Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 September 9
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy delete A7, by Samir (talk · contribs). —David Eppstein 16:59, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Gopal Kohli[edit]
Non-notable person created page for herself. --Jjamison 07:21, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind, it just got speedy deleted. --Jjamison 07:23, 9 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 (A7). SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:08, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
UP 49ers[edit]
Author contested PROD; this page is about a non-notable student organization with no sourcing, and there are serious NPOV violations, leading me to believe there's a COI on the part of the author. GlassCobra (talk • contribs) 23:35, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - IMO can be speedied A7 as there's no assertion of notability (if you read the two "notable alumni", they're allegedly notable for their positions in this club. Not tagged as we may as well let this run — iridescent (talk to me!) 00:10, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I stuck a Speedy Delete tag on it. Article makes no assertion of notability. Smashville 03:30, 10 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 A Goofy Movie. - Mailer Diablo 16:38, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Roxanne (Goofy Movie)[edit]
- Roxanne (Goofy Movie) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
This article pertains to a character that is deemed not notable (even though I created the article) and has already been merged into A Goofy Movie. leemcd56 23:37, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy redirect to A Goofy Movie, nominator even admits that content has been merged. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 01:28, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy redirect. Has only appeared in one film and one episode of House of Mouse. Besides, her role in A Goofy Movie isn't very significant. This article basically sums up the plot of the film. The Prince of Darkness 11:31, 10 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) 01:42, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Gunnelbobbing[edit]
- Gunnelbobbing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
While not quite a thing made up in school on day, with a mighty 3 Ghits, I don't see how this one's notable (no press coverage of any kind that I can see), and I'm unable to see any way this article can be salvaged. The "reference" is about BASE jumping, not this — iridescent (talk to me!) 23:01, 9 September 2007 (UTC):[reply]
Keep, needs serious work but plenty under the more common "gunnel bobbing" which is referenced over at Canoeing as 'gunnel-bobbed'. – Zedla 23:25, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment You're absolutely right and I'm ashamed to admit, it didn't occur to me to split the words. Trying the alternate spelling of Gunwale bobbing shows we already have this as a subsection of "Canoe", so I'm going to leave this AfD open to get a consensus of whether to delete this as a content fork & redirect, or leave it as a separate article. At the moment I still think the separate article needs so much work it might be easier to wipe it out & start again (I don't volunteer to do this, as I know nothing about the subject) — iridescent (talk to me!) 23:33, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete did some digging to see if it could be saved, the ref is fake per my notes on the the talk page. There are a few sentences in the first paragraph that could be merged into Canoeing (or could form a very bare stand alone article) but the rest of it is a hoax – Zedla 00:10, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge anything useful from the article into Canoe. Hal peridol 00:36, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as likely hoax. -- Rob C. alias Alarob 01:05, 15 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. Nominator withdraws nomination. Yossiea (talk) 18:11, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yitzchak Berkovits[edit]
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:spa|username}} ; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}} . |
- Yitzchak Berkovits (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Non-Notable and sounds like a commercial advertisement. Yossiea (talk) 22:56, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, there are no sources on this page and it looks like WP:OR, based on the first contributor to this entry. Yossiea (talk) 22:58, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Provisional Keep Unless there are two rabbis with the same name (obviously possible), a quick Google-skim makes him seem obviously notable, as he seems to turn up all over the place. Hopefully, a Hebrew speaker can check Israeli sources as to whether this is actually the case — iridescent (talk to me!) 23:12, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep the head of Aish Hatora for so many years is indeed notable--יודל 23:29, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. IZAK 05:24, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as he is famous and notable as a rabbi to the Baal teshuvas ("returnees" to Orthodox Judaism) in Jerusalem, particularly his work at the key Aish HaTorah institution. IZAK 04:59, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, notability established as per above. --MPerel 08:52, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Rabbi Berkovits is very highly regarded. He is the main posek for the English speaking community in Jerusaelm today. One day he will be from the Gedolei HaDor(great Rabbis of the generation). His efforts in rent control have spawned similar movements in neighborhoods all around haredi Jerusaelm. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.130.224.228 (talk) 12:07, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
* Keep Rabbi is top American Rabbi in Jerusalem, thousands of followers and admirers. Also is leading authority on Loshon Hora and is author of CHofetz Chaim: A Lesson a Day (Artscroll) http://www.artscroll.com/Books/LADH.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.130.224.228 (talk) 12:43, 10 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 as a copyvio per WP:CSD#G12. But|seriously|folks 03:37, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Lee Ae jung[edit]
Wikipedia is not a memorial. Article didn't seem to qualify for a7, but it still shouldn't is not notable enough for inclusion. Captain panda 22:49, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If he can fill it out some more, it might be worth keeping. The article as it is now basically just says 'She's dead. Oh, and here's a couple of things she did'. As it is now, I agree: it's deletion-worthy. HalfShadow 23:18, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete unless reliable sources can be found. Right now the only sources appear to be memorial (obit?) pages on semi-reliable (news blog) media. This is the strongest English result I could find, a review of the show, and it only lists her among the cast. --Dhartung | Talk 23:49, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't care much about some random actress but I'm really don't like your attitudes... This is patent ignorance + cultural bias...
Just because something can't be found in English media, it doesn't mean it's not notable... There are far less notable English speaking entertainers listed here in Wikipedia... how exactly do you define the notability of entertainers? Appearance on American TV? if that's your standard then i suggest you delete every article on European/Asian/South American/Caribean/African entertainers. After all, not many of them are very well known in English speaking Medias...
Which one of you regularly watch Japanese, Chinese, or Korean, TV in the 1990's may I ask? Did any one of you maybe went over to the korean protal and ask for some one's opinions over there?
I wouldn't really object to deleting this article on grounds of notability but if that's the case i expect to see you delete pretty much every article in categories like algerian muscians and finnish actors and the like (i'm not entirely kidding, click it through, pretty much all of the articles about finnish actors are about the same quality as this one.)
Philosophy.dude 02:17, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
p.s. personally i think having your death, as a foreigner, announced in major news sites like Xinhua News Agency qualifies as notable... [1]
- Comment. I'm about to speedy delete this as a copyvio of http://popseoul.com/2007/09/08/rest-in-peace-lee-ae-jung/. -- But|seriously|folks 03:34, 10 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 --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 22:36, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delia ketchum[edit]
- Delia ketchum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Contested prod. I proded orginally because an article on this character, under the title Delia Ketchum, was redirected to Ash Ketchum. If the correctly spelled article is not worthy of an article on it's own, why should an incorrectly spelled article be wiki worthy for a stand alone article? Postcard Cathy 22:42, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you've got a point there. I feel that this article may also fail Wikipedia:Notability. Mrs. Ketchum may be the protagonist's mother, but we don't see her very often in the series except for one banned episode, a few episodes after the Indigo League, and when Ash returns home only to set off for a new region. In addition, most other minor characters (such as Drew) do not have their own articles as well. I would agree to deletion on this one, under the primary reason of lack of notability. There really, really isn't much to say about her.
The second thing is that all sources are self-published, so they fail Wikipedia:Verifiability. I used to think they were fine as sources until this guy told me here. Sorry, but I'll have to vote for a deletion on this one. -- Altiris Exeunt 07:55, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I generally like to add more than 'delete per above' or 'delete per nom', but there's not much more to add. Kudos to the creator/s for the work put in, tho - please keep editing. Colonel Tom 13:34, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No reliable secondary sources to establish notability or provide real world context. Jay32183 20:04, 13 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: Speedily deleted - lacks context/no claim of notability. - Mike Rosoft 13:49, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Big 7 league[edit]
prod contested with no improvement to the article. Article still doesn't make any attempt to establish notability Postcard Cathy 22:24, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete No notability whatsoever. Definitely meets CSD A7. - Rjd0060 02:17, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete agree with Rjd0060. No assertion of notability, and WP:SD#A7 is applicable. Carlosguitar 06:10, 10 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. - Mailer Diablo 16:39, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Simon M. Kirby[edit]
- Simon M. Kirby (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Not particularly notable, see also the Talk Page GhePeU 21:35, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep.Definitely seems like a notable expert on the field, see this. • Lawrence Cohen 05:39, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, nothing unusual: [2], [3], [4] GhePeU 08:43, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Taking it further... wouldn't this indicate he is notable? • Lawrence Cohen 13:22, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Upgrading to Strong Keep per extra sourcing by Bláthnaid. • Lawrence Cohen 15:39, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Taking it further... wouldn't this indicate he is notable? • Lawrence Cohen 13:22, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep There is an article about him in New Scientist [5]. The two books of his that have been published by Oxford University Press have received multiple reviews eg [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11]. This review of one of his books says that it "received international acclaim as an innovative contribution to the discussion on the relationship between formal and functional linguistic approaches". Bláthnaid 23:50, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. As the original author, I know my points will be given less weight, but they are thus: he has an important position, many non-trivial publications, in a not-very large field, and does interesting work. He's also received real coverage, as Blathnaid points - IIRC, I myself first heard of him (and wrote down his name to look up later, which eventually led to writing an article) when he was mentioned in a book review in the NY Times as a linguist doing important/interesting work related to evolution. --Gwern (contribs) 01:49 12 September 2007 (GMT)
- Weak keep. There is absolutely nothing in the article as it stands to indicate to the general reader that Kirby is a notable scholar. Thanks to Blàthnaid for finding the New Scientist article. -- Rob C. alias Alarob 01:11, 15 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 redirected. the wub "?!" 22:08, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Greene county daily world[edit]
- Greene county daily world (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Recreation of Greene County Daily World, a page with constant vandalism. Jonathan Fall down go boom. Light fireworks go BANG!® 21:38, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect This didn't need to be listed for AfD; just redirect Greene county daily world to Greene County Daily World. GlassCobra (talk • contribs) 21:57, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect Agreed with GlassCobra, this doesn't need an AfD, and as for the constant vandalism alluded, it's more a content dispute with the parent article it seems than vandalism. Nate 22:02, 9 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. —David Eppstein 06:30, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
AYME[edit]
Advertisement in violation of WP:SPAM. Non-notable charity group. Almost all of the text is a WP:COPYVIO from [12] and [13], and that is after another Wikipedia editor removed two whole copyvio sections from another source. Nothing salvageable here. OfficeGirl 21:33, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete - If it's a copyvio then surely it's a speedy for it? At the very least the violating text should be removed and replaced with a {{copyvio}} tag.--WebHamster 22:13, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete Since there doesn't appear to be any non-copyvio material present Bfigura (talk) 22:20, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete as copyvio, so tagged. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 01:29, 10 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, but I'm going to tag it for {{sources}}...If there's no sources added in a couple of weeks or months, I'd strongly recommend another AfD for failing WP:V. — Scientizzle 22:38, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dov Gazit[edit]
Cannot find any reason why this guy is notable. None of the English google hits for Dov Gazit are for him, and from what I can make out neither are most of the Hebrew ones. The most that can be said about him is that he was a chief-commander of the IAF (Israeli Air Force) Technical School in Haifa, but I do not believe that is a notable position. Number 57 21:02, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletions. -- Number 57 21:04, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, there is another Dov Gazit listed in Google - head of the 2ooo Gazit report, former Gaza administrator and Brigadier General. But this Dov Gazit precedes Google and is an important contributor to the Israeli Airfoce. He was a member of Haganah and commander of Air Force technical school, and most interestingly, this Dov Gazit brought the first lion back to Jerusalem Biblical Zoo, where it lived for some 30 years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.49.94.160 (talk) 21:40, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The article brings in info from Slavic-language sources (not cited), so it's not surprising to find few or no Google hits in English. His notability seems well established in the article. -- Rob C. alias Alarob 01:16, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The article cites an individual linked to Zionism in Russia, service in the Haganah, and a human interest portion (the story of the lion acquired for the Jerusalem Biblical Zoo. -- Steven alias StevenBirnam 04:17, 15 September 2007 (UTC) — StevenBirnam (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete. Maxim(talk) 20:07, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dead Rain[edit]
Contested prod. Unable to find reliable sources outside of IMBD. Does not appear to come close to meeting notability guideline for films. JamesTeterenko 20:41, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Of all the actors, only one has an article, and appears to be non-notable (some of the cast links point to incorrect articles on people of the same name). In addition, this movie appears to be its director's only work, and the only movie ever produced by its production company, so says IMDB. Someguy1221 20:50, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom and Someguy1221. -- Rob C. alias Alarob 01:20, 15 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 --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 22:42, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tiln[edit]
Contested PROD. Disambig page where the items disambiged are two red links. Protester created blue links, but neither is to the actual item, but rather to related items, so it's still a disambig to two red links. TexasAndroid 20:29, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it isn't. It's a disambiguation page, not an article. It is now a disambig with two bluelinks, which is the important bit; the retention of the two redlinks does not somehow negate the bluelinks. Please see WP:MOSDAB for guidelines for the use of redlinks in disambiguation pages, and if needed raise a "Wikipedia:Miscellany for Deletion" discussion instead. -- JHunterJ 23:18, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Appropriate disambig page. The red links may refer to notable subjects, but if not that doesn't prevent them from being listed in a disambig page. — xDanielx T/C 06:47, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, if this AfD is going forward, per my response to the proposal. -- JHunterJ 10:39, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment My point is that, given noone has created articles on the two actual subjects, they do not appear thus to be notable enough for the project. At the least, not notable enough for anyone to have bothered. Links to related articles do not show notability of the linked items. A link to the play's author is not a link to the play. A link to a list of places is not a link to the place. The two items that are actually being disambiguated are not linked to anything. They are still red links, and thus IMHO do not qualify to be on a disambiguation page. The disambiguation page refers to red links being allowed if the item is likely to have an article written. But these two have been here for almost two years, with noone bothering to create articles. Disambiguation pages are for navigation between similarly named articles on the project. But this disambig does not serve that purpose. There is nothing at the two destinations, and so nothing to disambiguate between.
- On an interesting related note, I just a couple of days ago had someone post on my talk page saying that I should actually be speedying these things, as by {{db-disambig}} they qualify for G6 speedy deletion. I have no intention of actually doing that, as I much prefer to give the chance for my judgement on these kind of things to be questioned, which PROD and AFD allow for, even if that means that some results go against my own judgement. But still. The fact that this is enough for Speedy deletion is an interesting twist. There's still the issue that JHunterJ considers linking to related articles to avoid the issue of it not pointing to anything, and my contention that related articles do not qualify. But still...
- Finally, on the AFD vs MFD issue, I just looked at WP:MFD, and it talks specifically about being for things outside the main namespace. Disambigs are in the main namespace, so I would think that AFD is still the proper place for this discussion. - TexasAndroid 15:27, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- On the interesting related note -- that someone was me (the same JHunterJ), but not for "these" things. The speedy is for dabs with 1 or 0 blue links, so it doesn't apply here.
- On the AFD vs MFD issue, a look at WP:AFD indicates that is specifically for articles, and disambigs aren't articles, so I don't think this is any better than WP:MFD. Perhaps there is no place for such discussions because they shouldn't really be needed -- either there are insufficient things to be dabbed and {{db-disambig}} should be used, or there are sufficient things to be dabbed and no discussion should be needed.
- On this one in particular, there are two articles that mention Tiln, despite the Tilns themselves not being notable or interesting enough to merit an editor creating the articles. Such things can and often are still included in disambiguation pages because that helps the reader reach the page he or she was looking for -- again, please read WP:MOSDAB for its discussion of redlinks on dabs. In this case, a reader searching for Tiln likely wants either the play or the place, hence the disambiguation page will get them there quickly. There are no notability requirements for disambiguation pages themselves. -- JHunterJ 21:41, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep—Notability requirements for an entry on a dab page have a much lower standard than requirements for an entire article about a subject. Maybe there is a misunderstanding that comes from this instruction in WP:MOSDAB: "Links to non-existent articles ("redlinks") should be included only when an editor is confident that an encyclopedia article can be written on the subject." If, as the nomimnator contends, it is very unlikely that the two redlinked articles will ever have articles, then the instruction tells us not to link the article titles; it does not ask us to remove the entries from the dab page altogether. In other words, I see two valid entries on this dab page—if the consensus is that these articles will not be created then we would de-link the two red titles, but still keep the entries on the dab page to help with navigation to related articles that mention Tiln. --Paul Erik 22:26, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep As pointed out above, the presence of blue-links on the page to topics directly & closely related to the red-links is an acceptable format for disambiguation pages. The argument that "if it's a red link, it is not a notable topic" is a statement of misunderstanding about the present content of Wikipedia vs. the scope of notable topics in the real world - there is a great deal not yet included here that is nonetheless notable. I would suggest, though, that a best practice would be to create an entry on one of the requested articles pages to accompany red-links on dab pages; that would be a concrete demonstration by the dab page author(s) that the topics are indeed notable enough for inclusion in their opinion. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:00, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment In my opinion, disambiguation pages are not in scope for WP:PROD in general as they are not articles per se. Nor, in my opinion, should they appear at WP:AFD; rather, I would prefer to see them at WP:MFD. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:04, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per JHunterJ. older ≠ wiser 02:21, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Just because the links are red at the moment does not mean the disambiguation page is useless. As long as articles can be written on those two topics, the dab page does what it is supposed to do.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:33, 11 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 04:21, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Summer Sunshine (film)[edit]
- Summer Sunshine (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
A contested prod. I did a Google search and was not able to find any reliable sources that this is notable. JamesTeterenko 20:28, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Wow, I can just cut and paste this from another afd. None of the actors have articles (not that that doesn't mean they aren't notable, it's merely suggestive). In addition, this movie appears to be its director's only work, and the only movie ever produced by its production company, so says IMDB. Someguy1221 21:01, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as non-notable. The fact that none of the actors have articles, as noted by {{user-c|Someguy1221)) is definitely a red flag; I'm also unable to locate any sources apart from IMDB. --Darkwind (talk) 21:16, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above. Non-notable, and the plot is a copyrightvio of the IMDB. --Hirohisat Kiwi 21:22, 9 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 --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 18:07, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Black Eyes and Neckties[edit]
- Black Eyes and Neckties (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Questionable whether this meets WP:MUSIC. Punkmorten 20:18, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as non-notable. The "sources" are a classified ads site, and an independent punk music sales site. --Darkwind (talk) 21:19, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as obscure garage band. Non-notable. -- Rob C. alias Alarob 01:21, 15 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 04:22, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Spunk rock[edit]
Fails WP:RS. Punkmorten 20:21, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:NFT—I can't find any mention of this "genre" anywhere outside of material sourced from this very article. --Darkwind (talk) 21:23, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I can see several references to the phrase - mostly as a song title - but a genre as referenced in the article? Darkwind and I concur. Colonel Tom 13:45, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete for reasons stated. All the bands using the term seem to have the same three or four people in them. -- Rob C. alias Alarob 01:27, 15 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. Note I voted, but this is obvious. Neil ム 13:16, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mark Warner (Canadian politician)[edit]
- Mark Warner (Canadian politician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Non-notable Conservative candidate. Never held public office. Fails WP:BIO. Delete GreenJoe 20:21, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I should add that it also fails WP:AUTO since the subject himself has heavily edited the article. --GreenJoe 20:26, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Nice personal election brochure this is... Is the book he co-authored notable? If so, keep. If not, delete unless he wins the by-election. Resolute 21:19, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete As loath as I am to delete such a well formated and non-POV article, he isn't notable till he wins an election or something unusual happens in the election. Mbisanz 02:56, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep. I tend to think that all major party nominees reach a minimum (and, in this case, a bare minimum) level of worthiness of inclusion. But if consensus leans the other direction, I see nothing else about the individual that makes an article on him worth keeping unless he gets elected to Parliament. youngamerican (wtf?) 12:00, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. We keep the information on all major party candidates in Canadian elections. If he is not notable enough for a full article, he should be merged into the general one on Conservative candidates. In this case he has done enough things outside of politics that an independent article is justified. - SimonP 12:25, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Discussion on the merits of a Wikipedia article on Mark Warner can be found at the very recent deletion review discussion, which can be found here. There seems to be ample evidence that he is notable enough for an article with or without his candidacy; he holds an award from McGill University, co-author of a published book, is a frequent public speaker, and has featured in Financial Times, the Toronto Star, Agence France Press, and the Wall Street Journal/ Dow Jones. I can only assume the nominator didn't read beyond the first paragraph. Neil ム 14:10, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep It is standard practice that Canadian political candidates, nominated for an upcoming, current or previous election are notable enough to keep. However, it is not to be an explicit campaign piece, so asking for volunteers etc. should be removed from any political article if such subject matter appears within it. I've also noticed that this article was nominated for deletion by GreenJoe, who consistently brings up AfD challenges that fail, due to their misundertanding of Wikipedia guidlines. Since almost of all of that user's AfD fail, and are in fact unwarranted, this call for deletion should be dismissed outright. --Abebenjoe 15:45, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Assume good faith, please. The DRV did suggest this go to AfD, and not everything I nominate at AfD fails. It's about geting a consensus too. I don't appreciate your venomous words. GreenJoe 16:06, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm on the fence about this one, but I do feel that I need to stand up for GreenJoe, with whom I've clashed a couple of times before (he's a deletionist, I'm an inclusionist, basically). He does propose a fair number of unsuccessful AfDs, but it's not because he doesn't understand WP:N; he just takes a very narrow, but not unreasonable, reading of them. And even if he was completely out to lunch about it (which he isn't), that wouldn't constitute justification for outright dismissal of this AfD, as User:Abebenjoe suggests. Sarcasticidealist 19:09, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep - I trimmed a bit of pavonage, but the article is still pretty superficial. What visible positions has he taken, other than being a Tory of Afro-Caribbean heritage? What controversies has he been associated with? GreenJoe, I'd advise improving the article and making it meet NPOV standards, rather than trying for a deletion. (And co-authorship of an obscure textbook is a pretty weak claim to notability, by the way.) --Orange Mike 16:17, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep Co-authoring a book usually means that the guy suggested that the author use Verdana as the font in the book or something equally similar, in my experience. But regardless, he has other 'claims to fame' as well as the Candidacy. It kind of reminds me of the Bill Shorten article... who is a union activist in Australia, and a candidate for the 2007 election here. I'm not sure whether or not this guy is on a similar level, because I'm overall unfamiliar with Canadian politics. Pursey Talk | Contribs 17:10, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- As nicely formatted an election brochure the article is, he's not notable. He's not going to win. It's a Liberal riding. Very liberal. Major party candidate doesn't make him notable. The book isn't notable, and he's only the co-author. The by-election hasn't even been called yet. Wikipedia isn't a crystal ball. --GreenJoe 17:13, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This article is not about an anticipated event, so Wikipedia is not a crystal ball is not relevant here.--Markdsgraham 12:42, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- As nicely formatted an election brochure the article is, he's not notable. He's not going to win. It's a Liberal riding. Very liberal. Major party candidate doesn't make him notable. The book isn't notable, and he's only the co-author. The by-election hasn't even been called yet. Wikipedia isn't a crystal ball. --GreenJoe 17:13, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per SimonP.--JForget 23:38, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Since nobody else seems to have bothered to look the book up in quotes on Google: its a law-school text and has been used as a text in courses on International Law (which by the way, is significant enough alone to keep the article per WP:BIO...). While there are not a lot of recent courses solely based on the text (since the last edition with Warner was in 1997), this version is apparently still used as a reference in classes across Canada (eg: University of Victoria LAW332, USask's 2006 offering of "International Trade Law", etc), and is cited as a resource by numerous law libraries at US Universities (a testament to notability .. eg: NYU lists the text among only two in its "NAFTA research guide" http://www.law.nyu.edu/library/naftaguide.html) and Canadian universities (eg: McGill, Western, etc). The book is hardly passable as it is also co-authored by a former Minister of Foreign Affairs. I'm still recent enough of a student to have access to journal sites, and this text is cited in published papers, although I unfortunately can't direct link anything from JSTOR or anything like that because nobody will have access.
- ¶ To respond to above commentators confused over the multiple authors, this is obvious because the text is designed to be comprehensive and there are different legal specializations covered by each author. It does seem to be a "best seller" as both the publisher and Warner's bio from Fasken Martineau DuMoulin state (who referred to it as "the leading Canadian trade law treatise" in pieces dating closer to the publication date). I can even find it referenced in decisions logged on justice.gc.ca (that's Canada Justice Dept for the non-Canadian wikipedians... eg URL: http://canada.justice.gc.ca/en/ps/drs/cac/ch2-a.html).
- ¶ In terms of Notability, there are multiple published articles referencing Warner, including mentions in local news in the riding about him. Per Neil's comment, he's been tapped to comment/write on issues in The Financial Times, the Toronto Star, Agence France Press, and the Wall Street Journal/ Dow Jones... He's also well published in other sources: "Antitrust, World Competition, International Trade Law and Regulation, the American Journal of International Law, Law & Policy in International Business, the Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law, the Northwestern Journal of International Law & Business, the Brooklyn Journal of International Law, the Canadian Business Law Journal and The Legal Times".
- ¶ Despite some effort to wipe the reference from his previous article, Warner is also listed in ExpertGuides: http://www.expertguides.com/default.asp?page=2&egaBOBID=&CountryID=103&ExpertOfficeID=21340&GuideID=158&fcIndex=1575&fIndex=687 (ExpertGuides for finding internationally recognized lawyers is published by the Legal Media Group of EuroMoney -- a published monthly financial magazine). Check the methodology page at http://www.expertguides.com/default.asp?page=11&stub=2. The listing research process starts with 3500 questionnaries: "The questionnaire asks leading figures to nominate those lawyers they consider being among the most capable for that work. The results are analyzed and screened for firm, network and alliance bias" and continues with interviews with "acknowledged leading experts" in interviews held in major legal centres: "Los Angeles, San Francisco, Chicago, New York, Washington DC, London, Paris, Brussels, Frankfurt, Zurich, Hong Kong, Singapore, Melbourne and Sydney." And it goes on (read it yourself). It says mentions can be "enhanced" by adding a bio (presumably for $$), which given the logo, is something Warner's firm apparently opted to do. However, there is no way to "buy" your way onto this list and given the publisher it is very credible. Take a moment consider what it would take for experts from across the world in your chosen field to name you and your work as worthy of their nod. I for one would be wondering how the heck they knew who I was. This recognition makes sense: Warner chaired a committee with the American Bar Association, Worked with the ICC (Co-chaired Competition Commission Working Party on E-Commerce and Competition Policy), testified for the US DOJ, and FTC, and served as counsel for the OECD for several years.
