Delete. Blanchardb-MeMyEarsMyMouth-timed 23:06, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an essay. Pretty clear violation of WP:NOR, and no way it can easily be rewritten to be encyclopedic. -FrankTobia (talk) 23:29, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and quickly. Not trying to sound bitey, but this class project is exactly that. Even with references (and there's a lengthy list), no evidence that this is anything beyond original research and WP:SYNTH. I'm surprised it isn't double-spaced with 2 inch margins. Written by a single purpose account of course. Keeper | 76
Delete per everyone else and particularly TravisTX, who is correct, this is just a one-sided soapbox essay by a single editor. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 23:30, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Sharkface217 23:50, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 WTVT, regardless of whatever else is out there, good or bad. There are no additional sources outside the main article, too many non-notable announcers, and no assertion of notability. There is some new content that appears to be useful for saving. Bearian (talk) 20:00, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:N, nothing here differentiates this morning newscast from the morning newscasts on hundreds (thousands?) of other local TV stations around the country. Amnewsboy (talk) 22:53, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment if we get rid of this, then let's get rid of Good Day New York too. --CFIF☎⋐ 22:59, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not sure if that was an indication that we should or shouldn't. ;-) Either way, this sounds like every morning show I've seen on dozens of local TV stations around the country... and I just don't get why it's here. Amnewsboy (talk) 23:03, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Treat it like any article. It has no sources, and it makes no claim as to why it is notable. Did they win an award for newscasting? Probably not, so it has to go. AnteaterZot (talk) 00:33, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep They are the number one rated news in Tampa and have won several awards. Morthanley (talk) 18:33, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, leaning towards Delete. What awards? Rated by who? Number one in viewership? Number one in quality? Need more than that. I'll do some searching myself, but I'm leaning strongly to delete. Keeper | 76 20:54, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Update, and yeah, Delete. NO evidence found through extensive searches of winning any awards (beyond local awards, or specific local emmy awards for individual reports or reporters). Just another newscast. Not notable by my best efforts. Keeper | 76 21:20, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to WTVT, and nominate Good Day New York next. I'm sure this probably has news features, weather, sports, live coverage around town, and maybe an interview with a local personality. Might even have won an award. Mandsford (talk) 01:48, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. --Sharkface217 23:51, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --CFIF☎⋐ 21:12, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
AfD is not a vote. On what grounds are you advocating "keep", CFIF? Keeper | 76 21:15, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the television station Secretaccount 22:30, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are thousands of morning shows. Should we create articles for all the morning shows shown aroung the World? Masterpiece2000 (talk) 09:47, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no assertion of notability; no references to verify notability. Sbowers3 (talk) 13:15, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the television station, as said by Secret.--Aldux (talk) 14:12, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Redirect to the proper school district per WP:SCHOOL. The name of said school district was missing from the article and is now available. Therefore, Nomination withdrawn. --Blanchardb-MeMyEarsMyMouth-timed 23:33, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable elementary school that is slated for closure. Per WP:SCHOOL, Redirect, except that I have nothing to redirect the article to. So Delete. Blanchardb-MeMyEarsMyMouth-timed 22:44, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep How can one school be more "notable" than another? This school has a long history in the town of Twillingate and deserves an article just as much as any other school would. It hasn't been closed down yet and might not be for a while and even if it will be in the future, it still was there for years and is an important piece of history for residents of the area. From WP:SCHOOL, "A school article that fails to establish notability will not be deleted, if the school can be confirmed to exist.[3] It would be simply redirected to the appropriate article for the relevant school district, and could be later expanded back out into it's own article again when sources should become available.[1]". That means you shouldn't have nominated it for deletion. The school runs under the Nova Central School District. Minimal research online would give you that answer. Also, a Google search reveals "Results 1 - 10 of about 292 for "Twillingate Island Elementary".~NeonFire372~ (talk) 22:47, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SCHOOL also states, Other primary/elementary/middle schools will be deemed non-notable unless notability can be clearly demonstrated by sufficient reliable secondary sources that meet WP:N. Such schools should normally be merged into the school district or locality as an editorial action without need for an AfD. You have stated the school district, so redirect it is. I am closing this AfD right away. --Blanchardb-MeMyEarsMyMouth-timed 23:33, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Coredesat 05:12, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neologism of unasserted notability. Delete. Blanchardb-MeMyEarsMyMouth-timed 22:35, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Its a bit confusing what this is exactly. Likely that this is just a general term that could be applied for anything. ShivaeVolved 23:51, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; it appears to be a reference to one company's product or service, rather than a specific term that has wide ranging use. One of the sources is a case study, which is dubious, to me. Tony Fox(arf!) 05:36, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There does not seem to be any third party references to this, and this article looks like a cleverly disguised marketing plug. --NickPenguin(contribs) 03:30, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Merge and redirect. This article is actually a summary of other articles, joined together by unsourced speculation and personal opinion. There may be salvageable bits, however; and, as a search term, the title is probably common. This merge should not be reverted without a heavy rewrite of the underlying content. Xoloz (talk) 13:21, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it can be developed into a sizable fork article - the "History of WWE" is jam-packed anyway, so a fork is do-able. This is also an "era," constituting of many significant developments. ShivaeVolved 23:35, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment about the nomination: I could be wrong, but aren't redirects supposed to happen instead of deletes, rather than in addition to them? -FrankTobia (talk) 14:59, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply, not always. The page is deleted first so the redirect is not undone, and then the page is turned into a redirect. The page is not supposed to be deleted when information is merged, but if no information is transferred, it is okay to delete. Also, as per precedent, a lot of the wrestling fans on Wikipedia (not the members of WP:PW who know better) continuously recreate pages despite the consensus to delete, merge, or redirect leading to the salting and protection of many, many wrestling pages. Deletion first makes it that much harder to recreate, especially when the little bit of salvageable information is located elsewhere and everything else is original research or a crufty timeline. Nikki311 19:52, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Duly noted, that makes sense. Thanks for the reply :-) -FrankTobia (talk) 00:24, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in accordance with recommendation by nominator. This article is likely unsalvageable. Risker (talk) 07:39, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Per NickPenguin --Sharkface217 23:52, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge which back to parent after removing unsourced information -- Whpq (talk) 17:30, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; although if so it needs to be heavily cleaned up and rewritten. Before I noticed it was a candidate for deletion it struck me as obvious that it's very poorly written in many places. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.192.197.231 (talk) 01:49, 18 December 2007 (UTC) — 90.192.197.231 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Strong Delete This is Wikipedia and articles like The Attitude Era should be deleted! Masterpiece2000 (talk) 09:49, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not much to save here.--Aldux (talk) 14:13, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. Davnel03 16:06, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The article says nothing about the history of sex slavery. Alksub (talk) 22:19, 13 December 2007 (UTC) Withdrawn. --Alksub (talk) 22:22, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unencyclopedic quasi-essay. no need for this as redirect. --Dhartung | Talk 22:57, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep agreed that the present condition is garbage, but this scope/article can be well developed in its own right - its an important and complex topic. ShivaeVolved 23:37, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This nomination was withdrawn before any !votes were placed. The nom's concern appears to have been addressed as the user has placed a {{rewrite}} on the article. I'm awaiting further comment before anything else. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 23:57, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral leaning delete Non-neutral, quite possibly incorrectly named article which might not fit in with the other slavery articles. From History of slavery: "There is no clear timeline for the formation of slavery in any formalized sense.", so it lists any significant mentions. There is a Sexual slavery article in the same vein, which would seem to make an article with this title redundant. Someone another (talk) 03:04, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The nominator has stated his reasons for withdrawal here. Is there any chance that this nomination could be closed, seeing as the !votes were not placed until after withdrawal was stated? Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 14:02, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to sexual slavery. Somebody should just cut through all this red tape and redirect it, then close this RFA. --Sharkface217 23:53, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Crap, I'll redirect, somebody just close this RFA. --Sharkface217 23:59, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I took the advice of WP:BOLD and went ahead and redirected, somebody can close this now (I can't find the proper template to close AFDs). --Sharkface217 00:04, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Coredesat 05:13, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I happen to be familiar with this particular mall. It is notable within its neighborhood, of course, but virtually unknown outside of it. Blanchardb-MeMyEarsMyMouth-timed 22:03, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. although malls can easily have notable attributes, and notable stores, even notable architecture, this one doesn't. Online searches produce exactly nothing in English or French (beyond directory listings). Keeper | 76 20:11, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Keeper is right, nothing is special about this mall. Malinaccier (talk) 22:43, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Coredesat 05:17, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Now that the three articles comprising this one have been AfD'd, it doesn't make much sense to keep it. -FrankTobia (talk) 22:08, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete would have just sent this to CSD as cleanup. Ridernyc (talk) 22:40, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. I genuinely have very little clue why my CSD tag was removed. This article has no content aside from a list of other articles. Last I checked, that wasn't something that we did here. Chromancer (talk) 23:06, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Coredesat 05:28, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nearly all I can find is from imdb.com or similar sites, which apparently are not reputable sources. In the absence of other reliable secondary source material (and that the article does not assert notability), WP:BIO says the subject is not notable. -FrankTobia (talk) 22:32, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I added a reference and some additional detail. Is he considered notable? I dunno, I suppose... -Verdatum (talk) 22:33, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on review of WP:BIO, I fail to see that "the person must have been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." (The source I added does not qualify as intellectually independent.) -Verdatum (talk) 22:37, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's a nice link you found, Verdatum. I hate voting to delete articles like this, but WP:BIO seems pretty clear. It's really up to the article's creator to source things properly. I think I'll poke him on his talk page and see if he can't provide an adequate source so we can keep this article. -FrankTobia (talk) 22:57, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with no prejudice to re-creation with reliable sources. I've done an extensive google news search with many search configurations (+/- producer, +/- requiem, +/- Pi) (as well as generic google searches) and I'm not finding anything to meet BIO guideline. Keeper | 76 19:15, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no reliable sources to establish notability -- Whpq (talk) 17:42, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. BLACKKITE 00:41, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a non-notable organisation. The article is of poor quality, and contains excessively lengthy lists of minutiae from its history. Only sources are from the organisation's own website Mayalld (talk) 21:18, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. No assertion of notability. -FrankTobia (talk) 22:46, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: the information does not use the org's website as an information source, but rather as a literal cut'n'paste. WP does have permission for it (see talk page). That explains why the article is in such non-encyc form and in need of massive rewriting for tone. DMacks (talk) 23:36, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as a copyvio. If this was a copy and paste as it appears to be, then this article needs to be deleted and a new one created from other sources assuming notability is established. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:52, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's a copy, but very definitely not a copyvio because it's an explicitly allowed use. DMacks (talk) 07:11, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
*Speedy Delete - as a copyvio from the BCSPEA website. I fail to see how copying the entire article from the web site constitutes an allowed use. -- Whpq (talk) 17:45, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - oops. Missed the OTRS ticket in the talk. Keep as a labour union representing a significant work force. But having the whole thing copied from their web site isn't conducive to a neutral point of view. -- Whpq (talk) 17:48, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think the article can be improved. The article is acceptable. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 09:53, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the topic seems notable and covered by reliable sources, even if the article needs some work.--Aldux (talk) 14:09, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Coredesat 05:29, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Borderline advertisement for a seemingly non-notable religious organization. Claims to be "one of the leading" religious orgs in its region but a search for sources found none. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 20:45, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Although there are a few ghits, this desn't appear to be notable. --NickPenguin(contribs) 03:43, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, weakly, and without prejudice. This would appear to be the Nepalese equivalent to an article about a local church. Would cheerfully change my opinion if further evidence of notability were forthcoming. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 18:13, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above --Sharkface217 01:49, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. John254 00:09, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unsourced article about a book. Says a film is due to be released, no evidence it was. Reads as original research. Guy (Help!) 20:44, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's an old children's book. The author is French and notable. The film is German, so searches under "drei raueber" are more productive. An IMDB link is [here] and the film website is [here]. Xymmax (talk) 21:16, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Film adaptation has been demonstrated to exist, therefore passes WP:BK. —Quasirandom (talk) 01:23, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Coredesat 05:30, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable person. Speedy deletion was contested and not applicable in any case as notability was asserted. However, one published article is not enough to establish notability, hence I propose deletion. Crusio (talk) 20:21, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteAs I was the speedy, I of course agree that this person is not notable and has not distinguished themself in their field to the point of inclusion. And no sources for most of the data. Mbisanz (talk) 20:42, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above Ctjf83talk 21:39, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the article is confusing as hell. Just kidding. Delete per notability guidelines, as cited by the nom. Keeper | 76 22:48, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable lawyer. One published work, in a student publication: [7] —Preceding unsigned comment added by AlasdairGreen27 (talk • contribs) 18:53, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable.Earthdirt (talk) 19:00, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Sharkface217 00:06, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Clearly not notable. Tim Ross·talk 22:54, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Coredesat 05:30, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. per my nom. couldn't find anything notable in the google test[8]--Hu12 (talk) 20:03, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per notability guidelines, as cited by nom. Keeper | 76 21:38, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Doesn't seem to be new technology in itself. Just another company trying to use Wiki as a free advertising service. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 18:58, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - notability is not asserted Alex Bakharev (talk) 04:06, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above --Sharkface217 01:50, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Secretaccount 22:31, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, so a mother allegedly shakes her baby to death and disposes of him in a trunk. Naturally, some outrage flares up briefly and then subsides, and the local paper (Sydney being just 34 mi from where the corpus delicti was found), as one might expect, covers the matter. All well and good, but, not to be flippant about this tragedy, Where's the beef? Why exactly should an encyclopedia maintain an article on this child's murder, when infanticide is an all-too-routine occurrence? Is there some truly major significance to the event, some lasting impact on culture or laws? Was the baby of high or noble birth? Will we remember the incident in ten or even two years' time? Probably "no" to all these questions. Some child murders (eg those Charles Lindbergh Jr., Megan Kanka or the Princes in the Tower) do have a lasting impact or are inherently notable; this one clearly fails the test. Biruitorul (talk) 19:50, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. RuneWiki777 20:15, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. What a very sad thing. Very sad. Not encyclopedia though. Belongs, at best, in Wikinews. Keeper | 76 21:41, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Truly tragic event, but a news story, not an encyclopdiac topic. Xymmax (talk) 22:16, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. This issue had much greater coverage than "the local paper". It was covered across Australia (for example, Perth and Hobart). The story was covered internationally (New Zealand, Slovenia, Hungary etc). Also, the death was very significant in highlighting ongoing difficulties for the Department of Community Services (DOCS) in maintaining the safety of children brought to its attention. DOCS actually returned the boy to his mother just before she allegedly killed the child. Finally, there are many other similar Wikipedia articles that record the death or disappearance of children that have in turn become notable events (Disappearance of Madeleine McCann, Louise Woodward, Nixzmary Brown, Lynne Harper, Huang Na, Timothy Wiltsey etc). WWGB (talk) 23:34, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The key word there is "become". Where is your evidence that this event has become a significant part of the permanent historical record? I can find, for example, the Louise Woodward case recorded in history books and in books that analyse criminal justice. (See pages 290–291 of ISBN 0534629466, for example.) Where are the mentions of this case in history books and books on criminal justice? I cannot find a single one. Where are the non-news sources to demonstrate that this is more than just a news story? If this case has the significance that you claim, where are the analyses of the DOCS pointing out that signifcance? Uncle G (talk) 23:53, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question To what level is the notability of the New South Wales DoCS? I'm not sure what baring that has, as notability is not inherited in either direction, but if it's not a notable organization, then influencing it is not a notable act. It doesn't have an article on WP, and I'm in the US, so it's a little bit harder for me to gauge notability of this organization. -Verdatum (talk) 04:14, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Well-known case that has received significant coverage. Given that it occurred in recent months, it is a bit early to argue that it should be deleted on the grounds that it hasn't been written about in books. This seems to be a case of I don't like it. Capitalistroadster (talk) 01:56, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, not at all. I argue for deletion on notability grounds alone. And the way it works is we write about events that have achieved notability; we don't anticipate future notability. Of course some cases may be borderline, and with others (say the Indian Ocean tsunami or the recent Australian election) one knows right away those are notable; but this case is pretty obscure in the overall picture, which is why it's better to delete now and recreate in the future if it becomes apparent some lasting notability applies to it. Biruitorul (talk) 02:20, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Establishing a Child Protection Commission as per above is already an indication of ongoing notability rather than today's headlines, tomorrow's fish and chips wrapper. Capitalistroadster (talk) 02:37, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The evidence that Dean Shillingsworth and not Shellay Ward was the major reason for the commission's existence is tenuous. Even if he was, a state-level commission that hasn't yet issued its report and may well come to little is not especially notable. Biruitorul (talk) 04:57, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for its role in establishing the Commission, as discussed by two users above me. Were it not for that, I'd probably agree that this is a tragic but non-notable event. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 03:00, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Subsequent to the nominator's comment below this: I can see how the source can be read that way, but as I see it, the deaths of both children were responsible. While a Federal-level commission would certainly be more spectacular than a state-level one, a state-level commission is still a highly significant thing, regardless of how cynical the motives in setting it up might have been. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 04:54, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - 1 - Shellay Ward, not Dean Shillingsworth (merely "known" to DOCS), appears to have been the major impetus toward the commission's creation. 2- Even so, that's not especially notable. When two children watched by a bureaucracy die in short order, naturally politicians will feel the heat and set up some pro forma commission to assuage public discontent. If the commission's findings then lead to major reforms, perhaps this subject would be notable, but a state-level (as opposed to Federal) inquiry just doesn't seem to cut it. Biruitorul (talk) 04:15, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's fine to participate robustly in the debate, but adding expressions such as merely "known" to DOCS is pushing a point of view towards distortion of the truth. One is either "known to DOCS" or "not known to DOCS", there are no other alternatives. Stating "merely known" (emphasis added) seems like an attempt to denigrate a factual and absolute situation. WWGB (talk) 04:36, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, yes, "merely" known ("known" is all the article said), as are probably scores of children. If, say, a dozen had died in custody this year and spurred the creation of a commission, would all deserve articles? By contrast, we are told three investigations are ongoing into Shellay Ward's death. The point is this is all rather tenuous: Dean Shillingsworth, known to DOCS, played an apparently peripheral role (as it appears Shellay Wood was the real impetus) into the setting up of a state-level commission that might possibly come up with recommendations for tweaking child-care provisions in one Australian state that then may become law. Altogether a fairly routine matter, the sort of thing that happens in democracies year in, year out. Biruitorul (talk) 04:55, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Recieved huge attention in Australia, international coverage and is clearly going to influence future child protection policy in New South Wales and Australia. Nick mallory (talk) 04:23, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do review WP:NOT#CRYSTALBALL. Let's wait for that influence before retaining an article on the matter. Biruitorul (talk) 04:55, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipdeia is not a news archive, and a flurry of news coverage about a sad case of a child being murdered does not necessarily justify a permanent encyclopedia article. There is no clear evidence that the killing had any lasting influence on society. Come back and resurrect the article if in the future it proves as notable as the killing of the Lindbergh child. See also the essay WP:NOTNEWS and the policy WP:NOT#NEWS. Edison (talk) 06:56, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete is my view on this one, mainly per Edison. The whole article reads like a news release and would need at least a serious clean-up, and let's not forget that Wikipedia is not a news archive. And while I am assuming good faith, I also agree with Biruitoru that this will not definitely influence any child policy. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 23:47, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - high profile case ... news story over some months - as per Nick mallory and WWGB. Needs clean up but that is not a rationale for deletion. --Matildatalk 04:14, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it is sadly on in a chain of events which if covered will assist the eventual writing of a decent article on the NSW Department of Community Services. That article apparently doesn't exist yet, but that is not an indication that the article shouldn't exist - just that nobody has bothered to do it yet. Garrie 11:13, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - first, the article has scant information on DOCS. Second, that an otherwise unencyclopedic article may assist in building a future encyclopedic one is not exactly grounds for retention. Third, as far as I know, no sub-national child services agency has its own Wikipedia page (except, for no apparent reason, the Oklahoma Department of Mental Health and Substance Abuse Services), so it's highly unlikely DOCS, out of all of them, deserves one. Biruitorul (talk) 14:19, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment well most NSW Government agencies have articles. It's mainly lack of motivated individuals that stops all NSW Government agencies having articles. Are you really arguing that the New South Wales Department of Community Services does not meet WP:ORG? Garrie 00:49, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I believe only agencies that meet WP:ORG (which is, after all, a guideline) and have some especially notable aspect about them deserve inclusion. It is to our detriment that DET or DADHC have pages, since they're just random alphabet-soup gravy train dolers-out of taxpayer funds, as is DOCS. And as only one state-level mental health bureaucracy has a page, I don't really see why NSW's deserves one. Biruitorul (talk) 01:38, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - do see the section in that policy headlined notability is not temporary - lasting notability is doubtful here, and has certainly not been established sufficiently. Biruitorul (talk) 02:54, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. But additionally significant as the impetus for the establishment of a new Child Protection Commission. —Moondyne 03:31, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, was an extremely high profile case, with ramifications beyond the immediate criminal case, and oodles of secondary sources establishing notability as well. Lankiveil (talk) 12:06, 18 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Comment - "extremely" high profile? Then what was Lindbergh? Really, let's try and keep some perspective. Plus, that it was a factor (a, not the) in the setting up of a state-level commission that might not do much isn't exactly evidence of lasting notability. Biruitorul (talk) 22:48, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Coredesat 05:32, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete no assertion of notability (A7). —Preceding unsigned comment added by KnightLago (talk • contribs) 22:40, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No notability whatsoever. Malinaccier (talk) 22:56, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete does not fit speedy A7, not a company or a group. But can not be considered not notable unless at least some references provided.DGG (talk) 00:54, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What would you classify it as then? KnightLago (talk) 02:39, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per DGG, to which I also agree that such places can not be speedily deleted. It's merely not notable. Bearian (talk) 18:28, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. You must be knowing what is going on here. This fellow BK Simon bhai is the organizer's PR man. He is trying to control their PR on this encyclopedia. He is trying to stop anyone else editing Brahma Kumari topics or making new ones and Prajapita Brahma Kumari ones aw well. I am thinking he is losing his head over this. Be a chancellor! Give others a chance! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Creationcreator (talk • contribs) 15:30, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Coredesat 05:34, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Does not meet notability threshold per WP:BIO. Ezeu (talk) 18:38, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If the content of the article differes significantly of the original article, Delete it. If not, Speedy delete per G4, recreation of deleted material. sticken per below. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 19:20, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't qualify for a G4 since it was never deleted in the first place, just redirected (so says the edit history). Granteed, the current version is far different from the one line stub that it was a year ago when the first AfD was placed. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 19:22, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
IMO recreating content of an article that has been closed as redirect in AfD can be closed G4, but in this case, where the new content is completely different, it doesn't apply anyway. so I'll go with delete. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 19:29, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non notable. Keeper | 76 21:44, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete -- almost but not quite notable. Some passing mentions found with Google News --A. B.(talk) 19:02, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I did not find any passing references in Google News, nor did I find anything to demonstrate notability in a regular search. --NickPenguin(contribs) 03:48, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
weak delete merge with meatball for now Victuallers (talk) 11:46, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Redirect per the whole barnstar thing. Or at least redirect --Sharkface217 01:53, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Coredesat 05:34, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article provides no context or sources and a quick Google search reveals very few results. — Wenli(reply here) 02:35, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Non notable. The only thing decent here is the person who started it. The label has since thus become dead.(any bands on it..no) Metal Head (talk) 18:33, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unsourced, no notability established. Cirt (talk) 19:36, 13 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Keep and expand. I've added some further, sourced information to the article, and it seems notable as a pioneering label in Jungle and Drum & Bass. The fact that the label is no longer operating is irrelevant with respect to notability, by the way.--Michig (talk) 20:58, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable Ctjf83talk 21:40, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I've expanded the article significantly. It seems to me there is sufficient notability and plenty of sources.--Michig (talk) 22:27, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Even with improvements by User:Michig, I don't see how this label is notable. None of the artists "released" by this label are notable (with the exception of the owner. Delete as non-notable. Keeper | 76 22:45, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All of the releases on this label are either Gerald himself, or Gerald with collaborators including Goldie and Finley Quaye, so they are all by notable artists in that respect. --Michig (talk) 17:58, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - With the sources that Michig added, it looks like the subject has enough secondary coverage. It's now a well-sourced article with no reason to delete. Also the (lack of) notability of artists on the label doesn't affect the label's notability. -FrankTobia (talk) 23:38, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sure it does. Labels exist to make their artists notable. If none are notable (or very few even), then the label is either a)too new for notability, or b)not good at their job, or c)crippled by bad luck and bad talent - it all leads to them suffering the same likely fate: d)not being in business much longer. (and they haven't been for almost 10 years.)
As for source: Source one that is cited to make the claims of "genre-defining" - it is far from reliable. It's home page stays clearly that it is "for hire". They are simply a fluff outfit that you can pay to say nice things about you. Simple PR. Hardly reliable.
Source two is self published by Gerald.
Source three, "Discogs" is community based (read:unreliable - I can add myself to Juice Box if I try hard enough).
Source 4, Samurai.fm, as far as I can tell, has artist reviews that are written by the artists themselves. At best, they are fluff pieces and not fact checked well. (see comment below)
Source 5 is allmusic, which has repeatedly been viewed as unreliable per our own guidelines in their assertions (editable site)
Source 6 is a press release published by Gerald.
All in all, the sources at best assert the notability of A Guy Called Gerald, and not Juice Box Records anyway, even if they were reliable. All in all, I have no problem with this article staying if it gets reliable sourcing. I've tried, but can only find the like quality stuff that Michig found. It's just not to standards, IMO. Where is the indepedent coverage of the label in reliable, fact-checked, independent sources? Those are the key to notability. Cheers, Keeper | 76 17:30, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is not inherited. As I was saying, the notability of artists on the label, or the lack thereof, doesn't confirm or deny the notability of the label itself. -FrankTobia (talk) 18:13, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct that some of the sources are not independent. The Melody Maker and Echoes articles are independent. They are reproduced on the web, but can be verified by referring to the original printed publications. The Allmusic reference is to a review. Beyond sales figures, reviews are an important source of coverage for artists, records and labels. By definition they are one person's opinion, and as long as they are used to present critical opinion rather than facts, that seems reasonable. The last reference is there to back up a statement made by Simpson describing his approach to the label. It seems to me it's reliable for that purpose. Before yesterday, I knew very little about A Guy Called Gerald beyond "Voodoo Ray", but have managed to improve the article, albeit not to your satisfaction. If we could get a few editors involved who have more knowledge in this area, it seems likely the article could be brought up to scratch. If the result of the discussion is delete, the content here could be merged into A Guy Called Gerald at least as Juice Box represents an important phase of his career. --Michig (talk) 19:22, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies Michig, I completely missed the Melody Maker reference, and I agree that it is a reliable resource. However, as referenced, and upon reading the article, it only establishes the notability of Gerald (which is not being contested), It's written as a "what's Gerald been up to" and it only mentions that he happens to have started a label, therefore, IMO, it does not establish notability for Juice Box Records. Based on the article's improvement, I would support a merge to the Gerald article as it was obviously an important move in his life. to go from Sony to independent for artistic reasons. Thanks for your work, Michig. I'd never heard of Gerald (or Voodoo Ray or Juicebox for that matter) prior to the wonderful world of wikipedia. Cheers, Keeper | 76 19:46, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This seems to be a sourced article about a record label that did important work making a musical genre popular. --NickPenguin(contribs) 03:51, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep New sources illustrate the notability of the article. --Sharkface217 01:54, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Keeper evaluation of sources, Secretaccount 22:33, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect (which is technically a "keep", I believe). I've been bold and gone ahead and moved the information to the article A Guy Called Gerald, since it is footnoted and useful. I've not changed this article to a redirect in deference to the process; if the closing admin agrees with the redirect, then that would be the appropriate point to put a redirect in place. -- John Broughton(♫♫) 17:50, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Tavix (talk) 17:59, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If it had better sources....maybeMbisanz (talk) 23:56, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Coredesat 05:35, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:V. This article is based 100% on music rumor sites. If the album actually will exist, Wikipedia should wait for the official announcement and verifiable information. -- Wikipedical (talk) 18:16, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as nominator. -- Wikipedical (talk) 18:16, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, only source seems to not be that reliable. Cirt (talk) 19:36, 13 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete Hasn't happened yet. --Sharkface217 01:54, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Failures and hoaxes may become notable through extensive coverage in reliable sources; in this argument, supporters of retention clearly have precedent and logic in their favor. Several deletion commenters appear to miss this point, rendering their arguments unconvincing. Xoloz (talk) 13:56, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
An airline that never existed, and since June 2007, will never exist. Wikipedia is not a collection of airline proposals. Chris.B (talk) 16:41, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are reliable, independent sources, with significant coverage. A notable plan is notable, a notable hoax is notable. I can't quite determine if it is a hoax or a failed plan, but it is certainly notable. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 16:49, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Being notable does not automatically justify inclusion. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Chris.B (talk) 15:19, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Martijn. Justinchat 16:51, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, There's enough coverage in sources to satisfy WP:V, and the article could be expanded upon. Cirt (talk) 17:10, 13 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Keep, seems well referenced with several secondary sources and should be kept either as a notable proposed airline or else a notable hoax - Dumelow (talk) 17:23, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Is well referenced, even found some more information with a reference and added it to the article. Seems that it's a pretty big deal to the Government of Gibraltar. From all the secondary sources, it does not appear to be a hoax and is notable.--Pmedema (talk) 17:31, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep You're right, it never existed, but it's still clearly notable in its non-existance, what with all the sources cited in the article. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 17:32, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - could be expanded, to verify at the article. At the moment there is a sufficient number of reliable sources, however. — RudgetContributions 17:35, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - of course notable plans are notable, like the Palace of Soviets. This thing, though? Nah. Just step back for a moment and think. So an airline was planned for under a year, and then got cancelled (and the cancellation happened to be mentioned in a few sources). So what? Why should we care? Does this have any relevance whatsoever, any lasting impact? Why, oh why, should this be included in an encyclopedia? And yes, I'm aware WP:V probably permits us to include it, but whether it's wise to do so is another matter entirely, and the answer to that is, I submit, a resounding "no"! Biruitorul (talk) 19:58, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there never was an airline and there never will be, the 'claims' are smoke and mirrors and always have been, The CAA never heard of the airline, it only exists on wikipedia. How on earth can it be 'expanded' when there is no substance to it ? --Gibnews (talk) 22:57, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is no doubt that there never was, or will be a Fly Gibraltar, but fairly extensive media coverage makes it notable, even if it never existed or will exist (just like the above mentioned Palace of the Soviets, but on a smaller scale). Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 23:03, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Has good coverage in secondary sources, and is well-sourced. Looks notable to me. -FrankTobia (talk) 23:43, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable series of events. ShivaeVolved 23:48, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sure there are sources, but I'm still not sure how this makes it notable. How many failed startups with a little bit of media coverage need a Wikipedia article? --NickPenguin(contribs) 03:54, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Looks like it has notability to me. --Sharkface217 01:55, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I never said it didn't. :) Chris.B (talk) 15:19, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Completely irrelevant article. Why don't we have articles on everything that doesn't exist? Biofoundationsoflanguage (talk) 17:37, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: W don't have articles on most things that don't exist because there is no notability for them, and they don't have reliable secondary sources. Some do, like the aforementioned Palace of Soviets, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and this airline. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 17:41, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The two examples that you have provided are undoubtedly notable, but this? There were never any aircraft and everything was all hot air coupled with press releases of unsupported claims. Quite frankly, being a failed concept, I don't think it could ever be very notable. Otherwise I might just publicise my plan to build a time-machine, and what's more, write an article on it. Chris.B (talk) 18:47, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And in case of independent reliable sources, I'd support the article. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 19:18, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think I could arrange some press releases about Chris's time machine project and a photoshopped picture which is all there ever was to substantiate 'Fly Gibraltar'. Next April 1st :) --Gibnews (talk) 08:34, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Which of the article references do you think are pressreleases? 2-6 sure don't look like press releases to me. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 15:05, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteperGibnews (he's a respected journalist in a small community with an effective grapevine and I trust his judgement both on and off Wiki) and Biruitorul. Alice✉ 07:42, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 without prejudice to recreation with reliable sources. BLACKKITE 00:54, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unreferenced short stub on a man who lived to about 111 years old; the only refs are list-style entries. Neither a google search nor google news archive threw up anything in reliable sources, so unless more refs can be found he fails WP:BIO. Urrea-Hernández is already listed in Oldest people, which is quite sufficient when there is nothing verifiable to say about him other than date of birth and death, so I suggest deletion. An article on him can of course be recreated if if sufficiently coverage is found in reliable sources to establish notability per WP:BIO. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 16:34, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unless sources can be provided asserting notability. As of now, there is none established/asserted. Cirt (talk) 16:40, 13 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Keep, a quick google search shows a variety of sources for this article. Why doesn't anyone list the needs citations notice BEFORE they AFD? Justinchat 16:54, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My google search above showed several hits, but nothing in reliable sources. If you have found some, please could you supply a few links? --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 18:18, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per also holding some of the longest marriage/highest aggregate marriage couples, etc. I think as well as all the supercentenarian AfD BrownHairedGirl is nominating, she should also hunt down the people who created the article and say if you're not going to provide citations and references (hence original research) then expect your article to be nominated for AfD. Neal (talk) 00:17, 14 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Continued Or in other words, I'm getting slightly tired of all these referenceless/citationless articles. I *know* these people did not know the personal biograpgy of Antonio Urrea-Hernandez in their head - they got their source from somewhere, and asking someone else to backtrack Google searching their works is just getting tiresome. Now my goal is to prevent people from creating articles without supply citations and references (just take a look at my contribs), or if they do create articles, to site the immediate site they've used in creating the articles. This is just what happens when you get a bunch of Wikipedia newbs/IP address users in creating new articles. Neal (talk) 00:20, 14 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
In this case, the article does seem to have been created by a newbie, but many of the other "supercentenarian" articles were created as a result of original research, some of which was circulated on Robert Young's yahoogroups mailing list. That list has closed archives and subscription is only by moderator approval, so it isn't even possible to check whether it was the source of the original research. The bottom line, though, is that the only referenced "fact" is the dates of birth+death (ref here); it's quite possible that everything else in the biography is fabricated. I quite agree with Neal that it's ridiculous for article creators to expect others to scour the globe looking for for sources for what they have written: the principle in WP:V is that "the burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." In this case, removing the unreferenced material does not even leave a stub article. I have temporarily restored the unsourced material so that it is visible to editors participating in this AfD debate, but I really can't see why Neal is arguing for a keep when the article fails WP:BIO and when the assertions which Neal makes are unsourced. This is the sort of article which gives wikipedia a bad name: it may be true or it may be a hoax, and the reader has absolutely no way of knowing which. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 12:46, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the entire walled garden of articles about claimed "supercentenarians." The refs are directory listings at best, and I question whether they are reliable sources at all. Fails WP:BIO and WP:N. Edison (talk) 07:01, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant Delete. If indeed this individual was actually the oldest man in the world for a time then he would, unlike many of these other centenarian Bio articles be truly notable. The problem is we have no actual source information to confirm this, and without real hard information that can be relied upon, we can't be sure that he was as old as claimed. - Galloglass 13:01, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Appears to have some notability. --Sharkface217 01:56, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply When the unreferenced material is removed, what's here to keep? There are some sound practical reasons why WP:BIO requires substantial coverage in secondary sources: apart from the notability concerns, it ensures that we don't retain articles which can only have trivial content. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 02:13, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Where is the source? This biography should be deleted. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 10:00, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 for now to allow verifiable references to be added. Nominator will relist if this has not been achieved within 60 days. Tyrenius (talk) 16:23, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable individual, with no sources. Article appears to have been created by a user with a strong WP:COI. Presence at a historic event, doesn't consitute notability unless the subject is involved with the event (i.e. not a bystander), seems like this personw as a bystander to the mentioned events. Mbisanz (talk) 16:28, 13 December 2007 (UTC)Withdrawn per conversation here User_talk:DonnPulley. Will monitor for 60 days and refile unless sources added. Thank you for your time. Mbisanz (talk) 22:30, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I agree with the nom, unsourced, no notability established. Cirt (talk) 16:33, 13 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete, The possibility of WP:COI seems strong, don't see anyone digging up reliable sources for this article. Justinchat 16:59, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, No references or citations, and the lack of notability as per nom.--Pmedema (talk) 17:43, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There may be something here. (comment below by Keeper). I don't know a lot of military stuff, but this is interesting. An "oral history" at a presidential library - they certainly don't care to have everyone's opinion recorded at presidential libraries. Maybe he's notable? Also, this source that I can't read fully without subscription includes the line: Gerald Pulley, the first presidential photographer, recalled how his boss Harry Truman treated cameramen well.... All that to say, the article needs some serious help/wikification/non-COI-ing, etc. But hey, that's what we're here for, right? Keeper | 76 18:21, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have access to the second one either. But according to this [9], about 500 people recorded oral histories, including one Harry L. Abbott who recorded it as a particpant in the 1922 Dem party. I don't think we can use that as a basis then. On the other hand, I'd be interested to see what that payperview page says. I'll do some digging. Mbisanz (talk) 18:44, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
From the 1991 Austin American-Stateman newspaper, I have "Gerald Pulley, the first presidential photographer, recalled how his boss Harry Truman often referred to the White House as the "White Prison."
