Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 September 18
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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: WP:CSD#G1. Page deleted by User:Can't sleep, clown will eat me. Non-admin closure. Mtmelendez (Talk|UB|Home) 15:56, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Guitar Hero Masters of Metal[edit]
- Guitar Hero Masters of Metal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Failed prod. Unverified game with no substantial Google hits; likely a hoax. Nufy8 00:00, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete in terms of the actual speculation I could find on the internet (which would still violate WP:CRYSTAL), it looks like this isn't even the rumor... Aerosmith is. So either 'unsourced' speculation or WP:HOAX. ~Eliz81(C) 01:01, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No reliable sources cited. This name is unlikely, as the name would be too similar to the recent PS2 game Monster 4x4: Masters of Metal. Caknuck 01:03, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Hoax. Maxamegalon2000 05:34, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Epic Super 4x Strong Star Power Activated 8x Delete. This is totally a hoax. ViperSnake151 00:34, 21 September 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. WaltonOne 14:29, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Passion Conferences[edit]
- Passion Conferences (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Non-notable ministry. No reliable sources. Corvus cornix 23:42, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. No reliable sources cited (the SBC Baptist Press can't be qualified as independent in this case). Even if this is kept, the articles about the conference recordings (Passion: Better is One Day, etc...) certainly fail any and all notability tests. Caknuck 01:06, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep these conferences look like pretty major events. Google news hits reference the event as having anywhere from 10,000 attendees in the Fort Worth Star-Telegram to over 20,000 people in the Belleville News-Democrat, and is the subject of articles in the Washington Times, Atlanta Journal, and many other local newspapers. Article needs cleanup and these articles added as references. ~Eliz81(C) 01:10, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This looks likely to be notable to me based on the content of the article (10 conferences over 10 years) and the fact that I had heard of it before (not that me hearing about it makes it notable, just that I know it does exist and I think they're pretty large). However, I don't see any good sources in this article to assert the notability. I'll change to "Keep" if someone cleans up this article to add some. Cogswobbletalk 17:01, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep If editing will fix the article than it does not qualify for deletion, deletion is a permanent solution to a temporary problem. Ratherhaveaheart 17:59, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see anything that could fix this article to make it notable. That's why I nominated it. Please assume good faith. Corvus cornix 20:19, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Quite enough refs in Google News to be added to show notability--not just local papers: Washington Times [1], Atlanta Constitution [2] etc etc .
- Delete nn group. passing references are insufficient; significant coverage is required under WP:N unless we want to become a directory of every conceivable group or business which can find some passing references in reliable sources, then we're the YP (yellow pages) not WP. Carlossuarez46 22:36, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep As per Ratherhaveaheart, if it can be edited to fix it - it's not deletable. The conferences return many refs in google searches and they are big, very big. They have become internationally known (e.g. I'm from Australia and I know of them). If it helps, I'll find someone 'trustworthy' to quote. Richardschwarz.oz 06:56, 25 September 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 01:16, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Vopt[edit]
A defrag utility. All sources are either generic or listings. This has not been primary subject of any non-trivial independent coverage, as far as the sources tell. Guy (Help!) 23:00, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, a classic utility with nearly 25 years on the market. A favorite of Jerry Pournelle mentioned numerous times in his BYTE columns, but I'm not sure how much of BYTE is online. Has evolved from MS-DOS to Windows 95 to NTFS-based systems. 44 Google Books results is unusually high and collates many periodical reviews as well as professional books that recommend it for consultants or end-users. --Dhartung | Talk 23:33, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Not only have I used the software sporadically for the past few decades, but the article seems to establish and support notability. Alansohn 03:19, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep Several notable references are listed: 2 books, and a review. In the review "Defragment Your Hard Drive" in PC Today February 2004, Vol.2 Issue 2 Page(s) 78-80
Golden Bow Systems VoptXP
RATINGS: Interface: 8, General usability: 8, Feature set:10, Documentation: 8, OVERALL: 9
VoptXP is the fastest defragmenter of the lot, probably because it defragments when there is absolutely no other activity. Still, for most people it is more than adequate, and much, much faster than Disk Defragmenter. Its $40 price tag makes it a decent value when you consider that it also includes an array of diagnostics and maintenance utilities. With VoptXP, you can automatically remove cookies, Inter-net history files, and temporary files; test your memory usage; and even perform error checking.
- Then there is the Jerry Pournelle quote:
Chaos Manor Users Choice Awards: "For about the twentieth year in a row the Chaos Manor Users Choice Award for disk defragmenter goes to Golden Bow's VOPT."
- Surely it isn't necessary to list all 20 of Jerry's articles, many of which appeared in print in Byte magazine? Then there are the references to Vopt in the well-respected "Security Now" podcasts. If both Steve Gibson and Jerry Pournelle have referred to this product, then it is notable. RitaSkeeter 06:24, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I feel that Guy misrepresented the sources as well. I will WP:AGF in that it is common for spammy articles to "source" generic statements to major books, but in this case, I think it's clear that the books actually dealt with the product. If not, we can easily replace them with sources accessible through Google Books or A9. --Dhartung | Talk 06:49, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well why not put the Jerry Pournelle stuff in? It distinguishes the product form others and makes it an article instead of a directory entry. Plus I'm a Pournelle fan (though only in treeware). Guy (Help!) 17:25, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If you want to put the Pournelle stuff in, then put it in. What's stopping you? RitaSkeeter 20:45, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Why am I not surprised? The sources listed seem the most relevant, yet the WP admins feel it is their perogative to shoot the article down in flames, and wait for others to pick up the pieces. The same thing happened with JkDefrag (only worse) and I expect the same to happen with O&O Defrag and PerfectDisk. I wonder what they hope to achieve by this, apart from a smug feeling of improving WP by deleting content? --Donn Edwards 13:33, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Another fundamental issue is that Wikipedia:Deletion Policy -- Wikipedia official policy that requires "Pages that can be improved should be edited or tagged, not nominated for deletion" -- seems not to have been followed here. The policy, which seems to have been completely ignored here, requires nominators to consider alternatives to deletion -- such as editing, tagging or merging the article -- before considering deletion as a last resort. Given that the article as it existed when nominated for deletion made explicit claims of notability and provided ample sources, there seems to be little justification for this clear policy violation. At a minimum, an explanation of the nominator's actions would be in order. Alansohn 14:41, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The article has been here for a while and still contains not one source which is primarily about this product. Wikipedia is not supposed to be a directory, article subjects should have been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial independent coverage. The debate above asserts that it has, but that information is not in the article. "ZOMG! Notable" is all very well, but the article reads as an entry in a directory of defragmentation utilities, drawn form a number of reviews of defragmentation utilities, and that is not what an encyclopaedia does. I am quite prepared to believe that it is significant, but it doesn't look it from the article. And I am a heartless deletionist bastard who dislikes directory entries on commercial products, because I've been abused by too many spammers. Guy (Help!) 17:23, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- While I appreciate your candor in explaining why it is that you take out your misplaced anger at perfectly viable articles such as this one, the article provides the claims of notability and sourcing you keep on stating don't exist, and were there when you marked the article for deletion. There seems to be little support for your contention that the sources provided don't just retention. Your responsibilities in nominating any article for deletion are well-described at Wikipedia:Deletion Policy, and your acknowledgement that this article could meet your own personal standards places you squarely under this policy's requirement that "Pages that can be improved should be edited or tagged, not nominated for deletion.", yet I seem to be unable to find any evidence of any such effort, which further undermines the validity of this and other such AfDs improperly submitted. Alansohn 19:13, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- "I've been abused by too many spammers" is simply nonsense. If you are assuming that the article was written to spam WP, then you are violating the primary WP:AGF assumption. RitaSkeeter 20:55, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Alansohn, it seems like you're overlooking an obvious way around the apparent requirement to edit or tag before AfD. If the nominator feels that the page can not be improved, there are no other obligations. On the diff you supplied above, only references 3 and 6 were actually about disk defraggers, but reference 6 didn't even mention Vopt. None of the references mention Vopt in the first 3 paragraphs. If that's the best that can be found to establish notability, I can see why someone would call this article beyond improvement and immediately go for AfD. --JJLatWiki 23:31, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep - but change the tone and style, to address JzG's concerns. This is not a collection of software reviews; and I'd certainly say the same thing about similarly