- ¶ Even without a nomination for Toronto Centre, he's worthy of Wikipedia. That nomination only adds to the fact he should have an article here, and is far from the sole reason for it. The only candidate in this riding not worthy of an article is Tindal. The Greens here don't have to be upset that the best candidate their EDA could muster is little more than a deadbeat kid (b. 1981) with Internet access... I've said it before, and I'll say it again: I really do think all of Rae (Liberal) / Khaki (NDP) / Warner (Conservative) are worthy of bio's here on Wikipedia, and especially believe this to be the case so after reading WP:BIO. Greenjoe: I'm sure everyone familiar with Toronto Centre agrees that Warner has one hell of a battle to fight if he wants to make a dent in the riding, but that has nothing to do with his worthiness of an article, and nothing to do with Wikipedia being a crystal ball. Looking at your history, you seem to be a fan of what I think is excessive tagging. If you put crap on Khaki's article, I'll be there to defend that too. Thank goodness Rae's is locked. --Grandmasterkush 01:43, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep or merge I'm of the view that major party candidates should have articles at least until the election they are running in is concluded, particularly if at least one candidate in the contest already has an article. If we need to revisit the question about his notability after the election, we can, but I see no harm in having an article until then as long as it's well sourced, balanced and NPOV. Reginald Perrin 03:06, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I tend to think that the only reliable basis for notability is ultimately objective: authorship of a major text, published recognition in a field, holding academic positions, and appearing in multiple articles in world-wide media have to be enough. Otherwise, it becomes impossible to build an encyclopedia of relevant knowledge. Full disclosure: I live in the riding and am politically active (as a Conservative --Markdsgraham 19:02, 11 September 2007 (UTC)). Nonetheless, I think deleting this article and others like it will lead to a flood of deletions with the ultimate effect that users cannot find articles on subjects they are interested in. I think it's clear that any concerns about NPOV should be addressed by editing the article not deleting it.--Markdsgraham 12:42, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep on the basis of general notability as well as the election. I have argued that major party candidates for national positions should be considered notable as a matter of course--this has not really been the consensus previously, but consensus can change and perhaps it has--certainly I've seen more people supporting that view lately. (I think they're important enough and always get press.) I doubt the academic career would be notable by itself: Assistant Professors generally turn out not to be notable as academics alone--co-authorship of one book may not be enough. DGG (talk) 15:48, 11 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 04:20, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
HQ Entertainment[edit]
- HQ Entertainment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Non-notable record label by a musician who does not even have a Wikipedia page. Fails WP:CORP because of no reliable, third party sources. I'm also adding Taking Over the Game Vol. 1 for the same reason. Spellcast 19:55, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No assertion of notability I can see - Delete both. MarkBul 20:13, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not even qualifiable for notability till they release the mix tape. Mbisanz 02:57, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete All as notability unproven. --Gavin Collins 08:40, 12 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. WjBscribe 22:34, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comic Land[edit]
Contested prod, creator removed prod notice and added protected tag to article (nonadmin). Original prod reason: Bionicle fanfic creation and fan "movie" of sprite animation. No apparent or asserted significance or importance of comic/movie. Fails WP:MADEUP,WP:FICTION,WP:MOVIE . Recommend Delete. Michael Devore 19:50, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Can't imagine this will be controversial.--P4k 19:52, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom, and I note (with amusement) the signature in the article text. --Darkwind (talk) 21:25, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete per WP:MADEUP. Smashville 22:44, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Well no duh. --Thε Rαnδom Eδιτor (tαlk) 22:52, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete per nom. I do not see any way to save this article. Carlosguitar 06:05, 10 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. Interested editors may wish to make more effort to source this article to prevent its relisting as it is lacking in sources - but there is no consensus to delete at this time. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 22:43, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Motorola W220[edit]
- Motorola W220 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
The article for this non-notable product has been Marked for expand since July with no action and remains a few-sentence stub. The only references are a blog-style review and the manufacturer's website, re-enforcing the lack of material available to write a well-referenced article because of the product's irrelevance. -- Mikeblas 03:12, 3 September 2007 (UTC) Mikeblas 03:12, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete in the absence of substantial third-party sources. Jakew 15:39, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Wikipedia is lacking in coverige of Motorola products. Now we have far more articles on Pokemon characters than Motorola products. I think every mobile phone hardware platform is notable. Minor versions for diferent markets should be merged. We do not have any artilces on Motorola phones that share this hardware platform. If there are they should be merged with this article. -- Petri Krohn 04:59, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 08:12, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep the lack of sources in the article doesn't mean there aren't any. Given a bit of time I could find some--Phoenix 15 19:47, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Wikipedia is not a catalofg of celphones. The article lacks any coverage in independent and reliable sources, so fails [[WP:N]. Edison 21:28, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete unless the phone set some kind of sales record or tech breakthrough. Mbisanz 02:58, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and source better, or merge all the stubs into one article. You don't have to be the biggest or the best to be notable. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 06:43, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete There is no indication that this phone is notable.--JForget 23:38, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Non-notable phone is non-notable. 198.103.221.52 22:58, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into one article about Motorola's entire cellphone line. -Toptomcat 16:43, 17 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 Dihydrogen Monoxide (H2O) 05:44, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Motorola E770[edit]
- Motorola E770 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Because this phone is non-notable, the only cited references are the manufacturer's page and a review which doesn't meet the WP:N guideline for "substantial". The article, without specific footnotes, is just a list of "features" and "complaints" without footnotes from the two provided references (inadequate as they may be). An interesting article on the product would reference books written about the product team and their process, articles about the design of the product in its domain (eg, RF engineering, firmware development, etc), and so on. Were this product notable, such references would be readily available; they're not. Mikeblas 03:28, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The review mentioned is devoted to covering this particular brand, so I cannot see how that is not "substantial", and if you make a Google check you'll find plenty more. A good article would have more sources yes, but even in the current condition, the article succeeds at providing the important information. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:46, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I agree with the nominator that product reviews are not substantial coverage for the purpose of determining notability. Jakew 15:38, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Also the article is written in most part like a guide--JForget 23:16, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Badly written is no reason for deletion. Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#Surmountable problem says not to base an argument on the quality of the current article. I know I'm being a bit of a wikilawyer but it could be improved--Phoenix 15 19:54, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Wikipedia is lacking in coverige of Motorola products. Now we have far more articles on Pokemon characters than Motorola products. I think every mobile phone hardware platform is notable. Minor versions for different markets should be merged. This phone seems to be Motorola's flagship model, and does not share hardware with any other phone with a article. -- Petri Krohn 04:56, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- keep article is badly written yet more sources could be found--Phoenix 15 19:54, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 08:04, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Wikipedia is not a catalog of celphones. The article lacks any coverage in independent and reliable sources, so fails [[WP:N]. Edison 21:29, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I don't see how a list of product specs is a Wikipedia page - Wikipedia is not a directory. Reviews don't show that the item is notable - they just show that they exist. Notability would require articles discussing the buzz about the product in reliable sources - think iPod. Now THAT is a notable product. this is a catalog. MarkBul 22:56, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Dozens of new cell phone models are made every year, some like Chocolate, RAZR, and iPhone are notable. Others, like this aren't.Mbisanz 03:01, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and source better, or merge all the stubs into one article. You don't have to be the biggest or the best to be notable. But if there is only a few sentences, merge them into an article on Motorola cellphones. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 06:43, 10 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, article lacks sufficient independent sourcing. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 22:49, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Amy McCarthy[edit]
Delete for lack of independent notability. Wryspy 01:36, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I think that being a Playboy centerfold is noteworthy of notability, but Playboy Cyber Girl is not Corpx 04:26, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Vague AFD statement. Are you saying that apart from her website notability is not established. I will add a few things in the next hour or so to establish independent notability. --TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 20:27, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment She google tests at over 2.5 million hits and is from a notable (by wikipedia standards with 2 sisters and a cousin having articles) family (which only helps ever so slightly).--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 20:52, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No. If you enter the name with "Amy McCarthy" in quotation marks so that the works have to be side-by-side, it's 80,500. And then start looking at the actual entries. A huge number of them are not about her. As for your previous remark, having a notable family does not denote individual notability. Wryspy 16:52, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand notable family does not denote individual notability, but on the margin it helps ever so slightly as I stated above.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 18:55, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 08:14, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails WP:BIO and WP:N. Sources are the magazine she appeared in and web sites of questionable reliability and independence. Edison 21:31, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I thought magazine appearances support notability.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 18:55, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Between her two magazine appearances and her acting credits, I feel she's notable. Dismas|(talk) 04:50, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Nothing encyclopediac at all about this. NBeale 10:53, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - an appearance in Playboy (as opposed to being a centrefold) is not notable. Her acting credits appear to be non-notable small parts. And being related to someone notable doesn't cause it to transfer. -- Whpq 16:31, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect - The Playboy article was apparently a roundup of Cybergirls rather than a dedicated article, which is just enough to knock me off the fence on this one. However, I think she has gotten enough attention that there should be a redirect to her sister, and I favor retaining the history in case her career progresses. --Groggy Dice T | C 01:41, 15 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. Wizardman 12:17, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Faran College Jhang[edit]
- Faran College Jhang (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
procedural nomination Deleted via WP:PROD in June 2007, recreated in much improved form in August 2007, nominated for speedy deletion the same day, then taken to PROD on procedural grounds. The article does not assert notability - and does not even note in which country the school resides. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:55, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:59, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per lack of significant coverage from independent sources. None of the information is verifiable Corpx 04:23, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletions. cab 04:38, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Existence and location verifiable by reference to newspapers and government websites [14]. Don't see any evidence of notability but I'll wait for someone more knowledgeable about the local situation to comment. cab 04:38, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Existence and location hardly verifiable without knowing what country to look in. As the article presently stands, it quite nearly qualifies as CSD#A1 because I certainly can't figure out in which context I'd find this information relevant. --Darkwind (talk) 21:31, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete (unless improved) - The subject college may well be notable but this article is so lacking in context and references (sources, wikilinks, text claims of notability or even statements of what country it is in) there's no easy way to tell. If we had too many like this Wikipedia project would be swamped in unusable information. Wikidemo 03:40, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as violating WP:HOLE. Even after reading the article, I have no idea what it is, where it is, or why it is notable. "College"? Bearian 00:49, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Bearian. Twenty Years 07:59, 12 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. WjBscribe 22:32, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mina no Pro Wrestling[edit]
- Mina no Pro Wrestling (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Prod removed with the reasoning being that it was prodded before and de-prodded by the author. The article seems to cover a one-time show with no evidence of notability and no outside references. Nikki311 19:10, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletions. —Nikki311 19:12, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, I am the original prodder, and I can still see no assertion of notability. J Milburn 19:18, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, Non-notable -FlubecaTalk 19:26, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete - Davnel03 20:15, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Fg2 11:34, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Keb25 12:00, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per not-really notable/major wresting event.--JForget 23:39, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Darrenhusted 14:41, 11 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 ɑʀкʏɑɴ 22:52, 17 September 2007 (UTC)===List of Webkinz games===[reply]
- List of Webkinz games (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Per Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Sister article was deleted yesterday See here -FlubecaTalk 19:08, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom and WP:LISTV. This list doesn't belong in Webkinz, it most certainly doesn't deserve its own article. Also, there are no real criteria for membership in the list. --Darkwind (talk) 21:43, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. It seems like a good article. It lists all of the games that are or have been on Webkinz, and it is accurate. Mollymoon 22:05, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as indiscriminate info. Someone certainly went to some trouble to classify each game, but this is not the place for it. The criteria for classifying games seem subjective, in any case. -- Rob C. alias Alarob 01:31, 15 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. --Rschen7754 (T C) 20:11, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Symptom imperative[edit]
- Symptom imperative (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Another bit of spam of Dr. Sarno's uncollaborated claims (see Tension myositis syndrome) - Pacula 19:09, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I'd want to see citations from peer-reviewed journals and NOT self-serving publications before accepting this -- could be dangerous to the credulous. Accounting4Taste 19:12, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete one doctor against the world is not notable. Just another doctor with a miracle cure. MarkBul 20:23, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No results found in a library database search of medical journals. --Darkwind (talk) 21:52, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:OR. Don't see any reliable sources here Bfigura (talk) 22:22, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep It's well cited and verifiable, a term used in psychosomatic medicine. Ralphyde 23:25, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment That's not entirely true. The only reference provided is from John_E._Sarno. As such it has COI/POV issues, given that he's the 'inventor' (discoverer?) of the condition/disorder. We need independent sources to establish notability. --Bfigura (talk) 23:41, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- delete this and the other one. I suggest a small mention in Sarno's own article of these theories. There's some original research and random claims in this article too I think.Merkinsmum 00:07, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Seems POV-ish and lacking verifiable references. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mbisanz (talk • contribs) 03:03, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. An unnotable neologism from unnotable Sarno. Sorry, but this spamming has got to stop. He may even be right, but Wikipedia only features stuff that is notable, IOW history, not newly emerging stuff that hasn't gotten sufficient notice yet. When that happens in V & RS of an independent nature (not directly connected to Sarno), then it might be eligible for inclusion here. Wikipedia must not be used to establish notability. It's got to happen "out there." THEN we'll notice it and include it. Patience is the word. -- Fyslee/talk 04:12, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Per above. • Lawrence Cohen 05:40, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep or at least Redirect to an article on conditions arising in the psyche which then manifest in the physiological. No view one way or the other with regards to the Doctor concerned. Marcus22 19:49, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Not notable per WP:N. No third party references WP:RS, appears to be phraseology of fringe science WP:FRINGE. If anything, this can be merged with Sarno (if an article on him exists). Shot info 04:34, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The list of wiki violations is exhaustive, and so far we have not heard anything useful in its defence. This whole Dr. Sarno extravarganca in Wikipedia is nonviable.JayEffage 23:25, 14 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 04:19, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Christian Bernard Singer[edit]
- Christian Bernard Singer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
This article has been tagged since November 2006 with no improvements and none apparently forthcoming. Third party sources are few: the only one that really goes beyond a press release is for a small local weekly. The other external links are promotional or paid listings. Freshacconci 18:58, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note - As mentioned by User:Aspro at Talk:Christian Bernard Singer, User:Epiphyte, the original editor of this article, created several articles that all link back to his online gallery. It may be worthwhile looking into Frans Koppelaar, Suzana Stojanović, Benjamin Vasserman, Bill Jackson (photographer) and Dominic Rouse for notability issues as WP:COI is clearly a factor in all. Freshacconci 19:17, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. —Freshacconci 19:04, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No notability I can find. MarkBul 20:26, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Lack of third party reliable sources indicates lack of notability. --Stormbay 22:04, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom.--Ethicoaestheticist 23:32, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Per above. The article to date: has been a wast of editors time. --Aspro 08:09, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Freshacconci, Modernist 13:48, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Deb 11:56, 12 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 withdrawn. --Sigma 7 06:15, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
House of Guitars[edit]
- House of Guitars (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Not notable musical instrument store does not meet WP:CORP Google hits misleading in that there are other stores with the same name. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 18:42, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
[reply]
- Nom Withdrawn speedy keep per this Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 02:52, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The link does not give the full article. But following the link on the Google news archives] does. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 02:55, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Nom Withdrawn speedy keep per this Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 02:52, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Very notable music store: was featured in the Wall Street Journal. Will find citation and post it here. J. Van Meter 19:14, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: This is a notable establishment that goes beyond just a regional landmark. It's know by professional musicians all around.-68.198.99.174 01:07, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Here's the Wall Street Journal citation Nelson, Emily (1997, June 12). Meet the master of the House of Guitars. Wall Street Journal (Eastern Edition), p. B, 1:3. Retrieved September 9, 2007, from Wall Street Journal database. (Document ID: 45184952).
- Annual sales ~ $7 million in 1997. Customers include Metallica and Ozzy Osbourne
- - and The Ramones: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pAw0XrmBsdw&mode=related&search=
- (Just because you can't find something via Google doesn't mean it should be deleted here.) J. Van Meter 01:20, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Youtube is not a verifiable source and the other link requires a log on that I don't have. If we can verify, from a verifiable source, the notable bands as customers, withdraw nom and switch to speedy keep. However, there is nothing in the article about this. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 02:46, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Got it Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 02:52, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- (Just because you can't find something via Google doesn't mean it should be deleted here.) J. Van Meter 01:20, 10 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. If she won the award she would meet WP:PORNBIO. Since the claim that she fails the guideline is the only argument for deletion, tentative evidence that she won the award is good enough for a tentative keep. The claim should probably be included in the article even if the sourcing is dubious. Eluchil404 04:17, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Kimberly Carson[edit]
- Kimberly Carson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Doesn't pass WP:PORNBIO. Epbr123 18:41, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Gene93k and the 1985 XRCO Award. Epbr123 08:47, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Tabercil 20:47, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No evidence of notability in article. Tabercil 20:47, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails WP:N due to lack of independent and reliable sources. Edison 21:33, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Meets WP:PORNBIO. UnknownMan 22:37, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Vote recovered from unwarranted deletion by User:Picaroon. It is no one's place to remove other people's comments; the closing admin must take into consideration all votes. Higher quality votes with substance, of course, have more weight then non-quality votes, since AfD is not a vote. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud 15:13, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- possible keep - I'm so embarassed making these comments on several of these types of actresses hence the new user name. I am embarassed to admit that I have watched some of these videos. This actress was very popular for about 3 years approaching being notable, from my knowledge of the subject. Blushing 19:22, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete nothing notable in this article NBeale 10:54, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Absolutely no evidence of notability. -- Rob C. alias Alarob 01:33, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. She won an XRCO Award in 1985 for "Best Supporting Actress" in Girls on Fire according to the RAME.NET list of awards.[15] The XRCO page only goes back to 1993. I am still looking for a more reliable source. Also, her IMDB filmography says she was at the '85 awards. • Gene93k 06:30, 15 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. —Wknight94 (talk) 15:06, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Brent DiCrescenzo[edit]
- Brent DiCrescenzo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
This guy is one of the funniest motherfuckers around and one of my favorite music writers, but does he really pass WP:BIO? Look at the criteria for Creative professionals under Criteria for notability of people, and you'd be hard-pressed to explain how Mr. DiCresnenzo meets a single one... unless you count his wacky novelty reviews as his advancing a "significant new concept, theory or technique." If there are sources indicating that this cat is notable, please state them here. I'd love to keep the article, but I don't think it's appropriate. The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 18:32, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom; I tried and failed to find independent verification on his notability. --Darkwind (talk) 21:55, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete even tho' I enjoyed reading the linked To the 5 Boroughs review. I bet even DiCrescenzo would vote against keeping this. -- Rob C. alias Alarob 01:41, 15 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, nomination withdrawn with only "keep" votes placed. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 21:21, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dave Lloyd (cyclist)[edit]
- Dave Lloyd (cyclist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Obviously copied from other website; it's an article about a non-notable cyclist. Unless someone can clean this up substantially and have it meet the requirements for notability, I say this page should be deleted. IT'S DA. . .Ανέκδοτο 18:31, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Withdrawn Nomination I made a mistake in nominating this, so unless anyone else wants this deleted, it will be kept. IT'S DA...Ανέκδοτο 20:16, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep He's quite clearly notable, having competed at the top level of British cycling, and won some major races. However, the text is largely copied from his website at [16] with minor adjustments, so is a copyvio as well as unacceptably POV. I'll have a go at rewriting it, probably as a stub unless I can find some decent sources about a 70s cyclist on Google. Iain99 18:38, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I've rewritten it as a stub, as there aren't many sources online, which is probably to be expected for a 1970s figure. I'll leave it to people more knowledgeable about cycling to find printed sources, and decide which of his particular achievements should be included. Iain99 19:02, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Competing at the Olympics would seem indicate clear notabilityNigel Ish 19:09, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Does everyone who has competed at the Olympics have an article? (I'm seriously just wondering) IT'S DA. . .Ανέκδοτο 19:11, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment See WP:BIO - for athletes, the criteria are "Competitors who have played in a fully professional league, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport such as swimming or tennis", and/or "Competitors who have played or competed at the highest level in amateur sports". He seems to meet both criteria, and yes, the Olympics would seem to count as the highest level of amateur sports. Iain99 19:17, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Okay, I see I was clearly mistaken in nominating this for deletion. Perhaps a cleanup tag would just suffice? Is there a way to withdraw my nomination? IT'S DA. . .Ανέκδοτο 19:23, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, you can just strike through your original nomination by bracketing it with <s> and </s>, and add something like "Nomination withdrawn" below. If nobody else argues for deletion, an admin will close it as a speedy keep. No worries, and thanks for realising your mistake. Best, Iain99 19:30, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, thank you for your understanding. IT'S DA...Ανέκδοτο 20:16, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, you can just strike through your original nomination by bracketing it with <s> and </s>, and add something like "Nomination withdrawn" below. If nobody else argues for deletion, an admin will close it as a speedy keep. No worries, and thanks for realising your mistake. Best, Iain99 19:30, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Okay, I see I was clearly mistaken in nominating this for deletion. Perhaps a cleanup tag would just suffice? Is there a way to withdraw my nomination? IT'S DA. . .Ανέκδοτο 19:23, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment See WP:BIO - for athletes, the criteria are "Competitors who have played in a fully professional league, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport such as swimming or tennis", and/or "Competitors who have played or competed at the highest level in amateur sports". He seems to meet both criteria, and yes, the Olympics would seem to count as the highest level of amateur sports. Iain99 19:17, 9 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. With no strong support for keeping the article, Horrorshowj puts forth the most compelling argument.--Kubigula (talk) 03:25, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Harry Duiven Jr.[edit]
- Harry Duiven Jr. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Not notable boxer, Record seems not notable.I see nothing among the 73 Google hitsthat meets WP:BIO. According to this version, he is most notable for winning by default when his opponent did not show. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 18:22, 9 September 2007 (UTC) (categories) •[reply]
KeepWeak Keep Granted, it's not the best looking article out there, but as to notability of athletes, it says "played in a fully professional league, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport." I know for baseball & soccer, one pro game establishes notability. In a sport like boxing, wouldn't one pro fight meet WP:BIO?--Cube lurker 23:54, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I don't think so. I think a more substantial record would be needed. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 01:09, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment You may be right. It just seems like a consistant appliction of that policy. Looking at the article again, i'm thinking of switching to weak keep and waiting to see if anyone else has strong thoughts as to how athletic notability is applied to fighters.--Cube lurker 02:37, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep - professional athlete, meets WP:BIO. — xDanielx T/C 06:53, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The key reason is "competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport", which is an issue with mma, boxing and the pseudosport of prowrestling. In order have a pro fight, you need the equipment, a promoter to pay you, and that's it. Anyone can call themselves a promoter, and boxing equipment is cheap. Therefore, getting 1 pro fight is easy. Do the participants in Bumfights qualify as professional athletes? He's only fought 4 rounders, which is more or less entry level, and doesn't have a great record at that. Hasn't been ranked, no major opponents/tv time. Doesn't meet any of the general notability options, so I don't see how this guy can be considered notable based on what's available. Horrorshowj 10:01, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. This isn't even an article. It's an incoherent list of unsourced data. -- Rob C. alias Alarob 01:45, 15 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. —Wknight94 (talk) 15:09, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Otto Cardew[edit]
Non notable martial artist/Martial Arts instructor. Operates a local dojo and holds a 5th Dan/Shidoshi with the Bujinkan. Closest thing to an assertion of notability in the article is that he was the first Bujinkan instructor in Michigan, which isn't much of a notability claim. Wingsandsword 18:31, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. If it's not non-notable, then it's spamming for students for his classes. Accounting4Taste 19:07, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as non-notable (and badly written). -- Rob C. alias Alarob 01:46, 15 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. WjBscribe 22:29, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Howie Klein[edit]
Ambiguous Notability Mmckee 17:58, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Howie Klein should not be deleted. He has some Notablility. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.182.238.17 (talk) 06:07, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I dunno, the guy seems pretty notable to me. The article has some decent references as well. I'd say keep it. GlassCobra (talk • contribs) 18:30, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep President of Warner Bros. records for more than 10 years seems sufficient evidence of notability to me. Accounting4Taste 19:05, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and cleanup, he's notable as per Accounting4Taste (t c). --Darkwind (talk) 21:59, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. As noted above...he was the President of WB Records for 12 years, which means there is probably an infinite amount of news coverage about the guy. Smashville 22:46, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, THE Howie Klein?! In good faith, though, this is an article that makes a notable person seem insignificant. --Dhartung | Talk 23:55, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep but rewrite. He's notable for being President of the first American new wave/punk record label 415 Records, AND for being President of Reprise. The article just needs to be better written, researched, and sourced. DanielLevitin 06:05, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep President of Warner Brothers Records for 12 years seems pretty notable, the article is sourced, I don't see a problem. --Wingsandsword 17:32, 10 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. Eluchil404 04:21, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Gittings Studios[edit]
- Gittings Studios (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
This appears to be a non-notable company. There are currently four very old citations for this article, and I haven't been able to locate them online. The external links are mostly self-referential, and do little to further establish notability. Recommend delete Dchall1 17:50, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This one looks alright by me; the citations are old, but I'm sure they exist. The second link in the external section could certainly be used. GlassCobra (talk • contribs) 18:43, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I just removed the biographical material about the son - it doesn't belong. MarkBul 20:48, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions. -- Gavin Collins 13:12, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and wikify. Someone did their homework. Notable company. Needs copy editing. -- Rob C. alias Alarob 01:49, 15 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. —Wknight94 (talk) 15:52, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Antifiction[edit]
Once speedy deleted as advertising but re-posted and contested speedy deletion. In any case, despite the author's claim on the talk page, this very much looks like advertising or soapboxing. No third-party sources attesting to the importance of the movement. The term "antifiction" has been used many times in different contexts and is certainly not, as the article seems to suggest, some 21st Century creation. Pascal.Tesson 16:33, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete This smells awfully like spam to me. GlassCobra (talk • contribs) 18:07, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and Salt Definately spam. It's been deleted before, so salt. Yamakiri 18:13, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and SALT per Yamakiri, GlassCobra. Spam, spam, spam. Accounting4Taste 18:20, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete and salt, obviously spam, fails WP:RS as well. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 18:27, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete, certainly looks like spam. The fact the author recently blanked the page and replaced it with a link suggests that may be the case. Would delete it myself, but I am yet to read up on the new salting technique. J Milburn 19:16, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Nuke per above. -FlubecaTalk 19:30, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Revised Content has been revised —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.208.58.49 (talk) 21:59, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete And salt. Even after revisions still looks spammy, and isn't verifiable with reliable sources Bfigura (talk) 22:24, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Revised Content has been revised further —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.209.142.147 (talk) 00:04, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I originally saved content before I was finished creating it, resulting in the first deletion. I was unaware that doing so would result in such a negative reaction. Now, the information is updated. I invite all critics to revise as you see fit. If you continue to find this entry problematic, let me know if you have any specific opinions on how to resolve these issues.