"He loved to get away," Pulley said. "His favorite spot was the `Little White House' in Key West, where he and his aides wore loud shirts, played cards, and maybe drank a little bourbon."
From the 1994 Virginian-Pilot newspaper I got "Gerald Pulley will bring his 1954 DeSoto, which his parents bought new 40 years ago and named Effie."
No results for "Gerald Pulley" in the 1851-2004 NYT database, or the databases for Christian Science Monitor, Los Angeles Times, New York Times Book Review, New York Times Magazine, USA Today, Wall Street Journal, Wall Street Journal Eastern Edition, Wall Street Journal Western Edition, Washington Post, Ebsco Newspaper source, Catalog of U.S. Government Publications, or Who's Who.
I think we can safely say he is has no independent coverage. Mbisanz (talk) 18:53, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said, I don't know a lot....of military stuff. I wish I had a 1954 DeSoto, but if Gerald Pulley has one that doesn't make him any more notable than me when I get one. :-) Your searching trumps mine for sure, thanks for the thoroughness both in nominating and backing it up. Changing to delete per nom. Keeper | 76 19:16, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep A presidential photographer is in my opinion always notable, because he will end up being quoted in history. As the Austin American article linkedto above says "White House photographers are the eyes for the record. Their sights and insights heighten our understanding of presidential administrations and history by depicting what words can't communicate." The subsequent career is also important. This is a case where I would expect the references to be in printed books about Roosevelt, almost none of which are on line. Neither are most of the general periodicals of that period. neither are most US military magazines and newspapers, or photography publications. None of that impressive array of sources is really relevant. "President and founder of the National Association of Naval Photography." This is the sort of thing which needs that rarely used WP resource, a library. DGG (talk) 02:50, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment My folks had a '54 or '55 DeSoto and it was a fine car. Am I notable on that count? How about my folks? Edison (talk) 07:04, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. This closure has no bearing on the album article. Coredesat 05:37, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Previously deleted band bio. This is a new version including reviews, but the validity of the sources was questioned at deletion review, so I'm bringing this here for community consideration. Procedural nomination, I'm Switzerland ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 16:08, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Recreator Keep - I drafted this rewrite of the deleted article because the group, who released an album on Ferret Music earlier this year, meets WP:MUSIC bullets 1 and 4. They've toured nationally multiple times and internationally, and the debut has attracted a lot of attention from press outlets. Chubbles (talk) 16:21, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional keep, with a "no-fingers-crossed" promise from the main contributors and editors that each band member, former band member, and song title will not each get there own article too. :-) Keeper | 76 18:10, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've no plans to do so, but there was an article on their debut album as well, at Parasite (See You Next Tuesday album) which would be nice to restore if this AfD closes as keep. Chubbles (talk) 18:45, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as squeaking through WP:MUSIC with multiple reviews and confirmed touring; I'd disagree that the album really needs an article, however. Tony Fox(arf!) 23:41, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - mainly because I'm in a different country and had already heard of them before the AFD. -Halo (talk) 15:34, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was breaded delete. Coredesat 05:38, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. —dima/talk/ 05:24, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per User:Wenli, How-to's can be re-written but lack of notability can't be fixed. --Lenticel(talk) 07:21, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:NOT. However, I did save the recipe (I tend to archive certain articles that don't look like passing AFD because they're interesting) and if anyone ever needs it in the future, just send me a message. --Sharkface217 01:59, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Coredesat 05:39, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unreferenced short stub on a man who lived to about 110 years old. A google search threw up nothing in reliable sources, so unless more refs can be found he fails WP:BIO. Dzugayev is already listed in both National longevity recordholders and in Oldest people, which is quite sufficient when there is nothing to say about him other than date of birth and date last known to be alive, so I suggest deletion. An article on Dzugayev can of course be recreated if sufficient coverage is found in reliable sources to establish notability per WP:BIO. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 15:58, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I agree with the nom, especially that an article could be recreated if coverage is found in suitable sources. Cirt (talk) 16:24, 13 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete, non-notable.Osli73 (talk) 16:30, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep When I first say this name in the oldest people article (no idea who this person was) I did a search in WOP group and returned no results. When I asked around about this guy, I was told he was in some Guinness book. Whomever created this article did an extremely bad job at it, and if this article got deleted, the article creator probably got what he deserved - for leaving this a super stub. Couldn't even mention what Guinness book he was in. If you're not going to leave references or citations, at least mention the off-line source in the article itself. Neal (talk) 00:13, 14 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Neal, I'm puzzled that your !vote is to "keep", but your arguments are those for a strong delete. Did you really mean "keep"? --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 10:16, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No I wasn't confused. Funny enough, all these supercentenarian lovers writing articles on supercentenarians are super stubs and get super-deleted. ;) Neal (talk) 18:50, 14 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete No reliable sources are found in a Google search. As stated by the nom, a well-written, well-sourced article can be re-created later. — Wenli(reply here) 02:45, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to National longevity recordholders#Russia. Nothing to say about him at the moment, and editors should have reliable, non-trivial sources in hand before starting articles, not afterwards. Googling in the Cyrillic alphabet for "Хасако Дзугаев" [10] or "Х. Дзугаев" [11] gives 7 not-particularly-useful hits; even this article by his grandson [12] only devotes a few words to him --- though it does give one new piece of information, a claim that he lived to 115, a factoid which I already added to National longevity recordholders and oldest people. A Google search of course is a piss-poor measure of notability for an Ossetian guy who lived in the last two centuries, and he might be covered in old newspapers decaying in Russian provincial libraries somewhere, but if even your own grandson won't say more than one sentence about you ... cab (talk) 03:20, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The Soviet Union had numerous bogus persons who were supposed to be really old. Could this be one? "his age cannot be fully verified without knowing his exact date of death." Can his birth be verified, and can the person who was alive in his old age be proved to be the same person? Fails WP:V due to lack of any references. Also fails WP:BIO and WP:N. Edison (talk) 07:08, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Wikipedia editors are not the experts in trying to decide which claims are bogus and which are not. Given that the claim is repeated at least by the Gerontology Research Group on the basis of the International Committee on Supercentenarians [13], it can be considered verified, unless you consider that they fall outside the bounds of reliable sources. So I want to ask, why is a redirect not appropriate in this case? Thanks, cab (talk) 07:20, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not sure the Gerontology Research Group verified the claim of this guy either. They have no Russian correspondents. This case is purely an old Guinness case. Neal (talk) 08:12, 14 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete, unsourced/WP:OR. Cirt (talk) 15:51, 13 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete as it is unsourced.Osli73 (talk) 16:29, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but source. This was one of the more important independent Presidential campaigns of the 20th century. --Dhartung | Talk 17:32, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but stub and move the bulk of the article to talk space. The text is unreferenced, unwikified, and quite essayish, but the subject itself is fairly obviously worthy of a stand-alone article. Make certain that the stub links to United States presidential election, 1968. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 17:48, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Stub and keep. This is just an except from the George Wallace page. The campaign inself was notable, particularly in the civil rights context as it played out in American politics of the time. Xymmax (talk) 18:25, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep And source. Notable enough for inclusion. Rray (talk) 18:52, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unsourced Ctjf83talk 21:42, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But not unsourceable. This was a notable campaign that always gets coverage in high school history books. If he was running today, he'd a have a huge page (like Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008.) Zagalejo^^^ 00:26, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep can be developed. ShivaeVolved 23:38, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Regarding things to avoid in a Wikipedia article, "overly detailed" isn't one of them. Although there is some validity to an argument that this is covered in the articles about Wallace and about the 1968 presidential election, the Wallace campaign was the last third-party run to win any electoral votes, and marked the last real "states rights" vs. "civil rights" test. This is a natural spinoff from the '68 election, as is the other nominated article about RFK. Is it a great article? Not yet. But it is a great topic. Mandsford (talk) 02:18, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Topic clearly continues to attract non-trivial coverage (e.g. the PBS documentary in the external links, added by Dhartung when he started [14] cleaning the article) and has historical significance per Mandsford. WP:IINFO does not mean "coherent information on a clearly defined topic which I'm not interested in and want to delete". cab (talk) 03:45, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Regardless of the racial policies of Wallace, he had a significant effect on the outcome of the 1968 presidential voting. There are numerous reliable sources with substantial coverage of this campaign, thus satisfying WP:N. Edison (talk) 07:11, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Candidate was one of the very few third-party candidates to have gained electoral votes in a presidential election. I agree with Mandsford and cab's opinions. Sjakkalle(Check!) 09:36, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Coredesat 05:40, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
bio of a non-notable living person; db-bio tags deleted by article's author
Delete The article is a bio of a non-notable living person. I put my detailed reasons on the article's talk page. Cbdorsett (talk) 15:35, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I repeat my comments from before, which were deleted in bad faith by the article's author. I listed this article for speedy deletion because there was no assertion of notability. This is category A7 for speedy deletion. This tag was removed twice by the proponent of the article, who claimed that I personally failed because of the intervention of some admin, which was false. I objected here, and my comments were deleted by the same person, who claimed to have moved them to the article's talk page (it did not happen). The supposed reason? That it is acceptable to move out comments that detract from the Articles for Deletion discussion. This page has become a personal crusade for the original uploader, and I am sick of it. This is NOT the way to run any kind of organization. Wikipedia does NOT stand for the proposition that pages belong to the uploader, and anyone who disagrees can be silenced summarily by deleting comments from a public forum. --Cbdorsett (talk) 14:57, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I attempted to deal with this situation privately, and so did another editor, but Miranda seems uncompromising in the slightest. Lower down on this page, I put a discussion Miranda deleted from her own talk page. Users do (I think) have the right to make their own talk pages whatever they want (unless it contains a warning from an admin about behavior or violation of Wikipedia policies). They do NOT have the right to delete other people's comments from the AFD page or from the talk page of an article. Miranda has done both. This behavior is officially described on WP:vandalism. Miranda also knows how to lie about her own behavior. For example, she claimed that an "admin" deleted the original {{db-bio}} tag - but she was talking about herself. She claimed that she had moved my comments off of this page and put them on the article's talk page - only the first half was true. Now, she claims that someone did it to her in the past, so it's OK for her to do it. I don't care to do any research to find out if it's true - it doesn't matter. I also don't care to see if any other "admins" have overruled my placement of tags on suspect articles. Admins have the right to do that - part of the reason it's a tag is so that an admin will take a second look at the proposed deletion. --Cbdorsett (talk) 10:31, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What concerns me about this editor now is that she seems to be angling for adminship herself (I'm guessing). She has an amazingly high edit count, over 21,000 as of today, even though she has been on Wikipedia only since January 2007. In the last two weeks alone, she has made over a thousand edits. Most of these seem to be chat-related, which is fine. Some people, however, do not look beyond edit counts when they vote on RFA, which I think is a shame. I'm just worried about what will happen if and when this immature user gets the tools to really aggravate people she disagrees with. --Cbdorsett (talk) 10:31, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I plan to mention this behavior to a couple of admins, but I don't feel like bringing it to the level of a formal RFC. It is obvious that Miranda is intelligent, so I hope she will learn from all this and become more civil without intervention. --Cbdorsett (talk) 10:31, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
First, be civil, we are talking about the AFD, not an editor. If you have problems with me, go for an RFC. Second, with posting my comments that I decided to archive, commenting on my behavior rather than the article in question, you are disrupting to the point of being blocked. Please stop it now. Miranda 16:49, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In addition, you follow my behavior on wikipedia based upon a bad faith nominination of a clearly cut notable person. I clearly suggest you stop your personal attacks and other behavior right now before you get blocked. In addition, go on and learn from this, and write an article or do something else constructive. And, you do not need to question my motives, when they are clearly none of yours or anyone else's business. Miranda 17:02, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - I am in contact with the person right now to provide more sources. She is pretty notable, since there are few women in the Army National Guard who are high ranking officials. She was also tapped as a statewide official for the SSS. IMHO, this is a bad faith nom. by the person because an admin declined his speedy. Miranda 15:39, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The person has received significant recognized awards or honors. - she was the first African-American female Major General in the nation
The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field. (see above)
Politicians:
Politicians who have held international, national or statewide/provincewide office, and members and former members of a national, state or provincial legislature.5 - named as the leader of the Selective Service in 1997 by NY Gov.
Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage.(see NPR and SSS link. Miranda 16:43, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, there are some good sources here and notable info. Allow time for more sources to be provided as stated above. Cirt (talk) 15:52, 13 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. The article is looking in quite a good condition (or at least, now — I'm unaware as to what its condition was prior to this AfD), hence, its a notable encyclopedic subject. Qst 16:10, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, there appears to be a certain notability given her listing in several external sources/lists.Osli73 (talk) 16:28, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, your arguments on the talk page are without merit. We do consider being the first at something (based on race, gender etc) notable. Otherwise, Rosa Parks wouldn't have an article. Notability is clear here. Justinchat 17:09, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, "Rosetta Burke was the first female Assistant Adjutant General of New York State and of the Army National Guard." ... "after World War II, no women holding high office existed." ... "She was the first female general in New York's Army National Guard and the first female in the nation to be promoted to Major General." The article, in its current state, cites several reliable sources showing notability, and links to several others. Per Wikipedia:Notability, Non-notability is a rebuttable presumption, based only on a lack of suitable evidence of notability, which becomes moot once evidence is found. It is not possible to prove non-notability because that would require a negative proof.-RoBoTamice 19:20, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notability has been established. Lara❤Love 00:28, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. I placed a notability tag on the article when it was initiated [15], but the author removed the tag a minute later, without comment and without otherwise modifying the article [16]. I see, now, that the article has been expanded, and has more external links and references. My problem with it originally, which is also my current issue, was the lack of "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject". It is a good article about an American general with many accomplishments. This is not the issue. Basically, one should be able to point to secondary sources which have offered significant coverage. I have now examined each of the current four references and four external links with that specific issue in mind. (The version of the article I am reviewing is this one: [17].)
Reference 1 [18] supports the statement that Rosetta Burke was the first female African-American general in the U.S. Army National Guard, in a single sentence, but has no more to say about her.
Reference 2 [19], an issue of "The Long Island University Magazine" which has a full paragraph biography of Gen. Burke (p. 55), and which supports several of the article's statements.
Reference 3 [20] is a message from Gen. Burke to the National Association of Black Military Women, as president of the organization.
Reference 4 [21] is a list of honorary members of the Alpha Kappa Alpha Sorority, which includes Rosetta Burke.
On the basis of the listed references, it is clear that the facts of the article are accurate, although these references do little or nothing to indicate the subject's notability; reference 2 does help, but is not really very "significant" to my way of thinking. The External Links may be expected to be more helpful in terms of demonstrating notability.
