Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 May 12
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 20:42, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
United Planet[edit]
- United Planet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
No evidence for encyclopedic notability (see Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)), no independent sources. Article has been tagged for notability since May 2007, for missing sources since August 2006. No hard facts such as the year of foundation, the number of members, funding sources, size of the budget...
I am also nominating the following related pages (now redirects to United Planet) because of the same concerns (no evidence for notability, no sources):
- UP Ambassador Clubs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (previous versions: announcements of / advertising for projects of the organization)
- UP Special Projects (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (previous versions: announcements of / advertising for projects of the organization)
- VOE (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (previous versions just redirects/link only pages)
- Cultural Awareness Project & UP Storytelling (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (previous versions: announcements of / advertising for projects of the organization)
- Voices of Earth Cultural Exchange (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (previous version: about a web forum run by the organization)
Regards, High on a tree (talk) 23:46, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Promo, fails WP:ORG. KleenupKrew (talk) 01:49, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I want a delete. Where's the third party references? Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 02:34, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Organization clearly exists, but seems to be mostly a fee-based clearinghouse for short-term exchanges. Robertissimo (talk) 07:35, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Because the articles do not include citations from reliable sources, they do not appear to be in compliance with the verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 19:08, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete They may actually be notable, but someone would have to write an article showing that with some outside sources. DGG (talk) 02:29, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 20:39, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all as promos for a nn org. JJL (talk) 02:36, 15 May 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 merge and redirect to New Rave. The old revisions will be accessible in the page history, and any useable and well-sourced content can be merged into the more established and better-referenced article. MastCell Talk 16:30, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nu-rave[edit]
- Nu-rave (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non notable subject, original research based on a single self published source neonwhite user page talk 23:37, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How are references in multiple web pages, a magazine and on a record releases (all independant) a single self published source. As Neon White knows nothing about this scene I question his ability to ask for the Nu-rave page to be deleted. User:Fluffski 16:09, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- My knowledge of the so called 'scene' if such a thing exist is irrelevant, in fact uninvolved editors are in a far better position to make a judgement. The references are not verfiable according to policy, myspace pages are 'self published' as are most web sites. There is no citations from a magazine or any other fact checked publication to establish notability. --neonwhite user page talk 03:05, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Could you clarify what is meant by a "self published source"? I am not affiliated with any of the websites I have used for sources, I have just used them as examples. Also, is there not more than one source? I included two different websites as sources (one of which has scanned magazine articles in it's blog entries, a third source of information which I can't link to directly because they are MySpace blog entries and blocked by Wikipedia) and I believe at least two more of the external links directly mention Nu-Rave on their home pages. I appreciate there is a lot of room for improvement, but I am willing to work on it. I also appreciate that there could be confusion caused between this and "New Rave", but both genres / scenes are well enough established in my opinion to warrant their own pages. As a side note, could you tell me anything briefly about scanning in magazine articles? I would be happy to provide evidence of the Knowledge article because they do not have it up on their own website as yet, but would that be breaking rules? --Ssp212 (talk) 16:43, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:SPS can clarify. All sources are currently unreliable and unverifiable according to WP:V and the article makes no claims of notability. --neonwhite user page talk 02:56, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- (edit conflict)
- "Self-published source" doesn't mean content which we (the WP contributors) have published ourselves, but generally content where author = publisher, i.e. with no editorial control. See WP:SPS and self-publishing. Anybody can start a web site.
- Magazine articles can be good sources for this sort of article -depending on what kind of magazine it is (see Wikipedia:Reliable sources); I think Kmag should be OK. But not every use of the word in such a source is suitable as evidence for notability - if it is just an ad-hoc expression a writer invented for a juicy headline, the quote would hardly prove that it is a widely used musical term.
- Uploading magazine scans to Wikipedia is not possible since the magazine is probably not under a free copyright license. But you can quote short passages of text.
- Regards, High on a tree (talk) 02:58, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Because the article does not include citations from reliable sources, it does not appear to be in compliance with the verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 19:07, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete unless improved - while there might be evidence for some kind of current rave revival (perhaps not the first time that people have claimed one), it hasn't been demonstrated yet that it needs to be described in its own article, and that "nu-rave" is a widely used term for this. The article also lacks any concrete musical information - I understand that it describes nu-rave as an "umbrella term" rather than as an actual musical genre, but what exactly are the musical elements from the "old skool" which producers are taking up again (breakbeats, happy pianos, pitched vocals, ...)? Regards, High on a tree (talk) 02:58, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I have added some notes on common musical elements.--Ssp212 (talk) 20:53, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- My personal view is that redirecting to New Rave is the way to go as that article is sourced and clearly notable and uses nu rave as an alternative. This article just seems like original research to me and at best the term is very rare neologism as opposed to the more notable use. --neonwhite user page talk 03:10, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The New Rave described in wiki is an entirely different scene relating to indie guitar bands rather than Rave music. I agree that the article requires improvement and hopefully additional references will be added in time but to delete the page would be wrong as the Nu-rave scene exists and is growing even if its not currently well documented. User:Fluffski 12:50, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 20:40, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I have now added links to the Knowledge article, which has been scanned and uploaded to nu-rave.com. Is this acceptable as a source of information to establish notability?--Ssp212 (talk) 20:24, 19 May 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 --JForget 01:12, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How to Make a Chocolate Souffle[edit]
- How to Make a Chocolate Souffle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Wikipedia is not a cookbook. Likely this is a copyrighted recipe, anyway. Corvus cornixtalk 22:49, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as a clear-cut case of WP:NOT. --KurtRaschke (talk) 22:53, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Couldnt be a better example than this for Wikipedia is not a cookbook. Prashanthns (talk) 22:55, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Likely copyrighted recipe. Wikipedia is not a cookbook. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 23:24, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Recipe. Is there a Wikicookbook this could be transwikied to? KleenupKrew (talk) 01:55, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as this article is exactly what a "how to" guide is (even in the title). While recipes are encyclopedic, our policies and guidelines are opposed to actual "how to" articles, so therefore I have to go with delete for policy reasons. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 16:15, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Transwiki to Wikibooks Cookbook but only if it is not a copyvio. I strongly suspect a copypaste here. Stifle (talk) 19:10, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as copyvio. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 22:44, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 20:41, 14 May 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 (non-admin closure), because notability has been confirmed. Ecoleetage (talk) 00:13, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wirt H. Wills[edit]
- Wirt H. Wills (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non notable. ...... Dendodge .. TalkHelp 22:30, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:19, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. This article passes WP:PROF as he's a professor Emeritus and has contributed to his field as well as peer reviewing many others. Originally I found this article while on patrol and contested its speedy deletion as it appeared notable (see Talk:Wirt_H._Wills for more on this discussion). When I logged back on, I saw this AfD. I'm back at working on the article, as it needs cleanup. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 00:14, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, but only because I agreed to pull down my speedy-deletion tag in order to give SynergeticMaggot more time to work on some issues with the article. That agreement was barely 24 hours old when User:Dendodge posted this AfD nomination. That discussion is clearly spelled out on the article's talk page, which Dendodge evidently didn't bother to check. I might add that a simple "Not notable" is grossly insufficient as an explanation for an AfD nomination. It shows no effort at all in explaining why the subject fails notability standards, or any effort to do at least a perfunctory Google search to see if there are any relevant sources that might be added. Sorry, but a simple "Not notable" just won't cut it here. (I'll add that I may agree at a later time that the subject isn't notable, but let's at least stick with the agreement first.) - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 01:06, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep sufficient published work and discussion of it. DGG (talk) 16:10, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, but needs a fair amount of cleanup. Stifle (talk) 19:11, 13 May 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 21:15, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Bsfmovie[edit]
- Bsfmovie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Per WP:NFF. Hasn't even begun filming yet; no references whatsoever. Ghits -- website, MySpace, this article. nneonneo talk 22:28, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, WP:NFF. Esradekan Gibb "Talk" 01:47, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above. I think this may need to be developed into a speedy category. Stifle (talk) 19:11, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. As demonstrated, clearly fails WP:NFF. WilliamH (talk) 19:19, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 20:41, 14 May 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 merge and redirect to MPQ. Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:19, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
.DBC[edit]
- .DBC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Bringing to AFD soley becuase of a PROD that was effectively challenged a couple years ago. Agreed with the original PROD reasoning: "An obcsure file format nested within another obscure file format" No notability, and gods help us if we write sub-stubs for every random three letter combination various games and programs use for their file types. Resolute 22:10, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 22:13, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and Redirect to MPQ. Not notable on it's own.Gazimoff WriteRead 22:22, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and Redirect to MPQ. No need for a merge, as no useful material backed up to secondary WP:RS/WP:V sources within the article to merge. Cirt (talk) 22:27, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and Redirect to MPQ. Agree with Cirt. New Order (talk) 03:37, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to MPQ per all above. Stifle (talk) 19:11, 13 May 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 --JForget 01:13, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rapture's End[edit]
- Rapture's End (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Sci-fi novel by an author without an article. Google brings up no relevant ghits for either the title or the author. Strongly suspect this book is self-published or through a vanity press, if it exists at all. Copyright status for image of book cover claims that it was uploaded by the copyright holder, so it may be self-promotion. — Gwalla | Talk 22:06, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, per nom, but also the entire article appears to be an unsourced violation of WP:OR. Cirt (talk) 22:28, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Both the book and the author appear to be non-notable. No references by reliable sources anywhere. GoogleBooks has nothing[1] and even the plain Google search returns only 41 hits[2] for the author's name, most of which appear to be false positives. Fails WP:N and WP:BK. Nsk92 (talk) 22:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Looks like there was a duplicate article at Rapture’s End. That article's creation seems to predate the AFD nomination, so I just turned it into a redirect for now. — Gwalla | Talk 22:56, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Published by vanity press Xlibris; apparently not held in any WorldCat libraries; no discoverable reviews or other attention. Fails WP:BK big time. Deor (talk) 01:44, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I'm finding zippo by way of this book being noticed -- thus, not notable. —Quasirandom (talk) 02:45, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Question Are both the straight-quote and curly-quote version of the article up for AfD? If so, need to add the other one to the nomination. —Quasirandom (talk) 02:47, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oy, confusion -- one's now a redirect. Got it. Ne-ver-mind. —Quasirandom (talk) 02:49, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Because the article does not include citations from reliable sources, it does not appear to be in compliance with the verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 19:11, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Nsk92. My search for sources was similarly fruitless. Non-notable work. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 20:49, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 20:41, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 20:41, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per Deor. Merenta (talk) 23:45, 14 May 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 --JForget 01:15, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dianetics: The Original Thesis[edit]
- Dianetics: The Original Thesis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
I searched through multiple database archives in an attempt to find secondary WP:RS/WP:V sources that either discuss or review "Dianetics: The Original Thesis" or "The Dynamics of Life" in any depth, but could not find any. Zero results in a search of three different database archives of newspaper articles. Zero results in an archival index of book reviews in InfoTrac. There were a few results in other books, but these were either in passing only and no discussion in any sort of depth, or simply a listing of related works published by the Church of Scientology. The only secondary WP:RS/WP:V source I could find that discussed the book at all was The New Religious Movements Experience in America by Eugene V. Gallagher, who acknowledges that the work was a "privately circulated paper", a prelude to Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health. But since it is quite unlikely that individuals will be searching for "Dianetics: The Original Thesis", there is no need to merge anything to that article (nothing to merge really, as the only source cited in the article at present is to a primary source affiliated with the publisher) - I see no need to merge to that article, but rather recommend deletion. Cirt (talk) 22:00, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - article can be recreated later if its individual notability is established. John Carter (talk) 00:42, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete So the way I read this is that Dianetics has a first draft, that didn't get published. Wow that is a shocker, L. Ron Didn't write Dianetics in one sitting. I wonder how many other authors have first drafts of their works that arn't published. My opinion is that this article dosn't give any additional information on Dianetics itself, or Scientology.Coffeepusher (talk) 04:33, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Insufficiently distinct topic from Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health to warrant a separate article. Nothing to indicate this is notable in its own right apart from the main book. KleenupKrew (talk) 11:12, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Because the article does not include citations from reliable sources, it does not appear to be in compliance with the verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 19:12, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Only notable within the CofS and Freezone. Also does not include adequate citations and reliable sources.--Fahrenheit451 (talk) 03:00, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The article has no sources that this "original thesis" even existed. AndroidCat (talk) 06:39, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 20:42, 14 May 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 --JForget 01:18, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Arctic Monkeys' third studio album[edit]
- Arctic Monkeys' third studio album (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
A balatant WP:CRYSTAL violation; not even planned for '08 release - goodness knows when, if ever Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 21:56, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. WP:CRYSTAL. KleenupKrew (talk) 21:59, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, could be recreated if article's subject gets, um, an actual album name, and significant coverage in WP:RS/WP:V secondary sources. Cirt (talk) 22:29, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. WP:FUTURE clearly applies here. WilliamH (talk) 22:30, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. A crystal clear WP:CRYSTAL case. Nsk92 (talk) 22:36, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, WP:CRYSTAL. Esradekan Gibb "Talk" 01:46, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all X's #th album/single/EP articles. If they don't have an announced name they are an inherent violation of WP:CBALL. Stifle (talk) 19:12, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 20:42, 14 May 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 21:06, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Settra[edit]
- Settra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Nonnotable fictional character. May even be a copyvio, as the text reads a bit like the Games Workshop style. Graevemoore (talk) 21:50, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, non-notable, unsourced WP:OR. Cirt (talk) 22:29, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No evidence of notability. The entire article reads like an OR essay. Nsk92 (talk) 22:39, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Essayist original commentary, no evidence of notability, this should remain its home, not Wikipedia. WilliamH (talk) 17:20, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Because the article does not include citations from reliable sources, it does not appear to be in compliance with the verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 19:12, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Plot summary of a non-notable character. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 20:55, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment:
might have been copied from another Wikipedia article. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 07:39, 16 May 2008 (UTC)Another Wikipedia article may contain material copied from the one currently under discussion, seemingly without attribution. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 07:47, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply] - Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 20:42, 14 May 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. Pigman☿ 05:36, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sri Gaudiya Vedanta Samiti[edit]
- Sri Gaudiya Vedanta Samiti (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non notable organization with very questionable sources. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 21:12, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 21:15, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Non notable religious organization. Sources are questionable. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 21:16, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You're the nominator, you don't need to provide a !vote as well. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 21:24, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, much of the article appears to be WP:OR violation, and what is not is cited to sources directly affiliated with the article's subject. Cirt (talk) 22:32, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Sources are problematic, but a google search uncovers a bunch of third-party source information. Deletion should not be used as an easy way of remedying source/OR issues. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:02, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Please feel free to add any reliable sources you find to the article. I have not been able to find any. Please share any information you find to establish notablity aside from Google searches. Google searches do not establish notability, and are not reliable sources. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 04:10, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As a matter of principle I generally don't edit the article that is the subject of an ongoing AfD. I didn't say google searches established notability or was a reliable source. I said doing a search uncovered some sources that for me established notability. Any editor can do the same and see what they think. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:36, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Because the article does not include citations from reliable sources, it does not appear to be in compliance with the verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 19:13, 13 May 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 --JForget 01:21, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Caitlin Forsyth[edit]
- Caitlin Forsyth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This person may be a talented teenager but they do not appear to have received the significant coverage by reliable sources independent of the subject required to establish notability and verify the content of the article. Guest9999 (talk) 21:11, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:NOTE (or rather, lack thereof). Zero gnews hits, only a few ghits and none of them seem to apply to her, and many redlinks in the article. She may become notable later...when independent, reliable sources determine so, then an article would be appropriate. Frank | talk 21:36, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No references to indicate notability. The achievements mentioned, even if verified, are insifficient to pass WP:BIO. GoogleNews returns 11 hits but they all appear to be about another person with the same name in the U.S.[3]. Nsk92 (talk) 21:43, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, per cogent information given by Nsk92 (talk · contribs), not to mention that the entire article is unsourced WP:OR. No significant coverage in secondary sources. Cirt (talk) 22:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. For the cogent reasoning already outlined, I cannot see anything that merits this article per policy. WilliamH (talk) 22:35, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Google "Caitlin Forsyth" +actress gets 1 hit. Claims won a prize (which I can't find any evidence of prize existing) - Google Caitlin Forsyth "Sick Little Suicide" returns 0 hits. Camillus 22:38, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as non-notable Jasynnash2 (talk) 07:50, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Because the article does not include citations from reliable sources, it does not appear to be in compliance with the verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 19:13, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 20:43, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 20:43, 14 May 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. Sandstein 21:17, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hypomenorrhea[edit]
- Hypomenorrhea (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Delete contested prod; one editor thought that this article, a duplicate of wiktionary's definition, is appropriate for the encyclopedia, despite WP:NOT#DICTIONARY. It's a dictionary entry, it gets deleted. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:06, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. This is an encyclopedic subject with plenty of scope for expansion from sources such as these 753 scholarly articles and these 572 books. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:13, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep, as this is a real description of a condition of the human body and may be related to or caused by various things. I agree that it is a WP:DICTDEF now, but it bears improvement. See [4] and [5] for starters. Better refs can (and should) be found. Frank | talk 21:20, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Phil Bridger. This is a technical medical concept, not a mundane dictionary term. Plenty of reliable sources. Deserves an expanded article. Nsk92 (talk) 21:47, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and expand. Legitimate medical topic, potential for expansion far beyond a mere dicdef. KleenupKrew (talk) 22:01, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Sources certainly warrant this article's expansion as a legitimate entity of medical science. WilliamH (talk) 22:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete unless expanded it is simply a dictionary def and doesn't belong. Jasynnash2 (talk) 07:57, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep. Legitimate topic. Just needs expanding. Bryan Hopping T 15:17, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As my delete above says if the article is expanded than I'm happy to change from delete to keep. Giving you the opportunity to expand the article and take part in this discussion was reason I made sure you were notified in the first place. Personally, I don't want to set a precedent for one-line dictionary definitions to be kept because they MAY be expanded. If they ARE going to be expanded in the near future by those that know more about the subject or contributed the original article though that is a different story and a different precedent. Jasynnash2 (talk) 15:22, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I think if we expected every article to come to life as a fully written, mature article, this encyclopedia would be a very poor resource indeed. Certainly this is not a high-quality article at this point, but it is valid and useful...way more so than any number of deletion candidates that survive, I might add... Frank | talk 02:48, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Please note I never said articles had to be fully written and/or mature when they came into existence. I said that I didn't want to see MAY be expanded to become the norm around here. I'll gladly discuss the subject in general at my talk page. Jasynnash2 (talk) 08:20, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. It is the norm already. It is called a STUB. --Itub (talk) 08:48, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment So Dictdefs are stubs and stubs are allowed so dictdefs of notable things are therefore allowed? Again if that is the norm it shouldn't be. Creating a one-line article and leaving it to sit should not be encouraged. Heck at least my sloppy rewrite makes the article less dictionary and hopefully a bit more useful. Jasynnash2 (talk) 09:29, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Please note I never said articles had to be fully written and/or mature when they came into existence. I said that I didn't want to see MAY be expanded to become the norm around here. I'll gladly discuss the subject in general at my talk page. Jasynnash2 (talk) 08:20, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I think if we expected every article to come to life as a fully written, mature article, this encyclopedia would be a very poor resource indeed. Certainly this is not a high-quality article at this point, but it is valid and useful...way more so than any number of deletion candidates that survive, I might add... Frank | talk 02:48, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As my delete above says if the article is expanded than I'm happy to change from delete to keep. Giving you the opportunity to expand the article and take part in this discussion was reason I made sure you were notified in the first place. Personally, I don't want to set a precedent for one-line dictionary definitions to be kept because they MAY be expanded. If they ARE going to be expanded in the near future by those that know more about the subject or contributed the original article though that is a different story and a different precedent. Jasynnash2 (talk) 15:22, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Jasynnash2, but sources and expansion will be required. Stifle (talk) 19:13, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and expand. All human medical disorders are appropriate article topics. Every one of them with even only a definition should be kept as a stub until it can be expanded. This is one of the cases where there is no doubt at all that a full article can be written, but even then, we dont delete stubs. all articles begin with a definition. DGG (talk) 02:34, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. This is a stub on a clearly notable topic that needs expanding, not something that needs deleting. Yilloslime (t) 04:44, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Stub about a notable topic. AfD is not cleanup. --Itub (talk) 08:48, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep.
Possibly merge with Oligomenorrhea.--Eleassar my talk 12:23, 14 May 2008 (UTC) Oppose merge per WhatamIdoing. --Eleassar my talk 09:17, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Should it be a redirect to Oligomenorrhea in the same way that Hypermenorrhea redirects to Menorrhagia? Jasynnash2 (talk) 12:29, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I think we should find references to answer that question before instituting such a redirect. I am not a medical expert, but as I understand it, hypomenorrhea is simply low flow. Oligomenorrhea is a pattern of same over time. (I actually think the same relationship exists with hypermenorrhea and menorrhagia, which might make the redirect inappropriate there too.) To give an analogy, if you have a seizure, it's a seizure, but if you have a number of them over time, it may be diagnosed as epilepsy (and it may not). Nevertheless, you've still had a seizure and you wouldn't necessarily want to read an article on epilepsy the first time someone tells you you've had a seizure. Frank | talk 12:49, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Agree with User:Frank. Maybe Bryan Hopping can help as the creator of the article? Or someone else who has commented previously can help. Either way for seems to be a snowball keep as only 3 people have said delete and I've since corrected the article from the original dictdef that it was nominated as. Jasynnash2 (talk) 13:09, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 20:44, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep and oppose merge. Despite sloppy use by non-specialists of the term oligomenorrhea to mean hypomenorrhea, the terms are not synonymous. Properly, hypomenorrhea is a low-volume flow; oligomenorrhea is infrequent flow (total cycle length > 35 days). See this and this for the distinction, which is important for assessing menstrual changes after (for example) endometrial ablation -- a procedure that affects the volume of menstrual flow, but not its frequency. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:20, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - thanks - that's what I would have said if I knew what I was talking about. Care to comment on hypermenorrhea, which currently redirects to menorrhagia? Frank | talk 12:06, 16 May 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 as redirect. No need to debate for five days over what has been shown to be a plausible typo. Non-admin closure. Itub (talk) 08:43, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Indoxicarb[edit]
- Indoxicarb (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Delete nn pesticide; only 246 ghits. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:04, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete.No sources or references cited to indicate notability. GoogleBooks gives zero hits[6] and GoogleScholar gives only 8 hits [7]. Fails WP:N. Nsk92 (talk) 21:53, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Changing to Redirect to Indoxacarb, per comments below. Seems to be a plausible misspelling. Nsk92 (talk) 02:11, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, per search for secondary sources already done by Nsk92 (talk · contribs), lack of significant coverage in independent secondary sources. Cirt (talk) 22:36, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect. There is no such thing as an nn pesticide. All chemical compounds are notable, and stubs are useful. But I think this is a spelling mistake, which would account for the lack of ghits. Redirect to Indoxacarb. --23:16, 12 May 2008 (UTC)The preceding comment was added by User:Eastmain who seems to have used 5 ~'s instead of 4. Perhaps appropriate in an AfD resulting from a misspelling. Nsk92 (talk) 02:16, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as redirect to Indoxacarb as performed by Eastmain. Redirects are cheap, and misspelling is plausible. Deor (talk) 01:51, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Deor. Stifle (talk) 19:14, 13 May 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. Daniel (talk) 02:09, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Bhakti Vaibhava Puri Goswami[edit]
- Bhakti Vaibhava Puri Goswami (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non notable who represents a non notable institution, Sri Krishna Chaitanya Mission, that has been deleted as not notable. Sources are questionable. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 21:03, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 21:06, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete Non notable individual from non notable religious institute. Sources are questionable. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 21:07, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Lol. As the nominator, I don't think you need to/should provide a subsequent vote, even if you "strongly" want deletion. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:05, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, per Ism schism (talk · contribs), but also the entire article appears to be WP:OR violation, and the only sources given at the bottom of the article are sources directly affiliated with the article's subject. Cirt (talk) 22:38, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. A google search, if you actually dig through the results to find third-party references, reveals that he is at least somewhat notable. The sources are currently problematic, but I don't agree with deletion being used as an easy way of remedying reference/OR issues. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:05, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Google searches do not establish notablity, nor do the number of results establish reliable sources. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 04:14, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't say they did. I said the sources found through a google search demonstrated notability to me. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:33, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Because the article does not include citations from reliable sources, it does not appear to be in compliance with the verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 19:16, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. In the two years, the article seems to have acquired no sources; it has remained virtually the same. I would not object to a later re-creation if sources are found. EdJohnston (talk) 01:55, 21 May 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. Apparently a copyvio, see [8], where the only substantial contributor also requests the deletion of the article. Redirected to Khmer sculpture. Sandstein 20:50, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ancient Khmer sculpture[edit]
- Ancient Khmer sculpture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
doubled, there is a same article already so please delete today Liguria (talk) 20:22, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Huh? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 20:51, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both this and Khmer sculpture--though without prejudice against recreation for the latter, as there seems to be quite a bit of useful information on this topic and that would be the proper title. They're both fascinating, well-written (except that "Ancient" has no paragraph breaks), and OR essays.I would, however, like to reiterate the comment of the hardware and his marine mammals; I can't figure out what's going on here. The nominator (who is also the author and main contributor for both of these articles; isn't that a criterion for speedy deletion?) created both of these articles today, and has already declined a ProD. Some explanation is in order. AnturiaethwrTalk 20:59, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
*Comment. To be clear, I'd also be open to a merge per Ten Pound Hammer, but not if Khmer sculpture remains in its current form. AnturiaethwrTalk 21:48, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]- Change to merge to Khmer sculpture per improvements to that article since I last looked. AnturiaethwrTalk 21:35, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Ancient Khmer sculpture and Khmer sculpture should be merged. Khmer sculpture is sourced (though it's lacking inline citations) and notable. It needs rewriting, but I think it's a better idea to improve on what's there. — Ksero (talk | contribs) 21:11, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Khmer sculpture, the better written of the two. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 21:15, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. A pure OR essay. Nothing to salvage here. I don't see a point in merging to Khmer sculpture, which is also an OR essay and might not survive anyway. Moreover, the common creator of both articles wants this one deleted. Why create more confusing redirects? Nsk92 (talk) 21:58, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete Wonderful as an OR, inapprorpriate as a WP article. Ecoleetage (talk) 03:05, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Because the article does not include citations from reliable sources, it does not appear to be in compliance with the verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 19:16, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge when there are multiple articles on the same subject, that's the solution.DGG (talk) 02:46, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cambodia-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 20:45, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 20:45, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Khmer sculpture, per several. That one is referenced and those calling it OR should point to what they think the references do not cover; personally I think it is more likely a copyvio, though a couple of tests show no ghits. The creator's prose style above seems a good deal less competent than the article. Probably little of the other one needs to be added though. Johnbod (talk) 18:00, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Khmer sculpture, per above. Rather than lose it all...Modernist (talk) 00:47, 16 May 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. There was no support for totally removing this material. Even the Delete voters implied that the material should find a home in one of the articles of the parent drugs. If coverage does move elsewhere thanks to the normal editorial process, the name Chlorpheniramine and phenylpropanolamine could become a redirect to whatever article section the material ends up in. EdJohnston (talk) 02:03, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Chlorpheniramine and phenylpropanolamine[edit]
- Chlorpheniramine and phenylpropanolamine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This drug combination doesn't warrant its own page. It should be included in the chlorpheniramine article. See Butalbital for an example of a good list of drug combinations centralized on one page. See also Paracetamol/metoclopramide for a similar, but more notable, article about a drug combo (which also recently survived Afd). Fuzzform (talk) 20:48, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, this article is what I'd call a "permanent stub". It contains all the information it will ever contain, so it's logical to move it somewhere else (and perhaps provide redirects for the brandnames listed). Fuzzform (talk) 20:51, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per a well-reasoned nomination. If there is any information of independent value here (which I don't see), it could easily be included in chlorpheniramine. GoogleScholar returns only a small number of hits[9]. A merge and redirect to chlorpheniramine is also a possibility. Nsk92 (talk) 22:46, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Drug combos should only be articles if they have received significant coverage as to the drugs in combination as opposed to other drugs/combinations. It might be a good idea for WP:DRUG to become a notablility policy. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:28, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Fuzzform. Stifle (talk) 19:17, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep very widely used over the counter medicine under multiple brand names, all very well known, all suitable for redirects. suitable to be kept. There is also a good deal of specific literature about this specific combination. We should have a notabillity policy for these drugs, and should include ones like this.DGG (talk) 02:55, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 20:46, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- PubMed coverage of this: using the article title here, "Chlorpheniramine and phenylpropanolamine": 99 papers, dealing with the analysis or the hazards of the combination. DGG (talk) 00:05, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per DGG. That there are papers dealing specifically with this combination, and there are multiple brand names for this combination, suggests to me that this is a notable combination. Same as rum and coke. :-) --Itub (talk) 13:32, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Chlorphenamine. No need to lose the content but there is no point in keeping as a separate page what would be a permastub. TerriersFan (talk) 20:35, 20 May 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, based on consensus and because the article's WP:OR issues are not addressed in any depth here. Sandstein 20:58, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Derelict (Alien)[edit]
- Derelict (Alien) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
The article fails WP:N in that it is about a fictional spaceship that only appears in 1 film (Alien, not counting a deleted scene in Aliens in which it also appears). In any case there is no secondary source material provided to support commentary about the subject as required by WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:RS. Its only substantial reference for most of its content is the film itself, and most of the article is blatant original research with much of it written from an in-universe perspective. All the pertinent information about the ship's concept & design is already included in Alien (film) (and Aliens (film) to a lesser extent) using real-world context in relation to the making of the film. Redirection is unnecessary as few articles link to it, and those that do mostly do so only through a template (Template:Alien) so they would be easy to remove. --IllaZilla (talk) 19:58, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per my reasons above. --IllaZilla (talk) 20:02, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Elements of a plot that only appear in one film, or one episode of a television programme do not satisfy WP:FICTION Fritzpoll (talk) 20:04, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Film charachter that is non notable. I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 20:25, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep as this is a key location in the series timeline, whether or not the footage actually appeared in the theatrical release of all the films or not, and central to discussions about who the aliens really are and whether the facehuggers and the space jockey are the same species (some believe the space jockey and the derelict were, like the Nostromo, overcome by the aliens). In other words, this should be sourceable per WP:FICT. --Dhartung | Talk 21:18, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment:I don't believe those subjects are discussable in the encyclopedia, as they don't appear to be discussed in secondary source material. What you're suggesting is basically fan synthesis, fanfiction, and a lot of in-universe stuff which is pretty much what we're trying to avoid by deleting this article. My interpretation of WP:FICT leads to the conclusion that the stuff you're suggesting probably isn't sourceable to reliable third-party sources, and is the kind of content that WP:FICT is designed to restrict/fix rather than expand. --IllaZilla (talk) 21:40, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Because the article does not include citations from reliable sources, it does not appear to be in compliance with the verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 19:17, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Such material can be sourced from the work of fiction itself. And I notice section 5 on real world aspects. DGG (talk) 03:06, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As stated, the real-world aspects are already presented in Alien (film), and is merely re-presented in this article with nothing additional to it. Material cannot be sourced exclusively from the work of fiction itself, as this is the point of V, OR, and the guidlines RS and WAF. Please find a policy, guideline, or precedent to show that articles may be based solely on primary source material, particularly articles on elements of fictional works. I have never seen any such thing, in fact I have only seen the opposite. --IllaZilla (talk) 03:13, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Those would be primary sources. Wikipedia prefers secondary sources. Stifle (talk) 08:36, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- not for this sort of material. Material on plot and the like is to be taken from the most reliable source, which is accepted as being the work, not a tv guide article on the work or something of the sort. Repeated theme of multiple discussions at RS noticeboard. DGG (talk) 04:04, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, yes, plot summary info is of course best derived from the work itself. However, I am not speaking of using the work itself as a source for plot summary but rather as a source for original research, fan theory, and synthesis, which this article is full of. Per the policy of verifiability, Wikipedia requires that articles rely on reliable, third-party published sources, which this article does not. This article makes a number of claims and advances a number of (possible) theses explaining the origins/structure/fate/etc. of the fictional craft, without attributing any of these ideas to any third-party source. This is the definition of original research. If the only information in this article that can reasonably be attributed to a source is the plot summary info (attributed to the film itself), then the article also fails WP:NOT#PLOT and therefore fails 3 out of 4 of our core article standards policies (the 4th being BLP, which doesn't even apply here). If we removed all the OR and unsourced statements from this article all we'd be left with is a bit of plot summary which is already fully detailed in the main article Alien (film). It might be possible to source things in the "concept and design" section using "making of" featurettes and other primary sources, but they are already so sourced and thoroughly covered in the film article and do not amount to enough content for a stand-alone article, especially one lacking any third-party sources. --IllaZilla (talk) 06:50, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- not for this sort of material. Material on plot and the like is to be taken from the most reliable source, which is accepted as being the work, not a tv guide article on the work or something of the sort. Repeated theme of multiple discussions at RS noticeboard. DGG (talk) 04:04, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Those would be primary sources. Wikipedia prefers secondary sources. Stifle (talk) 08:36, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As stated, the real-world aspects are already presented in Alien (film), and is merely re-presented in this article with nothing additional to it. Material cannot be sourced exclusively from the work of fiction itself, as this is the point of V, OR, and the guidlines RS and WAF. Please find a policy, guideline, or precedent to show that articles may be based solely on primary source material, particularly articles on elements of fictional works. I have never seen any such thing, in fact I have only seen the opposite. --IllaZilla (talk) 03:13, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 20:46, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Non-notable setting of a fictional universe which has not received significant coverage from reliable secondary sources. Additionally, I find the nom's analysis of the content in the film articles themselves to be solid, so there is really no reason to merge. Unlikely search term so redirect is unnecessary. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 04:35, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as notable element of a fictional universe covered in reliable primary and secondary sources. Likely search term. No reason to delete. Consistent with specialized encyclopedia as covered by our first pillar. Verfiable and not original research as it does not advance a thesis. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 05:08, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- OR is not limited only to articles which advance a thesis. Per the policy: "This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position." Note the and, meaning that OR is not just stuff that advances a position but includes any speculation or ideas that are previously unpublished. Read the article, it is full of this kind of stuff. For example it outright states "The origin of the Derelict and its inhabitant, the Space Jockey, is not depicted and virtually nothing is ever said about either throughout the entire Alien series." Yet it goes on to make theories about it being a bioship, its fictional origins, structure, fate after the films, etc. The only verifiable section, "concept and design", contains only information already presented in Alien (film) and is not sufficient to support an independent article as it amounts to only 2 shorrt paragraphs and does not include any references to secondary sources. --IllaZilla (talk) 05:25, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I would think checking through back issues of such magazines as Starlog (I actually recall reading one several years back that had information on the Derelict from Alien), which might take longer than a five day AfD (but we have no deadline, so there's no rush or urgency to delete anyway) would turn up stuff. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 05:29, 16 May 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 --JForget 01:23, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Untitled Upcoming Album[edit]
- Untitled Upcoming Album (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Contested PROD. This is an article about an album that is yet to be released. Although by a group that is apparently notable, this article fails WP:MUSIC and WP:CRYSTAL, particularly as the title is not yet known. There is no reason to have this article until the album has been released and the title is known Fritzpoll (talk) 19:52, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete non-notability whatsoever. Zenlax T C S 19:53, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per TenPoundHammer's law: Any album for which the title isn't yet known is very unlikely to survive an AfD. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 20:01, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge content to Bloodbath, since that doesn't mention it beyond a link. Olaf Davis | Talk 20:39, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all such articles are WP:CRYSTAL violations, but at least this one supplies a date, which is better than most. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 21:59, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. WP:CRYSTAL, and bad article name to boot considering it doesn't even say whose album it is or provide any context. KleenupKrew (talk) 22:03, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, lack of significant discussion in secondary sources. Cirt (talk) 22:40, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. A WP:CRYSTAL case, plus few reliable source references anyway. Nsk92 (talk) 22:49, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, WP:CRYSTAL. Esradekan Gibb "Talk" 01:46, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, the title itself is a random guess. Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 02:37, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:CBALL. Stifle (talk) 19:18, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as non-notable. Few reliable sources. — Wenli (reply here) 03:24, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 20:46, 14 May 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 WP:CSD#G7 (one author who has requested deletion) per Musimax's reply to Shawn in Montreal. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:56, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
List of former logos used by Mpix[edit]
- List of former logos used by Mpix (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
WP is not a image gallery, and this fork is only used to facilitate the usage of non-free content. ViperSnake151 19:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Keep: as the creator of this page, I think it warrants its own article, I think the articles content is notable and should stay, so I don't think deleting the article is the right approach and if it was merged into the Mpix article, I think it would make the article messy and busy. So I think it should stay as is. musimax. (talk) 19:40, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Per WP:NFCC and WP:NFC, non-free images are specifically prohibited from being used in lists or galleries, and this article is nothing more than a combination of both. Blatant fair-use abuse. --IllaZilla (talk) 20:05, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I think the historical logos are very relevant to the Mpix article, helping readers identify the company. If that article was getting too long, it could be convenient to promote long sections of it into new articles. However, that's not the case right now. I don't think there's any need to have this separate list right now. — Ksero (talk | contribs) 21:30, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete aside from the non-free content issues it just seems unlikely that it will be possible to give the topic an encyclopaedic treatment, how much coverage did the relatively minor changes to this company's logo actually receive. Looking at the current version of the main Mpix all the content is already included there anyway. Guest9999 (talk) 21:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, per cogent rationale given above by IllaZilla (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 22:41, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Wikipedia is not Wikimedia Commons. All these logos appear in the main article. If the editor does not like their appearance, then I suggest improving the layout of the page, and/or linking to a Wikimedia Commons page where all these logos can appear if they are not found to be in violation of image policy. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:50, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As a note, the images were not included in the Mpix article first, they were added by the AfD nominator after I made my comment on how it would look. Taking a look at it now, it doesn't look so bad and I would be fine with the article being deleted. musimax. (talk) 15:19, 13 May 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 merge/redirect to SkyTran. Useful and well-sourced content can be merged from the page history into the SkyTran article. MastCell Talk 16:45, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
UniModal[edit]
- UniModal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Originally considered here, but then speedily deleted a couple of years later before winding up at deletion review, see here. Relisted here. Please consider the material presented in the DRV before commenting. Myself, abstain. Splash - tk 19:30, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Although the product under development is notable (Skytran), this does not confer sufficient notability on the company to warrant an individual article per WP:COMPANY. Merge relevant content to Skytran and delete. Fritzpoll (talk) 20:09, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Since this was speedied, the SkyTran article was created independently. There is no need for both UniModal and SkyTran, IMO. SkyTran is the PRT design, UniModal is the company created to develop it. I prefer SkyTran, and now that we have access to the speedied UniModal page, I suggest it be merged into SkyTran, and UniModal can then redirect there. ATren (talk) 20:26, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into SkyTran. This topic is notable enough to warrant one small article, but not two; and "Skytran" is the name by which this is better known. Skybum (talk) 22:57, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and redirect into SkyTran. All sources on the article except the company website are talking about Skytran and not about the company itself, so it doesn't meet WP:CORP. Re-use the sources on the SkyTran article --Enric Naval (talk) 01:17, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- NOTICE - I've rolled back UniModal to an edit before JJDoorjam messed it up, because thats really what he did. Fresheneesz (talk) 03:22, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into SkyTran. It is a notable, and *very* sourced idea. People have brought up the fact that it doesn't have a working system - but this doesn't mean *any* of us would even think about deleting articles like space elevator, starship enterprise, or invisibility cloak. Furthermore, the article is not an advertisement, nor does it look like one. Fresheneesz (talk) 03:22, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into SkyTran and then delete Unimodal, which can be redirected to SkyTran. With fewer articles about this topic, it will be easier to maintain. Stephen B Streater (talk) 09:57, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that if the content is merged, the article cannot be deleted as it's necessary to preserve the history for the GFDL. If merged, then the current article can be turned into a redirect, but not deleted before the redirect is created. -- Kesh (talk) 15:49, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- So the relevant material should be rewritten from the original sources. I sense that UniModal is not notable enough in itself to keep, and keeping it on a technicality is not ideal. Stephen B Streater (talk) 10:34, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that if the content is merged, the article cannot be deleted as it's necessary to preserve the history for the GFDL. If merged, then the current article can be turned into a redirect, but not deleted before the redirect is created. -- Kesh (talk) 15:49, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - The article isn't actually about UniModal, it's written about the SkyTran system. UniModal gets the barest mention in the intro, and that's it. There's really nothing here that needs merged to SkyTran, so an outright delete is appropriate. -- Kesh (talk) 15:49, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, there is a lot of information there that needs to be merged into SkyTran, since the Unimodal article is really about SkyTran. The fact that Unimodal is only mentioned in the intro is a reason to merge, not a reason to delete. Fresheneesz (talk) 20:25, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It doesn't "need" to be merged. It can be rewritten into the SkyTran article from the original sources. Merging in this case is really overkill. -- Kesh (talk) 21:42, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed. In fact, if the consensus is to delete, I would ask if the page can be made available (temporarily userfy to me?) and I will happily do the content merge manually Fritzpoll (talk) 21:55, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not going to nitpick over that, but I don't see why a merge (for history's sake) is more overkill than copy and paste merging.. Fresheneesz (talk) 06:43, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed. In fact, if the consensus is to delete, I would ask if the page can be made available (temporarily userfy to me?) and I will happily do the content merge manually Fritzpoll (talk) 21:55, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It doesn't "need" to be merged. It can be rewritten into the SkyTran article from the original sources. Merging in this case is really overkill. -- Kesh (talk) 21:42, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, there is a lot of information there that needs to be merged into SkyTran, since the Unimodal article is really about SkyTran. The fact that Unimodal is only mentioned in the intro is a reason to merge, not a reason to delete. Fresheneesz (talk) 20:25, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 20:47, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into SkyTran. While I know nothing of the subject, some of the content of this article looks better than that one. At the end of doing the merge, the present article should be left as a redirect, in accordance with standard practice.