Taht 00:14, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. It's fine to describe a hip-hop act as a "movement" on the website and in press kits, but not in Wikipedia. Antifiction will merit a Wikipedia article only after someone who's not in the group (or paid by the group, or making money off the group) is moved to write about it. -- Rob C. alias Alarob 01:57, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- "movement" Revised (please verify that members or money are involved in authorship.....) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.209.74.208 (talk) 05:48, 15 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. WjBscribe 22:25, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mac OS 11[edit]
Pure speculation. Apple has not announce a Mac OS 11, and it is unknown whether there will be an OS 11. Mac OS X could continue as Mac OS X 11.0 or as Mac OS X 10.10 ANDROS1337 16:20, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Assumed+not much known+no sources=Delete. T Rex | talk 16:24, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Zouavman Le Zouave 16:33, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as speculation, with no prejudice against recreation if the operating system is announced.--Danaman5 17:00, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Per WP:CRYSTAL Computerjoe's talk 18:06, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as pure speculation. Article should be recreated if/when Apple officially comments on it. --Ed (Edgar181) 19:36, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not much to add apart from what was stated above. I hope the creator of the article was contacted of the AfD so they don't make the same mistake. IT'S DA...Ανέκδοτο 21:03, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete-Wikipedia is not a rumor mill, or an assumption mill, we might as well create articles for Windows 8, etc. Page is also poorly edited, etc. Josephberte-Talk 04:47, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, the site that the "article" uses as a "source" is obviously an April fool's joke. Josephberte-Talk 05:08, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:CRYSTAL as it could be notable but it's certainly not almost certain to take place. Alyoshka 04:55, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Maxamegalon2000 05:10, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Premature article. • Lawrence Cohen 05:33, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per blatant crystal-balling.--JForget 23:41, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. JIP | Talk 08:20, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above. Mushroom (Talk) 14:02, 14 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. WjBscribe 22:27, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Daniel Curran[edit]
- Daniel Curran (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Contested prod. No opinion. T Rex | talk 16:10, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails WP:BIO. Would reconsider if additional sources were added. --ElKevbo 16:29, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Non notable person. Zouavman Le Zouave 16:34, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, no independent attribution of notability. Wikipedia is not a businesspeople's directory. --Dhartung | Talk 17:44, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Article creator has just been indef blocked for edit warring/ harassment. Seems to be a UF uber-booster. I will try to prod some of the others, AFD may not be necessary in this case. --Dhartung | Talk 17:50, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Dhartung, no independent attribution of notability. Accounting4Taste 19:23, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Significant lack of notability (or merge with related article).--JForget 23:42, 10 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. I think the "delete" arguments here are stronger than the "keep" arguments and there are WP:BLP concerns as well. The only ref that might establish notability was the "National Young Writers Festival" bio, which is now a 404 error (the page does not exist in their database). And, I cannot tell if he is being sarcastic or serious, he may not want an entry here - [17]. Mr.Z-man 14:49, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Patrick_Alexander_(cartoonist)[edit]
- Patrick_Alexander_(cartoonist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Bio of non-notable subject. Fails all measures of notbaility for people 218.143.102.89 11:31, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete As above: fails all measures of notability for people and this is unlikely to ever change. 218.143.102.89 11:36, 4 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, Mackensen (talk) 15:54, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep I'm not entirely convinced that the subject of the article is non-notable. Zouavman Le Zouave 16:36, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I see nothing here that shows he is a notable cartoonist. i said 19:06, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This cartoonist has been nationally published in Australia since 2001. He has a definite cult following here. I own print copies of much of his work. He is absolutely notable. 203.221.239.88 02:09, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Sadly, being nationally published in no gauge of notability. The Wikipedia notability for people guidelines are set out (as linked to above) and the subject fails them all. 219.112.189.202 04:53, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Here are a few of the measures of notability Patrick Alexander meets:
The person has demonstrable wide name recognition - has been advertised as a guest at National Australian festivals and conventions, including Supanova and the National Young Writers Festival.
The person has received significant recognized awards or honors. - Ledger Awards nomination.
Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following. - In Australia, Patrick Alexander's children's comics have a significant and provable cult following. DollyD 10:52, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I was hoping to avoid this, but it appears you're neglecting to follow the link to the guidlines for notability of people. Here they are:
- Creative professionals: scientists, academics, economists, professors, authors, editors, journalists, filmmakers, photographers, artists, architects, engineers, and other creative professionals.
- The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors. Fail
- The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique. Fail
- The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, which has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. Fail
- The person's work either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries, museums or internationally significant libraries. Fail (Not sure the Ledger Awards qualify as siginifant crtical acclaim, and he didn't actually win anything.)
With respect, your gauge of notability is yours alone. The Wikipedia guidlines are there to measure what has a place in this encycopedia, and this article doesn't. 218.143.102.89 11:20, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I believe that Patrick Alexander does meet a number of the general guidelines for notability. As for the specific Creative professionals guidelines, he is regarded as an important figure and widely cited by not only by his peers (the general cartooning community in Australia as a perusal of industry discussion board Pulp Faction will show - http://forums.pulpfaction.net/), but also a definite cult fanbase. DollyD 11:57, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The general guidelines keywords are: "Significant coverage" "Reliable" "Sources" and "Independent of the subject." I'd argue that what you cite falls far short of "significant coverage." Nor do the sources you mention meet the "reliability" guidlines. An internet cartoon message board cannot be regarded as, or relied upon as a secondary published source of information on the subject. Reliable secondary sources are expected to be multiple in number. There are currently none. All works cited are those in which the subject was published. Multuple secondary sources independent of the subject are lacking, and I believe will be unable to find. With regard the cult fanbase point, this is a faily meaningless piece of point-of-view original research, and irrelevant when trying to establish notability with regards the general, and person-specific, guidlines. This will be my last word on the matter as it's a faily obvious case of a lack of notability, and explaining precisely why is rather tiresome. 218.143.102.89 12:28, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I feel some measures of notability are met 203.220.106.203 10:47, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It would be helpful to give details (baring in mind the Wikipedia guidlines - not just gut feeling), as so far there is no evidence to support your claim. 218.143.102.89 13:31, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Subject is not notable. Published =/= notable. Wikipedia is not a reference guide for all the published authors in the world. The Ledger Awards are not recognized as significant by anyone except the people who invented them. (In fact, if the Ledger Awards have a Wikipedia article it should probably be deleted too.) 220.148.66.146 06:17, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Retain In Australia, Alexander is still best known for Pink Chickens. He is a professional and well-known comics artist (there aren't that many in Australia), best known for work in kids' magazines. 17 September 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.186.1.187 (talk) 06:41, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Again this amounts to no more than "He is notable becuase he did this." If you plan to vote keep please try to address the points raised above. 219.112.189.202 06:58, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- "Because he did this." seems a reasonable argument, given that the field is Australian comics. Alexander is a creative professional, is an important figure in Australian comics (influencing some who have appeared in the scene since) and he displays a distinctive style blending Western and manga cartoon influences. The question probably comes down to whether Australian comics are significant. 17 September 2007
- That wouldn't be the question at all. While he may or may not be a talented artist, I think as an obvious fan, you're overplaying all aspects of the subject's notability. I'm not familiar with his work, but I've seen in passing over the years many styles blending western and manga. That could never be considered a unique selling point. Perhaps twenty years ago, but now? 218.143.102.89 09:02, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- What I meant is that Alexander is a significant figure in Australian comics, but maybe the field itself isn't of international importance. FWIW, I'm not a particular fan of Alexander, but I am very familiar with the whole comics scene in Australia (where I live), and it would diminish Wikipedia's content in this area to remove this entry. I take your point about the blending of Western and manga styles, but Alexander was among the first in Australia and he did it in a cartoony style, unique then and still unusual. He remains well known among kids of a certain age. 18 September
- That wouldn't be the question at all. While he may or may not be a talented artist, I think as an obvious fan, you're overplaying all aspects of the subject's notability. I'm not familiar with his work, but I've seen in passing over the years many styles blending western and manga. That could never be considered a unique selling point. Perhaps twenty years ago, but now? 218.143.102.89 09:02, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- "Because he did this." seems a reasonable argument, given that the field is Australian comics. Alexander is a creative professional, is an important figure in Australian comics (influencing some who have appeared in the scene since) and he displays a distinctive style blending Western and manga cartoon influences. The question probably comes down to whether Australian comics are significant. 17 September 2007
- Comment Again this amounts to no more than "He is notable becuase he did this." If you plan to vote keep please try to address the points raised above. 219.112.189.202 06:58, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Retain In Australia, Alexander is still best known for Pink Chickens. He is a professional and well-known comics artist (there aren't that many in Australia), best known for work in kids' magazines. 17 September 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.186.1.187 (talk) 06:41, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Two Secondary sources citing Patrick Alexander
- OzComics Magazine no. 1 - Information about Patrick Alexander in the major Australian comics magazine, edited by Darren Close and Mark Selan.
- TiN Radio - Patrick Alexander was interviewed in September 2005. I'll add information and references to the article soon. DollyD 12:43, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I appreciate the effort, but I'm not sure how these two examples are meant to meet any of the measures of notability detailed above. If these are the best examples available (and I suspect they may be) then it appears a lost cause. The rules are there precisely to prevent people who have seen minor publication and / or radio appearences from swelling the encyclopedia. If that was enough to deserve an article I'm sure several thousands of people who have seen similar 'coverage' would be knocking up their own articles. 218.143.102.89 14:07, 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 No consensus but a default keep. Since this is a long discussion, and a complicated close, I'll explain myself a little.
To begin with, the closure does not endorse, support, or in any way reward Ralphyde's aggregious abuse of Wikipedia guidelines in this dicussion. If anything, it had a negative effect on this article's chances. Prior to the extensive re-write done to the article, this would have been a delete. However, the admirable efforts of users to source and re-write this into an encyclopedic format is laudable.
Nonetheless, I cannot determine a clear opinion either way, do to the confusion of the discussion caused by the sock-puppetry, and the re-write/"reboot" which occured perhaps 3/4's of the way through. As such, I'll close this without a firm decision from the community and without prejudice to a later renomination. Hopefully then we will get a firm decision, and without the sock-puppetry. --Haemo 00:59, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tension myositis syndrome[edit]
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:spa|username}} ; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}} . |
- Tension myositis syndrome (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Highly biased article that is little more than advertising for the books it uses for "reference" - Pacula 15:48, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Relisted? Was there, like, a debate or something? Mandsford 15:54, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete A diagnosis that only one doctor in the world claims exists? Look like spam for his books. MarkBul 16:08, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Zouavman Le Zouave 16:37, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - It is just advertising the views of a single doctor.--Danaman5 17:02, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. It's a WP:SYNTH violation at best. --Evb-wiki 17:07, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This article has been on Wikipedia since January, 2004. While controversial, tension myositis syndrome is a legitimate diagnosis that has been very successfully used, and thousands of patients with chronic pain have been successfully treated with this psychosomatic disorder since 1982 at the Rusk Institute of Rehabilitation Medicine at the NYU Medical Center. To post it for deletion simply reflects profound ignorance or bias toward psychosomatic medicine. Dr. Sarno has been a physician since 1950, at the Rusk Institute since 1965, where he has treated tens of thousands of patients, healing them of various mindbody disorders such as chronic back pain, fibromyalgia, RSI, and various other TMS equivalents. He is also Professor of Rehabilitation Medicine at New York University Medical School, and has written four books on his successful methods. His success rate is said to be over 90%, and his methods have been adopted by numerous other physicians, many of whom were actually cured of chronic back pain by him, and six of whom have written chapters in his latest book (2006), The Divided Mind: The Epidemic of Mindbody Disorders. He is in high demand, with a worldwide reputation for curing chronic pain, and is still seeing patients at the age of 84 at the Rusk Institute. And there are other books on TMS written by other physicians but not listed here. For those of you who know nothing about Dr. Sarno or his methods, I suggest you watch the 20/20 segment [18], or listen to this recent WOR interview (April 2007) [19]. To infer that he is trying to promote his books is simply absurd. Dr. Sarno is a dedicated and successful pioneer in the field of psychosomatic medicine in a medical establishment that has been taken over by drugs and surgery, dealing with symptoms instead of causes of disorders. Ralphyde 17:29, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Given the amount of times "Dr. Sarno claims" shows up in the narrative I'm surmising that he hasn't actually proven anything yet so basically it boils down to original research really. --WebHamster 17:43, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, idiosyncratic diagnosis of what the medical community most often terms RSI. --Dhartung | Talk 18:07, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:REDFLAG and WP:FRINGE, almost textbook - "If a non-mainstream theory is so unnotable that mainstream sources have not bothered to comment on it, disparage it, or discuss it, it is not notable enough for Wikipedia." Pubmed turns up nothing and the mainstream journals provided as citations say nothing about TMS directly (it's a WP:SYNTH). The sole scientific publication is a conference abstract calling for more study. WLU 18:34, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]- Delete per WLU... examining the citations, they don't seem to demonstrate anything about the claims, just that the answers aren't known. Accounting4Taste 19:15, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I myself have benefited from this book in that I have cured my chronic pain. Although Dr Sarno wrote the book referred to, he is not the only doctor to use this method. Some more are listed here: http://www.tmshelp.com/links.htm HilaryN123 20:57, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Edit: From my own knowledge of the subject this seems to be well-written article. I do think that the links to buy the books make it look like publicity for Sarno and I think perhaps they should be removed as they distract from the subject matter of the article. Deleting the article entirely would be like throwing the baby out with the bathwater. HilaryN123 18:50, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- — HilaryN123 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 21:16, 9 September 2007 (UTC) (UTC)..[reply]
- Comment: Why is it that in AFDs on these particular types of topics lots of WP:SPA accounts voting keep start to congregate? Is it osmosis? Divine intervention or merely a magnetic navigational sort of thing? --WebHamster 21:46, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Never underestimate the power of self-preservation. --Dhartung | Talk 00:21, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Please do not generalize, especially not with a sarcastic tone. I !voted "keep", below, and I have never even seen this article before today. I read it and did some research and found it to easily pass WP:N and WP:V, though it needs work to conform to WP:NPOV (details in my comment !vote below). Also, the account labeled above as a SPA (by an editor who did not sign the template) has never edited the article at all and may simply be a new user, which is what the user states in their comment on the talk page of this AfD. --Parsifal Hello 08:57, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete of course the sock or meat puppets find their way to these articles by psychic means lol. These theories should merely have a brief mention in the bloke's own articles. The person further above said this is a recognised diagnosis, then goes on o say it's only diagnosed/treated at this one clinic.Merkinsmum 00:11, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Nobody said that it is only diagnosed/treated at only this one clinic. Dr. Sarno has been working at Rusk Institute since 1965 (that's 42 years), and during that time has cured tens of thousands of patients of chronic pain while developing his method there. It is also diagnosed and treated at various other places in the country and the world by doctors who have adopted his methods, such as the list referred to above, as well as Dr. Andrew Weil, Dr. Andrea Leonard-Segal, Dr. Ira Rashbaum, Dr. James Rochelle, Dr, Douglas Hoffman, and many more. Do any of the skeptics on this topic have the slightest knowledge of TMS or Dr. Sarno? If any of your relatives or friends have chronic back or other pain, they would be lucky to find him, and have a chance at true healing. Do a little research. Watch the 20/20 segment mentioned above. It proves that the treatment works beyond a doubt. Or would you rather have surgery and "failed back syndrome?" Ralphyde 01:34, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable enough yet. Ralphyde, you've got to stop the spamming. Be patient. Wikipedia isn't going away, and if this concept becomes recognized by the mainstream, you'll be able to produce plenty of peer-reviewed research to establish notability. Until then just wait. BTW, using Andrew Weil as some kind of evidence isn't the smartest move. He recommends all kinds of nonsense. -- Fyslee/talk 04:23, 10 September 2007 (UTC)Vote changed to KEEP below. -- Fyslee/talk 00:07, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Fyslee. This just has too many WP:REDFLAGs for me. Bfigura (talk) 04:49, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- *Keep This article describes a non-mainstream but extremely effective medical approach to chronic pain. It is used effectively as a diagnosis by physicians other than Dr. Sarno, including Dr. David Schechter, Dr. Mark Sopher, and Dr. Scott Brady. Furthermore, in some portions of the mental health community, it is commonly accepted that emotional difficulties can cause physical illness. This point of view is espoused by, among others, Dr. Charles Whitfield and John Bradshaw. This is essentially the same theory, but looked at from the opposite perspective, so Dr. Sarno and other TMS physicians are hardly the only ones who hold this viewpoint. The article effectively describes the theory and surrounding information and provides a number of relevant references on chronic pain; it is hardly uncited or of poor quality. There are further websites discussing and detailing success that individuals have had with the treatment which do not currently appear in the article, such as http://conquerrsi.com/ and http://podolsky.everybody.org/rsi/. In short, there is much more information about this topic than many voters for deletion seem to be aware of. This article is particularly worthwhile for those who may hear about this diagnosis from a friend, TV show, or article and want to find out more about it. For that reason I strongly believe it should be kept as a resource. Armchairlinguist 05:20, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rewrite to NPOV. Per WP:HEY - This article has problems as an article, but the condition is WP:Notable and WP:Verifiable. There are at least 42 non-self-published books that mention the diagnosis listed on Google Books, and Google Scholar lists 15 citations, including for example Journal of the American Academy of Psychoanalysis, 1989. Amazon lists 46 books that discuss that term, using their "search inside the book" system. So, the article needs a major rewrite and needs the sources to be added, but there is no reason to delete an article just because it needs improvement. Instead, it should be improved. --Parsifal Hello 05:24, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[striking out and replacing my comment as follows, because the article has been re-written since I wrote my original comment. --Parsifal Hello 22:21, 14 September 2007 (UTC)][reply]
- Keep. [Someone started a new section below, "Start over", so I've entered my !vote there too, not intended as a duplicate, just for clarity, and with a reference to this entry to make sure it does not seem like a duplicate. The rest of my comment here still stands. --Parsifal Hello 19:03, 15 September 2007 (UTC)] The condition is WP:Notable and WP:Verifiable, and the article is now WP:NPOV. It has 28 footnotes so far, and only a few of them are related to the physician who coined the term. The condition has been discussed in a full 20 minute segment on ABC's 20/20, and in numerous other places. I do not believe it is a diagnosis accepted in general by mainstream medicine, but it is a notable topic and appropriate for an article. I've struck out my initial !vote just above which was to "keep and rewrite", because after I wrote that and my other comments below, I decided to dive in and improve the article; I rewrote much of it and added many references.[reply]
- I had not seen this page and found it through this AfD. I had not previously known about the condition or edited any related articles. It's clear from the discussion on this page there are a lot of SPA's, and some COI agendas, so the challenge is to see through that stuff to whether the topic itself is notable, and it turns out that it is. There were significant NPOV problems with the page, but those have now been fixed, and the questionable external links that some considered to be spam have been removed. Beyond the references that I (and another editor or two) added to the article in the last few days, there are at least 42 non-self-published books that mention this topic listed on Google Books, and Google Scholar lists 15 citations, including for example Journal of the American Academy of Psychoanalysis, 1989. Amazon lists 46 books that discuss the term, using their "search inside the book" system.
- I don't know why this topic has generated so much SPA/COI activity on both sides of the debate, but if that stuff is filtered out, the content of the article is worthy of a "keep" according to the core Wikipedia policies. --Parsifal Hello 22:21, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Whether it's real or not, it's fairly widely reported on, so we ought to have an article on it. • Lawrence Cohen 05:41, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. What is the problem with adding a section stating the concerns above? Deleting the article does no good since there are a few NYTimes bestseller books that reference it. There's no reason to pretend this doesn't exist, since many people do not take stock in this theory and many others will research it on Wikipedia for more information. 66.92.43.103 07:15, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- — 66.92.43.103 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. --WebHamster 16:02, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep It's more understood than RSI, which is very vague to say the least. After considerable time spent studying RSI and it's physical maladies, most people become aware of Sarnos theory, and have a need to research more into it. Therefore it would be hindrance for many to remove this entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.207.244.9 (talk) 08:29, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- — 90.207.244.9 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. --WebHamster 16:02, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Anyone who has spent any time researching chronic pain knows that there is no good physical explanation for most of it. TMS is just one part of mindbody science, and we are only starting to understand psychosomatic medicine. I was very fortunate to find Sarno's books in a local library, which helped me avoid spinal surgery, and im an ardent skeptic who sees much "alternative medicine" as worthless or at best placebo. Read the books and do some simple research before deciding the world really is flat. 204.227.127.171 08:58, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WLU's rationale above. The case for keeping the article is not compelling, and I'm not seeing the kind of mainstream medical community recognition of the theory as I'd like to in order to convince myself that it is a notable practice. What I am seeing a lot of are testimonials from supposed beneficiaries of the treatment and readers of said books. This I find suspicious. --Agamemnon2 09:54, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep "Mainstream" is a somewhat dubious criterion for judging what belongs here. TMS is a valid diagnosis, with decades of clinical studies behind it. Back surgery, as a "treatment" for back pain, has a dismal record of success, but lots of "mainstream" use. Eliminating valid diagnoses and treatments from Wiki because they are not accepted by "mainstream" doctors does this information site a serious disservice. Ignorance is pretty "mainstream" too, and I'm seeing a lot of it here. Oh, and the "cure" rate for RSI and fibromyalgia by "mainstream" doctors is pretty pathetic too.Mamaboulet 13:20, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- — Mamaboulet (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. --WebHamster 16:02, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Parsifal comments above, the diagnosis described in the article is clearly WP:N and WP:V. The article needs to be re-written to better maintain neutrality, and it requires improvement. But the diagnosis and treatment of TMS is described by licensed and practicing medical doctors, the list of which is objective and verifiable: Note qualification of those authoring the numerous texts available on the topic. And the scientific evidence to support the diagnosis or efficacy of treatment should not be the only guide to a decision to delete or include... the availability of evidence should only guide the appropriate presentation of the information. There is "no" scientific evidence to support articles like "astrology" (which is a beautiful and informative article by the way). Indeed there is scientific evidence to refute its claims. Yet the subject is clearly notable and verifiable, and as such adds to the richness of information available on Wikipedia. So as an alternative medical treatment modality, mainstream or not, clinical evidence supported or not, the Tension Myositis Syndrome also adds to the richness of information available on Wikipedia. The article should only be presented within the proper context of the available objective clinical evidence. As the evidence increases or decreased over time, the article should be updated to reflect this. But the article should not be deleted. Ej2pi 15:37, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- — Ej2pi (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. --WebHamster 16:02, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Those of you coming from ralphyde's call-to-arms post on the TMSHelp forum, please realize again that this is not a majority vote, but a discussion looking for a consensus on how to best handle this issue based on Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. That said, we -do- welcome your input in this matter - and do not forget that you can also help by fixing the article so that it better meets Wikipedia's guidelines (most importantly in this case WP:NPOV and WP:Verifiability). - Pacula 18:50, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment As an "ignorant", "know-nothing", perhaps I should point out that I've been an FMS sufferer since the age of 12 (35 years ago) and have been reading up on the subject (and associated subjects) for more than 20 years, I still vote delete. So "HilaryN" ("it's a pharmaceutical conspiracy"), "armchairlinguist" ("too many ignorant people here"), "mamaboulet" ("terribly impatient with smug ignorant people") now that we know your true feelings for the thoughts and editors can we expect further helpful insights and continued help with the growth of Wikipedia? PS, I wish I did work for the pharmaceutical industry, my living conditions would be considerably higher. --WebHamster 19:36, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd like to note that you weren't able to tag me with the "has made few or no other edits outside this topic", so it's a bit inappropriate to ask whether I, at least, am going to contribute outside of this situation. (And if I were the other people, I'd say why bother after seeing your behavior, frankly. Luckily, I've seen some of the better sides of WP too.) I've been an active, if low-volume, contributor to Wikipedia for some time. Many people on Wikipedia are ignorant about this topic -- as I am on many other topics that exist on WP, which is why I only edit in areas I know something about ... Armchairlinguist 22:20, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If my behaviour is of concern to you then may I respectfully suggest that you make an official complaint? If you are going to accuse me of bad behaviour then do it officially, do not suggest it in a debate without backing it up by evidence. If you aren't sure where to complain please let me know and I'll help you out by pointing you in the right direction. meanwhile do not make baseless accusation. On another note, I'm glad to see that you didn't deny your insulting comments, thank you for your honesty. --WebHamster 22:31, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I would like to report that Pacula has threatened to block me from updating because I have been attempting to repair the damage he has done on this and related articles. First he posted this Article for Deletion, then, on the same day he went to all the many references and links to tension myositis syndrome in Wikipedia, and deleted them. This created a huge mess of broken links and deleted citations, which I would characterize as nothing short of vandalism and censorship. When I tried to repair the damage he had done in the various articles, he accused me of "spamming" and advertising, and followed me around reverting my repairs and calling me a "very determined spammer." I have protested his behaviour on his talk page, on Wikipedia alerts, as well as with other editors. I don't know his motivation for attempting to censor the tension myositis syndrome article, but I urge him to desist. As this is a well established topic, and needs to be on Wikipedia for those who suffer from chronic pain and need to find this very successful treatment. Ralphyde 19:30, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Advice: This is not the place for this sort or report/complaint please go to WP:ANB if you have any complaints about another editor's activities. --WebHamster 19:40, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Advice: - Whilst you travel across WP this is a recommended stop too... WP:CANVAS#Stealth canvassing--WebHamster 20:09, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep The prevalence of the condition and the failure of modern medicine to deal with it makes me inclined to agree with Lawrence Cohen that we ought to have an article covering the possibility that the condition is psychosomatic. (Both in cause and cure). What I would prefer to see, however, is a more general and less doctor-specific article.