non-encyclopedic entries on the other utilities Donn mentions! --Orange Mike 18:36, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see any edits by Orangemike so I assume we are all waiting for someone else to do it. RitaSkeeter 20:55, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keepor Merge - I agree with JzG that in the world, this product is not notable. But in the smaller world of defragmentation utilities, it's extremely rare for there to be an article about a specific defrag utility. At most, I would expect shoot-out-type articles. Does that satisfy notability? I would say, "maybe". If there is a preponderance such favorable comparisons and minor awards, then I would say, "yes". Recently, in PC Mag or some other printed magazine I get, there was a short article about a single anti-virus program that I had never heard of, and I think the author hadn't either, that the author just hated. I would prefer a WP article about a long-lived, well-reviewed utility that never held title billing, over a WP article about a recently release, once-reviewed and panned utility that has a single article but holds title billing. That being said, assuming the article on defragmentation is now too large, maybe there should be an article titled Disk defragmentation utilities, and merge in a short paragraph about each of the notable such utilities. --JJLatWiki 18:41, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- "But in the smaller world of defragmentation utilities, it's extremely rare for there to be an article about a specific defrag utility." I'm sorry but there are already articles about Contig, PageDefrag, WDD and Diskeeper. Why not just nuke them all? RitaSkeeter 20:55, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There is such a list of utilities, but it was deleted from the defragmentation article and can be found on Mr Edwards' talk page (oh dear, now some clever fellow has deleted it. Such is democracy, I guess RitaSkeeter 07:38, 20 September 2007 (UTC)). Alternatively, the category on Optimization software already exists. The reason why each article is listed separately is to provide the level of detail and sources required by the notability requirements. There are links to reviews if a review is reqiured, and WP is not the place to write software reviews. There is a similar debate raging about the JkDefrag article, and I wish the posters here would rather spend some time working on the articles instead of arguing about them. It's becoming a trifle tiresome. --RitaSkeeter 20:41, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not proposing a list of such utilities. I propose an article about such utilities with a handful of the most notable examples. Hopefully there would be some technical differences in how each utility actually works or how their algorythms differ. I'm also not proposing reviews or how well each program has done in the reviews. Maybe some use a Microsoft provided API while others use their own technique, and maybe others run only from a DOS or non-Windows OS. Maybe some use some active technique for preventing fragmentation. If they all use the same Windows API, who really cares if one is faster than the other? Even if it is today, was it also faster 5 years ago and will it be faster 5 years from now? By the way, this is the first I've been involved in this family of articles and I simply offering my opinion on the AfD. I don't care enough to do much more than that. --JJLatWiki 21:16, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Opinions are a dime a dozen. How about some editing work? --Donn Edwards 07:09, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I have added further referencs to verify the "fast" claim:
- "Disk Organizer "Vopt Is something of a miracle. It performs Its disk reorganization chores In seconds, Instead of the minutes and even hours ..." in Personal Computing Magazine v.11 no.7-9 1987.
- "VoptXP is the fastest defragmenter of the lot, probably because ..." in PC Today Software Reviews February 2004.
- "Vopt 8.20 is a fast and easy to use defragmenter ..." in CHIP magazine, 2007
- Hope this helps! --Donn Edwards 07:53, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not proposing a list of such utilities. I propose an article about such utilities with a handful of the most notable examples. Hopefully there would be some technical differences in how each utility actually works or how their algorythms differ. I'm also not proposing reviews or how well each program has done in the reviews. Maybe some use a Microsoft provided API while others use their own technique, and maybe others run only from a DOS or non-Windows OS. Maybe some use some active technique for preventing fragmentation. If they all use the same Windows API, who really cares if one is faster than the other? Even if it is today, was it also faster 5 years ago and will it be faster 5 years from now? By the way, this is the first I've been involved in this family of articles and I simply offering my opinion on the AfD. I don't care enough to do much more than that. --JJLatWiki 21:16, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- What I was saying is that "fast" isn't special and a claim that is probably made for every competing program. Even with numerous references saying it's fast, the most that should be said in an encyclopedia is, "Vopt is often described as, "fast"." Are any of the sources about Vopt? Or are all the sources about defragging in general or optimizing a computer in general and Vopt is a well-regarded option for handling the task? Basically all that these references do is prove that Vopt exists, Vopt is a defragger, some reviewers like or prefer Vopt, in reviews it is often fast or even fastest relative to some other defraggers, and it has recieved awards of unknown significance. For some people that may not satisfy the notability standard that says, "sources address the subject directly in detail". --JJLatWiki 16:06, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yawn: there are so many opinions, so few edits. Is it really necessary to spend all this time arguing when the article is actually quite useful? --Donn Edwards 07:55, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- comment - Yes, it is; "useful" is not a valid reason for retaining an article. --Orange Mike 16:41, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- What is the actual problem?
- Is the article too short and generic?
- Is there a conflict of interest?
- Is the "notability" of the product still in question?
- Are the sources unaccepable?
- I am finding this entire debate vague and unhelpful in resolving the CONTENT of the article. Is it possible for you gentlemen to restrict your comments to the article in question, and what possible edits could be made to improve it? Thanks in advance RitaSkeeter 20:17, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think anyone has corrected the original issue that landing this in AfD: notability. Still the only sources cited do NOT address the subject of the article directly or in detail. And based on that, I have changed my recommendation by striking the "keep" and now suggest only merging with a less specific article. But I doubt the AfD will succeed at this point. So this may be for naught. --JJLatWiki 21:38, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Insn't it just great when no-one can answer a simple question!? This article was marked for deleteion because someone thought it might be a spam attempt. It is a product that has been available for two decades, and comes highly recommended by people who understand computers, and which is mentioned in ALL the sources cited. Of course none of this matters because no-one actualy knows why the article should be deleted, but it should, purely because it can be deleted by the the folks who "care" so much about WP that they cannot follow the basic procedure: "This software-related article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it." Am I the only one who can read, but AfD does not expand the article or improve WP. --Donn Edwards 20:44, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The reason for the AfD nomination is spelled out at the top of this page as a basic failure to meet to the notability standard: "This has not been primary subject of any non-trivial independent coverage". That standard has still not been met. Being "mentioned in ALL the sources cited" does not quite make it all the way to meeting the standard of "sources address the subject directly in detail". "Addressing" the subject and "mentioning" the subject aren't quite the same thing. Asking other editors to expand the article with the stub tag also does not address the basic failure to establish notability. As this debate has progressed, the article has been expanded and turned into an even bigger advertisement with summaries of the various reviews and recommendations. There is still no substance that explains why Vopt, among its numerous competitors, is special. For example, the current article says, "[Vopt's] method of defragmentation is highly efficient", but never describes Vopt's method. Unless that "method" is to do an incomplete defragmentation which I infer from another sentence that says, "The convenience of quick procesing time is offset by less optimal performance". With some minor copyeditting, Vopt could easily take this article and use it for their advertising. Deleting this article would not harm WP and may bring more credibility to WP by removing another trivial article. --JJLatWiki 22:05, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Furthermore, I think you misspoke when you said, "is mentioned in ALL the sources cited". Or maybe my Find function isn't working on that page, but when I look at reference 9, I can't find where Vopt is mentioned. --JJLatWiki 22:13, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- "... If you are looking for even faster defragmentation, Golden Bow's (www.vopt.com) VoptXP (which also supports Windows 9x, Me, and 2000) is a longtime favorite because of its incredible speed and efficiency. ..." in Upgrading and Repairing Microsoft Windows Scott Mueller, Brian Knittel, page 512 --Donn Edwards 21:14, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- "Windows gives you two tools for maintaining your hard drive and helping its performance. ... Check Disk and Defrag aren't the best tools available for maintaining your hard drive. You can find better versions of these tools in third-party utilities ... another good alternative for the Defrag tool is Vopt ("Vee-Opt") from Golden Bow Systems ..." in Chapter 23 Troubleshooting Your PC For Dummies by Dan Gookin (2005) page 309-310 --Donn Edwards 21:25, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I use the VOPT program from Golden Bow Systems to rearrange the files on my fragmented disks." in Supercharging Windows by Judd Robbins, pg 625 - Sybex 1992 (ISBN ISBN 0895888629) --Donn Edwards 21:32, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteThe deletion reasons supplied are: "A defrag utility. All sources are either generic or listings. This has not been primary subject of any non-trivial independent coverage, as far as the sources tell". To go through these "reasons" one by one:
- a) "a defrag utility". Presumably software of this category is somehow unwelcome in the fine pages of WikiPedia.