- Delete and then redirect the page to Unimodal function. The SkyTran article already contains everything of relevance in the UniModal article. (Full, though perhaps irrelevant, disclosure: I deleted
SkyTranUniModal about a month ago, which led to the DRV that led to this AFD.) JDoorjam JDiscourse 22:18, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I thought you deleted UniModal. Stephen B Streater (talk) 09:01, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, my mistake! You're right; I corrected above. JDoorjam JDiscourse 05:09, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I thought you deleted UniModal. Stephen B Streater (talk) 09:01, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Unimodal already redirects to Unimodal function. UniModal has a capital M, so that can redirect to SkyTran without affecting the Unimodal redirect. ATren (talk) 00:11, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- delete the industrial equivalent of vaporware - this socalled train system doesn't really exist in any meangful formCinnamon colbert (talk) 01:52, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and direct unimodal to a disambiguation page. Alternatively, use the material to rewrite Skytran to actually be meaningful again. The SkyTran article has been butchered to the point where the reader can't possibly get an accurate idea what the article is about. Even the references to the inductrack passive levitation system have been removed. I submit that SkyTran is an interesting idea, certainly much more feasible than a space elevator or terraforming Venus. I can't possibly understand the motivation behind the drive on the part of a few users to make SkyTran-related articles all but gone. Jeremija81 (talk) 08:08, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete If there is an article on Skytran, the article should mention that it is supposed to be built with robots-[10] Skytran's supposed inventor gave up on it-[11]... but that won't stop Skytran's promoters... they're going to be at the Ithaca Podcar Conference in September- [12]Avidor (talk) 00:48, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Question If Unimodal is the company that is developing Skytran, does it have a business address? This is the best I could find [13]...but, it appears to be a residential address...Avidor (talk) 14:44, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Avidor is a single purpose account. He has been here more than two years, his edits are exclusively on the articles related to PRT and its supporters. He is associated with the lightrailnow.org website, a pro-rail website underwritten by rail construction interests - of course, rail construction would be directly threatened by proliferation of PRT. Avidor has also maintained an extensive anti-PRT website for over 5 years now, and has called PRT a "fraud", a "hoax", a "scam" and a "flim flam" hundreds (thousands?) of times in forums across the Internet (frequently using multiple aliases to do so), though he has never presented a single piece of evidence to substantiate these claims.
- Disclaimer: I know all this because I watch his anti-PRT writings, and debunk his statements on my blog. There is also another blog which does the same. ATren (talk) 15:09, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- To answer the question, UniModal is awaiting funding to proceed, so it is very likely that they are in hibernation mode and do not maintain an office. This is not unusual for startups. ATren (talk) 15:29, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- ATren, please be civil. You just spent a paragraph attacking his character before spending a sentence agreeing with his findings. Let's keep this about the article and about Wikipedia, not about conflicts between personalities elsewhere on the internet. JDoorjam JDiscourse 05:09, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I responded on your talk. In short, it is not uncivil to point out when an editor returns from a 9 month break to vote in a deletion debate, especially when that editor has only ever edited articles dealing with the topic of the deletion. Also, I can't see how stating verifiable fact can be construed as an attack on character. See your talk page for details (including evidence to back all my statements). ATren (talk) 05:34, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- ATren, please be civil. You just spent a paragraph attacking his character before spending a sentence agreeing with his findings. Let's keep this about the article and about Wikipedia, not about conflicts between personalities elsewhere on the internet. JDoorjam JDiscourse 05:09, 19 May 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. . A merger can be discussed on the talk page. Sandstein 21:20, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Prehen House[edit]
- Prehen House (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Unsourced article stub on a house in Northern Ireland that is rather old, but for which there is no indication of notability. --Finngall talk 19:22, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into Prehen (which article itself could use some help). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vafthrudnir (talk • contribs) 20:52, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and expand. The article is in bad shape but the building appears to be historically notable. There is a page about it at the Northern Ireland Tourist Board site[14] and another one at the Derry City European Heritage Open Days site[15]. Both explicitly assert historical significance. GoogleBooks returns several hits, at least a few of which appear relevant[16]. It seems that a bit more digging will yield more sources. Nsk92 (talk) 23:06, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and expand per above. This appears to be an historic house and the Northern Ireland Tourist Board considers it one of north west Northern Ireland's "most historic houses". This is what happens when and article is AfD'd so soon after its creation.--Oakshade (talk) 07:08, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Finngall. Stifle (talk) 19:21, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as notable historic building. DGG (talk) 03:08, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into the Prehen article. This seems to me a win-win for all: The information is preserved, the Prehen article is improved, and if the Prehen House material gets expanded in the future, it can always be broken out into its own article again. --AnnaFrance (talk) 19:43, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 20:47, 14 May 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.
Soroush Nazarpour[edit]
The result was delete. The actual discussion has been hidden from view but can still be accessed by following the "history" link at the top of the page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. EdJohnston (talk) 02:14, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Differences between Thai, Lao and Isan[edit]
- Differences between Thai, Lao and Isan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Contested prod. Unencyclopedic list comparing various words and phrases in three languages. Do we need WP:NOT#LANGUAGEREFERENCE? --Finngall talk 19:04, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Unencyclopedic is right! Ecoleetage (talk) 20:47, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - if Wikipedia is not a dictionary, it is certainly not a list of words from three different dictionaries that are different. Frank | talk 21:22, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep this stub can probably be expanded to be something like Differences between Norwegian Bokmål and Standard Danish, Differences between standard Bosnian, Croatian and Serbian or other articles in Category:Language comparison — Ksero (talk | contribs) 22:15, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nintala (talk) 18:30, 13 May 2008 (UTC)Keep, it is important to point out that Isan is a language similar to Lao by having a list of words. The section on Quebec French lexicon is no different. Also, this is the closest one will get to Lao vocabulary, as the Lao alphabet is not really supported by Unicode. As Ksero has said, it can be expanded. I have been building it up slowly.[reply]
- Comment - I think this point is exactly the reason the article should be deleted: Wikipedia is not a vocabulary list. If the similarity is worth pointing out, it can be done at any (or all) of the appropriate language pages. I would also say that these lists of other stuff are both a poor reason to keep this article, and good continuation list for investigation for further pruning. (Having said that, the Quebec French lexicon article is far more encyclopedic than this one.) Frank | talk 18:52, 13 May 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 -Selket Talk 22:37, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
List of Nintendo Power Covers[edit]
- List of Nintendo Power Covers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Contested prod of an unencyclopedic list. --Finngall talk 18:50, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Unencyclopedic, unverifiable, indiscriminate information. Just a list of which games appeared on which cover of this mag. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 19:01, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 19:16, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete I think this list is an obvious example of "unencyclopedic". – sgeureka t•c 19:27, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete as unencyclopedic trivia with no notability. The magazine itself may have notabilty, but this does not extent to a list of indiscriminate info such as this. --IllaZilla (talk) 20:13, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, no significant discussion of article's topic in secondary sources. Cirt (talk) 22:48, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. A list of trivial info, with no sources and no indication of notability. Nsk92 (talk) 23:55, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per others. Entirely unencyclopedic collection of trivia. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 08:22, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep per Wikipedia:Lists (discriminate, organized, and verifiable list concerning a magazine with real world notability). Aside from the fact that trivia is encyclopedic. Wikipedia:UNENCYCLOPEDIC, WP:PERNOM, and WP:JNN are not compelling reasons when even in a worst case scenario a non-hoax, non-libel, non-copywright violation article like this could easily be redirected to Nintendo Power and still keep the contribution history public. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 16:03, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, The notable and/or 'important' aspects of the NP covers that separates itself from other magazines, if any, can fit on the NP article itself. Even if that was done, good luck finding non-primary sources. « ₣M₣ » 16:45, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per items 1-3 of WP:LC. Stifle (talk) 19:16, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep LC is of course, an essay, expressing one persons private view of what should not be in WP. The only meaning of "unencyclopedic" is "IDONTTHINK it should be in WP"--opinion, not argument. The items in a list of this sort just have to be appropriate content, not notable individually--this is much better as a compromise than individual articles. DGG (talk) 22:43, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete trivia and redirect to Nintendo Power. --EEMIV (talk) 22:48, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete the only notable cover was the Castlevania one. Martarius (talk) 09:13, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - is it just me, or is this a list of magazine covers? If this one is kept, I'll be submitting my list of cola bottle labels. Marasmusine (talk) 11:49, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - per WP:DIRECTORY, which is a reason for deletion. This article is a directory because it lists all issues of a magazine without commentary or discussion. Such lists can be kept if they are useful for navigation (per WP:BTW and WP:L), but as none of the list entries here qualify for their own article, it is not useful for that purpose. Also a specific directed criticism, as well as constructive feedback, for the Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles above, who is perfectly entitled to his views, but should recognise a page that -clearly, and unambiguously - should be deleted. If pages like this should not be deleted in your opinion, your inclusionist views border on being indiscriminate rather than qualified inclusion with loose qualifications. The latter is defensible, the former is not. User:Krator (t c) 12:09, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As the number of deletes seen at User:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles/Deletion discussions shows your interpretation is simply off. I am very discriminate in which articles I choose to defend and which I believe are indefensible. This page clearly and umabiguously should be kept. Real consensus would indicate that beyond this AfD, all those who made good faith efforts to improve the article are also in the keep camp. If pages like this should be deleted, then Wikipedia will become less useful and interesting, i.e. what makes it worthwhile and a real contribution to the encyclopedic tradition. While we can argue for a benefit to human knowledge in maintaing such a list, we cannot really argue that anything is gained by removing it. Anyone who wants to criticize Wikipedia for having factually accurate content such as this article is really just making an "I don't like it" argument. If I've learned anything from history, it is that stifling knowledge is not a good thing and in this case is counter to the whole point of an online encyclopedia that anyone can edit. I am here to build to this compendium of human knowledge, not defeat its purpose by diminishing it when these articles are created in good faith and are being worked on. All I see in many of these AfDs are subjective claims of stuff being unencyclopedic. Are you willing to argue to keep more frequently? Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 01:10, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Content seems to be a partial copy of this page. The content there is published under the GNU Free Documentation Lisence, but having said that this information seems to be more suited to that location. Gazimoff WriteRead 12:35, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I cannot see any real reasons why even in a worst case scenario a redirect without deletion that would at least maintain editors' contribution history could not occur as a compromise. We gain nothing from an outright deletion. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 15:46, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment If you have a problem with wikipedia deleting things at all, you ought to take this up at the policy level. As it stands now, we use deletion for articles that don't belong on wikipedia. We don't redirect it if it shouldn't have been here in the first place. Randomran (talk) 19:24, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This article however belongs on Wikipedia. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 20:33, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If it doesn't belong on wikipedia, then there is no value in a redirect. There's no such thing as a "compromise" to save an unencyclopedic article. Randomran (talk) 17:02, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This encyclopedic article does belong on Wikipedia. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 17:36, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If it doesn't belong on wikipedia, then there is no value in a redirect. There's no such thing as a "compromise" to save an unencyclopedic article. Randomran (talk) 17:02, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This article however belongs on Wikipedia. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 20:33, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment If you have a problem with wikipedia deleting things at all, you ought to take this up at the policy level. As it stands now, we use deletion for articles that don't belong on wikipedia. We don't redirect it if it shouldn't have been here in the first place. Randomran (talk) 19:24, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- by the way... delete as per the above comments. Randomran (talk) 19:24, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please note that "per the above" is an argument to avoid in deletion discussions. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 20:33, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. It is unencyclopedic, unreferenced (thus maybe inaccurate). Wikipedia is not a directory. There are thousands of magazines out there, imagine if we do this with all of them. -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:19, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- We'd be a better, more comprehensive reference guide. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 00:59, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The only purpose of this article is to be a glorified trivia section. - A Link to the Past (talk) 18:23, 19 May 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 21:14, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Adish[edit]
- Adish (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
The article is a dictionary definition for a Persian, Hindi, and "African" word. All references appear to substantiate the fact that the word is used as a name. Google hits provide no information from which an article on a notable topic could be found, nor do I see any potential for expansion beyond just the dictionary definition. A common name used by several notable individuals might work as a disambiguation page (as with Hashim (name)), but this article as it stands doesn't work. My rationale for deletion, then, would be that the subject is unencyclopedic, and reliable sources cannot be found to document the notability of the subject beyond its existance. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 18:44, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, could potentially be useful material for wiktionary, but not here. Cirt (talk) 22:48, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Potentially a valid article, but this isn't it. Stifle (talk) 19:33, 13 May 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 - (non-admin) Peripitus (Talk) 05:11, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Team Valor[edit]
- Team Valor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Delete racing team that puts together partnerships to race thoroughbreds, no indication that this busines is notable; fails WP:CORP. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. These owners have won the Arlington Million, Beldame Stakes, Breeders' Cup Turf, Dubai Duty Free Stakes, Florida Derby, Hollywood Derby, Hollywood Invitational Turf Handicap, Santa Anita Derby, Santa Anita Handicap, Santa Anita Oaks and the Woodbine Mile to name a few. 74 recent Google news hits. 1870 hits on Bloodhorse.com (javalink, so I can't link), 140 articles on Thoroughbred Times, 16 ESPN hits, and 26 New York Times hits. AfD is not a clean-up. Two seconds of googling could have proven the notability here. --SmashvilleBONK! 22:01, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The many independent sources cited above assert notability here. WilliamH (talk) 22:39, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per above but add the sources to the article. Stifle (talk) 19:33, 13 May 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 School District 38 Richmond. There are quite few school articles in this district like this, given apparent consensus, they can be boldly redirected and merged as well as necessary. Camaron | Chris (talk) 17:40, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hamilton Elementary School[edit]
- Hamilton Elementary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Delete nothing to distinguish this elementary school from the millions of others out there WP:NOT#DIRECTORY of nn schools. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:09, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to School District 38 Richmond; I think that's what we've been doing with elementary schools lately. AnturiaethwrTalk 18:23, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 20:06, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 20:06, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge/redirect to School District 38 Richmond per accepted practice. TerriersFan (talk) 23:00, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to School District 38 Richmond, seems to be the general consensus now. Stifle (talk) 19:34, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to district. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 19:37, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to district. Frank | talk 17:13, 19 May 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 (non-admin closure), because notability has been confirmed. Ecoleetage (talk) 00:24, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Anurag Kumar[edit]
- Anurag Kumar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable person. There was a previous AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anurag kumar from october of 2006 with a no consensus keep, but nothing has been done to this article in the meantime to show that the professor is anything more than a run-of-the-mill professor doing his job. Corvus cornixtalk 18:09, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Add to this nomination, his non-notable novel, Recalcitrance (novel). Corvus cornixtalk 18:10, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- Pete.Hurd (talk) 18:59, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. He is an elected fellow of IEEE, as confirmed here[17]. I think that alone is enough to signify notability per WP:PROF. The CV on his website also says that he is a Fellow of the Indian National Science Academy (INSA), and has been a Fellow of the Indian National Academy of Engineering (INAE). That is also very good. GoogleScholar[18] and GoogleBooks[19] searches return pretty respectable results. Satisfies WP:PROF. Nsk92 (talk) 19:21, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've added a link verifying him being an IEEE fellow to the article. Nsk92 (talk) 19:29, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I have added a link[20] confirming that he is a Fellow of INAE to the article. I tried to look up the list of fellows at the INSA website[21], but the website is malfunctioning for the moment and could not be searched. Still, there is little doubt that the info about being an INSA Fellow listed in his bio-sketch at[22] is actually correct. Nsk92 (talk) 20:11, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep both; the biographical article as notability has been established per WP:PROF and the novel article because it has been improperly nominated and should be nominated separately. 23skidoo (talk) 19:53, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per the IEEE Fellow. The IEEE recognizes him as one of their most notable members; who are we to argue? —David Eppstein (talk) 23:16, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per David Eppstein. Stifle (talk) 19:34, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dear People you do not realize that Anurag Kumar Prof. and Anurag Kumar are two separate people one a scientist and another an author. So whay are you confusing both to them . Recalcitrance novel has just come out and is on sale on ebay. It is not on sale on Amazon just now because amazon requires books to be based in Europe or USA and the novel is as yet in India only. Whay the long discussison. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aipbookslko (talk • contribs) 07:14, 14 May 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 merge to Disco Inferno (band). Fabrictramp (talk) 00:07, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Second Language (ep)[edit]
- Second Language (ep) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Per WP:MUSIC, no charting of this album and content limited to little more than a track listing. Delete and merge salvageable contents to Disco Inferno (band). - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 17:41, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete non notable band Ijanderson977 (talk) 18:35, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, per WP:MUSIC, no significant discussion in secondary sources. Cirt (talk) 22:49, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:MUSIC, along with The Last Dance (ep), It's a Kid's World (ep), The Mixing It Session, A Rock to Cling to (ep), Summer's Last Sound (ep), and Science (ep). Esradekan Gibb "Talk" 01:44, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Disco Inferno. Stifle (talk) 19:35, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Non-notable; fails WP:MUSIC. — Wenli (reply here) 03:23, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 20:48, 14 May 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 Merge and Redirect to Schadenfreude. Having two articles on effectively the same subject is content forking; the normal English word is clearly schadenfreude and there does not appear to be any difference between the meanings. Therefore a mention of this word in the article Schadenfreude is reasonable and sufficient. Some information is already there; editors may wish to add more, although respecting the fact that this should always be a minor section (in the manner of WP:WEIGHT). Black Kite 11:39, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Epicaricacy[edit]
- Epicaricacy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
- Nominated for Delete per WP:NAD, consensus on talk page is for re-direct to "Schadenfreude" betsythedevine (talk) 17:19, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- CommentHow exactly do you define consensus? Three users in a one-day period? This nomination flies in the face of reason or trying to build "consensus." --evrik (talk) 19:41, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- CommentThe point of this nomination is to try to reach out to a wider group for consensus. I agree that three users commenting on a very obscure article is a very small sample of consensus, but I also think it is significant discussion that was conducted in good faith and with people explaining their opinions and citing Wikipedia policy to back them up. For example, as Grafen said, " From WP:NAD in relation to Wikipedia: "Articles whose titles are different words for the same thing, or different spellings for the same word, are duplicate articles that should be merged. For examples: petrol and gasoline; colour and color." And by contrast in relation to Wiktionary: "Different words warrant different articles (e.g. petrol and gasoline)." betsythedevine (talk) 20:59, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Really, I don't think this is the correct forum for this. If you had wanted to bring in other comments, there are other forums for that. This nomination kinda smells to me. --evrik (talk) 21:10, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There are 4 editors (including me) that supported the redirect. For an unnoticed topic such as this, this is pretty clear consensus. The "usage" section does not show any usage; this is obvious to anyone. The only two sources you could find for the word "epicaricacy" seem to be collections of rare and obscure words, some of which it is doubtful they are even words. Standard dictionaries such as the OED make no mention of it. The reason you seem to have created this article is because you originally thought schadenfreude was not an English word and you thought epicaricacy was the English equivalent. The evidence is clear that you are wrong, but since you refuse to admit it, we are here. --C S (talk) 03:11, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speaking of consensus, why did you reverse my redirect when you had not managed to drum up any support? Even if you are correct in asserting consensus was minimal for the redirect, clearly you had no support at all. --C S (talk) 03:14, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Three editors in one day was a little premature, wasn't it? --evrik (talk) 14:49, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Schadenfreude, as that's the more common term and hence the more likely search term. Why is this at AfD if you want to redirect it? AnturiaethwrTalk 17:58, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I would also be open to deletion, as this discussion makes me question its probability as a search term, as does its absence from the Oxford English Dictionary. AnturiaethwrTalk 03:46, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Isn't this the right way to propose deleting the article and making a search for it re-direct to Schadenfreude? Somebody did re-direct the article already on May 10, after significant discussion on the talk page, but the article creator just reverted the re-direct. betsythedevine (talk) 19:29, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Again, three users commented in a one-day period, that's significant discussion on the talk page? No, if it were to be redirected (and I am not saying it should be) it should be reverted to this entry where it was a soft redirect to wiktionary. --evrik (talk) 19:45, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If the article is to be made into a redirect, then it should be done in the same way in which it was done earlier. Deletion would only hinder that process. "Articles for deletion" is not "Articles for redirection." AnturiaethwrTalk 03:46, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep the word has value unto itself. The article has some encyclopedic content. It is more than an word entry. It already exists on wiktionary. --evrik (talk) 19:40, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep or merge Either keep this as a separate article or merge. Deletion is simply the wrong option here. Personally, I vote to keep it as a separate article per options above. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:27, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Schadenfreude: I note that of the three citations for the word "in English" in the article, one refers only to the Greek root word from which it is derived, and the other two citations are in passages where it is clear from the context that they are referring to Greek people, concepts or ideas. I have seen this word used nowhere in American English in the way Schadenfreude has been -- that is, independent of an original-language context -- and I further note that a quick search of AHD4 (American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition) on Bartleby.com produces no entry at all for this word. It might be mentioned in the context of the more widely used word, but I see nothing that argues for a standalone article.Marketstel (talk) 20:34, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I think the key question is whether or not Schadenfreude and Epicaricacy are distinct subjects. Other than etymology, are there different things to write about each? I don't have an opinion on this, however, I would err on the side of giving this article a chance to grow and prove itself. ike9898 (talk) 21:00, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- (response to Ike9898's comment) I don't think anyone has claimed that "epicaricacy" means something different from "Schadenfreude." Evrik's argument for changing multiple links that used to go to Schadenfreude so that now they go instead to the new article he created for epicaricacy ([24] [25] [26] and more) seems to be that epicaricacy is better than Schadenfreude because it is an English word, not a German loan-word. [27]. See also the discussion of this on Evrik's talk page [28]. betsythedevine (talk) 22:02, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- How is that relevant? What does this have to do with your nomination? Are you saying you nominated it because I started replacing the usage of the word schadenfreude? What does the usage of the word have to do with whether or not the article should exist? Again, your nomination of the article for deletion, rather than working it out on the talk page, is suspect. If what you wanted to do was start a discussion, then you should withdraw this nomination for deletion and have a discussion. --evrik (talk) 22:39, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The remarks you object to were relevant to the comment I was replying to, not to the original AfD. May I also remind you of WP:AGF and WP:NPA. I have no wish to withdraw this AfD because I believe the article should be deleted and replaced by a redirect to Schadenfreude, which talks about the same complex of emotions. It should not be replaced by a re-direct to this word in Wiktionary, because people who search Wikipedia are looking for information about things, not for etymological discussion of obscure words. betsythedevine (talk) 23:05, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- May I also remind you of WP:AGF and WP:NPA. --evrik (talk) 14:49, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Schadenfreude. My arguments, based on WP:NAD, are on the article talk page and quoted by betsythedevine above. The question is not whether the article does now or might in the future contain some encyclopaedic content. It is whether "epicaricacy" has any significantly different meaning from "Schadenfreude", and I have as yet seen no claim or evidence that it does. Grafen (talk) 22:11, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Here's one difference: schadenfreude was not a term or concept used by Aristotle, epicaricacy was. --evrik (talk) 22:40, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As far as I can tell, these two words are synonyms. Thus, if "epicaricacy" was used by Aristotle, "Schadenfreude" was too; it becomes a case of competing translations. Is there a distinction between the two concepts? If so, what is it? AnturiaethwrTalk 00:13, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Competing translations? That's somewhat nonsensical. This isn't about a dictionary definition. This is about an encyclopedic entry. Yes, the words are synonyms. Yet... they have different roots and different histories. Epicaricacy does some directly from. Aristotle was a Greek, and his concept, and the Greek root word predated the German concept by more than a millennium. There's enough here for an encyclopedic entry. What it needs is time to grow. --evrik (talk) 02:08, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- How the words themselves are distinct from one another is immaterial unless the respective articles are about the words, rather than the concept; this would violate WP:DICDEF unless the words qua words (i.e. divorced from their referents) were notable, and I don't see any claim that this is the case. Therefore, I reiterate: what is the distinction between the psychological state denoted by "epicaricacy" and that denoted by "Schadenfreude"? (Since you say that the two words are synonyms, as I had surmised, I take it that there is none; do I understand you correctly?) AnturiaethwrTalk 03:32, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and discuss the Greek term in Schadenfreude. The OED (2nd ed.) does not recognize this, or anything like it, as an English word, and this spelling is not what would be used even if it were an English word ("epichaerecacy" would be closer to what the word would look like if it had ever been adopted into English, and a straight transliteration would be "epichairekakia"). Aristotle's use of ἐπιχαιρεκακία and Burton's and Lewis's references to that use constitute information that has a valid place in WP, but this mistitled article isn't the place, nor is the title a plausible redirect. Deor (talk) 02:22, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, although I don't object to redirect since that is cheap. I highly doubt epicaricacy is a real English Word, appearing to be sourced only to dubious references. Standard dictionaries such as OED make no mention of it. --C S (talk) 03:11, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Doesn't actually seem to be an English word. Quale (talk) 14:53, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. As Evrik says, the etymology is unique and seems to have predated the German concept by more than a millennium. There's plenty of content for a good encyclopedic entry. Let's give it time to grow. Johntex\talk 15:01, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I would urge those who voiced their opinion early in this debate to re-examine the article in its current state. I believe the article is now much more about the concept rather than the word itself. The article on Schadenfreude is still largely about the word itself, by contrast. If the two articles are to be merged, text about the concept should be primary, and etymology and usage of either term should be secondary. ike9898 (talk) 16:38, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- True, the article is now much better than it was, and in fact covers the subject in better detail than Schadenfreude does (though it's still marginal); thus, a merge would improve Schadenfreude. AnturiaethwrTalk 16:49, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that Evrik has written up some excellent historical material about the Greek word for schadenfreude as evidence of historical interest in the emotion described. Considering that people are unlikely to search for the rare word "epicaricacy" but likely to search for the common term "schadenfreude", I would like to see this material added to the schadenfreude article where it can benefit Wikipedia users. Without removing any of it from epicaricacy, I did add the parts I thought were valuable to schadenfreude as well as more information about its usage and scientific research concerning it. betsythedevine (talk) 17:40, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- While I appreciate the compliment, I removed those additions as they are more appropriate for the "E" article and not the "S" article. If for some reason this article doesn't pass the AfD, well then, by all means use it. --evrik (talk) 17:55, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please stop what you're doing in the schadenfreude article. You are blatantly copying the work I've done in an effort to strengthen the "S" article. Reallly, at least have the decency to do your own research. --evrik (talk) 18:37, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or redirect or merge to schadenfreude. There is way too much fuss about this word, epicaricacy, that has 7 thousands occurrences on a Google search, while its current English synonym schadenfreude has 1,5 million occurrences. The problem is that user Evrik is acting unilaterally, without discussing and settling the question first, for imposing the use of the word epicaricacy AGAINST schadenfreude throughout the encyclopedia, while other editors are trying to make sense with the article Schadenfreude and its incoming links. Epicaricay should definitely be dealt with under the article Schadenfreude, or then we are going to have countless duplicates articles since almost every thing or event may have diverse words from various origins that are used for referring to them with various nuances. --Robert Daoust (talk) 16:58, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: One of the worst things about wikipedia is the way people fight over some REAALLY stupid things. This is a case in point. Most of the comments about having it deleted keep calling the article a dictionary definition, which it is not. In fact, this appears to me to be a well-referenced article, and does not look like a dictionary entry. So, all the comments about the word or the article not being in the OED are really immaterial.
- Perhaps the article should be named differently, but that is not what an AfD is for. Looking at the article as it stands now it has context and history. There is no reason why an article about an emotion, described by a word with Greek roots, should be shoe-horned into an article about a German word.
Finally about process. What the hell is wrong with Betsythedevine? Many times when articles are nominated for AfD, the people who have worked on the article start working to improve the quality of the article and its relevance. Betsy is not only attacking people for doing so, but is herself going around and ,making snide comments as she is doing so. She is not a novice user, so her comments about placing it in AfD to get consensus are hogwash. Sur de Filadelfia (talk) 18:27, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]- WP:NPA? I never claimed that my only goal in creating an AfD was "consensus." My edit summaries are meant to be informative, not snide. I did not "attack" Evrik for improving the article, I praised his efforts. I did not attack him for improving its "relevance" but I voiced concern that his adding a pile of new links to the article could muddy the issue of its real importance. Your angry and inaccurate accusations are much more in violation of the spirit of Wikipedia than my attempts to make it better by preventing a fork and the siphoning of users away from a real article about a real word schadenfreude (granted that article could use improvement) by shipping them off to admire a brand-new article about an inkhorn term whose defenders can't cite even one non-dictionary source of its use in English to describe the emotion everyone calls "schadenfreude." If you want to make a formal complaint about my behavior, I'm sure any admin can help you to figure out how. This section is not the appropriate place for personal attacks on your fellow editors. betsythedevine (talk) 20:32, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Since your first edit was apparently only a few weeks ago, perhaps you're not in the best position to lecture people on how things are done around here. Unless, of course, you're not as novice as you seem. Deor (talk) 18:35, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The argument for deletion is not that the article is a WP:DICDEF. Rather, it is that this is an unnecessary content fork of Schadenfreude. No one has yet asserted that epicaricacy is not, in fact, Schadenfreude. Therefore, a merge is in order. The resulting article should be called "Schadenfreude," because that is a word in common parlance, while it is a subject of debate whether "epicaricacy" is a word at all (hence the references to the OED); if it is a word, it is extraordinarily rare. It is unfortunate that the existing Schadenfreude article is largely about the word, rather than about the concept; however, that's all the more reason to merge useful information into it. AnturiaethwrTalk 19:03, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Anturiaethwr, epicaricacy is not, in fact, schadenfreude. If anything, it is the other way around. How's that? --evrik (talk) 19:08, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Nonsense. If Schadenfreude is epicaricacy, then epicaricacy is Schadenfreude. The two terms both refer to a state of joy at another's misfortune; you even admit above that they're synonyms. If you draw a distinction between the two, please tell me what it is. I'll be more than willing to change my recommendation. AnturiaethwrTalk 19:19, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay ...
- Aristotle cited Greek equivalent of epicaricacy as part of his classifaction of virtues and emotions.