Marcus22 19:57, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I do think that Sarno himself is notable; though there is insufficient acutal information to keep the page (in my mind), the little information that's worth keeping could be merged to that article, though I forsee that page itself turning into a similarly tenuously-sourced WP:OR/WP:SYNTH/WP:FRINGE piece. Having two extremely stubby pages seems superfluous though. Information moved over would have to be carefully screened to keep only the 'good' stuff. WLU 21:45, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Part of the problem is that so many people are saying that there are lots of doctors who treat this condition, know about this condition etc etc so how come it's only Samo's name that shows up in every paragraph? How come it seems to be Samo's pet theory? The sycophants can't have it both ways. It's either Samo's claim or it's a widely accepted medical diagnosis. If it's the former then it needs to be deleted. If it's the latter then Samo's involvement needs to be either totally removed from the equation or severely pared down. So which is it folks? Either way Samo's involvement needs to be minimised. --WebHamster 22:53, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- In my own case the condition to which I refer to as being prevalent is undiagnosed backache/pain, not TMS. Backache/pain, with no apparent physical cause, is a widespread and widely recognised condition. I would imagine most doctors are aware of it. Not just Samo. Marcus22 12:01, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Section Break[edit]
- Comment. Let's focus. I've already !voted to keep the article, but not because it's a valid medical diagnosis. This is not a debate about how to improve the article or what the article should be about, this is just a debate to find consensus about if the article should be kept or deleted. Whether it's a "real" medical condition or not doesn't matter. The only thing that matters is: Is it WP:Notable? Is the notability WP:Verifiable? The answer to both those questions is yes. There are 45 or so books and a bunch of scholar papers that mention the condition (even if some of those mention it just to debunk it, they are still discussing the topic). To be clear, I am not at all saying this is a good article. It's not - it needs to be made NPOV, and that means it needs to include negative as well as positive information, depending on what can be found when the sources are researched. But it doesn't make sense to delete an article about a topic mentioned in 45 books (that are not self-published) - that's notable and verifiable enough. When the AfD is closed, or sooner if someone has the time, the article should be gutted of all none-WP:RS info and re-written with in-line citations and footnotes. --Parsifal Hello 23:07, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I've seen only one mainstream science mention of TMS, that's one of Sarno's students who 'published' it, and it's a conference abstract, not a journal article. The journal references currently used in the article are all completely bogus from what I can see, they represent the WP:SYNTH portion of the page. Valid info should be moved to Sarno's page. WLU 10:43, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Here's a brand new study on tension myositis syndrome, just published today: [20] Ralphyde 23:32, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- So put it in the article, not here --WebHamster 23:47, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- "it may be possible", yes very conclusive. --WebHamster 23:48, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per the following criteria:
- WP:Avoid_neologisms - the phrase is a unrecognized term whose only advocate is a solitary source. The de facto definition of a neologism.
- WP:CITE - The requirements of scientific citation, especially in medical terminology, requires third party verification. Though many sources are cited, the only ones that directly address the main article topic refer back to a solitary author's self-published source.
- WP:SOAP - Wikipedia is not the forum for self-publishing fringe theories.
- Though not a direct criterion, the amount of sock-puppetry doesn't speak kindly towards the article.
Djma12 (talk) 00:02, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep ,Whether you buy into this doctors diagnosis or not, it is a valid diagnosis. I've been able to get rid of 3+ years of pain through this diagnosis and treatment program. Not everyone believes back surgery is proven in all cases to eliminate pain, but I'm sure there are all sorts of references to surgical procedures in here. Bottom line is that for anyone doing research, there should be at least a reference. My take is that the people opting for this article to be deleted have a monetary stake in nobody finding out about this treatment program that would crush many a back surgeons or chiropractors business. Let's not be so hasty to eliminate a good working cure to a pain that plagues 80% of people at one time or another. Massage doesn't work for all, accupuncture doesn't work for all, chiropractic care doesn't work for all...and nor does the diagnosis of tension mysositis syndrome. But that doesn't mean we should strike all references of any less than 100% cure. It's a valid diagnosis - keep the reference. Let the reader (not some people on a mission to protect their wallets) decide if the term applies to them. 68.32.12.92 00:22, 11 September 2007 (UTC) — 68.32.12.92 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Given that you've now set the precedent for not assuming good faith by accusing us of having ulterior motives. How are we to take what you say in good faith. How do we know you don't have an ulterior motive e.g. book sales, after all you are anonymous!. Please read WP:GOODFAITH before you make any more public accusations like that. --WebHamster 00:39, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Regardless of what you personally believe about the therapy, please remember WP:No Original Research. What is important is not whether you believe the therapy works or not, but whether it is verifiable. (Hence the maxim, wiki does not seek "truth" but verifiability.) Djma12 (talk) 02:34, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Can't the wiki and fringe science all just get along? Make friends and go read some Voltron pages together, how about it? Then rewrite the page to be absolutely neutral and both parties let it stand. Some information, good or bad, is better than none. If no one talks about anything that's fringe how will they know to verify it or to avoid it? PenguinEatingAnApple 08:19, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- — PenguinEatingAnApple (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- I disagree, no information is far better than bad information.--WebHamster 10:20, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral factual information is best. Even if it implies someone is a quack. Or not. PenguinEatingAnApple 13:28, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Now that I agree with :) --WebHamster 13:37, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral factual information is best. Even if it implies someone is a quack. Or not. PenguinEatingAnApple 13:28, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:FRINGE. The article has many, many sources, but only 3 of them apparently deal with the "syndrome" itself, and two of them don't even use the same name for the syndrome. Disclosure: I came here because of the WQA opened on this matter. --User:Darkwind (talk) 10:43, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep and keep checking for NPOV. This is an interesting special case of fringe science, where the proponent is in fact highly qualified in the field and had an unimpeachable academic. Sarno is Professor of Clinical Rehabilitation Medicine at NYU_School_of_Medicine, a world-famous medical center. and Director of the Outpatient Department at its Rusk Institute, one of the preeminent rehabilitation specialist institutes. There are no higher qualifications. And yet it does seem as if no other qualified specialist thinks his method is valid, or that the diagnosis is real. I think that his stature however makes it notable, and the article is necessary. A notable error or a notable quack theory, whatever you prefer, but notable. DGG (talk) 18:30, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
** Comment - WP:NOTINHERITED, Sarno may be notable, but I don't think his treatment necessarily is, if the only sources we have are his own books. The little information that will remain in TMS after removing all the OR and SYNTH can easily fit into Sarno's own rather stubby page. WLU 22:16, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Question./Comment. You wrote... the only sources we have are his own books... have you taken a look at the 42 books listed on Google Books that include references to that phrase? Only three of those books were written by Sarno himself. As I wrote above, the article needs improvement, but 39 books (not including the 3 books written by the person who defined the condition) is a significant set of resources that can be tapped, easily meeting WP:V. You might not agree with what the books state about it, and you may not respect some of the authors, but the books have been published and are valid secondary sources. --Parsifal Hello 23:02, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It isn't necessarily relevant that it's mentioned in the books, it's how it's mentioned, what is mentioned, why it's mentioned and how much is written about it in them. Don't forget the words "substantial" and "non-trivial" will you because they are relevant? --WebHamster 23:36, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Echoing WebHamster (though in a more conciliatory way). I looked into only one book from Google Books, and the coverage appeared to be trivial. Parsifal, did any of the books have anything substantial to say? I can only think they will not, as not a single peer-reviewed journal article has cropped up. Actual researcher/scholars wouldn't include a serious discussion of TMS in a book if they did not have some sort of peer-reviewed research. Though I can't speak for the other 38 books listed, I was hoping someone else would do the legwork for me :) WLU 23:49, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]- First, just so you both know where I'm coming from, this particular article is not a big issue to me. The Wikipedia process is of interest though, and I see nothing in the policies that requires the use of peer-reviewed journals to keep an article. Sure, peer-reviewed is better, but when those aren't available, other sources are OK. Are the references trivial? I don't know, that would depend on how you define trivial. This book: The Clinical Practice of Complementary, Alternative, and Western Medicine By W. John Diamond, 2001, CRC Press, ISBN 0849313996 has 356 pages, devotes around 3/4 of a page to this topic, and lists it in the index both as an abbreviation and the full name. This book, The Undivided Self: Alexander Technique and the Control of Stress, By Theodore Dimon, Jr & Theodore Dimon, North Atlantic Books, 1999, ISBN 1556432941, gives it around a half page out of the book's 100 pages. In Awe and Trembling: Psychotherapy of Unusual States, By E. Mark Stern & Robert B. Marchesani, Haworth Press, 2000, ISBN 0789009730, they only give it one paragraph, but it's a paragraph where this condition is mentioned along with Sarno's work as a serious reference regarding how pain may be part of the cause of some panic attacks. Are those trivial references? There are a bunch more of them, and they are not self-published or spam-ish. It may turn out that with further research the article eventually says that the condition is only a theory that hasn't been proven (I'm not saying that, this is just a hypothetical). Even if that happens, it's still notable enough to be mentioned in 39 books and that's 39 books more than lots of topics in Wikipedia that have only magazines or blogs for references. Anyway, I've come to the end of my time budget for looking into this. I don't see any problem with a small article that has these kinds of references, Wikipedia is not paper, and some books made of paper had room for the topic. I think we have room for it here as well, though the article needs to be balanced and sourced. --Parsifal Hello 03:35, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Part of the problem here is that people are misinterpreting the guidelines. "Reliable" is relatively easy to interprete as is "substantial". I believe the problem lies with the "non-trivial". There seems to be a fair bit of quoting of reference of TMS which only involve a passing mention, a few words here or there. These, IMHO, aren't adequate references. The problem is that these mentions just establish that the name TMS is out there and I don't think that is in doubt. Drive-by mentions only demonstrate existence of the name, they don't demonstrate notability, importance or even if the actual malady exists. For an article on a scientific term, which in effect it is, it needs scientific back-up by independent sources with the the appropriate scientific credentials. A 2 page dissertion in Old Moore's Almanac is not a valid reference, whereas a paragraph or two in a rheumatologist's Phd thesis is. It's all about. It has to revolve objectivety rather than subjectivety.--WebHamster 10:17, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please be careful with statements like people are misinterpreting the guidelines. The word "misrepresenting" means "lying about in order to manipulate". I'm sure you did not intend to imply that I was purposefully doing that. I will assume good faith and that that you actually meant that you believe I "misunderstand", not that I "misrepresent".
- Are you getting confused. I didn't say "misrepresent", I said "misinterpret", where you got "misrepresent" from I have no idea. Freudian? --WebHamster 17:54, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- On the topic you mentioned, WP:N and WP:V are policies, not guidelines, and they are not "bright lines". And they have room for interpretation, depending on the situation. When you use a word like a "drive-by" mention in a book, that's your opinion. In some of those books they refer to Dr. Sarno's work as groundbreaking and valuable. There is nothing in the guideline that says that has to be in a PH.D. thesis, and there is nothing in those books that imply they are in any way not objective.
- A back-hoe is groundbreaking but otherwise non-notable --WebHamster 17:54, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course, Backhoe has its own article. Bad example? --Evb-wiki 17:58, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It doesn't assert any notability, the guidelines and criteria for that sort of article are different to this article. A generic backhoe isn't notable but it is encyclopaedic :P (well caught though heheheh) --WebHamster 18:06, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- First, just so you both know where I'm coming from, this particular article is not a big issue to me. The Wikipedia process is of interest though, and I see nothing in the policies that requires the use of peer-reviewed journals to keep an article. Sure, peer-reviewed is better, but when those aren't available, other sources are OK. Are the references trivial? I don't know, that would depend on how you define trivial. This book: The Clinical Practice of Complementary, Alternative, and Western Medicine By W. John Diamond, 2001, CRC Press, ISBN 0849313996 has 356 pages, devotes around 3/4 of a page to this topic, and lists it in the index both as an abbreviation and the full name. This book, The Undivided Self: Alexander Technique and the Control of Stress, By Theodore Dimon, Jr & Theodore Dimon, North Atlantic Books, 1999, ISBN 1556432941, gives it around a half page out of the book's 100 pages. In Awe and Trembling: Psychotherapy of Unusual States, By E. Mark Stern & Robert B. Marchesani, Haworth Press, 2000, ISBN 0789009730, they only give it one paragraph, but it's a paragraph where this condition is mentioned along with Sarno's work as a serious reference regarding how pain may be part of the cause of some panic attacks. Are those trivial references? There are a bunch more of them, and they are not self-published or spam-ish. It may turn out that with further research the article eventually says that the condition is only a theory that hasn't been proven (I'm not saying that, this is just a hypothetical). Even if that happens, it's still notable enough to be mentioned in 39 books and that's 39 books more than lots of topics in Wikipedia that have only magazines or blogs for references. Anyway, I've come to the end of my time budget for looking into this. I don't see any problem with a small article that has these kinds of references, Wikipedia is not paper, and some books made of paper had room for the topic. I think we have room for it here as well, though the article needs to be balanced and sourced. --Parsifal Hello 03:35, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You're welcome to your opinion that this article is not notable, and you've made your opinion very well seen on this page by replying to so many comments, arguing over and over that the topic is not notable. What is your motivation in doing this? I don't get it. Anyway, whatever your motivation is, you stated in your note just above, the following: these mentions just establish that the name TMS is out there and I don't think that is in doubt. Well, you have just agreed with me that the term is notable and verifiable. That's what those policies mean, that the topic is "out there", ie, that there is usage and awareness of the topic in secondary sources that are not self-published. So, we know this topic is "out there" and has been written about. Now, let's improve the article to explain what those sources have said. If it turns out that there are sources debunking the idea of the condition, that's OK, let the article show that too. And, by the way, Dr. Sarno does have real qualifications, and his books while not independent, are not self-published; they are published by reputable publishing houses, with editorial staffs, and they are on the bookshelves at Borders and Barnes & Noble, and many other mainstream places. That, plus the 39 other books, is plenty of notability and verifiability to justify an article. It's not by any means justification for assuming that his theory is correct or accepted by the medical mainstream, that would require peer-review. But there is no doubt, as you agreed, that his theory is notable and verifiable, because it has been noted, and that can be verified by looking at 42 books. --Parsifal Hello 17:19, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- My motivation for doing it should be quite clear don't you think? I simply don't believe that it is notable, period. Why is it so hard for you to believe that? Another Freudian thing? I haven't agreed that "being out there" means that it is notable. You couldn't be more wrong. Notable means "worthy of note or notice; noteworthy" or "prominent, important, or distinguished". It does not mean "mentioned in passing", "mentioned as an aside" or "someone made a note of it" etc. I've seen graffiti that says "Bill Posters is innocent", does that now mean that Bill Posters is notable and should have an article? As for qualifications, Dr Crippen and Harold Shipman both had superb medical credentials.--WebHamster 17:54, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- To me, 42 books is quite different than graffiti and I don't understand how you can use that as a serious comparison. But that's how you see it, so OK... we've each made our points; let's agree to disagree on how the definition of notable works. --Parsifal Hello 18:44, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Section break 2[edit]
- Comment I have read about ten books on TMS, including all four by Dr. Sarno. Dr. Marc E. Sopher's book is also very good. He has a way of stating issues clearly, for example; "TMS is a strategy of the brain's to keep unpleasant thoughts and emotions from rising from the unconscious into the conscious mind. The brain, through established physiologic pathways, creates pain as a distraction. By focusing our attention on physical symptoms, we keep these painful thoughts and emotions repressed. This is a very effective strategy as there is an absolute epidemic of mindbody disorders in our society."
- "Eliminating the pain is startlingly simple. We can banish the pain and thwart the brain's strategy by simply understanding and accepting that the pain has a psychological causation, that it is not physically based."
- "While much of the pain we experience has a psychological basis, it is essential to first be evaluated by your physician to determine that there is not a significant disease process. Unfortunately, if your physician does not consider TMS in the process of generating a differential diagnosis of your symptoms, it is possible that he or she will give an incorrect diagnosis. This occurs all too frequently as a physical cause is mistakenly offered. This results in a treatment plan that is often unsuccessful. As an example, many people with back pain are told that their symptoms are due to a herniated disc or disc degeneration, when in fact these findings are often incidental and normal. This helps to explain why physical therapy, medications, and surgery are often unsuccessful." pp 5-7 of his book, To Be or Not to Be... Pain Free.
- Here's another quotation from his book: "With the availability of CT and now MRI scanners, it is possible to obtain remarkable images of the body. That is the good news. The bad news is that many of these images will be reported as abnormal - one study reported in the New England Journal of Medicine that greater than 60% of spine MRIs showed abnormalities, the same percentage in those without pain as with pain. Virtually every person over 20 who has a spine MRI will be told they have degenerative disc disease, disc herniation, degenerative changes, or some other abnormality. As these findings are present equally, no matter whether symptoms exist, it is Dr. Sarno's and my contention that these are incidental, rarely the cause for pain. Unfortunately, physicians are taught to find a physical cause for physical symptoms and thus tell their patients about their "back problem."
- "Being told that you have a "problem" or "condition" can aid the "nocebo response." This is the opposite of the placebo response. With a placebo, belief in a worthless remedy can provide relief, almost always temporary, due to the desire to be well and faith in the value of the remedy. With a nocebo, symptoms will persist or intensify as a result of being informed, incorrectly, that a significant defect or problem is to blame. This is a critical part of conditioning - coming to believe that certain actions, circumstances, or aspects of the environment are the cause of symptoms, when in fact the cause lies in the mind."
- In the 20/20 segment with John Stossel and Dr. Sarno [21] (14 minutes long), which I urge you to watch, as it proves that the TMS treatment works, the lawyer in the segment had seven herniated discs. He was very lucky to find Dr. Sarno before the surgeons found him, and he was cured of his chonic pain within a week, simply by being educated to the true cause of the back pain and changing his thoughts and attitudes toward his pain.
- A Study in the New England Journal of Medicine by M.C. Jensen and others, in 1994 entitled "Magnetic Resonance Imaging of the Lumbar Spine in People without Back Pain," showed that there was almost no correlation between pain and what shows up on MRI images.
- John Stossel, probably as much of a skeptic as WLU or WebHamster, or even Fyslee, was cured of 20 years of chronic back pain by Dr. Sarno. He says on the 20/20 segment, "Frankly, I think this sounds highly unlikely, and I wouldn't even be telling you about this if 15 years ago, ABC correspondent Arnold Diaz hadn't talked me into going to Sarno. With one lecture, Sarno cured me of 20 years of back pain. It's so embarrassing, I can't believe I'm telling you about this..."
- Another lady in the segment had chronic back pain for years before it went to her ankles and she had to go to work in an electric wheelchair for three years before seeing Dr. Sarno. Her previous doctor reading her MRI gave her the nocebo that he was "pessimistic about any recovery," that "it looks like you've tried everything." She was cured in a week by Dr. Sarno, and was jogging without pain three months later. Stossel's brother, a doctor, even more of a skeptic than Fyslee, kept his back and neck pain, rather than see Sarno, because as Sarno expresses for him, the attitude of many doctors is, "If you can't prove it in the lab, it doesn't exist."
- Which brings up the difficulty of "proving" or even setting up a clinical study for a mindbody or psychosomatic treatment, where acceptance of the possibility of a psychological cause is a prerequisite to curing the disorder. As Dr. Andrea Leonard-Segal, a certified Rheumatologist and internist and professor of Medicine at George Washington University Medical School, who was also cured of her chronic back pain by Dr. Sarno, says, "It is difficult because psychological treatments do not easily lend themselves to the ideal clinical trial methodology. How can we conduct studies to see if psychological approaches can cure this condition? Patients with TMS must be psychologically open to the diagnosis to improve. They must be ready to renounce the idea that their cure is to be found in structural or chemical means. Thus, it would be exceedingly difficult, if not impossible, to conduct a study in which patients with the same condition are randomly assigned to different treatments, one of which is the TMS treatment. Because getting better depends on accepting the TMS diagnosis, most patients assigned to TMS treatment would not improve because they would not be able to accept the diagnosis." This explains why there are not more studies out in Pubmed. Dr. Sarno has chosen to put his experience since 1965 at the Rusk Institute, 42 years of frontline clinical experience with tens of thousands of patients, into his books, so sufferers of back and other chronic pain can cure themselves by reading his books and following his treatment methods. In his latest two books he extends his treatments to other misdiagnosed mindbody disorders which are cropping up in epidemic numbers, such as fibromyalgia, and RSI, and others, for which the conventional medical establishment has no cures, and only treats the symptoms with drugs and surgery, and treats the body as a machine with no connection to the mind. This, however, is rapidly changing, and medical pioneers such as Dr. Sarno, are finally finding the cause of our disorders in our minds, and learning how to cure them.
- By taking careful histories of his patients, Dr. Sarno gradually realized there was a pattern or profile for people who get chronic back pain caused by repressed unpleasant emotions. These are conscientious, hard working, talented, perfectionistic people, who tend to put others ahead of themselves, and they may have had a difficult childhood, been a child of divorce, or suffered other abuse or neglect. And he came to believe that the majority of back pain falls into this category.
- Other books I have read are, Pain Free For Life, by Dr. Scott Brady (also cured by Dr. Sarno), who builds on Dr. Sarno's methods, but calls his diagnosis AOS (autonomic overload syndrome) instead of tension mysositis syndrome. And two other authors who were also cured of disabling Chronic pain by Dr. Sarno, Fred Amir, who wrote Rapid Recovery from Back and Neck Pain, A Nine step Recovery Plan, and Get Rid of the Pain in Your Butt Now!, by Monte Hueftle. And then there's a book I would recommend especially for WebHamster, Freedom from Fibromyalgia; The 5 Week Program Proven to Conquer Pain, by Dr. Nancy Selfridge, who cured her own fibromyalgia using Dr. Sarno's methods and is now curing other sufferers. There are others, by Dr. Schecter, and other doctors who have been trained to diagnose and cure chonic pain using Dr. Sarno's pioneering mindbody treatment.
- I would further suggest that the skeptics here go to Amazon.com and read some of the many customer reviews of Dr. Sarno's and the other doctors' books. They are overwhelmingly positive, and contain many success stories by people who cured themselves of years of suffering with chronic pain just by reading the books. Especially see, Healing Back Pain: The Mindbody Connection, which was a NYTimes best seller, and has over 300 customer reviews. If you still have doubts as to whether tension myositis syndrome is a significant breakthrough method for curing chronic pain, then I think you must be beyond hope, just like John Stossel's brother, the doctor. Please watch that 20/20 segment [22]to begin to understand what tension myositis syndrome is all about. People in chronic pain need to be able to find real answers on Wikipedia. If you know anyone in severe chronic pain, and there are millions, think about them actually finding a cure that works.
- Dr. Andrea Leonard-Segal concludes her article, "A Rheumatologist's Experience with Psychosomatic Disorders" in The Divided Mind: The Epidemic of Mindbody Disorders, with the following quotation: "The beauty of the TMS diagnosis is that it is a hopeful one that can result in a true cure. The treatment leads to resumption of full physical activity, the emergence of a more emotionally healthy life, and an education in self-awareness. The patient who has recovered from TMS grows into a happier, more comfortable, more peaceful person who sees new paths toward greater personal fulfillment."
- It's nice to see that you are so well read and purchase so many books. It's also refreshing to see someone who is passionate about their interests. The problem is that none of the above is relevant to an AFD. An AFD is to see if an article meets the requirements of Wikipedia guidelines, it isn't to establish whether a malady is real or not, fringe science or not, one doctor's word against another's or not. You would be best served posting the above on the the article's talk page where it is most appropriate, not here. --WebHamster 10:02, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- WebHamster, I'm quite puzzled by your attitudes here. You have made 18 negative posts to this page so far. Yet you said above that you have been a victim of fibromyalgia since age 12. I'm wondering, Is it that you have just accepted the conventional doctors' nocebos that there is "no cure" and that you just have to learn to live with it? Have you given up hope that there is any hope for a cure for you? Do you find it insulting (as some people do) that the cause might be in your own mind? Have you ever read that book I recommended for you above, Freedom From Fibromyalgia? And here you are, trying to cut off the ability of other fibromyalgia patients from finding a cure for their suffering on Wikipedia. I don't get it? The only person I knew personally with fibromyalgia, who went through many painful years trying to find a cure for herself, finally did, but only, she said, after dealing with her "parental abuse," confirming a psychological or emotional cause. Yet many people find their pain preferable to facing their repressed emotions, which in some cases are horrendous, as with my friend, so they reject an emotional cause, and the possibility of a cure. I'm very curious and puzzled as to what makes skeptical people so skeptical?. Ralphyde 17:14, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I haven't given up on being cured, I also don't have a problem with the possibility of it "being in my own head". My userpage should demonstrate how I dan't have problems admitting mental health issues. It should also explain why I am unable to get past the logic that it is currently fringe medicine that currently has no notability. Please note that I said "currently". FMS was discovered around 1860 but there are still conventional doctors denying it exists (personally I think it's because 1) they can't cure it 2) it will cost health care a fortune to treat it properly). Which ever way you look at it, it's only a tag, a description. Part of the reason I don't believe the term TMS is notable is that basically it's just another name for FMS. It's a term been coined by one person, or at least is being attempted to have one person's name attached to it. Let's face it doctors want to do two things in life. Cure people and discover an unbefore documented malady so their name goes down in the medical journals. I believe TMS is Samo's attempt to do just that, and I don't intend to help him. --WebHamster 17:54, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- WebHamster, I really appreciate your response. You say that TMS is just another name for FMS. Dr. Sarno would agree, except that he came up with the diagnosis of TMS with regard to his narrower focus on chronic back pain, which he has been curing with a 90% success rate since the early 1980's. It was only later that he began to see FMS as a more severe form of TMS, which he was also able to heal with his mindbody methods. He believes that FMS is in epidemic mode because it is being misdiagnosed as a physical disease.
- Dr. Sarno says on p.62-63 of Healing Back Pain: The Mind-Body Connection (1991)[23] "Typical of these reports is one published in the Scandinavian Journal of Rheumatology in 1986 (Vol 15, p.165) by N.Lund, A. Bengtsson and P. Thorborg titled 'Muscle Tissue Oxygen Pressure in Primary Fibromyalgia.' Using an elegant new laboratory tool, they were able to measure muscle oxygen content with great accuracy and found that it was low in the painful muscles of patients with fibromyalgia."
- "What this means for the etiology (cause) of TMS, as I have long maintained, is that fibromyalgia, also known as fibrosis and myofibrositis (and to some as myofasciitis and myofacial pain), is synonomous with TMS. I have treated a large number of patients who came with the diagnosis of fibromyalgia; their medical histories and physical examinations were consistent with severe TMS. As proof that the diagnosis was correct, they recovered completely."
- In his later book, The Mindbody Prescription: Healing the Body, Healing the Pain (1998)[24] in which he expanded the TMS diagnosis to other TMS equivalents based on his long experience at the Rusk Institute, he says on pp 76-77, "I have maintained for years that fibromyalgia was a severe form of TMS. The similarity of my findings to the diagnostic criteria of the American College of Rheumatology reinforces that diagnostic conclusion."
- "People with fibromyalgia commonly have psychological symptoms as well. They are often anxious and depressed, have sleep problems and suffer from lack of energy."
- "Since fibromyalgia is part of TMS, I have seen and sucessfully treated many patients who had been given that diagnosis before they came to me."
