Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 August 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 Merge to List of Italo Disco artists and songs. Since User:Euryalus has already moved all the current entries across to the article we are merging to, there is nothing left to do but convert the old article into a redirect. EdJohnston (talk) 03:38, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
List of Italo Disco songs by year[edit]
- List of Italo Disco songs by year (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
A list, and not one that I can see is likely to be of much use, verifiable or notable. Please correct me if I'm wrong... Brilliantine (talk) 15:38, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I have no !vote for this, but a user improperly deleted the AfD notice and blanked the deletion page, so I'm restoring and moving it to today. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 04:19, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:14, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:15, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'd normally vote to keep a list like this, because Italo Disco is an important style of music though not widely written about in the Anglosphere, and WP should have more information about it. However, it would be better to merge and add years to the more comprehensive List of Italo Disco artists and songs. I'd also like to comment that the list under deletion used to be longer but some of it got lost during July edits. Squidfryerchef (talk) 16:43, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge by including these dates in the more comprehensive List of Italo Disco artists and songs. Noting that the list is shorter than previously due to earlier edits, it still remains too incomplete to serve a useful information or navigational purpose. The date for the short list of entries can easily be added to the "artists and songs" list - if the grouping by year serves a purpose that can achieved by a sortable wikitable in the longer list. Euryalus (talk) 02:13, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into List of Italo Disco artists and songs per Euryalus. No reason to keep two duplicate lists of the same content. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 06:32, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into List of Italo Disco artists and songs - unnecessary duplication. PhilKnight (talk) 00:55, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - As a merge seems the likely outcome I've gone ahead and included these few dates on the "artists and songs" list article. If there's another outcome I'll go back and undo it - if not the merge is effectively done. Euryalus (talk) 02:48, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. John254 00:40, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Felino Jardim[edit]
- Felino Jardim (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Contested PROD. Player fails notability at WP:ATHLETE having never played in a fully-professional league / competition. He currently plays for Cambridge United in the Conference National which is not a fully-pro league. --Jimbo[online] 23:20, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. -- brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:18, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:19, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete: played in an Amstel Cup game for fully professional RKC Waalwijk against TOP Oss,[1] thus meeting requirement two of WP:FOOTYN. Oli (talk) 12:02, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, can you provide a reliable source for that? WP:FOOTYN is only a guideline, the notability criteria is at WP:BIO#ATHLETE. --Jimbo[online] 12:08, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete: Does this count as a reliable source? http://soccernet.espn.go.com/match?id=196573&cc=5739 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.159.110.203 (talk) 14:03, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
He plays professionally, what's the problem? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.16.97.233 (talk) 18:47, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As stated above...He currently plays for Cambridge United in the Conference National which is not a fully-pro league. - in his article that is the only appearance he is credited with, thus failing WP:ATHLETE. --Jimbo[online] 18:51, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Fails WP:ATHLETE. GiantSnowman 10:37, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. GiantSnowman 10:38, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as he played in the KNVB cup. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 18:49, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep He has also played in the dutch premier league (Eredivisie) playoffs as the link above shows. Here it is again http://soccernet.espn.go.com/match?id=196573&cc=573. Have edited article to include this info now --anon 91.125.201.132 (talk) 04:46, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - clearly meets WP:ATHLETE with above appearances. Nfitz (talk) 18:28, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - playoff appearance indicates notability. matt91486 (talk) 20:18, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Rjd0060 (talk) 15:31, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Karl von Kaiser[edit]
- Karl von Kaiser (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Probably could be speedied as well. While the 4 "essays" do exist, the subject fails WP:BIO. There is only 1 relevant google hit which leads to the "essays". Gunnar Hendrich (talk) 23:06, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I can't find one reliable source for this, so it ipso facto fails WP:V. —Mizu onna sango15Hello! 23:25, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Should have been speedy deleted. Fails WP:BIO. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cocomonkilla (talk • contribs) 02:26, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete He's so anonymous that he's unverifiable. Leoboudv (talk) 03:30, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete because adequate sources do not appear to be available to write a short, verifiable article. DickClarkMises (talk) 03:37, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:47, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete publishing essays on a freewebs site does nothing to make you notable. - Icewedge (talk) 19:36, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - no assertion of notability. ... discospinster talk 01:37, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Digital Home, Digital Home Canada[edit]
- Digital Home (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
A duplicate of this article, Digital Home Canada, has been tagged for speedy deletion under criterion A7 (web) before I realized it was a cut-and-paste page move. This article has notability, neutrality, and sourcing problems and looks like it has been written by one or two people who had a beef against this particular Internet service. Additionally, I received a warning from the cut-and-paste page mover that blatantly misrepresents Wikipedia policy on speedy deletion. Delete. Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 23:05, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment--I've changed Digital Home Canada into a redir to Digital Home. Once this is deleted, the redir should be removed as well. Owen× ☎ 23:44, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was nominator withdrawal.[1] (non-administrative closure) -- RyRy (talk) 09:07, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Polish death camp controversy[edit]
- Polish death camp controversy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Article on the controversial use of a variety of terms (including ""Polish death camps", "Polish concentration camps", ""Polish Holocaust victim", "Polish Holocaust survivor", "Polish ghetto" and an unspecified number of others) emplyed in some news stories. No evidence of a controversy has yet been presented. Original research drawn largely from incomplete examples supplied by the "alerts" page of a forum. The issue has been discussed at length, without resolution or consensus, on the article talk page. Ffighter44 (talk) 22:43, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete people have obviously put a lot of time into this and I don't doubt that most or all of it is true. It even constructs a good argument that there's some media bias or ignorance afoot here. Nevertheless, notice I said "constructs a good argument", that's the problem. We are supposed to be writing encyclopedia articles, not persuasive essays. I think this is the latter... the article has an argument, it appears to advance that in an encyclopedic way (references, calm third person language) but ultimately it does seem to exist just to make a given argument. The encyclopedic way to go about this is to make Holocaust in Nazi-occupied Poland, an article on a notable event, as accurate as possible. This current article might as well be Evidence and argument that Poles were not responsible for the Holocaust in Nazi-occupied Poland, which again I don't dispute, but nevertheless that more accurate title for what this article is reveals it's more of an essay than an encyclopedia article. --Rividian (talk) 23:36, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. --Poeticbent talk 01:32, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Case submitted by a single purpose account created just for this article a month ago and constantly looking for holes to exploit, undoubtedly a sock-puppet of a user already known in the community for his confrontational attitude. Article has become a political battleground in recent time, with blame for the genocide being thrown around. A sorry state of affairs, but not enough for this latest attempt at denial of the existence of expressions of anti-Polish sentiment in Western media to be justified. --Poeticbent talk 01:32, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry if I bit into some wikipolitical back-and-forth... hopefully it's obvious that I am not a part of any lame editing conspiracy here. I have what I like to think is a consistent approach to AFDs of these articles about arguments not events, that I've applied across many AFDs when I've seen them. --Rividian (talk) 02:22, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Poeticbent, you began casting aspersions the very day of my return to Wikipedia. Now, instead of entering into a discussion concerning the nomination - which, after all, is the purpose of this page - I find myself obliged to defend my character. First, this account was not "created just for this article", nor am I a sock-puppet (of "a user already known in the community for his confrontational attitude", no less!). As an seasoned editor, you must know the gravity of this second charge - and must also know this is not the place to make such accusations. Being someone with a tough skin, I can ignore these words - but what I can't ignore is the charge of "blame for the genocide being thrown around". By whom? You then dismiss this well-intentioned AfD, describing it is an "attempt at denial of the existence of expressions of anti-Polish sentiment in Western media". I can assure you that it is not. I recognize the existence of prejudice in the Western media, and will cite chapter and verse to those who claim it does not exist. However, I cannot accept unverifiable claims that the use of terms like "Polish Holocaust survivor" is an attempt to create the impression that there was a Polish Holocaust. As I have written on the Talk page, I commend the efforts of those who are working to end the use of these terms. In fact, I have recommended rewriting (and retitling) the article with the focus on the campaign lauched by the Polish government to meet this goal. I hope that this AfD discussion can now progress as intended. Ffighter44 (talk) 11:54, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry if I bit into some wikipolitical back-and-forth... hopefully it's obvious that I am not a part of any lame editing conspiracy here. I have what I like to think is a consistent approach to AFDs of these articles about arguments not events, that I've applied across many AFDs when I've seen them. --Rividian (talk) 02:22, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The present page is so POV-ridden that I am not sure it is fixable. eg. "The phrases such as the "Polish death camp" leave a false impression that it might have been the Poles who were responsible for the Nazi German genocide." this is not NPOV writing, and permeates the entire text. The so called list of references is a list of places that have used the term this way and been forced to apologize, but that would need to be much more carfefully set in contest than here. DGG (talk) 02:31, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete A controversy or dispute occurs when parties actively disagree, argue about, or debate, a matter of opinion. Where are the "parties actively disagree, argue about, or debate, a matter of opinion" about this issue? All there is are isolated examples of largely innocent mischaracterizations. There are exactly ZERO cases of an active dispute, such as Party A objects to the term, but Party B insists the term is valid. There is one citation of a Polish official putting forth some sort of conspiracy theory, but unfortunately he neglects to name the conspirators, therefore making it impossible to identify the shadowy figures whom he claims are out to "distort history and conceal the truth." The examples section is entirely original research. It is not sourced to any reliable sources indicating "controversy", but is a compilation tossed together based on an editors Googling the terms. This whole article is misleadingly titled, and largely Original Research. Boodlesthecat Meow? 03:00, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The best example of an active controversy is provided by Auschwitz-Birkenau Memorial and Museum with regard to claims made by Robert Hurst of CTV television. "The Polish embassy in Ottawa has asked the Canadian government to counteract the slandering of Poland by the Canadian media." At first, Hurst refused to issue the correction thus throwing fuel at an ongoing controversy. However. "Correction was broadcast on May 18 and 21 during prime time" following a decission against CTV issued on May 16, 2005, by the CBSC National Specialty Services Panel – "upholding the complaint submitted by the Polish Embassy." --Poeticbent talk 03:27, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I'm pleased to see this example of controversy, evidence of which had been requested numerous times on the Talk page. To be fair, I point out that the only citation to the CTV report was not provided in English (and even that was never put forth as an example of that called for). Given this citation, I'm suggesting, again, that the article be rewritten and retitled so as to focus on the campaign undertaken by the Polish government. Ffighter44 (talk) 12:07, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The best example of an active controversy is provided by Auschwitz-Birkenau Memorial and Museum with regard to claims made by Robert Hurst of CTV television. "The Polish embassy in Ottawa has asked the Canadian government to counteract the slandering of Poland by the Canadian media." At first, Hurst refused to issue the correction thus throwing fuel at an ongoing controversy. However. "Correction was broadcast on May 18 and 21 during prime time" following a decission against CTV issued on May 16, 2005, by the CBSC National Specialty Services Panel – "upholding the complaint submitted by the Polish Embassy." --Poeticbent talk 03:27, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteThere are some signs that editors are going to add sources that speak to the controversy itself, rather than making a laundry list of every time someone has referred to a Nazi camp as having been "Polish". I've removed the list of 69 different examples, and the 69 footnotes that went with it. These can be restored by anybody, but I'm hoping that the BBC article and the Adelaide News article referred to below can become the basis for a page that can be put back on track. I can understand the reason for the article's existence, but it's so poorly written that it needs to be a redirect to something else. Just as typing in "Holocaust myth" redirects a user to "Holocaust denial", one can type in "Polish death camp" and get a redirect to an article that points out that it wasn't Poland that was operating the camps. I get that. However, I think the nominator is right; this is an article created from searches for the "Examples" section. I can imagine that if you accidentally refer to Auschwitz as a Polish concentration camp, the article creator probably interrupts to "set you straight". The one statement that might have justified keeping the article: "In most cases the publisher apologized for the misleading usage." has no citation whatsoever. Polish death camp should be a redirect to Holocaust in Nazi-occupied Poland, and, more to the point, a less emotionally written section of that article. Mandsford (talk) 04:09, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]- Keep. The concept and controversy are notable. POV problems are not an argument for deletion. PS. I agree with Poeticbent that the nomination is suspicious - the nominator looks like a single-purpose account.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 04:47, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep This is a major issue with Poles who are extremely offended when non-Poles refer to the WWII 'Polish death camps' or 'death camps in Poland' because it was the German Nazis who instituted and ran this system. It was the Nazis who ran Aushwitz, not the Poles. Its not just someone's fringe ranting or WP:OR. I could have written this article myself...if I had any interest in the matter. Moreover, are we going to treat this excellent Adelaide Now article on the issue as someone's 'original theory'? The article affirms the topic's notability. Artene50 (talk) 09:13, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment By the Way, is this 2006 BBC article here also someone's original theory? It is a reliable source--as is the Adelaide Now. Artene50 (talk) 09:34, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Major issue in Poland and quite a notable problem. Article is well-referenced and written. I don't see a real problem with it. - Darwinek (talk) 13:01, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The German Nazi's ran the camps not the Polish people. When the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Poland addresses the parliament re "Polish Death Camps" controversy as per the references it's meets the notability threshold for me. I agree with Poeticbent, single purpose account whose first edit was to this article and the rest of the contribs revolve around the article and this AFD.— Ѕandahl 15:05, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Ѕandahl, your claim that my "first edit was to this article and the rest of the contribs revolve around the article and this AFD" is not at all true, but I'm willing to accept that I may meet the definition some hold of a single purpose account. Interestingly, this is pointed out repeatedly, ignoring the fact that this loose definition might be applied to the very same user who supplied the information I and others have suggested is original research. Is this not a double standard?Ffighter44 (talk) 17:10, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep - as pitiable as the subject of this article is, the nomination is even less successfully justified, and it shows the nom has no basic idea what this controversy is about. Still the subject is notable. It all comes to poor understanding of English language by Polish embassy personel around the world, and it goes back to commie times, when such personel was limited to the priviledged ones, nominated rather for their political views, not for their diplomatic skills. Whenever a journalist say from New York Times or Corierre dela Serra wrote a line Polish concentration camps meaning Polish inmates, not run by Polish nationals, they screemed bloody murder, sent official protests to newspaper editors or even to government officials, which usually were followed by apologies and explanations, but sometimes were ignored. Political accusations followed. A conflict in a nutshell, but the story is true as long as I remember and repeats itself now and then, that's why is notable. This should be explained in the lead though, but there is no reason to delete the article. There are similar expressions in English literature as Dutch concentration cams, British concentration camps, Jewish concentration camps - all refer to inmates and run by Nazis. greg park avenue (talk) 15:27, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: I see not so much as an insinuation here that there isn't concern within the Polish community as to the use of certain terms. The nomination had to do with two issues: the notion that there was "controversy" (when not one example was provided), and the opinion that much of the article amounted to original research. We now have one example (a CTV news story) in which the use of two terms "Polish ghetto" and "Polish camp" brought controversy. While I don't feel that this is enough to justify the title (I appear to be alone in suggesting an alternate), I don't think it a reason for deletion. The issue of original research appears to have been laid to rest by Mansford in removing the "Examples" section. While this deletion has yet to be challenged, I think it important to point out that previous attempts to make more minor adjustments to this section prior to this AfD were quickly reversed. It seems that what was once defended is now recognized as original research. My recommendation that the article be kept should not suggest that I don't see problems. I agree with DGG's comments on the sentence "The phrases such as the "Polish death camp" leave a false impression that it might have been the Poles who were responsible for the Nazi German genocide". Furthermore, I question the sentence which follows "While in some cases the intention of the writers is the mere geographical use of the term 'Polish' and no attribution of responsibility is actually intended, at least one Polish diplomat has suggested that there are instances of "bad will. Under the pretext that 'it’s only a geographic reference', attempts are made to distort history and conceal the truth." In "some cases" more than implies that there exists an unspecified percentage of cases in which ill-intent comes into play; and yet, we are presented with no evidence of such - even in the CTV case. These concerns alone are not enough to call for deletion.Ffighter44 (talk) 17:10, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I missed this source but the American Jewish committe explicitly apologised for the misleading term 'polish camps' here. Surely, this topic is not WP:OR and passes WP:N and WP:V now. Artene50 (talk) 20:02, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply The American Jewish Committee press release you cite contains no "apology", explicit or otherwise. It advises "those who are either unaware of the facts or careless in their choice of words, as has been the case with some media outlets" to exercise more care. Calling it an apology is again creating controversy where none exists. Boodlesthecat Meow? 17:25, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Any perceived NPOV problems can easily be rectified via editing. The argument for deletion is extremely weak. Ecoleetage (talk) 21:12, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep notable, well referenced. Ostap 04:40, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - there exists controversy between many journalists and many Polish institutions and individuals.Xx236 (talk) 09:19, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Thus far we have one example of controversy - presented on this page, but not found within the current version of the article. If there indeed exists "controversy between many journalists and many Polish institutions and individuals", references to such should be added to the article. While I recommend the article be kept, the current title does not reflect content.Ffighter44 (talk) 16:28, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: An example: http://www.msz.gov.pl/Protest,by,the,Polish,Embassy,against,the,use,of,the,phrase,%E2%80%9CPolish,concentration,camp,of,Auschwitz%E2%80%9D,by,the,Australian,press,5th,February,2008,,Canberra,17125.html .Xx236 (talk) 06:45, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The example concerns a letter of correction and clarification written by the Chargé d’Affaires ad interim of a Polish embassy. It asks for no action from the newspaper in question - nor does it indicate that the paper challenged the words of the Chargé d’Affaires. In short, no controversy. "Polish death camp protest" might be a more suitable title.Ffighter44 (talk) 11:13, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, but perhaps this would be best characterized not as a controversy, but as...hmmm, can't think of what to call it. As it stands, it appears that there is a controversy over the facts and details, when really, the argument is over the semantics and potential misunderstanding that calling these camps "Polish" can create -- is that a controversy? DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 16:35, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply No, it's not a controversy. the controversy seems to be on this page, but not in the real world. There is no apparent extant group, faction, media outlet, government, organization etc saying "No, Poland, you are wrong--they really were Polish death camps and they should be characterised that way." That would be a controversy. Boodlesthecat Meow? 17:30, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There however WAS a controversy, and we describe past events/ideas/controversies, not only the current ones.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:34, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Yes, there WAS a controversy: a 2004 Canadian television network news story referred to a "Polish camp", the Polish embassy protested, the network explained that "Polish" was intended to indicate geographic location. Although the network revised its policy, it would not issue what the Polish gvernment refers to as a "correction" and the matter wound up with the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council. The council found the network at fault. Not one word of this or any controversy is found within the article.Ffighter44 (talk) 18:49, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Yes, it was a controversy. Why did you think the Polish government pressed to have the designation 'Polish camps' or 'Polish death camps' removed from references to Nazi concentration and extermination camps in Poland? (as the BBC reports) This makes it notable--as Wikipedia's rules are written. Artene50 (talk) 19:08, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Was there objection to the the Polish government's efforts to have "the designation 'Polish camps' or 'Polish death camps' removed from references to Nazi concentration and extermination camps in Poland"? No one has yet produced evidence of such. Again, we have one - and only one example of what could be described as a controversy... and this isn't even included in an article titled "Polish death camp controversy". I don't see that anyone has suggested that the use of these terms isn't notable.Ffighter44 (talk) 20:32, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This is the kind of 'mistakes' which angers the Poles and created the controversy--journalists mistakenly using the phrase Polish death camp. Warsaw and the Polish nation was almost destroyed under the Nazis and then they get indirectly blamed for the Nazis crimes in Poland. Of course, its controversial. The BBC, Adelaide Now and American Jewish committee's on-line webpages all allude directly or indirectly to the issue. Artene50 (talk) 23:37, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: What you've presented is evidence of mistakes - not controversy. The link provided is a list of corrections and clarifications that appeared in a variety of newspapers. Not one of these news sources has stood by its original wording; not one objected to issuing a correction or clarification; not one blames, however indirectly, the Polish nation for the Nazi crimes that took place on its soil. I should point out for those interested, a discussion concerning this article's title is in progress on the article's talk page.Ffighter44 (talk) 00:40, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The list of correction doesn't support your claims, because it's the list of corrections, it doesn't include non-corrected articles.Xx236 (talk) 07:01, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Exactly, the source provided doesn't provide evidence of controversy, rather it is a list of examples where newspapers have either acknowledged errors, or wned up to the fact that they might have been more clear in their choice of words. As for non-corrected articles - those in which a news organization as stood by their words - we have only the CTV example.Ffighter44 (talk) 11:13, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The title should be changed to avoid using controversy. I have previous suggested using “Appeals Against Polish Death Camps” after all it is what the actual discussion was about when I found the article. Further it used by a major Polish newspaper Appeal against "Polish death camps". Additionally it is similar to the wording used by the Polish Government Polish Ministry of Foreign Affairs - Against "Polish Camps" Jniech (talk) 10:41, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Arbitrary section break[edit]
- Withdrawn: It is my understanding that I have the right to withdraw the nomination. My reasons for doing so are covered in my recommendation that the article be kept. In short, the nomination had to do with the issue of "controversy" and the original research. The latter has since been dealt with. The former still presents a problem as the single example of controversy has not yet been included in the article. That said, I don't think this issue alone is reason for deletion. I believe that a simple title change would eliminate this problem. There has been considerable discussion on this matter both here and on the article talk page. I think the article has improved significantly over in the past days, and compliment those involved.Ffighter44 (talk) 11:25, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Rjd0060 (talk) 15:30, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Manchin[edit]
- Manchin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Appears to be either a neologism or a hoax. I cannot locate any sources that indicate this actually exists. After the article was tagged for speedy deletion a "reference" was added in the form of a link to a 404 page (that is, the purported reference was 404 when I checked it within 15 minutes of it being added). --Clubjuggle T/C 21:53, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete for now. No evidence presented that such a thing exists. Oren0 (talk) 21:59, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- My girlfriend has one is that source enough? http://www.tattoofashion.com/actalog/manchin.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Inetace (talk • contribs)
- Not even close. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 22:05, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That constitutes original research and also fails verifiability. The link you provided is bad, I get a 404 not found error when I click it. --Clubjuggle T/C 22:10, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- First off, that link you provided doesn't work. Secondly, even if it did, there are notability requirements for something being on Wikipedia. Specifically, something has to be mentioned in reliable sources to be included. Do you know of any articles in newspapers, magazines, books, major websites, etc. about this topic? Oren0 (talk) 22:12, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete- I can find no evidence that this even exists, much less anything that would convince me of notability. Reyk YO! 22:56, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete WP:NN, lack of WP:RS & WP:V. Esradekan Gibb "Talk" 01:30, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Unverified and possible hoax. --Cocomonkilla (talk) (contrib) 02:23, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. -- brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:20, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails notability and verifiability. Can this be snowed? Artene50 (talk) 10:08, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per others. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 21:07, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as a web search provides no relevant links, and there are no reliable sources provided within the article which prove either notability (or even existence) or verifiability. - Toon05 22:32, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 as he fails WP:ATHLETE. пﮟოьεԻ 57 13:58, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Richard Smallwood (footballer)[edit]
- Richard Smallwood (footballer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Youth footballer who hasn't yet appeared in a league game for his senior team. Until he does, he's not notable enough per consensus in many other AFD discussions (for example, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jack Wilshere. NawlinWiki (talk) 21:48, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith talk 23:47, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE. Being an U-18 international is insufficient and appearing in a friendly doesn't cut it either. TerriersFan (talk) 22:39, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:21, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:22, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:22, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep WP:ATHLETE doesn't seem to explicitly cover youth international appearances, but I would consider that representing your country in competitive games provides notability. TigerShark (talk) 09:51, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - through many AfDs in many sports, international appearance below adult level haven't been deemed to count towards notability. Not, of course, that things can't change but for footballers the WP:ATHLETE threshold is so low that anyone with any pretence at notability as a footballer can meet it. TerriersFan (talk) 14:32, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, thanks. I can't help but feel that if a single appearance for their club side if good enough for notability, then playing for the U18 side really should be too. Certainly I would think there must be fewer people that represent their country at international level (albeit in youth teams) than appear for a professional club, so it is rarer (not that rariety itself always provides notability), but also U18 games for England are fairly big sporting occassions, so an involvement in them would seem to be fairly notable. TigerShark (talk) 15:01, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't believe England under-18 matches are particularly big sporting occasions. They aren't shown on TV as far as I know (unless they're on ITV9 or something), so that arguably makes them less significant sporting occasions than certain Conference National matches..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:41, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:29, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails WP:Athlete. Also the highest level of international football is the senior national team, Under-18 falls well short of that. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:36, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE. If all youth players were allowed on wikipedia, there would be over 10000000 player articles already. Hubschrauber729 (talk) 21:40, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Born 1990? Whoa, he's not old enough to have accomplished enough just yet. Delete as per above... Lady Galaxy 22:59, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. GiantSnowman 10:41, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hang On. Middlesborough starts it's season on Saturday. Let's take a look at the line-up before we start deleting articles for players. Nfitz (talk) 18:35, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]- Delete fails notability at WP:ATHLETE. --Jimbo[online] 23:13, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, he doesn't even have a squad number. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 12:26, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Jmorrison230582. Nfitz (talk) 06:06, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete all. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:50, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sub-Earth[edit]
- Sub-Earth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Not an established category of planetary classifcation. This one is somewhat more ambiguous than the related terms listed below. "Sub-Earth mass", meaning simply less massive than Earth does occasionally get used, but the author seems to be inventing/promoting a novel heirarchy of mass terms including a specific definition of what "Sub-Earth" should mean. For example, I can find no reference to PSR B1257+12 A being a "sub-Earth", as written in the current article. Dragons flight (talk) 21:19, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Also nominated:
- All by the same author, who seems to be inventing or promoting a novel system of classification. Dragons flight (talk) 20:57, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 'Delete all as WP:NOR violations. 23skidoo (talk) 22:53, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all - I can find a few mentions where the term "sub-earth" is used as an adjective, but nothing that establishes this term as an accepted classification for planets. The other terms seem also to be invented. Reyk YO! 23:00, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all Pure original proposal, made in the hope, perhaps, that it will be popularized through Wikipedia. Maybe, someday, the IAU will adopt a classification system for exoplanets like the one that "BlueEarth" has proposed. Because of the method of detection, very few earth-sized planets have been found, because the gravitational effect on a star isn't as great as it is with a large planet. When a system is made, it will be by the members of the IAU. Great idea, but as with naming a star for someone for $49.95, it won't become part of scientific progress. Mandsford (talk) 03:48, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:23, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and redirect "sub-earth" to terrestrial planet as this term is used to describe less than Earth mass suspected terrestrial planets. 70.55.85.40 (talk) 09:14, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This class is related to super-Earth. This class include Mercury, Mars, and PSR B1257+12 A. In the future, this new class of extrasolar planets at less than 0.5 Earth mass will be discovered around normal stars, and IAU may invent this new class called sub-Earth to the astronomical literature, like it did when super-Earth was invented in 2007 after the discovery of Gliese 581 c. BlueEarth (talk) 19:36, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Blue, if you could even show that these terms are used in a publication, such as a book (not necessarily IAU), you'd have a chance. But if the IAU "may invent" it, that's proof enough that they haven't invented it. Mandsford (talk) 23:36, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all. The articles are simply dictionary definitions of the words; they don't cite any references; and they are utterly useless. Ruslik (talk) 10:14, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete—I don't see this term used academically in this context. It is employed, for example, when discussing a specific surface position on a planet, or in the context of orbits.—RJH (talk) 15:13, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into one I have never heard of this type of planet before, but I do not wish to discourage the use and or deny its origins (benefit of the dough). However, I do not believe that these planetary categories should have their own article (so I support them being deleted). However, I think they should be mentioned in a single planetary article. Maybe, since "Appearance of extrasolar planets" is to mention anything about extrasolar planets (and not only the Sudarsky types), maybe we could add a new section. Maybe "planetary masses", which could mention these types of planets, or at least mention them. — NuclearVacuum 23:44, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The article appearance of extrasolar planets is should only be about how extrasolar planets may look like. Merging into this article may not be good idea. Maybe we should create and merge this to a new article planetary mass classification. BlueEarth (talk) 18:34, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete all. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:51, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sub-Jupiter[edit]
- Sub-Jupiter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Not an established category of planetary classifcation. This one is somewhat more ambiguous than the related terms listed below. "Sub-Jupiter mass", meaning simply less massive than Jupiter does occasionally get used, but the author seems to be inventing/promoting a novel heirarchy of mass terms including a specific definition of what "Sub-Jupiter" should mean. For example, I can find no reference to 54 Piscium b and 55 Cancri c, etc. being referenced as "Sub-Jupiters", as written in the current article. Dragons flight (talk) 21:19, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Also nominated:
- All by the same author, who seems to be inventing or promoting a novel system of classification. Dragons flight (talk) 20:57, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 'Delete all as WP:NOR violations. 23skidoo (talk) 22:53, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:23, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and redirect to giant planet, as this term is used (and the term subjovian is used more), to describe planets massing less than Jupiter. 70.55.85.40 (talk) 09:12, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This class is related to super-Jupiter. Sub-Jupiter is also called saturnian planet. This article describes the mass range, probable radius range, and examples of saturnian planets. I like when somebody add a little more info to this article. BlueEarth (talk) 19:47, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete—I don't see this term used academically in this context. It is used, for example, when discussing surface positions on Jovian satellites.—RJH (talk) 15:15, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This class is related to brown dwarf. Sub-Jupiter is also called saturnian planet. This article describes the mass range, probable radius range, and examples of saturnian planets from the 300+ discoverd extrasolar planets. Add super-Earth to the list if you are not just firetrucking around. GabrielVelasquez (talk) 22:29, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you show that the mass range, radius range, etc. are based on anything other than the whims of BlueEarth (talk · contribs)? The author seems to have picked particular ranges out of a hat while promoting a classification scheme whose ranges he invented himself. By contrast there is plentiful discussion of Super-Earths, but almost no references to sub-Jupiters. Dragons flight (talk) 22:43, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into one I have never heard of this type of planet before, but I do not wish to discourage the use and or deny its origins (benefit of the dough). However, I do not believe that these planetary categories should have their own article (so I support them being deleted). However, I think they should be mentioned in a single planetary article. Maybe, since "Appearance of extrasolar planets" is to mention anything about extrasolar planets (and not only the Sudarsky types), maybe we could add a new section. Maybe "planetary masses", which could mention these types of planets, or at least mention them. — NuclearVacuum 23:43, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The article appearance of extrasolar planets is should only be about how extrasolar planets may look like. Merging into this article may not be good idea. Maybe we should create and merge this to a new article planetary mass classification. BlueEarth (talk) 18:36, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete—appears to be an invention of the author. Spacepotato (talk) 19:50, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete all. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:51, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Inter-Earth[edit]
- Inter-Earth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Not an established category of planetary classifcation. No relevant google hits [2]. No relevant google scholar hits [3]. Dragons flight (talk) 20:50, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Also nominated:
- All by the same author, who seems to be inventing or promoting a novel system of classification. Dragons flight (talk) 20:57, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 'Delete all as WP:NOR violations. 23skidoo (talk) 22:54, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:23, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:OR and WP:V Artene50 (talk) 09:01, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as a hoax. 70.55.85.40 (talk) 09:09, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment see related category Category:Inter-Earths 70.55.85.40 (talk) 09:30, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete—No evidence of use academically, although it is employed for certain web site names, &c.—RJH (talk) 15:10, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Term not in use. Spacepotato (talk) 01:48, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as original research, unverifiable, non-notable, and a wonderful example of what an article should not be. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 22:46, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into one I have never heard of this type of planet before, but I do not wish to discourage the use and or deny its origins (benefit of the dough). However, I do not believe that these planetary categories should have their own article (so I support them being deleted). However, I think they should be mentioned in a single planetary article. Maybe, since "Appearance of extrasolar planets" is to mention anything about extrasolar planets (and not only the Sudarsky types), maybe we could add a new section. Maybe "planetary masses", which could mention these types of planets, or at least mention them. — NuclearVacuum 23:43, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The article appearance of extrasolar planets is should only be about how extrasolar planets may look like. Merging into this article may not be good idea. Maybe we should create and merge this to a new article planetary mass classification. BlueEarth (talk) 18:35, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete all. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:51, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Inter-Jupiter[edit]
- Inter-Jupiter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Not an established category of planetary classifcation. No relevant google hits [4]. No relevant google scholar hits [5]. Dragons flight (talk) 20:50, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Also nominated:
- All by the same author, who seems to be inventing or promoting a novel system of classification. Dragons flight (talk) 20:57, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 'Delete all as WP:NOR violations. 23skidoo (talk) 22:54, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:24, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No original research. This is someone's personal theory. Artene50 (talk) 09:03, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as things made up in school. 70.55.85.40 (talk) 09:08, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment see related category Category:Inter-Jupiters 70.55.85.40 (talk) 09:29, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete—No evidence of use outside wikipedia.—RJH (talk) 15:09, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Term not in use. Spacepotato (talk) 01:53, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into one I have never heard of this type of planet before, but I do not wish to discourage the use and or deny its origins (benefit of the dough). However, I do not believe that these planetary categories should have their own article (so I support them being deleted). However, I think they should be mentioned in a single planetary article. Maybe, since "Appearance of extrasolar planets" is to mention anything about extrasolar planets (and not only the Sudarsky types), maybe we could add a new section. Maybe "planetary masses", which could mention these types of planets, or at least mention them. — NuclearVacuum 23:44, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The article appearance of extrasolar planets is should only be about how extrasolar planets may look like. Merging into this article may not be good idea. Maybe we should create and merge this to a new article planetary mass classification. BlueEarth (talk) 18:36, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete all. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:51, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Interplanet[edit]
- Interplanet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Not an established category of planetary classifcation. No relevant google hits [6]. No relevant google scholar hits [7]. Dragons flight (talk) 20:50, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Also nominated:
- All by the same author, who seems to be inventing or promoting a novel system of classification. Dragons flight (talk) 20:57, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to planet as I was going to suggest redirecting to interplanetary but that redirects to planet, too.. Article itself violates WP:NOR 23skidoo (talk) 22:55, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:24, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- delete the page doesn't even make sense. And the popular press calls things "super-uranian", "super-neptunian", etc... "interplanet" makes me think of dwarf planets. As its defined, it covers water worlds (hot ice giants) and ice giants that are already better known that this division. 70.55.85.40 (talk) 09:06, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- comment there is an article at InterPlaNet... 70.55.85.40 (talk) 09:22, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- comment please see related category Category:Interplanets 70.55.85.40 (talk) 09:22, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete—Doesn't appear to be used academically. May show up as a typo for interplantary, so a redirect could make sense.—RJH (talk) 15:08, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or redirect to planet. Term not in use. Spacepotato (talk) 01:53, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into one I have never heard of this type of planet before, but I do not wish to discourage the use and or deny its origins (benefit of the dough). However, I do not believe that these planetary categories should have their own article (so I support them being deleted). However, I think they should be mentioned in a single planetary article. Maybe, since "Appearance of extrasolar planets" is to mention anything about extrasolar planets (and not only the Sudarsky types), maybe we could add a new section. Maybe "planetary masses", which could mention these types of planets, or at least mention them. — NuclearVacuum 23:43, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The article appearance of extrasolar planets is should only be about how extrasolar planets may look like. Merging into this article may not be good idea. Maybe we should create and merge this to a new article planetary mass classification. BlueEarth (talk) 18:36, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Rjd0060 (talk) 15:30, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Game Industry Map[edit]
- Game Industry Map (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Contested PROD. Non-notable web content which is very much written like an advertisement. There is also a conflict of interest with the creator of the article. Wikipedia is not an advertising/marketing vehicle. MuZemike (talk) 21:29, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MuZemike (talk) 21:30, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I don't know if this is quite advertising, but there is little that can be said about this because it seems still in its infancy, and hardly monumental. The media coverage doesn't quite qualify as non-trivial. See WP:WEB. --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 01:03, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note — Both the article and its creator have been reported to WP:COIN. MuZemike (talk) 18:47, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete appears to fail WP:WEB. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 00:47, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was create List of public libraries of Seoul and merge there. Page name only my suggestion, feel free to change it. lifebaka++ 11:31, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dobong Public Library[edit]
- Dobong Public Library (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This Korean public library is not notable. The article contains only the library's street address and links to its web-site (in Korean) and to a list of the public libraries of Seoul. Wikipedia is not a directory. Delete.
Background to this AfD: a month ago there was a mass creation of stub articles about the public libraries of Seoul. Omitting a few that seemed to me possibly notable, I listed an AfD proposing deletion of 19 on grounds of non-notability, citing WP:NOTDIR and WP:NOTGUIDE. The general view at the AfD was that they should be considered individually in case some of them might be notable. The result of the AfD was "No consensus, other than these should be nominated separately. No prejudice against immediate renom, as long as they are not bundled together." Rather than relist immediately I have waited a month to see if any sign of notability appeared, and now bring this one as a test case.
If there is a consensus to delete this, I will construct a composite article "Public Libraries of Seoul" covering them all and giving the basic address and web-site links; this would still be against the spirit of WP:NOTDIR but could well be expanded by editors who know Korea into something interesting and encyclopedic with details of history, lending growth rates, most popular types of book, changes in reading tastes, other services provided, relation to education system, place in Korean culture, etc.
I will then start to PROD the others which still seem non-notable, in order not to clog up the AfD list with a stream of similar cases; of course, anyone unhappy with that approach may contest any of the PRODs. Some individual library articles which are notable will no doubt survive. JohnCD (talk) 21:27, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:12, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:14, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete article makes no claim of notability, and provides no independent sources. If there are any more like this, maybe they could be speedied. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 02:06, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge all carrying over whatever specific information is present. DGG (talk) 02:33, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge all to the proposed Public Libraries of Seoul. While most are not individually notable, there is nothing wrong with a list of libraries in a given city because it has clear inclusion criteria. TravellingCari 05:01, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge some of them. At least notable libraries deserve to have their own articles.--Caspian blue (talk) 12:22, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --PeaceNT (talk) 11:11, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Andrew Kenny (artist)[edit]
- Andrew Kenny (artist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
An SPA's article on a photographer who's had one exhibition that got one mention in a newspaper. Perhaps he's what's conventionally/optimistically called an "emerging" artist (he's still a university student); if so, let him emerge, let's see the independent critical commentary, and then let's give him an article. Hoary (talk) 13:17, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. —Hoary (talk) 13:21, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. —Hoary (talk) 13:23, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There was more than just one article but also a TV interview which was shown many times throughout the first week of the exhibition. Also a shortlisting in an International competition. With the website being known globally this is also a suitable reference for wikipedia.
This is not including the numerious group shows in the City of Belfast. So it should be kept in wiki.
- Do you have any reliable source for the frequent airing of that interview? (And how long was the interview, in broadcast form?) Which globally known website are you talking about? -- Hoary (talk) 01:17, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Northern Visions Television the interview lasted for 20 minites and was showen throughout the week. Andrew Kenny was shortlisted one of the Designboom.com International competitions. Did you not even check the references on the page? Tangledupblues (talk
'3431 participants from 92 countries' is quoted from this page http://www.designboom.com/contest/winner.php?contest_pk=19
So it would be classed as a global and International competition.
Tangledupblues (talk —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.29.225.168 (talk) 14:25, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Al1 right, all right -- it's global! Kenny was shortlisted (on a not so very short list) for "LED lighting indoor" or whatever it was. Sounds to me like an honorable first step toward eminence in lighting. But that's all. And it says nothing obvious about his photography, which is his claim to fame in the article. -- Hoary (talk) 15:40, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Anthøny(talk) 19:31, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. This person has not received non-trivial media coverage, as far as I can tell. I don't see how this article passes any of the criteria at WP:CREATIVE. Besides this, I think there may be significant conflict of interest here. --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 21:26, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, not notable enough yet. NawlinWiki (talk) 21:52, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The article was in the Irish News which is good media coverage as it is a large newspaper in Belfast. As well as the Interview in Northern Visions Television it would be seen as a notobale exhibition due to the press coverage given. Tangledupblues (talk —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.29.225.253 (talk) 01:25, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- When you talk of an article in the Irish News, are you referring to the one whose text reads, in its entirety, Visitors to the Safe House Arts Gallery in Belfast this month will have the opportunity to embark on a journey across Europe, thanks to photography student Andrew Kenny? If you're referring to something else, then please specify it. If you are indeed referring to this article, then you're unconvincing. -- Hoary (talk) 01:38, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The original took up a 1/4 of a page including the image. Tangledupblues (talk
- When you talk of an article in the Irish News, are you referring to the one whose text reads, in its entirety, Visitors to the Safe House Arts Gallery in Belfast this month will have the opportunity to embark on a journey across Europe, thanks to photography student Andrew Kenny? If you're referring to something else, then please specify it. If you are indeed referring to this article, then you're unconvincing. -- Hoary (talk) 01:38, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - trivial coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 00:57, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. "Keep" at AfD means not delete, and merging or improving the article is at editor's discretion. --PeaceNT (talk) 11:13, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Plop: The Hairless Elbonian[edit]
- Plop: The Hairless Elbonian (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
No reliable sources found. Strip was incredibly short-lived. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 20:55, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into Scott Adams. The only reason this is more notable than anything else is because it was created by him, and that's not enough for its own article. --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 21:29, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No reliable sources? That means it'd be going against WP:V to merge, though that's what I'd really like to do. —Mizu onna sango15Hello! 22:39, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. -- brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:25, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into Scott Adams. Good place for it.--Father Goose (talk) 07:45, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and Improve - If less inter-universe and more public reaction-type information is added, then I think this article constitutes as important and relevant and, most of all, saveable. BobAmnertiopsis∴ChatMe! 14:48, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You'd have to find and add that information yourself for this suggestion to hold weight. I did a quick look and didn't find anything about the subject aside from the primary sources already used in the article.--Father Goose (talk) 21:27, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. John254 00:40, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Elbonia[edit]
- Elbonia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Unsourced original research, no sources found. Entirely in-universe. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 20:50, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. While this is certainly one of Scott Adams' creations, it's rarely mentioned even in his works (especially of late), let alone outside them. --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 21:31, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Dilbert. æ² ✆ 2008‑08‑09t22:05z
- Keep, The entire article is not in-universe. The inspiration section describes Adams' opinion on the topic. The article does need sourcing and cleanup but having in-universe content is not a reason for deletion. Here are some reliable sources that mention Elbonia- [8],[9],[10],[11]. And I found it mentioned in these offline sources:
- Cocheo, Steve. "Globalthink or job shrink: offshore outsourcing brings some banks key benefits. If only it didn't carry all the cachet of leprosy. A look at what's actually happening." ABA Banking Journal 96.5 (May 2004)
- Mitchell, Greg. "A shot and a chaser." Editor & Publisher (Oct 1, 2001): 21. --Captain-tucker (talk) 22:44, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. —Captain-tucker (talk) 22:48, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep More sources including a detailed scholarly paper on Elbonia's legal system. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:14, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Looking through a few such sources, it looks like this has become an example name for a random undeveloped country. In that case, it is no more notable than Alice, Bob, and Eve from cryptography, or 192.0.2.0/24 from RFC 3330. --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 00:29, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The usage is not random. It is comparable with Ruritania and Freedonia which were the equivalents for other generations. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:50, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The usage of Elbonia in the real-world out-of-universe sources provided here and in the article definitely reflect its origin in the Dilbert/Adams cartoon. To say that such usage is somehow not notable is unintelligible. --Firefly322 (talk) 04:58, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep- Captain-tucker proved real world notability pretty nicely with his sources. Umbralcorax (talk) 06:05, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- comment Seven Years of Highly Defective People has been cited as a source on Elbonia in the List of Dilbert characters article, that might be a good source of cites, particularly regarding Adams' use of Elbonia as a stand in for any country Americans don;t understand. Artw (talk) 07:27, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Plenty notable, plenty of sources. Rebecca (talk) 13:30, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and clean up. References need to be cited, but Elbonia has been sighted outside of the works of Scott Adams and even in speech as the "average" (or archetypal) third-world or post-communist nation (even if only sarcastically). --coldacid (talk|contrib) 06:08, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, due to a lack of sources. If sources are found, feel free to take the article to DRV with them. lifebaka++ 12:56, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Orcas at SeaWorld[edit]
- Orcas at SeaWorld (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
- Delete per WP:NOT#DIR. List is not notable and information, if relevant should be incorporated into the respective park pages (most of it already is on the park's page or the individual orca pages). Article has been tagged as unsourced for almost a year. Momo Hemo (talk) 20:06, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Indiscriminate information, directory listing.
Didn't we just go through this with a different title?No, that was just another list of orcas in all parks. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 20:11, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I just found this one when checking the what links here on the other page. Momo Hemo (talk) 20:31, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. If a list of orcas in captivity in general is not notable, neither is this. --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 21:32, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- What, nobody wants to make lists for otters? :-P Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 22:07, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:26, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. -- brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:26, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Not convinced by the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument above. Also, the list is not indiscriminate as it focuses on a specific subject. It's also not compiled in such a way as to suggest lack of context outside of a mere "list". Wisdom89 (T / C) 07:55, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 17:57, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Blood Covenant[edit]
- Blood Covenant (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
HUGE COI issue. Also, fails WP:RS. The talk page says the article creator has talked to the band members for the information presented in the article. Delete Undeath (talk) 20:09, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. They aren't even signed! This fails WP:MUSIC horribly. --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 21:34, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, nonnotable, we don't even have the bandmembers' full names. NawlinWiki (talk) 21:55, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Falcon and NawlinWiki: fails WP:MUSIC. Cliff smith talk 00:07, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith talk 00:08, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb "Talk" 01:32, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: I'll improve this article, but it will last 2-3 weeks, so please give me time.(Deathmagnetic08 (talk) 07:04, 10 August 2008 (UTC))[reply]
- Keep Give it a chance. AfDing a freshly written article that was made in good faith is exactly the kind of bull---- that disgusts me in Wikipedia. Give it time to be improved, if it is covered by the biggest Armenian metal site, there must be more info on it elsewhere. And the guy received permission to use that photo and he said that, why was it deleted? Shouldn't we be nice to newcomers? --Azure Shrieker (talk) 20:20, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- How do WE know that he recieved permission? I suggest you take a look at WP:OR. I gave it a chance before with PROD, but no changes were made to the article. They fail WP:BAND in every way. Until they release something notable, I doubt they will pass any requirement. Undeath (talk) 21:07, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sigh. You're right; This is obviously going to get deleted. Oh well, maybe the band will get signed and become Encyclopedia-worthy in few years. --Azure Shrieker (talk) 07:36, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Let me explain you something. they are signed, but they don't belong to any label.they record, and their christian church finance them to release the album, i wrote "Unsigned" because i don't consider this a label. ah, one more thing, if i remove the unsourced information(segor's solo album,arbi's replacement,"religious differences" etc.), will this duscussion be over? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deathmagnetic08 (talk • contribs) 17:30, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- They are not signed, and that is not a label. Plus, even if the church that is financing them was a label, it is non notable. The point is, you conducted a lot of original research to write this. They are not a notable band. Please read WP:OR, WP:BAND, and WP:RS. Undeath (talk) 23:34, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You didn't answered to my question if i remove the original research will this disscussion be over? and will you help me to rewrite this article to meet wikipedia quality standards? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deathmagnetic08 (talk • contribs) 07:02, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- They are not signed, and that is not a label. Plus, even if the church that is financing them was a label, it is non notable. The point is, you conducted a lot of original research to write this. They are not a notable band. Please read WP:OR, WP:BAND, and WP:RS. Undeath (talk) 23:34, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Let me explain you something. they are signed, but they don't belong to any label.they record, and their christian church finance them to release the album, i wrote "Unsigned" because i don't consider this a label. ah, one more thing, if i remove the unsourced information(segor's solo album,arbi's replacement,"religious differences" etc.), will this duscussion be over? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deathmagnetic08 (talk • contribs) 17:30, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sigh. You're right; This is obviously going to get deleted. Oh well, maybe the band will get signed and become Encyclopedia-worthy in few years. --Azure Shrieker (talk) 07:36, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- How do WE know that he recieved permission? I suggest you take a look at WP:OR. I gave it a chance before with PROD, but no changes were made to the article. They fail WP:BAND in every way. Until they release something notable, I doubt they will pass any requirement. Undeath (talk) 21:07, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it won't be over. The band fails WP:MUSIC. I can't help that. They aren't even signed. Undeath (talk) 23:06, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- so what they are not signed?is it your goal of life to delete my articles?would it kill you if this article will not be deleted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deathmagnetic08 (talk • contribs) 06:25, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Calm down, please. Being signed is one of the criteria for notability at WP:MUSIC, (which I think at least 5 other people must have said already). Read the guideline, and don't attack other editors. Kafziel Complaint Department 08:00, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- so what they are not signed?is it your goal of life to delete my articles?would it kill you if this article will not be deleted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deathmagnetic08 (talk • contribs) 06:25, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The band needs reliable sources that have written about it and consider it important. The web sites provided don't look like they meet the standards. If the band started to release albums on a major label, things would be different, per WP:MUSIC. Since the music is self-published on the web it is hard to know if the band has any actual listeners. EdJohnston (talk) 20:33, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fails WP:V, not to mention WP:BAND. Kafziel Complaint Department 06:23, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. John254 00:40, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Title 15 of the United States Code[edit]
- Title 15 of the United States Code (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Wikipedia is not a repository of links. — James Cantor (talk) (formerly, MarionTheLibrarian) 19:47, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The page is list of links all to the same external page, all linking to the next paragraphs of the law. I originally nominated the article for speedy deletion, noting that the article fits criterion A3 for the speedy deletion of articles ("No content. Any article (other than disambiguation pages and redirects, including soft redirects) consisting only of external links...a very short article may be a valid stub if it has context, in which case it is not eligible for deletion under this criterion"). In my opinion, this page has no such context. It is merely a list of links that repeats verbatim the list of links given by the government's page [12] (which is also given as an external link on the page).
User:Iridecent believed that that reason was not sufficient for speedy deletion, so I have listed the article here.
— James Cantor (talk) (formerly, MarionTheLibrarian) 20:00, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, obviously. Every other section of the United States Code, has an identical linkfarm, and for good reason; because it's useful. I thought WP:USEFUL was a lame and misguided personal essay when it was written, and I still think it's a lame and misguided personal essay now; our primary purpose is to be useful. How is cut-and-pasting a great glob of federal legislation into Wikipedia (which would seem the only viable alternative to this article) going to improve the encyclopedia in any way? – iridescent 20:13, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I thought we were trying to be a useful encyclopedia, though, not a directory, nor a linkfarm. Pasting the laws in here would be equally bad. --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 23:23, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. A part of an important body of laws. The content is pretty minimal but it's definitely expandable and not completely useless as is. Tombomp (talk/contribs) 20:14, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, obviously. The earlier attempt at speedy deletion and this current AfD are part of this editor's ongoing pattern of disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point. Most of his edits revolve around POV-pushing attempts to annoy me and others by wikilawyering. This editor is a WP:SPA here to promote his coworkers and their work, and to annoy and discredit their offsite critics (which includes me). This behavior is now apparently leaking over into deleting info from ANY of the 1000 or so articles I started, not just the few about his buddies. Jokestress (talk) 20:28, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It is not immediately apparent how nominating this article for deletion promotes the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health or sexology (as linked above), or even constitutes wikilawyering. Please do not make accusations without explaining fully your justifications and evidence. Besides, AfD is not a particularly appropriate place to air disputes between users. --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 23:23, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As you'll note above, I said this SPA's purpose on Wikipedia has two themes. This appears to be part of the latter theme (attempting to annoy me). See his user page for some typical comments about me, or check out the sorts of edits he has made to my biography. The only reason this user took notice of Title 15 of the United States Code is because it is listed on my user page as an article I started. The disruption and wikilawyering was noted by Iridescent on his talk page. The wikistalking is noted by Dicklyon below. If you have further questions about James Cantor's conduct, let me know. I was trying to give context to why this nomination was made. Regardless of that, the article was created to fill a red link in Template:USCTitles, which has been in place since 2006. The article in question here has well over 100 links in other articles and is well integrated into Wikipedia. It helps contextualize and organize wikipedia articles about acts of Congress that govern commerce. Jokestress (talk) 00:05, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: apparently just WP:Wikistalking by User:James Cantor of his nemesis User:Jokestress. Dicklyon (talk) 20:32, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I would be perfectly happy to clear up my histories with either of these folk with anyone who thinks it might be relevant. No allegations about my motives, however, change whether a list that is a cut-and-paste of someone else's webpage (in this case, the U.S. government) violates WP:NOTLINK. Should an exception to NOTLINK be made for what a consensus perceives to be a useful list of links, then the next logical step is to update WP:NOTLINK.