- b) "all sources are ... generic": The extensive qiotes above are hardly generic, but refer to the product specifically and by name.
- c) "all sources are ... listings". If an article providing multiple reviews of several products in the same category constitues a "listing", then the articles are being deliberately misread.
- d) "not been the primary subject of any non-trivial independent coverage". Again, this is overly harsh and unneccesary: all the coverage listed is independent, and to describe it as trivial is a disservice to the discussion.
- This leaves the question of why the article should be "allowed" on WP at all: because Vopt is a long-standing product in this category (preceeding Windows itself by several years), with as much right to be covered as Diskeeper or the Windows Disk Defragmenter. In fact, the article provides more information about Vopt than either of the other articles provide about their respective products. Since the article is neither spam not an advertisement, what reasons remain for deleting it other than the obvious bias, ignorance and prejudice of those who want it deleted in the face of the facts stated in the article.
- "Pages that can be improved should be edited or tagged, not nominated for deletion". I suggest the admins withdraw the deletion, and allow the article to be improved, if the existing improvements aren't already good enough. 41.243.102.199 14:46, 22 September 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 per CSD G11. — Caknuck 01:10, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Paulette Dozier[edit]
- Paulette Dozier (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Fails notability as outlined in WP:BIO. Googling fails to turn up anything notable about the albums either. Is also a thinly veiled WP:ADVERT for the new album (if there is any doubt, see that it is copied nearly word-for-word from an ad: [3]), not to mention it appearing to be self-promotion with flowery descriptions. —Mrand T-C 22:58, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete, it's a copyvio from http://cdbaby.com/cd/paulettedozier2. A COI vioaltion, too. Corvus cornix 23:11, 18 September 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. Maxim(talk) 15:16, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Calvin Cheng[edit]
Non-notable bio. Article was originally prodded. Keb25 06:04, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. No news articles on GoogleNews. Scores 72 Ghits, most are directory entries, press releases, and a few others which are irrelevant. Although the sources in the article recognise he is the head of Elite Asia, are all trivial mentions or rentaquotes. Most of the details in the artcile appear therefore to be unverifiable. Ohconfucius 07:17, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Run-of-the-mill corporate figure appearing in 5 unique news articles in the google archives, of which 2 are subscription only and 1 doesn't work. --Mud4t 08:08, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Which of you here who have voted delete is a fashion and modelling industry expert/person in South East Asia?Aricialam 18:46, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Per nom.--KerotanLeave Me a Message Have a nice day :) 08:18, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I live and work in Asia as a fashion editor and this man is the President of the Modelling Industry of Singapore, was the Head of asia for the biggest agency in the world, sits on several boards in Singapore and was recognised by the Singapore government as 40 outstanding singaporeans under 40. He is a notable figure in Singapore and Malaysia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aricialam (talk • contribs) 09:58, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I am a model in Singapore and Malaysia and I can verify that this man is notable in his industry in this region. His company now manages Amber Chia , a supermodel that whose bio is also on Wikipedia, as will as other stars in south east asia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Meganchua (talk • contribs) 10:10, 13 September 2007 (UTC) — Meganchua (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Comment I have replaced Afd with BLPSources. There was really no reason to nominate this article for deletion, especially by a user that has shown no interest or experience with the fashion industry in Singapore and Malaysia. All points are verifiable through a phone call to relevant organisations mentioned in this article. User who nominated this article for prod did so in bad faith, not justifying it. Keb25 then went on to try on various other tags including NPOV, again without justification. Aricialam 20:20, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I admittedly know nothing about the Asian fashion industry. However, I see no independent verification of the puffery claims about this person being the "leading expert on fashion modeling in Asia." He's quoted once or twice in a few articles about Asian fashion. Getting quoted once in a while does not mean notability -- there are lots of company heads out there who are not notable enough for Wikipedia. Some of you may work in the industry and can "verify" his notability. Fine, feel free to do so by citing some better references. And inviting us to make "a phone call to relevant organisations[sic]" is not particularly helpful. Cap'n Walker 15:55, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Independent verification does not have to be other articles found on the internet. It is verified by the citations that he was the Head of Elite Model Management for Asia. It is verified and well-known that Elite is the most famous and largest model agency network in the world. It is verified again through the links that his new company manages stars in SE Asia, each with many google hits and their own entries on Wikipedia. It is verified that he sits on the board of a presitiguous quasi-governmental body in Singapore. All of these points alone are enough to establish notability, at least in the countries he operates in, in the industries he is in. Do not take my word for this - please click on the links yourselves that these facts are all true.Aricialam 20:05, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep. I've gone through and cleaned up the article, for what it's worth. I think the notability here is borderline. If you're getting quoted by all sorts of international publications, it's definitely a hint that you're notable. Obviously the sources don't verify all the material in the article, but they do establish that he was the head of Elite modeling in Asia (which I think is a pretty big deal, considering it's the biggest agency in the world) and the other positions he's had, which are marginally notable. I suggest erring on the side of keep, since he's from Singapore and many sources may be in Chinese or otherwise difficult to locate for Western editors like me. Also one thing to keep in mind is that many reliable publications in the fashion industry are not online (most of my work is for WP:FASHION, which I founded, and this is often a problem) so it's possible there articles about him that are in physical magazines and the like. Calliopejen1 20:10, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ɑʀкʏɑɴ 22:42, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - article has undergone some changes late in the discussion and these changes should be given further consideration before the debate is closed. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 22:42, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Plenty o' citations now. Guy seems notable enough. Certainly, if I stumbled across this article in its present form I would never consider it for deletion. SolidPlaid 22:53, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Week keep - Marginally notable (but suffers from inherent lack of citations in coverage outside major English-speaking countries, and also tendency of commentators, pundits, and analysts to get published for their work and not their personal history), article is written properly, adds to encyclopedic coverage, is not an insult to Wikipedia. Wikidemo 23:46, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Week keep - borderline on sources but should be given the benefit of the doubt as it stands to logic based on his verifiable position that there would be other major sources not in English or not available online, as explained by Calliopejen1. -Markdsgraham 01:54, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I interviewed this man for an article in 2004 but unfortunately it is not published that this is true "In a short span of 3 years, he started Elite agencies in Bombay, New Delhi, Seoul, Ho Chi Minh City, Hanoi and Shanghai. At its height, Cheng's control over the Elite modelling franchise spanned 10 cities including Singapore, Hong Kong, Jakarta and Tokyo.". Any opinions on whether we can re-include it?Also I think thus quote is interesting and verifiable "In Newsweeks article on the Perfect Face (November 2003) which made famous Canadian model Saira Mohan (Newsweek described her as "the perfect example of global beauty"), Cheng was quoted as saying that “There is an increased awareness of all things oriental in the West. And with [the rise] of China, I think this trend is set to continue.” " Should we re-include it? Aricialam 05:16, 19 September 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. Wizardman 17:12, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
7:22[edit]
Non-notable Bible study group. Corvus cornix 22:18, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep per mentions in the Atlanta Journal, including a full article on the group in 1997. Groups can still have notability even when local. ~Eliz81(C) 01:19, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per User:Eliz81. --RucasHost 06:17, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete clearly fail WP:N, mere "mentions" as pointed out by the two keepers above fall so far below the significant coverage expected to discount the position taken by them. C'mon if mere mention = significant coverage then WP:N is broken. Carlossuarez46 22:39, 24 September 2007 (UTC) re-worded. Carlossuarez46 03:42, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I didn't purchase the full text of the one linked Atlanta Journal article. It is 941 words, so not itself all that long. But it clearly (from the linked intro) has the organization as the primary subject, so "mere mention" isn't a great description of that article either. GRBerry 16:00, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Notable enough for my satisfaction Mbisanz 17:02, 27 September 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 Deleted by Nawlin Wiki. Non-admin closure--JForget 23:14, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Anti-hip hop[edit]
non-notable slang, racist cruft, pov, etc etc etc. No good speedy criteria superβεεcat 22:16, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete as incoherent Patent Nonsense. In the event the speedy tag I placed doesn't stick vote Strong Delete. Exxolon 22:20, 18 September 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. Maxim(talk) 17:27, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Previous United Airlines destinations[edit]
- Previous United Airlines destinations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