- In Dr. Sarno's latest book, The Divided Mind: The Epidemic of Mindbody Disorders (2006)[25], he says on pp.21-22, "Fibromyalgia is a medical term that has been around for a long time. For some reason it was adopted by the rheumatology community in the early 1980s and applied to patients suffering pain in many locations in the trunk, arms, and legs. In fact, it is a severe form of TMS. Significantly, fibromyalgia patients commonly suffer from other mindbody disorders as well, like headache and irritable bowel syndrome, as well as emotional symptoms including anxiety, depression, and sleep disorders. When rheumatologists first became interested in people with these symptoms, they were not able to explain what caused the disorder, but they created diagnostic criteria to define it. That became a kind of medical kiss of death. The American College of Rheumatology decreed that the diagnosis could be made if the person under examination exhibited pain in eleven of a potential eighteen locations. Since that time, hundreds, if not thousands, of papers have been published describing studies that try, still unsuccessfully, to explain the disorder. Two of these published studies of people with fibromyalgia found that the oxygen levels in their muscles was reduced, confirming the hypothesis that fibromyalgia is a manifestation of TMS, which we've seen is caused by mild oxygen deprivation. But the rheumatology community did not accept the idea of mild oxygen deprivation as the cause of fibromyalgia, and the epidemic continued. By the year 2000 the enormous increase in the number of people with this diagnosis prompted an article in The New Yorker magazine by Jerome Groopman, a professor of medicine at Harvard, in which he noted that there were six million Americans (mostly women) with this disorder of unknown cause and that it appeared to be analogous to the nineteenth-century epidemic of neurasthenia."
- Actually no we aren't. I'm sorry to be blunt, but it's my way. As far as I'm concerned this is just Sarno's quest for glory. Renaming something that already exists and calling it an "invention" is neither a way of obtaining notability, nor is it something I personally find inherently useful. It's taken long enough for the medical fraternity to actually believe in FMS and take action, it does it no service for someone else to come along with another fringe theory and muddy the waters. This is totally out of keeping with an AFD debate, but as you bring it up... No I don't believe (at least not in my case) that FMS is psychosomatic as I have several other things going on (which I'm not going to bring up here) which have a proven physical cause. Nothing so far has changed my mind about TMS being notable, if anything as this discussion goes along I believe it less and less and I'm less inclined to apply the "assume good faith" mantra about Sarno and some of the other editors in this discussion. To my mind there is more going on than meets the eye. Especially given the behaviour and tactics applied by some to get their point across. IMHO anyone who needs to do that to say something is pushing an agenda of some sort (for whatever reason), this in turn makes me think that notability is something that they need to achieve some purpose other than to get an article in Wikipedia. For me the meat-puppetry was both the clincher and several nails in the coffin of this discussion. --WebHamster 20:21, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- "Quest for glory"! Give me a break! This man is 84 years old, and still seeing and healing new patients at the Rusk Institute every day, as he has been for 42 years! Does that sound like questing for glory? I'd call it uncommon dedication and devotion to the suffering of his fellow human beings. In terms of "suffering relieved," I can think of no one else on this planet who might have relieved more pain than Dr. Sarno in terms of patients cured directly, and through his books. He is a pioneer of a new paradigm for our time in medicine. FMS had "no cure," just a bunch of symptoms. Why would he take on that name for his psychosomatic diagnosis and cure of chronic back and other pain? But, good luck in finding your cure, sincerely. But I hope you'll read that book I recommended for you, Freedom From Fibromyalgia: The 5 Week Program Proven to Conquer Pain, by Dr. Nancy Selfridge, who cured her own FMS using Dr. Sarno's methods. Maybe you'll change your mind. Ralphyde 21:25, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- 84 stuck in the same place for 42 years, I'd say that was a perfect time for a bit of glorification in the medical history books. Perfect way of gaining immortality I'd say. Now your mileage may vary of course, but personally I wouldn't let an 84 year old near me for treatment. Come to think of it I wouldn't want to be on the same highway as a n 84 year old let alone a treatment clinic. When someone is described as "inventing" a diagnosis then my cynicism antennae are perked up immediately. When I start to mistrust the person making that claim then it's only one more step to distrusting what it is they are saying. So far all you've managed to do (for me) is demonstrate that the guy isn't to be trusted and if he can't be trusted then what he says can't be trusted. If I'm not believing what it is he's saying then I can't believe that it is notable... implausible, incorrect, ludicrous... now I could be persuaded to believe that of his claims, but sorry no. The other thing you have to take into account is that I'm British, and inherently suspicious of anyone who charges for medical treatment. You see profit comes into it then and that in itself opens a whole new can of worms. There are far too many things going against it for my taste. My vote remains the same. Delete. --WebHamster 22:09, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I just went to one of the links given in the article, one I hadn't been to yet. $90 for a f***ing DVD, you have to be shitting me? Looks like Sarno himself has proven my above point! --WebHamster 22:26, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- "Stuck?" in the preeminent Rehabilitaton Institute, Howard A. Rusk Institute of Rehabilitation Medicine, in the country? Don't you think he could have retired 20 years ago if he didn't love his job and the personal satisfaction of healing people of years of severe pain? I can't believe your cynicism! But something I agree with you on: "I'm British, and inherently suspicious of anyone who charges for medical treatment. You see profit comes into it then and that in itself opens a whole new can of worms." I would be happy if our medical system were not-for-profit and free like yours and those of most other industrialized countries. That would be a big improvement, as most bankruptcies over here are for medical bills, which are huge, and line the pockets of insurance and drug company CEOs among others. But I've given up on persuading you of anything, as your skepticism and cynicism are way too deep. But good luck on your healing, and you never did say if you watched that 20/20 segment or read that book on Fibromyalgia. Ralphyde 00:55, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes I watched the 20/20 segment and apart from it being a puff pience there were a lot of inconsistencies e.g. they all described themselves as being "pain free" after the 3 hour lecture, but then immediately went on to explain what they did when they had relapses. Excuse me but if the pain keeps coming back then that is not "pain free". Likewise they mentioned about how much is being lost because of back pain, but here we go 8 years later no-one has taken up the challenge and put money up to do a full blown study. Just think of all the money that could be saved if he's correct, but no-one has funded him. To me that says a lot, likewise it says a lot when this so-called eminent doctor is hawking his wares all over town. Even in this debate you've been trying to sell his books. So to answer the question about reading the book... there's no way in Hades I would hand over coinage to this guy. $90 for a DVD, how the hell is that justified? This is about money or glory or more likely both. Add to that the intensity of your efforts to get this article into WP and I'm now convinced that this is all about $$$ and nothing more. --WebHamster 01:44, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Firstly please don't be so patronising. You're sounding like a salesman who's just realised he isn't going to make a sale. Secondly one last comment about Sarno himself. Any doctor who casually says to a reporter that he is welcome to look though his patient files and then use those files as a source to cold-call those patients is a doctor who should be struck off. That doctor seems to be more concerned with publicity for his pet theory than he is for patient confidentiality. --WebHamster 09:07, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Not notable per WP:N. There seems to be a lot of hand waving here trying to establish notability but they don't override policy. There is zero third party references used, in particular references by reliable sources seem to be lacking, particularly those that mention the expression outside of an insular fringe community. At the moment the article reads like it's lifted from Sarno's books (possible WP:COPYVIO) and generally appears to be "advertising" his information (possible WP:SPAM). Probably could be merged with Sarno and trimmed to reflect it's relevance. Shot info 04:40, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I believe that the subject Tension Myositis Syndrome (TMS) meets the Wikipedia criteria, which require the article to be WP:Notable and WP:Verifiable. The notability and verifiability come from a small number of articles in journals, an article in a medical school's proceedings and an article on Prevention magazine's web site. I just added citations for the medical school and Prevention magazine articles. Currently, the Wikipedia TMS article only has one reference to a medical journal article on TMS. This article is in the journal "Evidence Based Integrative Medicine", which is not included in PubMed. I will work on getting other journal articles added to the footnotes. Although the TMS treatment has not been studied with controlled clinical trials, such proof is not required for a Wikipedia article. Also, the topic of TMS is not original research because of the articles mentioned above, as well as the numerous books which mention TMS. Perhaps individual statements in the Wikipedia TMS article are original research, but that does not affect the proposed article deletion. JTSchreiber 04:56, 12 September 2007 (UTC) — JTSchreiber (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. --Bfigura (talk) 04:59, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Follow-up. I have added two more journal articles to the footnotes. Here is a list of the sources which need to be evaluated to see whether the article is WP:Notable and WP:Verifiable (in approximate descending order of reliability by Wikipedia policies): (a) three articles in peer-reviewed medical journals-Alternative Therapies in Health and Medicine, Evidence Based Integrative Medicine and Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, (b) one article in a peer-reviewed psychology journal-Journal of the American Academy of Psychoanalysis, (c) one article in a medical school's proceedings-Proceedings of UCLA Healthcare, (d) two articles on mainstream medical media web sites-Medscape and Prevention magazine, and (e) one segment on a nation-wide American TV newsmagazine-20/20.
- Here are some additional comments on the sources. First, each of the articles focuses on TMS, rather than mentioning it briefly. Second, I want to note that even thought the Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation article is a supplement, this journal conducts peer reviews on supplement articles. Third, the footnotes also contain an abstract for a paper presented at a medical conference. I am not sure whether an abstract without the full article should carry much weight, so I did not list it above. Finally, although I definitely appreciate Parsiful’s efforts to add references, I do not believe the Harvard RSI Action Group reference should be considered in the AfD evaluation. This group is composed of Harvard students with no medical training.
- Thanks to all who provided constructive criticism and/or helped to clean up the article.JTSchreiber 05:05, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note to closing administrator. I've already !voted above, but I got frustrated with some of the arguing here, so I have edited the article a bit for NPOV, and I added a reference from Medscape Orthopaedics & Sports Medicine. I had never edited or even seen this article before this AfD, but since there are references available, I thought I'd add some. So if you had looked at the article previously, please recheck it before closing the AfD. --Parsifal Hello 00:49, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Follow-up. I've now rewritten much of the article, made it much more NPOV, removed unsourced information, added several more references, and tightened up all of the language. I believe it's now completely clear that this article is not spam. The condition has even been the subject of a full 20 minute segment on ABC TV's 20/20 show; that certainly supports that, while controversial, this topic is fully notable and verifiable. --Parsifal Hello 09:21, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I wanted to say I much prefer Parsifal's edits of the page. This version doesn't read like an advertising blurb from the back of a book. Clearly expressed are both the potential value and the unverified and non-mainstream nature of TMS. This is much more credible a page overall to me. PenguinEatingAnApple 10:16, 13 September 2007 (UTC) — PenguinEatingAnApple (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at UTC timestamp Djma12 (talk) 12:19, 13 September 2007 (UTC) (UTC).[reply]
- Keep - I don't agree with the request to delete. Dr Sarno's first book was published in the 70s (I think) and is still available today. So is broadly read not an 'insular fringe community' as quoted above. A major contribution to mind-body medicine, which is slowly growing in acceptance judging by the increased mentions in the media. Longshanks 01:57, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
— Sillver Mountain (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. --Evb-wiki 02:04, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- - also note the use of "[[User:Sillver Mountain|Longshanks]]" above - not sure if that's an intentional attempt to mislead or not.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pacula (talk • contribs)
- - - Ha Ha - no not an attempt to mislead,just trying to get the hang of this script! Editors here seem to be virtually all software engineers or similar - not sure if such scientific types would give a fair appraisal of TMS, non-scientific mind-body theory - though I'm sure they will insist they are following wiki rules.Longshanks 03:44, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It most certainly is an attempt to mislead. Your user name is not Longshanks, it's Sillver Mountain. If it's 2 people sharing an account then please don't, get your own it's against the rules. Please see WP:U#Sharing accounts. --WebHamster 09:07, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I think the article should stay but, as others have said, monitored for NPOV. I recoverd from excruciating RSI by using the mind-body techniques of Sarno, Schlechter and others. Had I not found out about it I would still be in pain, depressed, and not able to pursue my career. People should have the option of knowing there are other ways of treating chronic pain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jnels2 (talk • contribs) 23:41, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- — Jnels2 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. --WebHamster 00:01, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment You are correct, WebHamster, I have made absolutely no other edits outside of this topic. I am one of those people who found out about this discussion from the TMSForum site and came over here to register my opinion that the article should stay. Actually, I hardly ever go to TMSForum because I don't think about my erstwhile RSI much anymore, nor do I want to. But once in a blue moon I go back there to see what people are talking about, and I saw the discussion about the potential pending delete for the TMS article and I thought I'd make my very first foray in to Wikipedia to make a comment. If people think this is a crack-pot idea, then maybe the "controversy" section should be bolstered, but why delete the whole thing? I myself found out about the TMS/Sarno/Schechter/Amir school of thought completely by accident, but I'll tell you that I am really thankful I did. Basically what happened is that I didn't believe it, I read the books, I started thinking about it and saying to myself "well, why not give this approach a try? He's not advocating any drugs, surgery, or anything that could harm me, he's just saying to think about pain in a different way, i.e. that it's tension-related." And 2 weeks later a 2 year struggle with excruciating pain was over, and I was back to using the computer full time and was pain free. That was 2 years ago. Basically, I read a couple of books and I got better. MUCH more preferable to me than wrist surgery, anti-inflammatory medicine, splints and the like. It would be too bad if this article got deleted. I think people need to have more options rather than fewer when it comes to their health. -jnels2
- Reason for the number of meatpuppets - I thought editors would find this post by Ralphyde on the TMS Forum interesting. Help on Wikipedia Djma12 (talk) 16:47, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I have no regrets about what I said on that post. The TMS Help Forum is a website where people afflicted with chronic pain from tension myositis syndrome assist each other in applying Dr. Sarno's and the other doctors' mindbody treatments to reach successful healing of their pain. There are many success stories posted there [[26]] as well by those who have come through and gotten well from chronic back pain, fibromyalgia, RSI, and other variations of TMS, and I invite you to go there and read some of them. Some take longer and are still struggling to adopt the proper attitudes and overcome their doubts to beat TMS. This is a critical topic for most of the people who post here, and many of them first heard of tension myositis syndrome from Wikipedia as they researched their symptoms, which should be part of its purpose, to let people find out about what ails them and seek healing. Most went through the conventional medical community for years with no relief from their painful symptoms, so when they found out about TMS, they began to get their lives back. So when a person who knows nothing about the subject marks it for deletion for bogus reasons, then deletes all links to it from related subjects, then reverts all my attempts to repair his vandalism, and others who know nothing about the subject pile on, I sounded the alarm for help from others for whom this is an important subject who might also be Wikipedia editors. There are those who are hopelessly biased, such as WebHamster, a fibromyalgia sufferer, who has made 31 negative posts to this site so far, who is so personally attached to his belief that his ailment is physical that he attibutes bogus motives to everything anyone else says to hold onto that belief, and wishes to deny other fibromyalgia sufferers access to this important healing method. As he said, "No information is better than bad information," which reminds me of the Taliban blowing up ancient Buddhist statues. Yet the section on WP:FRINGE, says, "By the same token, the purpose of Wikipedia is not to "debunk" notable ideas which the mainstream scientific community may consider to be absurd or unworthy. Ideas should not be excluded from the encyclopedia simply because they are widely held to be wrong." Ralphyde 17:57, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Way to go Ralph. Wiping your feet on (and admitting to) WP:NPOV, WP:CIVIL, WP:CANVAS#Stealth canvassing, WP:OR. WP:FRINGE and WP:SOCK all in one paragraph. There's probably more too. May I point out that you know next to nothing about me so keep the personal comments out of it okay? Save that for the TMS forum where my ailments are being cogitated (incorrectly as it happens) by people who wouldn't know neutral if someone gave them a flyer with Webster's definition of "neutral" written on it in 72pt Inpact. --WebHamster 18:11, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You're right, WebHamster, I know next to nothing about you except what you have posted above in 32 or more posts, in which you said you had fibromyalgia and pointed me to your talk page, and the unending negativity of your posts. I tried to engage you in a reasonable discussion, but got only negativity, biased projections, and ridiculous attributions about Dr. Sarno's motives in return. I don't think I've been uncivil, but if you do, I apologize. Ralphyde 19:31, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Correct me if I'm wrong, but debates mostly have one person being positive and the other being negative? The view of that polarity depends on one's outlook. You appear to believe that because I haven't changed my mind that I'm somehow in the wrong. Has it not occurred to you that you haven't shifted your position one iota either? Which from my standpoint makes you the negative one who won't change his mind. It's all about perspective and subjectivety. As for the Sarno accusations. I saw the evidence and said what I saw. Just out of interest, just how much does that 3 hour lecture cost? I ask purely for balance of course. I explained my rationale ($90 DVD etc), yours seems to be based purely on your word with nothing else to back it up other than "buy the book". --WebHamster 19:42, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know that cost. I think it's part of the treatment. But you tell me, how much would it be worth if it cured your fibromyalgia? Ralphyde 19:57, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Just get Sarno to fax the script to my GP and I'll get it for nothing. Now please leave me and the FMS out of it. The discussion has been sidelined far too much already. I'll say the same to you as I do to anyone who comes to my door. "No thanks, I never ever, buy from someone who tries to sell me something. They aren't impartial. I buy from where I choose to go". Now please feel free to have the last word, it's more than likely a repeat anyway. --WebHamster 20:11, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. But I didn't come to your door, nor try to sell you anything. I'd say you came to mine by responding to my post. I've simply tried to educate you and the others here with regard to the tension myositis syndrome diagnosis and cure that has worked for tens of thousands of pain sufferers. Here's another good educational interview from 2007 [[27]] in place of that fax you requested. It won't cost you a thing, and you might even learn something. Best wishes, Ralphyde 21:35, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Start over[edit]
- Comment - Based on the edits made by Parsifal, I think the discussion on the AFD should be re-started, essentially ignoring the above discussion 'cause it's so long and the page has changed so much. My reading of the page as it exists now is that it passes WP:N and can stay up, though there are still significant problems. Congratulations Parsifal for putting in the work to make this enormous discussion obselete :) Who's with me? WLU 22:40, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment
Second that. I don't know if there's a precedent or not,but this AfD has gotten absurd. But on further thought, I don't want to do this over.--Bfigura (talk) 22:59, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment
- Following Parsifal's pruning and other contributors work to remove the hyperbole, rhetoric and spam. A keep purely on the basis that it's encyclopaedic. Total WP:BOLLOCKS, but encyclopaedic bollocks. --WebHamster 00:01, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Based purely on Parsifal's good work. Ralphyde's serious violations of CANVASS notwithstanding. Since this is not a vote, the number of "votes" that are not legitimate shouldn't sway the admin who decides this. They should not count for a keep, and even if Ralphyde were punished for doing it, it should not count against the article's status. I think Parsifal has brought this article up to a notable standard for inclusion. I'll reword my vote above. -- Fyslee/talk 00:05, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Still Delete, NO REBOOT
- If you'll ask the majority of non-meatpuppets on this page, I'm sure the still conclude that this article does not "pass WP:N and can stay up." Though I appreciate Parsifal's substantial efforts for this page, this article still fails WP:Avoid_neologisms, the academic standards of WP:CITE, and WP:SPAM.
- The discussion should definitely NOT be rebooted. There are still substantial, unaddressed criticisms that can not be easily reproduced after a reboot.
- Any attempt to reboot now will merely be an attempt to swing an Afd by attrition -- delaying AfD enough until the critics tire and drop out. This is completely against the spirit of AfD.
- Comment - the 20/20 segment is verifiably about Sarno and TMS, I think a US national news program means the article passes notability. Add to that several interviews and a conference abstract and I think the page passes. Not with flying colours, but passes. Problems with the article, the AFD meatpuppetting and the whole AFD are independent of notability, which is established in my mind. WLU 09:15, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as per my comments above - 20/20 interview, conference abstract and interviews establish notability. WLU 09:15, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Subject appears to be well documented and written about, even if the information about the subject is negative; the fact that people are compelled to publish critisism of it shows that it has some sway. My understanding is that if something is notable, "people want to write about it" - therefore this subject is notable. Denaar 04:51, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - in my opinion this condition could/should be considered as part of Fibromyalgia - having a separate entry for Tension myositis syndrome is making a distinction without a difference. Frig ears 16:08, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- — Frig ears (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. ---- WebHamster 19:03, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Today's New York Times had two paragraphs on Sano and TMS, calling his work pioneering and one of the "most common back pain treatments". I think WP:N may be a bit too strict if Wikipedia's standards are higher than those of 20/20 and the New York Times. Parsifal's rewrite addresses NPOV and quality issues. Billgordon1099 17:38, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Since the idea of re-starting the AfD !votes in this section seems to be happening, I'm noting my "keep" !vote here. I should be clear, I did already vote "keep" near the top of the AfD - this is not intended as a duplicate vote, I'm just transferring it down to this section for visibility. My reasons for keep are that the topic satisfies WP:N and WP:V, per the 20/20 show, the NY Times mention, the Medscape interview, and more. Now that the article has been re-written, it also meets WP:NPOV. All the spam-ish links and related text have been removed; and the article has plenty of inline references to reliable sources. Plus, there are 38 or so more books listed on Google Books mentioning the term, that we have not yet explored. Some of those may be too minor to be helpful, but some of them may turn out to be good sources to continue expanding the article over time after the AfD. --Parsifal Hello 18:13, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- See, this is what I'm afraid of. I know you mean well Parsifal, but this "Reboot" thing has only confused the AfD even more. A substantial number of the original editors who felt this article violated policy have moved on to other projects, leaving only the hardcore Keep editors to continue voting (as if this were a vote.) This concept in itself is prejudicial. Djma12 (talk) 02:16, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I don't think we need to worry about that. The closing admin will not be confused - he or she will see the whole flow of the discussion. This is not a counting-vote, we're looking for consensus. Also, the article as it is now is completely different than it was when this AfD started. So anyone who !voted at the top was looking at a different article. It was spam-ish before, now it's a solid NPOV article worked on by multiple good-faith editors, with no COI and plenty of reliable sources. By the way, in case there's any question on this - I did not start the "re-boot" section myself, I'm just going with the flow. Finally, I should mention that it's not accurate to characterize these later entries as "hardcore Keep editors"; for one thing, there are at least two experienced editors who entered !votes in this section who did not comment above, and also, it looks like three of these new "keep" votes are reversals of prior delete votes. That's a valid and proper use of this debate process; the votes changed because the article improved. --Parsifal Hello 02:57, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Why would only people who wanted to Keep the article still be following it? On another AfD, not a million miles away, I have said Delete and have now been told that only those who are hardcore deletists are still following the vote!!! Blimey. Dunno if I'm coming or going.... Marcus22 15:45, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. This is a copy of my previous vote down to the "Start over" section. My reasoning remains very similar as in the follow-up to my previous vote. The only change is that there are now two more sources (the NY and Seattle newspapers) to support WP:Notable and WP:Verifiable. JTSchreiber— JTSchreiber (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 05:18, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Can someone please explain why even the "improved" article passes WP:NEO? To quote, "Neologisms are words and terms that have recently been coined, generally do not appear in any dictionary, but may be used widely or within certain communities." The article self-admits that 99.999% of the medical community does not recognize the phrase, and only a small community of Sarno believes in it. This is, by definition, a neologism. Having a 20/20 segment debunk it does not magically make it more adherent to WP:NEO.Djma12 (talk) 15:52, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a red herring and does not apply to this decision. TMS is not a neologism at all. It's not even a "new" term, - Sarno's first book about it was written 25 years ago in 1982, several more books followed later; the ABC segment was in 1999. That excludes it from the definition of neologism, by longevity. Also, it's is a definition of a medical condition, not a linguistic construct that has not made it into the dictionary yet. Even if it were a neologism, which it's not, the "nutshell" of WP:NEO states this : "New terms don't belong in Wikipedia unless there are reliable sources about the term." And we do have reliable sources, many of them.
- Your use of the word "debunk" to describe the 20/20 segment is completely off-track, Have you watched the entire segment? While Stossel acknowledges the condition and treatment are not used by mainstream medicine, overall the segment is strongly positive. And as an aside, even if the segment were debunking, that would not reduce the notability of a topic being discussed on a major USA national news show, though it would change the way the segment was described in the article. But, that's neither here nor there, because the show did not not debunk, not anywhere close to that, which you can see if you watch the video.
- Further on a procedural basis, WP:NEO is a guideline, not a policy, whereas WP:V and WP:N are core policies, clearly satisfied by this article in that the condition has been explored on a major national news show, mentioned in major metropolitan newspapers and by many other reliable sources. --Parsifal Hello 18:55, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- More references. I added another reference today, a book by Dr. By René Cailliet, with a four page sub-chapter chapter on TMS. The name "Tension myositis syndrome" is listed as a sub-chapter heading in the table of contents, along with various other possible causes of back pain. To be clear about the qualifications of the author, Dr. Cailliet is not an "alternative practioner", he is himself quoted in books like this one: Burchiel, Kim (2002). Surgical Management of Pain. Thieme. p. 134. ISBN 0865779120. I did not add this second book to the article because it does not directly mention TMS, however, it does quote Calliet stating that Sarno's "conclusions may be questioned, but his diagnosis of 'nonorganic signs' raises a question that current knowledge of low back disorders does not answer." I'm providing this for context only, to support the reliability of the source of the reference I added, and also to show that Sarno has not been dismissed as a kook by "real doctors"; his ideas are mentioned here by a physician specializing in back pain, in a serious medical text about surgical pain management. I'm not jumping to conclusions and saying Sarno's diagnosis is widely accepted; this is just one more example that the notability of the condition extends beyond Sarno's books and interviews. He had no direct involvement with Cailliet's book. I don't have time to seek out more right now, but I thought it would be useful to add at least one more, to show by how quickly that could be done, that we are not at a loss for finding additional third-party sources. This further confirms notability and verifiability.--Parsifal Hello 19:44, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - WP:NEO doesn't apply. It's a described medical diagnosis of dubious merit, but it verifiably exists, which is the threshold for notability. Wikipedia reports verifiability, not truth, and TMS is a verifiable, though possibly completely imaginary. WLU 20:18, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I really must give applause to the efforts of those who have been seriously attempting to fix the problems in this article, especially compared to the mindless bleating that's taken up most of the space in this 'discussion'. That said, there is still one important question that I'd like to see answered before this matter is closed: what exactly is TMS that makes it a distinct subject? From my perspective, it seems like nothing but a fancy label that Dr. Sarno has created for 'psychosomatic pain', possibly (warning: wild personal speculation) to avoid the stigma of words like 'psychogenic' and 'psychosomatic'? While Dr. Sarno's ideas and methods may be valid (my own personal leaning is that there is some merit to them), that doesn't mean that there should be a seperate article on them. Until TMS becomes accepted enough that it's possible to talk about it without referring to Dr. Sarno, and is used by more than the current handful of doctors who follow Dr. Sarno's work, I think information about it should be placed in the article on Dr. Sarno. - Pacula 20:29, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply. What makes this a distinct topic is that the term "Tension myositis syndrome" is WP:Verifiable and WP:Notable. Most of your comment is WP:Original research. It's not our job to figure out if TMS is the same as psychosomatic pain - that's the job of others. Our job is to report what has been said by reliable sources about the topic. It doesn't matter if we think it's a real medical condition, or if it's the same as something else.