— James Cantor (talk) (formerly, MarionTheLibrarian) 20:39, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. This isn't just a list of external links, it's also (and more importantly) a list of Wikipedia articles. This is a really easy way to see how our articles about U.S. law are organized under the United States Code. You could have a different list (and maybe we do?) with the articles organized chronologically, or whatever, but this set of pages is important to have. Not quite a list, not quite a disambiguation page, but who cares? We need this. Darkspots (talk) 21:17, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. If nothing can be written about this on its own, perhaps we could create a category of everything in title 15 of the united states code, or of sections of the united states code. Perhaps an article on the subject is warranted, but this is not even close to what a good start would be. The external links belong in those articles, not in a list (Wikipedia being not a directory or list of links, useful or otherwise). I think that if this were to happen with, say, Mexican or Ethiopian law, someone would give more or less this exact argument, and we need to be careful of systemic bias. I don't think the order in which the wikipedia articles (the only appropriate constituent of this list) is overly important in and of itself, and so a category would be just fine. Additionally, if this is a list it should be named accordingly. Finally, there being other such pages is not usually a good reason to keep this particular one unless those were voted to be kept. --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 23:23, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith talk 23:05, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep , write articles for as many of the individual chapters as practical , and do similarly for the rest of USC. That is, if we get enough people do do it all, but there's no reason to remove what we do have. Among the justification of lists is as an organizational device, and this is a simple and straightforward way to do it. To use an available PD list as a starting point is a perfectly sensible way to go about it. DGG (talk) 02:37, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep--the page (along with the other 49 chapters of the U.S. Code) are certainly notable, and it is entirely possible to write articles about all the Acts of Congress contained therein. Furthermore, I disagree with User:Falcon Kirtaran's opinion that we would delete it if it were a non-English-speaking country. If it is a part of the law in any jurisdiction, it is worth keeping. With regards to User:Jokestress's comment above, this may actually be a bad-faith nomination. --Eastlaw (talk) 04:54, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, the number of external links is a side effect of using {{usctc}} to format the USC citation correctly (a 3 second glance at the source would have indicated this). This article also serves as a navigational guide to the various chapters that cover extremely notable topics (Sherman antitrust, FTC, weather service, NIST, etc., etc.). This article CLEARLY does not fall under CSD and the nominator's initial rationale of being contentless makes we wonder as to the true motivation of this AFD and extremely hesitant to believe his rationale & to support deletion. As such, no valid deletion criteria provided. Cburnett (talk) 04:59, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, I agree with all of the other "keep" comments above. To delete this one article on the external link claim alone would require deletion of the entire body of USC articles, which would be detrimental to Wikipedia.DCmacnut<> 23:40, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. per all the above reasons and more.—Markles 01:54, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: By the way (apropos of nothing): if you want to suggest adding content to an article, put {{stub}} or {{expand}}. If you want to make sure that the article is expanded, add {{afd}}. See how much has changed here: (History since afd proposal)!—Markles 01:54, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Agree with Darkspots who wrote: This isn't just a list of external links, it's also (and more importantly) a list of Wikipedia articles. Wikipedia does have articles which are lists - even featured ones. Perhaps this and its kind can formally be changed into such lists, whatever the criteria are. Deleting it is not the way to go, however. --Hordaland (talk) 18:48, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Article is a repository of encyclopedic value, and as mentioned above, it is a list of what are essentially other encyclopedia articles. Valuable to project as a whole, both as a starting point for augmentation and as a very good list (which, as was stated earlier, are part of WP). Lazulilasher (talk) 02:05, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep per WP:SNOW and for the consensus met to keep the article as a redundant with category is never a delete rationale per WP:CLN. (non-administrative closure) -- RyRy (talk) 09:02, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
List of alleged UFO crashes[edit]
- List of alleged UFO crashes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
The article, which documents 11 incidents, is redundant to Category:UFO crashes. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 19:58, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith talk 23:51, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Keep per WP:CLN. John Sloan (talk) 20:04, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]Delete per nom.Keep Change vote after reading WP:CLN. Cheers Cosmic Latte. Esradekan Gibb "Talk" 01:24, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]- Strong keep per WP:CLN. Lists are meant to complement categories. Cosmic Latte (talk) 10:11, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. It could very well be merged with a general UFO article but these list type articles are all over the place. Keep for now.Morgonio (talk) 05:55, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Redundant with category is never a delete rationale, per WP:CLN. AndyJones (talk) 20:18, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Per AndyJones. List would be significantly improved if a short description was attached to each list item.--Mike Cline (talk) 22:01, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - This AfD should probably be closed now, per WP:SNOW. John Sloan (talk) 22:04, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. lifebaka++ 12:59, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Lowyat.net[edit]
- Lowyat.net (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Also see the other tags on the article, but i'm nominating this for deletion because it's a non-notable website/forum. John Sloan (talk) 19:52, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. -- brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:27, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:27, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This article needs more sources but I would wait before hitting the delete button. It seems somewhat notable in its local context but is written somewhat as spam. Is it notable for English Wikipedia--I can't say. Artene50 (talk) 10:07, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - trivial coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 00:59, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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: not a hoax, and has gained sufficient notability for inclusion. No need for this to run its course. GarrettTalk 08:11, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Beat 'Em & Eat 'Em[edit]
- Beat 'Em & Eat 'Em (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Likely hoax. No references and it is seemingly a list of misc info. NuclearWarfare contact meMy work 19:49, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep They made pr0n games for the Atari?!? Seriously, keep because it turns up a fair number of hits, including this and this, so it's clearly not a hoax. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 20:31, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - not a hoax. A quick Google search reveals gameplay videos, a mention by Seanbaby, mentions on Atari-specific sites, and so on. It's quite notorious, and has been featured by the Angry Video Game Nerd as well. Very notable game. Dreaded Walrus t c 20:55, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep because its a notable game. Wonder if they'll ever bring it out on X-Box? ;) John Sloan (talk) 21:11, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You mean XXX-box? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 22:08, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per previous votes. Jeff Silvers (talk) 21:57, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep Are you kidding? Taking two seconds to do a google search proves your 'hoax' claim immediately wrong. Please don't nominate AFDs any more without at least attempting to do an inklet of research. SashaNein (talk) 21:59, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Come on guy, it was almost certainly a good-faith nomination. Let's be civil about this. Dreaded Walrus t c 23:31, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. SashaNein (talk) 22:04, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep. Legitimate, verified game. Not sure where the nom got the idea it was a hoax. And in fact the existence of "pr0n" games for consoles like the 2600 was in fact quite a cause celebre in the early 80s. 23skidoo (talk) 22:57, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep listed on allgame, PC World, and Kotaku; the article is actually linked to by games.net. It's not a hoax. Someoneanother 00:23, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Listed in EGM as The Top Perverted Games. Zero Kitsune (talk) 02:10, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Verified game. --Cocomonkilla (talk) (contrib) 02:24, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Being a game isn't enough to keep the game by itself, and it could be argued that Custer's Revenge is the only truly 'notable' Mystique title, however the combination of the collectability as well as the rarity of the release of a pornographic game (although more pornographic in thought than in graphics) give this title a unique sense of history that should be preserved. D3l8 (talk) 05:51, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. It's best to give stuff like this the benefit of the doubt. Wikipedia's scope is global, and if you think that the world is a normal place you haven't been getting out enough. Would you believe it if you were told about the Sedlec Ossuary? At the very least, it's courteous to look into the matter and ask other editors. --Kizor 07:41, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 g3, obvious hoax/vandalism, there aren't any 15 year olds playing for Fulham. NawlinWiki (talk) 21:57, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Harun Mohamed[edit]
- Harun Mohamed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Vandalism My-dog-is-shep (talk) 19:43, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - appears to be likely hoax, no mention found of him at Barnet F.C or West Ham United F.C. webpages, entry on Somalia national football team added by same user [13] (finding any reliable source for actual composition of Somalia team would help sort this out) -Hunting dog (talk) 21:03, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:14, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, group of friends playing golf every year, no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 22:02, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Shankorman[edit]
- Shankorman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Contested prod, completely non-notable local golf club event - also no sources or verification possible Hunting dog (talk) 19:40, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Rjd0060 (talk) 15:21, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ten Body Yoga[edit]
- Ten Body Yoga (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non notable with no reliable sources. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 19:12, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 19:29, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 19:29, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 19:29, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:N. GizzaDiscuss © 09:05, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete A 3 year old article on a 'form of yoga' with zero sources. Artene50 (talk) 09:06, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - fails WP:N and WP:V. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 06:36, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Rjd0060 (talk) 15:21, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Adams Approach[edit]
- Adams Approach (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non notable with no reliable sources. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 19:13, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 19:28, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 19:28, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 19:28, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Seems more like an advert to me. Unless this technique can be said to be scientific and accepted (even moderate prevelance in the musician community will do) no reason to keep it. --Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 14:17, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Non-notable, almost an advert. GizzaDiscuss © 08:32, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Rjd0060 (talk) 15:21, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Aadarsha Ratne[edit]
- Aadarsha Ratne (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Advertisement with no reliable sources. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 19:12, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 19:27, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 19:27, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 19:27, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: As per WP:NONSENSE What is this article about: a script, a person or a healing technique. ? --Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 05:08, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Nonsense, likely hoax. GizzaDiscuss © 08:28, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This review is idiotic unprofessional and both reviewers I am confident have never seen a spot in Kamrup in the sub-continent. The idiotic behaviour is visible through review comments "Nonsense, likely hoax" (66.81.71.234 (talk) 15:05, 15 December 2008 (UTC))[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Rjd0060 (talk) 15:20, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oklahoma Network for Teaching of Psychology[edit]
- Oklahoma Network for Teaching of Psychology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Cannot find sufficient third-party coverage to build a decent article. Does have an annual meeting but it seems the association consists of 256 members [14] so it's too marginal to be of interest. Pichpich (talk) 19:08, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —TerriersFan (talk) 19:30, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - fails WP:N and WP:V. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 06:37, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - its an interesting idea and good luck to its founders. However, at present it fails the notability criteria as has not received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. What coverage there is consists of trivial references to an annual conference, and some images. Also fails the secondary criteria for non-commercial organizations - its activities are purely local, it has a short life span so far and a comparatively small membership. May one day be the creator of an interesting model of collaboration between different levels of education in Oklahoma but apparently not yet. Euryalus (talk) 06:58, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Rjd0060 (talk) 15:20, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
UKTrainSim.com[edit]
- UKTrainSim.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Not really notable, badly written and seems to be just a case of a user of the site writing the article just for the heck of it. Byeitical (talk) 19:03, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete A one year old article with notability and WP:RS issues. All the sources come from its web site. Artene50 (talk) 09:39, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 18:02, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails notability. Also, if kept, I would have to say it needs serious cleanup. Lady Galaxy 23:01, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Gives little indication as to why it might be important or innovative, lacking a certain notability. Ian¹³/t 10:42, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, hoax. Neıl ☄ 00:21, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Howard Paul[edit]
- Howard Paul (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Appears to be an unsourced hoax. Source 1 doesn't mention Paul, and source 2 is subscription only. See [15] for deletion reason (A7), which was overturned because, while it does appear to be a hoax, it does also assert significance. Sceptre (talk) 18:59, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Speedy delete. Appears to be a hoax barring new evidence to the contrary. rootology (T) 19:00, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - utterly unsourced, IMO. (Interesting reference link, guys :) ) - Alison ❤ 19:07, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete unless sourced. The link provided – er – "elsewhere" isn't enough of a reliable source to base an article round. No prejudice against recreation if someone can rustle up a source on this - for someone in this period, chances are the sources aren't online. (Hint to anyone wanting to have a go: Billy Hathorn can usually rustle up sources for anyone from Lubbock, if the guy did in fact exist). – iridescent 19:21, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I note from the thread linked to, that a couple of sources have been suggested there that means it may not be a hoax - including [16]. Davewild (talk) 19:28, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Howard Paul Becker? rootology (T) 22:08, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as redirect. Anthony (talk) 23:28, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Object to the redirect as useless. Howard P. Becker doesn't look very notable, and certainly not notable enough for anyone to type "Howard Paul". As to whether Howard Paul himself merits an article, it is difficult to say when the article is now gone. Seems to me that this debate full of people debating differing people and can't really show any consensus.--Troikoalogo (talk) 01:07, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- We might just as well redirect to Howard Paul Donald or Gabriel Howard Paul or "Howard Caspar Paul" (who was Ron Paul's dad) as to some sociologist called Howard P. Becker.--Troikoalogo (talk) 01:15, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Wikipedia Review thread. —Giggy 06:54, 10 August 2008 (UTC) (delete per iridescent, no redirect per Troikoalogo)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 23:21, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Michele LeBlanc[edit]
- Michele LeBlanc (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
violation of WP:COI, as only author matches the subject of the article, likely does not meet WP:N KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 18:42, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom.--CyberGhostface (talk) 02:09, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Although I dislike vanity articles as much as the next one, WP:COI is not a reason to delete. "Likely does not meet WP:N" is not really a good deletion reason either. The nom should specify why the subject of this article is not notable. If that can be done, I'll happily vote delete, until then I vote keep, because invalid nomination. --Crusio (talk) 14:46, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:50, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. When working biographies of living persons one has to be extremely diligent in providing reliable sources that pass all aspects of WP:V... and every sentence be sourced. More importantly there should be a declared WP:COI if writing about something with which you have a vested interest. All those concerns aside, the biggest problem here is the violation of Wikipedia:Autobiography since there is no apparent approval by other editors. As presented, the article has no sources and does not declare nor prove notability. Nothing in the article is suported. An IMDB seacrh shows her as having worked as an associate producer on one project.[17] Her article about herself reads almost like a job resume. This one is really no contest.'Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 03:08, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- And I just left Michele a note instructing her where and how to save this article, as though it is unlikley to survive this AfD, it would be at home at her User:Michele leblanc User Page. No need to push her away. (Sure hope to see that red link turn blue) Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 06:29, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment She seems to be so notable that even her firing merits an entire newspaper article. -- Hoary (talk) 07:42, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well..... somebody with the name "Michele Leblanc" got fired. I also found an article about the jazz singer, the lawyer, the communications consultant, the girl on Facebook, the author, the associate professor, ad infinitum. Pity we have no way to know if the one who got fired is she. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 09:39, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 a1, insufficient context, one-sentence article on book by "anonymous author", no indication that it was even published. NawlinWiki (talk) 22:04, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Pervasive Arcane Substance[edit]
- The Pervasive Arcane Substance (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Notability isn't established, and I can't find a record of this using a Google search, Library of Congress search, or British Library search. Calvin 1998 (t-c) 18:39, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete No proof this book even exists. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 18:52, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Content available by email. lifebaka++ 13:01, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Penn State Nittany Lions volleyball all time record[edit]
- Penn State Nittany Lions volleyball all time record (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Merely a statistical table of results, which is not appropriate per WP:NOT#STATS. ZimZalaBim talk 18:37, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith talk 23:53, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:NOT#STATS and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Doc StrangeMailboxLogbook 14:01, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - What about all the football articles that have statistics, like This or this? Plus it isn't online anywhere, so it's good information. Smuckers It has to be good 21:01, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- First, see WP:OTHERSTUFF. Second, this is a fine example of a season-by-season summary. And this intends to provide a statistical summary of a single year, focusing on notable occurrences (upsets, for example), and the conference standings. Penn State Nittany Lions volleyball all time record, unfortunately, is merely a list of all their win-losses, without any discrimination regarding notability, context, etc. This is likely found in an external source which can easily be linked to. --ZimZalaBim talk 21:40, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I wrote it myself..no external links. It's all from a book I have, so I wrote it because I doubt many people have the book. Smuckers It has to be good 22:19, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:50, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - this isn't an encyclopedia article, in other words, per WP:NOT#STATS.--PhilKnight (talk) 01:02, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 to delete, default to keep. Sandstein 18:01, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
André Couteaux[edit]
- André Couteaux (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
- Delete nn author. Only 9 GHITS, all to film or book listings. Nothing substantial about the author that would amount to WP:N Mayalld (talk) 18:28, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fails the google test. This isn't always a valid reason unto itself, but it's a pretty good warning singn that this fails WP:V, WP:RS and WP:N. —Mizu onna sango15Hello! 23:30, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Multiple books in multiple languages in over 100 US and other libraries according to worldcat. Translated at least into English, German, Dutch, Spanish, and Finnish. One was made into a movie, that got a review in the NYTimes. He did the screenplay for another fairly well known film also. The inadequate article here does not seem to have listed them all, so I put them in, for at least the languages shown in worldCat. Critical reviews almost certain, at least in French sources, & as a start there's the NYTimes. Using the gtest for a European author whose works were published in the 1960s is the height of absurdity. I know people don't like using library catalogs, but they do work for finding basic information about published authors. DGG (talk) 04:37, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails notability. The IMDB link only has 2 hits for 2 books from the 1960's. He certainly exists but doesn't appear notable/significant. Artene50 (talk) 10:14, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per DGG. At the top of his 9 gnews hits is the NYT review of his first book's translation. Googling is bad for non-English sources and much worse that far back in the 20th. Getting good results requires real work. ( I think it actually gets better for 19th century people). So one has to correct for this and weigh results higher than usual.John Z (talk) 10:29, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, a key reason it gets better in the 19th century is because of the increasing amount of material from Google Book Search, and from sources reprinting PR material. Unfortunately, the present state of copyright legislation will leave the 1921 cutoff with us for a long time to come. This will inevitable have a negative effect on our work at building a free encyclopedia, but we need to try to overcome it, even if it takes old-fashioned methods. DGG (talk) 03:12, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:51, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 to delete, default to keep. Sandstein 18:03, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nicolò Giraud[edit]
Hi, I'm nominating this article for deletion because Giraud falls far short of historical notability in any sense. If only known for his relationship with Byron (and even not among Byron's well-known relationships), then he is not notable. He's a relative by marriage to an assistant of Lord Elgin and that he was one of Byron's lovers (and not even the famous or infamous ones like Lamb). Just being a lover is not notable. Did he influence Byron's writing in a meaningful way? Did he have an impact on culture or history? This is not sufficient for including in an encyclopedia. Just mentioning him in a couple lines in the main Byron article should be sufficient. There are many famous people who have relationships with others, homosexual or otherwise with non-significant people. We don't need an article for everyone of those non-famous people unless they have a meaningful impact.
Please let me know if there is anything else I should mention or comment upon since I'm unfamiliar with this process.--Nocturnalsleeper (talk) 18:24, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- keep he is perhaps the best documented of his homosexual affairs, and as a key figure in a very notable person's bio an article is appropriate. Included in at least one of t he standard encyclopdias. DGG (talk) 05:40, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- keep He is notable as there are plenty of sources on him. However, I believe that the POV language, the lack of technical terms, and inuendo need to go. We should be exact here and make direct claims to what scholars say what. There is a lot that goes unattributed. I have a clean up of Byron's biography for this matter pending for September, so I can accomplish this later with an expansion. However, if anyone else can do it first, please do. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:40, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'm currently undecided about this. It feels to me like a bit of a stretch for there to be an independent article on Giraud, when he could be covered in a few sentences in the article on Byron. Does Giraud have some independent notability outside of being Byron's lover, of a level that warrants an article? Nandesuka (talk) 02:25, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete entirely unnotable. The article is also terribly written. Peter Damian (talk) 09:53, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Having sex with a notable person does not make you a notable person. Edward321 (talk) 14:15, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Would saving their life and being bequeathed 7,000 pounds (at a time when you could easily live off 50 pounds a year) in their will make you notable? Ottava Rima (talk) 17:07, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Very witty 'delete' comment, though. Peter Damian (talk) 17:55, 11 August 2008 (UTC) [edit] also, being given large sums of money by a notable person does not make you a notable person. Peter Damian (talk) 17:56, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Appearing in multiple books and sources over it may suggests otherwise. Byron scholarship is vast, and an individual who happened to be largest in his will, a potential lover, a guy who taught him Italian, and saved his life tends to come up often. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:59, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It's clear that he is notable in the context of Byron's life (and thus discussing him in Byron's article is completely appropriate). The interesting question to me is whether he has any indepedendent notability. That's what (in my mind) should determine whether he warrants his own article. Compare, for example, what we know of Giraud to (say) Zelda Fitzgerald, of whom there exists a significant body of criticism: she is tied to F. Scott Fitzgerald, just as Giraud is tied to Byron, in the sense that you hardly speak of when without speaking of the other, yet the mass of material that establishes an independent notability (wrote books, was written about contemporaneously, etc) is quite different. Nandesuka (talk) 19:43, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I offered to fix and expand the page. If consensus goes against it and doesn't want that, so be it. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:09, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that making sure the material about Giraud is appropriate and well-written is a great idea, regardless of whether it appears in this article, or in Byron's, and your offer is and should be appreciated. Nandesuka (talk) 19:44, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you, Nandesuka. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:56, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that making sure the material about Giraud is appropriate and well-written is a great idea, regardless of whether it appears in this article, or in Byron's, and your offer is and should be appreciated. Nandesuka (talk) 19:44, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Appearing in multiple books and sources over it may suggests otherwise. Byron scholarship is vast, and an individual who happened to be largest in his will, a potential lover, a guy who taught him Italian, and saved his life tends to come up often. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:59, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep. Notable historic figure. Easily passes the requirement for coverage in multiple sources. I am astonished it was nominated. This kind of valid but less mainstream knowledge is exactly what wiki can and should be doing to make it an unbeatable reference work. Having a "meaningful impact" is not a requirement of WP:N. Ty 22:59, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd echo Nandesuka, here: Can we see any indication that this is a "notable" figure outside there relationship to someone notable? While there is large scope for the material to be present in an article there is currently nothing in this article to suggest it should stand alone. This should be redirected. - brenneman 02:32, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no requirement for someone to be notable for a particular reason, such as having achieved something. This is introducing a new concept into the debate, not established by consensus in guidelines, such as WP:BIO, where the definition of notability rests simply on the extent to which they have received coverage by independent sources. It doesn't matter how or why someone has achieved that coverage. There are 263 books in which Giraud appears, according to Google books. There would be no quibble with any contemporary figure, who had that amount of citations available. There is interesting and valid material about Giraud, which merits inclusion. There is a good reason not to do this in the article on Byron, as it is already a very long one, and in such cases Wikipedia:Summary style applies, so that aspects of the subject can be examined in more detail. Ty 04:22, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ahhh, I'm having a hard time parsing this response...
- Looking at the guideline Wikipedia:Notability (people) which is linked above, it says right there in green and black that "* The person has received a notable award or honor, or has been often nominated for them. * The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field." are reasons to hae your own article.
- The second link you've provided probably does not have the effect you intended. It in fact supports the claim that this article shoul be re-merged somewhere, since none of these appear to be about the subject of this article seperate from Byron. I examined the first five pages of results, everything is " Letters and Journals of Lord Byron" or "Byron's Greece" or their ilk. (By the way, if you remove the multiple copies of Moore's Letters and restrict yourself to English, you only get 99 hits. A large number of them are extracts from letters as well, so we're falling way short of this being some "big number= keep" argument. Really, analysis of the quality of these sources is better than simple counting the google hits.)
- There are indeed constant "quibbles" with contemp. figures with high levels of mentions in reliable sources. "Family of B. Obama" is just one such recent debate. The overwhelming consensus, as established across a huge number of very similar debates and as codified in the guideline you linked is that "That person A has a relationship with well-known person B is not a reason for a standalone article on A."
- Again, while there is little doubt that there does exist material on this person that is encyclopedic, but an unmerged stand-alone article is not justified.
- brenneman 05:22, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I guess that depends on the value one puts on historical information. To my mind the ability of an encyclopedia which is NOTPAPER to explore a subject in great depth should not be squandered. There will undoubtedly be reader interest in this, and that is what we are here to serve, not rule books. However, if we are to look at them, then WP:BIO in a nutshell is:
- The topic of an article should be notable, or "worthy of notice"; that is, "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded.
- And the introduction is:
- A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject."
- Giraud meets these. Other things follow from the basic criterion to show ways in which it may be met. Your "notable award" etc quote is from "additional criteria", not "basic criteria", which specifies "multiple independent sources". Even taking your reduction of sources (and I don't see why you omit letters) 99 is still adequate. I am not merely counting: I have accessed and read a number (also in press articles), and seen that cumulatively there is a reasonable amount of different material on Giraud available. It is not merely that he had a relationship with Byron that qualifies him, but the specific nature of this relationship and the way it has been commented on since, not just in studies of Byron but also, for example, in studies of sexuality. The bottom line is that he is notable, not top-league, but certainly passing the wiki bar. There are different reasons, as I have pointed out, why material may need to be in its own article. In this case WP:SUMMARY is a pressing one, as a convenient way of organising information. It is primarily a sub-topic of the Byron article, but of enough worth to expand beyond the space available in the main article. This is where the system undermines the purpose it was set up to maintain. The need for WP:N was to stop wiki turning into MySpace or family genealogy, not to exclude topics which anyone in academia would regard as perfectly legitimate. Ty 06:38, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ahhh, I'm having a hard time parsing this response...
