Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 September 29
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Daniel 01:13, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Main Characters in Camp Lazlo[edit]
- Main Characters in Camp Lazlo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
This is a fork to circumvent full-protection of List of characters in Camp Lazlo, which has been fully protected. Yngvarr (t) (c) 23:53, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- DeleteThis article starts off saying "This is a list of" so thiers no hiding the fact that this is an obvious attempt to circumvent said article. when the dispute resoloution is through this will be a redundant article Deathawk 01:56, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Ditto to what was said by Deathawk. Gh5046 06:03, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above. OfficeGirl 03:39, 3 October 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 20:44, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Czech Institute For International Meetings[edit]
- Czech Institute For International Meetings (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Czech Institute For International Meetings is not notable organization and there are no independent sources. --Dezidor 23:40, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:spa|username}} ; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}} . |
- Keep - This is an absolutly madness! The Czech Institute For International Meetings is cooperating every year (ca. 10 - 14 events) with the European Parliament (Jaroslav Zvěřina, since 2005 - so colled "Jaroslav-Zvěřina-Series")in the area of Policy, economy and social affairs. The second protector is the Parliament of Federal Republic of Germany (Mrs. Marie-Luise Dött, see also the List of Bundestag Members) as well Konrad Adenauer Foundation (meetings and financiall support) in Berlin and Prague. Please, for more particular information see also the czech-side of Wikipedia (Český Institut Mezinárodního Setkání). --Dr.Dr. Jan Berwid-Buquoy 11:35, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as non-notable. Moreover, it lacks in citation as well. Niaz(Talk • Contribs) 08:38, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - no reliable sources provided or found in searching -- Whpq 16:33, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Zdeněk Herl-Stolt: "Czech Institute For International Meetings...Documents from Czech, Austrian and German press", ISBN 978-80-239-8967-0, Czech Republic 2007. Altogether - 296 documents, stories and photos about the Institute. That speaks for itself! --Zdeněk Herl-Stolt 19:36, 2 October 2007 (UTC) — Zdeněk Herl-Stolt (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Delete as non-notable per Niaz and Whpq. it should be noted that one of the main contributors to this article is Dr.Dr. Jan Berwid-Buquoy (talk • contribs). The only reference source listed for this article is a compilation whose authors are Dr.Dr. Jan Berwid-Buquoy and Zdeněk Herl-Stolt. Also Dr.Dr. Jan Berwid-Buquoy has been listed as a participant in this non-notable organization since the beginning of the article. This article has been sitting around without anyone noticing this little bit of self-promotion for an awful long time, but now I think someone has been busted. OfficeGirl 04:27, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep- seems prima facie notable, I also have not seen any justification for removing it. The page is likely to be in another language, any evidence of detailed searches from the deletion parties?JJJ999 05:44, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep for now, and flag for improvement, possibly via a better translation of the Czech wiki page for this organisation [1]. As I've said before in this forum, there's little guidance that specifically relates to learned societies, and there's a problem with them falling through the cracks. The Czech article gives 8 'Publikace', though to be honest, I'm not sure whether that's references about the society or publications by the society. I think much of the problem with the English page is that it has been translated by a non-native English speaker and some of the words used don't convey the intended meaning, leaving the reader unsure precisely what the society does. However, poor translation isn't a reason for deletion, nor is a lack of English sources available via Google search, nor conflict of interest, if the institution is genuinely notable. Espresso Addict 07:01, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Move to keep thenJJJ999 00:28, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 15:55, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, the Czech provides plenty of references from different sources, so notability has been established there. Our translated article needs work, that is all. John Vandenberg 16:11, 7 October 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. Consensus is that this can be covered, to the extent necessary, in Mongol raids into Palestine. It appears that process is already underway.--Kubigula (talk) 01:46, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mongol conquests and Jerusalem[edit]
- Mongol conquests and Jerusalem (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
This article was created as a point of view fork and coatrack for pushing the idea that Mongols conquered Jerusalem. There are no reliable sources to support this fringe opinion. - Jehochman Talk 23:21, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: PHG has disruptively moved the article while the discussion is ongoing. It's now located at Mongol raids on Jerusalem. This should be deleted for all the same reasons. - Jehochman Talk 13:02, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I've done a Google search, and cannot come up with any reliable sources that state that Jerusalem was conquered by the Mongols. I did find three reliable book sources that cover the topic, but do not make this assertion. Cleveland Prawdin Køppen One source (Cleveland) says that the Mongol Armies were stopped in a battle north of Jerusalem. This article was created by an editor who has been pushing a fringe theory that Mongols invaded Jerusalem. (adding) See the evidence. This article is duplicative, and it's a coatrack. To eliminate duplication and POV forking, any properly sourced content here can be merged into Mongol raids into Palestine or Mongol invasions of Syria. - Jehochman Talk 23:25, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete. The editor who created this article, PHG, has been making multiple POV forks, as he tries to push this idea that the Mongols conquered Jerusalem in 1299/1300. He's been attempting to insert false information into the Knights Templar article about this, and has been edit warring for weeks at Franco-Mongol alliance. He has ignored comments from an RfC, has refused mediation, and is now creating multiple articles such as Mongol conquest of Jerusalem and Mongol conquests and Jerusalem to push his POV. I've researched the matter extensively (checking dozens of books and peer-reviewed articles), and there was no such battle, no such "conquest." The most that could be said is that there were a few Mongol raids in the area in 1260 and 1300, during two periods of a few months before the Mongols got kicked out again by the Egyptian Mamluks. Some scholars say that there may have been Mongol raids on Jerusalem while the Mongols were raiding other parts of the area in 1300, but they're not even in agreement on whether or not Mongols were in the city, let alone conquering it or setting up a permanent administration (which is what's needed to distinguish between a "raid" and "conquest"). What they do agree on is that Jerusalem was still in ruins from earlier battles in the Crusades, it had no walls, and even the Mamluks didn't see it as a settlement of strategic importance (see Karen Armstrong's book Jerusalem: One City, Three Faiths). In short, Wikipedia is already well-served by the articles History of Jerusalem (Middle Ages) and Mongol raids into Palestine. We don't need yet another article about an event that didn't even happen. --Elonka 23:43, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Judging by the input at Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance#Request for comment there seems to be little support amongst reliable sources for the idea that there was any conquest by the Mongols of Jerusalem in the period in question. This appears to be a POV fork and problematic as far as WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE are concerned. WjBscribe 23:55, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Deleteper User:Elonka. Maybe this would make a good What if story but not a good encyclopedia article--Lenticel (talk) 00:08, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - There is also a related ANI thread. --Elonka 00:26, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, not a notable minority theory. Topic covered sufficiently in other articles. --Dhartung | Talk 02:05, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete From the look I gave, all the content on this topic is already in Mongol raids into Palestine, and thus there is no need for this article, as it's just a duplicate, with the title Elonka made considerably better.--Aldux 02:17, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge/Redirect to Mongol raids into Palestine. Alansohn 03:43, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Elonka. Pete.Hurd 06:41, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep I am the creator of most of the content on this subject of the Mongols and Jerusalem, and believe its transfer two days ago to a "Mongol raids into Palestine" article by Elonka has not been adequate (too broad, unfocused, title). The conquest of Jerusalem is claimed by most contemporary historians of the 13th century (Muslims, Armenians, Europeans), considered as a possibility by a leading French historian of the period (Demurger), and considered as fact by a few other reputable modern historian: Andrew Jotischky in "The Crusaders and the Crusader States" states that "after a brief and largely symbolic occupation of Jerusalem, Ghazan withdrew to Persia". Steven Runciman in "A History of the Crusades, III" stated that Ghazan penetrated as far as Jerusalem, but not until the year 1308. I believe this is ample justification to have an article exploring this subject, honestly showing both sides of the story. The article in question is already sizable at 36kb. The article content being 99% about the controversy regarding the conquest of Jerusalem by the Mongol, I am also afraid the other title ("Mongol raids into Palestine") is much too broad... and would require a much larger article. PHG 08:22, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- PHG, we've already discussed this. Demurger "considering it a possibility" is just him asking the question on one page, "Did they conquer Jerusalem?" and saying that there was a tradition that there was an Armenian royal celebrating mass in the city in January 1300. We've already established that that story is probably false, as it was based on an unreliable source which was promoting Armenian propaganda at the time. No