It is my humble opinion that this sort of listing is not necessary for Wikipedia to have, it might be enough to just have a link to the appropriate everything2.com page. The United Airlines article could talk a little bit about destinations that have been discontinued and why. Plinth molecular gathered 22:05, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I don't understand how this is encyclopedic. Wikipedia is not a collection of everything. MarkBul 22:42, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Wikipedia is not for Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics, and most especially not for a list of "previously" loosely associated topics.—Mrand T-C 23:05, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not encyclopedic at all.--JForget 23:15, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The article only contains lists, not encyclopedic content. — Wenli (contribs) 00:19, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Is this a joke? SefringleTalk 00:33, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Of no possible interest to anyone. Mandsford 00:35, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into United Airlines destinations (though that article needs work itself, too). Robert Happelberg 02:18, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per above -- seems like the best solution. A table format would go a long way towards making this more readable, too. -- phoebe/(talk) 06:24, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Whilst *** destination articles have been up for deletion in the past and survived as an integral part of the Airlines Project, I don't see how this serves any purpose in an encyclopaedic sense, and with no prose at all I would say it is squarely against WP:NOT --Russavia 09:03, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep but expand with information as to why these flights were discontinued. Cromulent Kwyjibo 14:56, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I suspect all these were discontinued for the same reason, in which case all we need is a paragraph in the United Airlines article ending with something like "... leading to the discontinuation of selected flights all over the world." Slappywag42 14:48, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per Robert Happelberg, though I'm not all that excited about keeping the information around. Actually, some sort of information about why the airline stopped flying to those destinations would be useful. In the current destinations, some sort of information about the importance of the routes might be useful. (For example, Minneapolis to Chicago might be a fairly busy route for United, but Northwest Airlines might have more of the market share.) --Elkman (Elkspeak) 15:14, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep or Merger I don't why anyone wants to delete useful info like this. --CSharpBeatsJava 02:32, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This is NOT a list of routes (i.e. this is NOT a list of city pairs). The fact that an airline totally pulled a destination is significant and encyclopaedic. Why? Because the airline totally removed itself from having a presence in city and exited that market. The sunk costs of restarting a previously served market are enormous (and much higher than adding incremental flights) and thus important to track. Thanks! --Inetpup 06:11, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Difficult to verify, does not assert notability. --Matt 11:27, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Do I vote here? Please keep this list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AirportFriend (talk • contribs) 19:57, 21 September 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 three as non-notable, unreferenced neologisms. GTBacchus(talk) 01:44, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Quasi-Realist[edit]
- Quasi-Realist (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Pretty sure this is non-notable slang. superβεεcat 22:01, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree, and also wish to nominate the related articles:
- Slasher-lite (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Backwoods Slashers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- All appear to be be original research from the same contributor, describing sub-genres in Slasher film (which I have removed for the time being) Marasmusine 22:41, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- COMMENT Makes sense to include these as well per reasons of my original nom. - superβεεcat 22:44, 18 September 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. Non-admin closure. Mtmelendez (Talk|UB|Home) 16:03, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Page deleted by: User:DragonflySixtyseven.
- Reason was: made up.
John 117 War Memorial Monument[edit]
- John 117 War Memorial Monument (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
The so-called "monument" is actually a seen in a Halo 3 videogame commercial (it is dedicated to "John 117" a.k.a. "Master Chief", a Halo character), apparently "created in 2067" and hosted at the "Museum of Humanity", according to Google. No evidence to its real status or location. Nehwyn 21:47, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Nothing to indicate that this exists outside of the game. Caknuck 01:27, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, and transwiki over to the Halo Wiki. This is the sort of thing it's there for... :) -- phoebe/(talk) 06:30, 19 September 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 Internet slang. Shyamal 03:36, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Webcronyms[edit]
Not a dictionary, non-notable jargon, no appropriate speedy category (nonsense?) superβεεcat 21:30, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. 2 google hits for webcronym, 4 for webcronyms---aside from www.afterhours-literati-cafe.com, of course: caffeine-induced mania by members of the worldwide literati acronyms with some support the diplomatic initiatives to bring in bosnia we are references webcronyms acronyms for tne the delorenzo emergency medicine hilt from the all acronyms with some stood naked facing the was went a-wooing like sensible false references webcronyms acronyms for tne the www acronym Huh? Jack(Lumber) 00:23, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete ye with a will, for Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. Alba 04:54, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Maxamegalon2000 05:36, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Abba. ffm 13:05, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge or redirect with Internet slang. Bearian 20:36, 20 September 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. - Mailer Diablo 13:15, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
IWEBTOOL[edit]
Spammy advertisement. Link to an Alexa graph is not acceptable claim of notability. ZimZalaBim talk 21:17, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete no evidence of notability presented - seems to be spam. --Fredrick day 22:56, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. — Wenli (contribs) 00:20, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete -- Google news archive search: zero hits. --A. B. (talk) 00:58, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. ffm 13:05, 19 September 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/keep. There was an initial surge in deletes, however if you look at the article history, there was a major overhaul during the course of this AfD. It seems like this AfD prompted editors to try to improve this article and address the nominators concerns. While perhaps still having issues, many following commentors felts the new, improved version was worth keeping. -Andrew c [talk] 22:04, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neo-Darwinism[edit]
- Neo-Darwinism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Creationist POV fork of modern evolutionary synthesis. Deleted once and redirected to modern evolutionary synthesis for 3.5 years, recreated today by an editor refusing to recognize WP:NPOV, particularly its WP:UNDUE clause. Odd nature 20:38, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/restore redirect There are also serious WP:OR issues with the article as it currently stands. JoshuaZ 20:49, 18 September 2007 (UTC) comment I have no objections to a major rewrite as per Dave below. JoshuaZ 13:15, 19 September 2007 (UTC)keep for now per Dave's attempt to do a rewrite. JoshuaZ 16:33, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]- Delete Per nom. This article is better covered elsewhere. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 21:07, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I am not convinced we need two articles that are so similar.--Filll 21:20, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep this is a new page, not a restoration of the old one, which I have put a great deal of work into. There is nothing in the least bit aggressive in my approach, which has been to explain what I am doing and why in advance at all times and at great length. Sadly, certain editors persist in labelling me as a creationist, despite my insistance that I am anything but that. The alteration of the original page to a redirect was done without notification or flagging on the page, and was not in line with accepted reasons for creating a re-direct. Quite simply, neo-Darwinism is a term with a long history of use, and much current use, both by leading evolutionists and by opponents to evolutionary theory. It is not another term for Modern evolutionary synthesis but differs in very important respects, as I have fully explained on both talk pages. It therefore does not meet any of the criteria for becoming a redirect. I have some support for this view, and given time I expect more, and I am quite prepared to seek consensus, but I believe the proper place for that in at neo-Darwinism and not Modern synthesis. I reject suggestions that the term is somehow "obnoxious" (as one editor puts it) or associated with Creationism. It is not. It's a perfectly legitimate term. In any case, turning it into a redirect is not a valid way to challenge the content of any page. This is most certainly not a 'POV fork'. It does not present an alternative view of anything, in fact I am keen to separate out the term to make the article Modern synthesis stronger, as at the moment the latter is self-contradictory as explained in the talk. No cogent case has been made for OR, or POV, or UDUE, despite requests. There is no OR, and the cites are primary in that they are given as evidence of useage, not in support of useage, see my explanation in talk. --Memestream 21:30, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: cogent case for WP:OR -- the lead, 'Why 'Neo'-Darwinism' (by far the largest) and 'The Modern Synthesis' sections contain either solely non-reliable (and sparse at that), or no, citations. Hrafn
42TalkStalk 03:33, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply] - A new page with an editing history back to 2003? I am confused. • Lawrence Cohen 06:36, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: cogent case for WP:OR -- the lead, 'Why 'Neo'-Darwinism' (by far the largest) and 'The Modern Synthesis' sections contain either solely non-reliable (and sparse at that), or no, citations. Hrafn
- Delete POV fork and OR. Didn't we go through this before? •Jim62sch• 21:48, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, what cited material there is might make a reasonable section in History of evolutionary thought, since this material is primarily a discussion of how a term has been used through the history of evolutionary biology. However, better sources are needed that discuss the usage of the term directly. Most of these citations are not to reliable sources - primarily web encyclopedias, a creationist website and personal webpages. Tim Vickers 21:51, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- NOTE - Discussion of the comment in the nomination about an editor being an "aggressive creationist POV warrior" moved to the talk page. Tim Vickers 23:03, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Looking at what links to the article might be insightful for some people. Note also how the term is used in those articles. There is no doubt that the term is used by creationists, but note that words like queer and even atheist have a history of being used pejoratively. I would strongly argue against any 'speedy action. 22:11, 18 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Benhocking (talk • contribs)