- There is no requirement for someone to be notable for a particular reason, such as having achieved something. This is introducing a new concept into the debate, not established by consensus in guidelines, such as WP:BIO, where the definition of notability rests simply on the extent to which they have received coverage by independent sources. It doesn't matter how or why someone has achieved that coverage. There are 263 books in which Giraud appears, according to Google books. There would be no quibble with any contemporary figure, who had that amount of citations available. There is interesting and valid material about Giraud, which merits inclusion. There is a good reason not to do this in the article on Byron, as it is already a very long one, and in such cases Wikipedia:Summary style applies, so that aspects of the subject can be examined in more detail. Ty 04:22, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. —Ty 04:26, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - reliable sources exist to establish notability. Speculation as to whether he has done anything to be notable are subjectove opinions. -- Whpq (talk) 15:13, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, webcontent with no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 22:06, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Manpollo Project[edit]
- Manpollo Project (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Article about a Web-based group; sources all appear to lead back to the group itself. No demonstration of notability via independent third-party sources; Googling fails to find any mention of this in mainstream news sources. In general, reads like an advert; in particular, actually advertises a DVD for sale. The article appears to have been created by a single user, User:Benjamindbrooks, whose contributions appear to be entirely devoted to this article. The Anome (talk) 18:07, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. If reliable sources can be found then I have no objection to the article being rewritten. Wizardman 14:32, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- OK , I'll try ;) User:Bruno Grauber 16:27, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Marc Gilbert[edit]
- Marc Gilbert (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
A minor journalist in France, directed a few television shows (I think, from the article, which seems to misuse the word "animate"), and I can't seem to track down any references for him at all (lost in the noise of many others named "Marc Gilbert"). No notability demonstrated. ArglebargleIV (talk) 17:49, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Much of his notability may stem from having been the secretary- general of the "Institut Français des Relations Internationales" - cf french wiki article on it - from 79-82. The Oppenheimer documentary sounds interesting; it's hard to do these ones with common names drowned out by others. Searching on his name + death date or + ifri gets a little.John Z (talk) 10:06, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Not seeing enough to really satisfy WP:N, no real sources to verify anything with. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 19:57, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:52, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:53, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Online sources are harder to find for people who died in 1982. In this context, "animated" means "hosted" rather than directed. And hosting the live coverage of Apollo 13 and a number of recurring programs over a period of several years seems to me to be more notable than minor. --Eastmain (talk) 04:53, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - No notability, nothing he did really stands out, the article is an absolute mess, reads as if it was mechanically translated from another language, to the point that some of it is incomprehensible, no sources, no reason to keep this. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 05:35, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - There is an identical article on this guy in the French Wikipedia. It looks as if someone with very bad English has attempted to translate it over here-or maybe run it through Babelfish Lemon martini (talk) 11:54, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Writing for Reader's Digest and Life would be notable-although I would note that Readers'Digest takes its article from a variety of other magazines and periodicals. And if he did present the coverage of the Apollo 13 mission,that would be notable. If it is kept,it needs a major overhaul to be readably English rather than the mishmash it is now Lemon martini (talk) 11:58, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 14:30, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
SEnglish[edit]
- SEnglish (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Overly long description of a controlled natural language. Dates and lack of refs suggest it is too new to be notable. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 17:47, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Though it fits in with similar length descriptions of other controlled natural languages already consolidated. Veressm (Talk | contribs) 17:40, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The article seems to be referenced properly. Ergo, it's no original research and it's nothing unverifiable. Since there was a book published about it, that seems to address the notability question as well. I'm open to arguments why the project would not be notable enough, but as long as these aren't provided, I don't see a reason to delete this. —IJzeren Jan Uszkiełtu? 17:13, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Would consider the article as 'highly descriptive' rather than 'overly long description' hence in contrast to a previous opinion, I can't see why a well explained and substantiated article can be a negative. Having followed some of the supplied links, the question of notability is further addressed by the subject matter being present at a world congress (International Federation of Automatic Control, 2008 held in Seoul). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nkl199 (talk • contribs) 08:21, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:56, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Agree with nominator. All the references are by the same author and very recent, which suggests self-promotion rather than notability. Presenting something at a congress doesn't make it notable; I'm just about to present something at a congress where eight thousand papers will be presented. Do we need an article on each of them? Finally, the book about it is self-published. --Itub (talk) 07:50, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. In my opinion this article is most worthy of being added to Wikipedia. I had a look at the book and it is "very notable" by whatever means it has been published. I am sure that a large reader community would agree with the principles described in the book and reported in the article. I think that is rather preconceived to criticize a new article entry by looking solely at the references’ year of publication. (user:txlm, 17:45, 12 August 2008 UTC)
- Please read Wikipedia:Notability for an explanation about what is meant by "notability" here, and why self-published sources are not acceptable. --Itub (talk) 16:54, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This comment by Itub is not precise: Wikipedia:Notability contains the sentence If an article currently does not cite reliable secondary sources, that does not necessarily mean that its topic is not notable., please see end of first paragraph.--Veressm (talk) 06:52, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You are overgeneralizing that quote in my opinion, which I base on years of watching how the policies are interpreted when discussing article deletion. The emphasis should be on currently. Certainly, some topics that are considered "notable" have not had the references added yet (most articles that have not been deleted should be on notable topics, but most articles are under-referenced). But that's quite different from cases such as this one, where no reason has been provided that would led me to believe that appropriate references exist at all. --Itub (talk) 09:42, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete As it stands, this article is pure promotion - the author of the article is apparently the creator of sEnglish and also is the author of every single reference given, so there's a WP:COI and the refs are hardly third party or independent. Having said that, it's a well-written and detailed description and if the author's own bio is to be believed, he's an academic authority in the field. If any credible third-party refs at all could be found I'd change to keep. And I'd feel a lot less dubious about the article if there were no keep votes here from newly-created accounts with no other Wiki edits... Karenjc 16:55, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I am the author of the wiki, and having reread the guidelines, the article clearly satisfies Wikipedia:Notability and there is no WP:COI as the article is written in a completely neutral way and the author does not benefit in any way. Still sEnglish is so new that it will take time for independent professional publication to appear about it. Until then I intend to withdraw sEnglish as a wiki. I am including my comment here to inform the contributors who positively commented on my entry, thanks for that. I intend to delete my own wiki, thanks for all comments. --Veressm (talk) 01:33, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- In my opinion, that should not necessary be a problem. When a new movie appears, it will in all likeliness have its article on the very same day, unless there has been an article around for a while already. The fact that something is new is not a reason for deletion. As far as I am concerned, issues of notability and verifiability are addressed properly. But of course, if it is your desire to have it deleted anyway, then I will comply and change my "vote". —IJzeren Jan Uszkiełtu? 21:00, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your support, based on this I am having second thoughts and keep the wiki..., of course I agree with you that notability and verifiability are perfectly all right and it even complies with all currently written wikipedia criteria (as I commented above in response). --Veressm (talk) 21:23, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Volano chat[edit]
The result was Speedy Delete and Salt. Useight (talk) 06:58, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Volano chat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
WP:Advert, non-notable product. Its claim to fame is was added to another company's marketing-oriented hall of fame.
This article in various forms has been speedied a couple of times and I thought it deserved a broader review. Toddst1 (talk) 17:14, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete as re-created content. « Diligent Terrier [talk] 17:28, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- G4 is only for stuff that's been AfD'ed before. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 17:49, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How about the fact Java is a world class client/server application? And the fact Volano is used by MANY different important webisties[2]; I think that's a pretty good reason it should remain...don't you? —Preceding unsigned comment added by HowsThis4AUserName? (talk • contribs) 19:45, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and salt I see no assertion of notability. I thought this should've been speedied again and salted. Enigma message 01:05, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you geniuses think it needs to be salted, then do the salting and post it and shut up about it already, otherwise it'll just keep coming back up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.227.9.228 (talk) 05:12, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If I were an administrator, I would do it myself. Thanks, Enigma message 06:14, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. BJTalk 17:34, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Lutherwood Camp and Retreat Center[edit]
- Lutherwood Camp and Retreat Center (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
To me, this seems classically non-notable, but both a prod and speedy tag have been declined, so the community should have an opportunity to tell me if my perception is incorrect. There are no references and no verifiability for what is certainly a very tenuous claim of notability. Accounting4Taste:talk 17:12, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Very weak delete without prejudice. The current version is unencyclopedic, but someone (not me) could certainly make something valid on this. – iridescent 18:02, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete for now, also without prejudice. Initial CSD was replaced with a notability prod, which was subsequently removed by an IP which made the article go from not notable to not notable including advertising. I would say this is better removed until notability is asserted or till someone without promotional intent created it. Excirial (Talk,Contribs) 18:34, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:57, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:57, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 17:59, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
.zav[edit]
- .zav (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable file format used by a single web site. No notable google hits outside file listings and this page. Blowdart | talk 16:30, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The file format is used and supported by 15 different Chinese manufacturers of small GPS units. The same file format is adopted by all 15 manufacturers to allow interchangeable point sharing between different units manufactured by differnet companies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zavvyy (talk • contribs) — Zavvyy (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Delete per nom. Non notable. Equally the user seems unprepared to consider what Wikipedai deems relevant. --Herby talk thyme 17:09, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My intention is to maintain and update the desciption over time, adding in lists of the units that use it etc. But I am not going to type that up all in one hit. I will come back to it and improve it as time goes on. So yes it may migrate into a detailed description similar to .ZIP format but it wont happen immediately.
The format is currently in use on the Guider being handed out at the Olympics in Beijing. You can see the Beijing guider here. http://www.pmr-technology.com/pmr/gpscompass/index.htm
So please leave it alone and give me a chance to finish the edit. Zavvyy (talk) 17:22, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
* Keep - The very fact that its in use as a recognised format by the Beijing Olympics should give it some notability. Also, with it being used by 15 companies, it should be workable into a valid article. You wanna delete .msi while you are at it? That's only used by a single company... Thor Malmjursson (talk) 16:15, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps you could find a reference to say it's used by those devices? The link above certainly doesn't, and I couldn't find one myself. --Blowdart | talk 18:07, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Vote Amended: Deletion Endorsed - I left a message for Zavvyy at their talk page asking for urgent contact to find out where they sourced that information from. The user has not bothered to contact me, so obviously doesn't want to hold on to this very much. Bin it. Scrap it. Chuck it. I can't waste my time dealing with people who won't help themselves when they need to! Sorry for holding up the AFD, Blowdart. Thor Malmjursson (talk) 16:00, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:58, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Userfy (non-admin closure), creator of article has agreed[18] to move this page to his userspace, where he will work on sourcing and re-writing. The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 17:29, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Heterosexualization[edit]
- Heterosexualization (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This is an essay, not an encyclopedia article. There may be something here about which a decent article could be written, but I think it would be very difficult to make an article out of this essay. Aleta Sing 16:29, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. —Aleta Sing 16:34, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Aleta, is it against the rules to simply move this article into Masculinity's userspace, where he could rewrite it and add references out of harm's way?--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 16:38, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That seems entirely reasonable to me, Fat Man, if Masculinity will agree to that course of action. I'd be glad to move it myself if it's agreed to go that route. Aleta Sing 16:42, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- i don't have a prob. i guess its better than being deleted altogether.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Masculinity (talk • contribs)
- That seems entirely reasonable to me, Fat Man, if Masculinity will agree to that course of action. I'd be glad to move it myself if it's agreed to go that route. Aleta Sing 16:42, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Aleta, is it against the rules to simply move this article into Masculinity's userspace, where he could rewrite it and add references out of harm's way?--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 16:38, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete for failing all sorts of official Wikipedia policies: unreferenced, fails WP:VER; non-neutral, fails WP:POV; original essay, fails WP:OR; opinion piece, fails WP:SOAP. And so on and so on... andy (talk) 16:41, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete for gross failure of NPOV and insubstantial sourcing. — James Cantor (talk) (formerly, MarionTheLibrarian)
- Delete—POV-ish essay failing several core policies such as WP:V and WP:NOR, and WP:SOAP. —Mizu onna sango15Hello! 17:22, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 23:18, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
DJ Noodles[edit]
This is a vanity page. The DJ Noodles page was created by the subject of the article. The main problem I have is that this does not meet our verifiability standards and also fails WP:MUSIC as well. There is a distinct lack of non-trivial coverage from reliable third party publications about this subject. JBsupreme (talk) 16:05, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Lots of credits but he fails WP:V. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 16:44, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Delete. Agree with all the above, but chance the article could be saved with a third party encyclopedic re-write (I know, I know). --Quartermaster (talk) 16:53, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:58, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - trivial coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 22:43, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. John254 17:42, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ellman's[edit]
- Ellman's (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
The only sources I'm finding about this chain pertain directly to its purchase by Service Merchandise. I'm finding nothing in the news sources that asserts any sort of notability for this regional chain. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!) 20:03, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. There are enough details in the coverage of the takeover to confirm the number of stores and the states in which the company operated. --Eastmain (talk) 21:57, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- But if all the coverage deals only with the Service Merchandise takeover, is it really notable? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!) 00:43, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps. The first few listings at http://books.google.com/books?q=Ellman%27s+catalog&btnG=Search+Books&lr= include some references to the company that might be useful for expanding the article. Since the company was only around until 1985, there may be further references only available in print. Note that web searches for
Ellman's
will also give results forEllman's reagent
. Everything considered, I would prefer to keep the article. --Eastmain (talk) 02:36, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps. The first few listings at http://books.google.com/books?q=Ellman%27s+catalog&btnG=Search+Books&lr= include some references to the company that might be useful for expanding the article. Since the company was only around until 1985, there may be further references only available in print. Note that web searches for
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wizardman 15:17, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep - It appears the company was once Atlanta's largest catalog showroom firm. Though online sourcing is thin, it does exist. Most sources probably will be offline. --Clubjuggle T/C 16:16, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:59, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Once (Nightwish album). PhilKnight (talk) 22:44, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Creek Mary's Blood[edit]
- Creek Mary's Blood (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Song is not a single or in any other way notable thus fail WP:MUSIC. What little information that is sourced is trivia. Also peppered with original research. Delete.
I am also nominating the following related page for the same reason:
- Ghost Love Score (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Rehevkor ✉ 15:11, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith talk 23:13, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith talk 23:16, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Does not meet the criteria for inclusion at WP:MUSIC#Songs. --Clubjuggle T/C 16:20, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect Creek Mary's Blood to Once (Nightwish album), but I'm a bit skeptical about redirecting GLS. Sceptre (talk) 19:08, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect both to Once (Nightwish album) for failing notability per WP:MUSIC#Songs. Plausible search term. Esradekan Gibb "Talk" 01:19, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect both and possibly merge some of the more relevent and verifiable content, like history of the songs, to Once (Nightwish album) as neither meets the critera for notability of songs. I don't think much of it is original research as, I'm thinking the content was probably updated by fans using interviews over the years so sourcing some of the content shouldn't be too hard except of course if the interviews were in Finnish which may be a reason why some of it can't be sourced in English. AngelOfSadness talk 12:17, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. John254 00:39, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Citroën C-Cactus[edit]
- Citroën C-Cactus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Listing on behalf of Ftr2k7 (talk · contribs) with reason: "This is horribly written in the style of an advert, farly obviously by Citroen PR people. No-one is stepping forward to change it, and I can't do much constructive editing to it as I know very little about the car. I say it should be taken down until more reliable info is available about the car", originally posted here. No opinion on deletion of article myself. roleplayer 15:05, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The person who wrote this article also added information in the same style to an article about a Toyota car, so I doubt Citroën PR people wrote this article. There are reliable sources about the car, and it meets WP:V and WP:N. That being said, the article currently has a promotional, biased tone. I'll take some of the promotional stuff out of the article, but I don't know much either and the article could do with editing by a knowledgeable person. Bláthnaid talk 15:25, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, needs to be cleaned up, not deleted. References look sound, just nees a tidy up. Per AfD policy "If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD", "tag the article with any noted problems such so everyone viewing the article are aware and therefore may fix it". Esradekan Gibb "Talk" 01:13, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep - Cleanup is not a rationale for deletion. Asenine 15:57, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 per WP:BLP1E or in this case 2E. Hersfold (t/a/c) 14:07, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Valerie Wilson (lottery winner)[edit]
Valerie Wilson (lottery winner) is far from a household name. Valerie Plume (nee Wilson) is far better known. Loveyourcar (talk) 21:38, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, this article should not be deleted.
- First of all, there is no requirement that a person be a "household name" to have a Wikipedia article. If that was the case, and, assuming you could actually find a way to establish which persons actually were "household names", then probably 97% of the bio articles would have to be deleted. Ridiculous argument.
- Secondly, the fact that this woman shares her name with Valerie Plame (not Plume) actually adds to the rationale for allowing this article to exist. The Plame affair was actually very much in the headlines at the time of the deli worker's amazing win, and Valerie Wilson Plame has several times changed her mind as to which name she wishes to use. Someone doing a search for Valerie Wilson might well come up with the deli worker (her story was on CNN, the New York Times, the wire services, etc.), and we want to make clear who is who.
Additionally, it needs to be recognized that there is, in all likelihood, a hidden agenda at play here. I am quite certain that User:Loveyourcar is the same editor who has attempted countless times to expunge information from this article that he does not approve of. Now he has done this always before as an anon using a plethora of IPs, but it is him. He has a long association with the New York Lottery, apparently, and has a longstanding grudge towards that Lottery because it awards their jackpots in a twenty-year annuity instead of as a lump sum. He has tried on multiple occasions to expunge the use of the words "jackpot" and "million dollar prize" from this article, because he does not believe that it is honest of the New York Lottery to describe its prizes in this manner. Since myself and the few other editors who have looked at this article have disagreed with him, he periodically comes back and makes another stab at getting rid of this. On one occasion, despite other editors having previously disagreed with his attempt to wipe out this woman from Wikipedia, he just eliminated her article by turning it into a redirect.
Look, I'll readily acknowledge that WP:N is an issue here. My personal feeling is that this person is interesting enough to warrant this entry, but I can respect and abide by the feelings of others on this matter. But I just want it recognized that WP:N is not the motive of this editor. Heck, I was cool with just a dab page--it was another editor who created this page. But even with just a dab page entry (which I think absolutely must exist, at a minimum), this guy just kept sabotaging it, eliminating the verbiage that violated his personal POV, but which reflected standard usage. So there you are. Unschool (talk) 04:59, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It can be argued whether or not she actually won a "million dollars" each time, since both prizes were annuitized. Of course, if somebody wins a "million dollars" in a Canadian lottery, it is not only lump sum, but tax-free. Many people do not realize US lottery prizes are "different" than elsewhere. However, the "true" definition of "jackpot" is a prize that INCREASES in VALUE until it is won (such as in Mega Millions, Powerball, or Hot Lotto). It is more correct to say she won the "top prize" both times. If she's that "lucky", does she play Mega Millions, which not only has a starting jackpot of $12 million, but also a cash option? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.179.123.198 (talk) 16:10, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- See what I mean? His beef is not with the notability of this subject or lack thereof. He is on a campaign to eliminate verbiage from articles on the New York Lottery which describe any of their prizes in a way that violates his sense of propriety. Even if he's correct (which other editors do not think), the way to address the issue is not to delete the article that causes the offense. I move for
- See what I mean? His beef is not with the notability of this subject or lack thereof. He is on a campaign to eliminate verbiage from articles on the New York Lottery which describe any of their prizes in a way that violates his sense of propriety. Even if he's correct (which other editors do not think), the way to address the issue is not to delete the article that causes the offense. I move for
- Note: This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. « Diligent Terrier [talk] 14:58, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Unschool, I think the nominator was merely suggesting that the article should be renamed. « Diligent Terrier [talk] 15:02, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. This is a near WP:BLP1E. There are two events, winning the lottery, but they are both the same. JBsupreme (talk) 16:07, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Notable only for winning the lottery. Happens all the time. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 18:58, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - not notable enough. « Diligent Terrier [talk] 00:03, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. First of all, people winning the lottery happens all the time, but people winning a million dollars twice does not (Please, someone introduce me to some such person). Nonetheless, as I said earlier, I readily acknowledge that there are WP:N issues here; I would not have created this article in the first place. And now, after reading WP:BLP1E, (which I had never read before, but do not find surprising), I have to agree. In fact, it's not a near WP:BLP1E, it is one, since what notability is extant here is from one matter: Being a two time lottery winner. So anyway, the editors voting for delete (with the exception of the nominator) are all persons from whom I have no reason to doubt their good faith, that this article should be deleted for notability reasons, and I can concur in this judgement. My only expectation would be to still retain the listing of this person in the current dab page, since both she and Valerie Plame Wilson entered the public consciousness (albeit at highly different levels) contemporaneously. Unschool (talk) 00:48, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Wouldn't it have been proper, in listing this article for deletion, for the creator of this article to have been notified? How does that work? Unschool (talk) 00:52, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep I think that this would work be more likely to be kept if it was part of an article about the New York Lottery, a link that currently redirects to a general article about Lotteries in the United States. Keep, because she does meet the notability standards, and the overused "single event" argument won't work in this instance. In answer to your question, Unschool, there's no provision for sending a special notice to the creator of an article unless it's recently been put up (most nominations are responses to new articles, although you sometimes get the type where someone has been going the extra mile to find something). Those persons who add to an article are no less important than the person who happened to be the creator of the article. Nor is there anything to stop you from notifying Ypetrachenko or any of the other persons on the list, although an administrator can take signs of such calling into account. It's not "punishable", but it's one of many factors in weighing an argument. Consider making this part of information about the NY lottery, rather than a particular person who won that lottery (twice) Mandsford (talk) 03:33, 10 August 2008 (UTC).[reply]
- Delete Winning a lottery makes you rich, but not notable. Ecoleetage (talk) 01:10, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Ecoleetage, you fail to address the point. No one has suggested that winning a lottery makes one notable. Unschool (talk) 01:12, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Or, put another way, winning two lottery prizes of one million dollars apiece, on two separate occasions, would make one notable, while winning "a" lottery once would not. Mandsford (talk) 12:22, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Not to be anti-semantic, but winning "a" lottery or winning "a" lottery on two separate occasions does not make one notable. Ecoleetage (talk) 12:35, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Lotteries in the United States. This could easily make an interesting fact at that article. By herself I don't think Valerie Wilson is notable.Nrswanson (talk) 14:02, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per WP:ILIKEIT. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 01:42, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
-
- Thanks for asking. I think this article is interesting enough to merit an exception to the normal criterion for inclusion. It is debatable whether this article meets that criterion, but I am saying the article should be kept because winning a lottery twice is about as likely to happen as
winning the lotteryI don't know what. So my !vote was a blatant act of IAR, as you can tell by looking at my edit summary. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 01:59, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]- Couldn't the relevent information just be kept in another article?Nrswanson (talk) 02:04, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- A lot of things could be done. I mean, look at the international space station. But that does not mean that they should be done. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 02:30, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Couldn't the relevent information just be kept in another article?Nrswanson (talk) 02:04, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for asking. I think this article is interesting enough to merit an exception to the normal criterion for inclusion. It is debatable whether this article meets that criterion, but I am saying the article should be kept because winning a lottery twice is about as likely to happen as
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. PhilKnight (talk) 01:07, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Scala, Inc[edit]
- Scala, Inc (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Delete - The company is not notable as well as their Software. It is only an excessive advertising article. Mediatemple (talk) 14:35, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Dating back to the 1980s, Scala inc's software has used in many different scenarios by many different companies to provide public information signage. Their profile includes Rabobank, IKEA, Bloomberg Television, Burger King, T-Mobile, Virgin Megastores, Disneyland Resort Paris, McDonald's, Warner Bros., Shell, Esso, Ericsson and The Life Channel. The software is also used in airports. Other product lines have been used to produce captions and credit rolls by video/television production companies worldwide. This makes this company very notable. Although improvements can be made, especially in adding citations, the tone of the article is generally encyclopeadic. Only one user has so far suggested deletion, with one other user seconding it without making comment as to why. ~~ Peteb16 (talk) 14:48, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. -- roleplayer 15:08, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Blatant vanispamcruftisement lacking independent reliable sources to verify notability. — 72.75.91.179 (talk · contribs) 00:25, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, not perfect, but asserts notability, has reliable references, and otherwise seems like a good start class article. --Jza84 | Talk 19:19, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- COMMENT Isn't it uncanny, that --Jza84 | Talk comes from the same location and has the same degree (BA) then Peteb16? I guess, that at least one of their (his?) votes must be striked through so. Mediatemple (talk) 15:47, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 01:00, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep. Article argues for notability and gives a few references. As per Jza84, it could use some improvement. I will also note that the nominator's limited contributions to Wikipedia have centered around getting this page deleted & getting Media Temple deleted. Due to the related nature of these companies, I hope that there is no WP:COI. --Karnesky (talk) 02:14, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment There is no relation between Scala Inc. and Mediatemple Inc. Last one is a Webhoster, the other one is a Software manufacturer! There is no reason to suspect a WP:COI Mediatemple (talk) 08:15, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep - company has been the subject of some limited coverage in reliable secondary sources. The depth of coverage is a bit thin but on balance it appears enough to narrowly meet the criteria of the notability guideline for companies. Euryalus (talk) 10:22, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Synergy 11:13, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Telephone numbers in Austria[edit]
- Telephone numbers in Austria (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Specifically fails Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a directory, overly detailed. Punkmorten (talk) 16:49, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This article reads like a how-to (ugh, why do people insist on using "you" so much?), but given the size of Category:Telephone numbers by country, many of which are sourced articles that don't read like how-tos (although they are unsourced wrecks). I think that this needs a further look. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 17:09, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks better, undoubtedly, but I'm still unsure that something like this belongs in WP. This could be considered a test case? Punkmorten (talk) 19:55, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wizardman 14:38, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. It's not written too well, but seeing as how other countries have encyclopedic versions of their important telephone numbers, then it would make sense for Austria to have one as well. Wizardman 14:38, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep. It's not a directory of telphone numbers in Austria, it's an article about the telephone numbering system in Austria. Squidfryerchef (talk) 16:56, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 01:00, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. This is an overview of how phone numbers are structured in a given country, as well as a list of a few of the "special numbers" such as the police. I don't consider that as a directory in the sense that should be excluded from Wikipedia, but as a legitimate topic for an article. --Itub (talk) 07:45, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 keep per WP:SNOW. No valid deletion reason given by nom. – iridescent 18:05, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Male pregnancy[edit]
- Male pregnancy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Come on, do we REALLY need an article about this? It's not really needed here, and it's unencyclopedic. I say delete. User:Islaammaged126 14:16, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
- Keep - the article needs work (especially the speculative section!), but there is both notability and enough information to keep it a viable article. Aleta Sing 14:34, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep no valid rationale given. JuJube (talk) 14:43, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep: unencyclopedic? How??? It's a valid topic, it's interesting, it's well referenced, what's wrong with it? -- roleplayer 14:45, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well I'm clearly prejudiced in favor of the article, but I'll add that "unencyclopedic" as a reason for deletion is as useless as it is common. "Delete, it's unencyclopedic" translates to "this shouldn't be in the encyclopedia because this shouldn't be in the encyclopedia," encompassing all possible problems at once and not saying much. It's better to specify.
Further, our articles on mathematics would be better off in a maths compendium. Our philosophy coverage would be more suited to a dedicated collection. We could blow up the encyclopedia without decreasing the sum total of human knowledge. Users have also been instructed (and the userbase generally agrees) to not care about the performance impact of our articles. In this light, how is anything "needed" here, and how is not being "needed" harmful?
Further further, this is the tenth most popular website in the world. A correspondingly large number of people have opinions about which parts of our content are false, wrong, immoral or bad for business. If we were to start deleting knowledge because we dislike it and not because of its merits as knowledge, how would deleting this because people think it's stupid be different from removing our pictures of Mohammed because *checks* 450 thousand people have signed a petition that declares them insulting? This is meant as a honest question, though it's admittedly a bit unfair.