- schadenfreude derives from the Middle High German schade and vreude
- The greek term was used by English writers as far back as 1261, which coincedentally was the same time as the usage of Middle High German. The terms are independent of each other in their development, history and usage. It is appropriate to have the articles link between each other, but they should remain separate. A good example of this is Zeus, Jupiter and Tinia. I could cite other examples. --evrik (talk) 19:36, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That establishes a difference between the terms (which was never in dispute), not between the concepts to which they refer. Zeus, Jupiter, and Tinia have different articles because they are deities from different cultures (i.e. Zeus is a Greek god, and neither Roman nor Etruscan; Jupiter a Roman god, and neither Greek nor Etruscan; and Tinia an Etruscan god, and neither Roman nor Greek); their equivalence and similarities do not enter into the equation. I have yet to see a difference between epicaricacy ("a human psychological response that entails the rejoicing at, taking joy in, or getting pleasure from the misfortunes of others") and Schadenfreude ("enjoyment taken from the misfortune of someone else"). (These definitions leave either as a plausible translation of the original Greek word; that's what I meant by my "competing translations" comment above.) The difference in etymology is not at all relevant, unless the article is about the term, rather than about the concept. The article as it stands is about the concept, rather than the term (i.e. it does not fail WP:DICDEF); therefore, etymology is immaterial in this discussion. AnturiaethwrTalk 19:59, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per all the reasons stated above. Somebody should slap Betsy's hands for abusing process. Sur de Filadelfia (talk) 18:27, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]- Keep in light of revisions made to the article since I first read it. It is now more an explanation of the emotion and where it fit in the original Greek cosmology of emotions than a simple definition, and as such, is a framework on which a more comprehensive article could be built. I think that in the long run, given the very close similarity of the two emotions, if this article is not merged with the one on Schadenfreude, some reference should be made in each to the other and the historical distinctions between the two terms/concepts. Marketstel (talk) 19:15, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment independent of above recommendation: I'm surprised at the level of hostility displayed in some of the discussion about this. If the intent of the original entry was to show that the concept embodied in the term Schadenfreude predated the coinage of the German word, then that in itself is useful, and an article on the concept like the one now here is valuable. But given that the word itself is used much less often in English -- I think that the OED and AHD references above are actually somewhat probative of that -- the people who would enjoy learning about this might not find it absent some connection to the more widely used term. Marketstel (talk) 19:15, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, no decent reason for deletion. Improvement since nomination noted. Stifle (talk) 19:36, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to schadenfreude as
{{R from merge}}
, which I believe is required under GDFL since some new content has been merged there. Its meaning overlaps so closely with schadenfreude that they are synonyms, and it would be a violation of policy Wikipedia:Content forking to retain a separate article. Article content about the emotion should be merged there. Article content that is merely about etymology may find a good home on Wiktionary, but does not belong here. - Fayenatic (talk) 21:58, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply] - Weak keep. I'm going to [[WP:AGF|assume good faith on Betsy's nom, but I call keep in the first place on the sole grounds that AFD is not the forum for discussing redirect. No real reason to delete, and it's not purely a dicdef at this point. Improvements noted. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 05:42, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I feel it should be kept. The easy support of keeping it is that Schadenfreude is currently under copyright investigation. Redirecting to a page that is invalid surely is no way to solve the issue. Raider.adam (talk) 16:04, 14 May 2008 (UTC) contribs) 16:00, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- * Comment Schadenfreude is currently under copyright investigation only because it was placed there by Sur de Filadelfia who wants this debate to resolve to "keep." I admire Evrik's work to make the article epicaricacy better. Efforts to improve the status of epicaricacy by attacking the status of schadenfreude do not seem to me to be good Wikipedia practice. betsythedevine (talk) 16:23, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- * Comment I see the copyright has been removed, but I still retain a "keep" vote. I believe they etymology, historical and literary differences make them enough of a difference to warrant their own entries. The goal should be increasing the breadth of information, not narrowing. As long as both articles retain entries mentioning each other to allow the reader to progress, it works for me. Raider.adam (talk) 18:13, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep It's a dandy word, and if it's good enough for Aristotle, it's good enough for me. There's enough unique content to merit a freestanding article and it would be too long a digression to include in the Schadenfreude article. In my humble opinion, your mileage may vary, etc. Lblanchard (talk) 18:27, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Wikipedia isn't a dictionary, but this article has a lot more info than a dictionary entry would. It has similarities to schadenfreude, but different roots, uses, and history. What's the harm in more content? Eagleapex (talk) 21:20, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment A lot of Keep votes seem to be coming in from Philadelphia. There is Evrik, plus Sur_de_Filadelphia, Marketstel, Raider.adam, and now Eagleapex, all showing up to favor of keeping this article, all with Philadelphia material prominent in their user pages or contributions. Yet among other commenters, the great majority has a different opinion. I'm also concerned that so many new arrivals have a mistaken idea about what is being discussed here. Nobody is claiming or has claimed that the epicaricacy article is just a dictionary definition. The point of the WP:NAD is something else entirely; that words with the same meaning get separate articles in a dictionary but not in an encyclopedia. Aristotle did not use the word "epicaricacy', he used the Greek word from which it is derived. Schadenfreude is not "a German word", it is a word of German origin now commonly used by many educated speakers of English and by the news media. Increasing the breadth of information in Wikipedia can be achieved by creating a single article that contains all our information about the emotion described, including an informative discussion of the inkhorn term "epicaricacy." betsythedevine (talk) 22:09, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As I see it, with all due respect to the persons that are usually good contributors, there is a cabal because someone became infatuated in good faith, hopefully, with an idea that is blatantly false for those who are familiar with the concept and thing called schadenfreude. The idea is to replace the use in Wikipedia of the German word Schadenfreude by the use of the English word epicaricacy. It seems that rational argument are of no avail in this affair. That's why I voted in favor of deleting the entry Epicaricacy (or redirect or merge, but never let it go as a POV fork!). First, it is such a rare synonym of a 'current' English word that epicaricay is not worth an article by itself, and though it would not be an entry by itself, it would figure within the article Schadenfreude and thus could still be found in WP by a 'Search' rather than a 'Go' in the main search box. Second, a deletion would nip the cabal in the bud: otherwise, we might have to come back again and again for discussing a redirect or a merge or a split. Deleted article are a lot harder to recreate. Countering a cabal is not an argument for deletion, but since we are in the irrational... All this is really futile in some regards, but in some others what is at stake is the games people play. We all play games that are important for us, but at times we are all called to transcend our cherished games for the sake of our greater collective progress. So, please ladies and gentlemen, let's resolve this matter 'intrinsically', to the best of our knowledge. --Robert Daoust (talk) 00:49, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Just a note to mention that I've filed a suspected sockpuppetry report involving Sur de Filadelfia here. Oh, and Lblanchard is a Philadelphia user that you forgot to mention. Deor (talk) 02:47, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As I see it, with all due respect to the persons that are usually good contributors, there is a cabal because someone became infatuated in good faith, hopefully, with an idea that is blatantly false for those who are familiar with the concept and thing called schadenfreude. The idea is to replace the use in Wikipedia of the German word Schadenfreude by the use of the English word epicaricacy. It seems that rational argument are of no avail in this affair. That's why I voted in favor of deleting the entry Epicaricacy (or redirect or merge, but never let it go as a POV fork!). First, it is such a rare synonym of a 'current' English word that epicaricay is not worth an article by itself, and though it would not be an entry by itself, it would figure within the article Schadenfreude and thus could still be found in WP by a 'Search' rather than a 'Go' in the main search box. Second, a deletion would nip the cabal in the bud: otherwise, we might have to come back again and again for discussing a redirect or a merge or a split. Deleted article are a lot harder to recreate. Countering a cabal is not an argument for deletion, but since we are in the irrational... All this is really futile in some regards, but in some others what is at stake is the games people play. We all play games that are important for us, but at times we are all called to transcend our cherished games for the sake of our greater collective progress. So, please ladies and gentlemen, let's resolve this matter 'intrinsically', to the best of our knowledge. --Robert Daoust (talk) 00:49, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Inkhorn, isn't schadenfreude inkhoen as well? Really, you haven't made your point. Attacking other users again, and trying to discredit them doesn't prove your point either. Sur de Filadelfia (talk) 01:22, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "Schadenfreude" used to be a pretty obscure word, but it has gained a lot of popularity over just the past decade. Ben Affleck and Lisa Simpson use the word "schadenfreude." Not even the OED includes "epicaricacy." So I do see a difference between the inhorn status of the two words. betsythedevine (talk) 10:31, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Cabal? Really. Intrinsic value: this article has a lot more info than a dictionary entry would. That should settle it. Sur de Filadelfia (talk) 01:22, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note. Sur de Filadelfia has been blocked as a sockpuppet of the indef-blocked user South Philly. I've therefore stricken out his contributions to this discussion. Deor (talk) 18:13, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete -- this word when used in English seems to be used as a transliteration of the Greek. There is a standard name used by English speakers for this concept: schadenfreude. DGG (talk) 14:40, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I have new information, hopefully. John Portmann published in 1999 a whole book about schadenfreude When Bad Things Happen to Other People. He said in a 2002 interview:
(...) English speakers have been loath to recognise Schadenfreude as a fact of their lives. In the English language, we’ve taken so many other German words on board – words like winter, and summer, and swimmer, and apple and angst, kindergarten what-have-you. I find it very interesting that we have tried to keep the word Schadenfreude out of the English language, when it is so vital to human experience.
It must be said, though, that Portmann in his book always uses schadenfreude as a German word, that is to say capitalized and italicized. Then, the word that appears in English since the nineteenth century was not fully naturalized yet in 1999. Perhaps this is another reason why Evrik and others are still trying to replace it (1,5 million Google results) with the supposedly more English word epicaricacy (7 tousands Google results). However, since 1999 an important trend has gained momentum. Robert Matuozzi was expressing this trend in his 2001 review of Portmann's book:Aristotle ties pleasure in the misfortune of others to spite (he specifically decries Schadenfreude, N.E. 2.6.18).
A pervasive social and psychological feature of modern times, Schadenfreude has recently migrated from the German language to American popular culture, with the word and the dynamic occasionally cropping up in movies and music, folklore, and to a lesser extent in newspapers and magazines, either explicitly or in cleverly contrived subtexts.
--Robert Daoust (talk) 18:12, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Summary of comments
- Keep - 10
- Delete - 5
- Merge (or redirect) - 3
-Sur de Filadelfia (talk • contribs) 01:26, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you counting votes? Why? AnturiaethwrTalk 03:44, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Just a note that if we are "counting," at least 6 of those 10 "keep" votes seem to come from Philadelphia. betsythedevine (talk) 11:52, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Just a note that the above comment is completely irrelevant. Unless sockpuppetry is proven, we don't discriminate based upon people's geographic locations. Johntex\talk 16:30, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, well here is one that you will then agree should be taken of the list of "votes:" User:Sur_de_Filadelfia, who created this list, has been banned as a proven sock of banned user South Philly. There was also (in Dec. 2007) a Checkuser called to see if SouthPhilly might be a sockpuppet of Evrik, since both were involved in vote-stacking the same AfDs. betsythedevine (talk) 22:35, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Why I mention the Philadelphia connection: Wikipedia policy "It is considered highly inappropriate to advertise Wikipedia articles to your friends, family members, or communities of people who agree with you, so that they come to Wikipedia and support your side of a debate. If you feel that a debate is ignoring your voice, then the appropriate action is to avoid personal attacks, seek comments and involvement from other Wikipedians, or pursue dispute resolution. These are well-tested processes, designed to avoid the problem of exchanging bias in one direction for bias in another." betsythedevine (talk) 10:10, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you Betsy for bringing this to everyone's attention; however, I don't think it's too helpful to belabor this. While the sudden influx of Philedelphia related editors is worrisome, it doesn't necessarily indicate canvassing by Evrik. After all, editors that know him may simply have been alerted by the activity in his user talk page and decided to take a look at epicaricacy. What is more to the point is that all these supporters have failed to address the pertinent point: epicaricacy is not a real word. They have yet to demonstrate a single use of the word. The lack of usage is damning as far as epicaricacy's status as a word of the English language is concerned. As has been pointed out several times before, the usage demonstrated in the article is limited to usage of different transciptions (not "epicaricacy") of a Greek word. Saying "it's encyclopedic" or "this is a useful concept with its own history" (the main arguments of the supporters) do not address this. I don't see how essentially making up a word to describe the same concept as schadenfreude and then writing about the supposed etymology of the fake word is encyclopedic; I also don't see how using a different word to describe the same thing creates a different concept and thus a different article.
- If I was one to make a [[WP:POINT|point], I would go find some word in Icelandic synonymous with a well-known loan word from Japanese (like say, "honcho"), make up a transcription of it into English characters, then create a page on it with a "usage" section based on different transciptions of the Icelandic word, then replace all references to "honcho" with this other word claiming "honcho" is not an English word. Then when it is pointed out that "honcho" is indeed English while my word is obscure, I will then respond that "honcho" is Japanese and if that doesn't work, that my word should be kept since its etymology is Icelandic not Japanese, thus Wikipedia should have the valuable historical information about this English word of Icelandic origin separate from the Japanese origin. Then I will include quotes from ancient writings using the Icelandic word and claim this creates a different concept since clearly it predated the use of "honcho". That would bring us to the same ridiculous point we are at now. --C S (talk) 11:40, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There certainly was canvassing going on here - that was how I came to be involved in this discussion and I am certain that this was the case with the other Philly users. Until reading the comment above, I was not aware of the canvassing guideline, but it makes sense. That said, I feel I was a neutral participant in this discussion and I stand by the opinions I've expressed. ike9898 (talk) 13:45, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree with Ike9898, there was canvassing going on here by Evrik. I was the recipient of a notification about this AfD and in the past a few others, asking for participation. --ImmortalGoddezz (t/c) 14:33, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There certainly was canvassing going on here - that was how I came to be involved in this discussion and I am certain that this was the case with the other Philly users. Until reading the comment above, I was not aware of the canvassing guideline, but it makes sense. That said, I feel I was a neutral participant in this discussion and I stand by the opinions I've expressed. ike9898 (talk) 13:45, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If I was one to make a [[WP:POINT|point], I would go find some word in Icelandic synonymous with a well-known loan word from Japanese (like say, "honcho"), make up a transcription of it into English characters, then create a page on it with a "usage" section based on different transciptions of the Icelandic word, then replace all references to "honcho" with this other word claiming "honcho" is not an English word. Then when it is pointed out that "honcho" is indeed English while my word is obscure, I will then respond that "honcho" is Japanese and if that doesn't work, that my word should be kept since its etymology is Icelandic not Japanese, thus Wikipedia should have the valuable historical information about this English word of Icelandic origin separate from the Japanese origin. Then I will include quotes from ancient writings using the Icelandic word and claim this creates a different concept since clearly it predated the use of "honcho". That would bring us to the same ridiculous point we are at now. --C S (talk) 11:40, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge This is getting old. Wikipedia only has one article per subject, and the above discussion doesn't seem to establish that this is anything but one subject. Lots of subjects have more than one name- it's not that difficult to deal with. The first sentence of the article can mention both names. ike9898 (talk) 19:19, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge (changing from "Delete" since good material has been created in epicaricacy). One article, the best we can make it, about this emotion. There are good reasons Wikipedia doesn't like to "fork" one subject into two articles. The best reason not to fork is the loss to our readers -- who find part of the information about this subject but also miss part of it because they didn't click through to the other article. betsythedevine (talk) 22:58, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Does that mean you're withdrawing your nomination? AnturiaethwrTalk 23:47, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Anturaethwr, thank you so much for your helpful explanation, which I just found on your talk page. If I had known about the page for inviting participation in a potentially controversial merger Wikipedia:Proposed_mergers, that would have met all my goals for what I wanted to do when I originally filed an AfD. If the experienced Wikipedian Evrik had directed my attention to that page instead of assuming I must know all about it and denouncing my bad faith, much later heat and unhappiness could have been short-circuited. I will withdraw my AfD as soon as I figure out how to replace it with a Merge and Redirect. Maybe that can bring consensus and civility to what has become a much-too-angry discussion. Once again, thank you so much for your civility and helpfulness. betsythedevine (talk) 08:18, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I like the word. English Subtitle (talk) 23:32, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- So do I, but please read WP:ILIKEIT. AnturiaethwrTalk 23:47, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note. Have stricken out the !vote of English Subtitle—self-admitted South Philly sock. Deor (talk) 23:07, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete -- looking at what the cited sources actually say, there's not much to indicate that the word "epicaricacy" actually exists. The old dictionaries cited spell it differently, Schadenfreude is equivalent in meaning. It doesn't appear in Merriam-Webster or the OED. At best this is a neologism hardly appropriate even for Wiktionary. --Stlemur (talk) 15:54, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. In the time I took to write this, Evrik retired. |
- Comment I undid/removed a long personal statement apparently from banned user Sur_de Philadelphia , which includes among other things the text of Evrik's canvassing email. If you want to read or respond to the statement, I moved the whole thing to Sur de Philadelphia's talk page.
- Merge and Redirect per WP:NAD. Dori (Talk • contribs) 20:56, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment on the long pink thing above: CS, seems to be afraid of losing the debate on the merits. Actually no. As I responded above, I wish to bring the discussion back to the relevant points of the AFD not about canvassing. That is why I wrote a long detailed response explaining what I thought was wrong with the "keep" arguments and gave an extended analogy to point out their flaws. You have chosen to ignore my argument, stating "The whole Icelandic discussion is pretty amusing because it isn't really true or applicable to this case, but hides an even bigger point [about bad faith behavior/nomination]". Then you chose to go on at length about this "even bigger point" rather than addressing the relevant points. Please explain why my example is "amusing" or not "really true or applicable". It seems to be entirely relevant as it demonstrates that there is no evidence Epicaricacy is an English word nor is it a different entity requiring a separate article. Just asserting that "the concepts ARE different" doesn't cut it. Give some evidence.
- The following comments will address the attacks on myself and others; those not interested can ignore them. Betsythedevine, Deor and CS have attacked Evrik, Sur de Filadelphia, Marketstel, Raider.adam, Eagleapex and Lblanchard. Um, no. Please show me where I have attacked any of these people. It's easy to conflate criticism of the article or faulty reasoning with an attack on someone, but that doesn't make it so. It's also easy to say that if someone points out a behavioral guideline was broken, that this is an attack. But that doesn't make it one either. I also don't believe Deor has attacked anyone either. Some of Betsy's actions could be taken as attacks, but it appears to me that the Evrik meatpuppets (whoever that includes) started the attacks. Betsy's actions are understandable (although not completely justified) in that context.
- Why have they done their best to discredit every contributor who has disagreed with them? I have not yet attempted to discredit anyone. But perhaps it is time. After all that has been said and done, do I believe that Evrik's motivations were pure? That he had the best interest of Wikipedia rather than a desire to be right or assert himself by his unilateral actions? No. Sometimes some people are more concerned about being right than doing what is good for Wikipedia. Perhaps Evrik justifies his actions as he is doing what is best for Wikipedia. but I have seen plenty of editors like him before. When they clearly are failing to convince anyone, their friends/sockpuppets log on, start making attacks on the other editors and disrupting Wikipedia. This is not the first time this has happened with Evrik and if he returns, probably not the last. Designating himself coordinator of WikiProject Awards by use of a meatpuppet (South Philly) when nobody agrees with his decisions and then getting in a revert war with everyone else. These are the actions of a petulant child, who when he doesn't get what he wants, decides he will play dirty pool to get it. What you say about this whole thing being "silly" is correct. None of us took this thing personally. For us, it was simply one of many decisions about the encyclopedia that is made on a daily basis. Simply a matter of policy and arguing policy. Somebody chose to take it personally and make it a war. Does it really matter to me if the article is kept? No. I believe that would be the wrong decision, but you won't see me log on later with sockpuppets and encouraging friends and family to come edit war. It should have just been business as usual, but somebody's idea of "business as usual" on Wikipedia is that "Wikipedia doesn't really work by consensus; it works by who gets the most votes. If someone is losing a vote, the best thing to do is swiftboat them." With an attitude like that, no wonder you can justify the way your group has been behaving. --C S (talk) 08:25, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Request for admin help to close AfD First, I would like to thank User:Anturiaethwr for real help in understanding the difference between WP:DELETE and WP:MERGE. The few AfD discussions I have been in often included people suggesting "Merge" so I did not realize there was a separate process, which would have been much less painful to Evrik if I had done that, for proposing a merger that was controversial and inviting outside comment. So I would like to withdraw this AfD and propose instead that the fine material Evrik added to epicaricacy be merged into schadenfreude, including of course mentioning the existence (in history and a few dictionaries at least) of the English word "epicaricacy." Then we will have one good article instead of a rivalry between two articles for content and inbound links. I have added this to WP:PM and added a discussion section at Talk:Epicaricacy#Merge. I would like to see the AfD notice at the top of "epicaricacy" replaced by a Merge notice, but I think an admin has to remove AfD first. betsythedevine (talk) 09:43, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No problem! AnturiaethwrTalk 15:00, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There's no need to close this AFD early. "Merge and redirect" is one of the possible outcomes at AFD. My support for "Redirect" above is in effect the same thing as merge; I only wrote "Redirect" because it seemed to me that all necessary content had already been merged at that point. As some content was first created at epicaricacy then added to schadenfreude, it is better to keep the edit history of epicaricacy to show who created it. "Merge and redirect" achieves that. It is also permissible to create a bare redirect after deletion, but that removes the edit history. Let's allow the debate to complete its normal course. Whether it ends in merge or delete, it forbids creating a WP:POVFORK article again. - Fayenatic (talk) 11:28, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect to Schadenfreude. These are two words for the same emotion, no need for two articles. I have some doubts about "redirect" for such an inkhorn term, but redirects are cheap. JohnCD (talk) 13:42, 17 May 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 per CSD:G11. Stifle (talk) 19:36, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Penguin Travel[edit]
- Penguin Travel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
No assertion of notability; possibly advertising. Biruitorul (talk) 16:47, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete It seems to be an ad for a non-notable business. Borock (talk) 17:45, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as advertising. --IllaZilla (talk) 20:15, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as spam/advertising. Cirt (talk) 22:50, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No sources to indicate notability. The article appears to be WP:ADVERT. Nsk92 (talk) 23:57, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Do not delete. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, where everything that is written in non promotional language should be welcome. I do not think that the language here is advertising, on the contrary - it is quite informative (e.g. the profile of Thomas Cook contains much more advertisements...). But it will be interesting to see how equitable the local moderators are. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.187.124.60 (talk) 12:14, 13 May 2008 (UTC) — 85.187.124.60 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Do not deleteThe text is giving a short information about a touroperator based in Denmark. There is no promotional language in it. Have a look at TUI AG profile - it has a lot more external links leading to the company commercial website, which should be also considered as advertising.Brahiblasta (talk) 12:47, 13 May 2008 (UTC)— Brahiblasta (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- That's debatable, but let's assume for the moment it's not advertising. We still don't have evidence of notability or verifiability, which are necessary. Biruitorul (talk) 15:24, 13 May 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 --Selket Talk 22:39, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cardiovascular risk[edit]
- Cardiovascular risk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Reads like an advertisement for healing waters in Covasna. Some text may be merged to Covasna, but the article should be deleted. See WP:PNT#Cardiovascular risk for a discussion on this article. nneonneo talk 16:22, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 16:32, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 16:32, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete content and Redirect to Cardiovascular disease. Exxolon (talk) 19:28, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and what Exxolon says. -Yupik (talk) 20:11, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Cardiovascular disease. No merge. --Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth-timed 20:52, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and redirect to Cardiovascular disease, current material reads like spam/advertising. Cirt (talk) 22:51, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and definitely do NOT merge content with Cardiovascular disease. This article is a promotion of a health spa in Romania. Some of the content might be appropriate for Covasna. Cbdorsett (talk) 07:56, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Cirt. This is a promotional article. Stifle (talk) 19:37, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as advertising. — Wenli (reply here) 03:19, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Unreferenced claims—simply advertising. --AnnaFrance (talk) 19:02, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Like others said, it's simply a bunch of unsubstantiated health claims advertising a tourist site. (But if it's really possible to cure heart disease with hot water with carbon dioxide mixed in, I'm going to fill up a hot tub with Diet Coke and dive right in, without having to travel to Romania.) --Elkman (Elkspeak) 18:39, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as advertising. Biruitorul (talk) 02:42, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Unclear and uninformative advertising. Jebus989 (talk) 19:28, 17 May 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 deleted by Anthony Appleyard (G11: Blatant advertising). Non-admin closure. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:06, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Habbzo[edit]
- Habbzo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable, advertisement, speedy tag continuously removed without explanation or attempt to discuss Jasynnash2 (talk) 15:25, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 16:07, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete as spam. I've restored the speedy tag as well. Exxolon (talk) 19:34, 12 May 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 --JForget 01:24, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nuts4Nuts[edit]
- Nuts4Nuts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
No assertion of notability, no coverage in secondary sources or evidence that the company passes the notability guidelines for corporations and products. First page of google hits shows wikipedia at the top, youtube, the company's website, flikr, not much else (1710 total). Page is an orphan, has been since 2005 when it was created. WLU (talk) 15:11, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note - second nomination, first can be found here - was 2.5 years ago, original discussion contained no real rationale for the keep !votes besides "now it's not nonsense". (if someone knows how to put the 1st nom in the pretty box, please do so as I forgot to) WLU (talk) 15:17, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I agree with this very thorough nomination; no notability. I declined a speedy deletion on this because it was nominated by, apparently, someone representing a (non-notable) company of the same name who felt that this was keeping them from their rightful place (I'm paraphrasing). Upon consideration, I don't really see any reason to have either article. Accounting4Taste:talk 15:36, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 16:07, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails WP:CORP, not notable. Arsenikk (talk) 16:20, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - non notable (and no assertion thereof). Frank | talk 17:44, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No assertation of notability per WP:CORP. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 18:17, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per good rationale given by WLU (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 22:52, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Because the article does not include citations from reliable sources, it does not appear to be in compliance with the verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 19:37, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above. — Wenli (reply here) 03:17, 14 May 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. Seraphim♥Whipp 00:37, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Turaga (Bionicle)[edit]
- Turaga (Bionicle) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This article asserts no notability through reliable sources, and is just a regurgitation of the plot of the various Bionicle stories from the novel and video game articles. As such, it is repetitive of that content with no out of universe information and should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 06:09, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep Aside from a short intro section this is essentially a list of characters, which is both permissable and actually encouraged under WP:FICT. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:53, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Please note that the previous AFD was closed a little less than 2 months ago with a "no consenus" although this was in part a judgement call by the closing editor who felt too many of the keep arguments didn't relate to policy. To others, it could look like a snowball keep. 23skidoo (talk) 12:43, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- And as there has been no improvement, and the keep arguments had no relation to policy, here we are again. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 15:46, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 16:59, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fabrictramp (talk) 14:29, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Because the article does not include citations from reliable sources, it does not appear to be in compliance with the verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 19:38, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete no independent, reliable secondary sources; fails to meet WP:N and should be deleted. Percy Snoodle (talk) 09:30, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per First pillar, i.e. consistent with a specialized encyclopedia on Bionicle. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 17:43, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
*Delete, just plot summary without notability (i.e. independent, reliable sources). Graevemoore (talk) 23:54, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. A lengthy plot summary for non-notable entities. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 03:17, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Wikipedia:SOFIXIT, Wikipedia:Give an article a chance, Wikipedia:Potential, not just current state, and User:Fresheneesz/Don't Destroy all seem to apply here. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 17:27, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete an unverifiable plot summary with no reliable secondary sources to establish notability. Jakew (talk) 20:10, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- These seem like reliable sources. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 20:14, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Appearances can be deceiving, especially when there is no demonstrated proof that any of those books are anything but plot regurgitation in an in-universe way, or novels of bionicle, which don't count either. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 20:48, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, all but one appear to be fiction, "produced ... under license from the LEGO Group" (to quote from one), and hence can only used for plot summaries, and lack the third-party nature required to demonstrate notability. The first, "The Imagination Challenge", has some potential, but by itself does not demonstrate notability. Jakew (talk) 20:56, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Appearances can be deceiving, especially when there is no demonstrated proof that any of those books are anything but plot regurgitation in an in-universe way, or novels of bionicle, which don't count either. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 20:48, 19 May 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 21:10, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Shaheed Mir Murtaza Abro[edit]
- Shaheed Mir Murtaza Abro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Unsourced, google hasn't heard of him. Anon editors remove any requests for references without comment. Weregerbil (talk) 08:24, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Leaning towards delete but I'll wait for a comment from WikiProject Pakistan. I think he's related to a candidate for parliament [29] (the address includes his father's name), but that's all I can find in English. "Murtaza Abro" doesn't seem to get any GHits written in Arabic alphabet either; actually I don't really know how to spell "Abro" but I tried with both regular old "R" and the South Asian retroflex "R" (ڑ), neither of them get any GHits: Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL, Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL). cab (talk) 09:04, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 09:04, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fabrictramp (talk) 14:28, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I looked up the history log for this article which was created on March 31, 2008. As the nomination says, the creator of the article keeps removing the reference and notability tags with no explanations and no sources added. Nothing in Google[30]. No sources to prove notability or even existence. Fails WP:BIO and WP:V. Nsk92 (talk) 00:05, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Because the article does not include citations from reliable sources, it does not appear to be in compliance with the verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 19:38, 13 May 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 assertion of notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 15:14, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Jochen Heisenberg[edit]
- Jochen Heisenberg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Contested {{prod}} brought here for consensus. RobertG ♬ talk 14:09, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, no assertion of notability: being the offspring of a notable individual does not confer notability. --RobertG ♬ talk 14:09, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete NN; doesn't seem to have ever done anything particularly noteworthy for himself. —97198 talk 14:16, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: THis article was speedy deleted once already today and recreated. No need for AfD. I have restored the Speedy tag. Harry the Dog WOOF 14:37, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: It was speedy deleted by me (the nominator) and I restored it myself when I noticed that it had been a contested prod. I replaced the AFD tag. Of course, another administrator may care to re-delete it speedily. --RobertG ♬ talk 14:47, 12 May 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 - Peripitus (Talk) 11:08, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mika Tauriainen[edit]
- Mika Tauriainen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Does not meet wikipedia's guidelines for wp:notability Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 15:30, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 16:41, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep No policy based reason for deletion given. Catchpole (talk) 20:32, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Policy is notability. Reason: does not meet guidelines for notability. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 23:04, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fabrictramp (talk) 14:05, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - doesn't assert any individual notability (additionally someone should add Tom Mikkola) to this discussion. Nothing is in their individual articles that isn't already in the band's article. Jasynnash2 (talk) 14:39, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep a google search does show results in relation to this musician and the bands he is involved in. Perhaps merging the article Tom Mikkola and Mika Tauriainen into Entvine (cant remember the exact name) Id be happier for this to happen. I did find this source but not sure how useful itll be. Seddon69 (talk) 15:12, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Notability is demonstrated. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 17:50, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep. I would have suggested a merge and redirect to the band article, but since he's been in two bands, that's not possible. The article does need sources, as well as do both of the band articles. Corvus cornixtalk 18:19, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep. -Yupik (talk) 20:16, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep, vocalist for a couple of notable bands from Finland. KleenupKrew (talk) 22:06, 12 May 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 --JForget 01:25, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Senthamil Thillainathan[edit]
- Senthamil Thillainathan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
An article about a murderer though whether they are notable enough is questionable. They only get 107 hits, the case seems to be unremarkable and not unlike many other such murder cases. Polly (Parrot) 15:25, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 16:42, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fabrictramp (talk) 14:06, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Non-notable criminal, WP:BLP1E. KleenupKrew (talk) 22:07, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. GoogleNews gives only 7 hits[31]. Fails WP:BIO. Nsk92 (talk) 00:58, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:BLP1E. Stifle (talk) 19:38, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as non-notable; very few Google results. — Wenli (reply here) 03:17, 14 May 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, redirects to deleted articles are normally deleted, mentioned in other AFD. Non-admin closure. --Dhartung | Talk 21:20, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Akademi basong[edit]
- Akademi basong (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
A redirect page directing traffic to another worthless article deleted previous created by the author who created that worthless article. Yes, I am angry. __earth (Talk) 14:28, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Not an article. Should be listed elsewhere. TfD perhaps? Jasynnash2 (talk) 14:41, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I agree that this page shouldn't be listed. However, I think the page to which it redirects should be listed. If the consensus is to delete that article, then this redirect can be deleted as well. TN‑X-Man 14:50, 12 May 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 --JForget 01:28, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Akademi Basong[edit]
- Akademi Basong (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable. Claims to be a think-tank but seems to be selling stuff rather than doing the usual think tank stuff. Been deleted earlier [32] but recreated almost immediately after deletion. __earth (Talk) 14:10, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Previous AfD closed with delete. Possible recreation of that material. Jasynnash2 (talk) 14:44, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Previous version discussed at AfD was a redirect to a non-existent page. G4 would not apply.--Fabrictramp (talk) 16:12, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 16:10, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, this seems to be an offshoot of a shoe company, or a company masquerading as a foundation, or something. In any case I couldn't find independent sources to support notability of either Basong or the Akademi Basong. --Dhartung | Talk 21:26, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Note redirect at Akademi basong will need deletion as well. --Dhartung | Talk 21:26, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, only sources given are directly affiliated with article's subject. Cirt (talk) 22:53, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and consider salting against re-creation. No independent sources to prove notability. Nothing in GoogleNews[33]. Fails WP:N. Nsk92 (talk) 01:04, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, Wikipedia is not a free web host. Bearing in mind the article's history I would recommend protecting against recreation. Stifle (talk) 19:39, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete As non-notable; less than 50 Google results. — Wenli (reply here) 03:16, 14 May 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.
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Forgive Her... (2nd nomination)
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Seraphim♥Whipp 23:38, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Kicks[edit]
- The Kicks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Delete nn band fails WP:BAND. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:27, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete i agree, they are lacking in second party sources. --neonwhite user page talk 22:25, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep http://www.starpulse.com/Music/Kicks,_The/Biography/ In five secondands I am finding additional sources. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fabrictramp (talk) 13:58, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 13:58, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The source claims they toured with the Donnas, Nada Surf and Motley Crue. If that's the case, they meet WP:BAND and I'd have to say keep. Corvus cornixtalk 18:23, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- But that claim isn't backed up... Stifle (talk) 19:43, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think that would establish notability anyway. From WP:BAND: "Has received non-trivial coverage in a reliable source of an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country." Even if every article about the tour said "opening act was The Kicks" that wouldn't establish notability either, since it is coverage only in the context of the band they are touring with. Frank | talk 19:55, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete not notable Ijanderson977 (talk) 18:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Because the article does not include citations from reliable sources, it does not appear to be in compliance with the verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 19:43, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - independent notability not established. Frank | talk 17:19, 19 May 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. Appears to have reliable sources - needs expanding, not deleting. I will have a look myself when I get a moment. Black Kite 18:11, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Edit: the article already exists at Metaltown Festival - redirected there. Black Kite 18:22, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Metaltown[edit]
- Metaltown (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Delete nn rock concert Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:54, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fabrictramp (talk) 13:55, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 13:55, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Quite a few sources at Google News, including mentions in the national paper Aftonbladet [34][35][36] and MTV [37]. Epbr123 (talk) 20:02, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Because the article does not include citations from reliable sources, it does not appear to be in compliance with the verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 19:43, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Epbr123. Absence of citations and sources mean that the article needs to be improved and not deleted. There are apparently enough media coverage on the event for this stub to be expanded into a decent article with citations from reliable sources. --Bardin (talk) 02:38, 20 May 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 notability not established. I note that the BBC had a nice site for vote2001, including video and audio, so the net was not that bacwards back then. There is no mention of Mike Roberts as a key person of the Conservatives, and Mike Roberts profile shows exactly nothing in the "Political career" section. If User:JamesBondMI6 wishes to have it userfied just drop me a line at my talk page, please. - Nabla (talk) 17:53, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mike Roberts (politician)[edit]
- Mike Roberts (politician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable politician. Article has been tagged with "Notability" several times, by different editors, and the tag removed by original author of article, with no notability added and some offensive edit summaries. There has been fruitless discussion on talk page. PamD (talk) 13:27, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Non-notable for now. The only sources are reports of his election to office. Nothing about him as a person or as a politician. It sounds like in the future he might become more successful and well-known, then he should have an article but not now. Borock (talk) 14:04, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually they are sources about his non-election: he's only every been a candidate, and thus fails Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Politicians unless there is "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" which has not yet been demonstrated. PamD (talk) 15:54, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 16:12, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 16:13, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Week Keep Kind of a useful stub Ijanderson977 (talk) 18:36, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as just about notable, but de-hagiography. (That word rhymes with why, not tea.) Stifle (talk) 19:44, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Unfortunately, the nature of Wiki is such that whilst trivial web references are given huge importance, hours of TV and Radio time, and pages and pages of newpaper articles and journal references are given little or no importance at all. Which is somewhat topsy turvy. If I could supply 20 weblinks, no-one would argue, but 2001 was a long time ago in web terms and most of the references are in libraries or video tape somewhere.