- Delete - Merge relevant content into History of evolutionary thought per Tim Vickers.--Danaman5 21:56, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletions. —Pete.Hurd 22:14, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete & re-redirect, transfer any salvageable, reliably sourced, material to History of evolutionary thought, per Tim Vickers. Pete.Hurd 22:14, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete basically nothing worth salvaging from this POV fork. Creator understands neither NPOV, NOR or RS. ornis (t) 22:21, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The Modern Synthesis covers it. Neo-Darwinism is a perfectly good term, but the author here is confused for some reason. Neo-Darwinism is the combination of Darwin's Natural Selection with Mendel's genetic mechanism. The combination of the two created a clear understanding of how selection functioned across generations - which even Darwin puzzled over. The creator is seeing a problem where there is none. MarkBul 22:55, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, this term does have a historical meaning that is distinct from the modern synthesis (see PMID 15241603). Although this present article fails entirely to define or discuss this adequately, the term can be discussed in a section in the History of evolutionary thought and this title redirected to that article. Tim Vickers 00:06, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- A single source is too small a sample to establish notability of the viewpoint. Odd nature 00:11, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- See also DOI: 10.1078/1431-7613-00004 Tim Vickers 00:25, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I notice however, that his historical usage is already explained in the Modern evolutionary synthesis article. I've added a reference to this. No need for a new section in the "History of evolutionary thought" article, the redirect to modern synthesis would be fine. Tim Vickers 00:41, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- See also DOI: 10.1078/1431-7613-00004 Tim Vickers 00:25, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- A single source is too small a sample to establish notability of the viewpoint. Odd nature 00:11, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete Get this OR and POV creationistcruft out of here. DEVS EX MACINA pray 00:31, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Original research, POV fork. SefringleTalk 00:35, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete: this article is nothing more than a OR POV-fork. What few sources it does cite mostly range from questionable to grossly non-WP:RS. Hrafn
42TalkStalk 02:57, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply] - Delete Clearly a one-sided POV Fork. Author appears to have WP:OWN issues as well WP:NPOV problems. FeloniousMonk 03:47, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete. Unscientific, unsourced, original research, and rubbish. Delete. • Lawrence Cohen 06:36, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment As an uninvolved editor, I can't tell where the claims of this being a "creationist pov fork" are coming from -- this seems to be trying to put forth a history of the usage of the term, and I see nothing that looks like a creationist pov here. (To clarify: neo-Darwinism is a term that's used by creationists out in the world, but I don't see this article being biased in favor of creationism). I'd merge it into History of evolutionary thought, per Tim Vickers, and try to improve the refs. -- phoebe/(talk) 06:50, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep or Redirect with a drastic re-write and reliable references. A TalkOrigins Archive piece by John Wilkins notes the term's early meaning, usage during the 1930s-40s (mainly in the UK) and lingering current use among scientists as well as increasing use by creationists.[4] Another useful quote is "Some scientists continue to refer to modern thought in evolution as Neo-Darwinian. In some cases these scientists do not understand that the field has changed but in other cases they are referring to what I have called the Modern Synthesis, only they have retained the old name."[5] The article can be useful for explaining this to anyone who looks it up. Any objections to me having a go? .. dave souza, talk 09:24, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- First go at re-write – the intro now reflects the way I think the article should develop, with sources from TalkOrigins Archive. I've commented out sections which seemed to overlap the modern synthesis article or were rather dubious. ... dave souza, talk 14:34, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I've added some better sources and removed redundant paragraphs. The article is now two well-sourced paragraphs dealing explicitly with the usage and history of the term. This could make an acceptable stub, or a section within History of evolutionary thought, if a redirect is thought to be the best option. Tim Vickers 16:36, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- A redirect to a section in the history article seems good to me, so I've added that option to my "vote". .. dave souza, talk 17:32, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I've added some better sources and removed redundant paragraphs. The article is now two well-sourced paragraphs dealing explicitly with the usage and history of the term. This could make an acceptable stub, or a section within History of evolutionary thought, if a redirect is thought to be the best option. Tim Vickers 16:36, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- First go at re-write – the intro now reflects the way I think the article should develop, with sources from TalkOrigins Archive. I've commented out sections which seemed to overlap the modern synthesis article or were rather dubious. ... dave souza, talk 14:34, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep or Redirect. Quite frankly, I don't know if neo-Darwinism is the same as the modern synthesis or not, but that doesn't matter. The term is widely used (by both sides of the "debate"!), so Wikipedia should have an article about it or redirect to the appropriate target. Deletion is not the solution in either case, and requires no administrative powers. Issues of POV, OR, etc. should be resolved through editing and discussion, and if that doesn't work, mediation, arbitration, or whatever it takes. But deleting a common term altogether makes no sense. --Itub 10:12, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as a WP:POVFORK ffm 13:06, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect or Disambig - if someone types "Neo-Darwinism" into the search box they should be sent to an appropriate article. If there is more than one then make this a disambig page. The above arguments are about the content of this article and not about retaining the title for other purposes such as redirect or disambig. WAS 4.250 16:24, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If deleted, a search for Neo-Darwinism in the Wikipedia search-box will bring up History of evolutionary thought and Modern evolutionary synthesis. There is no need for a separate article on this confusing and often abused word, increasingly politicized by those involved in the debate about "separation of church and state" in the United States. At the absolute most, it would properly be a permanent redirect to History of evolutionary thought. ... Kenosis 16:57, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]Comment, I've added a note to the present version of the article saying that the majority of the text has been commented out. To avoid confusion in this AfD. Tim Vickers 17:05, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]- Strong keep Neo-darwinism is a standard scientific term, well known in the evolutionary biology literature for decades, long before "modern evolutionary synthesis", and I think distinguishable from it. --and the article says so. The term may have been recently hijacked by the creationists, but that doesnt mean its not a valid article subject. the present article as expertly re-edited by Dave souza andTim Vickers is neutral and sufficient as a start for an article. Those who have looked earlier should re-examine. DGG (talk) 20:56, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. That the word is "increasingly politicized" and "often abused" is not a reason for deletion, but, yes, caution needs to be taken with what goes here and a merge/re-direct may be the best solution. Bondegezou 16:01, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per DGG and Bondegzou, but most importantly, fix the POV problem, which is "non-negotiable". Bearian 20:42, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and cleanup POV--יודל 21:15, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- As a question for the last two editors, are you noticing a POV in the old version of the article, or the current version? Tim Vickers 21:18, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep
and sourceAll the article needs is some sourcing.That would easily prove that it is not OR and POV. This subject was covered in great detail in my college science class and if I still had the book I would list it as a source. Any arguments listing it as cruft violate WP:HARMLESS#I_do_not_like_it and therefore should be discounted. Viperix 22:15, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]- Just for clarification, are you talking about the old version of the article, or the current version? Tim Vickers 22:23, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The new version of the article is so different from the one I created that great confusion is going to arise now. Never mind. I suggest that the sheer volume of discussion and comment that has arisen here and in the article and on my talk, together with the fact that some 45 other pages link to it, means that the article MUST be kept. All the issues of POV OR or suchlike, which are not just cause for deletion, will get sorted out in the end, but they are deep an complex and the article's talk is the place for that to happen, bit by bit, as an ongoing process, by those editors here who are agreeing that Creationist and Anti-creationist shouting have no place. --Memestream 11:46, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This is a patently absurd argument: that the level of criticism of the original article & volume of opinions calling for its deletion is in some way a reason why the article "MUST be kept". The old article was an obvious candidate for deletion, I'm still reserving my opinion on the new version. HrafnTalkStalk 17:42, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep in its current state now that it sources and describes the historical meaning of the term. However, this is with the understanding that Memestream's version is unacceptable as original research and a pov fork that should not be allowed to creep back into the article. —David Eppstein 17:22, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep in its current state. I was wondering what was wrong with it until I read here that it was almost completely rewritten. – sgeureka t•c 19:02, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I've stricken my preference to delete. The article, which started out as an original research, POV fork, has come somewhat more into line with WP policy as a properly sourced description of the word "neo-Darsinism". It appears it can be brought into yet better compliance with WP:NPOV and WP:RS. No doubt WP:NPOV#Undue_weight will remain an important issue. Hopefully it will be maintained in keeping with the basic WP policies. ... Kenosis 21:37, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The second sentence virtually contradicts the first. Basically the article says new Darwinism contains nothing of Darwin's theory. It can't justify using the name Darwinism in its title. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moriori (talk • contribs) 04:20, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. You mean this?