Further further further, valid articles on ridiculous things are a speciality of Wikipedia's, an edge that no traditional encyclopedia can match due to the limitations of either its scope or its manpower. I could go on about this, but you're probably tired already, so keep in the absence of convincing arguments. --Kizor 15:34, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply] - Keep. I suppose one could argue that nothing in this encyclopedia is "needed", but the concept of male pregnancy is definitely an encyclopedic topic. JBsupreme (talk) 16:09, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep No valid rationale given for deletion. This is a fairly well sourced article on a perfectly valid topic, and the nominator'a rationale doesn't hold water. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 16:25, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep. This is about as likely to be deleted as Scientology is. Indeed, it needs some improvement, but it has potential to become a fair article. I might actually work on this one just to see how far it gets. —Mizu onna sango15Hello! 17:30, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep, Sorry but "We Don't Need It" isn't a good reason to delete an article. Doc StrangeMailboxLogbook 17:37, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, defaulting to keep. Hersfold (t/a/c) 13:58, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Antigua honeymoon murders[edit]
- Antigua honeymoon murders (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
- Ben Mullany (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This is a tragic event, but (unfortunately) not all that unusual; it has caused a press sensation, accusations of blame are flying about, alterations to police powers in Antigua are proposed, but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a newspaper, and this fails WP:NOTNEWS: "Articles about items in the news are only considered encyclopedic if they are verifiably of significant lasting and historical interest and impact." I have added an article about one of the victims, which also fails WP:BIO1E. JohnCD (talk) 14:02, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete It's sad, but not really needed on Wikipedia.--User:Islaammaged126 14:19, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Tragic story, but one that belongs at Wikinews, not here. Wikipedia is not a memorial site. --Clubjuggle T/C 16:36, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. That's what WikiNews is for (and this probably wouldn't meet their notability guideline there anyway). —Mizu onna sango15Hello! 23:28, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Antigua honeymoon murders and redirect Ben Mullany. If an event creates "sweeping legislative reforms in Antigua" it is unquestionably notable. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 04:25, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. -- brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:30, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. -- brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:31, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:31, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Since it's too early to tell if it's going to create any kind of change in Antiguan law, I vote it be deleted. It's a news story and a very sad one, but it's a.) not a very useful article as it stands and b.) not something that belongs in wikipedia. 213.94.249.141 (talk) 00:07, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, notability indicated by major press coverage. Everyking (talk) 07:43, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - "Many things are in the news and are reported by numerous reliable and verifiable sources... yet are not of historic or encyclopedic importance." (WP:NOTNEWS). JohnCD (talk) 09:08, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. This afd epitomizes that WP:BIAS is all about. These murders has a major effect on the Antiguan society. Because of this murder, there have been legislative attempts to overhaul and revamp police powers. In addition, it has renewed the always controversial death penalty debate. These facts are well-sourced in the article. Nonetheless, since it doesn't have a great societal effect on English society, editors consider it of no importance. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:15, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, The article should not be deleted because the murders are significant. They are an impetus for change in Antiguan law (and no, it is not too early for me to say so). In addition to the aforementioned changes cited in the article, there is more. Quoting the following article which can be found at http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/wales/7556016.stm, " Antigua's government will introduce the death penalty for crimes involving weapons in the wake of the murders of a British honeymoon couple. The new sentencing legislation will be for anyone who uses a gun or knife in a crime which results in death or serious injury. " The new law also imposes a requirement for judges to hand down a minimum sentence of 25 years in prison and enables judges to ask for a life sentence if need be in cases involving assault with a weapon. Under current law, the death penalty is applied only in murder cases. This legislation will apply it to any crime involving a knife/gun and to gun trafficking. Also, the previous law required that there be a maximum sentence of 25 years in prison for assault with a weapon. I'd say that these changes are pretty significant. The changes have been made in the article. Curvedatoms (talk) 05:18, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Let the families grieve in peace. Howard Alexander (talk) 21:41, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This premise that the families of the murder victims do not a Wikipedia article about the murders comes from where? I would actually think the opposite is true, and the families would like to publicize the murders so that (a) it shouldn't happen again and (b) the murders should get the proper punishment. But assuming you're correct, a Wikipedia article won't make much of a difference in their "peaceful greiving". There's already tons of newspaper articles world-wide about this issue. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 14:33, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Article meets the requirements of Wikipedia:Notability (criminal acts).Nrswanson (talk) 13:54, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 14:04, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Virtual Knights[edit]
- Virtual Knights (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
No evidence of notability for this book; no independent, reliable sources are apparent, book is published by a Vanity press -- The Red Pen of Doom 13:53, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- update In addition to the local interest TV spot mentioned below,
- Lexington Herald author profile
- and aparently "... while he was a lifeguard in 2005 to finally write down a story he had been mulling over in his head for a long time. He said some of the ideas for "Virtual Knights" came from his elementary school days and followed a story line he and others played on the school playground. Reutlinger said he wrote ..." 10/29/07, 1106925 bytes something in the Hastings Tribune
- However, even with these sources, the subject of the article does not appear to meet Wikipedia:Notability (books).-- The Red Pen of Doom 18:23, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Despite it being a self-published book, there is an article about the teenage author here on 9news.com. 9news says the book sold just 500 copies, I can't find any other reliable sources, and it looks to me like it was a local-interest news story, so I think the article should be deleted. Bláthnaid talk 15:04, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Bláthnaid talk 15:05, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I have no problem with self-published if other notability issues exist. However, I can find no third party reviews, Open Worldcat doesn't indicate a single library purchasing this work, and its Amazon sales rank is 3,159,691. Author could end up being the next Isaac Asimov, but not yet. --Quartermaster (talk) 15:25, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I had initially proposed deletion on the grounds that no reliable sources exist, and I stand by that assessment. The book can be confirmed to exist - amazon is sufficient for that - but there aren't any other sources that discuss the notability of the book. So, unfortunately, this article should be deleted. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 15:34, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, nonnotable selfpublished book, local news coverage isn't very significant. NawlinWiki (talk) 22:08, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete, smacks of self-promotion. Harry the Dog WOOF 13:18, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Self-published book which doesn't pass WP:BK. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 21:15, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Rjd0060 (talk) 15:18, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2Wings[edit]
- 2Wings (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Contested PROD. Notability not asserted per WP:BAND. The Czech Wikipedia article 2Wings was created just 21 minutes after this one, and is in exactly the same (bad) format, so can't be relied upon to help verify notability in the absence of a Czech language version of google. A search on English google for "2Wings Czech band" returns 54 unique hits. roleplayer 13:45, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. -- Bláthnaid talk 15:07, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith talk 23:57, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete per
{{db-band}}
. « Diligent Terrier [talk] 15:59, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Rjd0060 (talk) 15:18, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
David DeAngelo[edit]
- David DeAngelo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
No notability and references put which link to blogs etc, to pad out and give the illusion of references. In fact, there are only a handful of mentions of him in WP:RS -[19], some of which are press releases or an article saying he spams people with advertising. Non-notable, promotional intent. Presumably in the previous debate people say they would add WP:RS, but this is three years on and they aren't genuinely there to a sufficient extent, and probably never will be as they don't and won't exist. Sticky Parkin 13:41, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete. The article as it is currently written is unambiguously spam and appears be gaming the system (see nominator's comment about padded references, etc.). I urge other editors to take the time (at least a few minutes) to examine the article, its style, and the references. Particularly galling is a list of "Superseeded" DVD's and CD's that are "no longer for sale." Finally, searching the proprietary OCLC WorldCat (not Open WorldCat) which allows for refined searching by specific authors, of all of his numerously listed works in his article, only one library in the catalog appears to own anything by him (LA County Public owns the 12 CD set Interviews with dating gurus) and that item is self-published by DeAngelo. --Quartermaster (talk) 15:42, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment on OCLC WorldCat - this is a database of 95 million bibliographic records contributed by 60,000 member libraries in 112 countries. --Quartermaster (talk) 15:49, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, anyone with even tangential exposure to the seduction community has heard of this guy, he is one of the major players (no pun intended). Aldrich Hanssen (talk) 18:00, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Non-notable outside of niche community. The tone is strongly promotional and like most of the 'seduction' articles seems to feed on itself in circular fashion. Rob Banzai (talk) 19:04, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The guy's got 226,000 GHits. Has anyone tried pasting it into that little box to the right of the address bar? Aldrich Hanssen (talk) 02:19, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, i agree it could be a better page, but that doesn't mean delete it; i agree 100% with Aldrich. Scholarus (talk) 02:38, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep the extensive set of references should speak for themselves here, really, but in any case this person has received non-trivial coverage by multiple third party publications. That's the end. JBsupreme (talk) 03:57, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I am not an experienced Wikipedia editor, and I won't attempt to bring any of the numerous Wikipedia policies to my defense in asserting this opinion. I am simply a user of Wikipedia, one of the many to whom, I believe, you would be doing a disservice by deleting this article. I found out about David DeAngelo and his works through an online dating site. After going through his works, I found them very useful. I thought I'd look up DeAngelo on Wikipedia, and I did, and in doing so I found links to the "seduction community" and other major players in it, such as Ross Jeffries, whom I had never heard about before. Had Wikipedia not had an article about DeAngelo, I would never have found out about this seduction community and these other gurus like Jeffries. The wonder of Wikipedia is that it allows human knowledge to be tied together in a logical way, such as linking DeAngelo and Jeffries together through the seduction community. So, while I agree that the article on DeAngelo perhaps goes into a little too much detail on his specific teachings, and could use a clean-up, I nonetheless repeat my assertion: if you delete this article, you'd be doing a disservice to people who, like me, would look up DeAngelo on Wikipedia, find nothing, but, unlike me, would not be led to other information that may be useful to them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.235.127.108 (talk) 01:53, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I'll be the first to admit that I think that this guy is perpetuating the problems guys have with his "cocky and funny" method and that I stand against everything he teaches. I hate the seduction community. However, that's not a sufficient reason to delete this article or any article associated with the community. There are quite a few editors who tend to move for deletion on these seduction articles because they obviously disapprove of the community's methods. The seduction community and DeAngelo are notable, and are worth including. --Quintin3265 (talk) 22:08, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep A simple google search turns up numerous references and articles from many sources. True, this article needs a lot of cleanup and reads like an ad, but that doesn't mean deletion is necessary. For those who want deletion on an ideological basis, he's not a scam artist-I was skeptical but desperate when I ordered his work, but the products did more than advertised. Also, unlike most of the "seduction community" he strongly respects women, values honesty, and promotes long-term relationships. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.62.16.38 (talk) 02:57, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, I'm am absolutely astounded beyond belief a person would put up for deletion David DeAngelo. Especially an editor who has recently been making a major contribution to discussions and articles on the seduction community, please do educate yourself on this topic least you make again another blunder of this magnitude. Yes, this article does need some editor work on it but anybody with even the most basic level of knowledge on this topic will know David DeAngelo is one of the most key subjects in this area that there is. Mathmo Talk 11:08, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Blunder Keep, I'm appalled... APPALLED... that the David DeAngelo article would be nominated for deletion. Just look at the intro paragraph! It has three references! Two from Donovan and one from "Dan and Jennifer." The section on his background is sourced with references from Cliff and Neil Strauss. If you knew as much as Cliff about this topic, you would not have made this mistake. If people say they are going to add reliable sources, you are just going to have to trust that people will add reliable sources. Three years might just not be enough time. I am with Mathmo in that I hope that you educate yourself before you make another blunder of this magnitude. AfD is not for cleanup. And AfD is not for someone who is one of the most key subjects in this area. -- Swerdnaneb 15:35, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "Dan and Jennifer" are cited? Really? Had I known such authoritative sources were in Pagan nee Angelo's corner I would probably have not (erroneously, as I now see) voted to delete. A genuine thanks for the "heads up." When I have the time I'll head on over to the Reliable Source Noticeboard and work on getting these folks more universally recognized! WorldCat's bias against "Dan and Jennifer" is well known in my circles. --Quartermaster (talk) 16:28, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This article does not at all seem to me to be spammy. I imagine that if it were written by DD it would sould very different. This article might not be perfect, but I feel it is nominated for deletion due to some individuals not liking the subject matter instead of an objective look at how encyclopedic it is. If it's just that problem then just clean it up. Don't let the thought police run amok here.Itsme2003 (talk) 02:07, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Obvious hoax that fails WP:V. TerriersFan (talk) 21:44, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Tony Gustavson[edit]
- Tony Gustavson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
As the article is now, there is a strong doubt whether it is verifiable. Gustavson only gets 20 hits on google. The person that is most likely meant is Tony Gustavsson, whose article is up for speedy deletion. Gustavsson is coach of Hammarby, however, he was born in Sweden, not Spain, and in 1973, not in '54. I do not know who the '54 Spaniard is, so the article should be deleted either due to WP:V or WP:NOT. Gunnar Hendrich (talk) 13:05, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Text and infobox copy/pasted from Juande Ramos, with insufficient changes to make it about Gustavsson. I see that Tony Gustavsson has been deleted; this one should go, too. Deor (talk) 15:08, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:16, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Saints Row, leaving open the option to merge sourced content from the history to that or another article, insofar as such a merge is supported by consensus. We have consensus here that this does not deserve an article of its own, but several people have expressed the opinion that a partial merger might be worthwhile. Sandstein 18:12, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Stilwater[edit]
- Stilwater (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Primarily non-notable fictional location (a single ref is a developer's blog, this information is more likely useful in a development section for either "Saints Row"/"Saints Row 2". Explicity layout of the city is unnecessary, and falls in WP:GAMEGUIDE. High-level details of city can be integrated into main game articles as needed. MASEM 12:37, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or merge to Saints Row or Saints Row 2. Way too much detail about a fictional city in a computer game. JIP | Talk 12:41, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- In my personal opinion, that's not a viable reason. Look at Liberty City from GTA.Attitude2000 (talk) 03:12, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That article, as with Vice City and San Andreas (Grand Theft Auto), need the same treatment that has to be considered here; in that case, the fictional cities can be described in a summary "Locations in the GTA series" article and covering high level details. Since for SRow, there's only one city, it can be discussed in the context of the games. --MASEM 18:27, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- In my personal opinion, that's not a viable reason. Look at Liberty City from GTA.Attitude2000 (talk) 03:12, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 12:49, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I think it is best to keep. As both Saint Row and Saint Row 2 takes place at the same location. --SkyWalker (talk) 15:53, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteRedirect to Saints Row — Lack of verifiable, third-party sources and fails the general notability guideline. The main problem lies in that there are lacks any extensive outside coverage — something that the blog, verifiable or not, does not address. MuZemike (talk) 18:16, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]- Keep due to coverage in multiple verifiable third-party sources which demonstrates notability. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 16:43, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- None of those sources talk about Stilwater - they refer to the name of the city as to establish the setting. I've played the first and recognize that there is little that can actually be said about the city that doesn't become a fiction tourist guide or gameguide. --MASEM 17:05, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- They verify it in enough of a manner that suggests we can and should cover it somehow or other, i.e. I don't see any pressing need to redlink the article. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 17:20, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It can be covered in Saints Row, the idea shouldn't be buried and that article can have a Setting section using an {{anchor}} tag, with a redirect from Stilwater to there, in order to retain high-level information about the city. But the news.google.com articles don't support any significant details on the reasoning or creative aspect of the city to warrant much more discussion; that's only supported by the one developer blog that's already sourced, and that doesn't given significance. What's in that blog can be used to build up a development section in either game's article, but alone is not sufficient for an article. --MASEM 17:31, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Why then not boldly redirect instead of having an AFD? --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 17:45, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Bolding redirecting articles is something that the community frowns upon (see TTN). And I was only thinking deletion until other points were brought up (in which case a merge makes more sense, but too late in the process to go there now). --MASEM 18:27, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It's never too late to merge. We aren't bound by any one five day Afd. And I don't think the community is really against redirects per User:T-rex/essays/the more redirects the better. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 23:38, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The community does not frown on boldy redirecting articles—in fact, we encourage it here. What the community does frown on is boldy redirecting articles en masse without discussion, edit-warring to enforce those redirects, and in general not "work[ing] collaboratively and constructively with the broader community". Simply "boldly redirecting" should not be confused for the type of behavior for which TTN was admonished. AfD is an inherent source of conflict and should be avoided if there are other reasonable solutions. To prove that an AfD nomination is more disruptive than a bold redirect, one may merely conduct a thought experiment: Imagine that an editor had nominated articles for AfD at the same rate and volume at which TTN redirected articles, and repeatedly nominated them (again at the same rate and volume as TTN's reversions-to-redirect) when not getting the desired results: this would have likely resulted in a perma-ban rather than just editing restrictions. There is clearly a difference between being bold and being tendentious. DHowell (talk) 03:27, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Bolding redirecting articles is something that the community frowns upon (see TTN). And I was only thinking deletion until other points were brought up (in which case a merge makes more sense, but too late in the process to go there now). --MASEM 18:27, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Why then not boldly redirect instead of having an AFD? --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 17:45, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It can be covered in Saints Row, the idea shouldn't be buried and that article can have a Setting section using an {{anchor}} tag, with a redirect from Stilwater to there, in order to retain high-level information about the city. But the news.google.com articles don't support any significant details on the reasoning or creative aspect of the city to warrant much more discussion; that's only supported by the one developer blog that's already sourced, and that doesn't given significance. What's in that blog can be used to build up a development section in either game's article, but alone is not sufficient for an article. --MASEM 17:31, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- They verify it in enough of a manner that suggests we can and should cover it somehow or other, i.e. I don't see any pressing need to redlink the article. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 17:20, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- None of those sources talk about Stilwater - they refer to the name of the city as to establish the setting. I've played the first and recognize that there is little that can actually be said about the city that doesn't become a fiction tourist guide or gameguide. --MASEM 17:05, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or redirect to Saints Row: Without substantial coverage in reliable third-party sources, this article can't meet the general notability guideline, let alone its burden of proof in our verifiability policy. The only coverage in reliable third-party sources is trivial, mentioning the name of the location, but not offering any meaningful facts that we can verify. Randomran (talk) 20:02, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Subject is not notable. No reliable third-party source explicitly discusses the subject in detail, thereby showing that there is no significant or substantial coverage per WP:GNG and WP:NOBJ. Article's nature is more of a virtual travel guide than one discussing conceptualization and development of the virtual setting, hence a violation of WP:NOTGUIDE and WP:VG/GL. Jappalang (talk) 03:04, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:JNN is not a valid reason for deletion. The article is suitable covered in reliable third-party sources and therefore meets the general notability guideline and is consistent with What Wikipedia is. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 03:11, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not a fair characterization of Jappalang's comment. He explained that there were no reliable third party sources, which evidently there aren't. The WP:BURDEN is on people wanting to keep to prove those sources exist. Because right now, the article has nothing of the sort. All you've done is WP:JUSTAPOLICY. If the multiple third-party sources on Stilwater exist, then WP:PROVEIT. Randomran (talk) 04:54, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Already have as indicated earlier in the discussion. The burden is on those wanting to delete. We're in the business of cataloging human knowledge and we only redlink articles when we are persuaded compellingly that no sources can ever exist, but as mentioned above, the coverage is substantial enough for an article on Wikipedia in some manner, whether it's as keep, or merge, or redirect without deletion, but I have seen nothing to suggest the article and edit history must be redlinked. In any event, GameSpot asked "Is it worth paying a visit to the crime-infested city of Stilwater? Indeed it is, and you can see why in our video review." --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 05:04, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The video review is titled "GameSpot Video: Saints Row Video Review", not "GameSpot Video: Stilwater Video Review". Neither does it give significant coverage of subject concerned. Please at least understand the concept of significant or substantial coverage, properly read others' opinions, and go through the links you frequently bring up. Fillibustering discussions with these inane actions, trying to prove by assertion is tendentious editing. Jappalang (talk) 07:17, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please do not filiburster or engage in tendentious editing. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 17:09, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That is incorrect. See WP:BURDEN. "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. ... If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it. ... Any material lacking a reliable source may be removed." Randomran (talk) 15:06, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No. The burden lies on those trying to delete, which is why we default to keep when we have no consensus. As reliable, third party sources have been presented this article should be kept. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 17:09, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You are making a gross misinterpretation. The no-consensus-keep does not change the WP:BURDEN of WP:VERIFIABILITY, which is that the onus is on someone to show that the sources exist. You say there are reliable third party sources, but the article contains ZERO. "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." Randomran (talk) 18:22, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not really worried there since reliable, third party sources have already been presented, regardless of whether they have been incorporated into the article. We're here to write an encyclopedia first and barring there's some overwhelming reason an article can never be improved and we desperately need to halt all work on it immediately, then it shouldn't be redlinked. That burden therefore rests on those trying to delete to convince us that there's some urgent need to stop all work and hide the edit history immediately. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 18:31, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Where have these reliable third party sources been presented? That's the issue. Right now, none of have been found, and so the article completely fails the WP:V policy. Randomran (talk) 18:51, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Above and in the article. I could hold up a banana to someone and no matter how many times they say they don't see a banana, it doesn't change the fact that I have presented one. I am not going to keep repeating myself by reshowing sources already shown. In any event, the article completely passes the WP:V policy. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 19:00, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- All I see is a google search with trivial mentions of "stilwater", with no additional information. WP:SOURCEITORDROPIT. Randomran (talk) 19:05, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- These are all good enough for inclusion in some manner. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 19:07, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- All I see is a google search with trivial mentions of "stilwater", with no additional information. WP:SOURCEITORDROPIT. Randomran (talk) 19:05, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Above and in the article. I could hold up a banana to someone and no matter how many times they say they don't see a banana, it doesn't change the fact that I have presented one. I am not going to keep repeating myself by reshowing sources already shown. In any event, the article completely passes the WP:V policy. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 19:00, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Where have these reliable third party sources been presented? That's the issue. Right now, none of have been found, and so the article completely fails the WP:V policy. Randomran (talk) 18:51, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not really worried there since reliable, third party sources have already been presented, regardless of whether they have been incorporated into the article. We're here to write an encyclopedia first and barring there's some overwhelming reason an article can never be improved and we desperately need to halt all work on it immediately, then it shouldn't be redlinked. That burden therefore rests on those trying to delete to convince us that there's some urgent need to stop all work and hide the edit history immediately. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 18:31, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Is the name Stillwater or Stilwater?. Because most sites report has Stillwater not Stilwater [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25] --SkyWalker (talk) 06:21, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The name is irrelevant. The whole point is the sites brought up (of which two are unreliable per Wikipedia standards, and one is a duplicate of another) are all talking about the game and what the player can do in the game. They are not talking about how and why the virtual model of the Stil(l)water is designed the way it is, nor do they talk about people raving about the city, its design, and the buildings, but rather on the gameplay. To repeat, there is no significant or substantial coverage of the subject in those sites. Jappalang (talk) 07:17, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The results in Google news are reliable by Wikipedia's standards. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 17:07, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Already have as indicated earlier in the discussion. The burden is on those wanting to delete. We're in the business of cataloging human knowledge and we only redlink articles when we are persuaded compellingly that no sources can ever exist, but as mentioned above, the coverage is substantial enough for an article on Wikipedia in some manner, whether it's as keep, or merge, or redirect without deletion, but I have seen nothing to suggest the article and edit history must be redlinked. In any event, GameSpot asked "Is it worth paying a visit to the crime-infested city of Stilwater? Indeed it is, and you can see why in our video review." --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 05:04, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not a fair characterization of Jappalang's comment. He explained that there were no reliable third party sources, which evidently there aren't. The WP:BURDEN is on people wanting to keep to prove those sources exist. Because right now, the article has nothing of the sort. All you've done is WP:JUSTAPOLICY. If the multiple third-party sources on Stilwater exist, then WP:PROVEIT. Randomran (talk) 04:54, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:JNN is not a valid reason for deletion. The article is suitable covered in reliable third-party sources and therefore meets the general notability guideline and is consistent with What Wikipedia is. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 03:11, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Cull, merge and redirect - the subject's notability is painfully questionable and its article is far too over-detailed for an encyclopedia article on such a subject. However, it may be more prudent to cut the article down to size, cleaning out all that excessive detail and other fancruft so we're left with something actually useful for readers who haven't played the game before merging into the series article. The location should be covered in some small and concise amount in either the series article in setting sections of the two games it appears in. Such information is useful to the comprehensiveness of the other articles as it provides context to readers for the game's setting. It just shouldn't have a separate article; redistributing the information and redirecting to the series article seems like the best way to me.-- Sabre (talk) 09:04, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - No assertion of notability through reliable sources. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 20:57, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reliable sources have been presented above that assert notability. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 20:59, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Except that they don't. Randomran (talk) 22:38, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- They do to any reasonable degree. Take something like "Saints Row 2 UK Hands-on: Trouble in the hood as we take a stroll around Stillwater," which mentions "Stillwater's credentials over Liberty City" or "the luminous palette that brings Stillwater to life". These types of comments are peppered throughout reviews of the games, some of which even mention "Stilwater" in the titles of the reviews and in reviews made not just in America but across the pond as well. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 22:44, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Except that they don't. Randomran (talk) 22:38, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reliable sources have been presented above that assert notability. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 20:59, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I see that LGRdC has added some references with comments about the city (see this diff for example). While these barely make this notable, we still have the issue that the content of this article falls somewhere between a fictional travel guide and a game guide, both which are details that WP does not cover. These points can be added to either game article with a more succinct version of the city, but a full article is still not justified with these references. --MASEM 23:35, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That strikes me though as cause for merging and redirecting without deletion. For what it's worth, I'm not really persuaded with the vocal minority argument that we shouldn't be a game guide. Given all the editors who create and work on those kinds of articles and all the hits they get, as long as they are verifiable, I don't really see why not to cover them or that the claim that we shouldn't are really consistent with what the community wants in practice. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 23:38, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That's why I'm still saying that its appropriate to merge (however, its up to an admin to close this in some fashion, I can't since I'm involved). We've been through the issue of being a game guide numerous times already through WT:VG and other AFDs, and consensus keeps showing that we do not include content that is only useful to someone playing the game, even if it is verifible, as it falls under the general principles of WP:NOT. --MASEM 23:43, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not persuaded of that because in those discussions the same editors which are far less numerous than those who create and work on the articles or who read them make that case. And who knows, maybe sooner or later they too will change their mind or be outvoiced. I see no reason not to keep ideas out there for others to pick up on. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 23:45, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- But it's not just video game editors, it's a long standing policy that WP does not tell people this level of detail. An encyclopedia is not the same as a textbook or guidebook for any topic regardless of how else the content meets WP's policies - game guides fall into these. This information can be located in a general game wiki, but not on Wikipedia. --MASEM 23:49, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- We're more than a regular encyclopedia though and have the disc space and interest to cover this kind of material in a manner that published encyclopedias reasonably could not. It may be somehow consistent with the ever disputed and evolving policies, but it's also a long-standing practice of editors to create and work on such articles and so long as what they write is true, then I say let them as doing so in spinoff and sub-articles only makes us that much more relevant, useful, valuable, etc. of a comprehensive reference guide. An alternate solution could be more vigorously linking ro soft rediecting to other wikis. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 23:57, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I completely agree on the later (and thus expect the extra information here to be found in some Saints Row wiki - I don't know if one exists, but its worthwhile there). However, be aware that the goals of an encyclopedia and the goals of a reference guide are two very different things, and we've long determined that we're the encyclopedia route. --MASEM 00:02, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I find that tables or lists of information on video games are to those articles what the table of elements is to an article on elements or a list of Academy Award winners is to an article of the Academy Awards. I am not suggesting that these fictional lists are necessarily as notable as the real world examples, but that they are sufficiently notable by their own measurement to be needed for fully understanding these subjects, too and anyone who is likely to click on them will benefit from comparing and contrasting that kind of information with other similar articles. If people use an encyclopedia for research and to evaluate information, there's something to be learned by examining one fictional location from another, i.e. it reveals something to the readers/researchers about how video games present locations differently and again so long as it is verifiable then there's something to be learned there too as not every video game is covered in strategy guides and nor does every game review specifically mention the locations. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 00:12, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I completely agree on the later (and thus expect the extra information here to be found in some Saints Row wiki - I don't know if one exists, but its worthwhile there). However, be aware that the goals of an encyclopedia and the goals of a reference guide are two very different things, and we've long determined that we're the encyclopedia route. --MASEM 00:02, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- We're more than a regular encyclopedia though and have the disc space and interest to cover this kind of material in a manner that published encyclopedias reasonably could not. It may be somehow consistent with the ever disputed and evolving policies, but it's also a long-standing practice of editors to create and work on such articles and so long as what they write is true, then I say let them as doing so in spinoff and sub-articles only makes us that much more relevant, useful, valuable, etc. of a comprehensive reference guide. An alternate solution could be more vigorously linking ro soft rediecting to other wikis. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 23:57, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- But it's not just video game editors, it's a long standing policy that WP does not tell people this level of detail. An encyclopedia is not the same as a textbook or guidebook for any topic regardless of how else the content meets WP's policies - game guides fall into these. This information can be located in a general game wiki, but not on Wikipedia. --MASEM 23:49, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not persuaded of that because in those discussions the same editors which are far less numerous than those who create and work on the articles or who read them make that case. And who knows, maybe sooner or later they too will change their mind or be outvoiced. I see no reason not to keep ideas out there for others to pick up on. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 23:45, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That's why I'm still saying that its appropriate to merge (however, its up to an admin to close this in some fashion, I can't since I'm involved). We've been through the issue of being a game guide numerous times already through WT:VG and other AFDs, and consensus keeps showing that we do not include content that is only useful to someone playing the game, even if it is verifible, as it falls under the general principles of WP:NOT. --MASEM 23:43, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That strikes me though as cause for merging and redirecting without deletion. For what it's worth, I'm not really persuaded with the vocal minority argument that we shouldn't be a game guide. Given all the editors who create and work on those kinds of articles and all the hits they get, as long as they are verifiable, I don't really see why not to cover them or that the claim that we shouldn't are really consistent with what the community wants in practice. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 23:38, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, or merge or redirect to Saints Row, depending on the subject's notability (which I do not wish to take the time to investigate right now). I see no good reason to delete when an appropriate and obvious redirect target exists. DHowell (talk) 03:27, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Cull, merge and redirect per Sabre. No sign that this topic could support its own article (and no, a two-sentence Reception section and a link to Google doesn't cut it for me). Agree with nom that the majority of this current article is not suitable for wikipedia (WP:NOT), so that's where the culling comes in. – sgeureka t•c 06:10, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 deletion (G3). -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:52, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2020 Laguna Summer Olympics[edit]