As to notability, there are multiple definitions of notability in Wiki. Getting the UK centre right to buy into the concept of gay marriage was a notable achievment in itself.
There is a significant amount of material referring to this individual, it's just going to take time to get hold of it, get permission to publish it, and post it up here - which won't happen if this is deleted. I've worked for a number of politicians in my time and have an excellent insight into the behind the scenes machinations. It would be good to make it available. (JamesBondMI6 (talk) 22:34, 14 May 2008 (UTC))[reply]
- Delete after a possible save in an archive on main author's talk page. At the moment, the entry seems to be premature. Given that quite a few previous notability notices have been added, and then removed without substantial additions to the article, and given that the main author says he thinks there are some, but he needs time to access them (they must be extremely obscure or else he must be extremely busy to take so much time), then the creation of the article seems definitely premature. When it comes down to it, Wikipedia must work with actual facts, not promised facts, and so I suggest that the article is placed in an archive page on the main author's talk page (User talk:JamesBondMI6) where it can be worked on when the promised sources are actually found and used. It might be helpful for WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:CITE to be reviewed and used to inform this writing at the same time. Once it is expanded with notability established and verified by using appropriate references (this condition is required), it can be brought back into article space by recreating the article very simply. Of course, other appropriate references that would verify other claims in the article would be ideally added at the same time. I agree that as conservative politician who supports the idea of gay marriage is almost sufficient to render the person notable, but it counts for nothing unless it can be appropriately verified and referenced now, rather than some promise about it being able to be done at some future time. All the more when many previous notability tags have been added and simply removed with nothing substantial having been added to the article. I hope that solution would be an acceptable compromise to all. DDStretch (talk) 08:47, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Unfortunately Delete - had he actually won the election and became an MP then it would be an obvious keep, but as he lost it does not meet the notability standards IMHO. - Yorkshirian (talk) 22:12, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - As stated, this article fails Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Politicians. The article gives no evidence that this person is notable for only being a candidate in a election.--Celtus (talk) 05:44, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep As stated elsewhere, there are a number of definitions of notability in Wiki, the one being quoted by the "antis" is extremely narrow and seems to focus exclusively on electoral success and complaints that all references only being in print, or TV, or Radio - rather then the web, which was a very different place in 1999-2002. Frankly, I would consider someone who had generated newsprint and TV time to be more significant than someone with a few easily linkable blog entries. Elsewhere in Wiki, it is stated that notability of a politician is considered from an individual's contribution to forming policy and actually effecting change. For American politicians, winning a primary is considered a qualification of notability. The UK equivalent would be open selection by one of the two main UK parties. As has been mentioned by others, being at the vanguard of gay rights in right-wing politics is notable in itself... (JamesBondMI6 (talk) 01:42, 18 May 2008 (UTC))[reply]
- Note that this editor User:JamesBondMI6 has already voted "Keep" above.PamD (talk) 06:55, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As a further comment, although it is repeated that there are sources that establish notability (even on the definition that JameBondMI6 would want to use), I note that none have been added to the article in an attempt to verify the notability by means of suitable reliable sources, and ample time has been given to do this. Instead, it seems that the most effort done by editors who want this article to be retained consists in either removing the appropriately added notices that ask for notability to be established, or arguing about sources we have yet to see in the article. Wikipedia acts on established facts, rather than promises of facts, etc, and so I see no reason why the article should be retained at the moment. I think that if this seems too harsh to those who wish the article to be retained, the concession of saving it to the main editor's talk space, allowing time for the article to be brought up to minimal standards if it can be, would be a sensible step, though it is not required at all: the better course of action would be for those who want to keep the article to start adding, without delay, reliable sources that verify and establish the notability of the subject, rather than arguing on the basis of promises here. DDStretch (talk) 07:10, 18 May 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. MastCell Talk 16:55, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Kenneth Gordon Neufeld[edit]
- Kenneth Gordon Neufeld (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable person. Article only cites his own website, one of his friends' sites, and a couple of articles he has written. There is nothing about him in a reliable source. His claim to fame is that he was a member of the Unification Church years ago and didn't like it. If this was any other church but the "Moonies" I don't think anyone would pay him attention. (Oddly enough it was a Unification Church member who started the article.) Borock (talk) 13:23, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Thanks for the notice. When I started the article I was fairly new on WP and didn't understand all the policies. (Not that I do now. :-)) I don't feel that I can conscienciously vote for or against the article now. I would like to say that Gordon is a good writer and his essays have been published in several main-stream outlets. He provides an important source for American Unification Church history and his criticisms of the church represent a legitimate point of view.Steve Dufour (talk) 14:49, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and merge - I disagree with Steve Dufour about the "legitimacy" of Neufeld's criticisms. But one virtue of NPOV, as originally intended, is that it lets readers judge POV's for themselves. Having a compendium of Ex-members of the Unification Church would enable readers to see their common misconceptions - or to be "neutral" - their common perspective from which they judge their former church. Do they see darkness because they see through dark glasses, or what? --13:07, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- I didn't say that I agreed with his opinions, just that he has the right to express them. I also think his first hand account of his experiences is valuable. I could also mention that he has always seemed to have a concern for truth and honesty, in marked contrast to
manysome more well-known UC critics. Steve Dufour (talk) 01:13, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't say that I agreed with his opinions, just that he has the right to express them. I also think his first hand account of his experiences is valuable. I could also mention that he has always seemed to have a concern for truth and honesty, in marked contrast to
- Delete. Because the article does not include citations from reliable sources, it does not appear to be in compliance with the verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 19:44, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Agree with above comment. Trees Rock Plant A Tree! 15:24, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I don't see notability established here. Frank | talk 17:16, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Non-notable writer. His book fails WP:BK. Qworty (talk) 05:21, 20 May 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. There is also a strong case here for a possible merge. If anyone is so inclined, propose the merger on the respective talkpages of the from/to articles. Not an AfD procedure. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:53, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ken Fahey[edit]
- Ken Fahey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Article lacks any real world information. may fail notability per WP:FICTION Ultra! 20:54, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No real world information. Only plot summary. Fails notability per WP:SOAPS and WP:FICTION. Comment The soaps template needs serious copyediting. We can't have a template with almost only red links! -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:49, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —Magioladitis (talk) 10:49, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge do something sensible and middle-of-the-road. This AfD illustrates nicely two poor ways to do it: one is the present article, completely incomprehensible if one doesn't know the series. I cannot figure out from it even whether or not the character is significant or trivial, sine I do not know the significance of "Dermot's brother and Geraldine's ex-husband." I need to know where in the series this occurs, as a minimum. and what year "he is currently in a relationship with ...' refers to . And I'd want to know who was the actor, and some references to articles or at least web sites explaining it further. Out of context in world information, that gives detail but doesn't explain anything. On the other hand, look at the only available merge target: a section on "characters" in the main Fair City article that doesn't even name the characters. There isn't the least idea of the plot line in that article to give anyone the least idea of what's going on or why it should be popular. How to do it wrong, and deleting the article wont make it any better. What is needed is a good combination article, divided up either by season or by family, giving a paragraph or so of description of the characters in context--with possible break out articles describing the main ones,if they are worth the trouble. the references for the main article indicate there will be enough discussion of the main characters to support that. this needs neither keep or delete--if we didnt have to deal with things here, maybe the people who care about the series could write something meaningful. Unfortunately, it does seem to take discussions like this to get people to realise the need of doing things well. The template is not what needs the editing--the group of articles is what needs it. DGG (talk) 22:33, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:19, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I see nothing here that indicates any potential for real-world significance or impact. If someone cares enough to merge this somewhere sobeit, but per WP:FICT this does not merit individual encyclopedic treatment. Eusebeus (talk) 14:35, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, notable character in Ireland's biggest and best-known currently-running soap. Stifle (talk) 19:45, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, important that no-irish take note of Systemic bias before commenting. clear keep, and there will be sources. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:49, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep or merge as Stifle suggests notability of character and from my own searches, it does not appear to be a hoax. If anyone knows any Irish Wikipedians, maybe someone has access to publications not readily available to those outside of Ireland that would provide more out of universe information. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 17:12, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll keep an eye for it. The RTÉ Guide is probably the best magazine to cite. Stifle (talk) 13:58, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- And in case it wasn't obvious already, I'm Irish. Stifle (talk) 13:59, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As seen on my user page, I'm part Irish in the ancestral sense, but I've never been to Ireland...yet! Anyway, I did add at least one source. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 14:20, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- And in case it wasn't obvious already, I'm Irish. Stifle (talk) 13:59, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll keep an eye for it. The RTÉ Guide is probably the best magazine to cite. Stifle (talk) 13:58, 16 May 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--JForget 01:30, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Knowledge creation[edit]
- Knowledge_creation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)
This page was previously nominated for deletionWikipedia:Articles for deletion/Knowledge creation and while kept was reduced to a stub. No activity has taken place since, and there were no strong advocates for it last time so I suggest we finally kill it off. Snowded (talk) 09:50, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:19, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This is a great subject to write about but the title chosen for the article doesn't seem to be a notable way to express the concept. Borock (talk) 13:28, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. An entirely uninformative, tautological, and context-free stub. This used to be full of empty buzzwords related to "knowledge management", one of the illusory sciences. Now its emptiness is appropriately reflected in the article. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:05, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - No reliable sources to establish notability. --Explodicle (talk) 19:00, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, per rationale given by Smerdis of Tlön. Cirt (talk) 22:54, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Unsourced, badly written article. — Wenli (reply here) 03:14, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, if there's no agreement on what it is then there's nothing to write about. WillOakland (talk) 10:12, 14 May 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. This was a close and contntous one as evidenced by both the volume of discussion and the reluctance of admins (including myself yestarday) to close it before now. The conflict of interest concerns are grounds for rewriting but do not speak to whether the article should exist in the first place. At least one editor !voting keep suggested that the article could exist but not as written. There is no reason to delete such an article unless there are BLP or libel issues.
The personal attacks both here and on the article's talk page are reprehensible, but ultimately irrelvent to the notibility of the subject. I find the notability argument weak, but sufficient. Likewise the !votes narrowly come out in favor or retention. I think, in the end, the result should be clear. Hopefully, both sides can come together and produce an article that does not have the problems of the current version. --Selket Talk 23:08, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mark Hanau[edit]
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:spa|username}} ; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}} . |
- Mark Hanau (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
WP:COI, "An article about a little-known band should preferably not be written by a band member or the manager." The article about Mark Hanau is written and edited by someone saying he's Mark Hanau (see comments in user contributions) and using Mark Hanau's website, aimultimedia.com. Editor has also edited or created numerous pages w/subjects he has a close personal connection to like airconditioning, saturnalia, curved air, liquid light shows, John Vickers, and Academy of Live and Recorded Arts. WP:NOTE Article does not establish notability of subject as per guidelines "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". WP:VER, claims not verifiable, some claims conflict with published accounts. Editor/subject uses [artistopia.com] as a source in this article and in other edited articles, but artistopia.com has Wikipedia as source. Before I deleted it, (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=NME_Awards&oldid=209579910), subject placed an image of an invitation to an awards event and represented it as an actual award. WP:SOAPBOX, Aimulti/Hanau is engaging in self-aggrandizement I think by exaggeration, has claimed to have co-founded Paul McCartney's McCartney Productions, established a school (ARLA), won awards, and met "Berthold (sic) Brecht" with no support. WP:NOTMYSPACE, editor using Wikipedia to showcase himself. WP:PSTS, editor using primary sources without secondary source backup, such as a college prospectus to establish he "founded" the college 'tho secondary sources give different story. WP:OR, editor/subject scans primary documents and submits them via his company website, aimultimedia.com. WP:Living Many, like example Aimulti claims an actor is his daughter without source. RetroS1mone (talk) 04:28, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I did so with my daughters full permission. She is as angry about this slur as I am.Aimulti (talk) 15:26, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, please keep in mind that disclosure of personal information for any reason is in violation of Wikipedia's living persons policies. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 00:22, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You refer to RetroS1mone as 'she'. May I ask how you knew this editor was female?Aimulti (talk) 15:31, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Admittedly, I don't, but the name "Simone" is female AFAIK. One could also ask why you assumed the editor was male, but the gender of your critic is irrelevant. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 00:21, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Lets stop pretending. I know who you are. Keeponkeepingon is your usual handle and you have hounded me for years on Yahoo Answers etc, etc. I took me I while to figure it out (must be getting old). Feel free to deny it (as I am sure you will) but we both know what this is about. Quite frankly I don't really care one way or another now that I know the nature of this action. Enjoy yourself. Aimulti (talk) 05:31, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I am not "Keeponkeepingon" and I do not have any knowledge of "Keeponkeepingon." I have never written on Yahoo Answers. You are making unsubstantiated claims. I have defended your notability and tried to help improve the sourcing in your autobiography. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 14:02, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can only comment on the section of the article regarding band management and picture discs, which I find informative, well-referenced, and certainly notable enough to qualify for inclusion in Wikipedia. I have no knowledge of Mark Hanau's life or career outside his involvement with Curved Air and Saturnalia but feel that to delete the entire article is extreme overkill and that a less-heated debate would enable the rest of the article to be brought up to the required standard. RGCorris (talk) 19:57, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- RGCorris, I agree with you that Mark Hanau's contribution to picture discs may be sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia with appropriate documentation. I will leave it to others to decide whether Hanau should have a biography article or should, rather, have his information merged into the other relevant articles. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 00:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Motives for attack on this article[edit]
discussion moved to Talk - Corvus cornixtalk 18:27, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Motives are irrelevant. The discussion here is whether or not this article meets Wikipedia guidelines and policies. Take extraneous discussion elswhere, it has no bearing on this discussion. I am moving the off-topic arguments to the Talk page. Corvus cornixtalk 18:27, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
NME AWARD[edit]
Not only did I provide a reference (the NME 1971 awards issue of NME), I also provided a scan of the actual invitation. NME only invited people to the awards who had won one. It was not like a Hollywood event, just a small reception room, some press and the presentation committee. Tony Blackburn (DJ) presented the awards. I have requested a back issue (the 1971 awards issue) from NME and also asked them to confirm Mark Hanau was the winner. How much more can you reference something? Wikipedia only requires a reference and I provided that and more. How many Wikipedia entries provide such solid references? Do I need Mark Hanau's DNA on the award and carbon dating? This is getting absurd!
Aimulti (talk) 04:54, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Absurd claim Sasha Hanau is not Mark Hanau's daughter[edit]
Aimulti, I have deleted the personal contact information you provided. Whether you are Sasha Hanau's father, as you claim to be, or not, Wikipedia prohibits disclosure of personal information. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 13:36, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Now I am confused. Not that it is directly relevant to the question of whether this article should be deleted or not, but near the top of this page, it is stated that the information on Sasha was mentioned with the consent of aimulti's daughter. But here, it is stated specifically that Sasha is not aimulti's daughter. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 21:44, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sasha is Mark Hanau's daughter. Your link does not depute that. It was making fun of the absurd assertion she is not. I will add copy of her birth cert., as soon as it arrives from England. Sasha was willing to have her phone number listed and to confirm this in person but Wikipedia does not allow that. Her birth cert. is the best I can do. I would hardly claim to be her father, on Wikipedia, if I was not.Aimulti (talk) 00:18, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Mark, Toddst1 and I have referred you to WP materials on what is acceptable as documentation. Please do not post anyone's birth certificate or other personal information. Your daughter (or your parents, for that matter) has nothing to do with your notability, is not mentioned as your daughter in any reliable sources, and does not belong in this article. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 00:25, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
ALRA[edit]
Not only did I provide a reference from Kent Library naming the 'managers' of ALRA. They use the term for directors but also an image of the school prospectus showing Mark Hanau was Chairman of the Board (by law this information must be correct (Companies Act) and false information is a criminal act). In addition, every prospectus up to 1997 and all school stationary confirm this. In addition to that the company registary is public domain and can be easily checked. http://www.companies-house.gov.uk/toolsToHelp/findCompanyInfo.shtml
In addition every single issue of the weekly newspaper, Stage and Television Today (UK) has display advertisements for ALRA naming Mark Hanau as Chairman of the Board (from 1984 to 2001)
Aimulti (talk) 09:33, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Brecht[edit]
Provided three solid references (Newspaper and two University archives) showing that Mark Hanau's parents both worked with Brecht in East Berlin when Mark was a child. Removed line saying Mark met him (as this cannot be referenced) but who can doubt you meet someone who is working with your parents for over two years in a closed society like post war East Berlin? Aimulti (talk) 10:01, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:19, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 16:15, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 16:15, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion of keep/toss[edit]
- Comment I will not vote on this deletion since I have been involved in editing the article, but I should note that since Retrosimone made her AfD post, Aimulti responded by disclosing the personal information of a third party whom he claims is his daughter, as well as additional unverified information on other third parties, here and on his Talk page ostensibly for verification purposes. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 13:51, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Very strong delete - Per WP:AUTO, WP:COI, WP:Personal information, WP:MUSIC, WP:VER and WP:NOTMYSPACE. asenine say what? 16:01, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - while a bit high on puffery, certainly Mr. Hanau seems notable enough for an article. Has references to some reliable sources, some less reliable sources, and some facts need sources. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 17:41, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete: Super high on puffery and most of the citations don't support Hanau's involvement. I started trying to clean up the article, removing errant citations that didn't support the article on Hanau, but quickly came to the conclusion that the article would be better deleted. If he's notable (probably is), start over and with proper citations that support relevant statements with reliable sources. Toddst1 (talk) 18:22, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I have to express concern regarding the discussion of this AFD which has turned more into the type of thing you'd expect to see on the article's talk page or at WP:RFC and some of the discussion is starting to ring WP:BLP alarm bells that have nothing to do with the article at hand. Also, COI states "preferably", it doesn't ban articles written by the subject. In fact I'm pretty sure there's a wikipolicy saying they're welcome as long as they have sources, etc etc. I can't cast an informed opinion as to the viability of this article as I'm not familiar enough with the subject matter. 23skidoo (talk) 19:58, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: A quick, cursory search of the databases of the Montgomery County, Md. Public Library databases shows one article mentioning a different Mark Hanau (managing director of an investment firm). A search of news.google.com revealed no results. A search of scholar.google.com revealed 6210 results; within the first 10 of these results, there is a link to a patent for a method of manufacturing audio and video discs. Finally, if the subject of the article wants to be deleted, then I'd vote for a weak "delete" (but if User:Aimulti is, in fact, Mr. Hanau, then it would appear from the debate that the opposite is true). 69.140.152.55 (talk) 21:19, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
ALRA is in LONDON, England. (Not. Montgomery County, Maryland). Simply check the public record on-line data base. I provided a link as a reference. Direct link. http://wck2.companieshouse.gov.uk/8d44684a52dcc89a24cdbbd0d9d3c8f2/compdetails. The information costs $1. I will buy it a post a link.Aimulti (talk) 22:42, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. References available to online search do not at this time appear to support claims in article. If offline references can be verified there may be a possibility of retention after rewrite to match those sources. Some direct claims, however, such as the naming of Curved Air, are directly contradicted by available sources. --Dhartung | Talk 21:40, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I never claimed to have named Curved Air. Francis Monkman did. I simply claimed that I added Sonja (she confirms that on her page). Aimulti (talk) 22:47, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep A notable person and no reason to doubt anyone's good faith. BUT 2 pieces of artwork are copyrighted by Mark Hanau, we will have to take steps to confirm that User Aimulti has the right to license them. And moreover this user should not be allowed to edit their article anymore: if necessary they should be blocked from doing so. Sorry Mark, but if you can't see that you're too personally involved, everyone else can. --Simon Speed (talk) 13:06, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: It appears that this opinion was canvassed. See User_talk:Simonxag#Your_request_and.. Toddst1 (talk) 13:25, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Does Wikipedia ban contributors asking for each other's support ? RGCorris (talk) 14:38, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- See WP:CANVAS: "messages that are written to influence the outcome rather than to improve the quality of a discussion compromise the consensus building process and are generally considered disruptive." Aimulti engaged in a subcategory of canvassing known as "campaigning." He selectively notified at least two editors who agreed with him on other issues or whom he had assisted with other requests and asked them to give his autobiography a thumbs up. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 15:02, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Mark Hanau's involvement with Curved Air and Saturnalia and the picture discs is sufficient to confirm notability. Sensible editing of inappropriate parts of the entry - with properly-explained reasons for doing so - would deal with most of the areas complained of. RGCorris (talk) 14:13, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Very strong delete - Per WP:AUTO, WP:COI, WP:Personal information, WP:MUSIC, WP:VER and WP:NOTMYSPACE. Also, see Mark on AIDS Myth Exposed, planning covert operations[1] against wikipedia. (http://groups.msn.com/aidsmythexposed/activism.msnw?action=get_message&mview=0&ID_Message=34105&LastModified=4675672689297989029 )—Preceding unsigned comment added by Nocontroversy (talk • contribs) 19:12, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
COMMENT ON ABOVE. Your link shows no such thing. Aids Myth Exposed does not even have a member with that name. I checked. I also note Nocontroversy is yet another member who has only edited on the topic of 'AIDS' (except one small ski edit). Funny how everyone voting for delete has the same edit history. Aimulti (talk) 21:42, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Aimulti and Nocontroversy, please restrict your comments to discussion of this article. What Mark said under what pseudonym where is irrelevant here. Thank you, Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 22:17, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I note you (Keepcalmandcarryon) started the thread referenced above. QUOTE: -From: keepcalmandcarryon (Original Message) Sent: 4/26/2008 11:44 AM I'm sure y'all have noticed that, despite its claim to maintain a "neutral point of view", Wikipedia's articles relating to AIDS dissidence are biased (see for example the entry on Celia Farber). In honor of Rethinking AIDS day I am going to make time to do some editing and adding of needed references, and I encourage others to do the same! THIS WHOLE THING IS BEGINNING TO STINK MORE AND MORE. Aimulti (talk) 22:42, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- STRONG KEEP This article is heavily refrenced and does not meet the deletion policy of wikipedia. None of the events or facts are exagerated, and all of the topics are historic and should be kept on wikipedia. All the links and refrences checked out. It seems that the users that have put this page up for deletion have a personal vendetta with the author and should be excluded on editing this article, as they appear to be editing with an extreme bias. 75.83.214.6 (talk) 09:27, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
THAT IS A TOTAL LIE. Aimulti (talk) 20:13, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please see talk page, "Elephant in the Room." Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 21:41, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
COMMENT. I did not ask this person to get involved UNLIKE the members of DAG Exposed (MSN Group) who have organized this campaign against me. Aimulti (talk) 21:57, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The relentless promotion of this article by possibly COI-affected editors makes it hard to get a clear view of the subject matter. There is a large reference list, but the criterion for inclusion there must have been set very low. A serious full-length review of Mark Hanau's work in a reliable source might persuade me to change my vote. If the article is kept, a lot of puffery will need to be removed. EdJohnston (talk) 18:59, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
COMMENT. If this REALLY was about references than may I ask why the Mark Hanau bio with over 30 is the target of so much attention? Compare it to the vastly longer article: - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rich_Mullins_(musician) with not a single reference. This same situation is common throughout Wikipedia. Seems like a double standard or could the motive be as I have claimed? Aimulti (talk) 03:03, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- KEEP. The REAL objection is a fanatical vendetta by members of a special interest group. Every article I have contributed has been targeted. A good example is Peace News. This article was totally original in content (even the paper's web site had no history). Well referenced and had no 'self promotion' as these people claim whenever they can. It was targeted simply because I contributed it. The same is true of several other articles. A PURE HATE CAMPAIGN - Plain and simple! Aimulti (talk) 21:02, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Aimulti I tried to explain you twice the copyright problem. [38] but you are not listening. At Peace News you copied directly from the Brock archives [39]. Thats not "totally original in content". Its plagiarism. So much it puts all your stuff in doubt. Every edit I made is from copyright or plagiarism or POV. RetroS1mone (talk) 23:58, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hugh Brock provided that material to the library service for the sole purpose of providing a history of Peace News. I only referenced a few facts from the archive and the rest was from other sources. You are using every trick in the book to target my editions. If I don't use referenced material you delete it and if I do you still delete it. No article on Wikipedia is possible on this basis as you well know. I could tear Wikipedia apart using your criteria for deletion.
I don't care anymore what you do as I have decided NEVER again to contribute to Wikipedia or even look at it. I was suckered back last time but that was a VERY silly error on my part. With you and your little gang of thugs hounding me, I am wasting my time here. You are a really vicious and sick lady and nothing you do will change what I have achieved in my life (or am about to achieve). I now hope that this final article is deleted so you and your bullyboy/bullygirl buddies have nothing left to vandalize. In short, GO TO HELL. (Hope you get me banned for that comment - I am sure you can). Aimulti (talk) 03:54, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Aimulti you copied section from the Hugh Brock archives. Not "referenced a few facts". Same what you did with John Vickers and other plagiarism I found. You have an agenda at wikipedia to change AIDS info and the peace news and the rest is to make your self an established editor. You said it yourself on your Paul King account at the AIDS myth cite. So you don't care enough about those articles to do a good job you just copy. A good strategy but not what Wikipedia is for. RetroS1mone talk 15:15, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - per WP:VER and WP:RS. Although the article "looks" good, so many of the cited sources are questionable that it's hard to imagine the article really establishes independent notability of Mr. Hanau. The use of primary sources is particularly troublesome as the general policy is for people NOT to create or substantially contribute to articles about themselves. It is important for us to always keep in mind that Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth. These sources are - especially taken together - not sufficient to meet this bar, especially for a WP:BLP. Notes - I read the article and checked the majority of its sources to establish my position. I did this and decided my position before reading the controversy which appears on this page (most of which I ignored anyway). (Having read the nom, I was aware of the accusation that it is largely self-edited.) In addition, per the template near the top, I was not solicited to look at this page; rather, it was the last WP:AFD left for its date. Frank | talk 18:09, 21 May 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.
References[edit]
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 List of One Life to Live characters. Black Kite 18:30, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
R. J. Gannon[edit]
- R. J. Gannon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Article lacks any real world information. may fail notability per WP:FICTION. Ultra! 20:53, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fails notability per WP:FICTION. Article consists mainly of plot description. Real world information is limited to actor's name and years of appearance. One year none made any effort to improve the article and the actor is not in the main cast anymore which means less feedback will come in the future. -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:41, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —Magioladitis (talk) 10:43, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:20, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Because the article does not include citations from reliable sources, it does not appear to be in compliance with the verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 19:50, 13 May 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 21:08, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wars of the east[edit]
- Wars of the east (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Articles fails WP:Notable. SkyWalker (talk) 10:15, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, fails notability requirement. This is a classic example of an author-created mod page which do not belong on Wikipedia in general. It has a moddb entry, but no coverage there beyond the entry. A google search comes up with 9 hits, none of which are reliable. User:Krator (t c) 11:46, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:20, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems to be a non-notable hobby of someone. Although it sounds like fun and a lot of work was put into it it doesn't need an encyclopedia article. Borock (talk) 13:52, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. SkyWalker (talk) 10:18, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Because the article does not include citations from reliable sources, it does not appear to be in compliance with the verifiability policy. If kept, a severe trim of trivia and plot summary is needed. Stifle (talk) 19:56, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - entire content is inappropriate per WP:WAF; no other indication that this mod is notable. Marasmusine (talk) 11:55, 14 May 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. ¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 07:29, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ole Söderberg[edit]
- Ole Söderberg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Previously WP:PRODded, then recreated. The subject is a 17-year-old Swedish youngster who fails WP:ATHLETE (no professional appearances). Angelo (talk) 12:46, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Angelo (talk) 12:50, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per failing WP:BIO#Athletes. пﮟოьεԻ 57 12:57, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete fails WP:ATHLETE by a long margin. There seems to be a user who keeps creating pages for Newcastle youngsters despite previous deletions. --Jimbo[online] 13:37, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. GiantSnowman 14:54, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Fails WP:ATHLETE for now. There are 23 hits in GoogleNews[40], but that is not enough to satisfy WP:ATHLETE yet. Nsk92 (talk) 22:26, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not notable enough to justify an article. — Wenli (reply here) 02:39, 14 May 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 21:22, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Electronics Engineering Services[edit]
- Electronics Engineering Services (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
As per WP:CRYSTAL and it doesn't explain the topic. Pupster21 Talk To Me 12:18, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Save it.Its a new topic and i think has started off well and it should expanded in future. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Manavbhardwaj (talk • contribs) 13:49, 12 May 2008
- Delete. Am inevitable factor today in the globally competitive electronic components industry. In other words, a non-notable neologism that somebody hopes to milk as next week's management fad buzzword. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:08, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - non-encyclopaedic neologism. Probably promo spam as well. Oli Filth(talk) 15:42, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Save- The article has been improved further, please review again. This talks about the services for design engineers and the electronics industry overall which they are using to make their electronic designs less costly, effective, less time consuming and help them reach out to each other for any support. Do consider keeping it. User:Manavbhardwaj(talk) 15:42, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This is a second keep vote by User:Manavbhardwaj. Nsk92 (talk) 16:07, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. A weird mixture of an WP:OR essay, a how-to manual, with a strong wiff of WP:ADVERT. The subject of the article is not well-defined. No sources cited, per WP:RS. Nothing to demonstrate notability per WP:N. Nsk92 (talk) 16:06, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. A Delete vote of Smerdis of Tlön has been changed to Keep by User:Manavbhardwaj. Here is the diff proving it: [41]. Such actions are unacceptable! I have changed the vote back to the original Delete. Nsk92 (talk) 16:17, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I may have deleted something here as i did not know how and what to do here. I was only correcting my own comments though in that case i might hv repeated too as indicated above. I deeply regret if i did something against the rules.--User:Manavbhardwaj Can this article be considered for merger? or improvement? Please suggest.
- Since you didn't change the actual explanation of what I said, I'm inclined to assume that it was only a case of unfamiliarity with the format of these discussions and the editing software.
On the other hand, Wikipedia is generally not the place to propose new business models or plans. Our requirements of "notability" and "reliable sources" are jargon here; but what they seek to guarantee is that article subjects not be new ideas, but pre-existing ideas that are well established enough to be noticed by disinterested third parties. This makes it difficult to suggest places where this might be merged, and I am not familiar enough with electronics engineering as a business to suggest some other place where your text might be more welcome. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 20:23, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Since you didn't change the actual explanation of what I said, I'm inclined to assume that it was only a case of unfamiliarity with the format of these discussions and the editing software.
- I agree. but this is not a new model or a concept, if you search google with this title, you will see many resources available to this on the net already. User:Manavbhardwaj
- Delete As per previous comments that this is an essay and not an encyclopedia article. Ecoleetage (talk) 20:50, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Because the article does not include citations from reliable sources, it does not appear to be in compliance with the verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 19:56, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Nsk92. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:27, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Unreferenced, original research. -- Mikeblas (talk) 17:06, 15 May 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 21:03, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Smurf Conspiracy Theories[edit]
- Smurf Conspiracy Theories (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Notability not established; no reliable sources used, and none seem to be available in searches. Frank | talk 11:26, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- delete It is one of those fringe theories that have lots of coverage within the fringe, but I cannot find any notable independent references to it. As such, it should be deleted. StephenBuxton (talk) 11:46, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- delete might be worth, perhaps, a brief mention in an article about conspiracy theories rather than about the Smurfs, but not as a stand-alone article. Original research that falls in the same category as the joke about the Cartwrights on Bonanza being a Jewish family, and I suspect that the original conspiracy theorists are actually joking about conspiracy theories in general. If you think Papa Smurf's beard looks like that of Karl Marx, you've probably seen one without seeing the other. I'm more worried about the possible communist ties of a guy with a red hat, Karl Marx beard, and a philosophy that manufactured products should be distributed equally throughout the world. HO HO HO!!! Merry... oh, never mind. Mandsford (talk) 12:54, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. They're eeevil, I tell you! EEEEEEVIL! But this strikes me as original research that might be hard to find reliable sources for. Yes, the Smurfs bribed me for this opinion. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:10, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. These theories seem to have currency on message boards and blogs and such, but that's it. I'd like to point out that, of the three links in the article, two are dead and the third explicitly calls itself "a parody" and "fiction." Red flags went up for me when I realized it refers to them as Communists, Nazis (who were fanatically anti-Communist), and capitalist fat cats in the same article. And Mandsford's right about the beard. AnturiaethwrTalk 14:43, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No reliable sources cited, a dose of WP:OR. Fails WP:N. Nsk92 (talk) 16:00, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 16:16, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment National Public Radio did a recent segment of In Character on the Smurfs, I recall a brief discussion on the communism and smurfs content. Additionally, a question on the NPR quiz show Wait Wait… Don't Tell Me! this past year dealt with the smurfs and communism. Even with these sources, it's likely the article wouldn't stand. AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 18:17, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. None of these theories has any assertion of notability. KleenupKrew (talk) 22:10, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've heard this stuff before, so there might just be sources floating around. The best way to go about this is to merge the content into The Smurfs article, put up [citation needed] next to unsourced claims. --Pwnage8 (talk) 22:55, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I know I created the article so I am biased for keeping it, but one of the links (that is unfortunately now dead) was a rather long essay explaining the similarities, and most certainly not a parody. If we merge this with The Smurfs, K'm concerned that it will just end up creating a trivia section, against Wikipedia policy. {{Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:02, 14 May 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. This doesn't look like a real article, and the editors in this discussion had a variety of different ideas for how to fix it. I will make the article text available to anyone who wants to work on it in their own user space. WP:NOT suggests to me that the material may not be appropriate anywhere, but with a lot of work, someone might be able to create normal article content. EdJohnston (talk) 02:29, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Tanjore Diary[edit]
- Tanjore Diary (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
The page was speedy-deleted once (by User:Ganeshk), and Template:Prod was added to it before but removed later by the page creator (User talk:Arunvats). I've gone through the article briefly, compared it with Thanjavur, and here's what I get:
- It's obvious that the lead section is a complete copy from Thanjavur, the exact place this article talks about.
- The article MAY have a bit of useful information, but it's rather poorly referenced (because there isn't a single footnote, not to mention it's a messed up article needing cleanup/wikify.
- The "Thanjavur Diary" section is completely edited by the same editor (the main contributor/creator), so it can be assumed that other editors aren't aware of this article.
- After Googling "tanjore diary" or "thanjavur diary", results show no websites implying notability.
As a conclusion, I'm suggesting either merge (somehow) into Thanjavur or delete. — Yurei-eggtart 11:21, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- This is clearly referring to Thanjavur. There's no evidence that "Tanjore Diary" is an actual name of anything. I can't figure out the motivations of the creator. Maybe some kind of WP:SANDBOX exercise. --Oakshade (talk) 16:08, 12 May 2008 (UTC) Changed to Userfy or Merge per below. There are unique facts in the article that can be salvaged. A lot of work, though. --Oakshade (talk) 15:31, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 16:17, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and merge any useful information that can be salvaged with Thanjavur. -Yupik (talk) 20:13, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Userfy I think it is a collection of census data on a number of villages within Thanjavur. Each should have its own article/be added to existing articles. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 15:34, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Whats the deal with the "Tanjore Diary" naming?? What I;d suggest doing is merging with the Thanjavur article ir moving to a Economy of Thanjavur sub articles and formatting some of the more useful information properly in a table. On quick glance some of the info in this article looks like it should be filtered down but I doubt anybody should be removing material which gives information on the economy and facilities of the villages. Technically it is an encyclopedic article which just needs a lot of work reformatting and representing to standards and splitting appropriately in the relevant articles. SOme of the info might be converted to text. ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 16:02, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Userfy We have lots of apparently good looking facts here, that want for wikification. MBisanz talk 16:15, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename to Thanjavur District, edit down to a stub, and remove section from Thanjavur - the article is mostly a collection of statistical trivia about villages in the district... most of these should be cut, especially the details of banking services. --Marcinjeske (talk) 05:06, 14 May 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 per CSD:A1. Stifle (talk) 19:47, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Diorenzi villatito[edit]
- Diorenzi villatito (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Possible speedy delete A1 candidate. The only thing I can find on the subject of the article is this which ranks them at 157 on a list on under 14 Philippines tennis players. This does not indicate the level of reliable sourcing required to meet the primary notability criteria or the specific criteria for people Guest9999 (talk) 10:42, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete So why didn't you tag it speedy? That would save work for AfD reviewers... However, as it does identify him as a tennis player, a WP:PROD might be more appropriate.