other sources corroborate such a visit. And even if he were in Jerusalem at the time, it wouldn't mean a Mongol "conquering", since there were many Christians in Jerusalem already, especially during the holidays, because such a treaty had already been signed with the Mamluks that gave them access, especially for the holy days such as Easter. As for Jotischky, he had one line in his book, and his information was sourced from a 1979 article by Dr. Sylvia Schein, "Gesta Dei Per Mongolos", where she never said that Ghazan was in Jerusalem, she said that there were 1300 rumors that Ghazan was in Jerusalem. There are no other historians that say Ghazan was in Jerusalem, and Schein's article has been extensively criticized by other scholars, who pointed out she was using that unreliable Armenian source. As for Runciman, who I agree is a good source, he said nothing about Jerusalem being conquered, he just said that Mongols got "as far as" Jerusalem, which matches up with other "raids" reports. Yes, the Mongols got "as far as" Jerusalem in 1260, 1300 (and according to Runciman, 1308). All of which can be adequately covered in the article Mongol raids into Palestine. Not "Mongol conquests and Jerusalem", which is a title designed to push a biased POV. The Mongols never conquered Jerusalem. They may have galloped through raising hell at some point, but that's not a "conquering", that's a raid. --Elonka 08:47, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Dear Elonka. You keep using secondary sources to try to discredit other secondary sources (those that don't favour your point of view). Leading scholars such as Demurger, Jotischky, Runciman all have the right to be represented, and they don't need to be second-guessed by you. If you are uncomfortable with the words "Mongol conquests", then maybe the title could be "Mongol raids and Jerusalem" or "Mongol raids on Jerusalem" (as you seem to acknowledge that many scholars do mention such raids), I really don't mind. I am just saying that "Mongol raids in Palestine" is much too broad a subject, and that, with 36kb, we already have enough material to have this specific article on the question of the Mongols and Jerusalem. The current article content being 99% about Jerusalem, I also believe it does belong much more specifically to a "Mongol raids on Jerusalem" article, than to a much more general "Mongol raids into Palestine" article. Just common sense I think. Best regards. PHG 08:54, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- PHG, we've already discussed this. Demurger "considering it a possibility" is just him asking the question on one page, "Did they conquer Jerusalem?" and saying that there was a tradition that there was an Armenian royal celebrating mass in the city in January 1300. We've already established that that story is probably false, as it was based on an unreliable source which was promoting Armenian propaganda at the time. No other sources corroborate such a visit. And even if he were in Jerusalem at the time, it wouldn't mean a Mongol "conquering", since there were many Christians in Jerusalem already, especially during the holidays, because such a treaty had already been signed with the Mamluks that gave them access, especially for the holy days such as Easter. As for Jotischky, he had one line in his book, and his information was sourced from a 1979 article by Dr. Sylvia Schein, "Gesta Dei Per Mongolos", where she never said that Ghazan was in Jerusalem, she said that there were 1300 rumors that Ghazan was in Jerusalem. There are no other historians that say Ghazan was in Jerusalem, and Schein's article has been extensively criticized by other scholars, who pointed out she was using that unreliable Armenian source. As for Runciman, who I agree is a good source, he said nothing about Jerusalem being conquered, he just said that Mongols got "as far as" Jerusalem, which matches up with other "raids" reports. Yes, the Mongols got "as far as" Jerusalem in 1260, 1300 (and according to Runciman, 1308). All of which can be adequately covered in the article Mongol raids into Palestine. Not "Mongol conquests and Jerusalem", which is a title designed to push a biased POV. The Mongols never conquered Jerusalem. They may have galloped through raising hell at some point, but that's not a "conquering", that's a raid. --Elonka 08:47, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. OK. I've been bold, did the job myself, and added a lot of content to "Mongol raids into Palestine" (more content on the 1260's campaings, addition of the 1271 campaign). I also streamlined the "Mongol conquests and Jerusalem part" to link it properly to the sub-article. This makes for a more comprehensive 27kb article on the Mongols raids in Palestine in general, with a link to the more focused "Mongol raids on Jerusalem" (itself 36kb), a supposedly consensual title. I think it makes more sense, the contents are totally different, and this allows for a content which is more faithfull to each title. I hope everybody likes it and sees what I meant. Best regards to all. PHG 09:56, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It's very disruptive and pointy for you to move the page during AfD. I am adding the new article Mongol raids on Jerusalem to the deletion nomination since there is no evidence that any such raids ever occurred. - Jehochman Talk 13:02, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete it- as a student of history I am pretty insulted by this article. Either fringe theory or a hoax.JJJ999 13:24, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Dear all, apologies for moving the article during an AfD, I didn't realize it should be a problem (I was actually acting to accomodate a complaint from Elonka that "Conquest" was POV, but that raids are recognized by nearly all historians)... I guess the article can be deleted all the same if someone wishes to. Honestly, I am surprised by the negative reactions. The article is fully referenced from proper, reputable sources, and I think does a good job of presenting the various elements on the subject. It is actually a very interesting historical subject, closely related to the subject of the Franco-Mongol alliance. PHG 14:44, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you, PHG. I request that the next administrator who sees this close per WP:SNOW. PHG, there are reliable sources that suggest Mongol incursions into Palestine (not as far as Jerusalem, though). We have an article for Mongols and Palestine, so I think anything here that can be reliably sourced can be merged into that article. Happy editing. - Jehochman Talk 15:08, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Jehochman. There are actually numerous sources that speak about the Mongols reaching Jerusalem (the "great" Runciman and several others, extensively quoted in the article). The Mongols actually established garrissons as far as Gaza, at the frontier with Egypt, much further south than Jerusalem. If everybody wants to close this article, so be it, but I do not think it is a proper decision. The content will go into "Mongol raids into Palestine", which will reach 60-70kbs all of a sudden, and probably back into Franco-Mongol alliance for a large part (which is already 130kb or so), but that's no big deal anyway. I just think that it would have been much more efficient and encyclopedic to concentrate the information about Jerusalem in one precise spot. Regards. PHG 15:18, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I do not think we should drop all this material into that article. No, the content here needs to be scrutinized for WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:UNDUE, WP:FRINGE and WP:OR. The reason this article is being deleted is that there is a consensus that the material violates important, fundamental policies of Wikipedia. Attempting an end run around consensus and policy would be strong evidence of disruptive and tendentious editing. To avoid those problems, I recommend, PHG, that you utilize the talk page of the other articles to obtain consensus before moving any material from here to there, or that you step back and let other editors do the merge. - Jehochman Talk 15:36, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Jehochman. All the material we are talking about here was moved two days ago by User:Elonka out of the Franco-Mongol alliance article to decrease its size (and I think, to reduce its visibility, for whatever reason). There, it had been already extensively discussed and scrutinized, and actually pretty much had reached a stable point. I will just reinstate the content where it belongs. Please do not hesitate to participate to the discussions there, we are in need of cool-headed contributors! Best regards PHG 15:46, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- (edit conflict, meant for Jehochman)I have to contradict you here, this content has been thoroughly scrutinized, only at Franco-Mongol Alliance, and the topic is certainly extremely important, because rumors are far more historically relevant than the stationing for a couple of weeks of the Mongols in Jerusalem, if accepted as true. The effects created in the west and on Armenian sources by these rumours is talken of by a large number of secondary sources, which makes it certainly a topic worthy of being treated with depth. The conquest may be discussed as fringe, even if I don't think we arrive to this point (it is talken of in reliable secondary literature), but the rumours must be given full coverage as I have difficulties understanding how they could fall under WP:UNDUE or WP:FRINGE.--Aldux 15:58, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that the rumors from 1300 are worth covering, but I disagree that an entire article is needed to do it. The information can be adequately covered in articles such as Mongol raids into Palestine, History of Jerusalem (Middle Ages) and Mongol invasions of Syria. The "Mongol raids into Palestine" title is the best one for this subject, as it's an accepted academic name for the concept, as seen by this title, "Mongol Raids into Palestine" by Reuven Amitai in the Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society.[2] To my knowledge, there has never been any book, or article, or even chapter or subsection of a book which has been titled "Mongol conquest of Jerusalem" or even "Mongol raids in Jerusalem." So it would be a violation of WP:UNDUE to try to create an entire Wikipedia article on just that topic. Let's stick with the articles we've got: History of Jerusalem (Middle Ages), Mongol invasions of Syria, and Mongol raids into Palestine (which still needs a lot of work, as PHG has been pouring a lot of unrelated information, primary source quotes, and original research into it). But the Mongol conquests and Jerusalem article (at whatever title that PHG has moved it to), still needs to be deleted. --Elonka 17:47, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, I don't disagree, Mongol raids into Palestine should cover the argument good enough, and this article is really a fork. What I defended was the legitimate to discuss, even in depth, of the rumours that inflamed the west, but appear also in Armenian sources of an event read as epochal. Schein wasn't ashamed to dedicate it a full length essay, and the English Historical Review.