External Link 1 [22] is a press release from the press office of the mayor of New York City, in which Mayor Giuliani recognizes that Gen. Burke is "the first woman Major General in the 221-year history of the Army National Guard"; providing more support for the facts, but only very modest notability.
External Link 2 [23] is also a press release, this one from the U.S. Selective Service System, noting that Gen. Burke "has been named state director of the Selective Service System for New York", and providing further biographic details.
External Link 3 is the same as Reference 3, above [24].
External Link 4 [25] is a quite interesting NPR interview of Gen. Burke.
Only the last external link, the NPR interview, fits well with "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject". It is sufficient to move my recommendation from "Weak Delete" to "Weak Keep", but further links of that sort would certainly be welcome. Tim Ross·talk 14:58, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment.I must admit to being troubled by some of the editing of the article's author, Miranda. Looking at the article's history, I see that a speedy delete was applied to the article [26] in its early stages, but deleted by the author 2 minutes later [27]. I am assuming that Miranda must be an administrator, and has the authority to remove such tags, but doing so on one's own article seems, at the least, unusual. That action appears to have led to this AfD, on which we are all spending a good deal of time. Also, as far as I can tell, and disturbing to me, some material commentary from AfD initiator, Cbdorsett, appears to have been entirely deleted by the article's author, and moved to a talk page. Editing the work of others on an AfD about an article you have created raises ethical questions in my mind. Tim Ross·talk 15:05, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
First, you can delete notability tags. Second, I moved commentary which doesn't relate to the vote to the opposite page. You can do that. Also, Cbdorsett has been db-bio and db-spamming articles which have been overturned by an administrator to be notable. I am sorry, but I don't trust cbdorsett's judgment on what is notable and what is not. Miranda 16:55, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And, I have been a part of AfDs where my comments were moved and deleted to the talk page by the original nominator. Get over it. Miranda 16:56, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, of course you are allowed to remove a notability tag, preferably, though, after considering what can be done to improve the perceived deficiencies in the article. One can not, however, remove a speedy deletion tag from your own article, as you did. As you may read in WP:CSD: "Any user who is not the creator of a page may remove a speedy tag from it. The creator may not do this." I am not sure of any specific Wikipedia guidance regarding the editing of others' comments in an AfD about an article you have created, but the potential conflict of interest seems quite clear. By the way, I will be happy to discuss civility with you, and your choice of language, above, on my talk page. Tim Ross·talk 17:43, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as noted above, meets all elements of WP:BLP. Bearian (talk) 17:58, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep At the least, first female major general is notable, though it would be very good to have a more specific reference to a major national publication for something as important as this.DGG (talk) 03:13, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Obviously notable. --Sharkface217 02:02, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Singularity 21:16, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable subject matter and organization. WP:SOAP. WP is used to create notability for this organization. --Hillock65 (talk) 15:32, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment That was my inclination as well. But a question: what are we to make of the two Russian-language secondary sources in external links? I can't read it, but WP does allow for non-English citations when that's all that's available. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:48, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't worry about that. Those are links to articles calling for "independence" of Crimea and enumerating of all the "suffering" of Russians in Sebastopol. It is a separatist movement and it is trying to use WP to get notability. Those links do not relate to the movement per se, but rather to their political goals. They are indeed, irrelevant. --Hillock65 (talk) 15:55, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, (edit conflict) not only that, but images are being used in the article with zero information on the image page. Cirt (talk) 15:48, 13 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete - non-notable, WP:AUTO, WP:SOAP and WP:OWN violations, with NPOV violations and peacockery, no independent criticism (I'm told the two articles attest that the organization exists and that's about it) --Orange Mike | Talk 15:53, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
that is not true. articles do not "calling for the independence of Crimea but respresent info on survey of Sevastopol population and its results". It is NOT separatist movement (separatists movements are funded by US. Example: PORA organization). Be honest before write opinions!--Wana7 (talk) 16:18, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly, it doesn't matter. Even if the articles state what you say, if they are not articles about your organization, verifying its notability, then they are of zero help to you in this matter, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:27, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
query?I fear we mean different things by "separatist." PORA is not an organization which calls for separating any part of Ukraine from the rest, which is what is usually meant by separatist in this context. What do you understand the term to mean here, Wana7?--Orange Mike | Talk 17:37, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I guess Wana7's slip of tongue "betrayed" their political views: separatism off the former great state. `'Míkka>t 18:07, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice. Non-notable for now. No independent sources which specifically describe it. `'Míkka>t 16:59, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tangential comment For those who read Russian I suggest to google for "движение Мы" and read about the Russian (not Ukrainian) "Мы". Much more fun, I tell you. Two examples of their actions:
Action in support of Putin's Plan, part of which was smoking of select Putin's plan (Explanation: in Russian language, "plan" is also slang for weed (cannabis))
Anyone dare to write an article? `'Míkka>t 16:59, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment 2 The title is wrong: Ukrainian WE specifically declare themselves as civic, rather than political organization, which makes in possible to avoid obligatory registration of the organization. `'Míkka>t 16:59, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable. Ostap (talk) 17:11, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable. --Yakudza (talk) 17:38, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No wish to stay here. Profanity. Yakudza, ukrainian radical, you also here? You push activity of pro-russian movements in any-language Wiki websites??))--Wana7 (talk) 21:10, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't stay here, stay in Sevastopol, make yourself notable, and then someone will write an article about you even against your will :-) `'Míkka>t 22:19, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep per WP:SNOW. Nom provides no reasoning. Bearian (talk) 18:09, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable. Article is mostly quotes from the subject's own writings. "Quote farm" according to one person Shatt al-Arab (talk) 15:26, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: there are clearly sources for the article, but the article needs rewriting so it's not just a collection of quotes. However, the nom's argument of non-notability doesn't hold. Justinchat 17:15, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Shatt al-Arab has an opinion but that is no reason to delete this page. The quotes are properly sourced and taken in context. When citing controversial comments, quoting is much better than paraphrasing.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 22:46, 13 December 2007 (UTC))[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Coredesat 05:42, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per above. Cirt (talk) 17:23, 13 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Weak keep. What the hell is a "prober"? Appears notable, but needs a lot of work, so I've tagged it. Bearian (talk) 18:14, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Do we have a guideline on what makes some probers notable and others not notable? I'm sure there's a well-thought essay out there somewhere. Let's see if this turns out blue or red....WP:PROBER. Keeper | 76 20:45, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No awards, nothing to make him seem more notable than any other music writer with a startup. --NickPenguin(contribs) 04:02, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Comment I just noticed the earlier AfD. Will tag for speedy G4, recreation. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 15:55, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Coredesat 05:43, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unreferenced and non-notable hip-hop "crew" (not an actual group, mind you, just members of different groups that purportedly associate with each other). Fails WP:NOTE. Precious Roy (talk) 15:17, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn, unsourced. JJL (talk) 17:46, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If they had released a collaboration album, then it would have been keep, otherwise this musical group seems non-notable. --NickPenguin(contribs) 04:04, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Speedy Delete A7 - No assertion of notability. 1 != 2 16:34, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unreferenced and non-notable hip-hop "crew" (not an actual group, mind you, just members of different groups that purportedly associate with each other). Fails WP:NOTE. Precious Roy (talk) 15:04, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Comment. I live in Ontario, and I like pork/ham/bacon/backbacon, but I question the importance of the board. In fact, this article indicates it is losing or has lost ground in the marketplace. PKT (talk) 16:50, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I read that article differently but really the importance is off-topic. I should have merely noted instead that it meets WP:V and does not meet WP:DP. DoubleBlue (Talk) 21:35, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I've expanded slightly with references. Much more can be done. DoubleBlue (Talk) 00:31, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If the article survives, it should be moved to an accurate title. PKT (talk) 13:03, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per very nice, concise cleanup by User:DoubleBlue. Any organization that gets a book written about it called Men and Pork Chops deserves a WP article. :-) Recommend a retitle though, as it's about the association and not the actual pigmeat, just for clarification. Not that anyone would write an article about the pigmeat...How about Ontario Pork Producers' Marketing Board with Ontario Pork as a searchable redirect? Keeper | 76 17:00, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I agree with PKT and you about moving it to Ontario Pork Producers’ Marketing Board as that appears to still be the name in legislation with Ontario Pork as a redirect since that is the name they use for marketing purposes and is often referred to by in the media. DoubleBlue (Talk) 02:28, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep & move - looks good after the cleanup & agree to the sensible move. Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 06:23, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Appears notable, per the above points. --Sharkface217 02:05, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Coredesat 05:45, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Band. Doesn't seem notable. Released 3 albums, non on any major labels. Has had guest performances by Victor SmolskiMartijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:46, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Respecting WP:BAND, I believe that this artice should be kept, becuse the band...
Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable; note that it is often most appropriate to use redirects in place of articles on side projects, early bands and such.
Luděk used to be a drummer of the well-knowned Czech rock band called Premier.
Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g. a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film, inclusion on a compilation album, etc. (But if this is the only claim, it is probably more appropriate to have a mention in the main article and redirect to that page.)
A sample from Read The Stars has been frequently aired as a part of promotional tv advertisment announcing a new Slovak rock magazine Rock Planet.
Has become the most prominent representative of a notable style or of the local scene of a city; note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability.
Having Victor Smolski from Rage as a guest on the CD is a priviledge beyond any local standars.
Delete per Keeper76. tomasz. 18:54, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy delete as hoax vandalism. I checked the on-line staff directory for Sheffield Hallam University, there is no doctor there with the name claimed. Uncle G (talk) 14:17, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I just finished writing this article and companion article's AFDs and Fram beat me to it. My proposed text: Apparent joke hoax, along with a companion article by the same user I am nominating separately. No relevant Google results for article name or expanded article name in text. The law is stated as being considered seriously by writers of "social theory" and then names three humor writers (they could actually be characterized indirectly in this way; especially Adams, but in this context I think it's part of the prank). In any event, with no sources cited, and my search for sources being fruitless, the burden of showing verifiability and notability is on the creator.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:36, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. --DAJF (talk) 13:39, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Keep per WP:SNOW. It is obvious there is not going to be a consensus to delete this article. The only delete supporter is now advocating merge, which counts as keep and can be debated on the article talk page, though it should be noted it is a minority position. The reason given by the nominator has now been met with the addition of text to the article. Tyrenius (talk) 21:35, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This "article" is nothing more than a repository and is therefore a violation of the policy WP:NOT#REPOSITORY. nat.utoronto 12:05, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. There really should be an article about this subject here, but it should be a lot better than this.--Michig (talk) 12:19, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've spent a few minutes adding some references to the article. I would strongly recommend that efforts are made to improve articles on encyclopedic subjects before nominating them to be deleted.--Michig (talk) 12:30, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate that, FWIW. As the talk page indicates the one who started this push for deletion — Landcamera900 — is dead set against expansion. I can't explain how Nat, an admin, seems to agree that this article is better off deleted... Cburnett (talk) 15:04, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not dead set against expansion, you made it clear that if I (the new guy) did not fix the page it would not change. This article as it was when nominated for deletion was a sloppy mess of text and photos, some of those photos by the way were taken by you. you arent supposed to add photos hoping they will be relevant someday, you add them to improve the quality of an article.Landcamera900 (talk) 16:01, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'd be interested to hear your explanation of how adding photos to an article is not improving its quality. We accept text that isn't perfect in the hope that it will be improved eventually, so I have no idea why we wouldn't accept images. --Dhartung | Talk 17:52, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Adding photos does improve articals thats what I said, but they should not be added until they are relevant, you cant use images to improve an article if there is not an article to improve.Landcamera900 (talk) 18:01, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This "article" is a blurb and photos. I agree with the deletion nomination. None of the editors have expressed intrest in fixing it. Insted a better land camera section could be added to the "instant camera" article Landcamera900 (talk) 12:34, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your name just happens to be landcamera? May I ask when this account was created? Nick mallory (talk) 14:08, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Are you accusing me of being a sock? nat.utoronto 14:17, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t appreciate your accusations, and they are completely untrue I have no malicious intent I thought I heard something about good faith on this siteLandcamera900 (talk) 14:21, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey now, I didn't say you were a sock, all I said was that it was suspicious that two different users are fighting to have the same article deleted and using the same rationale word for word. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 14:23, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
thats because it's a good rationale, I'm suprised this "article" lasted as long as it did, without detection.Landcamera900 (talk) 14:24, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is not expected that every article be perfect from the get-go (that would be impossible) nor that every article receives as much attention and focus as popular articles (pick anything from Harry Potter, abortion, GHW Bush, etc.). Cburnett (talk) 15:09, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yes, Landcamera900, we do assume good faith, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't raise questions about violations of policy. Nobody has yet blocked you, for example. --Dhartung | Talk 17:52, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
thats because I haven't done anything wrong.Landcamera900 (talk) 18:02, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's a short article, with cited sources, that is ready for expansion. The word for that is "stub", and per our Wikipedia:Deletion policy we don't delete stubs that have potential for expansion. Per our Wikipedia:Editing policy we don't require that articles be complete and perfect ab initio. Please familiarize yourself with our policies and guidelines. Uncle G (talk) 12:39, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. May need cleaning up and expanding, but appears to be a notable subject. --DAJF (talk) 13:08, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with Uncle G here, this page is a stub and can be expanded. Deletion is not always the answer; this is a clearly notable subject and is decently sourced. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 14:05, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This was the first instant camera so it's obviously a notable topic. Uncle G et all are right, AfD is not for cleanup. Nick mallory (talk) 14:07, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Land camera is not a model. It is just a polaroid camera branded with Edwin Lands name, all polaroids were land cameras untill the 80's Landcamera900 (talk) 14:13, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But not all Land cameras were Polaroids. The Hewlett-Packard 196B, manufactured in 1962, wasn't. (ISBN 0240807405, page 309) Uncle G (talk) 14:39, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep It is obviously an article not a repository. Proposer doesn't seem to understand the policy in question. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:39, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep as it obviously is an issue of needing expansion and deletion is by far the absolute worst answer to achieve that. Considering the work done in the last 12 hours, I don't think there could be a clearly indication that there are verifiable sources out there and that expansion can readily be done. Deletion is absurd and would clearly be a detriment to wikipedia. Cburnett (talk) 14:58, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually given all the recent work I'm starting think a merger might actually be better, my main issue was with all the images on the page. And if they are removed and the pages merged it would result in a more satifactory "instant camera" article.Landcamera900 (talk) 15:47, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge (and I prefer "keep"). Also, keep the images -- they add useful information about different models. --A. B.(talk) 15:51, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree they clutter the page and make it look unprofessional, a single photo of each type of camera next to it's corresponding paragraph would be more effective, and attractiveLandcamera900 (talk) 15:56, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Notable, too:
Google Scholar: 58 mentions for "Land Camera" + "Edwin Land" -- some are patents and others passing mentions, but there's still substantive stuff to establish notability. --A. B.(talk) 16:01, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
90+ hits in the New York Times' archives. (I have a subscription; if someone wants a copy of an article, let me know.) --A. B.(talk) 16:04, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per several above. No proper reason to delete given - nominator seems to misunderstand policy on galleries, though obviously the article needs expanding. Johnbod (talk) 16:23, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep subject itself is highly notable even though the current page is indeed mostly a gallery. JJL (talk) 17:49, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, needs improvement but no possible reason for deletion that I can see. Article should explain how Polaroid's use of the brand name evolved. --Dhartung | Talk 17:52, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Coredesat 05:46, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There were many internet discussions about it. If You google common phrase: 'chiral life' - it's the third. As You can find on Greg Bear's blog - similar idea was in Arthur C. Clarke "Technical Error". And there is much more science here than in most of (Category:Science fiction themes) articles. Jarek Duda (talk) 12:57, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Internet discussions" are almost never worth the paper that they are printed upon when it comes to fact checking and peer review. Per our Wikipedia:No original research policy, everything in Wikipedia must first have been through a process of fact checking, peer review, publication, and acceptance into the general corpus of human knowledge, outside of Wikipedia. If you want to make a case for keeping this article, pointing to a science fiction writer's musings in xyr on-line diary is nowhere near enough. Sources! Sources! Sources! These are your only arguments. Uncle G (talk) 13:25, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can't find that it got picked up by any notable media, only blogs and forums. --Storkk (talk) 14:26, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still quite adamant on deletion: While this seems not to be WP:MADEUP, until it seems even conceivable that this would be reported by anything reliable or verifiable, I have to wholeheartedly agree with Uncle G's points: this is a non-notable internet fad whose WP article cannot become anything other than Original Research. --Storkk (talk) 13:58, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Proposer suggests that this was just made up. Jarek Duda has effectively demonstrated that this is not so. That's enough for the AFD proposal to fail - we are not required to go beyond this and turn this into a featured article right away. But here are some academic sources, just to be sure. My only qualm is the title. Chiral Life would be better, as the word concept seems redundant. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:33, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Jarek Duda (talk·contribs) has done nothing of the sort. Xe has pointed to a web log posting and a web discussion forum posting that both turn out to have been written by … Jarek Duda. Xe hasn't pointed to any of those supposed academic sources, and for good reason. Not a single one of them has anything at all to do with this proposed concept. I suggest reading them. They are discussing homochirality. Uncle G (talk) 14:57, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is a new one. That the concept of chirality is recognized in chemistry and biology doesn't make the idea of saving the planet by re-populating it with heterochiral life forms an accepted one that is part of the general corpus of human knowledge. ☺ To not be original research, an idea has to escape its creator, and be reviewed, checked, published, discussed, and acknowledged by the world at large. Duda has not persuaded a single other person to accept this idea. This sort of stuff is exactly what the Wikipedia:No original research policy exists to prevent. Uncle G (talk) 16:03, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Chirality in biology has nothing to do with the "Chiral life" concept, other than than chirality itself. Chiral life, as a concept, borders on nonsense, similar to the idea of harnessing zero point energy. At most, maybe a paragraph stating that "some people think", etc. under Chirality in biology wouldn't be too objectionable. WP:SOAP and WP:FORUM apply here, IMHO. --Storkk (talk) 14:09, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and I agree with the proposed name change. There's a whole lot of science fiction stuff that is "beneath the dignity" of mainstream news publications. Probably most of it. That doesn't mean it isn't interesting or noteworthy. Besides, who is to say which "media" are "notable" anyway? Have you even looked at lists of newspapers in the US? They are a mess. "Lack of notability of second-hand sources" isn't a criterion for deletion. Cbdorsett (talk) 14:50, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:No original research is, though. So far, we have an idea proposed by one person, that hasn't even been documented properly in fact checked reliable sources yet, and that has certainly not been acknowledged by the rest of the world, that that person has decided to write about directly in Wikipedia. Uncle G (talk) 14:57, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Quote: "who is to say which "media" are "notable" anyway?"... Um... WP:RS for one; WP:N similarly applies. --Storkk (talk) 14:09, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The 'concept' word is quite important here. It's quite obvious, eg looking on our amino acids or sugars, that there was symmetry breaking... Hypothetical aliens could use different chirality... There is popular concept of creating synthetic life - here is practical suggestion to use billions years of evolution too and maybe recreate part of our ecosystem - I believe that there will be a time when we create chiral E.Coli ... just because we will be able to. --Jarek Duda (talk) 18:05, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a soapbox for people to stand upon and publicize their personal beliefs and ideas. It is not a free publishing service nor a free web hosting service. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia. There are proper venues for publishing novel ideas. An encyclopaedia is not one of them. Uncle G (talk) 21:21, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well said. As a "concept" it still isn't notable until a reliable source has recognized it as something worth reporting on.