:--Ryoung122 09:10, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]Neo-Darwinism is a term used to describe certain ideas about the mechanisms of evolution that were developed from Charles Darwin's original theory of natural selection. Its usage is mainly historical, since modern evolutionary theory includes many ideas, notably Mendellian genetics and genetic drift, which are not found in Darwin's work.
Although it's possible this was modified from when you read it, these two sentences do NOT contradict each other. What it means is that, from an historical standpoint, there have been ebbs and flows in what evolutionary ideas were popular/most important in various eras. 'Neo-Darwinism' really means that the ideas of Darwin became popular again in the 1890's. Today's view is that Darwin was 'mostly right' but that the best view of evolution is a composite that combines Darwin's ideas with that of Mendel and further modifies them with modern understandings. Note that in the same way that modern Einsteinian physics altered but did not completely obliterate Newtonian physics, so Darwin's substantial contribution remains recognized. But that is not the point of the article. The point of the article is to explain the historiography of the term 'Neo-Darwinism.' Note that an idea need not be scientific to be 'notable'. Most evolutionists discard intelligent design as unscientific, but recognize that it has POLITICAL-SOCIAL importance.
- Keep and 'improve'. It seems that some people are so concerned about control, they'll metaphorically shoot down anything not in their control. The fact that the term dates to 1895 suggests this should be kept. It doesn't have to be 'scientific' and it doesn't have to be pro-Darwin or anti-Darwin. This article has significance from an HISTORICAL perspective, just as social Darwinism does.Ryoung122 09:00, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The original version of this article was horribly POV. The current shorter version is better but still needs improvements to make it more NPOV (see my comments on the talk page). The term neo-Darwinism has had enough different uses historically to justify having a short page to make sense of them, but there is no justification for declaring some of the uses incorrect when so many reliable sources are in conflict.Rusty Cashman 22:27, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep current version much improved since nomination. Well written and sourced. Gandalf61 10:48, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep This is widely recognised scientific expression.89.107.46.3 —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 16:24, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:NOT#DICTIONARY. The article makes a strong case the term "neo-Darwinism" has notable and distinctive use, and it contains an interesting description of the term's history, usage, and meanings as they've changed over time. It's an extremely well-done and informative dictionary entry. The difficulty is that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary, and its policy is to have articles about the significance of subjects, not of terms. As the article makes clear, however distinctive the term may be, the subject is well-covered by History of evolutionary thought and similar articles. I express no opinion as to any motives behind the article's creation. Best, --Shirahadasha 01:40, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I disagree with that overly broad interpretation of WP:DICT. Sometimes a term gets to the point that the history and usage of the term itself becomes a legitimate encyclopedic topic of its own. For an extreme case, see nigger (I hope you won't argue that that one should be deleted as well). IMO neo-darwinism is a term that generates enough controversy to justify an article. --Itub 07:34, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. ::I disagree, though I am concerned that the article has indeed been steered towards being a dictionary entry. I restored the page because I consider this term to be not only one in very widespread use, but quite simply the name properly given to the modern theory of evolution by all who really understand the matter and have not fallen into the trap, propagated by many articles and quotes taken out of context, of assuming that the modern theory of evolution is 'the modern evolutionary synthesis'. If I could win over other editors I would make this page the main article describing the modern theory of evolution, and clean up modern synthesis to make clear the fact that that term refers to a historical landmark, and should not be assumed to refer to the current mainstream theory. I would then make clear on all pages that some writers do take the term 'modern synthesis' to refer to an ongoing process of synthesis, synonymous with neo-Darwinism, but that such use appears to conflict with the dominant useage. I would also make clear that the term was neo-Darwinism was also used in the past where it may have had a more specific meaning at certain times but that to assume a historical meaning only would conflict with the dominant meaning suggested by the overwhelming majority of examples of use. Primary sources overwhelmingly support my case, in that major scientists and experts (Dawkins, Gould, Fred Hoyle, to name just a few major well known ones) use the term more than any other. 'Neo-Darwinism' and it's adjectival form 'ne-Darwinian are convenient terms to use, whereas 'the theory that derives from the so-called modern synthesis' and even 'modern evolutionary theory' are cumbersome. The argument that Fred Hoyle was not a credible scientist or an expert in the field, being used against me at the article, is laughable. He was FRS, and knighted. More imprortantly though, the credentials of users are of no concern when simple asserting use. Fred was a scientist of the highest order, and an expert critic of neo-Darwinism. That he used the term to refer to the modern theory is 'blindingly obvious'. Creationists also use the term (25,000 hits on Google, mostly creationist sites or arguments against the neo-Darwinian theory) and I must emphasise that they use it correctly; not to refer to some imagined or crackpot theory but simply to refer to the modern theory of evolution. This too falls into the category of 'blindingly obvious'. Their use of the term is therefore valid evidence of its meaning, as assumed on a huge scale. I understand that they are all primary sources, and I understand the argument that the conclusion I draw here could be WP:OR, but it falls into the category of 'blindingly obvious'. It passes the test laid down of being an obvious conclusion that would be made by any reasonably intelligent observer, and is not a 'novel synthesis created by juxtaposition of primary sources'. I have appealed for comments on this at wikipedia:verifiability. On these grounds, relegation of the main term that describes our modern theory to a history article would be a huge mistake, granting success to those editors who want to confuse and obscure the subject in an attempt to silence opponents of neo-Darwinism today by obscuring and denying the fact of what it is. If I coould find a 'reliable source' that actually said what I am saying I would use it, but few people seem to have felt the need to say what it is, as opposed to just using it. Brittanica online comes close, saying "Theory of evolution that represents a synthesis of Charles Darwin's theory in terms of natural selection and modern population genetics", but is admittedly vague. ISCID encyclopedia says it exactly with "neo-Darwinism is the modern version on Darwinian evolutionary theory" but is trashed by editors as an 'unreliable source'. --Lindosland 13:13, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply to Memestream Wow, you are taking this personally. Neo-Darwinism is definitely a pejorative term hijacked by crackpot creationists (to use your terminology). ISCID is not a real source, it is at best tertiary (kind of like Wikipedia itself). Modern synthesis and modern evolutionary theory are what is used by the scientists in the field. Hardly any use neo-Darwinism any further. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 23:46, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Neologism, OR, and not encyclopedia, better covered elsewhere Mbisanz 19:24, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep in its current form, though it still needs some work. I further applaud the editors who salvaged this article - that's how AFD is supposed to work. ZZ Claims ~ Evidence 19:52, 27 September 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. GRBerry 16:03, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Talia Madison[edit]
- Talia Madison (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