- 2020 Laguna Summer Olympics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Appears to be a hoax, or a currently non-notable bid. Google throws up nothing by that name, and nothing concerning Laguna and Olympics. J Milburn (talk) 11:04, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete. At best, fails WP:CRYSTAL, but is more likely a clear hoax. The venue of the 2016 Olympics isn't even decided yet, let alone the 2020 Olympics, which won't be decided until 2013. The Philippines do have a bid for the Games, but it is for Pasay City, not Laguna. --Clubjuggle T/C 12:08, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Tagged speedy G3. The host city of the 2020 Olympics will be known in 2013. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 12:15, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 14:03, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rififi (2009 film)[edit]
- Rififi (2009 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
- Delete per WP:NFF, films which have not yet commenced principal photography should not have articles. Mayalld (talk) 10:16, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Very Strong Keep because it was nominated by Mayalld 203.194.15.78 (talk) 10:23, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete nothing about has yet been confirmed. BUC (talk) 11:26, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails the guidelines for future films. Lugnuts (talk) 12:04, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, not a crystal ball. JIP | Talk 12:41, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not confirmed, unrefrenced. Create when the film begins production. RedThunder 13:04, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 13:12, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Explicity fails WP:NFF. I couldn't find any sources for the supposed filming and release dates, but a Variety article from 2005 strongly suggests development hell. PC78 (talk) 13:21, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fails WP:NFF. --Clubjuggle T/C 16:26, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Complete failure of WP:NFF, no sources provided anyway. Cliff smith talk 16:28, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as current article fails Wikipedia:NFF. Article is also completely unsourced, not even linked back to its IMDB page. Schmidt (talk) 06:05, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Suggest User talk:TAP1000 consider including sources for this remake of the 1955 film Rififi. Paying mind to [26], [27],
[28], [29], [30], [31], and [32] while searching out more, if notabilty is to be established before the end of this AfD. Schmidt (talk) 06:05, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per not meeting the notability guidelines for future films. It was planned a long time ago, and it has not come around. No guarantee that it ever will. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 03:37, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 14:02, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Live At Parc Des Princes DVD[edit]
- Live At Parc Des Princes DVD (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
- Delete putative future DVD release, referenced only from blogs, per WP:CRYSTAL Mayalld (talk) 10:11, 9 August 2008 (UTC) Mayalld (talk) 10:11, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep Notable DVD release of Notable band. 203.194.15.78 (talk) 10:19, 9 August 2008 (UTC) — 203.194.15.78 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Delete as, like Mayalld said, it's only referenced from blogs i.e none of the information is backed up by reliable sources. The article itself doesn't meet the general notability guideline and the DVD has a spectualated release for October/November (WP:CRYSTAL) and yet nothing so far, that I know of, has been officially confimed by the band or record company about this release. AngelOfSadness talk 15:15, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. No reliable sources yet. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 16:27, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:RS. Cliff smith talk 19:06, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 23:22, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Daisy Whitney[edit]
- Daisy Whitney (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Not really notable enough, methinks. Chris (talk) 09:39, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. "proud progeny of CBS News legend... " Oh, dear. Still, the article could be de-peacocked; but after a trawl through Google I agree with nom, doesn't really meet WP:CREATIVE or WP:ENTERTAINER. JohnCD (talk) 15:34, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom - I found plenty of articles that she wrote, however couldn't find any that were about her. PhilKnight (talk) 22:49, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 keep per withdrawal by nominator and per WP:SNOW (non-admin closure). RedThunder 13:16, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Portuguese Settlement, Malacca[edit]
- Portuguese Settlement, Malacca (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non notable community site. H2H (talk) 09:28, 9 August 2008 (UTC) What Gene said was true. H2H (talk) 10:01, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Searches of Google, Google News, and Google Books show abundant WP:RS coverage to satisfy any notability concerns. Besides, settlements are considered inherently notable. Nominator should state the supposed problem with this village than just "not notable." • Gene93k (talk) 09:59, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Certainly a significant (notable) group within Malaysian culture. Recommend speedy keep as WP:SNOW. WWGB (talk) 12:37, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Only the nominator seems to want deletion, all other participants either express a keep or merge/redirect opinion. (non-admin close) RMHED (talk) 02:55, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Crown Dependency of Forvik[edit]
- Crown Dependency of Forvik (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
- Delete. Hoax. Wikipedia's policy for hoaxes is: "Do not create hoaxes!" This article is about a crown dependency that doesn't exist. Therefore, this article qualifies as a hoax. Adam233 (talk) 09:22, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and no redirect. There was a clear lack of consensus previously for a merge. I do not know about other editors, but I find it suspicious that Adam233, a new user with no editing history on Wikipedia before this nomination for deletion, does so a couple of days after Stuart Hill's announcement of a visit to Forvik Island by a London Times journalist, and also the filming of a segment for a new documentary, Islands of Britain (Martin Clunes presenting) - including photos. Might the clear passion of those who oppose the Forvik dependency declaration and concept be leading to sock and meatpuppetry? Is this AFD nomination perhaps to try and force through a merge or redirect by the 'back door'? As to the subject of the article itself, it is and remains a micronation with ongoing verifiable references as per the requirements of WP:MICROCON. Perhaps some might argue at a stretch that this is an article about a hoax, but that is NOT the same as a hoax as proscribed in WP:Do not create hoaxes, and to list Crown Dependency of Forvik for deletion as one is certainly bending the guideline at a 90 degree angle, if not simply abusing it outright. - Dalvikur (talk) 16:49, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep- This guy's claim to independence is not legitimate, but that's not the same thing as this article being a hoax. Verifiable and stocked with reliable independent sources. Reyk YO! 11:05, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 11:49, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Forewick Holm, merging at editor's discretion. Not a hoax, but an article for Forvik is premature. Notability is not established yet. This is an odd news story at the moment unless Hill can make his claim stick, or at least convince the businesses he seeks that Forvik is semi-credible (e.g. Principality of Sealand). • Gene93k (talk) 12:08, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and no redirect. We have already discussed redirecting and merging the page, look at the talk page of Forewick Holm. Also, this is a micronation, not a hoax, it has references to support its existence. Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 13:09, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Existence does not establish notability. This self-styled entity needs to satisfy WP:ORG/WP:CORP. One splash of publicity doesn't do the job. If Hill can hold of the UK tax enforcement, that would be a start. If he can sell merchandise or attract "citizens" and investors, Forvik could establish some credibility. He's not there yet. • Gene93k (talk) 13:44, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- CD of Forvik is by definition a micronation (not an organisation or corporation) - your opinions on how "state-like" it is and how to judge how "state-like" it is are completely irrelevant. Also, please do not use straw man arguments, I was refuting the "CD of Forvik is a hoax" argument, I wasn't even discussing notability until now. One splash of publicity? Did you read the talk page I pointed out? This is just a complete repetition of old arguments along with one editor's opinions. Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 15:40, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Existence does not establish notability. This self-styled entity needs to satisfy WP:ORG/WP:CORP. One splash of publicity doesn't do the job. If Hill can hold of the UK tax enforcement, that would be a start. If he can sell merchandise or attract "citizens" and investors, Forvik could establish some credibility. He's not there yet. • Gene93k (talk) 13:44, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into Forewick Holm. But I wouldn't exactly term it a hoax, even if Mr Hill's attempts to sell something which doesn't belong to him are dubious. --MacRusgail (talk) 13:18, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: MacRusgail, this kind of discussion - about Hill's legal right to sell land plots to Shetland residents - is a perfectly valid topic of discussion, but let's leave that for Talk:Crown_Dependency_of_Forvik.
- Keep. The sources in the article satisfy notability requirements. I thought this went through AFD last year, but I might be wrong. Anyway, this is not a hoax because there is substantial third party media coverage. The text could be tweaked more with relation to this being something that isn't widely recognized, but the media sources given make this an viable article. 23skidoo (talk) 14:48, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Well, this article is a hoax in so far as the article is written as if there was a "Crown Dependency of Forvik". That's the same as if someone (Let's call him "John Doe".) tries to become Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and you write an article about him with the title "Prime Minister John Doe". Adam233 (talk) 17:20, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - that's why I support the merge with Forewick Holm, as there is little of interest on that island apart from this, and most of this is in Hill's imagination.--MacRusgail (talk) 17:43, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- We're repeating old arguments - remember, CD of Forvik is a micronation and Forewick Holm is an island, they are two completely different subjects. If Prime Minister John Doe created a micronation that had references, notability etc., then it is likely that an article on John Doe's micronation would be created and become a part of WP:MICRON's scope. The micronation exists, it's definitely not a hoax. Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 19:25, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Adam223, I notice that you have changed your comment about an hour and a half after I posted my last comment, so that in your example "John Doe" is now attempting to become Prime Minister of the UK. This is your attempt to make my last comment appear to be meaningless when I begin to discuss micronations, however the change can be seen in watchlists and history pages. We are not talking about a recognised country, we are talking about micronations - or "unrecognised state-like entities". CD of Forvik is a micronation, you still haven't described how Forvik is a hoax. CD of Forvik clearly exists. Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 21:17, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- (Well, I have clarified my comment because, obviously, you didn't understand it.) The point is that simply the fact that Forvik wants to be a crown dependency doesn't automatically make Forvik a crown dependency. Similarly, simply the fact that John Doe wants to be Prime Minister of the United Kingdom doesn't automatically make him Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. An article on "John Doe (politician)" would not be a hoax. But an article on "Prime Minister John Doe" would be a hoax. Adam233 (talk) 21:27, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- So John Doe is a politician now? You didn't mention that, maybe the comment would have been understood if it wasn't vague. The definition of micronation is unrecognised state-like entity.
- Is Forvik unrecognised? Definitely. Is Forvik state-like? Clearly it is, and therefore it is a micronation. It exists - it isn't a hoax. Why aren't you nominating all micronation articles for deletion? Atlantium claims that it is an empire, Hutt River claims that it is a principality. And does this affect their existence? Not at all! Because they are micronations, therefore they are unrecognised. Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 21:44, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Kosovo. They declared themselves a nation; by your logic it isn't. As well, your going on about some John Doe claiming to be PM is quite a bit of misdirection in your argument. --coldacid (talk|contrib) 04:49, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- So John Doe is a politician now? You didn't mention that, maybe the comment would have been understood if it wasn't vague. The definition of micronation is unrecognised state-like entity.
- (Well, I have clarified my comment because, obviously, you didn't understand it.) The point is that simply the fact that Forvik wants to be a crown dependency doesn't automatically make Forvik a crown dependency. Similarly, simply the fact that John Doe wants to be Prime Minister of the United Kingdom doesn't automatically make him Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. An article on "John Doe (politician)" would not be a hoax. But an article on "Prime Minister John Doe" would be a hoax. Adam233 (talk) 21:27, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Adam223, I notice that you have changed your comment about an hour and a half after I posted my last comment, so that in your example "John Doe" is now attempting to become Prime Minister of the UK. This is your attempt to make my last comment appear to be meaningless when I begin to discuss micronations, however the change can be seen in watchlists and history pages. We are not talking about a recognised country, we are talking about micronations - or "unrecognised state-like entities". CD of Forvik is a micronation, you still haven't described how Forvik is a hoax. CD of Forvik clearly exists. Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 21:17, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- We're repeating old arguments - remember, CD of Forvik is a micronation and Forewick Holm is an island, they are two completely different subjects. If Prime Minister John Doe created a micronation that had references, notability etc., then it is likely that an article on John Doe's micronation would be created and become a part of WP:MICRON's scope. The micronation exists, it's definitely not a hoax. Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 19:25, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - that's why I support the merge with Forewick Holm, as there is little of interest on that island apart from this, and most of this is in Hill's imagination.--MacRusgail (talk) 17:43, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. No redirect. Subject meets WP verifiability policy and notability guideline. Multiple reliable references cited. Spurious nomination. --Gene_poole (talk) 23:36, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I now note that Adam233 is a single purpose account - very likely a sockpuppet. The account's very first edit was this AfD nomination, and it has made no other contributions to WP. I suggest that any admins reading this immediately close the AfD and place a permanent block on the sock account, as it has obviously been created to disrupt WP and subvert consensus. --Gene_poole (talk) 12:49, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree, close this AfD, it's clear that this article won't be deleted completely. Only one editor wants to see this article go: Adam233. Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 14:16, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I also agree with closing for the same reasons. Note that I also stated that about Adam233, last night. --coldacid (talk|contrib) 18:44, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I now note that Adam233 is a single purpose account - very likely a sockpuppet. The account's very first edit was this AfD nomination, and it has made no other contributions to WP. I suggest that any admins reading this immediately close the AfD and place a permanent block on the sock account, as it has obviously been created to disrupt WP and subvert consensus. --Gene_poole (talk) 12:49, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and No Redirect as above. Also, AfD nominator Adam233 seems to have created this account solely for the purpose of listing this article for deletion, which stinks of either sockpuppetry, or an agenda. I can't assume good faith when someone starts off claiming hoax on something that isn't, especially with the record (or lack thereof) of this user. --coldacid (talk|contrib) 04:43, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: While Adam233 may yet prove their worth as an editor, right now certainly they look like a deceitful sock or meatpuppet as you say Onecanadasquarebishopsgate, Gene Poole and coldacid. Further this AFD nomination conveniently allows a rehash of previous arguments for redirect or merge which were previously rejected (see my edit of 16:49, 10 August 2008 above). - Dalvikur (talk) 19:01, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge with Forewick Holm. It worries me that we would choose to give any credence to what I regard as little more than a short-lived publicity stunt, (although I admire the enthusiasm of those interested in Micronations). My second choice would be Move to "Forvik (micronation)" as the current title is ( I believe) perpetuating a hoax. There is no such place - at least not in the sense that it is legitimised by the existence of a Lieutenant Governor representing the monarch . Ben MacDui 08:13, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: As many have clearly stated before, it is a micronation - your opinion on the micronation is irrelevant. It isn't recognised or legitimised because it is a micronation or an unrecognised state-like entity. WP:MICROCON is a convention that is half a decade old, and it is accepted and very clear on the naming of micronation articles: use the full name. The article also clearly explains that it is a micronation - it exists, there is no hoax. Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 11:42, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As I mentioned in the merge discussion, as far as I know there is no WP Policy on this subject, only WP:MICROCON's "Proposed Policy". As far as I am concerned the misleading nature of the claim to be a Crown Dependency has more weight than this "convention". I am not sure why you think my opinions are "irrelevant". Surely we are here to exchange opinions and perhaps improve the encyclopedia as a result? Ben MacDui 15:07, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As various people have stated, Forvik, micronation or not, cannot style itself a "crown dependency" without outside permission. --MacRusgail (talk) 15:43, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ben MacDui - Your opinions on the micronation specifically, are irrelevant - it doesn't matter whether anyone thinks it is a publicity stunt or completely serious, it is by definition a micronation. There is absolutely nothing misleading about it because the article clearly explains that it is a micronation (read the first sentence), we never said that its claim to crown dependency status is in anyway recognised. We need to stop talking about how much of a state it is because it really doesn't matter - it is a micronation, it is therefore unrecognised and state-like. "Crown Dependency of Forvik" is the name of this "creation", what would be even more misleading is giving the article a title that is not the title of the subject.
- MacRusgail - Micronations don't need outside permission, they are unrecognised and state-like, they can style themselves however they want. Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 16:01, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You may be right, you may be wrong, but in my view Forvik is neither 'state-like' nor a Crown Dependency. I accept your right to hold a different view, but your continued assertions that other editors positions are irrelevant is beginning to sound like a case of WP:OWN. Ben MacDui 17:00, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please stop using this complete straw man argument that I don't accept other's opinions. I have only ever stated that your opinion on the micronation itself is irrelevant (and not any other opinion) because it doesn't change the fact that it is a micronation. Myself and other editors have explained several times how Forvik is a micronation, what has made it a micronation - in other words we have backed up our claims with references and the definition of "micronation". I have explained how an opinion on how state-like the micronation is is irrelevant because it is still state-like, how similar it is to a recognised state does not matter whatsoever. If you don't believe that it is state-like, then please provide reasons, because with a flag, claimed land, motto, leader etc. I don't see what else it can resemble. Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 17:33, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ben MacDui, why not take this debate to Talk:Crown_Dependency_of_Forvik where it belongs. Your opinions above belong on the talk page of that article, not here. They are not relevant to the 'delete because it is a hoax' question that is the subject of this discussion, and it's clear the consensus so far is not with Adam233. Do you have anything to add on that subject? Dalvikur (talk) 19:24, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- By all means, if the article survives this discussion. Two points if I may. First I afraid I have to agree that Adam233's credentials are extremely suspect. I have had a long look at WP:SSP, but it would seem fruitless reporting the subject there as his/her edits are not ongoing and I am not interested in hazarding guesses as to the identity of the sock-puppeteer. Secondly, as I discovered to my cost some time ago, policy allows considerable latitude to closing admins (see Wikipedia:Guide to deletion#Closure who may base their decision on the arguments presented and their understanding of policy. I am not suggesting the consensus is with the nomination at present, but you can't just tally up the opinions as if they were votes. Ben MacDui 19:45, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Although I am not of course second guessing the admin's subsequent decision, please can you point out an actual argument for deletion according to WP:Do_not_create_hoaxes, because Adam233 certainly hasn't put one forward. Surprisingly. There are other topics of discussion here but I would appreciate you pointing out an actual argument for deletion from the discussion so far, which, after all this discussion is meant to be quite narrowly about. - Dalvikur (talk) 18:12, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That is a fair question. "Wikipedia does have articles about notable hoaxes describing them as hoaxes", so the logic would run that as the "Crown_Dependency_of_Forvik" exists, not as a genuine legal entity, but as a figment of its founder's imagination that the article is a hoax, but not described such. It is therefore a genuine subject for a deletion debate. Of course if the article were to point out that Forvik does not have crown dependency status and is unlikely ever to gain the same, or indeed any other formal recognition, then that might go some way to dealing with this objection. Ben MacDui 17:25, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- And we have already mentioned that in the article, by using the word micronation. It is unrecognised, and some micronations do little else but exist, sometimes as a creation from imagination (though this micronation is more than a basic internet simulation, as it has had some impact in reality). It is called Crown Dependency of Forvik because that is the name given to it by its creator. I think what you mean by it "not having crown dependency status" is that it is not recognised by the United Kingdom as a crown dependency and therefore it is close to being a hoax (am I right?) - that is not how micronations work. You bring up laws when really we already know that their claim might not have any legal backing - it is common in micronations. Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 18:28, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I do challenge Ben MacDui's view on this problem. The landing, claim and subsequent self-declaration has actually happened, and whether or not the legality of the claim can be established, it is something to be documented in an online encyclopedia. Only the bare facts have to be presented. Otherwise people will look elsewhere for the information. Wikipedia is starting to resemble an idiotic little dictatorship of B grade self-appointed editors squabbling over pretend issues. Vanderloo 15:12, 12 August 2008 (GMT)
- That is a fair question. "Wikipedia does have articles about notable hoaxes describing them as hoaxes", so the logic would run that as the "Crown_Dependency_of_Forvik" exists, not as a genuine legal entity, but as a figment of its founder's imagination that the article is a hoax, but not described such. It is therefore a genuine subject for a deletion debate. Of course if the article were to point out that Forvik does not have crown dependency status and is unlikely ever to gain the same, or indeed any other formal recognition, then that might go some way to dealing with this objection. Ben MacDui 17:25, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Although I am not of course second guessing the admin's subsequent decision, please can you point out an actual argument for deletion according to WP:Do_not_create_hoaxes, because Adam233 certainly hasn't put one forward. Surprisingly. There are other topics of discussion here but I would appreciate you pointing out an actual argument for deletion from the discussion so far, which, after all this discussion is meant to be quite narrowly about. - Dalvikur (talk) 18:12, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ben MacDui - Your opinions on the micronation specifically, are irrelevant - it doesn't matter whether anyone thinks it is a publicity stunt or completely serious, it is by definition a micronation. There is absolutely nothing misleading about it because the article clearly explains that it is a micronation (read the first sentence), we never said that its claim to crown dependency status is in anyway recognised. We need to stop talking about how much of a state it is because it really doesn't matter - it is a micronation, it is therefore unrecognised and state-like. "Crown Dependency of Forvik" is the name of this "creation", what would be even more misleading is giving the article a title that is not the title of the subject.
- Comment: As many have clearly stated before, it is a micronation - your opinion on the micronation is irrelevant. It isn't recognised or legitimised because it is a micronation or an unrecognised state-like entity. WP:MICROCON is a convention that is half a decade old, and it is accepted and very clear on the naming of micronation articles: use the full name. The article also clearly explains that it is a micronation - it exists, there is no hoax. Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 11:42, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Forewick Holm, merging at editor's discretion. My second choice would be Move to "Forvik (micronation)" as the current title is perpetuating a hoax. Whatever happens, it cannot remain here under the completely false title of "Crown Dependency of... " as The Crown has not (and never will) recognise it, let alone take on the responsibilities of guardian over Mr Hill's back garden (as being separate from its responsibilities as guardian over anybody else's back garden in the UK and its recognised dependencies). --Mais oui! (talk) 09:43, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Forvik is a micronation, therefore it isn't recognised. It isn't a hoax, it exits as a micronation and the title is the name given to the micronation by its creator. Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 10:01, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd like to say the same thing: it's the Crown Dependency of Forvik because that's what the micronation's founder called it. Whether or not it can style itself a crown dependency is entirely beside the point, and arguing about it is counterproductive. I could found the Kingdom of Blah in my backyard, and not choose a king, and it's still the Kingdom anyway. Get over it. --coldacid (talk|contrib) 13:15, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment about the polling below per WP:NOTAVOTE. AfD is not a majority vote. Straw polls are not encouraged and they are not binding. This is a debate to seek consensus based on evidence, guidelines, and policies for dealing with the article, and deletion is not the only available option at AfD. I don't feel that a slightly imperfect nomination is grounds for a speedy close. • Gene93k (talk) 14:08, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The lists weren't set up as a vote, but rather as a way of making comments clear and also as a way of grouping opinions. They were never labelled as a vote. So far Adam233 has failed to provide any evidence that this article is a hoax or should be deleted. In fact, he is the only editor that ever wanted to see this article deleted. Also, we have already had a merge debate on this very recently, and editors are using this opportunity to avoid the "no consensus" result. It is quite clear: this nomination is absolutely pointless, the article isn't going anywhere, so if anyone wants to continue the debate as normal on a talk page they can. This nomination has done nothing else but disrupt the normal process of finding consensus on the talk page. It is more than just slightly imperfect, this nomination has been useless from the start and used as a "back door". Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 14:48, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Your comment can go for the list of names for merge or redirect, as well. --coldacid (talk|contrib) 15:49, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and do not redirect or merge - Per all of the above discussions regarding the fact that this is a micronation... - Adolphus79 (talk) 00:06, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Close this deletion nomination[edit]
We can continue the debate on Forvik and micronations on another page. However only one editor, Adam233, wants to see the article completely deleted, and so far it seems that he has left and only created his account to nominate the Forvik article for deletion. His reason for this nomination (his claim that Forvik is a complete hoax) has been shown to not be true, and for the above reasons this nomination should be closed.
I have added the signatures of editors that have explained that they want to see this nomination closed. All editors can add their signatures to the list below if they too want to see this nomination closed: (Comment by Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 22:36, 13 August 2008 (UTC))[reply]
- Gene_poole (talk) 12:49, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- coldacid (talk|contrib) 18:44, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 22:36, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Dalvikur (talk) 23:34, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Adolphus79 (talk) 00:06, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or redirect this article[edit]
I still think that this article is trying to perpetuate a hoax.
Onecanadasquarebishopsgate claims that Forvik was not a hoax, but a micronation. But even if Forvik was a micronation, this doesn't mean that Forvik can simply call itself a "crown dependency". If Forvik was a crown dependency, then this would imply e.g. that there was a Lieutenant Governor and that all legislation needed the approval of the Queen. In the article on micronations, micronations are described as follows:
- "Micronations — sometimes also referred to as fantasy countries, model countries, and new country projects — are entities that resemble independent nations or states but which are unrecognized by world governments or major international organisations. These nations usually exist only on paper, on the Internet, or in the minds of their creators. Micronations differ from secession and self-determination movements in that they are largely viewed as being eccentric and ephemeral in nature, and are often created and maintained by a single person or family group.
- Micronations generally have a number of common features:
- They often assert that they wish to be widely recognized as sovereign states, but are not so recognized.
- They are small; those that claim to control physical territories are mostly of very limited extent. While several micronations claim hundreds or even thousands of members, the vast majority have no more than one or two active participants.
- Some issue government instruments such as passports, stamps, and currency, and confer titles and awards; these are rarely recognised outside of their own communities of interest."
So Forvik isn't even a micronation in the proper sense, since Forvik doesn't claim to be independent. It only quarrels about its concrete status under the crown.
So if this article isn't deleted, then, at least, it has to be merged with Forewick Holm or Stuart Hill (Sailor) or to be renamed to Forvik. Adam233 (talk) 10:11, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have added the signatures of editors that have explained that they want to see this article merged or redirected. All editors can add their signatures to the list below:
---
- Comment: Dominion of British West Florida? Northern Forest Archipelago? Vikesland? Forvik isn't unique, these examples are also micronations that don't claim to be fully independent in some way. It is a micronation, the creator can call it what ever he or she wants to call it. Why? Because it is unrecognised. Why is it unrecognised? Because it is a micronation! All micronations claim independence in some way, even if it isn't full. It definitely is a micronation in the proper, simple definition - "unrecognised, state-like entity".