--Aldux 18:12, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually plenty of scholars mention Mongol raids on Jerusalem. Tyerman in God's war mentions that "Mongol raids reached Ascalon, Jerusalem and the gates of Egypt" (p.806). Of course Andrew Jotischky in The Crusaders and the Crusader States states that "after a brief and largely symbolic occupation of Jerusalem, Ghazan withdrew to Persia". Steven Runciman in A History of the Crusades, III stated that Ghazan penetrated as far as Jerusalem, but not until the year 1308. Furthermore the subject of the conquest of Jerusalem by the Mongols has been hugely reported by contemporary sources and debated by secondary sources. I am not sure if a paragraph somewhere exist with these actual words, but I do think this is sufficient ground to have a specific article focusing on this subject. PHG 19:07, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The other two existing articles are sufficient. DGG (talk) 00:27, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into other two articles; but the present text of Mongol raids on Jerusalem seems to adequately describe an urban legend. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:37, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, seems fine to me. Everyking 11:51, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment By now it should be rather clear to anyone that Mongol invasions of Syria and Mongol raids into Palestine should be two distinct articles as their geographical subject is different (Syria vs Palestine), although the latter campaigns were a prolongation of the former. Also, Mongol raids on Jerusalem legitimately stands as a large article (35 kb), with its own very technical and specific content, which I think properly works as a sub-article to the much broader articles such as Mongol raids into Palestine or Franco-Mongol alliance. Regards PHG 09:56, 7 October 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 18:28, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mike Bauer[edit]
Singer-songwriter with a myspace page but no record deal nor independent coverage. Fails WP:MUSIC. Thomjakobsen 23:21, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Fails WP:MUSIC, I added a speedy delete tag to the article: no assertion of importance/significance. Gh5046 06:11, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: per above. I prodded the original article, but the author removed the tag and expanded it. It still doesn't meet WP:MUSIC's criteria though. SteveO 13:17, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Not Notable, and no references. Iamchrisryan 13:58, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - If this person was notable then I would be notable as well as the hundred-and-second best bass guitarist in Wembley. Clearly fails WP:Music. A1octopus 19:08, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above. OfficeGirl 04:44, 3 October 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, as many (but not all) of the references provided in the references section and the the external links section are sufficient to establish the notability of this subject per Wikipedia's general notability guideline. Additionally, the existence of many acceptable references related to this subject specifically implies that it would be possible to write an article on this subject without recourse to original research. Article content problems, such as asserted presence of original research and/or non-notable material, as well as insufficient content utilizing the sources provided, are to be resolved editorially, not through the deletion of the entire article. John254 00:55, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Penguins in popular culture[edit]
- Penguins in popular culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Very trivial dumping ground for any mention or appearance of penguins in popular culture. RobJ1981 23:19, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep or merge into main penguin article. Penguins are pretty iconic, not like manatees, and I'd be surprised if there weren't anything written on their use. Agree it needs cleanup cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:23, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and improve. "very trivial" means no more than trivial--just personal opinion. There's too much material to merge. Better sourcing and possibly some more selectivity is needed, as frequently the case with WP articles on this sort of topic--and many other topics as well. DGG (talk) 00:34, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, article works fine in list well-organized list format and indicates the astonishing influence penguns have had on popular culture. Additional references are fine, of course, but no real need to delete. Also, even major newspapers have covered this specific topic: Penguins are pop culture's hottest thing from The Seattle Times, Penguins Waddle Into the Culture Wars from ABC News, Penguins pack pop-culture punch from Pittsburgh Tribune, and Why are penguins such good box office? from the BBC. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 00:59, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Again, the issue is not whether penguins are "iconic", of course they are, but there is a main article about the penguin, this is just a trivia dumping ground that has no place here. Dannycali 02:50, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as usual, throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Perhaps trimming would help, but this is a highly notable cultural subject. Chubbles 05:52, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per above. Like it or not, penguins are considered "cute" by hundreds of millions of people, because of their upright stance, their waddling walk, and their tuxedo like appearance. Let's not merge this with the article about real penguins, however. Mandsford 15:34, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Penguins are cute is not a good reason for an article. Otto4711 18:01, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - the usual collection of stuff with nothing in common. "It's got a penguin in it!" is not a theme. Penguins are undoubtedly notable. That doesn't mean that a list of every time a penguin appears in a movie or TV show or comic strip or video game is worthwhile or encyclopedic. Otto4711 18:00, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, article is not just triva dumping ground Artw 23:47, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Chubbles. Throwing the baby out with the bathwater indeed. DEVS EX MACINA pray 04:16, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Here are a few animal related afds that ended in delete: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beagle in popular culture, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Walruses in popular culture, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cattle in popular culture. And these are likely as or more notable than coyotes. Dannycali 20:08, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- the opposite of otherjunkexists, is otherthingsweredeleted. Quite a lot of good articles have been deleted due to lack of attention to them, in popular culture and many unrelated topics. "Beagles" can be seen at User:AndyJones/Beagle in popular culture--it's a much less extensive article than this. If anyone wants the other two userified, let me know. "Walrus" is a little skimpy, but there are some references; "Cattle" is actually a rather good article, and someone might well want to trim it of the junkier part and try again. DGG (talk) 00:07, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete- same as reasoning I give for all arbitrary, long, infillable lists like this, and for the article nominated below this. Clear violation of guidelines and spirit of wikipedia, and a waste of time.JJJ999 05:42, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_stuff - this is how bad these lists have gotten... and some of the same old faces still vote keep!JJJ999 05:50, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, Articles like this are exactly the kind of thing Wikipedia excels in. You can either like that or not, but if we delete all the excellent articles on perhaps slightly trivial, but nonetheless interesting topics, not much will be left here to read. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 12:22, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Keep per consensus and edits that have raised the article to the Heymann standard. This close is not in prejudice to any other article about penguins, beagles, rabbits, etc., nor any future AfD in a few months to this article. Bearian 17:41, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Coyotes in popular culture[edit]
- Coyotes in popular culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Very trivial and unsourced dumping ground for any mention of a Coyote in popular culture. RobJ1981 23:14, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and/or merge into both Coyote the animal and the mythological figure. Agree it needs a massive clanup though. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:21, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Some parts of this are actually rather well done, and a good sign that the rest can be improved. Sufficient for its own article. There is no hard and fast rule for when a separate article is appropriate, 00:51, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep, because a well-organized, encyclopedic article that can be only be improved. Also, Barnes & Nobles has a whole category for them: [3]. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 01:00, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Another one of those IPC "I saw a coyote on tv" pages. Coyotes are notable, sure, but the issue here is determining whether their role in popular culture is notable for an article, and it is not. Violates the pillars of WP, various trivia guidelines, and so forth. About 100 IPC articles have been deleted already, and this is no better than those deleted already. Dannycali 02:49, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral Coyote (mythology) seems to do the article's job. Then again this article can be improved and renamed Cultural depictions of Coyotes--Lenticel (talk) 04:50, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I saw Coyotes in popular culture run off the side of a cliff, but it didn't fall right away. Then, a roadrunner walked up behind it and said, "Meep meep!", and then this article looked around, realized there was no solid ground underneath it, and plummeted down to the ground. OK, never mind. This particular "In popular culture" article has more behind it than just the standard "The Simpsons" and "Family Guy" references. The references in literature and sports make this article worthwhile. My opinion is to keep this article, so it doesn't get smashed by a truck marked "Acme". --Elkman (Elkspeak) 04:56, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Wily Coyotes were already a part of American Indian mythology centuries before the Road Runner cartoons. And unlike a road runner, coyotes continue to be an allegorical symbol for slyness, a meaner counterpart to foxes. Mandsford 15:39, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The significance of coyotes to Native American mythology is well-covered in Coyote (mythology) which will remain undisturbed by this AFD, so arguing to keep on that basis is without foundation. Otto4711 16:26, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - directory of loosely associate topics. Many if not most of the keep !votes appear to be based on the notability of the coyote. Agreed, both the coyote and the mythological representations of the coyote are notable. That does not mean that a list of every fictional coyote or every fictional thing that's called coyote but may not be a coyote or every song that happens to be called "Coyote" whether the song has anything whatsoever to do with coyotes is notable. Otto4711 17:57, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- ACME keep Artw 18:37, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep The coyote article is about the animal, the mythological article is about beliefs and mythos, this article is about noting the pop-culture bridge between the two. It certainly could have a few more pertinent references (and a few less video game references), but that's a per-article editorial issue, one that can't be solved by AfD. Any ideas on improving this list, to show how it's slightly different than Crabgrass in popular culture or Naval lint in Popular culture, seeing as how those lack the same level of historical and cultural mythos? Ronabop 07:40, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I was WP:BOLD and yanked, well, a bunch of 'oh, a coyote' references. Ronabop 08:02, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Here are a few animal related afds that ended in delete: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beagle in popular culture, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Walruses in popular culture, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cattle in popular culture. And these are likely as or more notable than coyotes. Dannycali 20:08, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The same exact argument was made at the AfD for Penguins in popular culture. I'll give the same response: ::the opposite of otherjunkexists, is otherthingsweredeleted. Quite a lot of good articles have been deleted due to lack of attention to them, in popular culture and many unrelated topics. "Beagles" can be seen at User:AndyJones/Beagle in popular culture--it's a much less extensive article than this. If anyone wants the other two userified, let me know. "Walrus" is a little skimpy, but there are some references; "Cattle" is actually a rather good article, and someone might well want to trim it of the junkier part and try again. DGG (talk) 00:07, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Of note is geographical, and resulting cultural, disparity, even within a single en namespace. Growing up in Tucson, Arizona, I saw 3-5 coyotes a day, and my social and cultural mental space has reflected that. There are articles in the uk-en namespace that mean absolutely nothing to me such as British_half_penny_coin, or this loser teenager Prince_William who has done absolutely nothing notable (compared to other teens), which I would sooner delete as totally trivial wasteful nonsense, were I not aware that what is trivial to one english speaker is extremely notable to another. That being said, I didn't see a whole lot of Walruses growing up, or for that matter Cows or even Penguins, so, they must not be important enough for me to vote upon? Ronabop 05:55, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The same exact argument was made at the AfD for Penguins in popular culture. I'll give the same response: ::the opposite of otherjunkexists, is otherthingsweredeleted. Quite a lot of good articles have been deleted due to lack of attention to them, in popular culture and many unrelated topics. "Beagles" can be seen at User:AndyJones/Beagle in popular culture--it's a much less extensive article than this. If anyone wants the other two userified, let me know. "Walrus" is a little skimpy, but there are some references; "Cattle" is actually a rather good article, and someone might well want to trim it of the junkier part and try again. DGG (talk) 00:07, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete- my vote is the same as for every arbitrary list like this, for the same reasons expressed above by the delete faction. Never ending, pointless list. What is next, "List of dogs shown in Popular Culture? (ie books/TV/film/cartoons/parades/muscials/whatever).JJJ999 05:40, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_stuff - this is how bad these lists have gotten... and some of the same old faces still vote keep!JJJ999 05:50, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - there is nothing that ties this list together; there is nothing notable about this type of list and it can not be completed and will always be never ending. --Storm Rider (talk) 05:55, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'm trying to tie the list together by focusing on pop culture references which use the North American archetype of coyote, hence my deletions. That being said, a merge with Coyote mythos does have a point. Ronabop 06:02, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, Articles like this are exactly the kind of thing Wikipedia excels in. You can either like that or not, but if we delete all the excellent articles on perhaps slightly trivial, but nonetheless interesting topics, not much will be left here to read. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 12:22, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. This is worth keeping and improving, with time hopefully will connect the coyote dots before the actual species is eliminated. Benjiboi 12:57, 3 October 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 speedy deleted by KillerChihuahua (talk · contribs) under CSD G4. Non-admin closure. --Dhartung | Talk 00:53, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply] Lithium Eight[edit]
A non-notable band that seems to fail WP:BAND. Zero google hits for '"Lithium Eight" +band', so it's hard to establish verifiability. The only claim to notability is a tv performance in advance of a weekly lottery draw, which "...did not go down well with the viewers...". Bfigura (talk) 23:13, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 18:28, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] VertrigoServ[edit]Non-notable free software bundle, no reliable third-party coverage. Prod removed without explanation. Thomjakobsen 21:58, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Eluchil404 04:21, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Josh Martin[edit]Article is not referenced, seems biographical, and in my opinion doesn't meet notability requirements Carter | Talk it up 21:50, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 18:29, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Camp Dora Golding[edit]
Article has essentially no content. No claim of notability and Google comes up with nothing remotely close to significant third-party coverage. Pascal.Tesson 21:43, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:10, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Mark Beauchamp Taylor[edit]
In my opinion, the subject of this biographical article doesn't meet the notability criterion for inclusion in Wikipedia. The contents of the article are, as far as I can tell, entirely derived from the subject's personal web page and this is the only source listed in the article. A search of the web turns up no significant third-party sources on the subject. Cosmo0 21:29, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply] I am listing the following: (a product created by the subject of the above article) Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 22:31, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus to delete. W.marsh 22:54, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Pav Akhtar[edit]This article was tagged in May as lacking a credible claim of notability - I think that is accurate, and it still lacks any such claim. This person was a student political activist, and is now a borough councillor, but that is the limit of it. These are not achievements that will garner significant independent coverage - there is unlikely to be an independent biography on the basis of such activities, and a local councillor will not normally qualify for an obituary in the broadsheets should they happen to die. Although we have articles on borough councillors it's almost always because they went on to become members of parliament, or did something else worthy of note. I suspect that this article exists to prove a point about gay Muslims, but perhaps that is just a coincidence. The article was started (and is the sole contribution of) an acknowledged student activist, who believes in 100% income tax for people earning over £50,000 (which does not indicate much of a grounding in realpolitik or indeed reality) Cruftbane 21:21, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KeepIt provides useful information on this individual. Why delete? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.16.155.23 (talk) 18:21, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:06, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] St. John Bosco Interparish School[edit]
Article on non-notable school Arizona, has existed for almost a year without any significant information added. Has been proposed for speedy deletion twice as non-notable. Macboots 21:15, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. The "deletes" mostly have policy on their side; the "keeps" do not; the "move/rewrite" is a good idea but difficult to achieve with this article as it stands. However, if the original author or anyone else thinks they can achieve it, please ask for the history to go into your userspace and I'll oblige. With all due respect to Mr McCallum and for the avoidance of doubt, your input is welcome and was considered but it was not part of my thinking when determining consensus here. ➔ REDVEЯS was here 11:10, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Boitumelo McCallum[edit]
This one's not going to make me popular, I know... Per WP:NOT#MEMORIAL I don't think this should be here. She appears to be famous solely as the victim of a crime, and as per policy in that case the article should be about the case & not the victim; however, tragic as it is, the case doesn't appear to be unusual/significant enough to warrant its own article. However, I'm not in New York, and the number of press citations makes me think that maybe this case was more significant in the US than it appears to be. — iridescent (talk to me!) 21:01, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Maintenence tags[edit]As the father of Boitumelo McCallum when I read this article most of it is made up from newspaper articles at the time of my daughters death. The newspapers attempted to create scenarios of what had taken place before and on her death. These scenarios are very inaccurate and do little justice to Tumi's life. They are also very one dimensional. While considerable research may have been done to put up the page, this does not justify the reason for it remaining if it is inaccurate. It lacks substantive research and relies only on the media. At no time have the media actually interviewed me about many of these events. Much of the article is inaccurate and to edit it would mean to completely rewrite the piece. I strongly urge that this article be completely deleted, and a more appropriate page replace it that is more wholisitc and balnced in its perspective. The New York Times articles have been more accurate but even they have inaccuracies.(Rob McCallum 6.59 6 October, 2007) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robmac367 (talk • contribs) 23:13, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Elkman (Elkspeak) 02:26, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Doncaster live[edit]