- He is at most 14 years old => not professional => NN
- He is not ranked well within his division of the "Southern Tagalog CALABARZON Athletic Association" => double NN
- What is there to discuss? Potatoswatter (talk) 11:34, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If someone wants to tag as a speedy go ahead I do not think that this discussion prevents that, I wasn't sure and thought it best to err on the side of caution (incidentally Martina Hingis became a Wimbledon champion at 15). Guest9999 (talk) 12:19, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete Article has little to no context. --Pupster21 Talk To Me 12:22, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete per A1. Nsk92 (talk) 15:38, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 16:18, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete: not enough context. Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 02:41, 13 May 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 Deep Zone Project. Notability, for being at Eurovision Contest, is not for each of the subjets, but for their collaboration. Also all the info about DJ Balthazar is currently already at the taget. Naturally with no prejudice for a later split, should new info arise. - Nabla (talk) 21:44, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
DJ Balthazar[edit]
- This edit [42] of the article was copied from [43]. --Peccafly-talk-hist 08:34, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep No reason cited for deletion. Also, you just added a link to the Bulgarian Wikipedia yourself. I don't read Bulgarian but it sure looks notable. Notability is certainly asserted. Third, you can't vote in your own discussion. Potatoswatter (talk) 11:19, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. —Potatoswatter (talk) 11:19, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - They meet WP:MUSIC by winning major competition (they won the opportunity to perform in the Eurovision Song Contest) and are doing an international tour (promotional tour for Eurovision 2008. Source here. StephenBuxton (talk) 11:52, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The nomination was not clearly stated but valid: there was an obvious copyvio issue here. The material pasted from [44] was definitely copyrighted. At the very bottom of the page there is a note "Copyright DJBalthazar.com. All rights reserved". Now the copyvio stuff has been removed and the article is a stab. However, the subject appears to fail WP:MUSIC. The band itself, Deep Zone, meets WP:MUSIC and is notable. However, WP:MUSIC specifically states: "Members of notable bands are not given individual articles unless they have demonstrated notability for activity independent of the band". There is no evidence of such independent notability presented here. If such evidence is found, the article can be kept. Nsk92 (talk) 15:52, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Copyvio is reason to revert, not delete, which nom had already done. DJ clearly not in band. Potatoswatter (talk) 21:47, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 16:18, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- comment Are you sure DJ Balthazar is a member of the band Deep Zone? Looking at all the links I have seen, it appears that DJ is a collaborator with the band for this venture. As such, he appears to meet the same notability requirements that the band met to earn an article. StephenBuxton (talk) 16:21, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Deep Zone, tagged with {{R with possibilities}}. Stifle (talk) 08:42, 14 May 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 per CSD:G3 (Hoax). UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 15:15, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Colin berton[edit]
- Colin berton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This article claims notability, but I have never heard of Colin berton or the Sydney Sand-devils. It may not be a hoax, but the claim to notability seems to be greatly overstated Grahame (talk) 08:07, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 08:15, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as hoax. The testicular cancer is usually a dead giveaway. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:23, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete 99% chance (at least) of it being a hoax. It also meets Geogre's law. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 08:36, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, seems like a hoax, or to use a less charitable term, bollocks. Lankiveil (speak to me) 09:14, 12 May 2008 (UTC).[reply]
- Delete Prob hoax. No ghits, no refs, it represents the author's sole contributions, and that Gloucestershire ranch just doesn't ring true. -- Karenjc 11:25, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete as WP:HOAX. Frank | talk 11:49, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- G3 as hoax, so tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 15:04, 12 May 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 08:05, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Bari Imam[edit]
- Bari Imam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
The current article lacks a clear assertion of notability and has no reliable sourcing. I am not familiar enough with the subject to determine if it is a salvageable topic or not, but currently it's largely a coatrack for the various Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi fanatics that have been trying to spread the word via Wikipedia. (Article creator, Asikhi (talk · contribs), is the "Press & Information Secretary" for Shahi's organization.) — Scientizzle 15:38, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. —— Scientizzle 15:40, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Google News and Google Books searches reveal plenty of reliable sources that show notability. If the article id being used as a coatrack that is a content issue to be resolved by editing. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:45, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename to Bari Imam shrine - all of the sources linked to above are discussing the 'Bari Imam shrine,' which does indeed appear notable, although the notability of Shah Abdul Latif Kazmi himself has not yet been established. ITAQALLAH 14:31, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein (talk) 07:18, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Because the article does not include citations from reliable sources, it does not appear to be in compliance with the verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 19:58, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep but... I did a quick google and this person and his shrine are clearly notable. However, the article as written is mere pseudohistory, Sunday-school pietism. Is there some way to put an article on probation? To say to the people who posted it: You have X amount of time to make this objective and get some footnotes to reliable sources, or it will be deleted. It is simply not right for sects to post their favorite saint stories on Wikipedia.Elan26 (talk) 21:41, 16 May 2008 (UTC)Elan26[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Even after discounting several single purpose accounts, we do not have a consensus to delete. Any POV and sourcing problems the article might have can be remedied by editing, renaming or merging it, all of which do not require deletion. These problems (if any) do not appear to be so fundamental as to require outright deletion despite the lack of a consensus for deletion. If the TV programme is perceived to be more notable than the event itself, the article can be rewritten to focus on the programme. Sandstein 08:03, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Killings at Coolacrease[edit]
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:spa|username}} ; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}} . |
- Killings at Coolacrease (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This is an unsalvageable mish-mish of an article, a pile of original research, synthesis and POV-pushing about an obscure incident near the end of the Irish War of Independence whose only claim to notability is that it was the subject of a controversial TV programme produced and broadcast late last year by RTÉ. I think that there are good grounds for believing that the TV program itself is notable — there is plenty of substantial coverage in reliable sources, including articles in most of Ireland's major national newspapers.
However, the article was created as an article about the historical event, and there are insufficient reliable secondary sources to support such an article. The sources available consist of two memoirs by people whose families were involved in different sides of the conflict, one transcript of any indymedia debate led by Pat Muldowney (of whom more anon), and a pile of primary sources published on indymedia. At no stage in the discussions on the article's talk pages has anyone offered any evidence that there exists any impartial, scholarly account of the events; all that we have is the pile of material generated by the protagonists, and suggestions that something more solid may be forthcoming in the future.
The existence of this article are completely bound up in the debate over the TV programme, and it is being used a battleground by at least one of the protagonists in that controversy. The programme provoked a heated debate in Ireland, not least from two individuals (Paddy Heaney and Pat Muldowney), who claimed that the program was biased, and lodged unsuccessful complaints with Ireland's Broadcasting Complaints Commission.[45] Muldowney also engaged in the public debate in the press, and wrote extensively about the TV programme on indymedia, strongly opposing the programme and setting out what he believed was a more accurate presentation of the history.
So far so good; there's nothing at all wrong with anyone participating passionately in a public debate. However, the wikipedia problems began when Pat Muldowney (talk · contribs) began to summarise his views in a wikipedia article. It is to Muldowney's credit that he registered in his own name, but as a vocal protagonist in the public controversy, he had a clear conflict of interest and should have refrained from editing the article. Unfortunately, repeated requests for him to do so have been unsuccessful, and after the article was substantially revised by others he removed most of the additions.
Muldowney may not be the only editor here with an outside involvement with this issue. Other contributions, largely supporting Muldowney, have been made by Knockanore (talk · contribs), only one of whose 15 contributions is not to this article or its talk page. Yet another single-purpose account is User:Feint, who has made substantial edits to the article but not participated in any discussions, and there is also Spleen&ideal (talk · contribs). I don't think that I have ever seen so many single-purpose accounts at work on an article.
I tried myself to add some balance to the article, but apart from the difficulties involved in discussion with editors apparently uninterested in wikipedia policies, I eventually concluded that there not enough sources to allow an article on anything other than the TV programme.
As above, I think that there is a theoretical possibility that a properly-sourced article could be written on the TV program. However, the latest edits have removed nearly all coverage of the TV program, leaving this version, which is an appalling mishmash of original research and synthesis primarily written by an editor with a huge COI, and relying in large part on indymedia sources and on the accounts Alan Stanley and Paddy Heaney (neither of whom is a professional historian, both of whom is writing about their own relatives).
It may be that in future there will be sufficient published scholarship to allow a properly-sourced article to be written about the historical event, but as of now, there isn't. What we have here is a travesty of many wikipedia policies, and it should be deleted. If kept, it will continue to be abused as a vehicle for various POV-pushers with vested interests to promote the original research on which this article is founded. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:27, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. —BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:27, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep Wikipedia is not censored and the above is simply not a Reason for deletion. 82.36.178.185 (talk) 23:11, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply. Did you read those reasons for deletion? If you read them, you'll see that the list there isn't intended to be exhaustive, and that it includes "Articles that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources" and "Articles for which all attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed". Now, re-read the nomination, and note the emphasis I have place in the lack of reliable sources, and the use of original research. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:48, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Professor Richard English says The details of the killings make this a particular ghastly episode even if someone was broadly sympathetic with IRA and republicanism. It would seem he was able to find reliable sources to back his claim - but then again he is only a professional historian and not an admin. 82.36.178.185 (talk) 08:11, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That link illustrates my point very nicely. The Daily Mirror article is useless as a historical source on the killings themselves, but contains several notable comments on the TV programme. It's one of dozens of references which could be used to write an article on the TV programme and the subsequent debate. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:58, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Professor Richard English says The details of the killings make this a particular ghastly episode even if someone was broadly sympathetic with IRA and republicanism. It would seem he was able to find reliable sources to back his claim - but then again he is only a professional historian and not an admin. 82.36.178.185 (talk) 08:11, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply. Did you read those reasons for deletion? If you read them, you'll see that the list there isn't intended to be exhaustive, and that it includes "Articles that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources" and "Articles for which all attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed". Now, re-read the nomination, and note the emphasis I have place in the lack of reliable sources, and the use of original research. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:48, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No Deletion, No Gagging. I've checked through the article again to see if there is any valid reason for deletion. I just can't see it. The basic historical facts on which all sources agree are given and cited. Areas of disagreement are listed and appropriate sources for each side cited, without any indication of editorial preference that I can detect.
The sources cited are good. One of the main sources is the academic work of Philip McConway which is published by the highly regarded Offaly Historical and Archaeological Society, and is readable off their website. The cited work of Paddy Heaney is published by the same society and its affiliates.
The main sources for the opposing case are Alan Stanley's 2005 book (cited in the original article), and Eoghan Harris's October 9 2005 Sunday Independent article. Maybe the Harris article is a more WP-appropriate citation than Alan Stanley's book. But Harris's article is just a resumé of Stanley's book, and I think the latter should also be cited.
The list of citations in the article includes documents in the public domain (Public Records Office etc) which are selectively quoted in most discussions about the 1921 incidents. These sources are cited in the article without drawing any conclusions or implications from them – no analysis.
These sources have been placed in the public domain by the authority of two states – the Irish and British. It is reasonable to quote from them provided the quotes are accurate and balanced. One of the merits of the article was that, in effect, it quoted them in full (by means of hyperlinks) but without drawing conclusions from them. It is a mistake to remove those links, in my opinion.
There has been far too much ad hominem argument here. Knockanore (talk) 09:03, 8 May 2008 (UTC) — Knockanore (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- ReplyKnockanore, one of the reason that new editors are cautioned against participating in deletions debates is that new editors lack familiarity with the policies and guidelines on which such decisions are made. Please read WP:V, WP:RS and WP:NOR. What a wikipedia article needs is reliable secondary sources ... and the only source offered so far which comes anywhere close to meeting that test is a two-part article in the local newspaper in County Offaly. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:04, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- PS Knockanore, you claim that the Offaly Historical and Archaeological Society is "highly regarded". Any evidence in reliable sources for that assertion, or that its publications are the subject of the professional peer review and fact-checking discussed in Wikipedia:V#Reliable_sources? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:48, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep This article is only deemed unsalvagable by user BrownHairedGirl because it does not fit her own political ideology. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.117.143.33 (talk) 09:07, 8 May 2008 (UTC) — 143.117.143.33 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Please don't make assumptions about my political ideology. My objections are to the lack of proper sources, and the use of the article to promote the perspective of the protagonists in a political controversy, when the controversy itself is the most notable aspect of the whole thing. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:51, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- ...in your (humble?) opinion.82.36.178.185 (talk) 13:10, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No, not in my opinion: on the basis of the extent of coverage in reliable sources, per wikipedia's notability guidelines. One of the problems caused by the participation of single-purpose accounts in deletion debates is that such editors are often unaware of wikipedia's policies and guidelines. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:52, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I am refering to your opinion that the controversy itself is the most notable aspect of the whole thing I'm sorry you need to Bite the above for their inexperience of Wikilawyering.82.36.178.185 (talk) 15:17, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No, not in my opinion: on the basis of the extent of coverage in reliable sources, per wikipedia's notability guidelines. One of the problems caused by the participation of single-purpose accounts in deletion debates is that such editors are often unaware of wikipedia's policies and guidelines. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:52, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- ...in your (humble?) opinion.82.36.178.185 (talk) 13:10, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please don't make assumptions about my political ideology. My objections are to the lack of proper sources, and the use of the article to promote the perspective of the protagonists in a political controversy, when the controversy itself is the most notable aspect of the whole thing. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:51, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
←If you read Wikipedia:Guide to deletion#Discussion, you will see that it says clearly that "relevant facts and evidence are welcome from anyone but the opinions of anonymous and/or suspiciously new users may be discounted by the closing admin". You have offered no facts or evidence; all you have offered is an unfounded allegation of a political agenda on the part of an established editor.
The main purpose of a deletion debate is to assess whether an article complies with wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and it is a problem that your replies here do not address the lack of reliable sources on the incident itself, and consequent failure to meet the notability guidelines. Instead of addressing those issues, you have chosen to claim (without any evidence) that I have some political ideology which is being brought to bear on the debate.
In terms of reliable secondary sources for the event, the closet we have anything which would meet WP:N is two articles in a low-circulation local newspaper:
- Philip McConway (7 November 2007). "The Pearsons of Coolacrease, pt. 1". Tullamore Tribune.
- Philip McConway (14 November 2007). "The Pearsons of Coolacrease, pt. 2". Tullamore Tribune.
That's it. There is nothing else to establish the notability of the 1921 events, apart from primary sources and a bunch of unreliable sources
... but to establish the notability of the TV documentary we have:
- David Adams (9 November 2007). "Diehards reveal true colours". The Irish Times. Retrieved 2004-04-24.
- Eoghan Harris (9 October 2005). "This tree has rotten roots and bitter fruit". Sunday Independent. Retrieved 2008-04-24.
- Niamh Sammon (25 November 2005). "Unfounded claims about killings". Letters column, The Sunday Independent. Retrieved 2008-04-24.
*Eoghan Harris (11 November 2005). "Why bodies buried deep in the green bog must be raised". Sunday Independent. Retrieved 2008-04-24.
* David Adams (9 November 2007). "Diehards reveal true colours". The Irish Times. Retrieved 2004-04-24. - Niamh Sammon (25 November 2005). "Unfounded claims about killings". Letters column, The Sunday Independent. Retrieved 2008-04-24.
- History Ireland, January-February 2008
- More coverage in the Irish Independent
- "'Time for truth on murders'". Belfast Newsletter. 14 November 2007. Retrieved 2004-04-24.
- "Can we learn the lessons of history?". The Western People. 31 October 2007. Retrieved 2004-04-24.
- Lots more coverage in the Irish Times
- Lynne Kelleher (21 October 2007). "30 IRA men shot two farm brothers in the groin and left them to". Sunday Mirror. Retrieved 2008-04-24.
Plus less reliable sources such as:
- The Tubrity Show (22 October 2007). "Niamh Sammon director of The Killing at Coolacrease tells Ryan about the lives and deaths of Richard and Abraham Pearson". RTE. Retrieved 2004-05-02.
- Mention of the documentary in an Oireachtas debate: "Order of Business - 24th October 2007". David Norris's website. Retrieved 2008-04-24.
- Martin Mansergh (7 January 2008). "Hidden History debate casts light into some dark corners". Irish Examiner letters. Retrieved 2004-04-24.
... plus the fact that on 18 April 2008, the television documentary The Killings at Coolacrease won an International Hugo Television Award (Gold Plaque in the Documentary: History and Biography category), run as part of the 44th Chicago International Film Festival (see RTE (18 April 2008). "RTÉ Wins International Hugo Awards". RTE. Retrieved 2008-04-28.)
Despite all this evidence, you and the other single-purpose editors such as Knockanore are arguing that the TV documentary is not notable, but the event is? Please, if you are going to reply, do take some time to read WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NOR, WP:SYN and then the notability guidelines at WP:N. That way you might have something to say about the deletion criteria rather than making inaccurate guesses about my alleged "political ideology". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:58, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You and the other single-purpose editors such as Knockanore are arguing that the TV documentary is not notable - Where? 82.36.178.185 (talk) 16:07, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You above, others on the article's talk page. OH, and BTW, don't edit other contributors' comments. (see WP:TPG). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:41, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You and the other single-purpose editors such as Knockanore are arguing that the TV documentary is not notable - Where? 82.36.178.185 (talk) 16:07, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Deletion is for trivia, stuff like pop-groups no one has heard of.--GwydionM (talk) 16:46, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply. Trivia is only one of many possible grounds for deletions: see some of the others listed at Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Reasons_for_deletion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:51, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. This article should be deleted for all the reasons mentioned above by BrownHairedGirl. A new article should first give brief outline of event (as there are very little secondary sources) and then the bulk of the article should be based around the subsequent debate. As I've mentioned elsewhere, this (the debate) is how an unknown story came to a wider audience - Anybody doing a Wiki search on the subject would almost certainly be aware of the documentary and media coverage.
...also a point made in the discussion that has cause for concern. It was said that one contributing historian to the documentary was unhappy with it while "none of the other professional historians has publicly defended it". There is an inference that because they haven't defended it, they are distancing themselves from it. It would be a mistake to come to this conclusion. Feint (talk) 17:25, 8 May 2008 (UTC) — Feint (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Comment I should stress that the quality of the TV documentary is not relevant to its notability. Whether it is a brilliant piece of research or a pile of tendentious nonsense, what matters is its notability, which is established though the copious refs on the subsequent controversy. I would argue strongly against any suggestion that TV documentary be regarded as a reliable source on matters of history, other than in exceptional circumstances ... and in this case the notability of the programme stems in large part from the controversy over its reliability. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:40, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The subject is important enough to induce, on a quick count, ten history professionals to involve themselves publicly in it. Two of them have published on the subject. (Regarding the separate issue of the TV programme, no history professional that I know of has defended it publicly, and five that I know of have publicly declared it to have no merit as history.) Pat Muldowney (talk) 21:12, 8 May 2008 (UTC) — Pat Muldowney (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Reply Pat, it's interesting to see you still continuing to use wikipedia to promote your campaign against the TV programme, but it's disappointing that you still appear not to have read any of the wikipedia guidelines on which this nomination is based. The involvement of history professionals does not establish notability; what does establish notability is substantial coverage in reliable sources. The event has only one piece of coverage which comes close to being a reliable source; whereas has the TV programme has lots of coverage in reliable sources (which is a different issue from whether the programme itself is reliable).
After covering the article you created with refs to unreliable sources and to your own self-published work, you are still at it: you claim that five historians have publicly denounced the TV programme, but offer no evidence for that assertion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:25, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]- CommentBHG please read How to avoid being a "biter". You state You are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns; then when a newbie endeavours to follow this, you wholesale revert with ad hominen attacks. 82.36.178.185 (talk) 22:38, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply. The edit of mine to which you link is the boilerplate AFD notice, and it does not override COI issues. The edit which I reverted did not address those concerns, it reinserted copious references to partisan and unreliable sources. If you are concerned about helping new editors, then you may want to take some time to try explaining to Muldowney about wikipedia policies; I have already tried at great length, as you would see if you read the article talk page. There is nothing "ad hominem" about drawing attention to the fact that an edit breaches wikipedia policies has been made in pursuit an acknowledged conflict of interest. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:08, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment You posted the boilerplate plate - if it meant jackshit to you in this particular instance, a personal note disclaiming it could have been left. A Wikipedia conflict of interest (COI) is an incompatibility between the aim of Wikipedia, which is to produce a neutral, reliably sourced encyclopedia, and the aims of an individual editor. You well know the Sword of Damocles is above this article. Your aim, as shown here, is to have this article removed. What motivation have you to allow improvements? Can you not see that any edit you make to this article while it is under AfD is conflicting with your interests. If you desist from editing the article while the AfD is open I will endeavour to assist Pat to the best of my abilities. 82.36.178.185 (talk) 00:09, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply. It is not my aim to have this article removed; my aim is to remove the use on unreliable sources, original research and synthesis to create an article in pursuit of a POV. I believe that deletion is the best way to resolve that, but while deletion is being discussed, the article continues to use unreliable sources because you just reinstated them without addressing their unreliability, and those sources should be removed to avoid misleading anyone who reads the article now. I don't know what sort of help you intend to give Pat, but if your idea of help consists of reinstating unreliable sources into an article, don't expect me to think that your help is beneficial to wikipedia. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:23, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply. The edit of mine to which you link is the boilerplate AFD notice, and it does not override COI issues. The edit which I reverted did not address those concerns, it reinserted copious references to partisan and unreliable sources. If you are concerned about helping new editors, then you may want to take some time to try explaining to Muldowney about wikipedia policies; I have already tried at great length, as you would see if you read the article talk page. There is nothing "ad hominem" about drawing attention to the fact that an edit breaches wikipedia policies has been made in pursuit an acknowledged conflict of interest. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:08, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- CommentBHG please read How to avoid being a "biter". You state You are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns; then when a newbie endeavours to follow this, you wholesale revert with ad hominen attacks. 82.36.178.185 (talk) 22:38, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep.The suggestion that this page should be deleted is demonstrably absurd. Why is BrownHairedGirl carrying on a one girl campaign against this subject. It is somewhat obsessional. If she is so keen to celebrate a television programme, why not go off and start a page on the subject. I suggest she will have it all to herself - happy days for everyone, no need for this censorship. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nomath (talk • contribs) 21:42, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply Rather than making claims of censorship, why not address some some of the relevant policy points? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:58, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply. Because you are a policy pedant, searching for procedures that justify censorship. Is there a policy or procedure to describe that? I have better things to do than consider such nonsense. BTW, if this is Pat Muldowney's first venture into Wikipedia (people have to start somewhere), I doubt that he is getting much encouragement to persevere, given your obsession. What is your beef? Please go away for a while and let the page develop and then settle down. Maybe you have given up your foolish campaign. I see you are back editing the page. Hardly logical if you want it deleted. Nomath —Preceding comment was added at 22:09, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA, please. My beef is that wikipedia is being abused by a high-profile protagonist in a public controversy to push his POV, using unreliable sources and original research to create an article on a non-notable subject, using the title of a topic which is notable. And indeed, I have edited the page, to remove more of the unreliable sources on which the article is based. If you think that upholding the need for reliable sources is censorship, then you are free to go and try to have the fundamental policy WP:V changed or abolished. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:37, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply. I hope I am not being uncivil when I now term you an entirely inconsistent policy pedant. You have just deleted a couple of references from the Sunday Independent, while you have left in others. The difference is, presumably, that you approve of the ones you have left in, and disagree with the ones you have censored. You deleted a reference I put in to a review of your celebrated television programme, and then reinserted it. Thank you so much. How about now reinserting the Sunday Independent refs as well. Have you got something against Mr Muldowney.? Do you know him? Have you a special desire to make life a misery for people who are trying to do their best. Or perhaps you have your own pet point of view, which you are hiding behind your professed policy wonk concern for procedure and acronyms. Maybe you are a low profile protagonist. I hope you don't consider this uncivil. Maybe I should be banned too. Nomath —Preceding comment was added at 23:01, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply Nomath, please can you comment on the comments, not on the contributors, and refrain from personal attacks. After removing a whole load of references to an unreliable source (Heaney's book), I noticed that in the process a ref to a reliable source had been removed, so I reinstated it. Why do you have a problem with that?
As to Muldowney, I object strongly to any conduct, from whatever POV, which amounts to using wikipedia as a campaigning tool, as Muldowney has down. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:32, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply Nomath, please can you comment on the comments, not on the contributors, and refrain from personal attacks. After removing a whole load of references to an unreliable source (Heaney's book), I noticed that in the process a ref to a reliable source had been removed, so I reinstated it. Why do you have a problem with that?
- Reply. I hope I am not being uncivil when I now term you an entirely inconsistent policy pedant. You have just deleted a couple of references from the Sunday Independent, while you have left in others. The difference is, presumably, that you approve of the ones you have left in, and disagree with the ones you have censored. You deleted a reference I put in to a review of your celebrated television programme, and then reinserted it. Thank you so much. How about now reinserting the Sunday Independent refs as well. Have you got something against Mr Muldowney.? Do you know him? Have you a special desire to make life a misery for people who are trying to do their best. Or perhaps you have your own pet point of view, which you are hiding behind your professed policy wonk concern for procedure and acronyms. Maybe you are a low profile protagonist. I hope you don't consider this uncivil. Maybe I should be banned too. Nomath —Preceding comment was added at 23:01, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA, please. My beef is that wikipedia is being abused by a high-profile protagonist in a public controversy to push his POV, using unreliable sources and original research to create an article on a non-notable subject, using the title of a topic which is notable. And indeed, I have edited the page, to remove more of the unreliable sources on which the article is based. If you think that upholding the need for reliable sources is censorship, then you are free to go and try to have the fundamental policy WP:V changed or abolished. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:37, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply. Because you are a policy pedant, searching for procedures that justify censorship. Is there a policy or procedure to describe that? I have better things to do than consider such nonsense. BTW, if this is Pat Muldowney's first venture into Wikipedia (people have to start somewhere), I doubt that he is getting much encouragement to persevere, given your obsession. What is your beef? Please go away for a while and let the page develop and then settle down. Maybe you have given up your foolish campaign. I see you are back editing the page. Hardly logical if you want it deleted. Nomath —Preceding comment was added at 22:09, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While it is distressing than some editors are usning the article for POV pushing, that is not a ground for deletion. The article is well sourced and the comments from other posters in this debate show additonal sources exist. Edward321 (talk) 23:34, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Question Can you explain more by what you mean by "well-sourced"? As explained above, the article sources consist of several references for tangential points (such as the results of the 1918 election), a bunch of primary sources, a two-part article in a local newspaper, and copious references to a book by Pat Heaney, a local man one of who claims that one of his family was shot by the Pearsons. To me, that looks like the only remotely reliable secondary source is the two-part newspaper article, and nobody has suggested any other reliable secondary sources. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:30, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep If it happened & was significant we can write an article. NPOV might be best served if the people now involved in it stepped back a little. DGG (talk) 00:25, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is a question as to whether the events described occurred or not. The RTE programme failed to meet basic standards of accuracy and fairness, leaving hundreds of thousands of people with an inaccurate view of history. This was done deliberately with a view to distorting, not clarifying what happened. Apparently, very lax or even non-existent standards of research ethics were applied in this programme. Now BHG wants to apply impossibly high standards to a well-researched and balanced entry that sets the record straight and attempts undo some of the harm done by that ill-advised programme, while condoning those that were applied in the RTE programme. It seems to have been forgotten by BHG that an encyclopaedia entry should strive as far as possible for the truth. The evidence and arguments for this entry are far superior to anything that has been attempted by the supporters of the RTE programme. An outsider can only wonder that some Irish citizens should be so concerned to conceal the truth about an event at a key point in their country's history that they should go to such lengths as this. This is a blatant attempt at censorship with the intention, one suspects of preventing the utter discrediting of the RTE programme and any subsequent attempts to revive it or something along those lines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ukobserver (talk • contribs) 13:59, 9 May 2008 (UTC) — Ukobserver (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Reply. Wow, yet another single-purpose account pitching in here. Ukobserver is not a new editor, so he/she is probably unaware of wikipedia policies, which is why every one of the arguments made by Ukobserver directly opposes wikipedia policies.
Firstly, wikipedia's a standard is not truth, it's verifiability (see WP:V). "Setting the record straight" by "discrediting of the RTE programme" is a blatant breach of WP:NPOV. Finally, you may or may or may be right that the RTE programme was a pile of nonsense, but it's not up to you or me use to use original research to prove or disprove that point; wikipedia is a tertiary source, and it reports the analyses which have already been published in secondary sources. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:16, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]- Reply. It astonishes me BHG, that you cannot see that your attacks on Muldowney constitutes one large personal attack - sauce for goose and gander I am afraid. You argue incessantly against his efforts to the point of absurdity - your reference above to removing what you construe as an 'unreliable source' is high handedness of a breath taking quality. You are a one girl band. I have checked today: Muldowney was writing on this subject long before there was a television programme or any mention of one. The point is that you and he have a different point of view, but you are masking yours through acts of procedural superiority, sarcasm and editorial obsession. Why not just accept it, and attempt a rapprochement with the good Doctor. I'm sure you can work it out. Please do, for all our sakes. I take it that the campaign of censorship is now over, as you have been editing the offending page?? Please say yes. Nomath (talk) 16:25, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply Nomath, you are having great fun accusing me of all sorts of things ... but in the midst of your tirades, you have not once addressed wikipedia's policies other than to dismiss them. Wikipedia is not a blog or a web-hosting service, nor is it indymedia. It is an encyclopedia, with policies covering content and sources. There is no censorship in insisting that wikipedia articles are referenced to reliable sources, and that it is not used by Mukdowney or anyone else as a vehicle for publishing their original research. At no point in this discussion have you addressed any of the issues wrt to policy, and you seem to have not slightest problem with Uk2censor specifically praising this as supporting the aim of "utter discrediting of the RTE programme". You may not have a problem with such blatant and deliberate misuse of wikipedia for propaganda purposes, but I do; now, if you think I'm wrong, please address policy and guidelines rather than yet another dose of vitriol at me. As one example, rather than accusing me of "high handedness of a breath taking quality", please explain in what sense Heaney's book meet WP:V#Reliable_sources? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:29, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply. It astonishes me BHG, that you cannot see that your attacks on Muldowney constitutes one large personal attack - sauce for goose and gander I am afraid. You argue incessantly against his efforts to the point of absurdity - your reference above to removing what you construe as an 'unreliable source' is high handedness of a breath taking quality. You are a one girl band. I have checked today: Muldowney was writing on this subject long before there was a television programme or any mention of one. The point is that you and he have a different point of view, but you are masking yours through acts of procedural superiority, sarcasm and editorial obsession. Why not just accept it, and attempt a rapprochement with the good Doctor. I'm sure you can work it out. Please do, for all our sakes. I take it that the campaign of censorship is now over, as you have been editing the offending page?? Please say yes. Nomath (talk) 16:25, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply. Wow, yet another single-purpose account pitching in here. Ukobserver is not a new editor, so he/she is probably unaware of wikipedia policies, which is why every one of the arguments made by Ukobserver directly opposes wikipedia policies.
- The Muldowney carnival has finally rolled into Wiki-town convinced that they can hijack what might be the last credible place for them to rewrite the story as they see it. They've done it in less credible places like indymedia, censoring comments that differed from theirs (the freedom of the internet). Muldowney/Aubane/IPR/Indymedia were laughed off the stage by the Irish media; they feel a bit sore, because their complaints were rejected by the Broadcasting Complaints Committee and recently have got a right kick in the groin (or is it genitals? Does it matter?) because the programme they had a complete hissy fit about has just picked up an international award. Any version of the story of the Pearsons that includes contributions from any of the above should carry a severe health warning. Feint (talk) 21:35, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yet more pedantry from BHG. One cannot claim truth without providing verifiability. BHG is setting absurdly high standards of verifiability. Apparently RTE is much less demanding. The authors of this entry are not trying to censor anyone. The truth, supported by reliable evidence, is not a point of view. Or perhaps BHG you are some kind of postmodernist who does not believe that there is such a thing as truth, only whatever kind of plausible story you try to concoct? Do you, for example, believe that it is ok to interview the dead as one prominent historian of modern Ireland has done? Or distort what an informant says because you think he was mistaken?
It is proper to ask for as much of a degree of verifiability as the subject demands. If we met the standard that you are trying to maintain for this entry, there would not be much history - we certainly wouldn't be publishing some of the much celebrated heroes of modern Irish history whose standards fall so far below those of Pat Muldowney one wonders if they are historians rather than fantasists. I cannot see the slightest reason why this entry should be removed other than your desire to suppress knowledge of what actually happened at Coolacrease. If informing people of the facts of the matter is not one of the jobs of an encyclopaedia, I don't know what is.**** —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ukobserver (talk • contribs) 09:26, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein (talk) 07:12, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisting note: I think we need more discussion by uninvolved, established editors about this. Sandstein (talk) 07:12, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Leaning to keep, but overall the article needs a lot of help. I think I'm uninvolved. I certainly think the article could be improved in any number of ways, but I don't think deletion is the answer here. The incident has been made somewhat notable by the TV show, but other sources do seem to exist. That being said, the article is far from perfect, and it could require a lot of work to cut out the OR from the appropriate information. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:29, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Wow, "This page is 40 kilobytes long." If you want new reviewers to be uninvolved, maybe it would be better to close this AfD and start from scratch. Far as I can tell, article has plenty sources. As for reliability, history ain't perfect. A lot of ugly things could be erased if "unreliable" witnesses were dismissed! Nom appears to be fighting a scholastic battle against clear notability. That will probably not succeed here at WP where reality occasionally takes a back seat. So why not spend the same energy explaining the poor historical foundations to the readers, rather than to us? Surely people will come here after seeing the TV special, expecting WP to be more NPOV than RTE, and they should get your input too. Potatoswatter (talk) 12:06, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply Potatoswatter, please take another look at the article. The list looks impressive, because it includes lots of references to trivial points (in sources which are highly unlikely to menton these killings at all). When it comes to the core of the story, the only source which comes anywhere close to being a reliable secondary sources is the articles in the local paper by Philip McConway, who is a postgraduate student[46]. An article by a postgrad in a low-circulation local newspaper is not the sort of peer-reviewed publication that fits the best standard of reliable source, per WP:V.
Beyond that, we have lots of primary sources (irrelevant to notability), and two books by involved parties; that hardly amounts to notability per WP:NOTE.
As to your suggestion that I should be "explaining the poor historical foundations to the readers" ... are you serious? You appear to be asking me to write a WP:ESSAY of original commentary, in flagrant breach of WP:NOR. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:42, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]- WP has lots of articles on things that aren't true. If you believe it to be an urban legend, then you should say why it is. Legends often lie in the grey area of unverifiability, yet popular belief or mere repetition leads to WP:N. As for whether pointing out the lack of sources constitutes OR, since nobody else in the literature has pointed out the lack of sources, well in that case you've done actual research right here. How does using OR as a bludgeon to delete an article trump putting same OR in the article? Potatoswatter (talk) 07:57, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply. I am not saying that nothing happened there, just that there are inadequate reliable sources to support an article. The rest of your comment is bizarre; if pointing out a lack of reliable secondary sources was itself original research, then WP:V would be a meaningless policy. Please read WP:V#Burden_of_evidence, which clearly says that it is the responsibility of editors adding material to demonstrate that it is properly sourced. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:30, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- WP has lots of articles on things that aren't true. If you believe it to be an urban legend, then you should say why it is. Legends often lie in the grey area of unverifiability, yet popular belief or mere repetition leads to WP:N. As for whether pointing out the lack of sources constitutes OR, since nobody else in the literature has pointed out the lack of sources, well in that case you've done actual research right here. How does using OR as a bludgeon to delete an article trump putting same OR in the article? Potatoswatter (talk) 07:57, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply Potatoswatter, please take another look at the article. The list looks impressive, because it includes lots of references to trivial points (in sources which are highly unlikely to menton these killings at all). When it comes to the core of the story, the only source which comes anywhere close to being a reliable secondary sources is the articles in the local paper by Philip McConway, who is a postgraduate student[46]. An article by a postgrad in a low-circulation local newspaper is not the sort of peer-reviewed publication that fits the best standard of reliable source, per WP:V.