- Empire of Atlantium? Principality of Hutt River? Micronations are known for claiming titles and forms of government. Also, they are well known for not necessarily having any law backing their creation in reality. This isn't a discussion on merges but on deletion, and it seems to me as it does to other editors that this nomination is being used to avoid the "no-consensus" decision in the last merge debate - this is not the place to discuss merging articles and even then we had a very recent debate on this.
- Adam233, why don't you nominate all micronation articles for deletion, challenge the convention and try to eliminate the Micronations WikiProject if you really think your claim has enough support? So far, we have already explained why nominating the Forvik article as a hoax was pointless in the first place. Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 12:59, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Adam233, your intent is clearly to subvert consensus through sockpuppetry. By posting this section you demonstrate clearly that this AfD nomination is primarily an attempt by you to force through a merge or redirect by the 'back door'.
- I doubt therefore that you will get much support from the editors listed above for this reason, even though they might themselves strongly support a merge or redirect if you were putting forth the above points on Talk:Crown_Dependency_of_Forvik. But you aren't doing so. You are a sock or meat puppet doing it in the context of a false AfD nomination. Speaking for myself as an editor I certainly wouldn't want my reputation associated with such a thing.
- As has already been stated by several editors with extensive experience in articles on this type of subject, and other editors merely looking at the article and subject on its face, Crown Dependency of Forvik, is and remains a micronation with ongoing verifiable references as per the requirements of WP:MICROCON. There was a clear lack of consensus previously for a merge or redirect.
- Whoever you actually are, your arguments for a merge or re-direct should be made on Talk:Crown_Dependency_of_Forvik where they belong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dalvikur (talk • contribs) 00:28, 2008 August 15 (UTC)
- Comment: This nonsense has continued for long enough. Adam233 is obviously a sockpuppet account whose sole purpose is the disruption of WP via the subversion of consensus. The account should be permanently blocked. End of story. --Gene_poole (talk) 00:50, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Reverted back to a redirect to Ringo Starr. If "Ringo Star" (the band) had been created as a new article, it'd be subject to speedy deletion under category a7, in that it doesn't assert that the band meets the notability standards of WP:MUSIC. NawlinWiki (talk) 22:13, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ringo Star[edit]
- Ringo Star (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
The article presents no evidence to indicate that this band satisfies Wikipedia's inclusion criteria for musicians and ensembles. JavaTenor (talk) 08:52, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete- No assertion of notability; agree with JavaTenor.
- Cheers mate!
- Λuα (Operibus anteire) 08:57, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Non-notable trio, nothing in their short history to suggest anything of merit. WWGB (talk) 09:27, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I've reverted back to Ringo Starr which was how the page was originally created. I won't close this discussion but ny vote for the band is delete . Theresa Knott | The otter sank 09:29, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- And I have undone this. You can't erase an article in this way while the AFD discussion is still underway. That is a violation of AFD procedure. If the decision is made to change this to a redirect, then it will be changed, but you can't jump the gun like this otherwise the AFD process falls apart. No opinion on the article itself. 23skidoo (talk) 14:51, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I've reverted back to Ringo Starr which was how the page was originally created. I won't close this discussion but ny vote for the band is delete . Theresa Knott | The otter sank 09:29, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and redirect to Ringo Starr. JuJube (talk) 14:45, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and redirect to Ringo Starr. Band fails WP:MUSIC, but name is a reasonable search term for the drummer. Doc StrangeMailboxLogbook 17:46, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and redirect to Ringo Starr per Doc Strange. Cliff smith talk 18:04, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Rjd0060 (talk) 15:16, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Bahia Honda Ghost Story[edit]
- Bahia Honda Ghost Story (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
The article is a ghost story and not an encyclopaedic entry. I'm still unsure as there's nothing on WP:NOT about this matter. ShootinPutin109Talk 08:42, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep- Am not sure about this one, but am voting for keep at this moment albeit the article needs some work. Maybe in the future it can be merged with Bahia Honda Key.
- Cheers mate!
- Λuα (Operibus anteire) 08:54, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as failing WP:V. The "referances" provided say nothing about a ghost, and Google, Google News, and Google Books searches for "Bahia Honda" +ghost and "Loggerhead Beach" +ghost turn up no sources whatever. I'm off to remove the first paragraph of the article, which is a copyvio of the second "referance". Deor (talk) 15:35, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per Deor. Edward321 (talk) 14:26, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - the article is essentially a retelling of the ghost story and there are no sources to provide verifiability -- Whpq (talk) 15:19, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 14:01, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Kim Bauer (radio host)[edit]
- Kim Bauer (radio host) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
No evidence is presented that this local radio host is notable. Grahame (talk) 08:36, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 08:38, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Delete- Although the article is reasonably well-written and sourced, it seems that the subject herself wrote it. No real assertion of notability either.
- Cheers mate!
- Λuα (Operibus anteire) 08:45, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This looks like a pretty obvious COI, and does not establish notability. RedThunder 13:07, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete on WP:N grounds. NB: The potential COI is not in itself grounds for deletion.--S Marshall (talk) 23:45, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Article fails to establish notability in accordance with WP:BIO. Article comprises trivia without citation, references or sources. Article appears to be advertising. Dolphin51 (talk) 03:45, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, the COI obviously doesn't help, but obviously not meeting the WP:BIO notability criteria is what will do this in. I guess Wikipedia will just have to go without knowing whatever zany antics after drinking purified urine that they come up with next. Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:58, 11 August 2008 (UTC).[reply]
- Delete: The article has been up there for a long time (2006). However, I don't think being a regional radio host is in itself notability enough for a Wikipedia article. Beyond that, there's nothing in the article but trivia. Notability not established. No reliable references provided.--Lester 06:34, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 09:51, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
James Limborg[edit]
- James Limborg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Although the artist has toured with notable artists (the Jets and Prince) there is no indication that he has notability on his own. The creating editor (who shares a name with a subject) is unwilling to discuss the article or tags and keeps removing them without responding to comments. Fails WP:N Movingboxes (talk) 08:10, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- KeepAt this stage, it seems that the subject is bordering notability and IMO I think it should be kept. The article itself is well written, neutral, and sourced leaving WP:COI as the only major problem.
- Cheers mate!
- Λuα (Operibus anteire) 09:03, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment My concern is that there are no third-party sources and I have been unable to locate any. Movingboxes (talk) 09:14, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The only major problem is the lack of third-party reliable sources to prove his notability. An effort has been made to find such sources (by Movingboxes), yet there are none. Plrk (talk) 10:08, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Don't think he's notable enough, so fails WP:N. Chris (talk) 10:15, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - trivial coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 01:19, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Synergy 11:09, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Loretta Claiborne[edit]
- Loretta Claiborne (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
It has no sources and I feel it is not notable. Plus the page just looks ugly. IT ALSO HAS MULTIPLE EXCLAMATION POINTS IN IT! How am I the first person to notice this?
DELETE KingsOfHearts (talk) 07:33, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This is the version of the article KingsOfHearts refers to. I've tidied it up slightly, and there appear to be a fair few hits in Google News, but the article makes some pretty large claims without providing WP:reliable sources (some of which might be a WP:BLP concern). No stance. -- saberwyn 07:41, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep if the article can be appropriately sourced. Looking ugly isn't yet a reason to delete a page and multiple exclamation points can be removed. Movingboxes (talk) 08:15, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Per Movingboxes. Asenine 14:45, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
- Keep and improve the article. --Ixfd64 (talk) 20:17, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The article was cleaned up a bit befor I got there, and I have begun to add sources. There are a lot of reliable sources out for this, and the woman was the subject of a TV movie made by Disney. News coverage abounds, and she was the first SO athlete ever elected to the Board of Directors of Special Olympics International. Notability is far from being an issue. Jim Miller See me | Touch me | Review me 21:26, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Montrose, Victoria--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 06:18, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Montrose Primary School:2259[edit]
- Montrose Primary School:2259 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
The only salvageable content is the school's location, and it does not appear to have a chance of being notable [33] Someguy1221 (talk) 07:22, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —WWGB (talk) 08:25, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 11:24, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete. Normally I would just suggest a merge to the locality or school district but there is little content and the article title is a poor one. DoubleBlue (Talk) 15:09, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I have now created Montrose Primary School as a decent redirect. Consequently, there is no reason to keep the page for search purposes. However, there is an argument to keep as a redirect to preserve the history for GFDL reasons. TerriersFan (talk) 20:15, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge/redirect to Montrose, Victoria#Education where I have already merged the content. TerriersFan (talk) 19:06, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete All info needed has been merged. Article fails WP:N. Five Years 07:11, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, if we keep the merged content, then a redirect is a cheap way to preserve author history for GFDL purposes. DoubleBlue (Talk) 19:20, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - lack of coverage in reliable sources. The content in the Montrose article isn't a copy of the content here, so I doubt a redirect is needed for GFDL purposes. PhilKnight (talk) 01:18, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 14:00, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ã’Leamóná[edit]
- Ã’Leamóná (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This non-notable language article has been tagged as nn for nearly a month now. There are no google results, save for Wikihow (and there it says it is made up, which is why this is suspicious). There is not way this article can be salvaged or brought beyond a very short stub article, which is why I propose it be deleted. —Mizu onna sango15Hello! 07:14, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, no indication that this invented language is notable. NawlinWiki (talk) 22:15, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No independant sourcing, no idication this artificial langauge is in any way notable. Edward321 (talk) 14:33, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 13:59, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Grunk music[edit]
- Grunk music (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
- Delete. Neologism, expression made up one day, veiled attempt to promote non-notable band. Prod tag removed by author without improvement to article. WWGB (talk) 07:03, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —WWGB (talk) 07:03, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grunk for previous deletion debate. WWGB (talk) 08:33, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Alleged creator of this style is a redlink. Unsupported claims of popularity. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 12:25, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Based on the fact that it is a new and notable musical genre. The reference in Rolling Stone magazine, if anyone has that mag they should have a look at the article. Buzz Magazine may or may not be notable, im not too sure. We should ask some Australians on the topic.--210.50.253.124 (talk) 13:00, 9 August 2008
— 210.50.253.124 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. WWGB (talk) 13:10, 9 August 2008 (UTC) (who is Australian and never heard of either Grunk music or the John Smith Quintet.)[reply]
--With all due respect, how old are you WWGB? Because i cant help but think that someone who is slightly younger and has a broader knowledge of new Australian music might be able to shed light on this topic... --210.50.253.124 (talk) 13:29, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
-- And... since when does "(is Australian and never heard of either Grunk music or the John Smith Quintet.)" render something not notable, also have you ever heard of Mr Bungle WWGB? if you have not then you will be quite surprised when you discover that it is actually on wikipedia due to notability despite the fact that you have never heard of them. It does get quite tiresome when people who think they know things vote for deletion on topics on wikipedia.--210.50.253.124 (talk) 13:53, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You said "We should ask some Australians on the topic". I responded. Please make up your mind what you want. WWGB (talk) 13:58, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I am also intrigued by the comment "It does get quite tiresome when people who think they know things vote for deletion on topics on wikipedia" - this from an editor who had been a member of Wikipedia for 53 minutes at the time of posting that comment. WWGB (talk) 04:11, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No real supported claims, and I would doubt that Rolling Stone gave it more than one sentence. Furthermore, the alleged creator is a red link. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 16:29, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:NEO. Cliff smith talk 19:08, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith talk 23:00, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete unless some real sources can be produced. Genre appears to be barely a year old, and has, as far as I am able to discern, received no significant coverage. Ford MF (talk) 23:23, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I am from Melbourne Australia and Grunk is a massive thing here. There are so many around, its the new trend in the Australian music industry. I agree it is barely a year old but it has already recieved alot of attention. Both sources are factual by the way and the Rolling Stone article is about half a page, have a read its quite informative. --116.240.169.227 (talk) 09:14, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
— 116.240.169.227 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. WWGB (talk) 10:51, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, I'm from Australia, work in the music industry, and I've never heard of it, and a bit of online research picked up nothing. I don't know what the Rolling Stone mention was, but I doubt it was more than just that - a mention. Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:51, 12 August 2008 (UTC).[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Speedy delete a7, no credible or sourced claims of notability. And sorry, the 3rd place in science fair in 2005 doesn't do it, either. NawlinWiki (talk) 22:19, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Emi (Native American singer)[edit]
- Emi (Native American singer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Unverifiable claims to notability, no references given and searching doesn't produce anything that verifies hit singles. Not listed on cast list of film mentioned [34]. Article apparently written by subject. Hunting dog (talk) 06:30, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following related page about the same person - lack of verifiable notability again:
-Hunting dog (talk) 06:40, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete this page is entirely unsourced and web searches seem to provide no clues - meaning this article fails [[WP:V]. Edited only by the subject (who had written it in a very POV manner), there are assertions of notability with the fabled "number 1" and "hit records" having seemingly no basis in reality. If these claims were true, the subject would pass WP:MUSIC, but as it stands, it seems this is a pretty elaborate hoax. On a side note, while a glance at the external links seems to give an appearance of authenticity, but a more thorough look shows them all to be personal sites (i.e. myspace), wikis, or non-working pages. Let's end this now. - Toon05 20:48, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 keep. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:31, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Baby...You're Bummin' My Life out in a Supreme Fashion[edit]
- Baby...You're Bummin' My Life out in a Supreme Fashion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Article does not indicate significance. Article is unreference. Release never charted anywhere. Kabob21 (talk) 09:57, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep (I am the creator of this article) Baby... is an official full length album by Thelonious Monster. From WP:MUSIC " if the musician or ensemble that recorded an album is considered notable, then officially released albums may have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia." Duffbeerforme (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 06:24, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Per WP:MUSIC. Asenine 14:43, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 keep. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:28, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Greenleaf (band)[edit]
- Greenleaf (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Not notable, unreferenced, not charting album. Kabob21 (talk) 10:01, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep (I am the creator of article) Article addresses WP:MUSIC criteria 5.Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels... criteria 6.Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable... Having not charted does not make a band non notable. External links verify information in the article, it just needs a rewrite to make them inline references.Duffbeerforme (talk) 05:59, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete Non-notable 67.205.30.146 (talk) 13:45, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not notable 67.205.30.146 (talk) 14:39, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 03:37, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Science driver[edit]
- Science driver (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
The article claims this is a term used by economists but there are no sources for that use, and the article has been tagged since June '07. The only sources found in Google refer to a different usage. Even if that other usage is verifiable it would just leave us with a dictionary definition. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:06, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- PS: The article is also an orphan: no other articles link to it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:32, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Article may be on to something, but I've never heard of this term. Some kind of sourcing is needed for verifiability. I've mentioned it at WP:ECON to see if anyone else can lend a hand. -FrankTobia (talk) 02:53, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I've heard the phrase "science as the driver" in the same context as the article mentions. I think I've even used it before. I did a search but I could not find any sources that describe the term rather then just using it. Too bad, it's a rather well done article. --Patrick (talk) 03:11, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Interesting concept, but the phrase has no currency and the article is wholly unsourced. Some of its claims, particularly the extremely high ROI claimed (1100%+) and the commonality of the name itself, require citations to even remain in the article. CRGreathouse (t | c) 03:36, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I've not encountered this term, and no citation has been provided to support the claim that any economists (let alone some significant share of the community of economists) use this term. Frankly, this term seems more the sort of neologism coined by policy entrepreneurs and journalists seeking a new bottle for old wine (or for old vinegar). —SlamDiego←T 00:49, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. John254 00:40, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Computer Networks: The Heralds of Resource Sharing[edit]
- Computer Networks: The Heralds of Resource Sharing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
I can't find any reliable sources for this. Schuym1 (talk) 05:04, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- comment There is a book which mentions this film. Don't automatically discount the subject non-notable because of missing sources. The age of the film probably makes it harder to find material. This appears to be have been produced by MIT. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Riffic (talk • contribs) 05:28, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- keep just because it is hard to verify does not mean it is not verified. all i had to do was take the subtitle and it turned up more than than enough hits and substantive sources to justify notability. it is notable film in any case given who is in it and what they say. --Buridan (talk) 13:17, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I never said it wasn't verified. All I said was that I couldn't find any reliable sources. Articles have to have multiple reliable sources. Can you please add the sources, that you found, to the article? Schuym1 (talk) 14:58, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- notability is established based on the participants in the film. the film is widely distributed, you can watch it on the web for free. this is a case of... if you want sources, it is your job, else 'ignore all rules'. wanting it 'improved' is not a reason for deletion. what i did was say, does the film exist? answer yes. is it notable, answer yes, why is it notable, answer because the participants in the film are notable. --Buridan (talk) 16:44, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I guess you're right about the notable part. If a documentary gets uploaded, it is most likely a copyright violation. Schuym1 (talk) 17:09, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, I did not nominate the article because I wanted it improved. There are lots of AFDs that are started because the nominator couldn't find reliable sources. Schuym1 (talk) 17:22, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- for what reason would one need reliable sources? either you dispute the validity of the article, or you want to improve it. also, note that if a documentary is produced by the government of the u.s., unless some special provision is made by congress, that documentary is in public domain, no copyright. --Buridan (talk) 18:48, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- To show it's notability which that doesn't apply to this because the article shows it's notability. I made a mistake. Please stop continuing this. Schuym1 (talk) 19:12, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Buridan: Dunno why you're jumping all over the kid. The article has no sources and he said he can't find any. A very good reason for deletion. Verifiability is "the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia." --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 23:54, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Brewcrewer, its not that there are no sources for this article; there are no sources online. I believe that there might be someone at MIT who can shed more light on this production, or their library could have more information. This involves someone doing the footwork and visiting some dead trees, of course. riffic (talk) 00:44, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course, but that's not related to my point. I just though that he was being to critical of the nominator who gave a very valid reason for deletion. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 00:57, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- he actually didnt' give a solid reason for deletion. he said he can't find sources. if you can't find sources, you mark the article for improvement. you don't delete it. You would nominate it for deletion if for instance it wasn't notable, or for instance if it was entirely fictive. but the kid had the video which is full of notable people. for instance, in my personal library i cannot find anything to cite this with either, should i nominate it for deletion? no, i would just mark it that the article needs sources. find something good to delete.--Buridan (talk) 02:15, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't have the video. Schuym1 (talk) 03:00, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm done watching this. Do not expect a reply from me. Schuym1 (talk) 07:27, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Brewcrewer, its not that there are no sources for this article; there are no sources online. I believe that there might be someone at MIT who can shed more light on this production, or their library could have more information. This involves someone doing the footwork and visiting some dead trees, of course. riffic (talk) 00:44, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- for what reason would one need reliable sources? either you dispute the validity of the article, or you want to improve it. also, note that if a documentary is produced by the government of the u.s., unless some special provision is made by congress, that documentary is in public domain, no copyright. --Buridan (talk) 18:48, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, I did not nominate the article because I wanted it improved. There are lots of AFDs that are started because the nominator couldn't find reliable sources. Schuym1 (talk) 17:22, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I guess you're right about the notable part. If a documentary gets uploaded, it is most likely a copyright violation. Schuym1 (talk) 17:09, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- notability is established based on the participants in the film. the film is widely distributed, you can watch it on the web for free. this is a case of... if you want sources, it is your job, else 'ignore all rules'. wanting it 'improved' is not a reason for deletion. what i did was say, does the film exist? answer yes. is it notable, answer yes, why is it notable, answer because the participants in the film are notable. --Buridan (talk) 16:44, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I never said it wasn't verified. All I said was that I couldn't find any reliable sources. Articles have to have multiple reliable sources. Can you please add the sources, that you found, to the article? Schuym1 (talk) 14:58, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw: I would like to withdraw this nomination. Schuym1 (talk) 18:46, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 03:34, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keilor Park Football Club[edit]
- Keilor Park Football Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This is an non-notable local amateur football team. Grahame (talk) 04:51, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 04:51, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I can't find much in the way of sources. Reyk YO! 07:08, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The article discloses nothing particularly notable about the Club. Article is based on unsourced statements. Clubs of this kind can be listed in WP articles devoted to the league in which they participate, or the sporting code. Dolphin51 (talk) 04:51, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Local amateur football club with no claim to notability. Note there are several similar articles (with similar lack of notability) for the other clubs in this club's league and I also note the creator of this article appears to have constructed articles for a number of other local amateur clubs in other suburban Melbourne-based leagues. Murtoa (talk) 08:09, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 one article still needs to be merged. Non admin closure. Undeath (talk) 03:30, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Apotactics[edit]
- Apotactics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Fails WP:RS and WP:N. It is horribly written too. Possible copyvio in some sections. Delete Undeath (talk) 04:10, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The Catholic Encyclopedia is viewed as a reliable source and this group is notable as it is relevent to the history of Christianity. However, the article does need to be substantially edited for style and content and some more sources couldn't hurt.Nrswanson (talk) 04:39, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Google and Google Books hits are sufficient to establish notability. One can't violate the copyright of a public-domain source, and the Catholic Encyclopedia is properly credited in the article. I've done a bit of minor cleanup on the article. Deor (talk) 04:07, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've just noticed that we have another article on the same group at Apotactite (that one's based on the article in the 11th ed. of the Encyclopaedia Britannica rather than on the Catholic Encyclopedia article). If the decision here is "keep", one of these articles should be merged into the other to avoid duplication. Deor (talk) 04:13, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've gone ahead and redirected Apotactite to this article. They should stand and fall together, in any event, and this is the more detailed article. It's title also seems more in line with the titles of many of the other articles in [[Category:Ancient Christian denominations]]. Deor (talk) 15:03, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've just noticed that we have another article on the same group at Apotactite (that one's based on the article in the 11th ed. of the Encyclopaedia Britannica rather than on the Catholic Encyclopedia article). If the decision here is "keep", one of these articles should be merged into the other to avoid duplication. Deor (talk) 04:13, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. —Deor (talk) 04:18, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep An historical, obscure sect, perhaps, but the AfD is completely unfounded--You can't copyvio public domain works, The Catholic Encyclopedia is RS for this topic, and cleanup is not a reason for deletion. Jclemens (talk) 04:40, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Before nominating an article as non-notable, please take the short time necessary to search for the term at [35]. In light of the overwhelming number of references there, going well back into the 19th century, it would be appropriate for the nominator to withdraw this to avoid further embarassment. I added two to the article for good measure. Jclemens (talk) 05:00, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 1.) Don't insult me by saying that this is turning into an embarassment. I take no embarrassment from any AfD and nor should anyone else. People should never openly insinuate that something embarrassing has happened either. I won't close the AfD until it's over. I didn't like the fact that the catholic encyclopedia was the only source given at the time of nomination. I also don't think this article is properly written. It almost sounded like a catholic fanatic wrote it to praise the catholic religion and put down those who oppose it.(who were called Heretics in the article, but it was worded as if the person writing the article meant that people who oppose his belief are still heretical) Undeath (talk) 06:49, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- By nominating an article for deletion, you are advocating that it be deleted from an encyclopedia. Please read WP:DEL#REASON and explain which of those reasons apply. Note specifically these three:
- Articles which cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources, including neologisms and original theories and conclusions
- Articles for which all attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed
- Articles whose subject fails to meet the relevant notability guideline (WP:N, WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:CORP and so forth)
- Does Apotactics meet any of these? Even assuming the Catholic Encyclopedia wasn't an RS, which it is, an article being not sourced requires that the nominator search for sources before deletion before asserting that "all attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed". Since a simple Google Books search finds a plethora, with full text, I strongly suspect no search was done. Further, note that even if the article fails to demonstrate notability, the deletion criteria require that the "subject fails to meet the relevant notability guideline".