Non-notable. Originally deleted once by User:Deb - not sure if it was speedy or just the user's own decision, mind - but recreated and A7 turned down this time, by User:Moonriddengirl. Anyway, nn in my eyes. Only ref is a first-party source, from Myspace. Google search for '"Doncaster live" magazine' brings up a *few* sources, most of which are unrelated (mostly on a namesake festival hosted in Doncaster). Only source I could find was: [4] , which I don't think is reliable enough, and doesn't have any info except verification that it exists. Considering it was only created last month it's far too soon, really. AllynJ (talk | contribs) 20:37, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. DS 03:58, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply] Harry Pykett[edit]Google returns 1 hit for a tennis player of this name, a 14-year-old in Leeds, UK, who won a doubles tournament. Multiple instances of CTA as a tennis organization but all seem to be local to specific US states. Unknown what a "world semi proffesional tennis player" means.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Accounting4Taste (talk • contribs)
The result was redirect to Stoner rock. Martial BACQUET 15:02, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Stoner music[edit]AfDs for this article:
This article was previously nominated for deletion some two years ago. It survived (barely); but with the expectation that it be cleaned up. This has not taken place; the article remains unreferenced and vague. It may be possible that we can have an article on this topic, but it isn't possible now, and hasn't been possible for three years. The article as written makes no claim as a noteworthy sub-genre, and presents no evidence that its claims are truthful or representative. Indeed, commentators at the previous debate reflected skepticism at some of the article's claims--those claims remain, unreferenced. While we are under no pressing deadline to whip articles into shape, we are also not obligated to keep bad articles around in the hope that some day someone will fix them. Mackensen (talk) 19:41, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was No consensus to delete - default keep although additionnal sources would probably be require, so I will tag it in consequence.--JForget 22:36, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Eric and the Gazebo[edit]
This article about a humorous role-playing game anecdote was deleted by JzG (talk · contribs) in May 2007 under speedy deletion criterion A7. The deletion was recently contested on the Help Desk by a person claiming to be the author of the story in question. As the story first appeared in a print publication, the article does not seem to satisfy the deliberately strict requirements of CSD A7. Since there is also some evidence that the story may in fact be notable, and as the deleting admin has retired from Wikipedia, I have chosen to undelete the article and place it on AfD instead. My personal opinion here is neutral, perhaps leaning slightly towards keep. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 19:39, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 18:30, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Impossible Quizzes 1 and 2[edit]
Most of this article is comprised of a walkthrough for the "sequel" (or whatever you want to call it). Unsourced, and fails WP:WEB. — Malcolm (talk) 19:34, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Good work, people. DS 04:14, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply] Aidan McAnespie[edit]Delete: Non-notable as one of over 3000 victims of the Troubles. Clear hagiography. Mazur-Grosskopf 19:03, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedily deleted as a copyright violation. Natalie 21:46, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Synthphonia Suprema[edit]
Non-notable band as per WP:MUSIC. No reliable third-party sources for notability, not listed at allmusicguide.com. The text is also a cut-and-paste job of [17], but I'm listing it here on reasons of notability as I'm assuming it's self-promotion and they wouldn't mind releasing their bio under a free license. Thomjakobsen 19:02, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect. Since they both stood at the same time, a history merge isn't appropriate, and there's no burning need to delete the content either. Just a simple redirect. Cool Hand Luke 07:31, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Telecommunications Complex[edit]
The article doesn't really assert its importance for its subject. It isn't clearly notable. Also, the only reference listed, goes to a page that isn't even English. I know it is listed as a stub, but stubs have guidelines also, and this doesn't seem to meet them. Rjd0060 18:37, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Elkman (Elkspeak) 02:29, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Jessica Major[edit]
Apparently not credited in the films she purports to have had roles in, according to IMDB Accounting4Taste 18:23, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Cool Hand Luke 07:34, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Lodewijk van Beethoven[edit]
Person only notable for being the grandfather of the famous composer. Apparent attempt by Rex Germanus (talk · contribs) to push his POV on the naming of Johann van Beethoven. Matthead discuß! O 17:22, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy deleted by Butseriouslyfolks as "nonsense, A7". —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 19:53, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply] MeiMei[edit]Copyright violation.Pharaoh of the Wizards 17:41, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedily deleted ~ Riana ⁂ 19:05, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply] List of stuff[edit]
It is a list of "stuff," that links to completely random articles in alphabetical order. Domthedude001 17:32, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply] Keep per WP:RandomStuffIsGood Flobert 17:42, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was DELETE. Reedy Boy 19:38, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply] Arizona Airways (1993 - 1996)[edit]
I added this using a link from the List of defunct airlines where a redlink showed this as Arizona Airways (1993 - 1996) and not as the previously existing Arizona Airways (1993-1996). I have merged information and and corrected the incorrect link and am requesting this be deleted. Thanks! Patriarca12 17:17, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Elkman (Elkspeak) 02:32, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] MXPie[edit]Borders on spam, probably non-notable. Also probably original research. I didn't think it was obvious enough for a speedy, so here it is. CitiCat ♫ 16:58, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Hopefully sources will follow.--Kubigula (talk) 03:03, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] E. Upton and Sons[edit]
Orphan article on seemingly non notable department store chain. "E. Upton and Sons" on Google turns up nothing but this article. Fails WP:RS, WP:V. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 16:55, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. The one "keep" proponent conceded the claim was borderline; there seems to be consensus for lack of notability. No prejudice against a recreation in future with a clearer assertion of notability and citations of reliable sources. Chick Bowen 03:14, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Owen Chaim[edit]The man has almost no notability: [20], and the article questionably asserts it: being a DJ and releasing an album are not claims to notablity. The Evil Spartan 16:52, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 18:52, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Manuel Of Life[edit]
Unreferenced and apparently non-notable, ranging from this to present version. Very likely a hoax. GregorB 16:37, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. W.marsh 22:44, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Shade 45[edit]The article is essentially just a radio station guide, which violates WP:NOT#DIR. Notability is not inherited and unless there are sources to show the station is notable by itself, there is no reason to keep a page that is just a directory and with no potential to expand. Spellcast 16:23, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 18:53, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Dermot J. O'Reilly[edit]AfDs for this article:
I see absolutely nothing confirming this man's notability. The only google hit is a marriage notice: [21] The Evil Spartan 16:22, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete as hoax. — Hex (❝?!❞) 17:17, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tobikunashiotomono Matsubara[edit]
Apparently a hoax. GregorB 16:13, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete and Salt Spartaz Humbug! 07:53, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
List of Christians[edit]AfDs for this article:
This was deleted (by me) several weeks ago after a debate at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Christians (2nd nomination). It's not an identical recreation so WP:CSD#G4 does not apply. The assertion on the talk page is that the problems identified in the previous AfD, including the arbitrariness of the criteria for listing, are addressed in the recreation. I think that assertion needs to be tested at AfD. Please do not let this be a repeat of the previous AfD verbatim. The question before us is simply: Have the issues that caused the previous incarnation to be deleted been addressed? Chick Bowen 15:18, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 18:53, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Paul Pelosi Jr.[edit]
Nothing notable about Nancy Pelosi's son. He's working for a company that is under suspicion, but the article doesn't say that Paul is under suspicion or give any other reason why Paul is independently notable. NawlinWiki 15:11, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. "Keep" proponents did not address arguments to delete, particularly the utility of this list beyond the individual family member articles and relevant categories. Chick Bowen 03:17, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Beazley family[edit]