This model/wrestler is not notable, the article is poorly written there isn't sources confirming her career, and this article contains fragments and run-on sentences. Also there isn't enough information to make an article about her Art 281 20:23, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I couldn't find reliable third party sources, but she is heavily mentioned on Professional Wrestling websites. Perhaps someone from this Wikiproject might be of some assistance? ~Eliz81(C) 01:26, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I think "heavily mentioned is very much an exageration, she may have been mentioned in a trivial manner like "this year's list of diva participants" or something like that but hardly warranting an article on her own. MPJ-DK 20:32, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I believe the expertise and experience of others within the appropriate community-- in this case, wrestling-- is useful for assessing notability. Hopefully some editors who are familiar with the topic will offer their recommendations here soon. ~Eliz 81(C) 00:29, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I think "heavily mentioned is very much an exageration, she may have been mentioned in a trivial manner like "this year's list of diva participants" or something like that but hardly warranting an article on her own. MPJ-DK 20:32, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment That doesn't make her a notable person, look at the article! Is poorly written. (And yes I know somebody could add some more information but there aren't any sources. Art 281 03:15, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletions. —Nikki311 19:26, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I am one of those so called people with "expertise and experience" in the wrestling community. She's not notable, being an early cut in the Diva search isn't enough for a wikipedia article, achieving minor things in wrestling isn't enough. And like I said "Heavily mentioned" is a direct exaggeration of how much she's been mentioned on wrestling websites - it's been trivial mentions if she's mentioned at all.MPJ-DK 05:35, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Great! Then thank you for clarifying what helps indicate and not indicate notability in the wrestling community. She had enough hits on wrestling-related websites (as opposed to lengthy articles, in terms of what I meant by 'heavily mentioned') that it gave me pause. Your input is very valuable for wrestling outsiders. ~Eliz81(C) 07:51, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, per MPJ-DK...and I am also "one of those so called people with 'expertise and experience' in the wrestling community". Nikki311 17:07, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment If she at Bound for Glory (2007) and stays around at TNA after then she deserves a page, otherwise bye bye. Madbassist 10:56, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete err, I need to read everything before I make comments. As one of those who fits into the same category as MPJ and Nikki, delete per them. --Naha|(talk) 14:42, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment after close She also is known as Jamie Szantyr and this link is provided so that What links here for Jamie Szantyr brings up this AfD. -- Jreferee t/c 23:03, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment after close Talia Madison (Jamie Szantyr) exists, and is arguably notable now (Madbassist's suggested condition has been met). Please either counterargue, or make "Talia Madison" and "Jamie Szantyr" redirect to it (or rename it to one of those, and make the other redirect to that). Emurphy42 16:43, 12 November 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. Rough consensus is that the topic does not meet the general notability guidelines. Jreferee t/c 21:08, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
LiveVideo[edit]
This article was deleted in standard prod process but I was asked to put it here. So here we go... Supposed bordercase of WP:WEB Tone 20:11, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I contested the prod out of common sense, but I concede there's a chance I'm wasting everyone's time. The most the site seems to be notable for is luring away YouTube talent. Motley Fool:[6][7][8] New York Times: [9] Quote from Times artice: "The comedy duo Smosh, another of YouTube’s biggest stars, moved to LiveVideo.com, where its videos begin and end with that site’s branding messages. The Smosh stars did not return e-mail messages seeking comment, but David Peck, LiveVideo’s vice president of operations based in El Segundo, Calif., said: “Just as every TV network, film studio and record label in America has done for decades, we are proactively signing talent to bring their work to new audiences.” Mr. Peck would not disclose the terms of its deals with contributors, but other popular YouTube contributors say LiveVideo has recruited them with promises of money in exchange for the right to show their videos exclusively for an introductory period." There might be other sources I can't find at the moment. Ichormosquito 20:59, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry, but that is a story about Smosh, not about LiveVideo.com. I've yet to see anything about LiveVideo that meets WP:WEB. --Spike Wilbury ♫ talk 21:40, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No need to apologize, I have zero stake in this. I just thought it was too recognizable a site to prod. Other sources might exist. Somewhere. Ichormosquito 22:10, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, another in a laundry list of non-notable video sharing sites. They do not get free advertising here. For more similarly non-notable articles, see List of video sharing websites. --Spike Wilbury ♫ talk 21:40, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep See below.
Weak delete - Unless more sources can be found. Ichormosquito 22:09, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply] - Note: This debate has been included in the list of websites-related deletions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 17:31, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep [10] Sources abound, although few are primarily related to the site at hand. Cursory mention and partial-articles in the pop. press, however, do seem to qualify as multiple verifiable sources - just need more than you do when more focused sources exist, and solid prose to give 'em context. MrZaiustalk 02:13, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- None of those sources are articles about the subject. The primary argument here is that the site does not meet notability standards laid out in WP:WEB. --Spike Wilbury ♫ talk 04:56, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Don't delete it - these guys are up-and-comers that are positioning themselves (well, actually) as competitors to both YouTube and MySpace. The company was started by Brad Greenspan, who co-founded the company the developed MySpace. It's at least notable for that reason, even though the article sucks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.3.243.147 (talk) 19:58, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Alexa Internet ranks the website as about the 1100th most visited site with about one third the page views as Metacafe a comparable site. Operating 22:18, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I realize notability by association is a tough sell, but William Shatner has a video blog there: [11]. And here's a source that is mostly about Brad Greenspan, but mentions the Shatner vlog and LiveVideo: [12] For these reasons, and the reasons listed by others, I'm changing my opinion to "weak keep". Indications of notability are good, even if the evidence isn't all there yet. Ichormosquito 03:28, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete 1100th on Alexa isn't that notable, now if it was the 1000th most notable for 5 years running. Maybe Mbisanz 17:01, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- delete per nom. can be re-added once (if?) true notability is achieved. stolenbyme 18:26, 27 September 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. Eluchil404 21:58, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Jenny Toth[edit]
Not a really notable model, she came in second on Project Runway and that is all this page basically states. Tinkleheimer 20:08, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep Precedent seems to be mostly having articles only for winners, but I think given how famous and widely watched this show is, we can make an exception. GlassCobra 21:03, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- NoteThe winner doesn't even have a page, if the winner did, I would have to agree with you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tinkleheimer (talk • contribs) 21:09, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as above Elmao 10:47, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - a runner-up on a reality show with not other notability. No reliable sources showing notability beyond appearing as a reality tv contestant. -- Whpq 18:03, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete failed contestant on a reality show, per WP:BLP1E re-create as redirect to the show if need be, but no separate article is warranted. Carlossuarez46 22:41, 24 September 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. Eluchil404 22:00, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Jacques Teyssier[edit]
- Jacques Teyssier (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Not really noticeable. Article likely created by himself on French, English and German wikipedias. Deleted on the French wikipedia. Poppy 19:37, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above and precedent on French Wiki. GlassCobra 20:59, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and/or Redirect to Volker Beck per lack of notability for an individual article.--JForget 23:28, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reluctantly delete per lack of notability. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 13:31, 25 September 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, based on the actual policy arguments presented.--Kubigula (talk) 22:22, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Natural Sapphire Company[edit]
- The Natural Sapphire Company (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:spa|username}} ; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}} . |
This page was speedily deleted twice as blatant advertising and has been recreated yet again. The initial version was again very spammy, but it has been cleaned up a tad by another user. I'd like to get some consensus on whether it should stay or not, though. GlassCobra 18:20, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and salt Prior versions were created (and deleted) less than 7 days as of this AfD. Two speedies, one practically right after another, should indicate a potential problem... Yngvarr (t) (c) 18:39, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, I doubt seriously that they have released their logo into the public domain. shoy 19:33, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. As per all of above. --Endless Dan 19:45, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- KEEP The initial versions of this page was prepared by someone else and it had mistakes. This new version has all those mistaked corrected and there is nothing spammy in it now. This page is just a bio page like | Blue Nile. The logo in this page has been approved for the public domain. 72.205.63.188 19:57, 18 September 2007 (UTC)Jebadoss 15:54, September 18 2007 (EST)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.205.63.188 (talk • contribs) [reply]