- It's incorrect that the clinic you linked are the only ones using his methods. There are some number of clinics that do (I haven't counted them), and multiple books written by doctors and other authors not associated with that clinic.
- I understood why you nominated the article for deletion at first, since it did not have third-party references and had lots of self-published links. But now that the article has so many reliable secondary sources, I don't understand why you still want it deleted. Dr. Sarno is a person, he's notable and he is covered by a biographical article in Wikipedia. "Tension myositis syndrome" is not biographical, it's a medical condition with a definition and a treatment; it's controversial; it has not been widely accepted by the medical establishment; but it has been reported in large-scale mainstream media, in many books about healing back pain (only some of those books are written by his associates), and in various other sources listed in the article and elsewhere. That's a separate topic and not part of a biography. --Parsifal Hello 20:59, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply - I guess my primary remaining concern is the question of if the phrase 'tension myositis syndrome' itself passes the WP:NEO test. Virtually all of the notable references to term that I've been able to find refer to it as 'a term coined by Dr. Sarno' or something similar, and I'm not sure if that's good enough to not qualify as a neologism. I am not arguing that the theory behind this is non-notable - but I also don't think that the name that Dr. Sarno invented for it is. At the least, not until the name can be found in secondary sources without being refering to as being a phrase coined by Dr. Sarno. - Pacula 21:40, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Here's a few... It's a notable topic. It's not the same topic as Dr. Sarno's biography. There are references that don't mention Sarno; some are even in the article already, such as the ones by his associates, like Dr. Schecter and others. While they may be associates, they are separate people, some have separate clinics, and they often use the term without mentioning him, should they all be moved into his biography too?
- Aside from his associates, there are plenty of professionals who use the diagnosis and treatment method in their private practices or pain management and/or psychotherapy clinics, often without writing about Sarno. Here are several I found quickly: Susan Farber, psychotherapist - support groups for care-givers and individuals with brain injury, stroke, and chronic pain; Chiropractor professional organization in South Carolina; Here's a blogger with a Master's degree in Public Health who mentions TMS and does not mention Sarno: Tension Myositis Syndrome: Low Back Pain Related to Stress: Cause, Origin, Symptoms and Treatment Options; Here's a seminar workshop program that mentions TMS and does not mention Sarno: NEW YORK SOCIETY OF CLINICAL HYPNOSIS, 19thAnnual Clinical Hypnosis Workshop for Health-Care Professionals, Workshop by Marlene Levy, PhD, AAPM; and ... here's a book that lists TMS as one possible cause of back pain that results in lost work days, among a list of other causes, and this book does not include the name of Dr. Sarno: Sall, MD, Richard E. (2004). Strategies in Workers' Compensation. Hamilton Books. p. 91. ISBN 0761827714.. (This is a good solid reference, I'll add it to the article).
- Now, even though I provided some examples of what you wanted, I do not think that these examples were needed to establish the article as notable or separate from his biography. But I went ahead and found them anyway just to make the point that they can be found. I did this in 15 minutes, so imagine what someone could accomplish if they were to do some real research on the topic. This article is not at all like what it was when you originally wanted to delete it; has lots of reliable sources, is NPOV and fits well within Wikipedia policies for inclusion. --Parsifal Hello 23:02, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Change of mind due to revamped article: Keep - The article at the time of the AFD nomination was a horrid biased mess, but things have improved dramatically since then, having essentially been rewritten from scratch. Since the article now handles the topic in an appropriately neutral way, and shows notability without trying to claim that the ideas aren't without controversy, I no longer see any reason to object to it's presence. - Pacula 00:17, 17 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 04:18, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cool Hand Luke 14:37, 4 September 2007 (UTC) Relisted because one user expressed strong opposition on my talk page. Cool Hand Luke 15:18, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Melody Max[edit]
Doesn't pass WP:PORNBIO Epbr123 20:17, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Tabercil 22:28, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete unless awards/nominations/notability is found Corpx 06:23, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - no evidence of notability. Tabercil 14:47, 2 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, Cool Hand Luke 15:18, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. 47 films, in the porn industry is almost nothing. --Evb-wiki 15:45, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. <joke>Although a picture of her could change my vote.</joke> Zouavman Le Zouave 16:39, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, she is noted for beginning a trend in pornography. and that is totally a valid ctiteria to perserve. --Kaaveh 01:14, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Half Persian, half French, all trivial. -- Rob C. alias Alarob 02:09, 15 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. Carioca 01:02, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Authorgeddon[edit]
Looks like OR. Recommend delete Dchall1 15:08, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. No WP:RS provided. Boarderline WP:BOLLOCKS. --Evb-wiki 15:18, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete. Seems to stem from one article (from which is could be sourced). But I don't find this notable, it is nothing more than a fancy name for the day two lines in a statistic meet. Unless, of course, we find some sources which indicate this term is being used in actual discussion among publishers, critics, or what-have-you. Lundse 15:19, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Zouavman Le Zouave 16:41, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Until the term is used by outside sources, it is OR.--Danaman5 17:04, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Definitely looks like OR. GlassCobra (talk • contribs) 18:50, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I'm not able to find anything that meets WP:RS that mentions this term. It all seems to be quotes and reprints of the original material by lulu.com. --Darkwind (talk) 23:15, 9 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 04:17, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Moncy Pothen[edit]
Author fails WP:BIO. No independent sources have been added since more than half a year, although there was some intense debate with the original contributor, User:Nribooks. PROD was contested by User:Nribooks too. -- Sent here as part of the Notability wikiproject. --B. Wolterding 14:20, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Doesn't appear to be notable, even if her name does sound like Monty Python. Mandsford 14:41, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Apparently non-notable. No independent sources. Zouavman Le Zouave 16:42, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Real author, real book, but no attribution of notability from independent sources. Little found in a search of Google News Archive, only his own books on Google Books. --Dhartung | Talk 00:25, 10 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 04:16, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
MaxBats[edit]
In one year this article has never contained anything but advertising copy and blurry pictures. It is possible this company may be notable, but the article needs to be euthanized. edg ☺ ★ 14:07, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Unencyclopedic and WP:SPAM. --Evb-wiki 15:04, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Wikipedia is not a place to get free advertising! Zouavman Le Zouave 16:43, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as tedious ad copy that fails to demonstrate notability. -- Rob C. alias Alarob 02:10, 15 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/merge to Antipsychology. As this article is poorly written and clearly unencyclopedic I am not going to cut-and-paste merge this. The article history remains available behind the redirect, I will leave it to interested and knowledgable editors to perform the merge as they see fit. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 22:57, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Psychoheresy[edit]
Advocacy for and against a neologism of marginal notability. There's not much factual or sourced info to merge. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 14:07, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge what's useful with Antipsychology, as a suggested alternative to deletion. More here than just a "neologism", but this article is heavy on POV. Mandsford 14:44, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge as per Mandsford. Unless source come up about this being a big movement and not just a new book and its new fans. Lundse 15:21, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge carefully - A lot of the article is not really written in an encyclopedic tone. Needs in-text citations, especially for the quotes; but it appears to be the subject of some study. So, merge with Antipsychology, which is described in this article as "another term synonymous with psychoheresy," but more general. That makes this a good canditate for merging if the content is cleaned up and the references are integrated properly. ◄Zahakiel► 15:59, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, don't merge. It's an essay that plugs a series of publications. If it's notable enough to be added to Antipsychology, it will get there anyway. -- Rob C. alias Alarob 02:16, 15 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. Eluchil404 04:26, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Gay square dance[edit]
- Gay square dance (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
I think there must be a Rule 34.1 of IRL: There's a "gay" version of it, no exceptions. So do we really really need articles about things like gay square dance, gay weightlifting, gay parkour, gay aviation, gay high energy physics... - ∅ (∅), 12:51, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following related page because of the same concern (and because this is even less notable):
- International Association of Gay Square Dance Clubs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of sexuality and gender-related deletions. —Becksguy 11:00, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep all I'm not gay, nor have I been to a square dance in the last 20 years, but this is notable enough. I disagree with the argument that this is simply a variation on something that everyone does. Unlike weightlifting, parkour (?), aviation or even high energy physics, squaredancing requires a large group of people no matter what their orientations may be. You might as well argue that a gay and lesbian pride parade is just a parade with the word "gay" attached to it. This has events, clubs, and a long history... and apparently, a large following. Notable enough for me. Mandsford 14:52, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete/merge No reason to have a specific article for this. If gay squaredance is sufficiently different from normal squaredance, then we can add a note under squaredance and maybe redirect from here. Lundse 15:25, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - reliable sources attesting to the notability of the topics exist, for instance here and here, and a bit more here. Otto4711 16:16, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, this is a widespread variation with reliable sources. The point is that "gay parkour" would not be appreciably different from "straight" parkour (or whatever), while square dancing conventions must be violated in certain obvious ways to be a gay activity. --Dhartung | Talk 18:12, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- But why not make a section under square dance? Surely there is not all that many things to say which are interesting for an encyclopedia? I am not arguing this does not exist or that it is not a notable variation - I just do not agree that it has to have its own article. I could be wrong, though, maybe there is enough to write on this as a social phenomenon (I just have my doubts)... Lundse 18:24, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep As per Dhartung, this has to be significantly different from "straight square dance" and has been around for a long time, and is notable per Otto4711. Accounting4Taste 18:28, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Square dancing. Is there non-gay squaredancing? "Honor your partner, honor your corner, allemand left, do-si-do." Edison 21:35, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I also think it would be best to merge this with the square dancing article. Nlm1515 22:06, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep Square dancing is a partner and group dance activity with its roots in conservative cultures and was utilized not only as a social activity but to foster traditional hetero courtship and rituals. Gay square dancing is unique and separate from the original form and has developed its own customs, traditions and protocols. Although at one point it could have been merged into a larger article about square dancing it would most likely be swiftly annexed onto it's own. Benjiboi 11:22, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep also International Association of Gay Square Dance Clubs (thought there were two AfDs to comment so my apologies for double posts). This international organization has 80 clubs and some 20 years of history? Seems notable enough just as if there were a group of the same size and scope with some other defining commonality. Benjiboi 11:29, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Demonstrated notability. • Lawrence Cohen 16:29, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Please read WP:N then show what the "multiple independent and reliable sources" are with "substantial coverage" of the subject. I see no sources in the article itself. Some are cited here. The one from the NY Times says "the moves are the same" which means that rather than "gay square dancing" this is "square dancing by gays". The article itself says that these factors are seen in square dancing by (nongay) youth dancers. I also see no meaningful distinction between gay and non-gay square dancing, other than subjective and unsupported claims of "higher energy level," younger participants, changing of partners, and casual clothing. This does not justify a separate article; it just shows that gay people participate in a common recreation. Similarly showing that gay people do similar activities to non-gay people would not justify "Gay roofing" or "Gay lawn mowing" articles, even if they did it with "greater energy" and in more casual clothing. Edison 21:02, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You are gravely mischaracterizing the first source that I listed, which is an substantial piece about both the phenomenon and the Association. That piece touches on such issues as resistance to gays participating in straight square dancing clubs, how the moves are different than in straight square dancing and how some gay square dancers risk discharge from the military under DADT for wanting to participate. Otto4711 21:34, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep
CommentEdison, I would agree that there is no need for articles such as gay roofing, gay lawn mowing, or gay aviation. There the assumption of heterosexuality is not central to the activity, since the primary purpose is to perform useful work. But the assumption of heterosexuality is the essence of certain social activities, such as square dancing or school proms. These are social courtship activities, or derived from courtship rituals, that are based on having a partner of the opposite sex. The comments and sources provided by User:Otto4711 and the comments by User:Benjiboi are particularity pertinent and thoughtful here. As is the comment by User:Mandsford referring to a gay parade as just a parade with gays, using your logic, if I understand it correctly. Please reread the comments and references, especially the article by Smiley, as I see them strongly supporting the notability of and rationale for a meaningful distinction between each square dancing context. It isn't just energy or clothes. Thank you. - Becksguy 01:12, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply] - Keep I strongly agree with Edison, Gay Square Dancing is very different from Gay Aviation et all. The article clearly needs improvement, but I believe it could be a valuable article at some point. Kootenayvolcano 06:10, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- CommentSorry Becksguy, it is you (above) who I am agreeing with, not Edison, as I stated earlier- I mistyped myself. Kootenayvolcano 21:00, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This is meaningful, as stated above, and I would agree with Becksguy that in general activities otherwise based on conventional heterosexuality might be expected to have significant variation. I'm glad some real sources were found.DGG (talk) 18:56, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as notable, verifiably large cultural phenomenon, and with reliable sources, above, and as "dog bites man" situation per Becksguy, Edison, and Benjiboi. Bearian 00:55, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep
very notableNotable and also the difference between Gay Square Dance and Square Dance is also different than the difference between gay weight lifting and regular weightliftitng because the gay doesnt refer to the person doing it it refers to the originaters of the style members of The [IAGSDC] because a gay person can do regular Square Dancing and a straight person can do Gay Square Dancing so its talking about a major style of dance not a type of person doing a dance --Shimonnyman03:50, 12 September 2007 (UTC)edit: 19:31, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply] - Tongue in cheek comment - Why don't we redirect it to morris dance! - ∅ (∅), 07:16, 12 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 redirected - I looked through it and really couldn't find any quotes that would benefit the The Last Unicorn article. Anyone who finds something noteworthy (Last version before redirect) is welcome to transfer them. Note also that Kizor (talk · contribs) has moved some items to WikiQuote. Dihydrogen Monoxide (H2O) 05:49, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Last Unicorn Butterfly[edit]
- The Last Unicorn Butterfly (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Though I think it is important to mention that the butterfly character in The Last Unicorn (film) only communicated through quotations, a long list of all his quotes is not appropriate for an encyclopedia. I think the page would be better off in Wikiquote than here. SilentAria talk 14:01, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- (Minor merge &) Delete The premise of this article is very similar to "... in popular culture" articles, just the other way around. Since no sources are there to back up both notability and verifiability, it seems like the whole article is Original research. The article is currently orphaned (I don't know since when), and it seems its main article The Last Unicorn (film) doesn't regard this topic as very notable either. Two or three examples from the list could be merged to the main article as examples, delete the rest. – sgeureka t•c 14:45, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into The Last Unicorn. Author's purpose is to explain (or annotate) some of the dialogue in the film. I oppose the idea of doing a Wikiquote, since these were all spoken first by somebody else. Mandsford 14:54, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- (Minor merge &) Delete this belongs in wikiquote, if anywhere. I don't think a minor character from a minor movie is notable, and I cannot see this article going anywhere useful unless as a place to dump the quotes within wikipedia-space. Lundse 15:28, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - once the quotes are removed, what's left is an unexpandable stub. -- Whpq 16:41, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as non-viable fork. I'm sure there's a place for it somewhere (queue the standard "There's a Place for Us" from West Side Story...) but that place is not Wikipedia. -- Rob C. alias Alarob 02:20, 15 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. Eluchil404 04:37, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Flyaow[edit]
This was originally deleted as CSD G11 spam. DRV overturned, finding that this was not "blatant" advertising. Still, weak delete, over WP:CORP concerns. Xoloz 13:36, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - If the article's claim is correct that this was the first indexing site then it is notable. It seems well sourced and doesn't seem to be written in a tone that suggests advertising - Fosnez 14:09, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, seems to pass WP:WEB, seems to at least somewhat pass WP:RS, WP:V. Can't find anything that says it was the first, though. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 18:32, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Don't see how it meets WP:WEB, but I might be missing something. Reads like an advertisement to me, that plus the WP:WEB bit and nobody wanting to take on the job of fixing this up... delete. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 05:57, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, Seeing that it appeared in WP:RS sources earlier than any other airline portal (in particular San Francisco Chronicle and Asia Week articles cited in the article) it does appear to be the first, or at the very least, the first comprehensive one. Take a look at that San Francisco Chronicle article. It discusses Alaska Airlines planning to sell airline tickets online as if it is something quite new, and then mentions the site in question and no other sites. Similarly the Asia Week article cites the site in question as, '...possibly the most exhaustive list of existing sites. All the major carriers have them -- and some more obscure ones too.' when trying to explain to readers what the web does in terms of travel (back when people still were unfamiliar with the concept of using the web to book travel). In terms of WP:V the site is listed with the Library of Congress in the U.S., which strikes me as WP:V. 07:42, 12 September 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.82.96.26 (talk)
- Keep - has reliable soruces. -- Whpq 16:42, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - lots of reliable sources —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.205.40 (talk) 10:11, 16 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. Pascal.Tesson 16:34, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bus Vibe[edit]
Article fails to establish notability. No reference when searching for "Bus Vibe" in Google. Lugnuts 13:02, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete per above. Apparently they are "famous" for selling 50,000 cds. Doesn't have any references and apparently they are an "upcoming rock band"; Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Of course, if they do become world famous they can have an article--Phoenix 15 13:27, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete A7 as non-notable band, no notability established. So tagged. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 15:55, 9 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 Ritz Guitars. I know there were no explicit \"relist\" suggestions, but this content is better covered under the target article. Should substantial infomation be found to make a standalone article about WRC, the redirect can be removed. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 14:33, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WRC guitars[edit]
Content fork from Ritz Guitars so this is redundant. Seraphim Whipp 12:53, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I actually meant to prod this... d'oh... Now I realise this should be speedied for advertising... Seraphim Whipp 13:03, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge with Ritz Guitars, leaving WRC guitars as the main article. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 14:02, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I'm a bit rubbish at using TW at the moment 8-). Do you think the link to the catalogue should be removed? That's why I pegged it as advertising, as I thought it might be a subtle attempt. Thanks for sorting it all out :). Seraphim Whipp 14:09, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This one line article will never demonstrate notability. --Gavin Collins 13:17, 11 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. If an article can be sourced, it should be sourced - the potential existence of sources does not supercede the need for said sources. Those interested in keeping this article should work to include these sources to ensure it does not end up on AfD again in the near future. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 14:38, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nick Speed[edit]
This has been around for almost a year, yet the only source cited is a MySpace. No multiple, non-trivial references to establish notability. Spellcast 14:59, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete,redirect to G-Unit Records The only other source I can see is a trivial one in a Detroit paper.--Sethacus 15:35, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - It's not cited, but it CAN be - doesn't meet a deletion criteria. He's produced for highly notable people, there must be something out there. Dihydrogen Monoxide 06:25, 9 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, Maxim(talk) 12:49, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I Googled "Nick Speed" "producer" "-com" and got 35 hits. None suggest notability. MarkBul 16:27, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Doesn't need to be deleted, just needs an {{unreferenced}} tag. GlassCobra (talk • contribs) 22:26, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The "unreferenced" tag has been there for over a year now and not a single reliable source has been added since its creation. Maybe this suggests none exist? It would be ok if this was recreated with third party sources, but right now there are none that can be found to establish notability. Spellcast 03:08, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Those Google results only reveal very brief and trivial mentions. There could at least be one cover story, but there doesn't seem to be. The statement that "there must be something out there" is just speculation. Like WP:V says: "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it", so the policy overrides all arguments. Spellcast 01:54, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep highly notable producer, and obviously written by the man himself, as with Elzhi. Check out what links hereCosprings 17:26, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If you can give a couple of sources to prove he's notable, I'll gladly withdraw the nomination. Also, how do you know it was written by him? Spellcast 16:57, 16 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/No consensus. — Scientizzle 15:54, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Long Healing Prayer[edit]
- Long Healing Prayer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
This particular prayer is one of many and doesn't seem notable. There are no authoritative commentaries on this particular prayer, and there is not much to say other than that the prayer exists. In the case of Tablet of the Holy Mariner there is sufficient context to make the page notable and expandable. The Long Healing Pryaer could be mentioned on another page like Baha'i teachings. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 19:21, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 11:07, 8 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, Maxim(talk) 12:47, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not that I've got anything against the Bahais or Bahaullah in general, but this article does nothing more that mention that there's a prayer, and it doesn't direct you to a source that contains the text. It does direct you to a site that has a presentation that says it will go on for "36 minutes"... shorter than the average wait in a doctor's office, I guess. Mandsford 14:59, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Merge or keep. This would be stronger as one paragraph of a long article on the writings of Bahá'u'lláh; but I see no reason to lose the information. There is a link to the text of the prayer, in English translation; it's under References, not Extrernal links. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:21, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. It is a significant prayer ritual, so the case for notability would be roughly similar to that for the Kaddish, allowing for the latter's much longer history. "Long Healing Prayer" is simply what it's called in English. There's a reasonable amount of description and history in there already. The text is quoted, and I don't think an external link to the complete text is necessary (although it can be found here). -- Rob C. alias Alarob 02:56, 15 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, so tagged with {{db-afd}} (Before you kill me, remember, we have a 4 day backlog on AfD closures at the moment). Dihydrogen Monoxide (H2O) 05:51, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Asia Miles[edit]
It appears to me that this article is in violation of WP:NOT#INFO, in addition to WP:V, as I can't find reliable, third party sources which give this FFP notability in an encyclopaedic context. It should be noted that the tendency is for airline articles to mention these FFP in the main article, rather than a stand alone 'travel guidish' article on programs which aren't notable on their own. Russavia 12:40, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletions. -- Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:56, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletions. -- Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:56, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Asia Miles is a pretty popular frequent flyer program, however, a brief Google search only reveals sources that mostly talk about how customers can earn points with the program. A lot of travel-related businesses seem to participate in the program, but I'm not sure if notability is established here in the lack of better sources. Regardless, the article does need to be improved so that it is more encyclopedic. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:56, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as lack of context makes this look like a PR exercise that fails WP:SPAM. Like the article Air Miles, the article does not disclose what the value of Asia Miles are and why people should collect them, which is precisely what the promoters don't want you to know. --Gavin Collins 14:23, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep program is huge in Asia. What does it matter if you don't know what the promoters are using the points for?? That has nothing to do with the article. --Thankyoubaby 06:20, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It matters not if the program is huge or not, AAdvantage is a MASSIVE FFP, yet it is inline on the main American Airlines article, as are all other MASSIVE FFP of US and European and other airlines, with a few exceptions. There are no reliable, non-trivial sources provided in the article which would provide Asia Miles notability within the context of an encyclopaedia, and none which can be found or have been provided to establish any degree of notability. --Russavia 02:18, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions. -- Gavin Collins 16:36, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Keb25 02:45, 16 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 - this is a clear case for CSD G11. Nihiltres(t.l) 16:15, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Swiss vacation[edit]
- Swiss vacation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Largely original research with no references, I'm not convinced this can be made into a viable article. Marasmusine 11:55, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment What were you thinking. you should have speedied it--Phoenix 15 13:36, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Under what criteria? Marasmusine 14:10, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment What were you thinking. you should have speedied it--Phoenix 15 13:36, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Wikipedia is not a travel guide. Deor 13:04, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete Nonsense, unencyclopediodic, copies material from other articles, Weasel words, peackock terms, NPOV, Inaccurate, no references, non-notable, spam, fails to establish context, not a travel guide, badly written etc.--Phoenix 15 13:36, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I forgot to mention Original research--Phoenix 15 13:38, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Deor sirmob 14:23, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Just send me a postcard I agree, this is a speedy delete. Mandsford 15:01, 9 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. Eluchil404 04:40, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Time and Time Again[edit]
- Time and Time Again (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Fails notability criteria and offers no more information than the main article, essentially making it a redundant content fork. Seraphim Whipp 11:31, 9 September 2007 (UTC) Seraphim Whipp 11:31, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect - If all notable information about the single "Time and Time Again" is located on the lovehatetragedy article, there is no need for the "Time and Time Again" article to exist to duplicate the information. Users will, however, search for the single without knowing the name of the album, therefore Time and Time Again should redirect to lovehatetragedy. Neelix 13:29, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Completely agree, redirect. Seraphim Whipp 08:54, 11 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. —Wknight94 (talk) 16:04, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
She Loves Me Not (song)[edit]
- She Loves Me Not (song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Fails notability criteria. Due to an easy merge it now offers no more information than the main article, essentially making it a redundant content fork. Seraphim Whipp 11:28, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Has charted in several countries. As for the content being redundant with that of the album article, that could (conceivably) be fixed. It doesn't mean the song is any less notable.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 18:52, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note. You might want to mention in the article that it's being nominated for deletion. This template is handy for this purpose. --The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 18:52, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Lol, I see you did that already, but some clown had removed it. It's been restored.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 18:56, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No problem. Chart position could be easily added to the album article though... I'm not sure there really is enough information about this particular song to make it stand up on its own. Even if we could find a paragraph to write about it, that info would work quite well in an album article. Seraphim Whipp 23:06, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Lol, I see you did that already, but some clown had removed it. It's been restored.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 18:56, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Nationally charted song (#76 on the Billboard 100)[28] so passes WP:MUSIC#Songs. dissolvetalk 01:25, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Passes WP:MUSIC. Maxamegalon2000 05:12, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Well no it doesn't really. Also, simply because it charted, doesn't mean we need to have an article about it. Information such as "This song charted and reached position _" can be added to the album article with ease.