--Storkk (talk) 14:09, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball delete as original research. Regardless of what merits this content or concept might have, the content itself has no chance of slipping past established policy and guidlines (WP:RS, WP:N, WP:OR). Someguy1221 (talk) 05:25, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What research? :) In this moment it's SF concept, and there was placed - consequences of hypothetical possibility presented for example by Clarke - famous SF writer. I believe, that if Omega-level mutant : Jean Grey, instead of the ability of Time Dance, was chiral, there wouldn't be a problem? --Jarek Duda (talk) 11:53, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, an unwikified mess of original research. The most this could ever hope to be is a few sentences in the article on the book it's derived from and the idle musings of bloggers fail WP:N. Chris Cunningham (talk) 13:30, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree it should be just a short note this time, so I've placed it like that. It should describe unique 'ability' of Clark's character and says a few words about consequences of using this hypothetical possibility - but it's extremely complicated topic - both possibilities and dangers ... the expanded version somebody proposed is still only the top of a mountain. --Jarek Duda (talk) 15:03, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for all the reasons already given. Clarke's novels and stories may be notable, but essays and blog posts inspired by the ideas contained there are not. --Itub (talk) 15:17, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So maybe Wiki should try to contact Clarke to ask about his opinion?--Jarek Duda (talk) 16:26, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Better to put here X-men's nicknames than Clarke's concept and some of its consequences which seems obvious and promising? I only suggested to ask about opinion someone more reliable than You or a stupid blogger. But You can learn a lot not disqualifying such noname persons from the start. Try sometimes to judge the ideas instead. Thanks that other editors didn't delete my another idea because of my lack of fame (Asymmetric binary system), it has been finally solidly verified. Thanks! :) --Jarek Duda (talk) 15:59, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep an important SF concept, perhaps by now it even seems obvious. I think Gamow and Asimov also talk about it , as do others, though it may take some finding. DGG (talk) 03:18, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, it isn't an important SF concept. The claim being made that Clarke has anything to do with this novel idea is utter rubbish. Don't put any credence into it. The story by Clarke doesn't deal with the idea of repopulating the ecosystem at all. It is not a story about bioengineering. This is not an SF concept at all, let alone an important one. It hasn't yet made it out of Duda's on-line musings into a science fiction story, let alone been researched and documented in sources that analyse SF. I draw your attention to the "What research?" comment above. There is no research. This is an attempt to abuse Wikipedia as a forum for doing that research, and for publishing a novel idea that has not been published, documented, peer reviewed, fact checked, analysed, or acknowledged, anywhere else. Uncle G (talk) 15:19, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Singularity 21:12, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Borderline speedy, as the only assertion of notability it makes is some blue links to players (of which at least a few (e.g. John Craven) are at best namesakes). --Storkk (talk) 14:29, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unsourced, no notability established, it's sort of organized like someone's personal website. Cirt (talk) 17:25, 13 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete per above Peanut4 (talk) 23:17, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable, unsourced article; Google reveals only two results. — Wenli(reply here) 03:13, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nonnotable; created by a user without significant contributions outside this article. (I try not to be biased, but he probably doesn't understand what "notability" means.) Shalom (Hello • Peace) 00:11, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above points. --Sharkface217 02:06, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Coredesat 05:46, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This fictional internet character has 28 non-wikipedia g-hits, and nothing to indicate notability. It seems to be something made up in school one day, promotional, and claims things will happen in 2008. Speedy was declined, and the prod tag removed, so AfD is the only route left. AnteaterZot (talk) 11:32, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The band is notable, the artist who drew pictures for the band is barely notable (and may or may not survive an AfD himself if ever one was wrought). An individual character he made up one day is not notable. Delete. Keeper | 76 16:05, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Coredesat 05:47, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Only one minor reference given in the article, and I've been unable to find mention of this person or their scale through Google. Statistics isn't my strong point and someone in that field may have heard the name. However, based on the information available, I'd suggest they fail the notability criteria CultureDrone (talk) 11:29, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the only assertion of notability, that the "Woodbury scale" is used throughout the industry, is probably nonsense, giving 3 google hits: 2 of which are wikipedia/clone and 1 is the ppt source. --Storkk (talk) 14:33, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, agree with Storkk (talk·contribs), and it's relatively unsourced to boot. Cirt (talk) 17:26, 13 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete with no prejudice to re-creation if notability can be shown. I was tempted to think hoax, but the Woodbury scale in stats at least appears to be real ... but vanishingly obscure: see Google Books. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 02:49, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Amend to "notability and factual basis". "Damian" is a suspiciously modern name. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 16:01, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice — For lack of verification. The single citation only verifies the existence of the "Woodbury" scale. None of the biographic information is verified, nor is A. Damian Woodbury's connection to the scale. Could statistician Robert Morse Woodbury be the creator of the scale? — ERcheck (talk) 14:21, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
A Speedy A7able group of no notability. No references. bringing it here as the tags get removed before someone with the appropriate buttons notices. Fails all of the notability requirements Peripitus(Talk) 11:28, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - No assertion of notability per WP:WEB. --Onorem♠Dil 12:00, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete and so tagged. Note that there are user warnings for removing a speedy tag. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 12:35, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Arguments for deletion appear to have been successfully refuted. Xoloz (talk) 14:01, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability issue and too many red links. VivioFateFan(Talk, Sandbox) 11:19, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- clearly notable with a 30-second Google News archive search: 93 press mentions, some of them passing or press releases, but still many usable references to establish notability. --A. B.(talk) 16:13, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, there are a number of available sources so notability is hard to question. "Too many red links" isn't cause for deletion, but improvement. Justinchat 17:32, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is a quite notable European animation producer. But, the copyright messages are not needed here. Maybe they should be replaced with "co-produced with..." or so. --Mégara (Мегъра) - D. G. Mavrov (talk) 19:42, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The Google news search performed above indeed has 133 items with the word "Alphanim". The first dozen relate to the company this article is about. The rest don't seem to have a thing to do with it, from a quick base look. Doesn't satisfy my interpretations of WP:N. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 17:39, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Umm... Not quite. Apparently, some just list animation studios, and include it as one of them. I looked through a few pages and they refer to the studio as a producer of some film, or as an animation studio. So most (if not all) results refer to Alphanim, the animation studio. --Mégara (Мегъра) - D. G. Mavrov (talk) 01:01, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Singularity 21:11, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
contested proposed deletion. An unnoted short film. No news articles, no books, nothing on any site except for Youtube, myspace and forums to be seen. Fails basic notabilityPeripitus(Talk) 11:05, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; unreferenced and nn. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 15:10, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- send Bob, Slob and their producer home until their planned 40 minute film is finished and has garnered more than zero Google News hits and 25 web hits. --A. B.(talk) 16:15, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable at present time - Dumelow (talk) 17:15, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per above, unsourced/WP:OR, no notability established. Cirt (talk) 17:29, 13 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete Unsourced; no assertion of notability. — Wenli(reply here) 04:17, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. On numerous occasions, community consensus has shown that the subject is not yet sufficiently notable. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bitweaver/2006-07-12, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bitweaver2, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bitweaver (3rd nomination), all of which resulted in deletion. This article should not be recreated unless and until it has been the subject of non-trivial coverage by multiple, reliable, third-party published sources. Editors are, of course, welcome to nominate for deletion any other article wherein the subject also does not meet this inclusion criteria. — Satori Son 14:27, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Advertising; also note the page was previously deleted for this reason. See archived debate. Also, User:Lsces clearly states the user creating the article is a contributor to the project. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JamminBen (talk • contribs) 2007-12-13 10:56:38
Comment Historic material is no longer relevant. bitweaver is no more 'blatant advertising' than any other article connected to List_of_content_management_systems since there is *NO* commercial interest in this open source project, deleting it should also flag TikiWiki - on which the revised article is based so as NOT to fall foul of the content rules - and every other article on the same list page. MORE REALISTICALLY - the REAL commercial advertising should be pulled?
The original article WAS modified and I see more KEEP in this list that delete anyway !!! Lsces (talk) 11:05, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, promotional, no independent sources. Yes, these rules apply equally to non-commercial projects; sorry you didn't find that out before creating the article. If TikiWiki is just as bad it should be deleted too. --Dhartung | Talk 17:54, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment ???'no independent sources' - independent links have been included. UNLIKE TikiWiki !!! Lsces (talk) 15:26, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The deletion review is for people to discuss Bitweaver. For the purpose of the discussion, it doesn't matter whether other articles are in violation of the rules. If you feel that strongly about TikiWiki, you need to raise it as a separate discussion under Articles for Deletion. JamminBen (talk) 00:57, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Over the last year or so I have been trying to USE wikipedia as the single reference for both historic and current information. This action is being hampered by the LACK of certain key elements when following links. TikiWiki is just one of a dozen links that already EXIST in wikipedia, my user page links to several more, and over the Christmas period I was hoping to spend some time tidying up several articles on my own web sites to ensure that linking is consistent. So are you telling me that for wikipedia to be consistent I should flag EVERY page that provides the same information as this one to be deleted simple so that wikipedia provides a consistent blinkered view of the world? I am having similar problems with PHPEclipse which is an essential part of the development of PHP projects using the Eclipse_(software) and predates the commercially backed PHP_Development_Tools project. SIMPLY killing pages in isolation is the problem here ESPECIALLY when those pages are needed to fill the gaps in the information provided by wikipedia? So rather than trying to HIDE historic material that someone does not like is isn't it more important to provide a complete independent view. If there is something in this article that is not independent PLEASE identify it so that it can be changed, and be consistent in supporting the rapidly changing history of software both commercially and open source. Lsces (talk) 07:25, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment All I am saying is that this debate is to discuss whether or not the Bitweaver article should be deleted. If you feel that TikiWiki should be deleted it belongs in a separate debate. It is not a question of whether people "like" (or "dislike") certain pages, if notability cannot be ascertained, the article risks being flagged for deletion. Plain and simple. You have stated your position, please let some other people come in and add their views. JamminBen (talk) 09:32, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have indented all of the comments so this debate is easier to follow. Lsces, you haven't voted yet. If you wish to vote, please state either Keep or Delete with a reason why - see Dhartung's comment above. If you have any further replies that are not a vote, please indent them correctly. Otherwise the debate is very difficult to follow. JamminBen (talk) 09:36, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I say kill it. Why bother continuing to try to put meaningful information into Wikipedia, when it's policies a) are not evenly applied and b) make no rational sense in the context of its own structure much less the real world. Better to let it go on with gaps and dead ends in information, when google will likely be happy to host the information at their Knol project. Answering a critique of an inconsistently applied policy by suggesting to take up the matter on a case by case basis (that would only result in more irrational deletions) is a pathetic evasive response. In addition, this "independent sources" requirement has no rational basis. Here you are moving to delete documentation of an open source non-commercial project, meanwhile corporations which own any number of media outlets can have any sort of information qualify for publication on wikipedia simply by having that information published in their own subsidiary. Great policy, that really works. Please tell me to take it up with central command at wikipedia. That will really help. Disclosure, I am a bitweaver contributor but putting up this page again was not my idea and i think we're just wasting our time with these people. User:wjames
Wjames, you got the point. Why to loose time with wikipedia fights. Bitweaver should only be for those, who deserve it! ;)--Kozuch (talk) 07:32, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep For all the reasons stated above including the fact that independent sources HAVE been included in the article - as requested - and additional independent sources have now been added Lsces (talk) 14:08, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am a user of bitweaver and want to keep this page.--Kozuch (talk) 17:06, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Coredesat 05:48, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
non-notable artist. Association with notable people doesn't convey notability. No sources, search of google news back to 1920s [28] so no hits (I know that doesn't count though), and a very strong point of view (again I know that doesn't count) Mbisanz (talk) 10:30, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for checking Google News -- so many nominators overlook this. I think this article is mis-titled but I'm reluctant to mess with it during the AfD. There maybe coverage under an alternate name. --A. B.(talk) 16:21, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you can find a better name to redirect it to, please feel free to let me know. I don't know Spanish, so a google web search is of no help in trying to figure out if we already have coverage. Mbisanz (talk) 16:24, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
e/c*Delete. With assertions like these, I would think something would come up in google archives. (I did my own extensive searches independent of nominator - did not use links provided, and got same nada result). Other problems I see: Pilar is a female (Spanish) name. No instances of it ever being used as a unisex name or male name that I've been able to document. 2. Pili is a pet name for Pilar (think Anthony - Tony, or Michael - Mikey). It is not a surname (therefore having an article titled Pilar Pili (unless proven that that is how "he" signed his name artistically.). If in fact Pilar Pili is a real person, survives notability, and consensus says keep, the article needs to be renamed. Also, I would love to know where these rather bold assertions came from, where's the source? Keeper | 76 16:32, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very useful background, thanks Mbisanz (talk) 17:56, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Keeper76 -- thanks for your help. --A. B.(talk)
Delete per Keeper76. If there were sources in Spanish, I would be able to read them at least in part, but I can't find any myself. Furthermore, the article doesn't make much sense politically -- why would Raul Castro attend the funeral of a Batista supporter? --Metropolitan90(talk) 05:00, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Clubmarx (talk) 17:51, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy deleted by Khukri; non-admin closure --Pak21 (talk) 11:24, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable rec level ice hockey team. A google search throws up (apart from the team's page and the wikipedia article) only forum pages. JD554 (talk) 10:03, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: no assertion of notability. Will tag --Pak21 (talk) 10:07, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep. The current article appears to have been totally rewritten by Uncle G after the nomination, which is why I was mildly perplexed at the cognitive dissonance generated by the apparent discrepancy between what this nomination describes and what I read. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:46, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with Uncle G's edits into a sourced stub that goes beyond a definition. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:59, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Uncle G's rewrite, goes beyond dicdef now to sufficiently establish encyclopedic merit. Perfectly serviceable stub now. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 15:59, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Non-admin closure. The Evil Spartan (talk) 05:48, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable. Why is a generic timetabling system purchased by one railroad company entitled to a article? Sir Birdman (talk) 08:15, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Perhaps because it covers the whole system of Australia's second largest city? TaintedZebra (talk) 10:02, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Undecided - Is there anything especially noteworthy about the system? The article reads like it could with minor modifications be renamed to "generic passenger information system". But maybe I've missed something that makes this one special? --Arcanios (talk) 13:30, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and merge to Railways in Melbourne. It not sufficiently notable to be in an article on its own. --Bduke (talk) 00:21, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and merge to Railways in Melbourne. Agree with previous two editors, Not notable as a stand alone article. If this article is allowed to exist as it stands then every other organization who has a similar timetabling system could have an article, airlines, railroads, etc, etc. Sir Birdman (talk) 07:05, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per above, unless notability independent of Melbourne / Victorian railways can be demonstrated (eg: through use on other networks either rail or otherwise).Garrie 11:10, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, an interesting part of the Melbourne rail system that is worth covering, but not really notable enough on its own for inclusion. Lankiveil (talk) 12:07, 18 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Redirect and merge as per above. Kingpomba (talk) 03:38, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Ah, so that's what they call those things! They're quite useful, I used them a fair bit on my recent Melbourne trip. It actually dials a number specific to the platform and station and gives one electronically generated information about the next two trains. Also generates announcements for delays (of which there seemed to be many). Orderinchaos 01:32, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy deleted by Khukri; non-admin closure --Pak21 (talk) 11:23, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: blatant copyvio from [29]. Will tag --Pak21 (talk) 09:38, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Unreferenced, probably WP:OR. Fails WP:N on its own and should already be covered in Jewellry if it isn't already. Collectonian (talk) 09:03, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This article is unreferenced because I could not figure out the format for properly referencing the sources that are outlined in external links. Most of this article could be described as common knowledge. The main article on Jewellery primarily covers the historical basis of jewelry, and does not distinguish between amateur techniques and professional techniques of creating jewelry. Nothing in the main article describes jewelry making for the hobbyist (as opposed to professional jewelers and retail stores). Even in the article handmade jewelry the focus is on fine jewelry rather than homemade beaded jewelry or macrame bracelets and so on. In fact, nothing is mentioned in the article on handmade jewelry about costume jewelry made by hand by hobbyists. Userafw (talk) 09:30, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You know, you could have always just expanded handmade jewelry rather than making another article. For citations, WP:CITE and WP:citation_templates for learning how, or just look at other articles with properly formatted cites and look at the code to see how they did it. And I disagree with the article being mostly "common knowledge." It may be common knowledge to you, if you are someone who does make jewelry, but other 90% of the world it is not. Collectonian (talk) 09:38, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is a subject that is in fact notable on its own - a search of jewelry hobby on yahoo actually came up with 64 million results. If I had moved the entire contents of this page to handmade jewelry some of it would not be relevant to the topic, since etching is frequently done by machine in the mass production of jewelry designed for the retail market (as I had previously discovered by following some of the links under both jewellery and handmade jewelry - so that would not count as "handmade". Also, some jewelry made by hobbyists is not necessarily "one of a kind" (as described in handmade jewelry) since some hobbyists use store bought kits. Userafw (talk) 09:50, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, since the Handmade jewelry page has returned, I experimented with adding this content to that page. Check and see what you think. If you dislike the results, perhaps this page should be kept. Userafw (talk) 16:13, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd suggest a merge of the relevant info to handmade jewelry, but redirect the actual page title to jewelry. GlassCobra 07:51, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Handmade jewelry. Not enough here to stand on its own. It's the same editor on both pages anyway... — HelloAnnyong[ t · c ] 15:15, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Coredesat 05:49, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable biography of a living person. Fails to cite sources or lasting imapct on their profession/nation/industry. Mbisanz (talk) 07:58, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Storkk (talk) 14:39, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Crusio (talk) 09:50, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Executive director of leading medical institution and teaching hospital in Pakistan. How is that non-notable? Phil Bridger (talk) 23:03, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A doctor in a hospital? What's notable about that? WWGB (talk) 12:53, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Secretaccount 22:29, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this one will likely need extensive research before it can become an article, and as it's written we probably have issues with WP:BLP (not NPOV).Aeternitas827 (talk) 08:03, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy per Storkk. IMO, subject falls just short of notability guidelines for professors (per scholar search), authors (per google search) and per book publishing (per sales (Amazon # 914,000+ ranking and lack of independent reviews). Best of luck to the author with no prejudice against future re-creation. hey - I'm sure J.K. Rowling would have failed notability at one point too. Keep writing. One of the best signs of notability is someone else drops everything and writes about you here, or anywhere. And if a book really takes off, wikipedia will be here writing neutrally about you. Cheers, Keeper | 76 19:06, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of notability. --Crusio (talk) 09:56, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete she seems to have not actually published any scholarly books. DGG (talk) 03:21, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Concerning book sales Barnes & Noble sales ranking figures today: Her hardcover book Gold of Thrace (2007) has a sales rank of 255845; paperback reprint of Fly Has a Hundred Eyes has sales rank of 516700; Torch of Tangier (paperback) 306050, while the hardcover has a rank of 561427. So, as a writer, she possibly passes the bar. However, the article as is currently stands, lacks references and is in need of a rewrite if the subject is deemed sufficiently notable. — ERcheck (talk) 14:36, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. John254 00:11, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Excessively detailed content fork, also contains some original research. A certain skunk placed a PROD reading "Unnecessarily detailed article about non-notable subtopic of Robert F. Kennedy. Information in this article should be merged with the main topic.", which was nuked by an IP without commentary, so I'm listing it here. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 05:39, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article doesn't seem excessively detailed to me, but it does seem to lack sufficient references. The article definitely warrants improvement. Rray (talk) 05:59, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Delete: Like most presidential campaigns, there isn't anything terribly newsworthy about this particular campaign. Notable content about the campaign can easily be merged with the Robert F. Kennedy article. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 06:13, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Merge and delete" are incompatible with the GFDL and thus invalid AFD votes. --Dhartung | Talk 06:39, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Um... okay. Changed to just "Delete" then. :P — KieferSkunk (talk) — 20:01, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Other than the fact that...you know...he was assasinated in the middle of it?