- Keep because it belongs to an encyclopedia, but from what I've read it needs an enormous overhaul. Unfortunately it is one of those articles which has to include different views and sources, and is a good example of how our history gets mangled by everyone.Red Hurley (talk) 18:34, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Any article attracting this many socks and anons gives me a very strong presumption of non-notability. Stifle (talk) 19:48, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 'Keep remove any content tht is not adhering to NPOV. BigDuncTalk 12:18, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- And no matter that it lack reliable secondary sources? :( --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:48, 15 May 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. I note that there are some sources for the track listings of CD-1, CD-2, and CD-3, at Amazon.com. But no mention to the said track. Backstreet Boys "For the Fans" kept, but I edited it accordingly and tagged for notability anyway - Nabla (talk) 22:03, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My Religion's Love[edit]
- My Religion's Love (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
No notability listed in the article, or existing in reality TheHYPO (talk) 07:07, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Backstreet Boys "For the Fans". Frank | talk 12:12, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete WP:PROD would probably be more appropriate than AfD, but while we're at it nom might consider adding CD Backstreet Boys "For the Fans" per WP:BUNDLE. Also song title seems to be simply "My Religion." Potatoswatter (talk) 12:20, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to the relevent album per Frank. -- Infrogmation (talk) 12:39, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 16:19, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Because the article does not include citations from reliable sources, it does not appear to be in compliance with the verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 19:58, 13 May 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 - Nabla (talk) 22:17, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Lighthouse (Club Penguin)[edit]
- Lighthouse (Club Penguin) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
In my opinion, this article should be deleted because it does not have any references and may contain original research. Also, other rooms in Club Penguin do not have their own Wikipedia article. Vinni3 (talk) 06:47, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete. No sources, a dose of OR and no indication of notability of any kind. Fails WP:N. Nsk92 (talk) 15:32, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 16:20, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Because the article does not include citations from reliable sources, it does not appear to be in compliance with the verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 19:58, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete no secondary coverage; fails WP:N and should be deleted. Percy Snoodle (talk) 09:30, 15 May 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. Only citations are from blogs and other user-generated content. Also has COI issues and appears to veer dangerously close to advertising. Black Kite 18:32, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not Possible IRL[edit]
- Not Possible IRL (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Almost added a speedy tag for non-notable web, but couldn't quite be sure. All google hits seem to be blogs. FCSundae ∨☃ (talk) 06:05, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete - Advertising, and per nom. asenine say what? 06:13, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- keep well known in second life, obviously less cited on the web, but with several secondary sources cited including scholarly journals, this art group page meets notability. it could be expanded, and I'm sure it will be expanded over time as more is published. the afd, it seems to me, is a bit of a 'oh something newish, can't be notable' job, which usually is true, alas here, it is not. here we have people doing real work that is being recognized. --Buridan (talk) 13:21, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The journal sources do discuss art in Second Life, but neither contain the term "NPIRL" or the words "not possible" or the name of the creator listed here, Bettina Tizzy (who is also the author of the article). Perhaps this should be moved to "Art in Second Life," but right now I can't seem to find any citing of this group outside of blogs. I guess "I didn't speedy it" may not sound like I'm giving it the highest consideration, but there is really no claim of notability in this article, and I did look through the sources and try to find others before making the nom. If I'm missing something, please indicate. FCSundae ∨☃ (talk) 21:32, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- still keep I think those citations actually add to this page. I think the improvements mentioned below still sustain notability. I think more verifiable sources have been found. One of the issues we have here is that SL in world activities are ephemeral, so it will take some time to develop more secondary verifiability--Buridan (talk) 15:51, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- keep and this will turn out to be a good resource about artists working in virtual environments —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gumnosophistai (talk • contribs) 20:12, 12 May 2008 (UTC) — Gumnosophistai (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 16:20, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I've removed the ref that is unrelated to the topic. Other refs are all blogs, which are not reliable. Unless notability can be demonstrated, this should be delete. If "art in virtual environments" is a notable field, then make an article about that (with refs) - it doesn't make this group notable though. -- Mark Chovain 22:29, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- keep (tentatively) -- I did a major revision to the page and removed the blogs that didn't reference the group. I did add references to writers who have referenced the group as a source though. The group is seems to be pretty prolific in getting the word out about fantastical Second Life builds, but I can't find alot of mainstream reference to them, or many interviews with it's creator. I think this could be an interesting article about the group with some work, but I don't know if the CfD is going to allow that much time.BcRIPster (talk) 06:11, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- still keep - I have just been pointed to a citation from HBO documentaries that mentions the group and I have added that to the article. I have been doing some digging and it appears there may be more of this type of citation forthcoming over the next couple of weeks. Is it possible to have a stay on this AfD for 30days, or is the 5-day rule set in stone?BcRIPster (talk) 02:57, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This article has changed a lot (for the better) in the past day, so some of the first few comments may no longer be applicable. The journal articles are all gone, for example. FCSundae ∨☃ (talk) 07:47, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Because the article does not include citations from reliable sources, it does not appear to be in compliance with the verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 19:59, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I would like to challenge verifiability policy/reliable sources in the context of the subject matter. The majority of journalists who report on Second Life and other virtual world related news, publish exclusively via the WWW and frequently via a blog format. Take for instance James Au Wagner who is a former writer for Wired and has written for other mainstream news outlets. He current runs a regular feature about Second Life related news, but it is only available from a blog he publishes like a newsletter. His publication is strongly considered to be a reliable source in the virtual worlds community.BcRIPster (talk) 22:46, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. With the notable exception of Reuters, "virtual world journalists" = bloggers. WillOakland (talk) 10:16, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment disagree, bloggers are bloggers and journalists are journalists. The two overlap when a professional journalist has a blog, that is journalism so long as the author maintains the professional standing on that blog. now you are welcome to your opinion, of course, but perhaps reading some of the research of Axel Bruns and others would change your opinion.--Buridan (talk) 15:54, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I'd also like to challenge that vote based on the poster being uninformed with their statement. There are literally dozens of publications within Second Life that replicate their content externally via blogs, that have editorial processes and content controls for their writers, and this isn't just English based. Some are Japanese, Russian, and German that I know of, and I'm sure there are more, and only a few of them republish externally via PDF, etc... many use blogs.BcRIPster (talk) 19:19, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete for failure to convincingly establish notability. Biruitorul (talk) 18:18, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I've taken this issue of "bloggers vs reporters" up on the Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources discussion page.BcRIPster (talk) 18:57, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Although this group is somewhat notable on Flickr, it is not well known by almost the entire community of Second Life, and therefore does not have any sources to cite and use. (On Flickr it is notable because it is a Flickr Group.) -Smiley Barry [USER] [TALK] [SL] 16:53, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]- Keep I've misjudged the community, and i'm deeply sorry about my overstatement. I am a teen grid Second Life resident, so I don't know ALL aspects of Second Life. After reviewing the web for sources and knowledge of it, I have decided to change my vote to keep. Deeply sorry again. -Smiley Barry [USER] [TALK] [SL] 19:08, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The Not Possible in Real Life group is absolutely essential for the world to know about. Bettina has carefully assembled this group out of some of the most creative artists in the world of Second Life. The best news about second life comes from groups and people inside Second Life. People who live in the world are best able to present information and news and this takes a blog format in 98% of cases in order to be shared with the 2D side of the internet. If anything, this page simply needs some love and more information to properly frame the importance of this group to the future of virtual world technology and Art.Earth Primbee (talk) 15:31, 18 May 2008 (UTC) — Primbee (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Delete Not notable, only group of users of virtual world. --Jklamo (talk) 17:26, 19 May 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 kept. Nomination withdrawn with no delete opinions. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 19:17, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Social Interaction via MMORPGs[edit]
- Social Interaction via MMORPGs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This is a lot more like an essay than an encyclopaedia entry, and I cannot think of how this could be rephrased to be suitable. Also, there are quite a lot of advertising statements and WP:OR/unreferenced claims - also lots of neologisms like 'Power Gamer' and 'Hotshot'. Very good intentions, it would seem, but it certainly does not fulfil inclusion criteria. asenine say what? 05:53, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 14:04, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep, or failing that, move to user space. This was actually fairly interesting to read. And it may not really be original research: the problem is mostly one of formatting, since the ending of the text contains a fairly extensive list of resources consulted, and actually dares to discuss their relevance: it's not inline citations, but IMO it's better than inline citations. The author ought to receive every encouragement to work on this.
I assume this is not a copyright violation. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:22, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply] - Keep but Cleanup - This article hasn't been tagged with maintenance tags or prodded but gone straight to AfD barely ten minutes after creation. I feel that the document *can* be reworked, with useful dialogue with the article's creator, in order to create a valuable and integrated article. I would humbly suggest that the AfD is placed either on hold or withdrawn while this work takes place, as per this discussion on the AfD talk page. As for the reference to neologisms, I respectfully disagree with the nominator that these are an issue as they are used in common parlance within the videogaming community and to a reasonable extent outside. This is a well researched article with a large amount of meaningful information written by a contributor new to wikipedia - we should be doing everything we can to cleanup and encourage, not WP:BITEing through an instentaneous AfD. Many thanks, Gazimoff WriteRead 14:44, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Summarize and merge - After summarizing this article, it should be merged into the MMORPG article. Otherwise, this is pretty much an essay and looks like it has a lot of original research, opinion, and speculation around a few reliable statements. This article shouldn't stand on its own. Randomran (talk) 16:32, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Seems like something written by an academic who doesn't know Wikipedia standards. User:Krator (t c) 19:22, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Huh. Weird. Krator has it right: This is far from a typical newbie's article, but as we so often forget some people have lives before they join Wikipedia. The sentiment seems to be that a feasible attempt to fix the article can be made once we agree on what should be fixed and why. Disproving this would be quite a feat as the article was AfD'd a full twelve minutes after its creation, before improvement could be attempted. If the nominator would be so kind as to say he withdraws the nomination, it would free our hands to close this AfD as a speedy keep and let the improvement effort get to it. --Kizor 13:41, 13 May 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 per CSD:G3. Deliberate hoaxes are vandalism. Stifle (talk) 08:55, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
El Sueno del Siempre[edit]
- El Sueno del Siempre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Article about author's made up soap opera. After numerous warnings about posting about his soap opera stuff among the reference desks and making vanity articles, he still persists on doing it. Here's another article made with similar circumstances. --Ouzo (talk) 05:45, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - The creator should read WP:NOT, especially the bits about things you make up. asenine say what? 06:14, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete made-up junk. Also, edits like this from the author concern me. JuJube (talk) 06:39, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Article about a made-up soap opera on a made-up TV channel in an apparently unpublished story. How much less notable can you get? Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. -- Karenjc 11:06, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Karenjc. I'd also like to point out that it should be "Sueño," not "Sueno." (That just bugs me.) AnturiaethwrTalk 16:34, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom, as unverifiable, devoid of sources, unencyclopedic, and a conflict of interest. I recommend that the creator of this article be warned that he will be blocked if he creates any more articles along these lines. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:30, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Google reveals practically nothing. — Wenli (reply here) 02:33, 14 May 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. Appears to meet WP:LIST, and would be less useful as a category; this is the correct way to present the material. It's quite well researched and written, could do with some citations though. Black Kite 18:36, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
List of albums containing a hidden track[edit]
Keep, how would I know where to look if I want to know which albums have hidden tracks without this article? Not all of the albums on this page have pages of their own. Bramblestar (ShadowClan Leader) (talk) 01:16, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- List of albums containing a hidden track (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
A very broad, essentially endless list. Many albums have hidden tracks, so it's not particularly special. This could perhaps be turned into a category. Spellcast (talk) 04:31, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'm sure this used to be a category as well, but it got deleted, about a year ago I think. Esradekan Gibb "Talk" 05:35, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and make into category - Per nom. asenine say what? 05:58, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Convert to a category - the list went too long. Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 06:25, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The Category Category:Albums with hidden tracks was deleted sometime ago. Lugnuts (talk) 07:12, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep or delete; do not create category. The category was deleted 2007 JUL 9. It's not good material for a category because having a hidden track is not defining for an album. If it's going to be here, has to be a list. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:08, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah a hidden track is a non-defining and trivial part of an album. I can't see how it's significantly more special than a skit or interlude. Spellcast (talk) 09:26, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Good point Lugnuts. I was just about to mention that if it was converted to a category, someone would probably just come along and nominate it for deletion. Though the article does very little for me personally, I "could possibly" see where it might be useful to collectors. As for the rationale, I guess the same thing could be said for "lists of guitarists" or "lists of drummers"... etc. I'm not voting on this issue though, just sharing my thoughts. -- WikHead (talk) 08:14, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Seems to be a good article and meets WP:List Ijanderson977 (talk) 10:41, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Per Ijanderson977. I think this could become a good article with a little cleanup. Lugnuts (talk) 10:59, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and cleanup. This topic is viable and certainly not likely to be an "endless list" (a rationale I often use myself for deleting list articles, I might add). In this case, also, the albums themselves serve to be the source for the purposes of verification, so confirming the existence of these tracks is easy. The lead should be rewritten a bit so that it doesn't come off as a "manual." 23skidoo (talk) 15:34, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The albums themselves can't be used to source this because they're hidden tracks. If the album credited these songs in the liner notes, it wouldn't be a hidden track. Spellcast (talk) 15:47, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Totally keep dude. It's very useful. -- ...RuineЯ|Chat... 21:16, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 16:21, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 16:21, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, per WP:LC points 3, 6 and 7. Stifle (talk) 19:49, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This is one of the cases where a list is better because of the additional information that can be--and is--given. Good way to present the material. There is no rule we cant keep a list and a category--but i dont think we need a category for this one. DGG (talk) 03:47, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep : This list seems to meet WP:LIST. No need to create a category (too trivial). Europe22 (talk) 17:50, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep : From a totally mundane standpoint, this information is useful so it would be a pity to lose it. (I was wondering why my iTunes import of "Your Guardian Angel" seemed to have messed up, and a quick Google search for "Your Guardian Angel" "silence at the end" found this page, and I realized it wasn't a problem with the iTunes import; the track on the CD actually does have 1 min 40 sec silence at the end.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.142.82.158 (talk) 16:08, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Fairly well written. Contains useful information that would be too tedious to find individially on each album's article. To solve the "too long" problem, keep only artists that have a Wikipedia page on the list. --FlyingPenguins (talk) 20:19, 16 May 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 07:51, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
List of songs about Pakistan[edit]
- List of songs about Pakistan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Tried to get this deleted before on an en-mass AFD, but it managed to sneak by as part of the group. PRODing apparently isn't allowed now, so lets just rid of it once and for all. Note there has been no improvement to this article or its sub-articles for a year since it was saved. Bulldog123 (talk) 04:13, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, indiscriminate list, too short to deserve its own article, not really updated in a year. JIP | Talk 04:26, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Per nom and JIP. asenine say what? 05:59, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 16:21, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 16:21, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 16:21, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per JIP. Stifle (talk) 19:59, 13 May 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 --JForget 01:34, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Farming change in Britain[edit]
- Farming change in Britain (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Yet another OR Essay. LegoTech·(t)·(c) 04:00, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, OR essay. JIP | Talk 04:27, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per WP:NOR Printer222 (talk) 05:58, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Per WP:NOR. asenine say what? 06:00, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete OR and POV essay. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 08:27, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Anthony Rupert (talk) 14:18, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 16:21, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Definitely an essay. — Wenli (reply here) 02:29, 14 May 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 article fails the relevant notability guideline. Davewild (talk) 09:32, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Be A Tourist[edit]
- Don't Be A Tourist (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
No evidence for encyclopedic notability (see WP:COMPANY). The article spends a lot of time praising the virtues of this young company, but fails to mention any "hard facts" like the number of employees, revenue or profits. High on a tree (talk) 03:47, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, unsourced and unsourceable, likely conflict of interest, spammy. Doesn't appear to meet WP:CORP. --Kinu t/c 05:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Quite possibly a WP:COI, a lot of promotional material and appears not to satisfy WP:CORP. asenine say what? 06:01, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete this article, which is currently spam. Notability could be established later, but hasn't been as of yet. Frank | talk 12:23, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - notability not established. A vanity page, perhaps? Merenta (talk) 14:23, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 16:22, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Since this is blatant advertising with no third party sources, I want a speedy delete. Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 02:44, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Very few Google results. — Wenli (reply here) 02:29, 14 May 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 merge to List of Strawberry Shortcake characters. The List of Strawberry Shortcake fillies claims a close connection between each filly and each character, so there is a benefit to the reader if these articles are merged. Wikipedia:Article_size#Technical_issues says the 32K limit, while strongly recommended, is no longer a hard and fast rule so this should not be an obstacle to merging. Fabrictramp (talk) 14:04, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
List of Strawberry Shortcake fillies[edit]
- List of Strawberry Shortcake fillies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
List of non-notable characters in the Strawberry Shortcake series. Sources aren't all that hot, and I doubt any good ones exist. I'm tempted to call this fancruft, even. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 03:32, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No real RS, serious notability problems. LegoTech·(t)·(c) 03:41, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Reading this list of horses with ice cream names leads me to one conclusion; this is Strawberry Shortcruft full of OR and unsourced observations about the fanbase. Nate • (chatter) 04:45, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Practically only OR. asenine say what? 06:02, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per WP:FICT, characters are non-notable, in order for them to be notable they must have recicved real world coverage and as far as i can see they have not recicved this coverage. Printer222 (talk) 06:04, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:CORP, as this is little more than an advertisement of merchandise that is manufactured by American Greetings, Inc., for little girls to collect. Ingenious. Yes, you have Ginger Snap, but do you have her pony friend, Cookie Dough? What's wrong, doesn't your Mom love you? Mandsford (talk) 13:00, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 16:22, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 16:22, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Nate. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 08:39, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:FICT/ borderline badvertisement as above. Eusebeus (talk) 14:22, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The fillies cannot be fitted into the list of characters (32k limit reached) or anywhere else, and the fillies, particularly Honey Pie Pony, is integral to the series. You want proof? I can give you proof, but that will require lots of page scans from books, and screencaptures from the DVDs and computer software. RAM (talk) 14:51, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Wikipedia:Lists (discriminate, organized, and verfiable list concerning subject from notable franchise). WP:FICT lacks consensus as indicated on the top of the page. "Cruft" and per so and so are not valid reasons for deletion. Referencing concerns should be addressed per Wikipedia:SOFIXIT. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 15:48, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The fillies are part of the series and deserve an article of their own since, as per the statement above, the character list article is already full and they do have roles throughout the series. Also, kids aren't quite as obnoxious as all that. They mix and match their toys more often than not. As per Agent0042's statement, I have fixed all the links to the characters. Ign —Preceding comment was added at 16:23, 13 May 2008 (UTC) — Ign st (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Merge to Strawberry Shortcake, which isn't particularly long. Stifle (talk) 20:00, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep or merge - If the 32k limit allows, merge, but maybe cleaning the stuff up and keeping it will be fine. Blake Gripling (talk) 01:11, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep but needs some serious work. For one thing, I'm not sure why the horses are being attached to character names with links, when those links don't link to articles about the characters, but rather just the terms that they match. That just seems dumb. Agent0042 (talk) 03:32, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge There's enough on this that I think we should hold off on total deletion. Personally I think most of this could be merged, such as the intro into some other article, and individual names to their related character entires, should they warrant a mention. Not to keen on keeping this article as it is now, but some of that info could easily find a home in another article. -- Ned Scott 04:51, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: These characters don't seem to be mentioned in any reliable, independent media, thus making them nonnotable. Graevemoore (talk) 21:10, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, it's a spinout article of Strawberry Shortcake. Although, you could merge it into List of Strawberry Shortcake characters if you wanted to make that list even longer. WP:CORP doesn't apply because this is not an organization. WP:NOTADVERTISING doesn't apply because this article isn't an ad. It's not OR to summarize a source. And WP:FICT isn't even a guideline. The word "fancruft" is Newspeak, nothing more. You might as well say "doubleplusungood." It's a thought-terminating cliché. --Pixelface (talk) 20:56, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Graevemoore. At a stretch, trim back to that which is sourceable and merge. Jakew (talk) 13:08, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Grand Roi and Ign. Everyking (talk) 04:49, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to List of Strawberry Shortcake characters, they would nestle in nicely there, as it is another list. Blast Ulna (talk) 06:50, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per Blast Una et al. Bearian (talk) 13:42, 21 May 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 --JForget 01:35, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Alexa Woods[edit]
- Alexa Woods (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This article is about a fictional character that appears only in one film and is not notable enough to warrant a stand-alone article. The article lacks any reliable secondary sources (it references only the film itself), and it is unlikely that any suitable secondary sources could be found to support an independent article about this character or indicate the character's notability. The article consists mainly of a direct copy of the "Plot" section from Alien vs. Predator (film), and all the significant information about the character is already covered in that article and in List of characters in the Alien vs. Predator series. --IllaZilla (talk) 03:17, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per my reasons above. --IllaZilla (talk) 03:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete WP:N and WP:RS issues are always related. The lack of reliable sourcing indicates that this fictional character needs not have a dedicated article. Redirect as appropriate. Blaxthos ( t / c ) 03:28, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I felt a redirect, though a simpler solution, was unnecessary because nearly all the articles that link to this one do so only through a template (Template:Alien), therefore it would be easy to eliminate these links if the article was deleted. Basically the article was split off from Alien vs. Predator (film) when it never should have been, so I thought deletion rather than redirection was the better option. --IllaZilla (talk) 03:37, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Per nom. asenine say what? 06:03, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and redirect per Blaxthos. JuJube (talk) 06:42, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 16:22, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:N. No redirect. -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:11, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom's spot on analysis. I have nothing to add to their rationale. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 08:14, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Well put. Eusebeus (talk) 14:21, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. — Wenli (reply here) 02:24, 14 May 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 by Jc37 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (G11: Blatant advertising) at 03:36, 12 May 2008 (UTC). cab (talk) 03:46, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The artists formally known as vince[edit]
- The artists formally known as vince (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
I can't seem find any reliable references for this organization to verify the information in it, or to establish notability. There is this, but I'm not sure if they're talking about the same group. Plus, they don't look reliable. Weakly do I nominate this article, and would withdraw if I could find any reliable sources. Wakanda's Black Panther!♠/♦ 03:15, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Lacks independent sourcing, seems to fail WP:N. Blaxthos ( t / c ) 03:29, 12 May 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 these lists are redundant to List of Avatar: The Last Airbender characters, which provides an appropriate level of coverage in view of the lack of secondary sources about the characters at issue. Sandstein 07:32, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
List of Avatar: The Last Airbender major secondary characters[edit]
- List of Avatar: The Last Airbender major secondary characters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Let's put it this way: There has been many mentions of the usefulness of this article, and whether or not it should exist, so I figured nominating it for deletion would attract some attention, since deletion is basically what these discussions are about. Here is the problem: This is an article that devotes three or more paragraphs to secondary characters in a TV Show, some of which have only appeared once or twice. These characters are already described in List of Avatar: The Last Airbender characters, and do not deserve pages upon pages of useless information about them. In addition, this is literally the ONLY "major secondary characters" article in existence. Every other TV show article has one list of characters and sometimes separate articles for the main characters. The list is non-notable, is completely in-universe, and is sure to have a little bit of POV in there too. — Parent5446 (t n e l) 03:06, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating:
- List of Avatar: The Last Airbender secondary recurring characters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —— Parent5446 (t n e l) 03:13, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete both - Duplicated information of barely-there characters. Cruftwagon departing, all abbooorrreed... Blaxthos ( t / c ) 03:32, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, Mai, Ty Lee, Roku, Ozai, Zhao, and Suki are very, very important characters in the story arch. What's with all of the Avatar article hating these days anyway? (12 May 2008) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.227.15.170 (talk) 05:18, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I am afraid the time has come that the numerous Avatar articles condense into only a few. The reason is because a lot of the information is useless. In fact, when it comes to characters, most television series only have one article for characters, while Avatar has three. The only articles that other shows have that Avatar does not are the episode articles, and that is because other shows have published production information for each episode, where Avatar does not. If the show's creators had some more interviews and gave us some more info, then we might be able to expand. For now, though, we must cleanup the excess articles and get rid of the pages of useless plot summaries and speculation. — Parent5446 (t n e l) 11:50, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete both - redundant to existing list and no mergeable content. Collectonian (talk) 14:16, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 14:04, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep on the grounds that it doesn't appear to be much different than the article that was kept by consensus during the last AFD 6 months ago, and that an article like this is preferable to having separate articles on each character. The fact this is a clear spin-off of another article is irrelevant, and since we're not supposed to use WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS as an argument for keeping, it follows that the opposite OTHERCRAPDOESN'TEXIST is likewise not a good rationale. 23skidoo (talk) 15:37, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Just so you know, OTHERCRAPDOESN'TEXIST is not the rationale for deletion, it is just a point I made (if it seems otherwise, I apologize). The rationale for deletion is that most of the information does not comply with WP:PLOT or WP:WAF, two very important policies for this article. — Parent5446 (t n e l) 20:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - NOTE TO ADMIN: User:23skidoo said on my talk page that he will not be looking over this AfD again, and that he will not change his opinion in any way. — Parent5446 (t n e l) 12:12, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep all per Wikipedia:Lists (discriminate and verfiable list associated with notable franchise; title even says "major" in it). Plus, clear consensus to keep a few months ago and "cruft" is never a valid reason to delete anything. Also, consistent per Firt pillar with a specialized encyclopedia on fictional characters. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 16:23, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, but for that statement from WP:Lists to apply, it has to be, as you said, "discriminate". This article pages upon pages of indiscriminate character summaries. There is a point when the summary is not put on this article, but then it is just dumped onto the other article I nominated. In addition, I would think that WP:PLOT would take precedence over WP:Lists (WP:PLOT is a policy and WP:Lists is a guideline). This article has almost no secondary sources at all (let alone reliable). If you could find me good, informational secondary reliable sources that can significantly change this article from plot summary to out-of-universe, be my guest. But since there very few sources that are out there for even the protagonists of this TV Series, I highly doubt you will get very far. — Parent5446 (t n e l) 20:31, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It is discriminate in the sense that it is a list on certain kinds of characters from a specific franchise. As for plot, well, that's just a matter of adding additional sources to balance things out, but not a reason for deletion. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 21:14, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I doubt there's no magazines that don't have articles that discuss these characters. Check through here, but also look at video game and anime publications. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 15:31, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as unnecessary duplication of information from the existing list cited in the nom. Eusebeus (talk) 17:39, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge I say trim both this page, and the secondary page, and then merge the two. Which was our intention, but it kind of fell apart. Rau's Speak Page 19:43, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete, perhaps quickly summarizing this information and incorporating it into another Avatar:... article. This is clearly a violation of WP:GAMETRIVIA by going into vivid detail about unencyclopedic fiction about a few game characters. One tell-tale sign is that almost all the references come from transcripts of the subject matter itself. That information can be used to fill in the gaps in an otherwise notable article, but cannot alone establish notability. Randomran (talk) 22:08, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all - I am, theoretically, a big fan of blanket nominations because they are the best tool to remove stuff like this that clearly doesn't belong on 'pedia. They sometimes, however, make swift deletion impossible when they fail. For the sake of speeding this process up, delete all per WP:FICT. User:Krator (t c) 22:26, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The article cannot fail WP:GAMETRIVIA, because it concerns characters from a franchise that is NOT solely a game. Moreover, it can't really fail WP:FICT, because that shortcut outright states at its top: "The following is a proposed Wikipedia policy, guideline, or process. The proposal may still be in development, under discussion, or in the process of gathering consensus for adoption. Thus references or links to this page should not describe it as "policy".". Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 01:17, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Whether or not the "major secondary" and "recurring" articles are excessive, the large and complex cast of characters in this - character-centric - work looks like it could not be even adequately represented in the simple list. Something more is necessary for our coverage. But by all means, clean up if you wish. --Kizor 10:02, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- But you do not get the point. It is made clear in WP:PLOT and WP:V that an article MUST have reliable third-party sources. The characters in this article do not have these sources. In fact, not even the main characters have that many sourcing. If the creators had more interviews where they discussed these characters, then there would be sources, but there are not. This whole article is literally plot summaries. — Parent5446 (t n e l) 11:55, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, here's my comment: First off, it is not entirely true that they are just plot summaries. It is also possible to at least start rectifying the whole no third party sources thing. There are a few interviews that come to mind. But I suppose an even more thorough trimming is in order until the decision to delete the page is probably made. I started it but never finished. Got busy, I guess. Some examples of possible third party sources that could be used are for at least some stuff relating to the Major Secondary Characters (but more the Main Characters and show, I'll admit) would be:
[47] [48] [49] [50] [51] [52] [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] Not sure if this counts for much, if at all, but that's what a small amount of digging found me. I say that if this page is deleted, then a small amount of detail should be added on the character list page such as: "Long Feng was the head of Ba Sing Se's Dai Li force. He frequently antagonized the group during their stay in Ba Sing Se by preventing them from speaking to the king or rescuing Appa, as well as killing Jet. He eventually makes a deal with Azula that causes the take over of Ba Sing Se and at this point surrenders to her and loses control of the Dai Li." Not as short as I would like, but better than the current page. Any thoughts? SkepticBanner (talk) 17:08, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- First off, the last four sources are from ASN, which has been deemed unreliable. The 3rd link has one mention on the cabbage merchant, but it is short. I did not have time to look fully over the sixth link, but I think there are only a few mentions of any secondary characters. As for the rest: nothing. Unless I missed something, in total there are only two sources from the links you gave, one containing only a mention of one secondary character and the other only might contain information useful for the article. As you can see, any attempts to find sources are in vain. There are no secondary sources. I spent months looking for sources for the Aang article. Even though Aang was a primary protagonist, the article still did not have enough info to have a stable structure. (If you look, the article is a bit on the short side.) When you move from protagonist of the show to secondary characters that appear in five episodes at most, there is literally absolutely nothing. And I do not exaggerate. I will even put it in bold and italics: There are NO SECONDARY RELIABLE SOURCES that could expand this article to a decent size WITHOUT filling it with useless plot summaries.Sorry if that seems uncivil, but there really is nothing. If somebody could prove me wrong, please do. But I highly doubt anybody will find anything. — Parent5446 (t n e l) 20:12, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete --Ghostexorcist (talk) 17:59, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Krator. If kept, a severe trimming of plot content is needed. Stifle (talk) 20:01, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- — Parent5446 (t n e l) 20:16, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep—Assuming the citations are valid sources, then I believe they satisfy the basic conditions for notability. The nominator's other reasons appear to boil down to "I don't like it". The lack of other articles about major secondary characters seems irrelevant; the existence of similar pages isn't allowed for arguments to retain an article, so why should they be considered for favoring a deletion? If the length is a problem, then the article can be trimmed and merged.—RJH (talk) 22:54, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Everything you said is true EXCEPT the "citations are valid sources" part. All of the citations are valid, but they are not considered all-purpose reliable sources since they are not secondary reliable sources. Since there are no outside sources, the article does not comply with WP:V, WP:PLOT, WP:N, and possibly WP:NOR (WP:SYNTH specifically). — Parent5446 (t n e l) 02:03, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- When was ASN deemed unreliable? And yes, you seemed very uncivil. SkepticBanner (talk) 00:24, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I just gave up with arguing for ASN. I have heard argument like: "Its a fansite", "Since it does not respect US copyright, how could it be considered reliable", etc. Personally, what I think they are trying to say is that the source fails WP:V in the following way: It says "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." But there is a footnote that says, "The word "source", as used in Wikipedia, has three related meanings: the piece of work itself, the creator of the work, and the publisher of the work. All three affect reliability." What I think they are trying to argue is that there has been nothing to establish the creator and publisher's reliability, and therefore the source itself is unreliable. Personally, I sort of agree. ASN has not been known to be reliable because they have not proven so (there is no reason for them to be reliable, they are a fansite, etc.). In fact, the owners of the website do not even give use their full names. We know very little, if anything at all, about the people who create and publish the site, and that is why the source is not considered reliable. Take a reliable source as an example, such as the NY Times. We know exactly who the creator and publisher of the work is and that they have both been known to be reliable, as well as knowing the material itself to be reliable (being a newspaper and all). Do you see where I am going with this? — Parent5446 (t n e l) 02:03, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- While I'm pretty much positive this doesn't matter, does it make a difference that the creators recommended it in the Nick magazine? Yes, I do see where you are going with this. Also, the NY times has become less and less reliable in my eyes because of it being blatantly wrong in some stuff. SkepticBanner (talk) 02:35, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep combination lists like this are the best way to do it. Otherwise we'll be inundated with articles on each of them individually. These are a good compromise. DGG (talk) 03:45, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete both - per Krator, Collectonian and above. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 18:32, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- NO to Deletion: These characters have contributed a lot to the series and deserve their own separate page. The deletion of this page will cause information gaps in the other articles, and it is better to have this page for further references. I insist that this page be preserved.76.24.145.157 (talk) 22:48, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, lack of independent, reliable sources -> fails notability -> should be deleted. Wikipedia is a work in progress; a deleted article can be rewritten and recreated if more material is found later. Graevemoore (talk) 23:52, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem is that once deleted, some see any article of the same name as a recreation and theyn attempt to speedy delete as recreated deleted material. Wikipedia is indeed a work in progress and accordingly we can leave articles in mainspace so that editors can continue to come along and improve them rather than have to keep starting over. At least this way, editors have a base from which to work. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 18:03, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- But they should start over. Articles should be structured around independent sources. If any are ever found, then they can be used to formulate a better article. Graevemoore (talk) 18:17, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- They can start over by being bold and not eliminating editors' public contribution histories. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 23:29, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- But they should start over. Articles should be structured around independent sources. If any are ever found, then they can be used to formulate a better article. Graevemoore (talk) 18:17, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem is that once deleted, some see any article of the same name as a recreation and theyn attempt to speedy delete as recreated deleted material. Wikipedia is indeed a work in progress and accordingly we can leave articles in mainspace so that editors can continue to come along and improve them rather than have to keep starting over. At least this way, editors have a base from which to work. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 18:03, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Nobody seems to be reading through the discussion before making comments. (By this, I mean people who have made no attempt to argue their decision with relation to the current objections, such as the IP address two comments up.) — Parent5446 (t n e l) 02:19, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- A lot of accounts actually do that, i.e. just vote and don't discuss. I have seen many "per nom" style votes in AfDs sometimes multiple ones in under a minute, i.e. so fast that there's no conceivable way those "voting" could have actually reads all those AfDs under discussion, looked for sources, and checked over the articles in question. AfD is incredibly frustrating. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 18:01, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Collectonian and Graevemoore. They have stated all points that I would make, so there is no need for me to formulate my own version of the same opinion. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 21:05, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Their arguments have been effectively refuted, however. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 23:29, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Now, that's just unproductive. You disagree, that doesn't automatically make you right. The same is true for me, but I have not proclaimed you the loser of our arguments, simply that I disagree. Graevemoore (talk) 23:32, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Per so and so votes are unproductive as they don't add anything to a discussion. If those count for anything, then so should the fact that all the people who edited the article in good faith most therefore also believe it passes our policies and should be kept even if they don't post here. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 23:36, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a different discussion. I disagree there, as well, but AfD isn't the place to hash that out. Graevemoore (talk) 23:39, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Stop harassing users that utilize this argument. The closing administrator determines its value, not you, and most of the time, they simply confirm that a certain view has more support. Arbitrarily declaring it refuted isn't conducive towards civil discussion either. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 00:30, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Nor is making assumptions of bad faith or inaccurate assessments of editors' comments and reasons for commenting. Attempting to encourage real discussion rather than just repetitive votes is how we reach real consensus. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 01:27, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Um...claiming that someone's argument was "refuted" is arbitrary and bad faith. Your definition of "real" discussion is also arbitrary. Many editors hold the same opinions. They don't have to rephrase the state opinion if they don't want to. I never see you complain that people comment "per Le Grand" or to the same effect. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 01:34, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I hope that the many nice editors who agree with me also elaborate on their reasonings and help to find sources. Just think of how many articles we'd be improving or how easier it would be if all of us actually did work together to find sources or at least focused on sourcing and imporving those articles we do individually care about. In any event, in discussions, editors hold each other's arguments to account, just as surely as anyone is welcome to criticize my arguments and engage me in a manner that produces as mutually agrreable of an outcome as is possible. Please do distract from the disucssions by focusing on the editors rather than the arguments. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 01:54, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Engaging someone in argument is fine, but it's the content of the argument I'm commenting on, not the fact you argued. You're getting away from the fact that you asserted that their arguments were arbitrarily "refuted," which you haven't substantiated, and is a bit hypocritical, considering that you wish for a sublime collaborative environment where everyone works together, which is indeed fantastic, but ultimately unrealistic. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 02:23, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- And as much as I hate to interfere, this is still an AfD, not a centralized discussion. This is really not the place to argue this, and I do not care what rationale you may have; it is simply not the place or time. I'll have everybody know that while you think voting may be "evil" (which it is to some extent), it is one of the closest things we can get to consensus. If somebody agrees with another party, let them say Delete as per Whatever. It just means they agree with somebody's argument, refuted or not. In addition, this article has been crying for sources for more than half a year. I can almost guarantee you that there is absolutely nothing out there. You can look if you want but I can almost confirm that by the end of this AfD, you are not going to have much. As a closing statement, let's remain civil (if I get out of hand feel free to tell me). BTW Sephiroth, even though Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles's comment was slightly in bad faith (controversial statement, let's not argue it), the comment you made back could be considered uncivil. Remember we are discussing the deletion of two Avatar articles and not much else. — Parent5446 (t n e l) 03:01, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Getting back to the article in question, it still passes our list policies by being discriminate (concerns characters from a specific franchise) and notable (major secondary charcters) that appear in a variety of media. The article has a rather profound interest for our readers and editors ("List_of_Avatar:_The_Last_Airbender_major_secondary_characters has been viewed 64368 times in 200804"), is verifiable, and is actively being worked in. I see no reason to doubt that the article isn't being improved or that it won't continue to be improved. Now in terms of sources, what about video game magazines, magazines that concern Nickelodeon shows, or trading card magazines? Frequently in video game magazines, which I do have subscriptions to, I see whole articles on specific characters. I have added references from these published magazines that do not always have online versions of the articles to many articles on Wikipedia, some of which did indeed exist for months without adequate citations, but then I came along and added them. It's not out of the question that even my back issues have sources that could be added here, but to be fair, for a volunteer project, it would be unrealistic to expect me or anyone to drop everything and go through magazine after magazine in so brief a time. What I see in this case is clear potential. I do not see hopelesslness or any other serious issue that would outright require deletion. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 03:41, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I am not even going to continue to explain how redundant your argument is. I am telling you that I have searched all over the Internet as well as almost every magazine I could get my hand on. I, along with multiple other users (I'm sure Rau J has looked around too), have spent months looking for sources and found NOTHING. As for your claims, the article is not verifiable. The references section only references to the show and to one outside website. — Parent5446 (t n e l) 11:56, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Getting back to the article in question, it still passes our list policies by being discriminate (concerns characters from a specific franchise) and notable (major secondary charcters) that appear in a variety of media. The article has a rather profound interest for our readers and editors ("List_of_Avatar:_The_Last_Airbender_major_secondary_characters has been viewed 64368 times in 200804"), is verifiable, and is actively being worked in. I see no reason to doubt that the article isn't being improved or that it won't continue to be improved. Now in terms of sources, what about video game magazines, magazines that concern Nickelodeon shows, or trading card magazines? Frequently in video game magazines, which I do have subscriptions to, I see whole articles on specific characters. I have added references from these published magazines that do not always have online versions of the articles to many articles on Wikipedia, some of which did indeed exist for months without adequate citations, but then I came along and added them. It's not out of the question that even my back issues have sources that could be added here, but to be fair, for a volunteer project, it would be unrealistic to expect me or anyone to drop everything and go through magazine after magazine in so brief a time. What I see in this case is clear potential. I do not see hopelesslness or any other serious issue that would outright require deletion. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 03:41, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- And as much as I hate to interfere, this is still an AfD, not a centralized discussion. This is really not the place to argue this, and I do not care what rationale you may have; it is simply not the place or time. I'll have everybody know that while you think voting may be "evil" (which it is to some extent), it is one of the closest things we can get to consensus. If somebody agrees with another party, let them say Delete as per Whatever. It just means they agree with somebody's argument, refuted or not. In addition, this article has been crying for sources for more than half a year. I can almost guarantee you that there is absolutely nothing out there. You can look if you want but I can almost confirm that by the end of this AfD, you are not going to have much. As a closing statement, let's remain civil (if I get out of hand feel free to tell me). BTW Sephiroth, even though Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles's comment was slightly in bad faith (controversial statement, let's not argue it), the comment you made back could be considered uncivil. Remember we are discussing the deletion of two Avatar articles and not much else. — Parent5446 (t n e l) 03:01, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Engaging someone in argument is fine, but it's the content of the argument I'm commenting on, not the fact you argued. You're getting away from the fact that you asserted that their arguments were arbitrarily "refuted," which you haven't substantiated, and is a bit hypocritical, considering that you wish for a sublime collaborative environment where everyone works together, which is indeed fantastic, but ultimately unrealistic. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 02:23, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I hope that the many nice editors who agree with me also elaborate on their reasonings and help to find sources. Just think of how many articles we'd be improving or how easier it would be if all of us actually did work together to find sources or at least focused on sourcing and imporving those articles we do individually care about. In any event, in discussions, editors hold each other's arguments to account, just as surely as anyone is welcome to criticize my arguments and engage me in a manner that produces as mutually agrreable of an outcome as is possible. Please do distract from the disucssions by focusing on the editors rather than the arguments. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 01:54, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Um...claiming that someone's argument was "refuted" is arbitrary and bad faith. Your definition of "real" discussion is also arbitrary. Many editors hold the same opinions. They don't have to rephrase the state opinion if they don't want to. I never see you complain that people comment "per Le Grand" or to the same effect. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 01:34, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Nor is making assumptions of bad faith or inaccurate assessments of editors' comments and reasons for commenting. Attempting to encourage real discussion rather than just repetitive votes is how we reach real consensus. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 01:27, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Per so and so votes are unproductive as they don't add anything to a discussion. If those count for anything, then so should the fact that all the people who edited the article in good faith most therefore also believe it passes our policies and should be kept even if they don't post here. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 23:36, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Now, that's just unproductive. You disagree, that doesn't automatically make you right. The same is true for me, but I have not proclaimed you the loser of our arguments, simply that I disagree. Graevemoore (talk) 23:32, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Their arguments have been effectively refuted, however. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 23:29, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Parent5446, I found where the site is endorsed: [58]. Is it my imagination or is nobody actually discussing the deletion anymore? My argument rests above. If I have anything new to add, I might get around to doing so. SkepticBanner (talk) 01:21, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete - "Major secondary characters" is a very elaborate way of saying there is no notability or encyclopedic value. If there is no information on the characters creation or fan or critical reaction, then it should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:16, 16 May 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 per A7 by Ohnoitsjamie. asenine say what? 06:18, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Adam Tritt[edit]
- Adam Tritt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Doesn't appear to meet the notability guidelines for creative professionals. Polly (Parrot) 02:47, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Promo. Not notable. "He is ultimately an awe-inspiring AMAZING writer and teacher that has more to offer than this world is ready for" says the article. KleenupKrew (talk) 02:53, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Creative professional is the category in which Mr. Tritt does qualify, refereence the duely noted and listed critical acclaim in the article as it currently exists. Unless you intend to hide behind an interpretation of the definition of the word 'significant.' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.10.137.232 (talk)
- How about Wikipedia:Notability? That's a pretty irrefutable definition there. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 03:19, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- G12 Copyvio of his own website. So tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 03:18, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - WP:COPYVIO, WP:COI, WP:N. / Blaxthos ( t / c ) 03:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as above. JIP | Talk 04:29, 12 May 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 07:24, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nottingham University Revival Gospel Choir[edit]
- Nottingham University Revival Gospel Choir (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
No evidence for encyclopedic notability (see Wikipedia:Notability (music)). Congratulations on receiving the "Bronze SU STARS award", but it has to be pointed out that it shares this honor with more than 140 other student societies at the same university. High on a tree (talk) 02:40, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Does not satisfy WP:MUSIC. asenine say what? 06:19, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No independent sources; fails WP:MUSIC. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:15, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 16:23, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 16:23, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - good attempt, but nowhere near meeting WP:ORG. Stifle (talk) 20:01, 13 May 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 --JForget 01:37, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
List of most popular given names for twins in the United States[edit]
- List of most popular given names for twins in the United States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Is this really notable? It's just basically a clone of this page, just written slightly differently: http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/babynames/twins.html. If somebody really wants to see this information, they can just go to the original source rather than look at a reproduction of it on Wikipedia.