- The conditions from WP:MUSIC are these *:
- ...has been covered in sufficient independent works. Fail
- ...has been performed independently by several notable artists, bands or groups. Fail
- ...has been ranked on a national or significant music chart. Pass
- ...has been recognized by journalists, biographers, and/or other respected cultural critics as being significant to a noteworthy group's repertoire. Fail
- ...has won a significant award or honor. Fail
*(I hope no one objects to me adding this info. I know page dumping isn't great but I figured this was a proportionately small amount of text and was needed for clarity in my argument. A simple page link wouldn't really have done it)
- Keep Has been charted in rock charts, and also although that does not seem to be very much a factor here, but the song was used for NHL 2003.--JForget 23:45, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- General comment. This stuff can all so easily be added to the album article. I just don't see why this needs it's own song article. Can anyone give me a reason why the info suggested should not be added to the main album article? I'm sincerely not asking that to be rude, I simply can't understand. Seraphim Whipp 08:37, 11 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. - Mailer Diablo 16:46, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Broken Home (song)[edit]
- Broken Home (song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Fails notability criteria and offers no more information than the main article, essentially making it a redundant content fork. Seraphim Whipp 11:23, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Nationally charted song[29] so passes WP:MUSIC#Songs. dissolvetalk 01:25, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. It may have charted and therefore it passes on one criteria of notability but that piece of one line information (that it charted) can easily be added to the album article. It's basically an empty article and it really doesn't have much of a chance of being much more. Album articles are used to write about this stuff. Seraphim Whipp 10:05, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Dissolve--JForget 23:46, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep. Notable single by a notable band that charted. Of course it meets the notability criteria; it charted on a national chart. Articles on singles aren't "redundant content forks", or you could merge all articles on singles into their respective albums. They provide different information. Melsaran (talk) 19:36, 13 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, {{db-afd}} tagged. Dihydrogen Monoxide (H2O) 05:53, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Jared Murillo[edit]
- Jared Murillo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Procedural - prod removed, no real assertion of notability The Rambling Man 10:52, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete May be notable in a few years if he keeps this up, but not quite yet. Accounting4Taste 18:30, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I can't find any reliable sources discussing his career; the only sources I'm finding seem to discuss him purely in the context of his dating a notable person, and describe him as a 'back-up dancer'. -FisherQueen (Talk) 21:10, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Fails WP:MUSIC, getting there, but not quite notable yet. --Thε Rαnδom Eδιτor (tαlk) 22:54, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep It should not be deleted he was a cheoregrapher for the High School Musical Concert and High School Musical 2. He also was just signed by Warner Brothers for a boy band called the Factory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.182.238.17 (talk • contribs) — User:67.182.238.17 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Keep. He has some notability as a dancer (see here) and for minor roles on TV, but he's mostly notable for dating Ashley Tisdale, for which he has been getting some attention (for example, here). I think the sources exist to establish a minimal level of notability. Everyking 09:30, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep- Jared should be noted as a dancer for High School Musical: The Concert, and as well as for dating Ashley Tisdale. If he does become famous, I think we should keep the article, but modify it to actually look like a profile. Calebaldwinjun9 17:30, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per FisherQueen. Luckystars 04:43, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Jared Murillo should be noted for his dancing. He seems to have won a lot of Dance competitions. User:Kula007 16, September 2007 — User:Kula007 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Delete: he's covered by lots of sources, but they all appear to be small sources that don't appear independent or necessarily reliable. Nyttend 15:32, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- "'Keep"' Murillo is covered by many sources, they are independent and reliable. Just read them. User:Dreamgirl1 Dreamgirl —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dreamgirl1 (talk • contribs) 04:17, 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. - Mailer Diablo 04:15, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Areas in the Ratchet & Clank series[edit]
- Areas in the Ratchet & Clank series (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Completely unsourced article which seems to me to belong in a game guide. This level of detail is grossly excessive in a general encyclopaedia, not paper notwithstanding, and also appears to be drawn wholly from primary sources, violating WP:NOR. Guy (Help!) 10:48, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Marasmusine 12:00, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - zero out-of-universe context, no reliable secondary sources, per WP:Writing about fiction. Marasmusine 12:00, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete A very OR article about a universe that will last only until your PlayStation 2 wears out. Mandsford 15:03, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - this belongs in the game manual and certainly not in an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and definitely not a publisher of original thought. -- Chris B • talk • contribs 16:58, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, Wikipedia needs to grow smaller, less quantity and more of a focus on quality. Marlith T/C 01:15, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete indiscriminate collection of information per WP:NOT. No out of universe context per WP:FICTION, and no out of universe context possible either (so delete instead of attempt to improve). Note to closing admin: though they !voted delete as well, User:Marlith and Usert:Mandsford's argument are invalid and irrelevant, and do not support their opinion to delete this article from an objective point of view. User:Krator (t c) 13:21, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as above. Fin©™ 10:37, 13 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: Speedily deleted - blatant vanity page and patent nonsense. The only reference is a discussion board thread. No opinion about the person's notability, but the article was unsalvageable. Potential re-creators, please be factual the next time; Wikipedia is not a place for jokes. (Otherwise, go edit Uncyclopedia.) - Mike Rosoft 14:03, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Damien Jelfs[edit]
Obvious hoax article. Birth date is claimed as year 0000, fictional sport positions and other blatant falsehoods such as "The birth of Jelfs is regarded by many to be the coming of God." GlassCobra (talk • contribs) 09:11, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - vanity article, google search supports nominators argument. Marasmusine 09:56, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Agree, it's a hoax article. Delete per nom. This one should be easy, prolly even as a speedy per WP:SNOW — Becksguy 10:17, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - As a poor attempt at a comedy-hoax article. CIreland 10:23, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per GlassCobra, Marasmusine, I'd have speedied it as nonsense. Accounting4Taste 18:25, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh believe me, I would have loved to, but I learned the hard way that any claim to notability, even a blatantly false one, is grounds for exclusion from CSD. GlassCobra (talk • contribs) 19:01, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete, obvious hoax.--Grahamec 04:41, 10 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. Dihydrogen Monoxide (H2O) 05:54, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cristian Guerrero[edit]
- Cristian Guerrero (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
not notable, fails WP:BIO. Miamite 09:00, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above.--Miamite 03:33, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of baseball-related deletions. —Truest blue 17:17, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Only in minor league.--Bedivere 09:04, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Miamite--Truest blue 17:19, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. How does this fail WP:BIO? The WP:BIO requirement is that a player plays in a fully professional league, which he does. Smashville 22:51, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. As noted above, this player meets the current standard for athletes in WP:BIO, and it should be noted that he also meets the proposed standards in Wikipedia:Notability (sports) by playing for the AAA Columbus and New Orleans teams. Requests have been made that baseball player AfD's be put on hold until the proposed guidelines are worked out. Kinston eagle 00:55, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete again I don't see sources, (more than the other two though) that wasn't independent, a stats site, or trivial mentions, also he played six games in AAA, doesn't seem like a whole year to me. Jaranda wat's sup Sports! 02:14, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Actually, he has played 10 games at the AAA level between Columbus and New Orleans. He was also a minor league all-star in 1999 and 2000. Kinston eagle 11:51, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- 10 games...still not a full season. Smashville 13:09, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Actually, he has played 10 games at the AAA level between Columbus and New Orleans. He was also a minor league all-star in 1999 and 2000. Kinston eagle 11:51, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The appearances at AAA were fairly brief. However, as Kinston notes, he has also played on two minor-league All Star teams, which is a reasonable assertion of notability for a minor league player. There are reasonable non-trivial sources on him out there, such as this mention in USA Today, this profile in the Fredericksburg Free Lance-Star, and this article (capsule view only) in the San Bernardino Sun (that's just the first three good examples in 15 pages of results from Google News). -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 16:23, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Meets WP:BIO...and by virtue of making Minor League All Star teams, meets proposed Wikipedia:Notability (sports) requirements, too... Smashville 16:44, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Minor league all-stars are notable. Spanneraol 17:15, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment . Is there some sort of source to the repeated mantra here that he was a minor league all-star? --Truest blue 16:52, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 17:45, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- 2000 Rookie Level All-Star Team (Baseball America) sounds like it isn't really an All-Star Team, instead seems like a All-Star team created by the magazine. Jaranda wat's sup Sports! 02:02, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That one's a judgement call. Personally, I count it, since BA is basically the bible of minor league baseball. The other one is pretty indisputable, anyway. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 12:21, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 17:45, 11 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. Suggest revisiting this issue if necessary once the proposed guidelines for sports figures has been settled. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 14:42, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Juan M. Gonzalez (baseball)[edit]
- Juan M. Gonzalez (baseball) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
not notable, fails WP:BIO. Miamite 08:53, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above.--Miamite 03:32, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of baseball-related deletions. —Truest blue 17:16, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Miamite--Truest blue 17:19, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. How does this fail WP:BIO? The WP:BIO requirement is that a player plays in a fully professional league, which he does. Smashville 22:52, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Is that a Keep Smashville? Kinston eagle 00:47, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Not necessarily. I mean, common sense is that a Minor Leaguer wouldn't be notable. However, per WP:BIO, they are. Smashville 02:17, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Is that a Keep Smashville? Kinston eagle 00:47, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. As noted above, this player meets the current standard for athletes in WP:BIO, and it should be noted that he also meets the proposed standards in Wikipedia:Notability (sports) by playing for the AAA Albuquerque Isotopes. Requests have been made that baseball player AfD's be put on hold until the proposed guidelines are worked out. Kinston eagle 00:46, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I couldn't find one good source that wasn't independent, trvial, or a stats site, fails WP:RS and WP:V and also for notabilty (sports) it's recommended not to use it for any AFD debates, not place the baseball AFDs on hold. Thanks Jaranda wat's sup Sports! 02:11, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Professional minor league player, has played AAA baseball, meets criteria of WP:BIO and Wikipedia:Notability (sports). Spanneraol 21:24, 10 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 04:47, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cade Gaspar[edit]
not notable. fails WP:BIO. Miamite 08:47, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above.--Miamite 03:32, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of baseball-related deletions. —Truest blue 17:17, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Miamite--Truest blue 17:19, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Never made it to the highest level of the sport. DrunkenSmurf 22:45, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. How does this fail WP:BIO? The WP:BIO requirement is that a player plays in a fully professional league, which he does. "Highest level of the sport" does not apply here, as Minor League players are not amateurs. Smashville 22:53, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Meets the current criteria of WP:BIO. Kinston eagle 00:51, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete minor leaguer who never made it to the big leagues. Jaranda wat's sup Sports! 02:05, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - clearly meets WP:BIO. — xDanielx T/C 07:04, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, non-notable. Players who never reach the major leagues can achieve notability through prominence in college baseball (i.e. winning the Golden Spikes Award) or through a sustained minor league career with significant notability (e.g. Steve Dalkowski), but unremarkable minor league careers don't qualify. I'm skeptical of articles for AAA players as well, unless their reaching the majors is rather imminent. MisfitToys 01:10, 13 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 File system. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 14:45, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Offline File System[edit]
- Offline File System (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
This article is pointless, the concept of "offline file system" should be explained in the file system article or in the mount (computing) article. This page is unlikely to be expanded without duplicating the contents of other articles, and moreover I'm not sure that "offline" is the current terminology (I usually find "unmounted filesystem"). GhePeU 08:47, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Like Ropeway technician (another article currently up for deletion), this is a definition of a trivial combination of words. There's nothing here that couldn't be easily discovered by looking up the words offline and file system. Zetawoof(ζ) 23:01, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect. To File system. • Lawrence Cohen 05:42, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect per above. JIP | Talk 08:21, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect better idea. Carlosguitar 01:19, 13 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. While inclusion criteria is present, "cited in many texts and papers", is vague and this is functionally a synthesis of important works listed or discussed in one book. I agree, however, that the foundation for a better list may be here, perhaps for an article entitled notable works in social psychology. I will gladly userify this article to any party interested in solidifying a stronger inclusion criteria and/or using it as a guide to create articles on books that may themselves deserve encyclopedia articles. — Scientizzle 16:14, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
List of social psychology classics[edit]
- List of social psychology classics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
List with no criteria for inclusion. Delete. - Mike Rosoft 08:11, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Represents an editor's POV, not supported by independent referencing. WWGB 08:14, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Listcruft. Keb25 08:28, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Neither 'social psychology' nor 'classics' will ever be capable of a sufficiently precise or neutral definition. CIreland 10:30, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 08:31, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete A classic example of the social psychology of manipulating a large group of students; define something as a "classic" that everyone must have. Mandsford 15:06, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete As the list itself notes: "Any list of classics is sure to be subjective". Per WP:LIST it should go then Bfigura (talk) 22:31, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I've seen better, but there does seem to be criteria: they are specified as listed in a standard reference, and they all of them are obviously major figures with WP articles (or earlier workers about whom an article could clearly be written.). From my limited knowledge of the subject, I think that the individual books would justify WP articles--for the ones I checked, they are mentioned in the articles, and they have certainly been discussed in the literature. I think deletion should be kept for idiosyncratic or overly extended lists of this sort. DGG (talk) 20:55, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per DGG. This is a meaningful list.Biophys 01:50, 12 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- no longer a copyvio. WjBscribe 17:04, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Webbs Mills Fire Department[edit]
- Webbs Mills Fire Department (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Seems to be a copyvio of http://www.rootsweb.com/~srgp/organize/soutaust.htm, but is worded differently so it isn't blatant. --DarkFalls talk 07:44, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, with no prejudice against recreation - Better just to start over, but we can recreate this as a non copyvio, surely. Dihydrogen Monoxide 07:46, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete copyvio -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 07:47, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Keb25 08:29, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - rewritten and fixed copy vio so it is now legit. E343ll 16:36, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep since rewrite. -- Rob C. alias Alarob 03:07, 15 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. WjBscribe 22:21, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Chiles Elementary School[edit]
- Chiles Elementary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Not Notable Builderman 07:26, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Consensus is that elementary schools are not inherently notable unless something makes them so. No claim made here, and a quick google search doesn't show notability either. — Becksguy 10:24, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Just the typical average local elementary school period.--JForget 23:47, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Non-notable school. Keb25 00:08, 11 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: Speedily deleted by Zscout370 as copyright violation. - Mike Rosoft 08:09, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
ISOLATE[edit]
CSD tag was removed: [30]. I don't think they meet WP:BAND - they have 2 albums, but not under any major labels, and I see no other assertions. Perhaps someone else will... Dihydrogen Monoxide 07:24, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete As nom. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 07:26, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Case of WP:SPAM as well as a copyvio from their Myspace page. ~Cr∞nium 07:53, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Band vanity/spam. Delete, candidate for speedy deletion. - Mike Rosoft 08:08, 9 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. WjBscribe 22:23, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Myistro[edit]
This person is not notable. --Jjamison 06:33, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 08:31, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Vanity, non-notable musician. Keb25 10:50, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Keb25. "Once the major labels hear him" is not good enough. Accounting4Taste 18:32, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: An anon blanked the article. I have restored it. --Jjamison 21:23, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete no assertion of notability. Carlosguitar 23:31, 9 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 per changes made which verify notability. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 03:40, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE: First nomination here. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 03:57, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rapture (film)[edit]
- Rapture (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Fails notability guidelines for future films. Girolamo Savonarola 06:24, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- old nomination
- Delete - Doesn't comply to guidelines and even if it was a present film, I doubt it'd be notable. Spawn Man 08:06, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 08:32, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:NF. Keb25 09:15, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NF and redirect to The Rapture (film).Changing vote to Keep. I don't know if the sources in the article have just been added or I was asleep and missed them, but the non-trivial media coverage listed for this production, coupled with the way it is being cast, pushes it into the notability arena.If this article is kept, a DAB statement must be added to it, redirecting people to the earlier, more notable film.I've gone ahead and done what I'd originally suggested in the striked out comment. 23skidoo 11:47, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]- Delete per Girolamo Savonarola. --Truest blue 17:35, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rapture will be a notable film - DOP is Geoff Boyle who has just completed "The Mutant Chronicles", directed by Simon Hunter and starring Thomas Jane, John Malkovich, Devon Aoki, Ron Perlman. Publicity due to its innovative casting methods - recent BBC interview with director Steve Nesbit can be viewed on his MySpace and articles in Total Film, The Sun online as well as News of the World, The Mirror, The London Paper etc! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.155.146.230 (talk) 15:34, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I presume, then, that you would recommend that the article be Kept? ZZ Claims ~ Evidence 13:32, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Delete - I don't think this article meets Notability - though it may as it nears its release date. Wikipedia is not a Crystal Ball, however - our coverage of future films should be limited, especially when films are this early in the production process. See Also WP:CRYSTAL. That said, The casting process does appear to be notable and innovative. The sources seem to mention the beginning of the process, but not the documentary or the result of the casting. If there's current coverage, I would consider that notable. A novel casting process that was mentioned once months ago and forgotten, however - not so much. ZZ Claims ~ Evidence 13:32, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep It doesn't meet the notability guideline for future films, but the unusual casting method of taking initial auditions from a website establishes enough notability that this should be kept, even if the film is never made.--Chaser - T 17:46, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, because properly referenced and relevant article for Wikipedia. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 22:39, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Presents a novel idea and will be notable when released Mbisanz 01:49, 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.
Bob and George[edit]
The result was Speedy keep. With the grounds for nomination withdrawn as inaccurate, there's no more reason to hold an AfD about this article than about any other article on the encyclopedia. Amusingly enough, the grounds for a speedy keep decision specifically include a procedural PROD where the nominator votes "keep." Non-admin closure; if wrong, slap with large, hairy fish. --Kizor 11:39, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Bob and George (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Procedural nomination. Expired prod with rationale "non-notable webcomic". References are indeed minimal but the article has been on Wikipedia for years and I doubt it would have seen that much action unless it did have a following. Pascal.Tesson 06:17, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Extra comment It now appears that this is not an expired prod. Rather, the prod tag was put up, taken down and revert-warred over. In any case, looking back at the two previous AfD, I'm definitely learning towards Keep. Pascal.Tesson 06:26, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 08:32, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep noticable for its role in the development of a genre/artform. Article is well written. --Martin Wisse 11:21, 9 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. —Wknight94 (talk) 16:14, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Pubs of Newtown[edit]
- Pubs of Newtown (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Procedural nom. Very similar to one I nominated a minute ago. This is an expired prod. Pascal.Tesson 06:13, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Bduke 07:02, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. WP isnt a travel guide. Mystache 13:58, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Mystache. Keb25 14:13, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge with Newtown, New South Wales. Certainly, the Sandringham Hotel, Newtown has played a notable part in Sydney's music scene with at least one song being written about it. Capitalistroadster 02:48, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The article is not written in either directory or travel guide style and discusses the pubs in Newtown in the context of their architectural and historical significance and as a (the?) key part of the cultural and social life of the neighborhood. The subject is clearly notable and merging to Newtown, New South Wales would make that already large article more unwieldly. The article needs sourcing but by itself that is not a reason to delete. Tag it as unreferenced and move on although given the recent history of these articles I sense I am fighting an uphill battle. I remain puzzled about what is put in the Yellow Pages in other parts of the world but directory listings and travel guides in Australia usually include information such as addresses and phone numbers that are not in this article. Also, I doubt that there is a great deal of understanding of the central place and historical significance of pubs in Australian culture especially in inner city neighbourhoods such as Newtown. -- Mattinbgn\ talk 13:02, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete unreferenced article giving no context beyond 'companies of a particular type in a specific area' (guide/directory) with links to external sites included in the text. Nuttah68 16:22, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The article may be unreferenced but it does provide more context than a mere listing of businesses in the area. Many of the buildings are architecturally significant and the pubs, especially in that particular neighbourhood are of historical, cultural and social significance. Any fair reading of the article can see that is more than a list of ,let's say, dry cleaners in Newtown but an attempt (albeit one that needs work) to write about a significant part of of the social fabric of Newtown. While I understand that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is a poor argument, I still find it puzzling in the extreme that this article is written off as a mere directory while every mini mall is somehow entitled to an article that is barely more than a list of tenants. -- Mattinbgn\ talk 01:35, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete this is nothing but original research, and I seem to recall a policy against that. Each of the references are about individual examples of pubs - there is not a single reference discussing any overall themes about the pubs of Newtown as distinct from any other pubs in Australia. Just because it's verifiable doesn't make it suitable for an article. (yes, I've said all this before.)23:45, 10 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by GarrieIrons (talk • contribs)
- Comment Yes, its a bit like Groundhog Day but I'll keep trying. :-) -- Mattinbgn\ talk 01:35, 11 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. -- Longhair\talk 01:58, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
List of pubs in Rozelle[edit]
- List of pubs in Rozelle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Procedural nomination: expired prod but though these sorts of lists usually end up deleted, the AfD debates are rarely uncontroversial. Pascal.Tesson 06:10, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Bduke 07:03, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. WP isnt a travel guide. Mystache 13:59, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Wikipedia isn't the yellow pages and this is a directory. Useight 15:56, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Unlike the Pubs in Newtown article, there is no content worth merging. Capitalistroadster 02:58, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Mere listing of pubs in the neighbourhood without any context. -- Mattinbgn\ talk 13:05, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Contextless directory listings. Nuttah68 16:18, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per pubs of Surry Hills and Newtown articles just now.Garrie 23:46, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, Wikipedia is not a travel guide. JIP | Talk 08:22, 11 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. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:56, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Jane Pilley[edit]
Insufficient context for an article, also not really notable but for the news article on the sex change(s), and notability is not temporary. Recommend deletion. Hersfold (t/a/c) 05:35, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Sex changes are old hat, and even prisoner sex changes (funded by the state!) are old hat. The only notability here is having a sex change reversal but even that is not particularly notable. If this case involves a change to UK law or some other effect it could have some notability but as is, no. Comment: generally the phrase "notability is not temporary" means that if someone is notable at some point that does not go away and they may have an article as an historically notable person (say, a minor figure in the Watergate scandal). You seem to be using it to say that "temporary news coverage is not notability", but best say that directly. --Dhartung | Talk 07:23, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 08:33, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. This artical doesnt seem to be notable enough or expand beyond a stub.(ForeverDEAD 12:57, 9 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]
- If you read the article, Jane's problem is going to be expanding beyond a stub too. Nick mallory 14:35, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - not notable but interesting point raised by Dhartung E343ll 16:38, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep if expanded--it asserts being the first prisoner (presumably meaning the first in the UK?) to have a sex change, so there is undoubtedly some discussion of that. Even the 2 refs give some information to be used in expansion. There is no policy that stubs get deleted. DGG (talk) 21:03, 11 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. WjBscribe 16:51, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Call Me Lightning[edit]
- Call Me Lightning (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
This was a speedy deletion candidate which was contested by its author. The article claims that the notability of the band is 2 releases on notable indie labels. To be perfectly honest, this is borderline db-band but it's also almost speedy deletable as no content/context. The article is a a sentence (plus a second sentence to explain they're notable by quoting WP:CSD), an infobox, and the list of the 2 CDs. Metros 05:28, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Author Keep Meets Criterion 5 of WP:MUSIC by the discography alone, and I don't see why I have to add anything else to keep it from being speedied. Nevertheless, I added three reviews by top-flight press agencies. If you want more, I'll go find them. Chubbles 05:31, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not really more reviews, but more content at this point. As pointed out in the nom, most of your article is quoting Wikipedia policy rather than describing the band. Speedy Delete under CSD A1 unless expanded to not qualify for that criteria. Band appears to meet notability by the rationale included in the article text, which needs to be removed. Hersfold (t/a/c) 05:42, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Looks like it meets Criteria 1 and 5 of WP:MUSIC. Even if not, certainly not a speedy candidate. Maxamegalon2000 05:55, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 08:33, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 08:34, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep meets criteria 1 and 5 of WP:MUSIC, well referenced with numerous independent reviews. Royalbroil 03:24, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep A no-brainer: one album on Revelation and another on Frenchkiss. Easily meets WP:BAND. Precious Roy 09:49, 12 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: Speedily deleted - substantially identical article to Hopkins Junior High School under the wrong name; has been blanked by creator. No opinion about the school's notability; if desired, the other article may be nominated for deletion as well. - Mike Rosoft 20:00, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hopkins (williams) Jr. High School[edit]
- Hopkins (williams) Jr. High School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Duplicate of existing Hopkins Junior High School article. Magnet for vandalism, only 2 editors and no serious edits. Wl219 05:06, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - per nom. the Hopkins Junior High School article is way better written, and should serve the purpose. --Hirohisat Kiwi 05:30, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete The creator (and only contributor of content) stated that he did not want the article. He appears to have missed the fact that the other article existed. Just check his contribs and the article history. --Jjamison 05:50, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 08:34, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 08:34, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Non-notable school. Keb25 13:11, 9 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 Mr.Z-man 05:13, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tkachev AO-46[edit]
- Tkachev AO-46 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Obscure prototype firearm article created by sock puppet and spammer Asams10 05:03, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep, or at least postpone discussion. The article did, before I removed it, have a "more info soon" notice, which we should give the chance for the author to make good on before we delete this. The user's contributions, while not exactly top-quality, do appear to be made mostly in good faith. Let's assume that and give him a chance to expand and establish the notability, as he has said he will. Hersfold (t/a/c) 05:27, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed to weak keep after reviewing some more contributions including one copyvio article and another which I nominated for deletion above. A little less willing to AGF now. Hersfold (t/a/c) 05:37, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment/Question: What edits are you referring to as spam, by the way? Could you also provide some assistance with the sockpuppet claims? Hersfold (t/a/c) 05:29, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- STRONG DELETE - This AFD is in conjunction with reporting sock puppetry. This user is a suspected sock puppet of User:Jetwave Dave who was banned for sock puppetry and abuse of other editors. His edits and articles, this one included, consist of reading obscure English and Russion journals, copying text and pictures, and posting them to this and dozens of other sites, forums, etc. Further, GOOGLE yields two results, both appearing to be by the same contributor and this Wikipedia article is just a paraphrase of that article. If anything, this is copyvio at best, a hoax at worst.--Asams10 06:31, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete for lack of WP:V. Fancruft does not make WP:RS. Leibniz 12:18, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 08:35, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete There's a general prejudice in Wikipedia against well-written articles about firearms, and it's because of crap like this. Mandsford 15:08, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep: I've added a credible reference for the gun- not sure whether it is notable though.Nigel Ish 19:55, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Just becouse i vandalised a user before, it doesnt mean im going to vandalise again. Apart from that, i guess this page is being deleted just becouse i created it. User:Winky Bill, 21:30PM, 9/09/07 (UTC)