Keep and reference. This was one of the more remarkable "insurgent" presidential campaigns of the century and was far different from the plodding by-the-numbers campaigns that all candidates run today (owing much to television and changes in delegate allocation). Kennedy's entry into the 1968 race changed the dynamic considerably and even absent his assassination is historically notable. --Dhartung | Talk 06:39, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep...but complete it. This is one of the more notable campaigns of the 20th century. (The fact that RFK was virtually the complete opposite of JFK meant that he had to basically reinvent the wheel when it came to campaigning). The article, however, is incomplete. --SmashvilleBONK! 15:36, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, complete and reference. The article may need some work, but saying it was a "non-notable" presidential campaign is laughable. The topic is notable on its face. Justinchat 17:42, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In the minds of most people, RFK is just one of a bunch of people assassinated that year. This article places his presidential ambitions within a meaningful context and demonstrates how his murder changed the face of both the Democratic primary and the Presidential election itself. Alansohn (talk) 18:30, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Extremely significant historical period. Issues regarding sourcing, content, etc. can be handled at the article level. For this topic there is likely no shortage of them. 23skidoo (talk) 20:53, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Robert F. Kennedy, I don't see why this should be splitted, it's not alot of info there Secretaccount 22:38, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Again, excessively-detailed is not a crime. No reason that this can't co-exist with both the RFK article and the 1968 US election article, especially given the significance of RFK's run for the presidency. Not a great article as of yet, but a great topic about the only American presidential candidate whose campaign was cut short by his assassination, and that was after he won the California primary. Entire books have been written about the campaign of the man who might have been king. Mandsford (talk) 02:24, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per reliable sources, this former assistant to Sen. Joe McCarthy ran as a liberal and forced an incumbent President to drop out of the race, then got assassinated. Pretty remarkable and easily worthy of a stand-alone article. Edison (talk) 07:19, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a historic campaign which can be expanded.--STX 01:35, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 into the series' list of characters. Xoloz (talk) 14:05, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Are dog actors notable? I would love to try to fact check this but there are no references and would not even know where to start on google. Ridernyc (talk) 05:34, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I remember this dog when I was watching the show when I was a little kid...lol but I didn't really find anything notable about the dog (is Happy still alive??) - Jameson L. Taitalk ♦ contribs 05:36, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On the talk page there is mention that someone found information that as of October yes happy is still alive. Ridernyc (talk) 05:39, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yes, he's alive and well. He just loves the new farm that we brought him to. He gets to run and play all day, and there's lots of other dogs and all the food he loves. Name of the farm? well, 8th Heaven, of course. Sorry, couldn't resist. Delete per nom, alive or not. No prejudice against Merge to main article. Keeper | 76 18:36, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into 7th Heaven unless references are added demonstrating notability. Of course dog actors can be notable, but just being one isn't by itself notability. Happy just doesn't strike me as having received coverage comparable to xer contemporary, Moose (dog actor). --Dhartung | Talk 06:42, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. John254 00:06, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
un-referenced political science essay. To be honest I have no clue what this about since there is no introduction to establish context. A google search of the term returned 8 hits. At least 2 hits are from this article. Ridernyc (talk) 05:22, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with reservations pending a rewrite. I'll admit that the article is a pretty bad example of an encyclopedia article but this theory is cited several times in academic journal papers. I spent some time Googling this and beyond Roemer's book I found several references to this model. I can understand why you nominated this though - the article really doesn't do a very good job of explaining this or why it would matter. EconomicsGuy (talk) 09:41, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep of the 84 GS hits, 60 refer to this model, (the others are in other subjects entirely), but the use seems widespread enough for notability. DGG (talk) 03:26, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Coredesat 05:49, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
An online video game. Doesn't assert notability, and doesn't appear to meet our notability standards. Lawrence Cohen 05:11, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: web content that does not assert notability; will tag as such --Pak21 (talk) 10:10, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Any significance to the web content part of your comment? Or was it going to be a speedy for the general lack of not asserting notability? Lawrence Cohen 16:16, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
CSD A7 applies only to "an article about a real person, group of people, band, club, company, organisation, or web content" (my emphasis). --Pak21 (talk) 16:18, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Got it, thanks. I wasn't contesting it, or anything like that. I would have been happy with the Speedy or the AfD result. Of course I'd prefer for someone to drop ten or more reliable sources indicating notability here, but I don't think it will happen. Lawrence Cohen 17:07, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note I removed the speedy, just to let the AFD gain greater concensus before deletion, though I believe it should be Delete. Khukri 15:30, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Would qualify for speedy, too. Of the tiny amount of Ghits this gets, I looked up some, and none are reliable and nontrivial. User:Krator (tc) 13:20, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Coredesat 05:50, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The traveling secretary for the St. Louis Cardinals Cherre-ly fails WP:BIO. No sources, no significant awards, and orphaned since 2006. That's three strikes. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:53, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per brewcrewer --Storkk (talk) 14:47, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn. JJL (talk) 17:52, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, although I can now boastfully say that I know what type of music C.J. Cherre likes, and Cherre can eat a lot of steak.. Where would I be without wikipedia? Delete this quickly, I don't want anyone else to know what I know! This article single-handedly Made My Day. Keeper | 76 18:44, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If this is deleted, the title would make a reasonable redirect to C. J. Cherryh. Grutness...wha? 01:42, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable unsourced article; Google reveals practically nothing. — Wenli(reply here) 04:19, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Singularity 21:08, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod. Probable hoax. A google search doesn't come up anything relevant...there's a band by this name, though, that may pass the notability threshold. There's one reference, but it doesn't seem to be valid. UsaSatsui (talk) 04:15, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — I can't find any evidence that the journal listed in the footnote exists. Possibly a hoax. — ERcheck (talk) 04:36, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as possible hoax. — Wenli(reply here) 04:21, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Coredesat 05:50, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Notability, verifiability, COI, WP:NOT a memorial. The article is reads like a memorial, and in fact links to a YouTube memorial to the subject, who recently died. The links/references do not establish notability. #1 is a caption to an image with the subject's family members and notes that he is a Major. #2 is apparently to to establish his father's job, which has no bearing on the subject's notablity. #3 is an interview with his mother in which she incidently mentions her son, and is apparently to estabilish her job, which again has no bearing on his notability. The article was apparently created by his son/a family member. Not to diminish the subject's military contributions, even with verification, they are not sufficiently notable for an Wikipedia biography. — ERcheck (talk) 04:10, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
From author (ttwiv): I believe notability can be established, but I entered the article too soon, before gathering necessary citations. This is not a memorial, though it is understandable the such is a conclusion given the proximaty of the posting to Col. Walker's death. The link to the news article that referes to Col. Walker as a "Major" was to establish identity in the past, and my Wikipedia article could have been written better to make such more clear. I agree there is a COI issue and lack of citations for proving notability (which exist, but will take time to gather). For these reasons I will not argue the deletion. Ttwiv (talk) 05:52, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - per WP:BIO's "additional criterion # 1" - he received a major award. Needs much work, though. --Storkk (talk) 14:58, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, just another Air Force officer. Accomplishment is not notability. --Dhartung | Talk 17:56, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If not substantiated per notability, delete - I'm sorry to say that I'm just not seeing notability here. That he was awarded a Silver Star is laudable, but puts him in the ranks of tens of thousands. I understand the desire to create a tribute to him, but unless further notability claims can be unearthed, I'd conclude for deletion. -- P L E A T H E R talk 20:19, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No assertion of notability.ALR (talk) 23:05, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Coredesat 05:51, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I won't be taking a stance on this (I know the leader too well to be able to take an unbiased stance), but I will note that it's not as such a vanity party. I happen to know they'll be publishing a manifesto document in the near future, and launching a website at some point; they also plan to stand candidates in the next general election. The leader's increasingly becoming well-known locally, and is a leader of NO2ID. I would personally advise deletion until such a time as the manifesto is published, however. JJE (talk) 18:59, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesnt seem notable to me and seems incredibly unlikely to gain much notability in the future. The Electoral Commision source suggests this may be a one man party and the article was created by a user of the same name. He is not a 'leader of NO2ID' as stated above but merely a regional contact. --Neon white (talk) 01:21, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Why not just for once let things be instead of seeking to censor. We are an active political party, we have more than one member and we will be contesting future elections. I happen to know that this page has been of use to people who have not heard of the party to find out more about it. It is in fact likely that we will be contesting elections at a Parliamentry level in the next few years. Is space so limited that all this constant deletion of everything is needed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peterlucas (talk • contribs)
Delete. The notability of this party is certainly not made out; a single candidate in a single local election who did not get many votes is not. The procedures for setting up a party are not onerous, and these parties might consist of a tiny membership. Sam Blacketer (talk) 23:54, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:: Answer me Is space so limited that all this constant deletion of everything is needed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peterlucas (talk • contribs) 04:06, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Coredesat 05:52, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete he writes for a newspaper, so he gets published, but what is published about him is the measure of notability; his books rank #27,916, #1,435,411, and apparently not available at Amazon, nn. so nn. we don't know where or when he was born. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 03:19, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep we dont go by amazon rank--and if we did, actually 27,916 overall on amazon is very respectable. Remember, this is all time sales there ever for any book. At least 6 books, dozens of stories as important writer for two major magazines: "a newspaper" and the New Yorker. "the Best Intentions" has review in at least 5 major publications, and might be notable as well. interviews, etc etc. I'm sure we'd find the vital stats too. Amazon has the top hits in a google search under his name, but we know that's doesnt mean much--there's usually a good deal more after that. DGG (talk) 04:37, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG. --Storkk (talk) 14:59, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per rationale by DGG, and well, because he meets BIO guideline. Keeper | 76 20:50, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Coredesat 05:53, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:BIO for politicians - not a state or national officeholder, no significant press coverage other than passing mentions on local issues and his own and council websites, no assertion of notability beyond local council seat, no enduring contribution to the historical record in his field. Euryalus (talk) 03:00, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep or merge with World of Warcraft. Seems to pass WP:WEB, being the subject of reliable, independent sources, and the subject of controversy. J-ſtanTalkContribs 02:54, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How so? Glider is a WoW bot; Warden is a component of WoW which checks for bots. They're not at all the same thing. Zetawoof(ζ) 05:45, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there is a lot of different macro/botting software to be found. While it is true that Glider is the most famous in this one game, i don't see how it is notable, and i can't find any sources saying it is. As for the Warden article: Shouldn't be merged into World of Warcraft as it is not only used there, but in other games as well. Not sure if it is notable for an article though (would have to research first) but i recommend opening a enw AFD for the article. ~ | twsx | talkcont | 10:48, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Glider wouldn't really fit into the Criticism page, as it's not really criticism, it's an unauthorized 3rd party tool. Aaronomus (talk) 13:25, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into World of Warcraft, clean up and add sources, but try to leave all non-redundant information intact. Notable enough to be on the WoW page. Aaronomus (talk) 13:25, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article doesn't belong in World of Warcraft. That article is long enough already. As far as notability, it seems the company behind Glider is involved in a lawsuit with blizzard [30]. Cheezerman (talk) 18:22, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This really doesn't meet WP:OTHERSTUFF and your arguement seems like WP:BHTT, which doesn't fit the case. Fangz of Blood 18:49, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Your reasons for AfD are totally invalid. Please enlighten us as to how a third-party application is part of World of Warcraft. While you're at it, check out [31] for notability. 62.31.88.36 (talk) 19:24, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I understand the point you are making, and I do indeed love and play World of Warcraft. You are also missing my reasoning greatly IP #62.31.88.36. That one resource covers the lawsuit greatly, but most of the other topics need similar ones. Fangz of Blood 21:37, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unless it can assert notability through referencing. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:58, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge; what about a general article on WoW third party apps/software (with appropriate redirects)? though i note that there is a section for related software in the WoW thing at the bottom of the page, with other apps listed besides this one. the argument that it is too much like an article about another similar piece of software seems invalid, as they are similar, but not the same & not related in terms of origin & development; at most that would argue in favour of a merge/common article abt WoW apps. this definitely belongs somewhere in wikipedia's WoW material; it is more than sufficiently notable & likely to be of use & interest to people researching the subject here. Why don't we send this whole thing to the user groups dedicated to the subject, & have them sort it out? --Lx 121 (talk) 06:34, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's widely used by WoW players, & notable enough for the owner-operators of the game to be suing its creators. Who here actually plays WoW? If verifiability is the issue, try googling/google news for it. --Lx 121 (talk) 10:12, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, the onus is not in the readers side. Try to put the reliable sources in the article and I'll change my opinion. Everybody can always googling, but who knows which one is reliable? And that's what it's called verifiability. Dekisugi (talk) 08:43, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no sources independent of the company. AnteaterZot (talk) 01:17, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Dekisugi. Tavix (talk) 17:58, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' Lawsuit, once its resolved, might be notable, game addin feature isn't Mbisanz (talk) 23:55, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Singularity 21:07, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article about a future book by redlink author published by redlink publisher, fails WP:BK, sourced only to the publisher's press release. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:34, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Come back in October 2008, but only if the book acquires some notability. --Blanchardb-MeMyEarsMyMouth-timed 02:44, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per WP:CRYSTAL. Article may be recreated in October 2008, if it also doesn't fail WP:N. Billscottbob (talk) 04:40, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Recreate when the book is published. Malinaccier (talk) 23:47, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL; a non-notable future book by a non-notable author. — Wenli(reply here) 04:26, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Coredesat 05:53, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as above. PKT (talk) 15:22, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not yet notable - Dumelow (talk) 17:10, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete. At this point, there is no reason to regard Kiriakou any more notable than any of his peers. It is too soon to start an article on him: he was on the news just yesterday and may be forgotten in a week or two. WP:BLP1E. --Blanchardb-MeMyEarsMyMouth-timed 02:40, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Waterboarding. Premature yet, and his role in the disclosure of waterboarding use after the imminent unprotection of that article will be added in. Redirect to waterboarding. Lawrence Cohen 20:34, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete. In regards to the BLP1E and WP:NOT#NEWS references, "such as for a particular relatively unimportant crime..." hardly applies. The allegations in question refer to, perhaps, the greatest crimes the White House has ever committed. And "Routine news coverage and matters lacking encyclopedic substance, such as announcements, sports, gossip, and tabloid journalism, are not sufficient basis for an article." again, does not apply to this story. Deletion, if it is called for, can wait, surely. Scmdn (talk) 16:49, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Except that at this point, Kiriakou is known only for spilling these beans and nothing else. Redirect to Waterboarding, and we can always just turn around and expand it out if his notability grows more. I suggested you review Talk:Waterboarding, which is better suited to coverage of what you seem to be interested in. Lawrence Cohen 16:34, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep definitely notable enough to merit inclusion in Wikipedia. Perspicacite (talk) 04:27, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Waterboarding ... I'll start the process. Bearian (talk) 01:02, 20 December 2007 (UTC) Boy, am I good. You may now erase and redirect. Bearian (talk) 01:06, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Waterboarding unless we get more information on the person or he become more notable for his continued media presence. Remember (talk) 18:38, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Singularity 19:12, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of above. Ward3001 (talk) 02:51, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all, all above. Pointless. Tamajared (talk) 03:00, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Agreed name is a huge problem in addition to sourced material. WP:NC ._-zrotc 03:27, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, and if kept rename as the capitalisation seems to be incorrect. Esteffect (talk) 11:52, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Coredesat 05:54, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn bio about an amateur wrestler for a community college and later a 4-year college. Fails WP:BIO. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:54, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The single reference mentions the subject's name once, and only in passing reference to returning to the team. It is about the team, not the subject. A google search turns up this article, and nothing more. Fails WP:V. LonelyBeacon (talk) 02:08, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Competitors and coaches who have competed in a fully professional league, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport such as swimming, golf or tennis.