- Certainly, you're not alone in AfD'ing stubs that should never have been AfD'ed. And you're right, it's really your choice, not mine, whether to be embarassed by the lack of congruence between your nomination and the Apotactics article. At any rate, you now have a full explanation why I find it completely unfounded and why I would be embarassed to have submitted it. Jclemens (talk) 16:02, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- By nominating an article for deletion, you are advocating that it be deleted from an encyclopedia. Please read WP:DEL#REASON and explain which of those reasons apply. Note specifically these three:
- Woah! Calm down Undead warrior and Jclemens. This is not helpful. Everyone stop WP:BITEing Undead warrior. I think everyone here can admit that he added the tag in good faith, and the responses here should be civil. Let's not turn this page into a heated discussion simply because people feel insulted instead of respected. Undead warrior, I agree with you that the language does need to reflect a more neutral view and should therefore be significantly reworded. However, the correct response to this situation would have been to tag the article for neutrality and for one source rather than an AFD. I don't think it unreasonable for other editors to point this out to you (although they should be more civil) as it really is not the best way to handle these sort of issues. I myself have made similar mistakes when I first started doing AFD noms and have since learned that tags are often the better way to go if a subject meets notability requirements but may not meet other standards upheld on wikipedia. If you are not familiar with the different tags available and their usage please check out Wikipedia:Template messages/Cleanup. Cheers!Nrswanson (talk) 16:19, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- This is obviously an article on a notable (though minor) subject. The criterion for AFD is not that article has no reliable sources cited, but there are no reliable sources. This is a common problem in WP. The answer to it is to look for sources, not to nominate for AFD. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:16, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Consensus is that the fictional character is not notable enough. Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles's arguments are discounted for being boilerplate and at odds with established policy. If he wants to create an article about the unrelated historical person Bernardo Buscayno, he should do so under that title. Sandstein 17:49, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Commander Dante[edit]
- Commander Dante (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Contested prod. Fictional character with no secondary sources to establish notability as required by Wikipedia:Notability. No out-of-universe content, too detailed to merge. Pagrashtak 04:05, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge as I suggest when I removed t he prod--seems the obvious way to handle articles like this. A merge does not necessarily mean keeping all the content, though it should mean keeping a substantial part. I am reluctant with articles in this field to assume knowledge I don';t really have and perform the merge myself and decide what content to keep.DGG (talk) 04:13, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to where? The logical choice, Blood Angels, was deleted (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dark Angels (Warhammer 40,000)). The character may have warranted a mention in the chapter article, but this is too detailed for the general Space Marine article, which already suffers from too much in-universe information and a lack of secondary sources. Pagrashtak 04:25, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 12:46, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 12:46, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Transwiki and delete. No references independent of Games Workshop to demonstrate notability. --Craw-daddy | T | 12:56, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 1. Review, 2. Apparently in other media, 3 Independent character review, 4. Another review (is this a good site?) 5. Review of him in other media, I just typed in "Commander Dante" and review into yahoo and this is what I found from a quick search. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:17, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 1. Trivial mention ". The Games Workshop sculptors have done a tremendous job on the special characters and heroes,. . . the magnificent gold Commander Dante . . ." and that's it about Dante., 2. Not independent of Games Workshop or licensed sellers (i.e. it's a card in a WH40k CCG), 3. What review? This is the description of the special character model which is identical to the official description on the Games Workshop website (i.e. the text used to advertise the model), 4. Trivial mention, "There is nothing like sitting back and smugly admiring the Commander Dante model you have spent the last 7 hours perfecting." That's all you get about Dante, 5. Not independent of Games Workshop. This is the official Games Workshop Blood Angels codex that describes Dante and what his game stats are, i.e. more repetition of official advertising material from the company that makes the figures. --Craw-daddy | T | 07:27, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Third party spec guidelines found in 2 for the card and 3 for a miniature are part of Notability guidelines. And yes, all of them are independent from Games Workshop since Games Workshop does not own any of them. These references should be enough to justify the restoration of the previous page and merging this miniature into it. Plus, my search was only limited, so there are plenty more. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:25, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure what you mean here... The collectible card game, from which this card you mention is taken, is produced by Sabertooth Games, a subsidiary of Games Workshop, and hence isn't somehow a "third party reference". The third reference is nothing more than repetition of advertising material from Games Workshop. What "review" are you referring to here? As I've stated, the others are more advertising from Games Workshop or the barest of (trivial) mentions about this miniature that represents the character and don't substantiate notability. --Craw-daddy | T | 14:56, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Third party spec guidelines found in 2 for the card and 3 for a miniature are part of Notability guidelines. And yes, all of them are independent from Games Workshop since Games Workshop does not own any of them. These references should be enough to justify the restoration of the previous page and merging this miniature into it. Plus, my search was only limited, so there are plenty more. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:25, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 1. Trivial mention ". The Games Workshop sculptors have done a tremendous job on the special characters and heroes,. . . the magnificent gold Commander Dante . . ." and that's it about Dante., 2. Not independent of Games Workshop or licensed sellers (i.e. it's a card in a WH40k CCG), 3. What review? This is the description of the special character model which is identical to the official description on the Games Workshop website (i.e. the text used to advertise the model), 4. Trivial mention, "There is nothing like sitting back and smugly admiring the Commander Dante model you have spent the last 7 hours perfecting." That's all you get about Dante, 5. Not independent of Games Workshop. This is the official Games Workshop Blood Angels codex that describes Dante and what his game stats are, i.e. more repetition of official advertising material from the company that makes the figures. --Craw-daddy | T | 07:27, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge Restore previous group that was deleted, merge this individual into that group, add third party product information found above. It appears this character appears in multiple gaming books as a main character, games in multiple media, and a few comic books and novels that also appeared in my search. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:25, 11 August 2008 (UTC) HEre are seven more third party links to the group that this could merge into, to provide enough joint verifiability for one page. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:24, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Less notable than blood angels, if that is possible. Creation of a redirect or a bold merge are editorial considerations, not for AfD. independent sources do not cover the subject in detail (product reviews don't really count). It fails WP:GNG, delete it. Protonk (talk) 18:48, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- since there is the possibility of a merge/redirect, that should be the close, not delete. Merge/redirect are versions of keep, per deletion policy.. DGG (talk) 18:55, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I think I talked about this at the deletion policy discussion (the one about making enforced mergers a deletion outcome and speedy closing afds with merge possibilities), but I don't really care if this article is merged or redirected. That decision can and should be made by someone with an interest in the article. In my mind, this AfD is an up/down decision. We can close AfD's to merge or redirect but I would rather not do so, because we get into the habit of preemptively protecting redirect pages when we do that. I don't think that is good policy (it works as a case by case compromise) to do so. So, we should delete this article. If someone goes right now and redirects this to the 40K article, I wouldn't be unhappy. But I don't see a reason to implore the closing admin to do so (of course, if others want to do so, they are free to). Protonk (talk) 20:17, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- One of the problems with the merge-without-prejudice is that it is trivially easy to revert such a merge. That's what led to several related AfDs in the first place, because the articles wouldn't stay dead (so to speak) - this would be fine if the content in question were salvageable, but none of these articles consists of more than 5-10% of material which isn't gameguide or in-universe. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 20:27, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I think I talked about this at the deletion policy discussion (the one about making enforced mergers a deletion outcome and speedy closing afds with merge possibilities), but I don't really care if this article is merged or redirected. That decision can and should be made by someone with an interest in the article. In my mind, this AfD is an up/down decision. We can close AfD's to merge or redirect but I would rather not do so, because we get into the habit of preemptively protecting redirect pages when we do that. I don't think that is good policy (it works as a case by case compromise) to do so. So, we should delete this article. If someone goes right now and redirects this to the 40K article, I wouldn't be unhappy. But I don't see a reason to implore the closing admin to do so (of course, if others want to do so, they are free to). Protonk (talk) 20:17, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- since there is the possibility of a merge/redirect, that should be the close, not delete. Merge/redirect are versions of keep, per deletion policy.. DGG (talk) 18:55, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Wikipedia:Five pillars (notability to a real-world audience, unoriginal research, consistent with a “specialized encyclopedia” concerning verifiable fictional topics with importance in the real world) and What Wikipedia is. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 23:23, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Not only is notability not inherited, the logic in which things even less notable than the originally-deleted parent can be used to jump-start its resurrection is evidently backwards. What makes articles notable is not how deep and detailed their fictional hierarchy is: it's whether the subject is covered in a non-trivial manner by reliable third-party sources. Commander Dante is a major figure in the Blood Angels Space Marine Chapter, but as neither he nor the Blood Angels are covered in any non-trivial detail by significant third party sources there's no point in having articles for them. Greater than 95% of all documentation on either subject is written from an in-universe or game-guide perspective and the out-of-universe stuff can easily be subsumed into the master Space Marines article. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:22, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: In addition the fictional character, there appears to be a real-world Commander Dante as well. See here. Also, notability is inherited. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 15:16, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It shouldn't be necessary to point this out to people familiar with the argument, but the existence of a figure of some potential historic notability with the same name is not a reason to keep an article (or indeed the edit history of an article) devoted entirely to an entirely different subject (the in-universe biography of a toy soldier). Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 20:30, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It shows me that the article shouldn't be redlinked and that editors should not be prevented from overwriting the current article or moving the current article to a Commander Dante (Space Marines) article instead. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 23:41, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It shouldn't be necessary to point this out to people familiar with the argument, but the existence of a figure of some potential historic notability with the same name is not a reason to keep an article (or indeed the edit history of an article) devoted entirely to an entirely different subject (the in-universe biography of a toy soldier). Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 20:30, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Zero assertion of notability through reliable sources. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:00, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As indicated above reliable sources have been used to assert notability. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 21:04, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- All are either trivial mentions that do not justify a whole wikipedia article. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:10, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- They are good enough for a paperless encyclopedia. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 21:11, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- All are either trivial mentions that do not justify a whole wikipedia article. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:10, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Section break[edit]
As with Arathi, I am beginning to incorporate information about the historical figure into the article. Anyone is welcome to help as oodles of references exist here and we have two articles that also mention this guy. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 21:24, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Regardless of the notability of either Commander Dante (I haven't really researched either at this point) I find it slightly odd to start incorporating information about a completely different person into this article. I would personally suggest creating a separate article on the historical Commander Dante at a different, disambiguated title so that the two can be evaluated separately. Having an article of some kind here seems like a good idea, but if, as you suggest, both of them are worthy of inclusion then it's just going to be confusing to have the info combined in one article - create separate ones and disambiguate with hatnotes. ~ mazca t | c 22:26, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As I indicate below, Commander Dante should be a disambugation page to two all new articles. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 17:12, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - no assertion of notability from reliable sources independent of the topic. That there exists a real-life Commander Dante is a complete red herring. sephiroth bcr (converse) 08:32, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Section break 2[edit]
Following the success of this precedent, I have continued revising the article to cover the real world historical figure. This way, if anyone wants to merge the Warhammer stuff to an article on Commander Dante (Warhammer) it's readily available in the edit history and if anyone wishes to start an article on Bernardo Buscayno, they now have the basis in reliable sources to do so. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 17:05, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. —Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 17:44, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. —Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 17:46, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 17:48, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 04:02, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Brother Corbulo[edit]
- Brother Corbulo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Contested prod. Fictional character with no secondary sources to establish notability as required by Wikipedia:Notability. No out-of-universe content, too detailed to merge. Pagrashtak 04:02, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- merge what needs to be merged Same as above. At the very least, redirect rather than delete. DGG (talk) 04:14, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As I replied at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Commander Dante, the logical merge choice has been deleted. I did not redirect because the character is not even mentioned in the Space Marine page. I can assure you that any redirect attempt on my part would be reverted on that basis. Pagrashtak 04:27, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 12:45, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 12:45, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Transwiki and delete No references independent of Games Workshop to demonstrate notability. --Craw-daddy | T | 12:58, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Independent sources don't cover the subject in sufficient detail. The subject does not meet the WP:GNG. Protonk (talk) 18:50, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Wikipedia:Five pillars (notability to a real-world audience, unoriginal research, consistent with a “specialized encyclopedia” concerning verifiable fictional topics with importance in the real world) and What Wikipedia is. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 23:23, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 03:31, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Tobacco pat[edit]
- Tobacco pat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable; band name is the same as the article's primary contributor, suggesting conflict of interest. This isn't identical to the earlier version so I didn't think it qualified for CSD (same editor, though). Delete. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 03:55, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Gyrofrog (talk) 03:58, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete as a repost of deleted material. Also, it fails WP:BAND. Undeath (talk) 04:13, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I have just declined the G4 speedy request - as the nom says the current article is not "substantially identical" to the previously deleted one. nancy talk 10:22, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - as failing WP:MUSIC / WP:BAND nancy talk 10:25, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as non-notable. The only sources provided are interviews, which while the fact of the interviews might help indicate notability (assuming the magazines are reliable), aren't really independent of the band. I've tried to google search for them ('"tobacco pat" -teachers -parents -professionals' to avoid anti-tobacco lobbyists, and '"tobacco pat" farmer' as a source that discusses them at length should mention the names of the band members), and turned up only the same interviews that discuss them at any length. If reliable third-party sources (not interviews), that discuss them at length can be found, then I might be convinced to keep. Silverfish (talk) 14:01, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete the subject still fails WP:MUSIC maybe this should be salted, too. JBsupreme (talk) 16:11, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, fails WP:BAND. NawlinWiki (talk) 22:22, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete nonnotable, COI, fails WP:BAND, etc., as stated above. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 02:27, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Except for the crufty signature move list I would have removed anyway, this is essentially the same article as the one deleted previously. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 10:09, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Beer Money (professional wrestling)[edit]
- Beer Money (professional wrestling) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Recreated article on a non-notable wrestling tag team. It has been AfD'd in the past with an overwhelming consensus to delete. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 03:37, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Just a note that the previous deletion discussion can be found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beer Money Inc.. Deor (talk) 03:58, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: They have been around since May, yes they just recently began to be called Beer Money, but they will probably continue to tag together even after their feud with LAX ends. They have had three title matches for the TNA tag belts. They are both heels and they don't seem to be having a problem with each-other, which means they'll tag more in the future. I believe TNA is trying to make them the next America's Most Wanted. Also they are the second top tag team in TNA.--WillC 06:37, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. —♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 08:27, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, group with no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 22:24, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Pork[edit]
- The Pork (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Contested prod. (I deleted it in June, but a user asked me to restore it.) I cannot find any sources about such a group. Google search comes up empty as well. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:23, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete due to lack of reliable sources. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 04:39, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 'Delete, non-notable university student group, article consists mostly of inside trivia. JIP | Talk 12:45, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete all. Wizardman 03:51, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Libya in the Eurovision Song Contest[edit]
- Libya in the Eurovision Song Contest (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Country has never participated in the contest and article even reads that they have no intention to. Grk1011 (talk) 02:51, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:
- Egypt in the Eurovision Song Contest (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Algeria in the Eurovision Song Contest (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Jordan in the Eurovision Song Contest (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Kazakhstan in the Eurovision Song Contest (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Delete them all. There is no reason to have an article about a country not entered in a contest. Ridiculous. Aleta Sing 04:41, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all per nom. Nick Dowling (talk) 06:15, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all per nom. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:57, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Is it not worth merging them all to one article? DBD 07:40, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- We merged what was reasonable into List_of_countries_in_the_Eurovision_Song_Contest#Unsuccessful_attempts_to_participate since those countries actually attempted. Its useless to have a page that says "country" is a member of the EBU so it could participate in the Eurovision Song Contest if it wanted to. Grk1011 (talk) 13:49, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all With the exeption of hypothetical concepts such as World War III, we should not have articles about something that doesn't exist. However the Kazakhstan one claims that there are plans for them to enter so if we can find a ref for that it might be ok. BUC (talk) 11:31, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Kazakhstan just says that it wants to join the European Broadcasting Union (EBU) which it has to do before entering the contest and just because it may join eventually it does not have anything to do with the contest. Grk1011 (talk) 13:49, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all per nom. Greekboy (talk) 13:52, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all unless sources are found. What's next, Peru in the Eurovision Song Contest? Bart133 t c @ How's my driving? 14:24, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all per nom. I've never understood the reasoning behind creating articles like "Vatican City cardinals who are Southern Baptists" or "Living murder victims" for the purpose of demonstrating an empty category. Mandsford (talk) 16:01, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Mandsford. Essentially empty articles, why do we need these? The countries in question clearly have no intent of participating in Eurovision, and that's all the pages tell us. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 16:31, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Its really strange that some of them were made by an IP on the talk page and then moved to the mainspace by an editor with good intentions. I've never seen that happen before and its weird since this IP seems to have gotten around the registering to create a page. Grk1011 (talk) 16:37, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all for reasons given above, unless more significant coverage is found. It is not appropriate to have articles for every country that could participate but has not done so; countries that have expressed a clear interest in joining but have not yet participated can be treated differently, but none of these meet that definition. Camaron | Chris (talk) 19:40, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep all. As someone who is more interested in politics than music, I actually find the articles on why these countries never participated in the contest more interesting than an article about a country that entered the so-and-so song and came in 14th place. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:44, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Interesting point, but does that mean that I should write the article "United States in the Eurovision Song Contest" with a few paragraphs about how the US is not a member of the EBU and therefore cannot participate? Grk1011 (talk) 03:48, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Some Arab countries refuse to participate because they would be forced to show Israeli singers. I don't think the reasons for the US non-participation are as interesting. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 04:18, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yea, I wrote Lebanon in the Eurovision Song Contest, you may be interested. If you want to proofread too, that would be great because I want to get it up to GA status. Grk1011 (talk) 12:13, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Some Arab countries refuse to participate because they would be forced to show Israeli singers. I don't think the reasons for the US non-participation are as interesting. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 04:18, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Interesting point, but does that mean that I should write the article "United States in the Eurovision Song Contest" with a few paragraphs about how the US is not a member of the EBU and therefore cannot participate? Grk1011 (talk) 03:48, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all - although I accept the point that the political aspect of those countries not participating is worth documenting. That can usefully done within an existing article, or a new one created for that purpose. AnthonyUK (talk) 14:37, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- May I point out that unlike "peru in the eurovision song contest", australia in the... "United states.." these countries CAN and are ALLOWED to participate, its just they will not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.84.211.112 (talk) 15:29, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. John254 00:39, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
64 Studio[edit]
- 64 Studio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
A Linux distro of unclear notability. Article lacks secondary sources. Ham Pastrami (talk) 02:34, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Citations are coming in, seems to have some notability. Qsung (talk) 09:07, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- All of the citations are from the project's home page, which is why the article was nominated. Ham Pastrami (talk) 20:27, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Here are some better sources:
- WatchAndObserve (talk) 17:33, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. There are plenty of sources for anyone who cares to look, like this one: http://distrowatch.com/table.php?distribution=64studio, 3rd on the Google hits list. It's quite apparent that Ham Pastrami just lies and claims he searched for sources and couldn't find any, while anyone who looks can easily find them. StuRat (talk) 00:11, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 03:46, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Andrew and Alexander Fingelkurts[edit]
- Andrew and Alexander Fingelkurts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Tagged for notability since April. No reliable sources found. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 02:17, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:29, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Undecidedfor the moment. GoogleScholar results for them (apparently they write all of their papers together) are respectable[36], but nothing out of the ordinary. Top citation hit is 46, h-index of around 11. For an active experimental field like neuroscience that actually seems a little thin. Nothing in GoogleBooks[37]. I looked up their CV[38]. No significant awards or honors beyond the grad student level listed there. On the other hand, the fact that they actually bother to list "honors" from vanity press publications, such as Who is Who and International Biographical Centre, actually worries me. Usually academics do not list such stuff on their CVs as it is considered somewhat embarrassing. So I am not sure for the moment if there is enough here to pass WP:PROF (hopefully somebody more familiar with the field will comment) but am leaning towards delete. Nsk92 (talk) 04:17, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The citation data given by Nsk92 are meager (especially considering this concerns collapsed data for 2 persons). The article contains some claims that look impressive, but are not (all academics serve as referees for scientific journals from time to time, even my grad student is sometimes asked). They may become notable in time, but WP is not a crystal ball. As an aside, I get mailings from the IBC all the time (throw them in the wastebasket without opening), but always thought that the Marquis Who's Who is more reputable (as per the WP article), so I actually list those in my CV myself.... :-) Given that these guys are listed too, perhaps I should remove them... --Crusio (talk) 10:18, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep as he now meets WP:ATHLETE. пﮟოьεԻ 57 17:12, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Pim Balkestein[edit]
- Pim Balkestein (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Using Google, I found nothing regarding first-team football appearances; therefore, the player fails WP:ATHLETE. – LATICS talk 01:30, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Possibly falls under WP:CSD#G4, depending on whether or not he has made first-team appearances. – LATICS talk 01:31, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
*Delete Made no senior appearances for SC Heerenveen and has made none for Ipswich Town F.C., per [39]. A probable CSD G4 as the reason for deletion at the previous AfD, i.e. has not played in a fully professional league per WP:Athlete, has not been addressed. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:56, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Switching to Keep as he now meets WP:Athlete. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:57, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:05, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Hang On. Before anyone speedies this - Ipswich starts it's season in under 6 hours against Preston. Let's see who's on the first team. Nfitz (talk) 08:17, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- And he is indeed in the team today, which should be enough for WP:ATHLETE. Gr1st (talk) 13:44, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, article asserts no real notability. JIP | Talk 12:46, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep has now played for Ipswich Town, therefor notable. Jcuk (talk) 14:20, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep. He started as well. I just can't understand the WP:POINT of trying to delete the articles of players of first team players hours before game time. Is there any material that should be restored from the version that was unnecessarily deleted on June 17, 2008? Nfitz (talk) 14:53, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - was a little pointy to nominate so close to the beginning of the season. Meets with first team appearance. matt91486 (talk) 15:46, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - perhaps the closing Admin can restore any useful material from the old article deleted June 17th. Nfitz (talk) 16:19, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 keep per WP:SNOW. The only problem that I see is PoV issues, which can usually be fixed without deletion if the person meets WP:N, which indeed appears to be the case. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 16:32, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Marc Lemire[edit]
- Marc Lemire (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Massive NPOV violations, and thus BLP violations, throughout the article, mostly evident in the lede: "violently racist and extremist", flinging around the use of the word "neo-Nazi", "violent ... organization", "bigot". It's a textbook G10 candidate; however, survival of the article in an AFD, sadly, precludes any avenue of the deletion process bar another AFD. Sceptre (talk) 00:16, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep- Notability and verifiability are established, and point of view issues can be fixed. Reyk YO! 00:22, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The only way to fix POV issues is deletion per WP:BLP#Deletion, as the extent of BLP violation is so much that the normal editorial process is inadequate. Sceptre (talk) 00:29, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Even if every point you make is accurate (and I would dispute this) it would still not justify deletion of the article. Marc Lemire is a notable figure in Canada, and is quite appropriate as the subject of a Wikipedia article. If there are legitimate BLP violations, the proper course of action is to remove them -- not to delete the article outright. CJCurrie (talk) 00:35, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. WP:BLP says If the entire page is substantially of poor quality, containing primarily unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons, then it may be necessary to delete the entire page as an initial step, followed by discussion. Page deletion should be treated as a last resort, with the page being improved and remedied where possible and disputed areas discussed. There has been no effort by Sceptre (or anyone else) to identify BLP problems on the talk page. Sceptre has never edited the article, and so the assertion that deletion is the only remedy appears precipitous. The sources in the article appear reasonable, so I'm not sure which BLP problems Sceptre is alleging. As the past presient of the Heritage Front, it's not surprsing that the subject would be called a "neo-nazi" or a "racist". Such folks do exist and it does not automaticlaly violate BLP to use those terms if sufficiently sourced. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:37, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Some of the terms used are so perojative that they must not, per WP:NPOV, be used as definitive statements. For example, no-one would ever willingly admit to their own racism of neo-Nazism. Sceptre (talk) 00:39, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If the terms aren't sufficiently-well sourced then you can remove them, and they can be attributed if they're POV. Note though that NPOV also requires we include all significant viewpoints, not just the subject's view of himself. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:43, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not making a UNDUE argument here. What I mean is, we should not use terms as definitive when the subject would not themselves. For example, actor or lawyer are fine. Racist or cult are not, even where they are technically accurate. We risk causing harm to people if we use those terms as definitive, and as that mostly overlaps with opinion, we shouldn't assert them as facts either. We can say who says he's a racist, but a common problem is the inappropriate use of the lead to introduce spin; we should stick to bare facts in the lead section. Sceptre (talk) 00:52, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Fine, but you're not giving any reasons why this article should be deleted. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:02, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There, no, but I believe it should be deleted because I think, as an outsider to this article, it extensively violates BLP to the point only deletion or officesque pruning would suffice. Sceptre (talk) 01:08, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a last resort, not a first one. Nothing in the article is unsourced. We can review whether the sources are really sufficient, or if more of the material should be attributed. Now that you've started a thread about fixing it on the talk page I'm sure we can make progess. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:10, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There, no, but I believe it should be deleted because I think, as an outsider to this article, it extensively violates BLP to the point only deletion or officesque pruning would suffice. Sceptre (talk) 01:08, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Fine, but you're not giving any reasons why this article should be deleted. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:02, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not making a UNDUE argument here. What I mean is, we should not use terms as definitive when the subject would not themselves. For example, actor or lawyer are fine. Racist or cult are not, even where they are technically accurate. We risk causing harm to people if we use those terms as definitive, and as that mostly overlaps with opinion, we shouldn't assert them as facts either. We can say who says he's a racist, but a common problem is the inappropriate use of the lead to introduce spin; we should stick to bare facts in the lead section. Sceptre (talk) 00:52, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If the terms aren't sufficiently-well sourced then you can remove them, and they can be attributed if they're POV. Note though that NPOV also requires we include all significant viewpoints, not just the subject's view of himself. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:43, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Some of the terms used are so perojative that they must not, per WP:NPOV, be used as definitive statements. For example, no-one would ever willingly admit to their own racism of neo-Nazism. Sceptre (talk) 00:39, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and address BLP concerns in Talk. JJL (talk) 03:34, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep possibly a SNOW, Will states the situation correctly. DGG (talk) 04:32, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Will Beback. Issues can be addressed through means other than deletion. Maxamegalon2000 07:21, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Sadly, sometimes words like "neo-Nazi", "racist", "bigot" and "violent organizations" are accurate descriptions rather than epithets. BLP doesn't mean we have to whitewash people to whom these words are applicable. CRakovsky (talk) 15:26, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Nominator misunderstands NPOV. NPOV means we reflect what indepdent reliable sources say. If there's a clear consensus something is a fact, we state as a fact, even if the subject, and some unreliable sources disagree. That's why we say Hitler carried out the Holocaust in the lead. In Wikipedia, neutrality means reflecting reliable sources, and not introducing one's own biases. If one doesn't like what reliable sources are saying, then one should argue with those sources. It would be a violation of WP:NPOV and WP:LEAD not to mention the most notable facts about the subject, even though they sound awful. --Rob (talk) 16:19, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 close. AfD is not for Talk: pages. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:20, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Talk:High School Musical : The College Years[edit]
- Talk:High School Musical : The College Years (edit | [[Talk:Talk:High School Musical : The College Years|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
First off, this is in the wrong section and secondly the information and the cast list are completely fabricated. Dontyoudare (talk) 00:14, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 03:30, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Jokaero[edit]
- Jokaero (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Contested prod.
Reasoning for the original prod was Minor fictional race with no secondary sources to establish notability as required by Wikipedia:Notability. It sounds like this race is not even that notable in-universe: "minor independent alien race", "occasional indirect references can be found"., which I seconded.
This 40K race is not mentioned at all in sources outside Games Workshop material and only briefly mentioned within it. It's not even clear if these guys are canonical. DGG, who contested the prod, suggests a merge but, even if we could find an appropriate place to merge to, I don't think the Jokaero warrant any more than a one or two sentence mention. Reyk YO! 00:13, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per my original prod. Does not sound like a good candidate for merging. Pagrashtak 03:57, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- merge as should be the default for this. If thought not worth it,then redirect. But not delete--there's no rason why someone who comes across the name and looks in this best known of all sources for games shouldn't at least find out what game it refers to. DGG (talk) 04:34, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. This is an offhand reference that GW may or may not do more with at a later date. This is a footnote of a footnote of a footnote. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 10:11, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The wording of the prod says it all. Fictional race which plays a very minor role and hasn't been the subject of substantial coverage from secondary sources. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 20:51, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Boldly redirected to The Crusade (album) per WP:MUSIC precedent. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 17:39, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Becoming The Dragon[edit]
- Becoming The Dragon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Prod declined, non-notable song Rwiggum (Talk/Contrib) 00:01, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to the album, The Crusade (album), as a plausible search term. If any of the material becomes WP:reliably sourced in the meantime, merge. -- saberwyn 07:37, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect back to The Crusade (album). Fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Songs. Esradekan Gibb "Talk" 11:08, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect via Rwiggum and Esradekan --Numyht (talk) 15:24, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Does not appear to be independently notable: redirect this to point to the album. -- The Anome (talk) 15:26, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 03:29, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
High School Musical (song)[edit]
- High School Musical (song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
A song from High School Musical 3: Senior Year (soundtrack) that has poor and wrong information must be deleted. --Gabriel mark 10:16, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith talk 00:03, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete I could go through what policies this fails, but I can't be asked --Numyht (talk) 15:23, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This article had a prod from August 5 on it. I prod2'd it but the prod and prod2 were removed by an ip without comment. In that case, Delete per WP:CRYSTAL and being an unsourced substub on a song that isn't even going to be released. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 20:57, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Wikipedia is not a crystal ball … Happy Editing! — 72.75.91.179 (talk · contribs) 01:04, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Disney would not be this lazy and have a song with this title. Unconfirmed and unlikely. Nate • (chatter) 02:00, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete—The article contains virtually no meaningful information. It pretty much says, "It will be a song in High School Musical 3." Sorry, but this article needs to wait until after the movie has come out, when there will be enough info to write a feasible article. SunDragon34 (talk) 06:29, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete There are no links linking to this article.--124.217.11.57 (talk) 10:39, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.