Beazley family is a very short list of members of the family that fails purpose of lists. The information already is available in the underlying biography articles, including the family connections. The underlying biography articles are sufficient for navigation purposes and the list is very short and not needed for development. -- Jreferee t/c 19:33, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:40, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Burke family - Australian politics[edit]
Burke family - Australian politics is a very short list of members of the family that fails purpose of lists. The information already is available in the underlying biography articles, including the family connections. The underlying biography articles are sufficient for navigation purposes and the list is very short and not needed for development. -- Jreferee t/c 19:33, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep (non-admin closure). Pablo Talk | Contributions 05:19, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Chaney family[edit]
Chaney family is a very short list of members of the family that fails purpose of lists. The information already is available in the underlying biography articles, including the family connections. The underlying biography articles are sufficient for navigation purposes and the list is very short and not needed for development. -- Jreferee t/c 19:34, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:42, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Court family[edit]Court family is a very short list of members of the family that fails purpose of lists. The information already is available in the underlying biography articles, including the family connections. The underlying biography articles are sufficient for navigation purposes and the list is very short and not needed for development. -- Jreferee t/c 19:32, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the discussion was Keep--JForget 00:06, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Downer family[edit]
Downer family is a very short list of members of the family that fails purpose of lists. The information already is available in the underlying biography articles, including the family connections. The underlying biography articles are sufficient for navigation purposes and the list is very short and not needed for development. -- Jreferee t/c 19:34, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. A comment on the nominator is not an argument. Chick Bowen 03:18, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Hawke family[edit]Hawke family is a very short list of members of the family that fails purpose of lists. The information already is available in the underlying biography articles, including the family connections. The underlying biography articles are sufficient for navigation purposes and the list is very short and not needed for development. -- Jreferee t/c 19:35, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Playford family[edit]
Playford family is a very short list of members of the family that fails purpose of lists. The information already is available in the underlying biography articles, including the family connections. The underlying biography articles are sufficient for navigation purposes and the list is very short and not needed for development. -- Jreferee t/c 19:34, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete, with a clear majority for deletion. As several editors have pointed out, the framing of the article also raises obvious POV and OR problems. -- ChrisO 08:00, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Psychiatric abuse[edit]
Article is a list or repository of loosely associated topics (see WP:NOT). Furthermore, the collation of which may be construed as OR. If we keep this we may as well have Surgical abuse and Abuse by Republicans. Are the individual episodes noteworthy? absolutely. Are there controversial ethical issues in psychiatry? You bet! The correct structure would be an Ethical issues/controversies of psychiatry page and structured examples of how events arise. The whole slant and title of the page is POV and written by someone with an agenda. It has parallels with allowing a white supremacist to write articles on inferiorities of other races and presenting it as neutral. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:27, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Psychiatric News, August 6, 2004, Dr. Abraham Halpern uses the term psychiatric abuse to describe torture and fraudulent diagnoses of Falun Gong members http://pn.psychiatryonline.org/cgu/content/full/39/15/2 In the article by Drs. Lu and Galli, 'Psychiatric Abuse of Falun Gong Practitioners in China' the term is used throughout the article in a manner consistent with the definition in the article. http://www.jaapl.org/cgi/reprint/30/1/126.pdf
,torture, involving the Falun Gong prisoners: http://pn.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/full/39/15/2
-- Dhaluza 10:57, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How about at least rename/redirect to something like psychiatric malpractice, because we have a medical malpractice article, but not a medical abuse one? Yes other authors might have used the term, but they were not required to be NPOV as wikipedia is. Like it or not, 'abuse' is a loaded word.Merkinsmum 12:21, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Criteria for Deletion[edit]See also: Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion Shortcut: WP:DEL#REASON Reasons for deletion include, but are not limited to, the following:
Please note if you are here to do AfDs on article, these are the criteria for deletion. If you have an issue with an article don't make a point and waste the time of the community with your complaints by making up criteria for deletion that do not exist. Tag OR as such. Warn the owner. IN this case by forcing good editors to argue for the keeping of a topic that is appropriately encyclopediac in nature and does not meet the criteria for deletion you are giving ammunition to a bad editor. Cut it out. KP Botany 17:33, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment I think this article is getting a bit more NPOV and better. Please everyone take a look at the new version. There are lots more editors working on it which is making it more NPOV and hopefully sourced a bit better, and people are getting on with each other ok too.Merkinsmum 01:27, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
commentThat must of been earlier today that you looked, it's undergone significant editing today. It's as big a mess as it ever was.--scuro 02:57, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Psychiatric abuse is a phrase most often employed by Antipsychiatry and Scientology critics to categorize together all forms of real or alleged Psychiatric abuse and Psychiatric treatment. These fringe critics of Psychiatry who use the phrase, lump past and present cases of horrific abuse in with current forms of Psychiatric treatment such as Electroconvulsive therapy and the treatment of mental illness with psychoactive drugs to demonstrate that Psychiatry has, and always will be, a false and detrimental science for humanity. This controversial viewpoint clashes with the views held by virtually all mental health organizations and government agencies who deal with mental health around the world. Much more infrequently the term is used by scholars to describe horrific state sanctioned oppression and abuse by suppressive regimes against dissidents. --scuro 02:37, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Psychiatric abuse is a phrase often employed by Antipsychiatry
Arbitrary Break[edit]So since my father and other relatives were bipolar I should refrain from commenting because of possible bias but..."Oh, he was clearly canvassing Scientologists. I'm not sure he had seriously nefarious purposes or that his canvassing had much impact, but it looked pretty straight-forward. Still, I don't know that there is a ban on Scientologists editing Wikipedia articles or participating in AfDs, even this one, no matter how you got here". The irony of this vein is so rich and deep.--scuro 02:47, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
ongoing and systemic problems with the article
--scuro 04:20, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi HG, we already have that article Scientology and psychiatry which could cover their views of this term, and covers their view of this issue.:)Merkinsmum 00:11, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Psychiatric abuse is a generic term, mainly used by those who oppose psychiatry, to categorize all real and alleged mistreatment of people placed under psychiatric care. There are several highly polarized views of varying standards about what constitutes "Psychiatric abuse" in the field of psychiatry. What is categorized as mistreatment can range from simple malpractice, to human rights violations up to and including torture. It can also be used by those who oppose Psychiatry to identify proven mainstream treatments that have been shown to be clinically effective such as Electroconvulsive Therapy. In the extreme certain Antipsychiatry and Scientology critics would also include the lack of psychiatric institutions or neglect by poorly trained staff in these institutions as Psychiartic abuse. In another vein the term is also used by scholars who use it specifically as a descriptive term to describe state sanctioned oppression and abuse by suppressive regimes against dissidents. Within the field of psychiatry the term is not used. In Psychiatry "abuse" refers more narrowly to certain forms of malpractice by individual doctors and to the misuse of psychiatry by governments, such as the Soviet Union. Generally accepted forms of psychiatric care are not considered abusive by the profession itself or, in principle, within the broader field of psychology. The above is the quoted current form of the intro and feels accurate in all the different ways the phrase is used. Whether all these different uses are best served by being put together under the same umbrella is another question.--scuro 02:04, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was DELETED per speedy deletion A1. Moonriddengirl 14:45, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply] Ronex[edit]Non notable engineering product. In the history of the article the subject was first listed as " RoNEX " with a list of the "technical team" who worked on developing the medium voltage metal-enclosed switch gear and control gear, one of which was Gaser Zaher (talk • contribs), the creator of this article. The team names were removed and the article was reduced to an unverifiable stub. I can find no evidence that this term is used in the way that the article suggests-- not even commercially. The article has been tagged for cleanup since June 2006. I don't see where anyone could add to this article or even verify its contents. The term is used in other ways, however:
I think we just need to DELETE this OfficeGirl 14:11, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. DS 04:20, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply] Terrapsychology[edit]A neologism (unrelated to the established psychogeography) coined for the title of a 2007 book. Article created by a single-purpose account with the same name as the author of that book. A search brings up bookstore listings and blog postings; no evidence that the term is in use outside of the (presumably non-notable) book in question. Thomjakobsen 14:08, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. W.marsh 22:51, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Hampton Wick Royal Cricket Club[edit]