- Comment I love reverse psychology, but I don't think anybody's decision on voting to keep or delete will be based on anything but how they feel about the article itself. Mandsford 21:37, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and comment I think we should delete this page currently and then when this can be really expanded by allot of information someone recreates it.(ForeverDEAD 00:45, 10 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]
- Delete Per comments by Asams10 and Leibniz; a lack of RS makes the article unteneble in its current state. If more information can be found, it can always be recreated later. Winky makes claims that he won't vandalize again, but just today, he added my name to the list of former CGs of [[XVIII Airborne Corps {United States}]]. Someone isn't being very subtle, Jetwave. Parsecboy 23:26, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep. The subject is part of the history of Soviet weaponry. This is exactly what should be in an encyclopedia. - Dean Wormer 03:13, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- not really. It's an obscure prototype. There are, literally, THOUSANDS of prototypes that are left out, intentionally, of Wikipedia due to their obscurity.--Asams10 05:32, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with Asams10, though its a part of soviet history its not notable enough and obscure prototype. I could easily go to ordanace museum in Aberdeen and find some odd prototype but i don't because its not near notable enough ForeverDEAD 13:58, 16 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. WjBscribe 23:04, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Clinton Sundberg[edit]
- Clinton Sundberg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Non-notable actor. Also a copyvio of his IMDb entry. Clarityfiend 05:00, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Copy vio and NN. Of his four film/television credits, 2 are for voice parts, and the other two sound as though they are small parts. So yeah, NN. Spawn Man 08:01, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 08:35, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Keb25 13:12, 9 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. -- Longhair\talk 02:01, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Blair's Law[edit]
This is a phrase coined by the Australian blogger Tim Blair to describe "the phenonemon of far right and far left groups allying with extremist Islamists." I think this should be deleted because it's already covered at Tim Blair's article and it's probably not notable enough for it's own article--certainly there aren't any reliable third-party third-party sources to establish notability right now. As the article itself points out, it's also similar to Horseshoe Theory, which was deleted through AfD. P4k 04:41, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is substantial support for this article amomng the blogging community. As Blair himself points out, it has spread quite substantially in recent times. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Apollo1986 (talk • contribs) 04:45, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Definitely non-notable. Sources are just a bunch of blog posts. Content about this is already at Tim Blair Recurring dreams 06:45, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Recurring dreams 06:55, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Wikipedia is not for things posted on a blog one day that other bloggers find witty. This isn't even a law, it's barely an observation, and the article largely exists to link to those other bloggers chuckling. --Dhartung | Talk 07:34, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - the sources are insufficient (a small collection of one-off mentions on blogs, and the Urban Dictionary), and the saying is already mentioned in the parent article Tim Blair. No need for a separate article for an observation as relatively unknown as this. Euryalus 07:35, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:NFT, neologism. Keb25 07:36, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Ceoil 11:13, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete then do a blog about how unfair it was that it was deleted. Mandsford 15:10, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect then post about how unfair it is ;-) Lundse 15:34, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Blair's Law does not seem to have much currency so not worth a redirect to Tim Blair. Capitalistroadster 03:09, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete without prejudice to re-creation should reliable sources (i.e mainstream media coverage, independent of the "law"'s proponent) be found in the future. Whether or not the "law" has any bearing in fact or otherwise is irrelevant and Mr. Blair is hardly an independent source for his own "law". -- Mattinbgn\ talk 12:20, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom.--Aldux 17:11, 10 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 04:13, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Patricia Walker[edit]
- Patricia Walker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Non-notable actress who was married to Blake Edwards. Clarityfiend 04:36, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Seven film roles and four of them uncredited? She's not an actress, she's an extra/day player. Accounting4Taste 05:44, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Practically no coverage found in Google Books or News Archive except as spouse/mother. Not a likely search term, so no redirect needed. --Dhartung | Talk 07:38, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 08:36, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Non-notable actress. Keb25 13:13, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to the husband's article. Every time there is a situation like that, a merger to the article of the brother, sister, father, mother, husband, wife etc should be the more viable option until the notability is asserted if it is possible.--JForget 23:52, 10 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 merge. Please discuss exactly how to merge on the Talk page. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 04:21, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Secondary characters in Calvin and Hobbes[edit]
- Secondary characters in Calvin and Hobbes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
The main article for Calvin and Hobbes has great summaries for all the secondary characters, minus Uncle Max (I'm sure he deserves a little mention in the main article). While this article has some interesting information, a lot of it is restated in the main article. The rest of the text is decently written, its full of speculated connections/intentions and strips restated in text form. Reading over much of the article, it seems people have just added plausible cruft. Granted, maybe a merge would be better to keep some of the more interesting or important facts or quotes, but I fear if we move too much 'stuff' over to the Calvin and Hobbes page it might actually detract from the quality that article has achieved Ageofe 04:16, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. It at least might be merged with the Calvin and Hobbes article. --Amaraiel 03:59, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, there was an 'edit conflict'. Not sure what to do there so I just added the above section of what I was originally going to post Ageofe 04:16, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: But I am not sure which way. Either the section in Calvin and Hobbes needs to be merged into this article and a link left behind, or Secondary characters in Calvin and Hobbes needs to be merged into the first. Either way, this article appears to have far more trivia than needed, and yet more real content, than in the main article. --Jjamison 04:29, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 08:36, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge It's a good article, but the "secondary characters" are actually all the others in Calvin's world besides Hobbes. Either merge with Calvin and Hobbes or combine this with any "character" articles that may have been written about Calvin or about Hobbes. Mandsford 15:51, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge & Redirect - With the main Calvin and Hobbes article. --Thε Rαnδom Eδιτor (tαlk) 22:51, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and prune. Failing that, make a new Characters in Calvin and Hobbes article and merge the character text from Calvin Hobbes with some (but not all) of this.--Mike Selinker 04:15, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge Into article on all C&H charactersMbisanz 01:50, 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 delete. WjBscribe 22:20, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Crass commercialism[edit]
- Crass commercialism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
The negative connotations of commercialism are already covered at that title. This title is inherently POV. Alksub 04:19, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. WP is not a place for adverbial phrases (although I do agree with the articles sentiment). -- Alan Liefting talk 04:24, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete It's unsourced and not only is the title POV, its the whole article. Besides that, the see also section is just a listing of things a few editors think are worthless. Ageofe 04:26, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Wikipedia is not a soapbox and inclusion in this category would be 100% POV and original research. Plus, no sources. Accounting4Taste 05:46, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Neologism. Keb25 13:14, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. wp:pov, wp:crap. Mystache 14:02, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This is actually someone's list of what they consider to be crass commercialism (9/11 TV Specials, Emo Bands, Fast Food, Hollywood, MTV, Nu Metal, Pop music, Sprite Remix). It's a holdover from 2002, when Wikipedia was so hard up it would keep ANYTHING. Mandsford 15:47, 9 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. WjBscribe 22:17, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Global Warming Awareness month[edit]
- Global Warming Awareness month (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Non-notable -- Alan Liefting talk 04:20, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete There's nothing to this one. Someone decided to advocate a postition. MarkBul 04:34, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete: Obvious promotion. The author created three such articles with similar content; two of them were speedily deleted. -- intgr [talk] 13:07, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Non-notable event. Keb25 13:14, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete So someone in California PROPOSED this? Not that global warming isn't important, but wait until Arnold proclaims a global warming month, then write an article. Mandsford 15:44, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete At best, it's WP:CRYSTAL. At worst, it's WP:POV.--WaltCip 18:17, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Carlosguitar 23:07, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Not quite ready for an article, at this time. • Lawrence Cohen 05:34, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge with the global warming or other related article. I think the event should be worth mention to a main article rather then an individual article. Of course, the promotion should be dumped, though.--JForget 23:55, 10 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 speedy deleted under WP:CSD#G5 by Will Beback (talk · contribs). Non-admin closure. --Dhartung | Talk 07:42, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply] The "Elite" Hills[edit]AfDs for this article:
This page is nothing more than original research, and its only references come from other Wikipedia pages. AniMate 04:09, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply] Speedy deleted - recreation of deleted The Elite Hills by banned edited user:Ericsaindon2. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:26, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. And redirect via disambig. CitiCat ♫ 04:19, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply] Hellbore[edit]Fictional weapon from a series of sci-fi novels. No evidence of notability; I could find no references from any sources outside the novels. Sopoforic 03:59, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per WP:COPYVIO The section on How a Hellbore works is a word for word copy of the Hellbore content from pages 269-270 of Bolo Brigade, by William H. Keith, Jr. The source is even mentioned at the end of the article. I personally checked the book's text. Blatant copyright violation per WP:COPYVIO. After deletion, create disambig page per above. Thanks. — Becksguy 19:47, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Notability appears to exist, though cleanup may be needed.--Kubigula (talk) 03:40, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply] Columbia University tunnels[edit]
Contested prod. Plenty of original research; the few statements that are sourced come from unreliable sources (personal websites.) Also fails notability; no reason to believe that these tunnels are more notable than any other university tunnels. Chardish 03:09, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Probably a speedy candidate per WP:CSD#A7. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:51, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply] The Irish Inroads[edit]
This "famous" and now disbanded band has, as its only claim to notability, that it was fronted by a "famous" tin whistler whose page has also been tagged for notability since March 2007. SolidPlaid 03:03, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. WjBscribe 22:16, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply] Lord Of War mixtape[edit]
A trivial mixtape; fails WP:N. Contested prod. Alksub 03:00, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy Delete per author request; nn neologism. Resolute 23:51, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply] Linkle[edit]WP:NEO, no reliable sources for this opinion piece. Alksub 02:55, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. WjBscribe 22:12, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply] Jens Hammer[edit]No signs of notability per WP:PORNBIO, and the sources are too insignificant to confer notability. Alksub 02:51, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge with Epoch (DC Comics).--Kubigula (talk) 03:46, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply] Timepoint[edit]Name of a prison for timetravelers in an obscure DC comics series, no claim to notability. SolidPlaid 02:48, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Eluchil404 04:53, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply] David Clark (District Attorney)[edit]
Campaign literature for the DA named. Full of superlatives and outrageous claims for the alleged great work he does. No reason given for notability. SolidPlaid 02:41, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. WjBscribe 22:11, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply] Team secondary school[edit]
Spammy ad page for non-notable private remedial school in Canada that might have opened its doors this school year. SolidPlaid 02:28, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Close call, but Trident13 and Crazysuit make compelling arguments under WP:BIO. Very minor notability, but nobody appears to dispute wide name recognition.--Kubigula (talk) 03:34, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply] Nadine Baggott[edit]
I believe that the article fails to assert the importance or significance of the subject. Ms Baggott's principle "achievement" to date seems to have been a single award, in 2004, for thinking up a clever title for an edition of the british magazine Hello. The title was recognised by the jasmine awards, which seems to be specifically aimed at that subset of the advertising and marketing industry that writes about perfumes. This seems to be a small prize in a little pond! Additionally, the article has dubious or unverifiable sources both for the age and birthplace of the subject, and contains other unverified information. I believe that if this information were removed, it would almost collapse into a list of links. Furthermore, the article frequently attracts vandalism. DMcMPO11AAUK 02:28, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. WjBscribe 22:09, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply] Ropeway technician[edit]
A Ropeway technician is a person who maintains ropeways. Dictionary-like entry. Obscure job, but a patently obvious job title. SolidPlaid 02:23, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. WjBscribe 22:07, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply] Adam Moyer[edit]Artist's CV page, artist may have promise, but no outside sources claim notability. SolidPlaid 02:10, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge with World Universities Debating Championships. This has already been carried out, and so this article will be converted into a redirect to preserve GFDL. Neil ム 14:49, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply] World Universities Debating Ranking[edit]
This page is about an entirely unofficial set of rankings for universities at the World Universities Debating Championships. The rankings were compiled by the creator of the World Debating Website, who freely admits that the rankings are completely unofficial at this page. This info is of interest to people who go to the World Debating Website, but it doesn't belong on an international encyclopaedia like Wikipedia. Singopo 02:09, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: User:Colmflynn had made only 5 Wikipedia edits prior to this comment.
Comment. May I ask who makes the decision on deletion of an article. If there is no common ground between those who believe this is a fringe activity and wish to delete the article and those who see value in it and wish to keep it who makes the decision? As to the accusation that it is unverifiable that anyone takes an interest in the ranking then I will gadly forward the many e-mails I get next January asking me when the ranking will be updated from colleges who have to report back to their sponsors. May I also ask is there a major slimming down of articles in Wikipedia because a quick browse through will yield thoudands of articles which in my opinion are equally irrelevant to all but a handful of people but which I recognise are important to those handful of people. The beauty of Wikipedia is that it has been an encliopedia for everyone where fringe facts and details can find a home. If there is an active initiative to remove articles which some people have no inerest in then what will differentiate wikipedia from a CD of Britannica other than the ability to vandalise it? cflynn 13:53, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply] Comment. Also may I ask why has someone found it necessary to point out that I have only made 5 edits to Wilipedia in the past. I'm somewhat surprised by the low number of 5 but will admit it is certainly not more than 50. Does the fact that I only edit articles on which I believe I have an authority to speak mean that my input is less valued than the input of someone who imposes themselves on a vast array of subjects to which they have no connection? cflynn 13:58, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - According to Wikipedia:WikiProject Debating and judging by Niaz and Scarian's comment, this entry meets the notability. --NAHID 19:50, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Wizardman 02:01, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply] Highlands Elementary School (North Vancouver)[edit]
Non-notable elementary school. SolidPlaid 02:04, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep (but someone please clean up!) —Wknight94 (talk) 14:44, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply] Yoni ben-menachem[edit]
Self-promoting page of consultant, link goes to his own webpage. SolidPlaid 01:58, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:47, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply] The Melting Pot (band)[edit]
Non-notable disbanded band. SolidPlaid 01:53, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was No Consensus to delete. Consensus regarding a merger should be sought on the appropriate talk pages. Eluchil404 04:59, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Center for Jewish Values[edit]
No claim of notability. SolidPlaid 01:49, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Still not notable - I have no idea what "Bein Adom LChavero in Yeshiva world" is, nor how hard it is to operate 18 Kollels. The article still does not have notability so it must be deleted. The one article linked there does not establish notability. SolidPlaid 12:03, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:35, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply] Joseph Krysiak[edit]
Contested prod. Nominating for reason of non-notable. Google search with "Joseph Krysiak -wikipedia" returns 35 results. External reference within article point to an article that merely have a passing mention of the subject when talking about something else. KTC 01:44, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Carioca 01:37, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply] De Aston School[edit]
Transfer from prod as we seems to not have a definitive consensus on schools. Original prod reason is Fails WP:ORG; no independent sources cited (other than a directory entry). Cf. also talk page." (User:B. Wolterding). -- KTC 01:34, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep.--Kubigula (talk) 03:56, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply] Ace of Spades HQ[edit]
Deletion requested by User:CharlesGiacometti, on the grounds that the subject is non-notable. See Talk:Ace of Spades HQ for his reasoning. I'm nominating it on his behalf, as he tried to do so himself but didn't follow the nomination process correctly. Terraxos 01:29, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. WjBscribe 22:04, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply] Santa Cruz (band)[edit]
Been tagged for notability since March, and so far, no notability. It's only a few sentences long, so if somebody comes up with any, it can always be rewritten. Completely unsourced, not even an external link. delldot talk 01:30, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. would have been no consensus, but it's a copyvio of here, no reason for keeping copyvios, also don't recreate the article unless, reliable, non trivial, independent sources can be found. Jaranda wat's sup Sports! 02:08, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply] Covenant Christian Academy (Loganville, Georgia)[edit]
Transfer from prod as we seems to not have a definitive consensus on schools. Original prod reason is "Non-notable, unreferenced, POV. This is just another school - there is no assertion of notability and no internal evidence of it in the article. Why should it be in an encyclopedia? The article is written like an advert - serious POV issues." (User:Andyjsmith). -- KTC 01:29, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep and rename, I've included a detail reasoning. OK lets look at this discussion in detail, firstly raw figures keep 22(two discounted), delete 14 and 1 redirect. That alone shows as a pure vote for the article to be kept, but afd isnt a pure vote. 5 comments based the keep on the basis that the article was an "I dont like it" nomination bring those pure numbers down to 17/14/1 still a keep consensus. All this is just to demostrate that I'm aware of the numbers involved, and they are part of my ultimate consideration in the result. The term Pallywood does met the defination of a Neologism "a word that has been recently created" for this the guideline WP:NEO is an indication of the way in which we address Neologism, and WP:NEO#Reliable_sources_for_neologisms define the differnece between sourcing the term and identifing usage. With the sources quoted they are "usage" which show its in use, is it wide spread would create discussion longer than this afd. Is it notable its usage in multiple RS even just in passing does lean in that direction. The film/video Pallywood from the numbers expressed(and checked) indicates its of interest, its also garnished some trival mentions in RS's. The conclusion is the content should be kept, the term Pallywood should also be addressed within the article, the film/video should also be covered but neither has enough to be the focus of a stand-alone article even when combined. This was the solution that was building as the discussion progressed a number of possible article names were suggested, Alleged Palestinian media manipulation is the most concise suggestion. This does have a POV outlook as such I've moved the article to a more neutral Alleged media manipulation in Palestine, ultimately its naming is up to article editors to discuss on the article talk page. Gnangarra 14:36, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply] Pallywood[edit]AfDs for this article:
I am an inclusionist when it comes to articles on controversial subjects; I think articles should answer to the curiosities of readers rather than to the moral imperatives of Wikipedians. I’m on the record for having supported the retention of this article, and have often invoked it as marking the lower threshold of notability. If reliable sources discussing the “term” Pallywood are exceedingly thin on the ground, went my thinking, at least there’s the documentary film. Researching the “film” in the last few days, however, put things in a rather different light, and further scrutiny of both it and the print sources lead me to conclude that the subject definitely isn’t notable, and worse, that this article exists as a sort of promotional piece. Though editors have edit-warred to ensure that the article suggests otherwise,[40] the film is not in fact a film but rather an amateur online video, edited by a professor of medieval history. It’s available streaming on his blog, as well as on youtube – nowhere else. It has never been screened or distributed, has never featured in any film or video festivals, and has never been reviewed by any mainstream source, or to the best of my knowledge any reliable source at all. IMDB, which is fairly exhaustive and has categories for documentaries and shorts, has never heard of it. It doesn’t appear to be housed by a single university research library anywhere in the world, according to WorldCat (research libraries routinely purchase documentary films – most major ones have Jenin, Jenin, for example, just to give some context). That blurry little low-res 3”x5” youtube video short is it – that’s all there is, all Pallywood ever was. And though a big hit among Wikipedians (some eight or nine Israel-Palestine articles link to it), the video is all but unknown among real-world reliable sources. Not a single book I can find in Google Books or Google Scholar even mentions it. The closest thing to a review I can find is a two-sentence passing mention on page 19 of the Daily Telegraph 's Saturday Art section, in a piece called "A Conspiracy Theorist's Paradise," which describes how anyone with a computer and a video camera can make a movie these days, and gives some examples one of which is Pallywood. As for the “term,” despite our presenting it as a “neologism,” it seems never to have made its way out of the small online corner of the right-wing pro-Israel blogosphere. Complete historical databases of the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal, the Los Angeles Times and the Chicago Tribune all wrinkle their eyebrows, shrug their shoulders, and ask me if I meant "plywood." Lexis-Nexis gives three hits (three!): the Frum article, the Toronto Star piece, and the aforementioned “conspiracy-theorist’s paradise” piece. The article's ref list is literally exhaustive; not even UrbanDictionary.com, which just yesterday added “Chocolate Rain” to its lexicon of neologisms (“a euphemism for racism created by Tay Zonday in his hit YouTube song "Chocolate Rain"), has heard of "pallywood." And again, no Google Books hits. Well, except for the following from a 2004 novel, Don Dimaio of La Plata:
And so on. Given the article’s evident desperation for source material – it actually includes a usenet thread where some punchy anonymous thread-poster says “Pallywood” and evidently thinks he’s coined it – I wouldn’t be surprised if Mayor Pally Dimaio did make a cameo appearance on the heels of this AfD. The edit war and debate over that usenet thread is incidentally quite instructive; editors who pride themselves on their strictness about quality sources and original research actually insisted that usenet in this case was an RS, and that the ad hoc ‘coinage’ therein established the term’s currency prior to the youtube video – even though nonce words and “currency” are oxymoronic concepts. The article, in short, is promotional puffery for obscure blog-jargon and an obscure youtube video. It answers not to the reader’s desire to discover but rather to the Wikipedian’s desire to promote, as demonstrated by all the dogged cross-linking. And it’ll probably work, as journalists (and even scholars) increasingly turn to Wikipedia for their first gloss of a subject. It’s one thing to let Pokemon articles proliferate into the darkest corners of arcana, because the stakes are correspondingly low, but the standards for the most serious and contentious subjects on Wikipedia have to be a little different. Pallywood doesn’t meet the criteria of notability per Wikipedia:Notability (films), and “pallywood” hasn’t been sufficiently used or even recognized by reliable sources; so the video and the blog-slang cling to one another, each invoking the other’s flimsy creds in order to crash the party, where they're now working the rooms, handing out business cards, trying to network and pose for pictures with Saeb Erekat, Netzarim, Battle of Jenin, Muhammad al-Durrah, and other notables. Let the bouncer throw them out.--G-Dett 01:16, 9 September 2007 (UTC) G-Dett 01:16, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply] Strong Keep. We've been all over this multiple times. You can't delete articles because WP:IDONTLIKEIT. If Bus Uncle can be a Featured ARticle of the Day, this film, which has been viewed by millions of people (and which has 185,000 Google hits), is certainly notable enough to stay. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 01:23, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Section Break[edit]
Delete: Non notable. Term not in use outside pro-israeli activism. Inexistent in mainstream media or serious political analysis. Presented as reality rather than political punditry thus NPOV.--Burgas00 14:14, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy deleted as copyvio --DarkFalls talk 07:40, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply] Access to Music[edit]
This is nothing more than an advertisement for a commercial endeavor in violation of WP:SPAM. I found it in Orphaned Articles. The text of the article pretty much comes verbatim from the company's corporate website [61] and its myspace page [62], including an entire section taken from this page. The creator of the article is Martin8770 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), whose only contributions to Wikipedia at the time of this AfD creation have been the creation of this article and three edits thereto, all on 17 July 2007 within ten minutes of each other. I believe that Martin8770 is Martin Smith: Head of Marketing & Design and director of the subject entity's PR campaign. It should be noted that the first part of Martin Smith's telephone number is listed as "07787." What we have here is a WP:COI. Searching with google reveals little other than this company's own website, myspace page, this Wikipedia article and a myriad of other unrelated projects, stores and organizations using the same name. Though the organization's website is chock full of content, there are no references to outside reliable sources that would establish notability. I vote delete. OfficeGirl 01:15, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Maxim(talk) 14:50, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply] Aviva Farber[edit]Non-notable actress with relatively few minor roles listed on IMDb. Doesn't meet the criteria in WP:BIO. Anon IP removed prod.WebHamster 01:15, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:12, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply] Yan Yan Tang[edit]Doesn't assert notability. Refs are unreliale sources. Etc. Dihydrogen Monoxide 01:12, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. — TKD::Talk 07:33, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply] Certified for windows vista[edit]
This seems to be a how-to gain certification as a Vista product guide and is not appropriate per WP:NOT. I don't see anything of value to salvage from this article. Metros 01:11, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. — TKD::Talk 07:31, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply] I Got Money[edit]PROD was removed without explanation. This is just one track off an album. Maybe if this was a single, it would deserve an article, but individual album tracks aren't notable enough for an article. Spellcast 00:51, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. CitiCat ♫ 04:10, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply] List of portable software[edit]AfDs for this article:
I realise I'm probably wasting my time, but our official policy does clearly say Wikipedia is not "an indiscriminate collection of information" or "a repository of links". There are a great many websites out there that are intended solely to be software directories, we don't need Wikipedia to be yet another. Also, on a personal note, I hate Wikipedia content that gleefully invites spam and therefore requires constant attention, especially when it is not even vaguely similar to encyclopaedic content. AlistairMcMillan 00:38, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply] Previous nomination: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of portable applications. AlistairMcMillan 00:39, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Of course, there is nothing wrong with having lists if their entries are famous because they are associated with or significantly contributed to the list topic?" --WP:NOT#DIR I believe this qualifies.--Cb31989 14:28, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Would people commenting here actually look at the article before voicing their opinions. Look at the edit history, in the seven days since this article was nominated, every edit aside from my own, Lawrence Cohen and one other editor was by someone spamming the article. Having an article about the software can't be criteria for inclusion because half the linked articles are stubs which are obvious WP:ADVERTs, which should themselves be AFDed. The list article doesn't tell you whether the software is portable because the original developers intended, whether it is portable because third-party have manipulated it to kinda sorta work as portable software (e.g. Mail, iChat) or whether it is "portable" in the sense that you can download the code and recompile it for another platform (e.g. wget). Even with the time that Lawrence has spent on it recently "verifying", there are no sources to prove that any of these pieces of software really are portable. The article is a fucking mess. It isn't a suitable subject for an article on Wikipedia. Stop voting in favour of keeping it because you think it is "useful", please read WP:USEFUL. AlistairMcMillan 23:19, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy deleted per author's request --DarkFalls talk 06:39, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply] Video seo[edit]
A combination of a how-to and a list of external links, written in an advertorial/promotional style. See WP:NOT: Wikipedia is not intended as a home for how-tos, not a link directory, not a vehicle for promotion. Karada 00:01, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. — TKD::Talk 07:19, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply] Tomb Raider Level Editor[edit]AfDs for this article:
Nominated for deletion in accordance with multiples sections of the deletion policy, including unencyclopedic content, unnotable content, unverifiable content, nonreliable sources attached to the article,
The result was Delete — Caknuck 20:36, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply] Christian HolyLand Foundation[edit]
From CSD, no opinion. Prodego talk 21:28, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete and redirect to Broadway. — TKD::Talk 07:16, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply] B'way[edit]Article about a nn musician, and we don't have sources stating that he is a notable musician. Jonathan (formerly Jonjonbt) 00:01, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:50, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply] Live Bonnaroo: 16th of June, 2006[edit]
This so called album is not much more than another of the many live downloads that Umphrey's offers available at http://www.umlive.net/. This is not considered one of their official live albums as far as I know. All major sources never mention this in any Umphrey's live album discussions. Furthermore, this article is an orphan. Chupon 22:19, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Userify to User:CCorward/Oxford International Forum. The article should only be moved back into the main space after it has been reliably sourced and can demonstrate notability. — Scientizzle 22:46, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply] Oxford International Forum[edit]
Non-notable defunct student society. Not even a single hit on Google (apart from the Wikipedia article and a derived search hit) [65]. Edcolins 17:29, 9 September 2007 (UTC) Note that I modified the wording of my nomination in the meantime.--Edcolins 18:21, 10 September 2007 (UTC)" [reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:10, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply] Jaypaul Ahluwalia[edit]
NN person. I don't think his job constitutes notability. Contested PROD. Computerjoe's talk 18:05, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. -- Longhair\talk 01:53, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply] List of former Brisbane Bears players[edit]Since this club is defunct, all players are "former" players to begin with. And besides, it's already taken up by Category:Brisbane Bears players, so the lists's purpose is at best unclear... Circeus 20:32, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. — TKD::Talk 07:19, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply] List of naturalized citizens of the United States[edit]Unnecessary, unmaintainable duplicate of Category:Naturalized citizens of the United States. Circeus 21:53, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
|