- Using the existence of one article is not grounds for justification that another should exist as well. See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. GlassCobra 20:58, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Who signed the keep comment above? There are two signatures. Is it 72.205.63.188 or is it Jebadoss? The only reason I ask is because if it was Jebadoss, then I suspect COI here, as the logo was uploaded and justified by Jebadoss Yngvarr (t) (c) 22:37, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as I don't see what claim to notability this company has with refrence to WP:CORP other than selling precious stones. --Gavin Collins 20:05, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Whether or not the prior versions were deleted should not be of consequence. The actual page contents should be decide why it is deleted or not. It looks like the previous versions were created incorrectly. The creator has now fixed their error and is now resubmitting it. The content now has no advertising, nor listing of products. It is a pure BIO page and as stated on | Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes under "companies", this company is noteable. --207.237.82.60 23:26, 18 September 2007 (UTC)— 207.237.82.60 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Weak delete for being non-notable. Sourcing is very weak, one of two claims to fame ("largest sapphire") is only a $417K stone and the other seems to be that a royal family member patronized the company. There is no context in the article for what it has to do with anything or why we should care. Only a few hundred google hits. If the company is notable I don't really see it in the article. If there's something more to it than that and it can be sourced, my opinion would change to a weak keep. Wikidemo 23:52, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment According to Wiki rules, Google hits have nothing to do with the entry. See:| Google Test. As for the stone ONLY being 417K, that is the largest price for a sapphire in the US. In the jewelry trade, this company is very well known. Log into any jewelry forum, and you will see posts about NSC. Am I biased about this company since I am in the trade, perhaps. But I am also a fan of Wikipedia and hate pointless deletes, just because the original editor didn't know how to create the page the first time and had to learn from experience. --207.237.82.60 00:51, 19 September 2007 (UTC)— 207.237.82.60 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Keep This looks like a bio page of a jewelry company. They have been around for a long time. Doesn't seem like a mom and pop place. And i agree that the page shouldn't be deleted just because of previous errors. --66.30.163.37 02:00, 19 September 2007 (UTC)— 66.30.163.37 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions. -- Gavin Collins 10:27, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Non-notable company. Keb25 10:59, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I have shopped at The Natural Sapphire Company after seeing stories about them in The Wall St Times and New York Times. I didn’t see the previous pages that were put up, but the page as it stands now, does not seem like blatant advertising at all --69.119.186.15 11:12, 19 September 2007 (UTC)— 69.119.186.15 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Delete Does not meet WP:N. This isn't about google hits. It's not about the fact that this isn't the first time the article was posted. It's about notability as defined here. I think the established editors here know that, but sometimes forget to keep writing it for the sake of the new people. -- Ben 14:43, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I work in the jewelry industry as well. This company is very famous for their collection of sapphires (which is said to be the largest collection in the world). If this doesn't make them notable, what does? Also, WP:N as stated on top of that page, is NOT set in stone. It's easy to research this company on the internet. There are many articles and forum posts. --EvanWasHere 17:43, 19 September 2007 (UTC) — EvanWasHere (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Keep I don't know what all this nonsense is about being notable. the fact of the matter is, the company does exist and someone thought it was notable enough to write about. Wikipedia is a source of knowledge on both the common and uncommon. I cannot see the detriment to having this article up.--207.251.78.62 18:34, 19 September 2007 (UTC) — 207.251.78.62 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Delete. I did a bit of cleanup on this article without really looking at the sources/references. I should have done so. Of the references, one is a press release from the company; one is a blog post commenting on the press release; one is an article which does not mention the company concerned except in a comment at the end, which could have been added by anyone. None of those qualifies as a reliable source. --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 11:10, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - no reliable sources. -- Whpq 18:06, 20 September 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. GRBerry 16:08, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Anticon.[edit]
Non-notable: no sources independent of the subject are listed. Rambutan (talk) 18:15, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - They're a pretty major independent label. They have their own website, a few of the artists have their own website, you can find their CD's at Best Buy and your local record store, and have been around for a longgggg time. The page as it is right now is fine, could be expanded a little bit. But if you delete this, it'd only be fair to delete the Def Jux, Stones Throw, and Rhymesayers page. Take a look at all the albums they've released. [13] Surely it would be a mistake to delete this page. My 2 Cents at least. Erryday I'm 18:18, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - To be on WP it must list several reliable sources independent of the subject. It doesn't. Read WP:NOTE.--Rambutan (talk) 18:20, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply I'm sure within 5 minutes of using Google you could have several reliable sources for the article. If you like, I could run some by you. Erryday I'm 19:07, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - To be on WP it must list several reliable sources independent of the subject. It doesn't. Read WP:NOTE.--Rambutan (talk) 18:20, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The record company is notable. The article needs refs, and I have tagged it accordingly. Refs shouldn't be hard to find - would have been better to tag it and leave some time for refs to be added before AfDing IMHO.--Michig 19:00, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Per the above. A need for cleanup != grounds for deletion. Bfigura (talk) 20:15, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I'm sorry. but this fails WP:MUSIC as best as I can see. First of all the link is not exactly reliable. WP:MUSIC states that reliable including but "publications of contact and booking details in directories," and a series of other things. This is a a listing a directory, not a reliable source. Until someone can show me a reliable source, delete. --Тhε Rαnδom Eδιτor 22:18, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment If you have references for notability, put them in the article, not here. MarkBul 23:00, 18 September 2007 (UTC
- Keep I have heard of this record company. I have not read the article, but if an editor from the Midwest who doesn't listen to Hiphop has heard of it, chances are it's notable. How about giving the editor(s) a chance to find reliable sources before deleting? (Diego Gravez 23:58, 18 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]
- Comment. I didn't know anything about this record label before looking it up in relation to this AfD, but a few minutes on google has demonstrated that the label is clearly notable, as are the artists on the label, and I have now added a number of references to the article which I believe demonstrate notability.--Michig 19:00, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The article might not be the best one in the whole Wikipedia, but I dont see one good reason why it should be deleted. There are all the basic facts about the record label, and some extra as well, before just deleting it we must try to enhance the article, so if anyone has a more reliable source, please use it, and perhaps we´re allowed to keep the article in place. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Qwertyuiopillu (talk • contribs) 10:53, 25 September 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. Not notable. Shyamal 13:02, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Leonard Zimmerman[edit]
Fails WP:BIO. An unencyclopedic article on a self-published author whose lone book, published in 2006, garners two ghits: this article and an Answers.com mirror. The product of several single purpose accounts. Victoriagirl 17:33, 18 September 2007 (UTC)"[reply]
- Delete. No evidence that this author's work is well known or has been the subject of independent articles or reviews; no evidence that it's garnered critical attention or become a significant monument. In short, as Victoriagirl says, fails WP:BIO. To boot, violates WP:BLP, as very little of the article is sourced. --Moonriddengirl 20:15, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete That article is in fact an... unauthorized autobiography. [14] [15]. He lives in Virginia Beach, VA. Jack(Lumber) 00:31, 19 September 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 result was merged to new article. Non-admin closure. --Dhartung | Talk 19:57, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply] Qumran (fictional country)[edit]
Non-notable, could be merged into a List of fictional places in Yes, Minister along with St George's Island and Buranda. Rambutan (talk) 17:29, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply] Merged Agree that there isn't enough to any of these to support individual articles. You seemed willing to agree with a merge, so I was bold and did so. Good enough? Horrorshowj 18:45, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
|