Plus, it's just not encyclopedic. Save-Me-Oprah(talk) 02:31, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. --Do you know me?...then SHUT UP!!! Sarcasm is beauty 02:54, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. I don't think naming twins is a particularly encyclopedic topic. Charles 04:10, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nominator. Not really notable information. JIP | Talk 04:30, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Per nom. Simply not encylopaedic. asenine say what? 06:19, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete not encyclopedic in any remote way. JuJube (talk) 06:43, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as non-encyclopedic. (I also have the vague suspicion that the list somehow violates privacy, or will eventually. There aren't so many pairs of names, even at the top of the list.) Frank | talk 12:17, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Only marginally interesting, and not the basis for an encyclopedia article. Sixty-seven births of twins is not statistically significant, even when referring to a coincidence in bestowing names, and 13 births is even less so. Why would 67 new mothers name their twins "Jacob" and "Joshua"? Because there are thousands of equally unimaginative mothers naming boys "Jacob" or "Joshua", both names in the Top 5. Mandsford (talk) 13:07, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 16:23, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Unneeded, as just a page of statistics. — Wenli (reply here) 02:24, 14 May 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 07:22, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
1090 Official (song)[edit]
- 1090 Official (song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Does not meet Wikipedia's guidelines of notability. Fléêťflämẽ U-T-C 02:01, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Lacks notability. / Blaxthos ( t / c ) 03:34, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb "Talk" 05:36, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 16:24, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, nothing to merge. Stifle (talk) 20:02, 13 May 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 21:24, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nahte[edit]
- Nahte (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable. ZimZalaBim talk 01:43, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - WP:BAND, WP:RS. / Blaxthos ( t / c ) 03:34, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 16:24, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Because the article does not include citations from reliable sources, it does not appear to be in compliance with the verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 20:02, 13 May 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 07:21, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Flopsweat[edit]
- Flopsweat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This article belongs in a dictionary, not on WP Ecoleetage (talk) 01:30, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Not a dictionary (possibly WP:NEO). Blaxthos ( t / c ) 03:35, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Belongs in dictionary, and perhaps not even then. Seems not to satisfy WP:NEO. asenine say what? 06:22, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above. -- Infrogmation (talk) 12:42, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. It's not a neologism, but that's not enough to save it. Merenta (talk) 13:09, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom.--Berig (talk) 18:26, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above. — Wenli (reply here) 02:23, 14 May 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. The article was significantly improved beginning on 17:37, 12 May 2008; the earlier "delete" opinions would seem to no longer apply. Sandstein 07:14, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
True Scotsman[edit]
- True Scotsman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Nonsense, original research, an essay. You call it. My speedy deletion tag was removed. Corvus cornixtalk 01:26, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect as original research. I couldn't find any reputable sources to back this up. Most hits on a google search relate to the No true Scotsman fallacy. So, I suggest redirecting it there after deletion.--Kubigula (talk) 03:04, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]- Weak keep. The Times article, in particular, is a good reference. I'm not completely sold, but I think there is now enough sourcing to give the article a chance to develop.--Kubigula (talk) 04:13, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as original research. JIP | Talk 04:31, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete - As OR. asenine say what? 06:22, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete - Plain nonsense combined with original research. Who would bother this? Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 06:27, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and redirect to No true Scotsman. JuJube (talk) 06:44, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per comments above. "Now the kilt was only for day-to-day wear. In battle, we donned a full-length ball gown covered in sequins. The idea was to blind your opponent with luxury." Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:19, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK now this is my first article so may I be forgiven for being a little over protctive? The fact that so many google hits lead to 'No True Scotsman Fallacy' was what prompted me to create this article because as a Scot, the usage I am much more familiar with is the the one I've written about. Most editors seem to be saying OR, that's fair enough, if I can't get some decent references into it, I will not object to it's deletion. Re:Nonsense; I can't see how this applies; I've read the criteria for deletion:patent nonsense, and unless the quality of my writing is WAY below what I think, this criteria is being mis-appliedJmackaerospace (talk) 11:58, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:N It needs reliable sources. To avoid deletion, add some in.Bridies (talk) 12:09, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The "No true Scotsman" fallacy has, in fact, nothing to do with "true Scotsmen". It's simply a way of redefining criteria to include and exclude what the speaker wants to. JIP | Talk 19:52, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A couple of sources have been added.Bridies (talk) 18:04, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, at best this merits a sentence in kilt. --Dhartung | Talk 21:43, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Definitely needs to be wikified in refs, tone and polished though. Sure the tone and other stuff has been silly-ish, but it's an interesting article that could be referenced better and introduces a cultural saying and another issue (of traditionally wearing a kilt). [The kilt article is nice, but reads like an historical costume store.] Why keep? Because I can think of worse and pointless articles that are still in wikipedia and fiercely defended. As a contributor who is learning to restrain his wacky scottish humour, who now knows the purpose of a sandbox, this user might be best encouraged afaik, Julia Rossi (talk) 02:04, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment subbed the article with links, cleanup and delisting among other wkfying things. Now adding tag requesting in-text citations if anyone wants to follow up. Does it need a "hang on" tag? A Scottish culture or military culture cat? Julia Rossi (talk) 02:52, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
PS added cats and "intext citations needed" tag. Within the delete box there's something about deciding to "keep" -- is this the case? Julia Rossi (talk) 03:13, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. —Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 09:39, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Commment I will create intext references as soon as I'm home from work and I teach myself how. There may be some parts that cannot be backed up by reliable sources, although as an uberGoogler I can say that there are plenty of 'weak' and context based sources out there, which are of course, not acceptable here, but I did make sure that that the phrase was out there in that context before I made the article. Anything I can't properly back up, I'll remove.Jmackaerospace (talk) 11:47, 13 May 2008 (UTC) ps. I keep forgetting to sign comments, chalk it up to excitementJmackaerospace (talk) 11:47, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - whenever someone asks me if I am a true Scotsman, I ask them if they are a true pervert... By the way, the popular culture section never mentioned Carry On up the Khyber - what's with that? Scotland's moved beyond this stage in the past decade. Our culture is not just there as the butt of vulgar and thread worn crappy jokes.-- MacRusgail (talk) 18:32, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks! Can't believe I'd forgotton Khyber; although there is no mention of the term 'true scotsman' in the film. On a more serious note, do you think a section on how some object to the question is needed? I've never objected to the question if for no other reason than that it is far better than the minority that let actions speak louder than words.81.131.12.61 (talk) 19:42, 13 May 2008 (UTC)and for some reason I'd logged ot when I wrote thatJmackaerospace (talk) 19:53, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to no true Scotsman. Stifle (talk) 20:03, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Although the article needs some work (particularly citations, I don't think it can be classed as nonsense and I'm keen to see what justification Corvus cornix and Alexius08 can come up with for their comments. Give it some time and see what the contributor can make of it. Gordonjcp (talk) 20:06, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: there seems to be misunderstanding (such as redirecting to the unrelated No True Scotsman article, and not wanting Scotland to look silly) and some snobbery about being ridiculous. I found it helpful to know the history and source of the saying which raised it above ridicule imo. If it has a basis to exist, that's fact, it's well-known, and even being the butt of ridicule is fact -- these validate it imo. Julia Rossi (talk) 23:49, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: This page has no relation to the 'No true Scotsman' article whatsoever. I'm sure there will be enough citation out there to support what is written here, as anyone who has ever worn a kilt in one of Scotland's built-up areas is highly likey to have been posed the question 'Are you a True Scotsman?'. I would also add that, in the area of Edinburgh at least, being asked this question is not considered inherantly offensive or lewd, but intended to be a bit of fun. The article could use some work, but I for one was pleased to see a link to it when reading about the kilt. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.4.173.218 (talk) 03:31, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm done referencing and citing and all that jazz (unless someone can point out something else that needs doing; I'm too close) from now it should stand on it's own merit.Jmackaerospace (talk) 19:42, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Looks like a good job of providing references has been done, so I don't think the OR claim stands any more. Olaf Davis | Talk 08:17, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Came across this while reviewing DYK hooks. This is a great one and the article is thorough and well-sourced. Daniel Case (talk) 13:59, 16 May 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 07:09, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Federal Building, Buffalo[edit]
- Federal Building, Buffalo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable office building Ecoleetage (talk) 01:23, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Has the building been sold to a private developer? I don't see it in the list at http://www.iolp.gsa.gov/iolp/BuildingsList.asp?sID=36&City=BUFFALO On the other hand, the Michael J. Dillon U.S. Courthouse in Buffalo at http://www.gsa.gov/Portal/gsa/ep/contentView.do?programId=9062&channelId=-15036&ooid=14925&contentId=19316&pageTypeId=8195&contentType=GSA_BASIC&programPage=%2Fep%2Fprogram%2FgsaBasic.jsp&P=PMHP probably should have its own article. --Eastmain (talk) 05:08, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Looks to be a fairly everyday office building such as the federal government owns/leases in most cities. (I couldn't solve Eastmain's mystery, although a Google for "111 W. Huron, Buffalo" shows numerous government offices including the GSA.) --Dhartung | Talk 06:04, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete - From what I can tell it is just an everyday office building. asenine say what? 06:23, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 16:24, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete. I would think this subject has the potential to be a good, brief, article, but since it has been about 2 years since any real work was done on it, there is obviously a general lack of support at this time. --AnnaFrance (talk) 17:46, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Dhartung. Stifle (talk) 20:04, 13 May 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 weak consensus for keep. Appears to satisfy the letter of WP:BIO. Rividian may be right that the subject may slip into obscurity, but for now it can be kept. --Selket Talk 05:07, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Amit Singh[edit]
- Amit Singh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
The article is about a non notable hopeful politician. GBVrallyCI (talk) 01:17, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, please note that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amit Singh was apparently for an unrelated person who shares the same name. 206.126.163.20 (talk) 01:24, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, clearly non notable --GBVrallyCI (talk) 01:27, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The subject of this article has received significant local and national press. If he does not survive the primary this article can be rethought, but currently his notability is hard to question. Shii (tock) 01:35, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Per Shii. Just a glance at those sources shows multiple third-party coverage from Washington post and other political newspeople. That establishes notability. ImperfectlyInformed | {talk - contribs} 02:37, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. For this district, the Washington Post is a local paper, so it is not surprising that they covered his candidacy. He is a candidate in the primary, not even the party's nominee for the seat, and although his district has quite a few "local" papers and he's appeared in all of them, he does not appear to be a candidate with a national profile. There is no coverage in the New York Times, for example, which would be the case if his candidacy had attracted anything but local interest. --Dhartung | Talk 06:09, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - WP:POLITICIAN. Being a candidate does not confer enough notability to a subject. The sources cited though many, and reliable, does not constitute "significant coverage" as its merely reporting of the candidate campaign during the election cycle. We can recreate this article if Singh is elected. KTC (talk) 06:13, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Very weak delete - Per KTC. asenine say what? 06:24, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 16:24, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 16:25, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Bear in mind, the article for this man's primary opponent was deleted. It had the same qualifications such as links from local newspapers and local coverage, but it was deleted as per policy. --GBVrallyCI (talk) 19:44, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, the primary opponent's article most recently (speedily) deleted sourced only one of its statements--the obvious one that he is running in the primary. The rest of the statements, including many plainly opinionated ones like "His dedication and service to the community has had an immense impact on families" had no sources, and was copied verbatim from his campaign website. In contrast, every statement in this article is reliably sourced, and it contains no fawning statements. This is irrelevant to whether the topics belong in Wikipedia, but this article and the article deleted (both the version recently speedied, as well the one deleted in discussion two years ago) are vastly different. —Centrx→talk • 03:58, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep until the primary is over. I don't think losing a primary is enough notability to justify an article... it's just that this guy hasn't actually lost yet. nevertheless, the article is written so we might as well keep it on the chance he wins the primary. If he loses then we can delete. --Rividian (talk) 22:42, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Plus, the fact is that he's most likely to be searched for right now. We should consider that we're trying to inform people -- this is one of the most important times to have an article like this. ImperfectlyInformed | {talk - contribs} 22:54, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please read WP:USEFUL. Corvus cornixtalk 22:56, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please read WP:IAR, and then WP:POLITICIAN. It's undeniable that he has received substantial press coverage, making him notable. But additionally we're not writing this encyclopedia just to write; we're trying to perform a service to people. Politics is a place where this service is highly important. We should be contributing to the political process. ImperfectlyInformed | {talk - contribs} 23:06, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please read WP:USEFUL. Corvus cornixtalk 22:56, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- CommentWe must remember other articles in this situation which have been deleted. His primary opponent who has received significant press coverage, if not more, had his article deleted on the grounds of not winning the primary. Double standard? --GBVrallyCI (talk) 00:50, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The primary in this case has not yet occurred, so the Mark Ellmore article was not in the same situation as when it was originally deleted. Regardless, that article was significantly different: it read like a fawning vanity piece copied from the campaign website, and was completely unsourced. As topics, currently both persons either warrant or do not warrant articles, unless there are other reasons like one is considered some perennial also-ran who has no chance of winning or one is more notable because he founded an organization not related to the election. —Centrx→talk • 03:43, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Deleteunless elected. Stifle (talk) 20:05, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Wikipedia isn't paper. This guy is also known, not only in the district that he is running in, but also in various internet communities. This is why he raised 17 thousand dollars online in one day just a few days ago. Does that sound like somebody who nobody knows about? --StormCommander (talk) 22:43, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep It may be worth revisitting the issue if he fails to be elected and has no other notability, but he's currently still in the race and the amount of media coverage seems to justify keeping the article at this time. 71.61.66.195 (talk) 23:49, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep until Primary, Delete if he loses 98.194.110.160 (talk) 05:39, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep until Primary, Delete if he loses The IP above has the right idea. For now, he's a viable candidate and has some notability. If he loses, he will just have been a news item and we can delete it. By the way, this is not the second nomination of this article's deletion. The first deletion was of a completely different subject. — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 08:21, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Has received significant coverage in reliable sources thus meeting the main notability guideline. Davewild (talk) 09:29, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- note Ron Paul supporters may flood this article with keeps. See [59] —Preceding unsigned comment added by GBVrallyCI (talk • contribs) 14:28, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I was the one who posted this. Wikipedia is not a democracy. Encouraging people to get involved with the discussion is fine. With more people discussing this we will have more things shown to help us make a decission. Also, while we are talking about supporters, is the following statement true? - You are a supporter of Mark Ellmore. You proposed to have Ellmore's opponent's article deleted. Why not just work to get Ellmore's article back instead of bring the other candidate off of Wikipedia too? --StormCommander (talk) 19:47, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep American Conservative, Washington Post, NPR, and a broad range of other media have covered his campaign. This is considered one of the most exciting races this year! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.204.182.45 (talk) 17:25, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep In addition, Reason Magazine Online has had an article and India Abroad has had a print article about him. His YouTube videos also have an agragate amount of views approaching 10 thousand. This race is interesting because the two primary contenders represent two different wings of the Republican party and this battle is a microchosm of the larger struggle occuring whithin the party. It would be harmful to the flow of information and the democratic process to remove this article from this site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.231.79.81 (talk) 20:55, 18 May 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. It's never been made very clear which article this is supposed to be a content fork of. Inappropriate spinouts can be merged back without an AfD. Sandstein 07:07, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Faith in the Bahá'í Faith[edit]
- Faith in the Bahá'í Faith (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This article appears to repeat information in the existing articles relating to Baha'i. Ecoleetage (talk) 01:17, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. An unneeded content fork for Bahá'í Faith. Nsk92 (talk) 03:48, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 04:56, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You have made a number of contribution to the Bahai articles. I'd be interested in the reasoning behind your delete. Are there any other sub-articles you think should be deleted? Geo Swan (talk) 23:38, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The more I edit the more conservative I am with making new pages. I think too many spur off articles about the Baha'i Faith is a bad thing, so I would only support pages that are obviously relevant and well sourced. Most new editors (including me a few years ago) like to make new articles that are stubs, and create lots of new links. I think the role of faith in this religion is not significant, the way it has been emphasized in Christianity to the point that my friends tell me if you believe in Jesus and read a verse you'll go to heaven no matter what else you do. So while it makes sense to have Christian articles about faith, it is not emphasized enough in this religion to warrant its own page. In other words, it's not a core belief of the Baha'i Faith, so I would prefer to just leave it as a short summary on a different page. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 14:35, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You have made a number of contribution to the Bahai articles. I'd be interested in the reasoning behind your delete. Are there any other sub-articles you think should be deleted? Geo Swan (talk) 23:38, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete - Gratuitous content fork. asenine say what? 06:25, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete - Redundant title. Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 06:28, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Not true. The word "faith" is used in two different senses. Borock (talk) 13:57, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Nsk92. JuJube (talk) 06:44, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep T0lk (talk) 07:21, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - after a Merge into Bahá'í Faith if there's anything worthy of merging. Merenta (talk) 13:05, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This is a worthwhile topic. The article is well sourced as well. I am sure that WP has articles on faith from the point of view of Christianity and other major religions. Why not one on the Baha'i view of the topic? Borock (talk) 13:57, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It might be possible to merge with Faith. Borock (talk) 14:55, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I see that Faith already has a section on the Baha'i view which refers readers to this article for more info. Borock (talk) 15:34, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As I stated above, I think the article is a WP:content fork for Bahá'í Faith which already deals with the subject to a substantial degree. It might be appropriate to extend the Beliefs section of Bahá'í Faith and put some extra material there. But as things stand now, this article appears to be a clear content fork, whose very title is a bit of a tautology. Nsk92 (talk) 18:01, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I see that Faith already has a section on the Baha'i view which refers readers to this article for more info. Borock (talk) 15:34, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —Aleta Sing 16:06, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as a fork.--Berig (talk) 18:25, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- strong delete "faith in the baha'i faith" is a silly tautology. Merkin's mum 18:39, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- strong keepAs the original starter of the page obviously I feel it has a place. Many of the reasons I felt the need for the page have been outlined above. I'm certainly open to addressing the weaknesses mentioned - I do feel the title is awkward but it was the best I could do at the time. Understanding the senses of the word "Faith" would clarify if it was a fork "the same subject" which it really is not. There is the religion, and there is the aspect of having faith, per the religion.--Smkolins (talk) 23:20, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Although the word "faith" is used twice in the title it is in different ways simply because "Baha'iism" is not commonly used (and seems to sometimes be pejorative). We have Faith in Christianity, Jewish principles of faith, Iman (Islamic concept of faith), and perhaps others (such as in part Sikhism primary beliefs and principles). This article can be better referenced, but it seems like other major religions already have expanded treatments. --Dhartung | Talk 23:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, tautology/fork/etc. Stifle (talk) 20:05, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
CommentKeep -- A couple of things I noticed...- This article was created in October 2006. Which , I think, means no one should move to delete it because they think it is a recent content fork;
- In order to know if this is a tautology I think we need to know something about the Bahai. I don't. So I looked at the talk page, to see if the contributors to the Bahai article had any concerns about this article
- The main article is already 63K bytes long. The main Bahá'í Faith article refers readers to literally dozens of sub-articles, including: God in the Bahá'í Faith, Bahá'í Faith and the unity of religion, Bahá'í Faith and the unity of humanity, Bahá'í statistics, Bahá'í teachings, Covenant of Bahá'u'lláh, Bahá'í history, Báb, Bahá'u'lláh, Bahá'í administration, Bahá'í study circle, Bahá'í laws, Bahá'í House of Worship, Bahá'í marriage. Are those voicing delete opinions going to force those who maintain the main Bahá'í Faith article to go to the considerable effort of integrating the material in those articles into the main article. I certainly hope not. Note: 63K is already too big. Merging all the sub-articles might double the size of the main article. Geo Swan (talk) 23:31, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - but drastically rewrite!. The tautology argument is nonsense. The word "Faith" as in "Baha'i Faith" has nothing to do with "faith" as a theological/ethical concept - it is very simply a synonym for "religion". If the Baha'i Faith were called the "Baha'i Religion" (as it might have been) then there would very obviously be no tautology. Two words spelled and pronounced the same, but they're totally different words. Got that? Put it another way - if there is a tautology in "Faith in the Baha'i Faith" - there is also an identical tautology in "Faith in Christianity". Having said that, I am unhappy with the article - and feel it has little value in its present form. The value of articles on particular theological constructs in different religions in an encyclopedia is not to repeat or "reinforce" information from the main article (all it does in its present form), so much as to help us understand a specific (in this case Baha'i) view of the subject of "faith" - common as it is to all religions. This article is a two pronged fork, if you like, the other prong being the concept of "Faith (theological concept)". And while it may historically have "forked" from the Baha'i Faith - the primary "prong" of the fork is actually "faith" itself. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 16:12, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and expand/develop
- The article is clearly not a tautology.
- Neither is it a content fork. Article spinouts are normal.