this sports team is not notable Clay5X 13:45, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete under WP:CSD G11, advertising. Elkman (Elkspeak) 01:23, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Marilenedecoracao[edit]
From what I could tell from a babelfish translation, this looks like an advert for a interior decoration company (correct me if I'm wrong). Certainly no assertion of notability. Article is in Portuguese for those looking to translate it better, otherwise here's a translation [39] ARendedWinter 13:37, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:42, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Nantwich Town F.C. 2007-08 season[edit]
I don't believe an article about one season in a Unibond League team's history is that notable. PeeJay 13:27, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was The result of the discussion was delete per WP:SNOW. Fails WP:N, WP:BIO, WP:PROF, WP:NPOV, and WP:COATRACK. Bearian 18:31, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Pernilla Ouis[edit]
A lecturer at a university. The article does not state that she holds a professorial chair, there is no evidence that she has been the subject of any non-trivial independent coverage. I believe this article fails the "professor test" as failing to demonstrate how this academic is in any way distinguishable from any other. This appears to be a "coatrack" article designed to publicise her conversion to Islam and a mention of her in a book on converts to Islam. Cruftbane 12:51, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 14:19, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply] Zedstar[edit]Self promotional article failing WP:COI. Perhaps not a speedy A7 but no references, major assertion of notability - Fails WP:BIO Peripitus (Talk) 12:33, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. CitiCat ♫ 03:14, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Zoot Rumpus[edit]This "upcoming" show has no information regarding the airdate for it or any citations to this show actually existing. treelo talk 12:20, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:43, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] List of television stations in North America by media market[edit]AfDs for this article:
The lists are owned by Nielsen and should not be listed here Ph992 12:15, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If the rather pedestrian logic in play here for this article's deletion were taken to its logical conclusion, there would be no articles on WP about the Academy Awards, since the term Academy Award and Oscar are copyrighted - maybe we could call them "motion picture salutations" and "anthropomorphic achievement totems," respectively? - we'd have to delete the pages of past winners, since you could argue that that's proprietary information for ABC, the broadcaster, and the Academy, and you would have literally a few hundred thousand articles on WP deleted based nothing more than on rampant paranoia and a subsequent wave of self-censorship. There would be no articles on commercial products, which have copyrighted or trademarked names, no articles on mascots, cartoons, movies, etc, since all of that is coyprighted/trademarked. We wouldn't be able to use passages from books, either, since that would be unauthorized reproduction of coyprighted materials. Nielsen posts the market information on its website every year, makes it freely accessible and everybody and their brother in the television industry and beyond use it. It's not a big secret. If it were essential proprietary information, they wouldn't post it and they would sue those who post it all over the Internet, which they haven't. Once you release facts into the public domain, they cannot be recalled for royalties later. The fact that the page acknowledges that Nielsen is the source should be enough to put this to rest. They give the information away, it's not locked behind a paid membership or anything of the sort, so our acknowledgement of their kindly making it available is enough, just as it is with any other source. I have no idea how this line of thinking was able to steamroller over the radio markets page, since that information is also freely available. Can we get that page back? This article is a fantastic resource for the media-minded, as everything is neatly categorized and one doesn't have to search for individual stations but can just look at all of those in a market. It would be a tremendous shame to see such a valuable page, into which so much effort went, deleted based on ill-founded logic. If in the future Nielsen asks for it to be taken down, that's another issue, but that hasn't happened. The page should be kept. Canadian Bobby 16:45, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] I too think this is a great resource and should not be deleted. STRONG keep. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amschulman (talk • contribs) 22:44, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 18:54, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Carl Macauley[edit]
Non-notable footballer and manager. Has never played in a professional league, nor managed in a professional league. Mattythewhite 12:09, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply] I am also nominating the following related page because it is also non-notable:
The result was delete.--Kubigula (talk) 01:03, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Terran Battlecruiser[edit]
This is game-guide material (WP:NOT#GUIDE) accompanied by statistics (WP:NOT#INFO), neither of which adhere to our fiction-writing guide (WP:WAF) and the subject is unlikely to have any out-of-universe context of note. No notability outside the game is asserted (WP:Notability), and no independent references are provided (WP:Verifiability). Marasmusine 11:32, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I also use to a creator of these pages until wikipedia decided to massively delete them. --Cs california 09:47, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Terran Battlecruiser is one of the most significiant space warship from StarCraft Universe...So why don't allow this article to stay on Wiki? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.70.209.3 (talk) 10:47, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:44, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Alex Finch[edit]Not Notable DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 11:29, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Carlossuarez46 02:18, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Mark Shepherd (Indoor lacrosse player)[edit]
Hoax. No such player has ever played in the NLL. MrBoo (talk, contribs) 11:27, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Boldly redirected by myself to Gough Bunting. They truly are the same species. No need to keep AfD open if redirect has been made. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 13:21, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply] Gough Island Finch[edit]
is the same species as Gough Bunting and should be merged with it. Gough Island is part of St. Helena Dixonsej 10:34, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. W.marsh 16:57, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Contributions to the War on Terrorism[edit]
These articles do not have any references. They are confusing, because this information is compiled by Wikipedia users: not by US Government anknownledging US Allies. For example, Finland and Sweden only have peace keepers in ISAF and UNIFIL, yet they apparently are hunting for terrorists and are US Allies. Why we should have these articles? They're useless, we have articles such as Multinational force in Iraq, ISAF, Operation Enduring Freedom - Afghanistan: Allies. There we can use sources and list them in appropriate places. Combining an unofficial list of allies in "WAR ON TERRORISM" may be politically biased, useless and inappropriate. We can list the countries in the appropriate articles, not combine some unofficial political list which does not have any references or anything. (Yeah, also Iran is a US ally in War on Terrorism :-) Pudeo⺮ 09:56, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect. W.marsh 16:55, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Rivory[edit]I have been there- it is a field (unless this is an Irish Brigadoon then that would be notable!) Aatomic1 23:30, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 18:56, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] The eras history of prowrestling[edit]
Unreferenced, unfocused, factually dubious article on a subject already covered by History of professional wrestling. Alksub 07:53, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:16, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Mom jeans[edit]A contested prod. This is from a Saturday Night Live sketch and doesn't even come close to the notability threshold. UsaSatsui 07:06, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 19:00, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Omnitheism[edit]AfDs for this article:
Unreferenced soapboxing about a religion found to be non-notable in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Omnitheism. Alksub 07:02, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep, notable but unsourced is not a reason to delete. --Stefan talk 08:37, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Jimmy Rave[edit]This biographical article violates WP:V, WP:BLP, WP:BIO and WP:NOR. To the minimal extent it is sourced at all, it uses non-reliable internet sources that mostly address the article's subject only in passing, not at all or are unreachable. Sandstein 06:54, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:46, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Charles John Spencer[edit]
This biographical article violates WP:V, WP:BLP, WP:BIO and WP:NOR. It has no sources and has been so tagged since January 2007. Sandstein 06:55, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was a speedy deletetion as per CSD A7 by Irishguy. Non-admin closure. --Oxymoron83 11:42, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] FierceApple[edit]No reliable sources can be found to establish notability (A google search yields three results) Sasha Callahan 06:15, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. its some wankers ad for his site 216.197.255.21 23:38, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:15, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] The 3rd Birthday[edit]
no assertion of notability, no sources except a third party 2 sentence statement that it was announced, violates WP:NOT, Crystal ball, game only exists as an announcement, no real information about the game whatsoever exists. ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 06:03, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep (non-admin closure). Although the COI issues are a cause for concern, the community feels that these issues should be dealt with through editing and not deletion. Pablo Talk | Contributions 06:41, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Alfred de Grazia[edit]AfDs for this article:
This particular article was nominated for deletion a year ago with no consensus. There are basically two problems with this page. First of all, it is written primarily by the subject's wife as a promotional spot for the person in question in violation of vanity regulations. This was the rationale for the first deletion, but there is a more important consideration to be had here. Our standards for including articles on academics are listed at WP:PROF. This particular person does not appear to me to rise to the level outlined there. In particular, he does not seem to be any more distinguished or well-known than an average professor -- indeed he may be considerably less accomplished than your average tenured professor. He has published some books, but none seem to have garnered any mainstream notoriety. Nondistinguished 05:57, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Carlossuarez46 02:38, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] O-Luv[edit]Wikipedia isn't a crystall ball, enough said. I'm surprised the article survived for the last 3 months. Spellcast 05:45, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Jake the Editor Man 13:31, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete as spam/CRYSTAL. I also deleted the 19 year-old would-be director's article Andrew McCarrick as speedy for failing to state notability. It was the only link-to. Cool Hand Luke 07:47, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Agent: Undercover[edit]
"Agent: Undercover is a feature film that is to be shot in late 2007, in New York City, New Jersey, Washington D.C.". Plot section was a copyvio from http://www.makethemoviehappen.com/index.php?synopsis but the rest appears to be original content. Note the banner at the top of the plagiarized page: "Make the Movie Happen - Current tally: $14357.34, target: $2,500,000". I guess that sums this "article" up pretty effectively. MER-C 05:32, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Changed my mind, delete. It has is own website. Wikipedia is not an advertising service. Jake the Editor Man 13:39, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This was posted by the filmmaker, and we are not advertising. This has nothing to do with the Make the Movie Happen website. If it did, we would have linked to it, as you can tell we obviously did not. We are just providing information of the film. HDFilmMaker2112 —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 19:33, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. John254 00:30, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Physical access[edit]
Two word term means what it sounds like, and therefore is not restricted to computer security, or even to security. Term might be used in contrast to "remote access" but is not notable. The citations given on the page are not about the coining of or the history of the term "physical access." It might also be considered a neologism. Speciate 05:15, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Jreferee t/c 05:21, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Universe of the Metroid series[edit]
This article was merged together with the best of intentions in order to make one, notable quality article out of many stubs. However, it appears that there is little to no referencing available for the universe of Metroid, and therefore I propose it be deleted. --Judgesurreal777 04:40, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete as copyvio; it'd probably have gone too if the AFD had run its course. Stifle (talk) 16:47, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply] Green Cat[edit]Relatively nn cat; probably copied from the web. OSbornarf 04:36, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Change to Delete per Rocket000 and as copvio. My keep argument still stands but I think it would be better if the thing is re-created without the copyvio history--Lenticel (talk) 04:43, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedily deleted as copyvio at 13:24 29 September 2007 (UTC) by Philippe (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Non-admin close. cab 13:52, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply] Christian Reformed Church of St Marys[edit]
Looks like an ad; probably copyright violations. (Not sure what to speedy this under) OSbornarf 04:31, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy Delete per CSD g1. — madman bum and angel 04:58, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply] Trisophagus[edit]Looks like a hoax. OSbornarf 04:29, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. No arguments for notability. CitiCat ♫ 03:09, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Southern Women Writer's Conference[edit]
Probably non notable conference - no assertion of notability; possible SPA. OSbornarf 04:19, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speeedy delete both as nn-bios. Stifle (talk) 16:39, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply] James Browning Kepple[edit]
Notability has not been established for these creative professionals. No evidence of sufficient third-party sources. Likely conflict of interest, see WP:COIN#James Browning Kepple. Also nominated is Kim Göransson. Ghits are 124 and 877 respectively. Contested prods. MER-C 04:02, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 19:00, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Felinese[edit]No reliable sources verify that this language is notable. Prod removed without significant improvement or explanation. -FisherQueen (Talk) 03:57, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge/redirect. W.marsh 16:50, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] The Dollywood Company[edit]
Page is already at Herschend Family Entertainment Corporation and this one appreas to violate WP:Crystal for its future speculation section. Sawblade05 (talk to me | my wiki life) 03:53, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete G7 (author blanked), non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 13:23, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply] Choplogic Radio[edit]
Probably non notable radio show OSbornarf 03:43, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete--JForget 00:04, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Survey of the twentieth century[edit]
This was previously discussed at an AfD two years ago under a different title; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eighty Years' War (1914-1995). Reading that debate and looking at the article as it exists now, I am certain it would be deleted under current standards. There's simply no source that documents that these concepts are more important as surveys of the period than any other, and thus it is inherently not NPOV. I anticipate some thoughts of merging, but that does not solve the POV problem. Chick Bowen 03:16, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus to delete. W.marsh 22:46, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] List of minor Star Wars Sith characters[edit]
Title of this and four other articles (i.e. use of "minor") already suggests non-notability of these character; articles themselves do not make an assertion of notability. These articles are entirely plot summary; what few sources they contain are simply primary sources to which plot summaries are cited. In addition to deletion, suggest adding a link to "List of Jedi" article at Wookieepedia to Jedi article. --EEMeltonIV 03:08, 29 September 2007 (UTC) Also nominating for deletion for the same reason:[reply]
And, as an addendum, another problem with "minor" -- the modifier is non-npov or OR; there are no citations that differentiate or define "minor" from "major." --EEMeltonIV 21:56, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(Re)Jay32183, As an inclusionist here and a historian in real life, I am always disturbed by the mania to get rid of information anywhere. Personally, as a grown-up, I don't give a damn about Jedis, but having stumbled upon this page I gave my opinion and a reason for "keep" which is what is demanded here. There is no good reason to delete it aside from the fact that certain people think it is "non-notable". One person above uses the justification that because the title actually *says* these are "minor characters" that is proof that the article is non-notable. Well, you might want to review Wiki policy on just this subject : Here, let me save you the trouble of clicking on that link:
The result was Delete. CitiCat ♫ 02:56, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] The Maw[edit]No (assertion of) real-world notability and no information beyond simple plot summary. References provided are primary sources; no real-world information to help the subject meet WP:WAF. EEMeltonIV 02:40, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Maxim(talk) (contributions) 17:21, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Luca de Alfaro[edit]
Random Academic, not really notable. Only reason for listing is that he has written some software that may be adopted by Wikipedia. SimonLyall 01:18, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete This should only be created when more info will be available and right now should be limited to Fergie's page.--JForget 23:50, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply] Untitled Second Fergie Album[edit]
Wikipedia is not a WP:CRYSTAL ball.
The result was Delete. Anyone interested in merging the material, don't hesitate to contact my & I can userify this article. — Scientizzle 15:33, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Karazhan Tower[edit]
Pure game guide material, an AFD discussion last year concluded that articles on instance dungeons in World of Warcraft were non-encyclopedic, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deadmines. Stormie 02:51, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Redirected to Arrondissements of the Haute-Vienne department[edit]
The page has minimal possible content and the only content on the page has been merged into Haute-Vienne. It is unlikely any new content could be added without a lot of overlap. MinuteElectron 10:10, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was No consensus (default keep). — Scientizzle 15:15, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Cortado (software)[edit]
Pitifully short. The only reason why I'm not A7ing it is because WM uses it. Will (talk) 12:53, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Maxim(talk) (contributions) 14:21, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Peter Chen Keyong[edit]
appears to be non-notable and doesnt pass WP:BIO. βcommand 14:40, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. — Scientizzle 15:12, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Blood On My Hands[edit]
No assertion of notability. CSD declined. PROD removed without reason. No non-trivial mentions in media; only one sentence mentions in news articles about a film festival.[54][55][56] utcursch | talk 10:44, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
|