Competitors and coaches who have competed at the highest level in amateur sports (who meet the general criteria of secondary sources published about them).
”
Ryan Thomas fits both of these criteria. It is generally accepted that competing at the college level in the U.S. (particularly Division I, as he did in wrestling at Eastern Illinois) qualifies as competing at the highest amateur level in a sport. Thomas is now a professional mixed martial artist and has competed in several professional events including the Ultimate Fighting Championship. There is no professional MMA league, per se, but the events he has competed in are the non-league equivalent as stipulated by policy. LaMenta3 (talk) 02:30, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with what you are saying, about his status in terms of pro/amateur regarding establishing notability, but irrelevant of this, WP:V must be satisfied, and I cannot find any references where he is the subject of the reference. If someone can find articles where this person is the subject, then the notability can be established verifiably. LonelyBeacon (talk) 02:53, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's rare that any but the very most famous of professional MMA competitors will have any references where they are the primary subject. However, some records of the competitions he has been in exist in various places online, which is enough to establish that he is a professional competitor. Also, completely unrelated, I propose moving this article to a more standard name such as Ryan Thomas (mixed martial artist). LaMenta3 (talk) 04:39, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:V, it was even admitted above that only a few MMA wrestlers will have references. Anyways with the WP:BIO guidelines, it was noted that he needs to have sources for an article to exist. Secretaccount 05:40, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:V. Although WP:BIO does contain certain conditions under which a person may be notable regardless of lack of non-trivial coverage WP:V is still policy. We still need reliable references even if they don't have to contain non-trivial coverage. EconomicsGuy (talk) 06:31, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
True, references need to be added, trivial or non-trivial, however there is no deadline with regard to any of this. I haven't had the opportunity to collect and synthesize references I glanced at the other night as it is exam week and it's been piled up to "here" if you know what I mean. :) LaMenta3 (talk) 05:41, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I've added a few references which verify his professional career. They're mostly trivial mentions, but in searching, there really aren't many articles that are really entirely about any MMA professional. Even the ones mentioned in headlines don't really receive more than passing mention in the article itself. Odd, really. LaMenta3 (talk) 06:22, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above reasons. violet/riga(t) 21:46, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Coredesat 05:54, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Advert of a nonnotable nude model with slight news splash (among google hits many are just reprints). Self-promo/ WP:COI suspected. `'Míkka>t 01:50, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The sources are trivial and are insufficient to establish the model's notability. --Blanchardb-MeMyEarsMyMouth-timed 03:16, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 where it was cut out from. `'Míkka>t 07:29, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Does Merge make sense here? Who is going to search on this term? The capitalization is even wrong. / edg☺☭ 02:01, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can't see why one won't search by this term. Moreover, the info can still be there even if one won't search by that term. In any case, there is no capitalization problem. It's something that can be fixed quickly and easily. --brewcrewer(yada, yada) 02:14, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Coredesat 05:55, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable fringe journal. It was created by Florentin Smarandache and is being run from his address after he was banned from arXiv and many scientific journals for his pseudoscience. See his page on the "INTERNATIONAL MAFIA IN SCIENCE" for reasons why he started it. It should not be confused with the respectable Reports on Progress in Physics Journal, which has been published since 1934. Charles T. Le (talk) 01:41, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please indicate whether you are this Charles T. Le, who was involved professionally with Florentin Smarandache. Why are you removing or advocating the removal of sourced information from the WP which only serves to confirm some of what you are claiming? Wouldn't there be a conflict of interest? (to be continued on the discussion page) Mathsci (talk) 12:43, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Article creation log notes that it was created "per AfC by User:Rabounski" This supports something of a vanity article. LonelyBeacon (talk) 02:16, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Probably true with regard to the initial version, but it appears that several experienced editors have worked on it since to make the article conform to WP:NPOV. Regards, High on a tree (talk) 02:51, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Changing my vote to Dabify or Weak Keep per Mathsci's findings although I hope he'll put refs in the article. I peeked through both Timb66 and the noms' contribs. I think Timb66 can be trusted as someone who knows what he's doing and the nom might have a possible COI.--Lenticel(talk) 23:52, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as User:Lenticel but it would probably have to be protected. --Bduke (talk) 07:31, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I am now convinced by Timb66 below. --Bduke (talk) 00:33, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or replace by a disambiguation page briefly describing the mainstream journal Reports on Progress in Physics, with a wikilink, and this "alternative journal" in one short sentence, with no wikilinked article. WP is not about censorship and User:Charles T. Le has only just started editing with this account. The article made it quite clear that the journal was devoted to pseudoscience. Mathsci (talk) 08:54, 13 December 2007 (UTC) Refactored: like Timb66, I also helped a little in making this article accurate and that could be helpful. Mathsci (talk) 11:49, 13 December 2007 (UTC) In addition User:Charles T. Le seems to share the same name as a former collaborator of Florentin Smarandache, one of the editors of this journal, see [34]. WP:COI perhaps? Mathsci (talk) 12:20, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retain I am a practising physicist (and not one who would ever publish in this journal, which is clearly on the fringe). I helped edit the article and am happy that it no longer reflects the bias of those associated with the journal. It is useful to have, since physicists (and others) will occasionally stumble across articles from PiP and will want to know about it. Timb66 (talk) 10:11, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Timb66. We should listen to people in the field more often. Also, article should include a disambiguation header much like Mathsci proposed, due to the similarity of name to Reports on Progress in Physics. --Arcanios (talk) 13:25, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment—I'm having trouble supporting keeping this page because of the lack of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Most of the ghits come from the "Reports on Progress in Physics". There are a few mentions in blogs, but those don't seem to meet the criteria.—RJH (talk) 16:44, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
27 different articles are cited in Mathematical Reviews, the official reviewing body of the American Mathematical Society, where the journal has been recognized. The journal even has a page there (normally only accessible through a university account). This does not guarantee the quality of articles (often highly questionable), but is one of a very few acceptable academic criteria for recognition (internet gossip or hot air are not reliable sources). Mathsci (talk) 17:16, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
MR1443297 Charles T. Le, The most paradoxist mathematician of the world "Florentin Smarandache". Bull. Pure Appl. Sci. Sect. E Math. Stat. 15 (1996), 81-96. From the summary: "Florentin Smarandache (b. 1954), a Romanian mathematician and poet, exiled in the USA, used his talents in wrong directions: poetical skills in mathematics and mathematical skills in poetry."
Charles T. Le, The most paradoxist mathematician of the world "Florentin Smarandache", History of Science Press, Los Angeles, 1995, 54 pages, ISBN1-829585-52-9 Parameter error in {{ISBN}}: checksum (vanity publication). Review on jstor by Tony Gardiner from Mathematical Gazette: "The rest of this pamphlet is devoted to a tasteless and unstructured advertisement of this 40 year old's uninspiring life, ..."
MR2052875 Florentin Smarandache, A unifying field in logics: neutrosophic logic, neutrosophy, neutrosophic set, neutrosophic probability. Third edition. With a preface by Charles T. Le. American Research Press, Rehoboth, NM, 2003. 143 pp. ISBN1-879585-76-6
Listen to the experts and keep. In this field, having been listed/reviewed in Mathematical Reviews and (according to the journal's home page) in Zentralblatt MATH and Referativny Zhurnal is certainly evidence of notability. Question about possible hidden motives of the nominator aside, one might share the doubts which he expressed above about the scientific quality of the journal, but personal judgements like these are not a reason for deletion. Actually, I think that the (afaik) unique stance which the journal takes against the established mechanism of quality control in the scientific community also makes it interesting and notable in itself. Regards, High on a tree (talk) 02:51, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the nature of the publication is clear & its notable enough. (I note that Math Rev reviews everything published bearing on mathematics, so that alone is no guarantee of quality, merely for it being a scientific journal in mathematics. )DGG (talk) 11:45, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as notable fringe journal. Spacepotato (talk) 00:14, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I can't comment on whether or not the journal publishes pseudoscience, as I'm in a different field, but my sense is that the potential danger represented by possible pseudoscience confers notability on the topic. The article doesn't seem to get at the issues involved, but this can be remedied. In psychology, a journal called Psychological Reports is considered a cash-for-publication venue. This journal might be a non-notable topic if no one had an opinion on it, but I think its disrepute in the field confers notability. The same could be said of Progress in Physics. Valerius (talk) 05:37, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Coredesat 05:56, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
lacks sufficient notability as a non-professional role player. NCAA players who are non-professionals should at least have received accolades (be All-Conference, a statistical leader, etc.). If a Ted Skuchas gets a page than anyone who has ever played NCAA Div. 1 ball would be entitled to one, and that would be a LOT of pages Mayumashu (talk) 01:39, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:BIO; athlete has not reached a fully professional level, and is not competing in the highest amateur ranks. LonelyBeacon (talk) 02:22, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails the atlete criteria listed under WP:BIO - Dumelow (talk) 12:37, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIO (not the primary subject of any secondary sources). He averages 3 points a game. I mean...I'm a Vandy fan, Ted is a popular player...but seriously...although I would question LonelyBeacon's assertion that playing for a top 20 team is not the highest amateur rank...Nevertheless...Ted hasn't been the subject of any sources that I have found and therefore does not meet WP:BIO for amateur athletes. --SmashvilleBONK! 15:58, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, NCAA Div. 1 is the top amateur league for sport, (for age-group,) isn t it. it s his poor stats, lack of accolades that is the problem. (WP:BIO for sportspeople needs to go farther and stat something about this, tough but not impossible to do) Mayumashu (talk) 17:42, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Fram (talk) 15:53, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. jj137♠Talk 01:40, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article fails CORP. Daniel5127 02:13, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The only sources I could find (aside from its own website) are tour books which are either opinions or recapitulations of the website. LonelyBeacon (talk) 02:29, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Most, if not all, of the articles consist of restaurant reviews. A restaurant that has a lot of reviews isn't automatically notable. The article has yet to establish why the restaurant is notable. --brewcrewer(yada, yada) 05:03, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, for starters, it's old. Open since 1917, I believe. I have full access to the NYT piece, which actually offers some history. I'll see what I can do to expand the article. Zagalejo^^^ 06:32, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a few sources. I might add some more stuff if I'm feeling ambitious. The place isn't just a restuarant; it has a hotel, cottages, fishing, etc. It seems like a major tourist attraction. Zagalejo^^^ 08:07, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to section of Dillard, Georgia, Notability on its own seems rather murky. --Storkk (talk) 15:05, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Dillard House is a widely-known and heavily-visited restaurant. When you go into the lobby, the walls are coated in framed news stories about the restaurant from major national magazines and newspapers. It has hosted governors, presidents, foreign dignitaries, and celebrities. It was the preferred hang-out of Loni Anderson and Burt Reynolds in their heyday. It is the most important landmark in Dillard, and the most famous business in all of Rabun County. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wuapinmon (talk • contribs) 17:43, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It is listed on the National Registry of Historic Places. Why shouldn't ever location on that registry, for which a contributor has tracked down verifiable, authoritative sources, merit coverage here? Geo Swan (talk) 02:56, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's actually listed yet; the source just says that it has been nominated for inclusion. Nevertheless, the place still has a lot of history, and should pass WP:N based on the newspaper articles (which go beyond mere reviews). Zagalejo^^^ 04:45, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from nom: after reviewing the rewritten version of the article, I feel that the notability of this restaurant has been established. AecisBrievenbus 12:53, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per info provided by Zagalejo.--Aldux (talk) 14:30, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Singularity 19:37, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as NN per all. Johnbod (talk) 13:12, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable Clubmarx (talk) 17:54, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Singularity 19:29, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(This page is unrelated to the previous deletion). It kind of looks like he's notable, but I can't find anything that qualifies under reliable sources. He's written books, but they're published by small presses. He's written articles, but they're published on small websites. I removed the prod myself and gave the author feedback, but I'm not seeing the beef yet. Richfife (talk) 01:26, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the work he's done is really noteworthy. I don't know what you mean by "small" publishers, he has been published by university press and that is certainly credible. It's not self-publishing or anything. Also, I don't see why large press has to be better. Fox network is large but hardly creditable compared to other sources like (CNN or BBC). Also, give it time, the article may yet still improve. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.69.108.200 (talk)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Singularity 19:23, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if not completely rewritten. No citations WP:V, consists of little more than quotations and most likely spam. Billscottbob (talk) 04:44, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. Cirt (talk) 04:57, 13 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete per nom. Adspam. Love the description of Goliath, though. PKT (talk) 15:16, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced article; should be deleted or rewritten completely. It reads like an ad. — Wenli(reply here) 04:29, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Extensive sourcing belies any argument for deletion. Xoloz (talk) 14:12, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not totally sure, but seems suspiciously like nonsense. I80and (talk) 01:16, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is not nonsense. It is a huge research project we had to do for our English class that we worked hours on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Burstoforange (talk • contribs) 01:21, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unsure, leaning toward keep. There are some sources that I could check on the internet, and those were O.K. We need an expert, I'll try the reference desk to see if someone knows there. Malinaccier (talk) 01:29, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the links provided by that diff reference general pyromania, not child pyromania as a separate topic...this seems more like justification to merge. -Verdatum (talk) 23:05, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with and redirect to Pyromaniac and incorporate distinct content. While I was initially unsure about this article, it just doesn't seem worthy of a separate article. Tuvok[T@lk/Improve me] 01:30, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If it has its own listing in the DSM then I think it should have its own article—it means that it is a sufficiently important categorical distinction (with its own diagnostic criteria, most likely) from pyromania by itself for the American Psychiatric Association (and whether you agree with them or not doesn't matter too much for the purposes of notability). I don't think a bunch of random Wikipedians with no apparent knowledge of the subject (and I include myself in this) should be deciding what is or what isn't a useful analytical distinction in an expert subject. So somebody with access to a DSM should check and see if it considers it a separate issue from pyromania itself. Let's defer to the experts on this one, shall we? Anyone who is "unsure" probably doesn't have enough knowledge of the subject matter to really have a useful opinion here, and again I count myself in that category (hence I am not offering a vote). --24.147.86.187 (talk) 02:19, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Kudos to Burstoforange (talk·contribs) for providing citations right from the very start. They check out, and there are yet further sources to be had on the subject. This is a perfectly valid subject in its own right, with enough to write about it to warrant a separate article under the umbrella of pyromania. There are entire books related to it. I've no idea why this was thought to be nonsense. This is one of the easiest and most obvious keeps ever. I didn't have to do any research at all, just check the sources that came with the article. Would that more new editors wrote like this! Uncle G (talk) 02:24, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - This article looks like they took all the words and references from the Pyromania article and added "child" every now and then. All of this information is already covered in the Pyromania article, and should be deleted as pure duplication. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 02:35, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It would only look like that to someone who has merely skimmed the article and not read it properly. Read the article carefully, and look at the references. The references are different, and the focus of the article is different, too. It is also untrue that this duplicates the main article. There is quite a lot of content here, dealing specifically with children, that is not in the general article. Uncle G (talk) 02:53, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Actually, if you want to be technical, when I marked this page it had zero references and was a total mess, so it was not actually "from the start". However, I do agree that merging with Pyromaniac sounds like a good idea, if it is actually encyclopedic.--I80and (talk) 02:45, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No. It really was from the start. The references are right there in the wikitext of the very first version of the article. And of course it is encyclopaedic. Please actually look at the number and depths of sources that cover this particular subject. Finally: Being unwikified is a reason for you, a more experienced editor, to help a novice editor with wikification, not to nominate the article for deletion. Please read our Wikipedia:Deletion policy and User:Uncle G/Wikipedia triage. Uncle G (talk) 02:53, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Seems to be a sub article of pyromania, it is sourced and all but seems like something that could be summed up in a paragraph on Pyromania page. TostitosAreGross (talk) 02:47, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There really is much more than just 1 paragraph of extra content there. Uncle G (talk) 02:53, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's a real problem that happens in the world. I was going to make this a merge, but the section about the DSM is a pretty compelling reason to keep it. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, a standard psychiatric text, apparently has a separate diagnosis for child pyromania. That in and of itself should establish notability for the topic. Squidfryerchef (talk) 03:43, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Seems to be well sourced, and looks encyclopedic to me. The article really does seem to go into great depth, so I'm not sure about merging-—arf! 03:59, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Pyromania. DSM having it separate isn't a completely compelling reason for this article to be separate. Child versions of many mental illnesses seem to regularly be given separate sections, but they are usually kept in the main article. As the main Pyromania is not super huge, it could easily support this topic, particularly when this article is an uncategorized, orphan. No biased for having it later separated back out if the pyromania article later grows large to need sub articles. Also, is it just me or is this article using a LOT of material that appears to have been taken word from word from the Galen Encyclopedia referenced? I know many main stream encyclopedias are not copyrighted, but has anyone checked to make the uses here aren't WP:COPYVIO violations? AnmaFinotera (talk) 09:09, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You wrote on Talk:Child pyromaniac that you didn't know what article from the Galen Encyclopaedia was being referenced. How, then, if you haven't read the source article, do you know that the copy is word-for-word? Uncle G (talk) 13:58, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect large chunks are copy-pasted from somewhere, looking at the formatting, language, etc. Galen is my first suspect because its the one being listed as the source for the info. AnmaFinotera (talk) 17:46, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Pyromania, which is way too short for such a notable topic. Laypeople aren't going to distinguish between the two types. AnteaterZot (talk) 11:37, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That laypeople may not understand the distinction is irrelevant. Finding out that there is such a disctinction in the field is one of the things that an encyclopaedia can tell them. What's relevant is whether sources make the distinction. As noted already, there are entire books that concentrate upon this specific subject. Uncle G (talk) 13:58, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article is obviously not nonsense and no other reason for deletion is provided. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:23, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Pyromania, as a distinct section within that article. -- The Anome (talk) 13:23, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: different to (and a longer article than) pyromania. The two articles should be better cross-linked, but deserve to be separate. Suggest a change of title to Child pyromania however in common with other illness/disorder articles. And a good shakeup of the table format. Kim Dent-Brown(Talk) 14:03, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Looks like a good article on a worthy topic with several good referneces. --RucasHost (talk) 14:27, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to pyromania. Lots of potentially redundant information with the other article. After cleanup doesn't appear sufficient for a size fork. -Verdatum (talk) 23:05, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: The article repeats a lot of what the pyromania article states. The pyromania article also mentions child pyromania indirectly, mentioning that pyromania could occur at the age of three. This article could be put into a subsection of Pyromania and extend upon that mention of child pyromania. AlcheMister (talk) 23:13, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it does seem to be a notable subject by itself; the books listed as refs. seem to be self-published, & I wonder if they were actually examined; the other sources are OK.. DGG (talk) 03:32, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notable. I teach about this in Criminal law all the time. Bearian (talk) 02:29, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Secretaccount 22:27, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unsourced, non-notable WP:OR. Cirt (talk) 00:54, 13 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. Independent reliable sources: Democrat and Chronicle, 10 December2007; October 2006 issue of Railroad Model Craftsman. That's two, which is the usual criterion. PowersT 00:57, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The first is just a passing mention, and what can you gather from that article which can be used to write an article from? I have no idea what the second one says. Corvus cornixtalk 00:19, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Much of the article can be written from primary sources; the independent sources are mainly to establish notability. While I admit they're borderline, I tend to err on the side of inclusion. Obviously, you might disagree. PowersT 01:05, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Another article which discusses the founding and stated purpose of the club: [35]. PowersT 03:12, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The reference article is not about the club, but about a single event sponsored by the club. WP:N, I am pretty sure, states that single events like this do not establish notability, even if they are covered in a legitimate secondary source. LonelyBeacon (talk) 02:41, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd appreciate it if you could find that statement, rather than assume it exists. What I found at WP:N is that sources need not cover the topic exclusively; while the article's genesis is in covering the event, it does discuss the club, including noting its co-founder and date of founding. PowersT 03:10, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I misquoted policy, as that applies to the notability of people. On the other hand, notability is also governed by: Significant coverage" <sic> sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive While this single article does not involve original research, I think it does not address the club in detail. My belief is without more objective evidence to establish notability, notability has not been established. As per Boblenon's comment below, the shows seem to have a greater case for notability than the club, since the shows are the subject of the article. LonelyBeacon (talk) 04:06, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But yet the coverage is "more than trivial", surely? The main focus may be the show, as it was at the time a current event, but it does discuss the founding. Another article I linked above discusses the club's stated purpose. I can understand if you don't think that's sufficient, but I think it's arguable. PowersT 13:44, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I am the author of this article and am currently the Advisor for the club [37]. I can attest to the information I put into the article, however, it not easily referenced from a multitude of sources - other than the people who where there. I realize there is also an article specific to our Model RR presenting it as a real railroad - this has been around for some time, and could be integrated with the article I wrote today as it is confusing as it currently stands. Aside from the RMC article referenced above, we have had some press about our shows. The Reporter, RIT's student run magazine, has reported on us several times over the years as well. There will be an article appearing shortly on [OPSIG] which is a special interest publication for Model Railroaders specific to Operations. On the other side, what makes the WITR (FM) article any more notable? I can easily list various facts about the model railroad as it stands. Boblenon (talk) 03:58, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It seems as though perhaps I best spend some time revising the article I wrote - I honestly did not think that it would get flagged so quickly - I will work on revising it more in the next day. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Boblenon (talk • contribs) 04:55, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteWeak Delete per Crit, unless notability can truly be established. The fact that RIT's student magazine has reported on a student organization is not surprising, and does not (IMHO) establish notability. Whether OPSIG meets WP:RS is (also, IMHO) doubtful. --Storkk (talk) 15:11, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What about the other independent, reliable sources I mentioned above? PowersT 16:05, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
True, I was responding to the author's cited links. However, the two ones you gave are, being generous, marginally indicative of notability. I changed to "weak delete", and it won't be the end of the world if it's kept... I don't think this is a "keep" yet, though. --Storkk (talk) 13:39, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, none of the independent, reliable sources has this club as its main focus. That's the main reason I haven't substantially changed my mind on the delete/keep question. --Storkk (talk) 13:43, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Dispatcher's Office is the quarterly journal of the Operations Special Interest Group (OPSIG) of the National Model Railroad Association. It is an independent academic journal that discusses railroad operating procedures, and how they are modeled and adapted to model railroad systems. RITMRC was featured in Vol. XIV, No. 1 (January 2008). Model railroading is a very old, established hobby that has many independent journals and commerical magazines associated with it. Not all are citable sources that may be recognized like the New York Times, but they are highly identifiable, credible sources within our hobby community. Either way, no harm is intended and I am learning something about the authoring process. Comment added by omv, 13 December 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.199.98.150 (talk) 02:29, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A single write up in a hobbyist publication is not sufficient notability. The only other individual college model RR club listed is MIT's Tech Model Railroad Club, which is in fact notable for its very early use of digital technology (not surprisingly--since the members were the AI Lab people). DGG (talk) 03:40, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You forgot about the newspaper and magazine articles. PowersT 15:54, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I would encourage commenters to take another look at the article; it seems some improvements have been made. PowersT 15:59, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, with recreational diving. It is clear that whilst WP:NOT#TRAVEL is not completely applicable to the content of this discussion's subject, rough consensus shows that concerns regarding this policy are present. Merging with an encyclopedic entry will satisfy these concerns, yet allow the article's legitimate content to continue to be available to our readers.
In addition, the "Merge" outcome provides the largest extent of satisfaction to the varying angles of rough consensus expressed available, in that it allows a logical midpoint between "WP:NOT#TRAVEL is not applicable" comments and "WP:NOT#TRAVEL is applicable". Anthøny 21:21, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, agree with LtPowers (talk·contribs), there seem to be some bits that could be merged, though the article itself could then be deleted with a redirect instead. Cirt (talk) 00:56, 13 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
An article on Paris should mention landmarks such as the Eiffel Tower and the Louvre, but not the telephone number or street address of your favorite hotel or the price of a café au lait on the Champs-Élysées. Wikipedia is not a place to re-create content more suited to entries in hotel guides, culinary guides, popular eating guides, gazeteers, travelogues, and the like. Notable locations may meet inclusion criteria, but Wikipedia does not list every tourist attraction, restaurant, hotel, venue, etc. Such details may be welcome at Wikitravel, however.
The article doesn't go into any detail about specific sites, it isn't trying to sell anything, it's a legit article. --brewcrewer(yada, yada) 01:52, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, it actually does. See the second to last sentence: "Wikipedia does not list every tourist attraction". Therefore I agree that this list needs to go. Punkmorten (talk) 08:32, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a fine article which discusses the general properties of good diving locations and then provides some general geographical links and details. It is not a directory/guide. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:34, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to Recreational diving, which could use expansion with this sort of content. The title "Diving locations" isn't particularly good, and while the content is useful it doesn't need to exist as a separate article. PKT (talk) 15:13, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - good concept, notable, but the cruft has to go. Retitle? Merge? Bearian (talk) 02:39, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Redirected. I will leave it to someone with more knowledge to expand that section of the main article, as there does not appear to be much verifiable here. BLACKKITE 01:05, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I declined the speedy on this article, but I sympathize with the person who nominated it. There are musicians listed, but all of them are redlinked, and I didn't come up with many useful sources I could use to verify the notability of Caledonian hip hop. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 00:40, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence that Caledonian hip hop is significantly different from American and French styles. PowersT 00:51, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article text is a whole two sentences, with zero sources used. Cirt (talk) 00:52, 13 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. I found this topic after it was tagged for copy-editing and immediately noticed that it was pretty much totally lifted from the French page on the topic (the French wiki entry is a whopping 3 sentences long -- French article and the 2 artists with blue links have articles about 1 sentence in length. I really couldn't find any info about this topic whatsoever. Lazulilasher (talk) 01:21, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Brewcrewer. Perfect opportunity to expand an article. J-ſtanTalkContribs 02:56, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. Bearian (talk) 01:08, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete. There may be reason for an article at this title, but this article fails to demonstrate that case. There are no reliable sources here, and concerns that the article is presently a link-farm seem well-founded. Strength of argument supports deletion of this version, without prejudice against any future reliably sourced rewrite, as usual. Xoloz (talk) 14:19, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of external links. Corvus cornixtalk 00:26, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Ahhhhh, I am all for nostalgia, being of that age,. However, delete, non-notable. . Shoessss | Chat 00:31, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Rail transport modelling. Normally I'd say this is something that could be sufficiently covered by a category, but I think the founding dates are relevant. That said, it doesn't appear to be a topic with sufficient independent notability to need its own article. PowersT 00:33, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the external links? That's still not acceptable. Corvus cornixtalk 00:38, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There's more than external links there. PowersT 00:39, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merger does not solve the problem that this is basically nothing but a directory of external links. Corvus cornixtalk 00:47, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But it's not; it's a list of collegiate model railroad clubs, with dates of founding. The links don't have to be there. PowersT 00:49, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, my point is that the basic list of collegiate clubs and their founding dates would be a suitable addition to the Rail transport modelling article; the presence or absence of external links is immaterial. PowersT 01:01, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per the nom and lack of sourcing. Cirt (talk) 00:51, 13 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Merge - I am the author of this. I think the list is notable, but perhaps better placed under the [Rail transport modeling] article. The sources of the information come from the links to the respective clubs. Omitted were not stated on their websites (except the North Seattle Community College, whose website is on blogspot, and wiki would not let it stand linked). Boblenon (talk) 14:49, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lonelybeacon. There have been a number of AfDs on individual Railroad clubs, apart from TMRC the notability of any of them individually is doubtful. We have an article on railroad modelling, why does an agglomeration of links to non-notable clubs constitute a salvageable article? --Storkk (talk) 15:15, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This was, historically, a very important movement. Needs cites. Bearian (talk) 18:52, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is appropriate coverage--not articles for the individual clubs. The individual contents of a list doesnt have to be notable independently--lists are suitable for the very purpose when the items arent. DGG (talk) 03:42, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you, but is it necessary to have the list in its own article? PowersT 12:11, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete linkfarm, of questionable encyclopedic value. AnteaterZot (talk) 01:19, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 17:33, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There really doesn't look to be enough notability for this article (apparently written by the subject) to pass WP:BIO here. It appears to boil down to "was on TV and radio a few times". I stand to be corrected, though. BLACKKITE 00:06, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Whew, tough one. She appears marginally notable, although I'd like to know more about that Jeopardy! question. I'd recomment "keep" except I hate to reward such blatant self-promotion. I'll leave a note about WP:AUTO on the author's talk page, but other than that I'm going to have to say Neutral. PowersT 00:21, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Changing to Keep per Zagalejo. PowersT 03:14, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Sorry to say could not find any information on the “Female” Marty Davis. However, someone should thing about doing an article on the “Male” Marty Davis. Shoessss | Chat 00:24, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Based on the new information. Shoessss | Chat 15:21, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unless reliable sources can be provided that she's well known. I've been around for a long time, and I sure don't remember this famous leotard photo, and I can find nothing about it online, not even a copy of the image at images.google.com. Otherwise, she's just a self-promoting blogger. Corvus cornixtalk 00:30, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete based on lack of refs to this particular person; only hits through 3 pages in google cite others by this name (searching under Marty Davis, Martha Davis, and Martha Cole)...if references were locatable, this may be salvageable (if you've got enough notariety to be a Jeopardy question, then you may be something worth writing about, but good luck finding anything on that). Aeternitas827 (talk) 00:39, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawing delete, based on references found, just might need a little cleanup now.Aeternitas827 (talk) 10:51, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Here's a reference for the leotard and Jeopardy! bits: [38] It's from the July 1986 issue of Folio Magazine and was written by Robert Nylen, the co-founder of the New England Monthly, to which the leotard photograph in question was sent. Davis's blog, Chickaboomer, appears to get a fair amount of "ink" in the blogosphere, and she definitely seems to have a professional connection with the Larry King radio show. She doesn't appear to have an entry in IMDb, but they don't cover radio appearances. PowersT 00:48, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Does that article explicitly mention Jeopardy? I looked, but I might have missed it. Zagalejo^^^ 10:13, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, you're right; I misremembered in the few minutes it took me to review the identity of Nylen. PowersT 13:31, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per above, and the fact that notability is not established within sourcing of the article. Cirt (talk) 00:51, 13 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Keep Seems like she actually was pretty well-known in the 1980s. See first two headlines here. Zagalejo^^^ 02:25, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I threw in some stuff I found on Lexis. She was still being mentioned in the mid-1990s, so I think it's safe to say she was a household name at one point. Zagalejo^^^ 09:59, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Zagalejo. Thanks for doing the research, mate. Also comment: "I don't know her/it" is not a valid argument, the world's too big a place for that. --Arcanios (talk) 13:22, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say that. Please reread what I wrote. Corvus cornixtalk 18:11, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep thanks to Zagalejo --Storkk (talk) 15:17, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Zagalejo. The subject does not seem to be an extremely notable person, but she does appear to be notable enough to qualify under WP:BIO. --Metropolitan90(talk) 05:10, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (but I'll add some sourcing tags). — Scientizzle 21:18, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but add a {primarysources} tag. There's no proof of notability from 3rd-party sources, but given the scope of the event in major Australian cities, and its existence for five years, I think it's notable. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 15:14, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Coredesat 05:57, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Does this person demonstrate sufficient notability? Avi (talk) 17:06, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is one of the more notable pseudoscience medical quacks out there, or at least he was for a while. His star seems to have faded a bit recently. The article does need cleanup and better sources though. Rray (talk) 18:54, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article may stop someone from putting too much faith in D'Adamo's ideas. MBHiii (talk) 19:10, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per statements above. The blood type diet was popular in the media for a while (celebrity endorsements that kind of thing). Perhaps no less notable than the Zone diet. If the article is not kept, maybe a merge?--Starrycupz (talk) 22:44, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