- GeoSwan's observations are quite apropos,
- as are Soundofmusicals. MARussellPESE (talk) 23:25, 14 May 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 07:02, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Famous Squares in New Orleans[edit]
- Famous Squares in New Orleans (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Even those who subscribe to the notion of laissez les bon temps roulez will have problems with this this highly subjective list. Ecoleetage (talk) 01:11, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Unneeded and dubious (several on the list I've never heard of, and I live in New Orleans have collected old maps of the city). -- Infrogmation (talk) 01:15, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Per nom. asenine say what? 06:26, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. How could they be "famous" if 80% of them are red-linked? If they really are, then they deserve a page of their own or a redirect to New Orleans. If more information on each individual square later merited a true page of their own, then a category would suffice. I think we're a long way from having this list page be appropriate or useful. Frank | talk 12:20, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Famous squares in New Orleans? I understand that Pat Boone went there during Mardi Gras... Mandsford (talk) 13:08, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 16:25, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete. At the moment the two blue links could be included in Famous streets of New Orleans, an obvious category header per WP:CLS (which should just be List of streets in New Orleans). --Dhartung | Talk 23:37, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, the two blue links (Jackson Square, New Orleans and Congo Square) could also go into a List of Registered Historic Places in New Orleans, Louisiana article. I don't know if the other squares are contributing properties to historic districts or not. I read one link about how Lafayette Square was an important location in the history of jazz music in New Orleans. For now, though, I'll just go with a delete on this list since it has rather substandard presentation and doesn't give much context on these squares. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 04:17, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. This is a very short, undeveloped list of mostly red links. If there is potential here, someone will develop a better article in the future. --AnnaFrance (talk) 17:32, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This is just a list with no information. — Wenli (reply here) 02:23, 14 May 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 - consensus to keep although the article is currently very poor - Peripitus (Talk) 10:54, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Faculty of Management Studies, BHU[edit]
- Faculty of Management Studies, BHU (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Article reads like an advertisement; notability is not established in the current text. Ecoleetage (talk) 01:04, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Very weak delete - Per nom. asenine say what? 06:26, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 16:26, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 16:26, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom: not notable. CRGreathouse (t | c) 16:38, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - this institution awards post-graduate degrees and such bodies have long been considered notable. In addition, the article makes several claims of notability. The way forward with such articles is to tag for improvement not deletion. TerriersFan (talk) 17:13, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Wikipedia is not the BHU website. Stifle (talk) 20:06, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to BHU article: since everything written on it was about the BHU, let's just redirect it. Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 02:28, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Major primary division of perhaps the most notable university in India. Major business schools such as this one are notable. DGG (talk) 03:14, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per TerriersFan and DGG.--Sting au Buzz Me... 04:20, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as degree-conferring institution. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 23:35, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I just want to add the comment that we must be aware of the possibility of systemic bias. If this had been an equally notable business school based in the US, would this have got this far through the deletion process? TerriersFan (talk) 00:34, 17 May 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. ¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 00:25, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Tova Traesnaes[edit]
- Tova Traesnaes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Not notable enough to deserve her own article. If anything, redirect to Ernest Borgnine. Anthony Rupert (talk) 00:59, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This unreferenced article certainly needs some attention but
nomination foran industry award seems enough to establish notability to me.--Rtphokie (talk) 01:08, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply] - Merge with the Ernest Borgnine article. Ecoleetage (talk) 02:10, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, that's a good option too. Anthony Rupert (talk) 02:35, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Her peak notability may have passed but she really is notable as a cosmetics founder/CEO/pitchwoman:
- Tova Borgnine, wife of actor Ernest Borgnine, has created a niche in the beauty industry and gained a following on QVC.[60]
- Allen Burke, director of cosmetics at QVC ... said sales of Tova Borgnine's Tova fragrance -- now 10 years old -- has surpassed last year's volume. Borgnine has been a steady presence at QVC and its biggest fragrance vendor.Women's Wear Daily
- Mrs. Borgnine, who built a beauty products business bearing her name into a multimillion-dollar companyNYT
- May seem like a cheap sort of fame because it's QVC, but it's fame nonetheless. Also, move to Tova Borgnine, which per Google has a 250:1 advantage in common usage. --Dhartung | Talk 06:18, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep - Notability established. asenine say what? 06:28, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Dhartung. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:21, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- On second thought, move per Dhartung. Anthony Rupert (talk) 14:14, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 16:27, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, seems notable. Stifle (talk) 20:07, 13 May 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. The references appear trivial for the most part. She was present when the station was converted from over-the-air to online but she is not portrayed as the instigator or planner of that transition. WP:BIO is fairly strict about the requirements for someone in the entertainment business to have an article. EdJohnston (talk) 02:44, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nicole Sandler[edit]
- Nicole Sandler (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Fails WP:BIO. Lacks 3rd party references to significant coverage of this local radio personality. No mention of notable awards or widespread recognition for industry contributions. Appears to be just another local DJ, PD, etc. Rtphokie (talk) 00:51, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I don't know how to respond to other people in here but I think this should be kept. A news reporter of 10TV aka WBNS of Columbus, Ohio doesn't have.. any notable awards and widespread recognition, but she is notable by those who watch the news. Some would want to look her up for more information about her. Same with Nicole Sandler. She's not all that famous. Those who listen to her on the radio where she is DJing will know her. Those who are curious and want information would want to go to Wikipedia for information just like many other people do for information and they won't get jack squat. So I request Keep.--Xxhopingtearsxx (talk) 01:13, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Notable for being in charge of converting first radio station from on air to online operation. Citations in New York Times, Wired Magazine. This shows cites in other national newspapers (outside the areas where she worked in), which asserts notability. Calwatch (talk) 01:56, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep - Per Calwatch and Xxhopingtearsxx. asenine say what? 06:29, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Being well known in her local area makes her notable in that area, working for several newspapers nationwide doesn't really help either. However, coverage in a national magazine and nationally distributed newspaper does amount to significant 3rd party coverage and does speak to notoriety in her field. Those references need to be added and the article reworked a bit to make it clear why she is notable. As it stands, it still paints her as a morning radio DJ which, base on the above, sells her short.--Rtphokie (talk) 11:46, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 16:27, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, seems notable enough. Stifle (talk) 20:07, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, Non notable. This article is only a collection of some very weak references collected from around the web - (one ref on her having adopted a child. One ref on her running her own buisness. One ref that only mentions her name in comments on a news story by "anonymous" and "greg". One ref mentioning she is "is recovering from double pneumonia in Miami"). Though a few references mention that she does indeed work in the radio business. Anyways, there is no evidence that this person is notable compared to the countless others who work in her field.--Celtus (talk) 06:04, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, Non notable. All references are trivial, no significant coverage of the article subject. --Jklamo (talk) 17:34, 19 May 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 --JForget 01:39, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
List of gangs in saints row[edit]
- List of gangs in saints row (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
I'm very familiar with the game, and the gangs of the game are themselves non-notable; furthermore, there is very little information on the gangs themselves from primary sources that doesn't amount to basic retelling of the plot, that otherwise cannot be contained within the main articles on the games themselves. The article was PRODed but removed, so this is to formalize the request for removal. MASEM 00:45, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, I don't think this level of detail about individual gangs is really notable. JIP | Talk 04:34, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, Wikipedia is not a game guide for Saints Row (an Xbox game, btw). --Dhartung | Talk 06:22, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Per nom. asenine say what? 06:29, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 16:27, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 16:27, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom.--Berig (talk) 18:21, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - the main article arlready has most of this in a better format, without getting so long as to require spinning out, and I'm not seeing any sources to indicate the gangs themselves have become independently notable. Ordinarily, I'd say redirect, but not a likely search term as capitalized. —Quasirandom (talk) 21:58, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I second Quasirandom's comments. The gangs here aren't so notable that they should be listed on Wikipedia. Artene50 (talk) 02:22, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I don't think that we need a list of non-notable gangs. — Wenli (reply here) 02:22, 14 May 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 deleted as spam.. DGG (talk) 03:13, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Simplicity Sofas[edit]
- Simplicity Sofas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
WP:SPAM KurtRaschke (talk) 00:44, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, no assertion of notability made and creator is about to be blocked. Daniel Case (talk) 02:17, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:ADVERT. Nsk92 (talk) 03:53, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete - Per WP:ADVERT. asenine say what? 06:30, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete: this is spam, no ads deserve a place here! I've just tagged it with {{csd-g11}}.Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 06:30, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Advert. Not notable. --Boson (talk) 14:45, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 16:28, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as an advertisement.--Berig (talk) 18:20, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as non-notable; I couldn't find any reliable sources. — Wenli (reply here) 02:21, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I deleted it via speedy as spam this one is really obvious--a product catalog. DGG (talk)`
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Keep per WP:SNOW --JForget 01:41, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All Time Greatest Hits (Lynyrd Skynyrd album)[edit]
- All Time Greatest Hits (Lynyrd Skynyrd album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable list of songs. No references and no info about it. Macy (Review me!) 00:12, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Cleanup. It's a legitimate album (see [61]), and indeed the Discography section at Lynyrd Skynyrd links to it... but at the moment is a contextless list. Needs the appropriate templates, categories, etc., etc. --Kinu t/c 00:18, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and Cleanup. This is an album of Lynyrd Skynyrd. I don't think it should be deleted. I think it should get some more information put on it so people will know more information about this album. --Xxhopingtearsxx (talk) 01:15, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Major-label compilation album by a notable artist. I've added a bit to the article (like, say, the album cover). Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 01:43, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 01:45, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Original studio albums by major-label artists are always definite keeps, but I see no reason to have articles on the virtually identical "greatest hits" repackagings that come out every couple of years. They number in the dozens for some artists, are all virtually interchangable, rarely chart on the Billboard top 200, and are just record company product with no new material. KleenupKrew (talk) 02:59, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Even with
twothree perfectly valid reviews cited in the infobox? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 03:29, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply] - According to the Discography section, this particular compliation went Platinum... if that can be verified, that seems to put a wrench in that line of reasoning. --Kinu t/c 04:22, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If it went platinum I would say keep, but I have a hard time believing a compilation released in 2000 of a 1970s band did so. Looking at Amazon I see different compilations from this band released in 1990, 1998, 1999, 2000 (2 different ones), 2002 (2 different ones), 2003, 2006, and 2007. All interchangable product. But if one of them somehow went platinum and it can be verified, so be it, keep the article. KleenupKrew (talk) 10:41, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Even with
- Keep per TPH and this link, which seems to indicate that the album has gone platinum. Maxamegalon2000 06:24, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Very strong keep - Per Xxhopingtears and TenPoundHammer. asenine say what? 06:31, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per everyone, noting that the record did go Platinum and charted on the Billboard's Top Pop Catalog chart Doc StrangeMailboxLogbook 16:05, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The professional review at AMG does it for me.--Fabrictramp (talk) 16:29, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per notability, TenPound Hammer, verifiability, and maybe even SNOW. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 21:10, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, WP:SNOW in this case. Even I'm convinced. KleenupKrew (talk) 22:13, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That makes at least two we've agreed on in the past couple of days! I'm happy to see that. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 01:24, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, WP:SNOW in this case. Even I'm convinced. KleenupKrew (talk) 22:13, 12 May 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. I'm somewhat perplexed with some of the arguments regarding policy consensus: WP:PLOT is currently part of WP:NOT, a policy. It seems to be applicable, too, as the article consists entirely of plot summary. Sandstein 07:00, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nom Anor[edit]
- Nom Anor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This article asserts no notability through reliable sources, and is an in-universe repetition of the plot section of the New Jedi Order book series articles. It is therefore repetitive and should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:21, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The article consists entirely of plot summary without real-world context or analysis, which violates WP:NOT#PLOT. It also currently lists no sources, and Google turned up only unreliable fansites/forums and unrelated hits (seems to be a popular username for people to use in online communities), which indicates that significant coverage from reliable secondary sources does not exist and that notability criteria cannot be met. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 04:34, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 16:11, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, no article asserts notability through reliable sources unless there is a citation from a person describing the subject as "notable." And even then, only that particular writer feels it's notable. WP:NOT#PLOT does not have consensus and "repetitive" is not a reason for deletion. WP:N is not a policy and The New Jedi Order book series appears to be notable. Wikipedia is not paper so there's no reason Wikipedia couldn't cover this character. The books are acceptable primary sources. Lack of "analysis" is not a reason for deletion. --Pixelface (talk) 03:27, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Unfortunately, WP:V is not disputed, and needs to be followed. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 03:42, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fabrictramp (talk) 00:10, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No evidence for notability in the sense of Wikipedia:Notability_(fiction)#Elements_of_fiction. The text in its present form miserably fails the requirements of WP:WAF. Regards, High on a tree (talk) 03:57, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, plot summary without outside sources. Pixelface may want to read User:Uncle G/On notability, as there seems to be some confusion about just what notability is. It certainly has nothing to do with the question of whether the writer used the word "notable". --Dhartung | Talk 06:25, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Why should I read a userspace essay? Everything on Wikipedia has to be verifiable. The only way to assert a subject is notable like the nominator says, is by citing a reliable source that calls the subject notable, and even then, you are only attributing a claim of notability to a particular person. To assert a subject is notable when a source does not say the subject is notable, is to make a conclusion the source did not make. It's a claim unsupported by the source. It's like saying "Well they wouldn't write about it if the subject wasn't cool! So it must be cool because they wrote about it!" A person might as well say that Nom Anor is worthy of notice because you're here discussing it. --Pixelface (talk) 08:15, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You appear to have misconceptions about notability. It has nothing to do with somebody claiming the subject notable. Notability is established by the amount of substantial coverage a topic receives from reliable sources independent of the subject. The sources' conclusions are irrelevant, the coverage is what matters. Hypothetically speaking, if a few reliable sources all devoted significant coverage to topic and declared that it was unimportant, Wikipedia would still have an article about that topic simply to describe how unimportant it is. Despite that you are were trying to prove the opposite, your statement about what's "cool" is, in a roundabout way, actually a fairly accurate description of notability guidelines here if you replace "cool" with "notable" - just read the nutshell of WP:N. By the way, this AFD debate wouldn't count for notability because we are not reliable sources. The link Dhartung provided is a nice supplement to WP:N, which would probably help to explain notability better than I did here. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 17:07, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Now how does coverage make something worthy of notice? How does coverage = notability? And I know my statement about what's "cool" is an accurate description of WP:N. You could replace the word "cool" with anything: "lame", "stupid", "funny", "awesome", whatever. You're saying coverage means a subject is...whatever...and using coverage as some kind of "proof" of that. It doesn't add up. To say that people writing about a topic means it's worthy of notice, means that everyone here, writing about the topic, means the topic is worthy of notice. WP:N is a mess. And I glanced at that user essay. Is it "notability" that stops Encyclopedia Brittanica from becoming a directory instead of an encyclopedia? The essay says "If multiple people in the world at large that are independent of the subject have gone to the effort of creating and publishing non-trivial works of their own about the subject, then they clearly consider it to be notable." That doesn't follow. They might as well have gone to the effort of writing about the subject because they have a mortgage payment. That essay also says "Notability is not subjective" but whether or not a subject is worthy of notice, worthy of someone's attention can only be subjective, there is nothing objective about "notability." I suppose you could say "coverage" is objective, but "notability" cannot be objective. --Pixelface (talk) 02:54, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Pixelface, it's up to you whether you want to read what in my opinion is the best and fairest interpretation of our notability guideline on the site. In the end it doesn't matter, though, because as a guideline it does have broad consensus as a basis for deletion. You may have your own approach to notability, but I do recommend you at least understand the community's definition better if you wish to debate it (and here is not the place). --Dhartung | Talk 23:46, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've glanced over the essay and it's full of clearly false statements. And I understand the supposed "community's definition" and Judgesurreal777 has clearly misinterpreted WP:N, which says notability can only be presumed. It isn't something you can assert. The essay is wrong when it says "Notability is not subjective" and WP:N is wrong when it says "Notability requires objective evidence." Whether or not something is worthy of attention is a subjective opinion, there's nothing objective about it. Something that one person finds worthy of their attention, another person may not. Notability is not some worldwide binary variable. --Pixelface (talk) 03:12, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If you feel notability is judged that way I suppose there's no convincing you otherwise. --Dhartung | Talk 04:18, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Unfortunately, I agree with Dhartung. You seem to have serious problems with the fundamentals of notability that have been in use here for years. I don't think there is anything I can say to help you understand it better. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 07:57, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- In other circumstances, this would be considered disruption. Oh Delete per all the above: viz, N, FICT, etc... Eusebeus (talk) 16:22, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've glanced over the essay and it's full of clearly false statements. And I understand the supposed "community's definition" and Judgesurreal777 has clearly misinterpreted WP:N, which says notability can only be presumed. It isn't something you can assert. The essay is wrong when it says "Notability is not subjective" and WP:N is wrong when it says "Notability requires objective evidence." Whether or not something is worthy of attention is a subjective opinion, there's nothing objective about it. Something that one person finds worthy of their attention, another person may not. Notability is not some worldwide binary variable. --Pixelface (talk) 03:12, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You appear to have misconceptions about notability. It has nothing to do with somebody claiming the subject notable. Notability is established by the amount of substantial coverage a topic receives from reliable sources independent of the subject. The sources' conclusions are irrelevant, the coverage is what matters. Hypothetically speaking, if a few reliable sources all devoted significant coverage to topic and declared that it was unimportant, Wikipedia would still have an article about that topic simply to describe how unimportant it is. Despite that you are were trying to prove the opposite, your statement about what's "cool" is, in a roundabout way, actually a fairly accurate description of notability guidelines here if you replace "cool" with "notable" - just read the nutshell of WP:N. By the way, this AFD debate wouldn't count for notability because we are not reliable sources. The link Dhartung provided is a nice supplement to WP:N, which would probably help to explain notability better than I did here. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 17:07, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Why should I read a userspace essay? Everything on Wikipedia has to be verifiable. The only way to assert a subject is notable like the nominator says, is by citing a reliable source that calls the subject notable, and even then, you are only attributing a claim of notability to a particular person. To assert a subject is notable when a source does not say the subject is notable, is to make a conclusion the source did not make. It's a claim unsupported by the source. It's like saying "Well they wouldn't write about it if the subject wasn't cool! So it must be cool because they wrote about it!" A person might as well say that Nom Anor is worthy of notice because you're here discussing it. --Pixelface (talk) 08:15, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Fails WP:WAF and WP:FICT. asenine say what? 06:32, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Asenine.--Berig (talk) 18:18, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, as WP:FICT lacks consensus, and the article is consistent per First pillar with a specialized encyclopedia on fictional characters or Star Wars of which exists many published volumes, such as this one. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 21:07, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - unreferenced, non-notable. --EEMIV (talk) 21:26, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The article does have some references, but calls to reference it further should be addressed per Wikipedia:SOFIXIT. Notability on Wikipedia is relatively subjective per WP:JNN. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 01:13, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No, you see my contention is that no "fixing" can be done, as there is no real world coverage of this topic. And since there isn't anything here but plot information, it can't be fixed by improvment, only be deletion. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 17:11, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Major publications on Star Wars just keep coming out and so if anything Star Wars articles can increasingly be fixed by improvement. Only hoaxes, libel, and copy vios need be deleted. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 01:27, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, nothing other than a plot summary. Wikipedia is not Wookieepedia. Stifle (talk) 20:08, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Nor is it Britannica or Compton's, but we have many articles that they have as well. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 01:27, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep the coverage of a fictional subject as a whole is what cannot be plot summary--an appropriate plot summary is encyclopedic content.DGG (talk) 22:46, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as obvious violation of WP:PLOT. Jakew (talk) 13:18, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Which as has been stated obviously lacks consensus. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 15:41, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That has, as you rightly say, been stated. However, the fact that a statement has been made does not necessarily mean that it is correct. Moreover, I would point out that, in addition to WP:PLOT, the article fails WP:V, WP:PSTS, WP:FICT, and WP:N. Just to clarify, I hold this view whether or not it has been stated that these policies and guidelines lack consensus. Jakew (talk) 17:30, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It can be verified in sources, FICT similarly lacks consensus. And it passes what wikipedia is in that Wikipedia is a specialized encyclopedia and there are even published specialized encyclopedias on specialized sources. Thus, it passes those policies and guidelines that do have consensus. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 20:41, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That has, as you rightly say, been stated. However, the fact that a statement has been made does not necessarily mean that it is correct. Moreover, I would point out that, in addition to WP:PLOT, the article fails WP:V, WP:PSTS, WP:FICT, and WP:N. Just to clarify, I hold this view whether or not it has been stated that these policies and guidelines lack consensus. Jakew (talk) 17:30, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Which as has been stated obviously lacks consensus. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 15:41, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or redirect per WP:NOT#PLOT and (seemingly) WP:N. I couldn't find a character list for his affiliation or for the book series he appeared in, so he can't be merged at the time if there was in fact anything noteworthy about him in one way or another. – sgeureka t•c 14:46, 16 May 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 --JForget 01:43, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Catholic Magicians' Guild[edit]
- Catholic Magicians' Guild (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Appears to be non-notable organization. No luck finding WP:RS, nothing in the article to indicate notability. Previously deleted via PROD, so brought here for discussion. --Kinu t/c 00:06, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Can't pull any notability out of this hat. Ecoleetage (talk) 00:58, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Notability not asserted. asenine say what? 06:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No significant coverage. Epbr123 (talk) 09:25, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 16:30, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom.--Berig (talk) 18:16, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not notable (as i can see) ·Add§hore· Talk/Cont 18:29, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Less than 200 ghits. — Wenli (reply here) 02:20, 14 May 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. Despite the influx of "keep" votes (and I mean 'votes', not '!votes'), the issues raised by the comments supporting deletion--specifically, that there are not a sufficient number of independent sources to confirm notability--are not addressed. Anyone confused about this should have a look through Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. --jonny-mt 04:27, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Colemak[edit]
- Colemak (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This article on a new keyboard layout was re-created following a deletion review in which the consensus was "Deletion endorsed; however, article unprotected to permit sourced rewrite." The arguments proposed in the review for re-creation were that if sources could not be found, it should be re-considered for deletion.
Now while at first sight the article appears to cite plenty of sources, out of these, no more than two at most meet Wikipedia's criteria for reliable, secondary sources, and even then coverage is hardly "non-trivial" as Wikipedia's notability criteria require. The only academic study cited is an undergraduate dissertation that has not been peer reviewed; the Caps Off award was an obscure affair run by a private individual that, despite being advertised as a "million dollar" competition, raised less than 200 euros in the end; and inclusion in X11 and Ubuntu seems almost completely undocumented, apart from some comments in various Ubuntu forums and IRC chats. The only other sources cited are the article's own previous deletion debate here on Wikipedia and a blog entry by a Microsoft developer stating that they would not be including Colemak in Windows precisely because it is non-notable. Vquex (talk) 00:02, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete unless cleaned up - Needs cleanup - see what the nominator mentioned. asenine say what? 06:35, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- *Delete what random gibberish feature ISN'T included in x number of linux distros? Saying "this feature is supported by PurpleShoe Linux" is not useful or notable. Numbers of users is. Miami33139 (talk) 07:42, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It isn't supported just by "PurpleShoe Linux", it is supported by _all_ Linux distributions and _all_ BSDs that come with X.Org (i.e. practically all of them). It's not a feature that needs to downloaded and installed. it's something that comes preinstalled with the core operating system. It's displayed as option every time you install the operating system. Besides Dvorak, it's the only alternative keyboard layout to be included with any mainstream operating system.--201.88.71.199 (talk) 23:32, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Windows comes with US-101 layouts for each of dozens of languages it supports. Windows comes with half-a-dozen alternate US layouts, and three versions of Dvorak. The statement, "Besides Dvorak, it's the only alternative keyboard layout to be included with any mainstream operating system." is wrong. Desktop Linux is not a mainstream operating system. An obscure layout on an obscure OS is not notable. Show the sources. Miami33139 (talk) 15:53, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete (again). No, no, no! Citing a previous deletion discussion as a source is not OK! (Incidentally, inclusion in Ubuntu and other Linux distributions is entirely a result of inclusion in X11. You don't get to count every distribution separately like that.) Zetawoof(ζ) 11:55, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete unless cleaned up. Stifle (talk) 20:09, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Besides Dvorak, it's the only keyboard layout to gain a significant amount of users. In fact, the Colemak forum is the most active community to discuss alternative keyboard layouts in general. Independent research from several sources has found it at least as good as Dvorak. The Colemak article is referenced from dozens of articles, and across multiple languages of Wikipedia. Coming as a built-in option in all operating systems with X.Org now and into the foreseeable future means it's not going to fade away anytime soon.--201.88.71.199 (talk) 23:32, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, but the number of users is irrelevant. (See WP:BIG). What goes on on the Colemak forums is also irrelevant, as that is a primary source and linking to forums is generally to be avoided anyway. (See WP:EL#AVOID point 10). As for independent research from several sources is concerned, perhaps you could enlighten us to what these sources are so that we can evaluate them? As I said, the paper by David Piepgrass is not suitable as it is a self-publised undergraduate dissertation that has not been published in a peer reviewed journal, and blogs are not suitable either for the same reason. (See WP:SPS).
- Now let's get another thing straight. X11. As User:Miami33139 said, a lot of random cruft finds its way into every Linux distro going. The chances are that getting Colemak included in X11 was not all that difficult. Any competent developer could easily submit a patch for it, and provided that it doesn't break anything the chances are that it will be included. I don't know what X11's criteria for inclusion are, but Wikipedia is not X11. The inclusion of Colemak in X11 is officialy undocumented -- I couldn't even find it in the X11 changelogs -- and the only discussion about it anywhere is on forums and IRC chat archives -- see my point re forums above.
- My contention still stands, that there is insufficient coverage of Colemak in independent, reliable secondary sources, and since this is the case, it is not possible to construct an article on it that is larger than a stub without violating Wikipedia's policy on no original research. Vquex (talk) 00:23, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The publicly-readable CVS repository of freedesktop.org holds relevant Changelog there: http://webcvs.freedesktop.org/xkeyboard-config/xkeyboard-config/ChangeLog?view=markup The inclusion of Colemak layout, US version, is listed under '2007-06-29 Sergey Udaltsov' entry, and '2008-04-01 Sergey Udaltsov' lists addition of GB variant. While the patch was indeed ported from Ubuntu, the freedesktop.org, responsible for development of X.Org Server is an independent entity, not tied to any of Linux distro. The X.Org_Server is employed on wide range of platforms, from MacOS X to Sun Solaris and is basis for Cygwin/X and Xming, aside of leading. While the layout may lack in independent research, is it that much different from some 'obscure' Unix tool, like the Banner_(Unix)? Dexen (talk) 08:13, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not talking about the CVS repository. I'm talking about the list on the X11 website of what's new. Even if it was listed there it still wouldn't count for anything because the X11 site is an open wiki and wikis don't count for anything in deletion debates (see WP:SPS). The issue at stake is that the sources cited do not meet the Wikipedia verifiability criteria. Nibbling at the edges of the points I have made does not answer anything. I want to see substantial coverage in the press, or in ergonomics/HCI literature, or in other sources that conform to wiki policy, otherwise this article will contain original research. Vquex (talk) 08:45, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It's a technicality, but please note the 'holds relevant Changelog there' fragment. The changelog was commited to CVS repository (and not a wiki) by one of X.org developrs, as the CVS is not writeable to the public. Since the X.org X11 is very modular, keybyard layouts are part of 'xkeyboard-config' package and related changes may not be listed in core X11 servers' changelog. 217.153.136.62 (talk) 09:25, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. While I understand the need to keep vanity pages off WP, I'm not quite sure if this is a good example of an evil abuse of WP, or that it deserves the strenuous argumentation you are giving it. You apparently have made only a tiny handful of contributions yourself, apart from this debate on a deletion. Presumably this is a secondary account -- may I ask what your other accounts are? Xanthoxyl (talk) 18:50, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please assume good faith -- I did have another account once upon a time, but I lost the password for it ages ago, and I can assure you that I am not a sock puppet of any of the other "delete" votes. Look, I'm not saying this is an evil abuse of Wikipedia by any means. I'm just asking whether or not the community thinks that the sources are sufficient to warrant inclusion in Wikipedia, or whether it all counts as original research, or even whether there is a consensus in the first place. Perhaps you'd care to comment on that particular question? Vquex (talk) 19:53, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - seemingly bubbling with independent sources. —TreasuryTag—t—c 21:22, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I'm a Dvorak Simplified Keyboard typist, and this article was a timely addition to my search for efficiency. The WP vision is to capture all the world's knowledge in encyclopedic format. This article clearly contributes to that end. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.245.67.50 (talk) 14:01, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. While the referencing needs to be seriously improved, the novelty and inclusion in a broadly-distributed piece of software indicates that it has at least the potential to gain more mainstream citation in future, and there doesn't appear to be a suitable topic article that this one could be subsumed into for the time being (ergonomic keyboard layout or the like). Keeping this on my radar to see if I can improve it, having originally found it from a random Interweb posting. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:50, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "broadly-distributed"? Does that include all 1600 downloads, who may never use it, or the 272 registered users of an internet forum, who also may be reading the forum, but not using the layout? If 1600 downloads gets you a Wikipedia article, download.com has a few million pieces of freeware to start articles about. Miami33139 (talk) 17:57, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete due to lack of reliable third-party sources. Inclusion in X.org is not significant; the us xkb file contains several alternative layouts, only one of which (Dvorak) has a large body of independently published criticism and review. Number of users is irrelevant; only published third-party documentation is relevant. —Psychonaut (talk) 13:09, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. This is a reliable third-party source: The Caps Lock Key -- Love it or Hate it? Barry Abisch, Worldnow. Qwfp (talk) 07:03, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - The article could use some work, but deleting it won't help. Colemak clearly has intrest, activities, and sources from third parties (X11,Slashdot,CapsOff,etc.)StephenJGuy (talk) 16:55, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It hasn't been established that these meet Wikipedia's criteria for reliable sources, nor has it been established that coverage is significant. Vquex (talk) 21:29, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The hundreds of other layouts included in Windows are either minor European variants of Qwerty, different scripts (Asian languages, Arabic), or Dvorak. Colemak being included in a major OS makes it notable. (Miami33139, Linux is a major operating system, not an obscure one. Virtually all scientific computing occurs in Linux these days. Google have even released Google Desktop, Picasa, and Google Earth for Linux.) There's tons of Wikipedia article that require cleanup and "real" sources, but deleting them is not the answer. As Colemak gains prominence, more people will find this article and hopefully improve it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jnuneziglesias (talk • contribs) 00:11, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. It appears that this deletion debate has been discussed on the Colemak forms. [62] Vquex (talk) 02:27, 21 May 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 not notable delete --Selket Talk 22:53, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Alice Eccles[edit]
- Alice Eccles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non notable the daughter of someone does not infer notability. BigDuncTalk 13:07, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 16:31, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Flag for rescue. The article is only four days old and reliable sources may possibly be forthcoming, so this discussion is probably a bit premature. If none are found, then deletion will be appropriate. Vquex (talk) 19:57, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to John Eccles, 2nd Viscount Eccles. Not even the heiress apparent, so will never be titled. --Dhartung | Talk 23:49, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete per CSD:A7. So tagged. Stifle (talk) 20:10, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I dont think this can be rescued, although there are some ghits for her activities. But it isnt a speedy. DGG (talk) 03:10, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, just don't see the WP:HEY potential. The creating editor is generally pretty problematic and has consistently displayed an inability to grasp WP:BIO. Deiz talk 22:42, 15 May 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 after significant improvement. GlassCobra 03:51, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Paulville, Texas[edit]
- Paulville, Texas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
The organization's website is down ([63]); this appears to be a non-notable flash in the pan. YixilTesiphon Say helloBe shallow 20:46, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete That's a lot of news coverage; however, I'm finding almost nothing about this town outside of what's already sourced. Given also that their site has gone down, I'd say this is probably a one-event thing. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 20:56, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]- Merge to Ron Paul. Seems a bit WP:CRYSTALline, but just enough of it is sourced that it can make a decent addition to Ron Paul's page. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 23:13, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Has received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. The site is probably down (it only happened today) due to the NYX article; but even its being down was newsworthy (Politico)! I still haven't been able to add the reactions of Andrew Sullivan or the Seattle Stranger. Has attracted about a dozen editors in a very short time (I did ask a couple of them for help). It would be silly to predicate an AFD on one hiccup in a mom-and-pop website that gets hit by NYX. JJB 21:34, 12 May 2008 (UTC) I see nothing at WP:GROUP that excludes Paulville from WP as a planned community. JJB 21:38, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete or Merge to Ron Paul or his campaign article. As it stands the planned community is a crystal ball. Another option might be to Rename to Ron Paul Revolution and merge in all the random Ron Paul admiration efforts that well sourced but of questionable notability (money bombs, the blimp, Trevor Lyman, etc). Burzmali (talk) 22:55, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:CBALL. Some recent announcements, but no indication this will actually move forward. --Dhartung | Talk 23:51, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:CBALL. --Jedravent (talk) 00:53, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I have added a mention of Paulville to the Ron Paul presidential campaign, 2008 page. This seems like an appropriate place for the information. --YixilTesiphon Say helloBe shallow 02:56, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Is the move for deletion Rush Limbaugh's latest chaos project? James1906 (talk) 07:23, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No. I volunteered for Paul in Iowa and South Carolina, donated, and voted for him in Texas. Mainly I'm doing this because I don't want people to be like "damn Paultards trying to make articles about every little thing associated with the campaign grumble grumble". Also something like this that results in one or two conference calls and then disappears really isn't worth its own article. --YixilTesiphon Say helloBe shallow 12:48, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you. I don't believe in covering every little thing, just the notable things. To use a tangential observation from WP:OTHERSTUFF, I don't think Change you can Xerox has borne up as notable. JJB 18:30, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- No. I volunteered for Paul in Iowa and South Carolina, donated, and voted for him in Texas. Mainly I'm doing this because I don't want people to be like "damn Paultards trying to make articles about every little thing associated with the campaign grumble grumble". Also something like this that results in one or two conference calls and then disappears really isn't worth its own article. --YixilTesiphon Say helloBe shallow 12:48, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:CBALL and WP:FUTURE. Damn Paultards. --Ave Caesar (talk) 13:23, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: As often, it appears I need to give the long keep argument.
- Nominator did not present any AFD alternatives suggested by WP:DEL: discussion, tagging, proposing merge, or proposing deletion. Nomination is out of process.
- Nominator acted on the same day that the website went down and then used that as an issue. We have no means of knowing the significance of the downed site for a few days (five may not be sufficient). Nomination is premature on that ground and others.
- Nominator started essentially by arguing notability, and only hinting at crystal-ball speculation. The fact that deletionists have moved to crystal-ball en masse indicates that my reference to WP:GROUP does establish notability. There is no question that "topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". At least four sources, mentioned above, have content which has not yet been added to the article.
- Nominator then began a merge to the campaign, suggesting that AFD was not presented single-mindedly. Nominator should either change !vote to merge (which should have been done by merge proposal), or disavow the edit to the campaign, to be consistent. Failure to do either indicates double-mindedness.
- As to crystal balls:
- First, have you read the guideline? (One editor provided two links to the same guideline as if two guidelines!) It doesn't forbid the current state of planned communities or planned buildings (have you seen this?). It relates to (1) future scheduled events, (2) future preassigned names of events, (3) future history speculation. It does not relate to discussion of current events that also contains current discussion of proposals of future activity: "It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, provided that discussion is properly referenced." The article properly describes the current state of the project and, occasionally, the current state of the project's future plans, fully referenced in place. There is no sourcing whatsoever from the Paulville forum, where much more info about the future plans is available (there are sometimes reliable sources reporting on the forum of course).
- Speculation of deletionists, that organization appears a flash in the pan, that announcements yield no indication this will move forward, that org consists of one or two conference calls "and then disappears", are in fact the type of speculation that WP:NOT forbids, and that WP:ATA#CRYSTAL specifically forbids-- even quoting "flash in the pan" as the epitome of the argument to avoid!
- Emphasis added: "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and editors should avoid using one when commenting in a deletion discussion .... Notability is based on objective evidence of whether sufficient reliable sources have taken notice already, not on subjective judgments of whether people should take notice in the future. Focusing on the objective evidence helps the deletion discussion reach a logical conclusion; injecting your personal predictions does not."
- As to merging, this is very simply neither a part of Ron Paul's biography nor part of his campaign. Period. If anything, it's part of the Ron Paul Revolution (a topic which also got deleted, userfied, and deleted again). I would accept consensus recreation of, and merger to, Ron Paul Revolution, without prejudice to keeping the articles like Lyman which are notable in their own right. If more editors would get behind that proposal, it could easily work as a compromise. Other moves are possible.
- The profanity and generic personal attack made by two editors above might be taken by some as applying to me. I created this article not because it was associated with the campaign (in fact Paul personally disregarded it), but because there was a notable new topic which had sufficient coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Since then many more sources have covered the item. Again, deletion is way premature.
- Almost unrelated: The "move for deletion" chaos project does appear to be in full force. I am compiling a list of Paul-related AFDs to determine if they face a disproportionate amount of deletion attempts. I think some of the recent AFDs do statistically indicate unconscious bias by the deletionists. However, I did anticipate that someone would AFD sooner or later, which is why I had notified a few potentially interested editors (both pro-Paul and not) of the article's creation, in order to determine consensus early. To my surprise, none of them suggested AFD, but they and several more editors that came along made a number of positive contributions. Therefore nominator did not make note of this early consensus to build. Since I have already performed this early notification, I am not notifying the other editors of this article during this AFD, although it would be proper for the nominator or someone else to do so.
- Verbum sat: I advise the closer of my belief that this may be a case for applying the rule that result is based on strength of arguments, not vote count. JJB 14:31, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- I just added another thorough source (Philadelphia Newspaper), making significant coverage by eleven reporters at ten independent media so far (plus one political party chapter, and three primary sources to flesh out). The argument that all these sources are discussing something either patently nonnotable or presently nonexistent is very odd. JJB 22:40, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Well, that is a very well thought out response. While I can't challenge your verbosity, let me take a stab at why this article should be removed (be it through deletion, merger or rename). Let's run through the time line:
- A bunch of RP supporters get together and decide it would be a good idea to make their own community where the man can't keep them down.
- RP blogs and conference calls go out to rally the troops to their noble cause.
- Anti-RP blogs start calling them all a bunch of "Paultards".
- A handful of independent newspapers catch wind of it and report on the story as an offshoot of Ron Paul's campaign, frequently with tongue planted firmly in cheek.
- RP himself actually hear about it, and calls his supporters a bunch of knuckleheads.
- The project begins to collapse, total lapsed time? Maybe a month.
- In the end, unless the supporters turn on their idol, nothing happens. Do we really want an article on something that didn't happen? Its association with RP was the only reason it made the papers (much to RP's chagrin I'm sure). But, if you really want to play the wiki-lawyer, try WP:NOT#NEWS, WP:MADEUP and WP:MEMORIAL, as this article toes the line on each of them to some extent. Burzmali (talk) 15:42, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks Michael. In response: (1) I would hope my choice for verbosity is well-supported by use of good argument; (2) Please avoid careless characterizations like "the man" and "idol"; (3) Elapsed time is at least 4 months now, including the time getting the supporters together; (4) Whether reporting is an "offshoot" is debatable; (5) your #5 is quite the mischaracterization; (6) your #6 and "something that didn't happen" are more crystal ball reading-- something did happen and was reported widely as such; (7) even if association with Paul were the reason for reportage, the depth of the reportage indicates a topic breakout, not a merge; and (8) your references to other policies are quite bemusing, as the 4-month period and the actual reported activity indicate this is "not (just) news", and "made-up" stuff must meet notability criteria same as anything, and "memorial" is thoroughly inapplicable. But I repeat that your proposed compromise is acceptable if other editors would get on it.
- FYI I performed a little WP:OR (for background purposes only, of course) and called Mr. Ebacher on his Whois-reported phone. He explained that all the initial 50 shares have been bought, by 18 shareholders; that some of the shares are available for resale; that the property has in fact been owned in the name of the community since the (apparently March) purchase (as reported); that some expect to begin moving next month, while others are holding the land more speculatively; that in addition to shareholders' meetings, an event where most shareholders can be on-site simultaneously is being considered (note this is current reporting, not future reporting); that surrounding parcels are also for sale; and that information on plans for similar Paulville communities in other states can be had at the forum (which of course I've deliberately not followed). Given that, it would be improper for any indulgence in speculation, as to either success or failure, to have any effect as a deletion argument, per the clear language of WP:ATA#CRYSTAL. I would hope that, unlike about six deletionists, I don't make use of crystal-ball arguments, only of extant reported activity. Since, however, there may well be consensus to change WP:CBALL to apply to this, because there's apparently a widespread misconception that it does apply, then get consensus at its page and come back here and renominate. JJB 18:30, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- I've kind of avoided this thing, but I think Wikipedia:DOSPAGWYA applies here. --YixilTesiphon Say helloBe shallow 14:22, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you really think anyone will read that rant?? --Ave Caesar (talk) 22:47, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete until built. Stifle (talk) 20:10, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Respectfully, per WP:NOREASON, why? That question goes to everybody BTW. JJB 22:05, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- I thought the reason "because it doesn't exist yet" was implied... Stifle (talk) 09:27, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for clarifying! The cooperative does exist. The designated land does exist. Since the discussion currently stands at 6 delete and 5 keep or merge (or 6 if you count YixilTesiphon's activity as a second-string merge !vote), I would hate for an apparent consensus to build around a grapevine misconception (such as CBALL applying). Burzmali's narrative aside, the facts are: (1) certain (eighteen) people formed an organizational entity at an April meeting; (2) the organization spent perhaps in the tens of thousands to purchase land on Ebay; (3) the organization has been called "the cooperative", "Paulville TX", or "Paulville.org"; (4) confusingly, "Paulville.org" may also refer to the website, and "Paulville TX" may also refer to the undeveloped land or the planned town; (5) FOURTEEN news media have reported on the org's purchase or other past or present related org activities (many through authorized blogs), and the New York Times even hosted the 80-minute conceptual video! Perhaps the reason people think CBALL applies is that the new town itself, also called "Paulville TX", does not exist as a town. Well, I've made a significant disambiguation to the lead to clarify that. The topic of this article was not consciously meant to be the nonexistent town, but the extant organization and its extant land, both of which are designated "Paulville TX" (I apologize if I miscommunicated that). I'd appreciate contributors commenting on this disambiguation. JJB 14:23, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- I thought the reason "because it doesn't exist yet" was implied... Stifle (talk) 09:27, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Respectfully, per WP:NOREASON, why? That question goes to everybody BTW. JJB 22:05, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Notable. --Pwnage8 (talk) 23:16, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - One sentence blog entries, followed by a quote, are not "significant coverage", please don't pretend that they are reliable sources for the purposes of establishing notability. Burzmali (talk) 15:06, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "Please don't pretend": The source you allude to had three original sentences, not one; I didn't hold that it was significant or that the paper was large or that it was presented for the purposes of establishing notability; I did hold that it was a 14th or 15th reliable source per WP:V: "Some newspapers host interactive columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control"; that newspaper is 130 years old; I didn't contest your reversion (yet); you and I are perhaps both straining at gnats. JJB 15:27, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete non-notable. --Mountainsarehigh (talk) 15:36, 14 May 2008 (UTC) — Mountainsarehigh (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. JJB 15:46, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Mountainsarehigh has, as far as I can tell, done almost nothing that isn't Paul-related things, usually in a negative sense, with a very negative tone. --YixilTesiphon Say helloBe shallow 16:08, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I am interested in and have knowledge of Ron Paul related things, which is why I made a comment about a Ron Paul related thing. For the record, I have little interest in commenting on things I am not interested in and/or have little knowledge of. I think that's a positive, not a negative. --18:07, 14 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mountainsarehigh (talk • contribs)
- This sounds like WP:IDONTLIKEIT. As I said above, it's notable (has been covered non-trivially in notable publications), so it deserves to stay. --Pwnage8 (talk) 18:43, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've read your link, and no, I don't think that sounds at all like what I wrote, nor does it come close to expressing my view on this issue. Thanks for your comments though. --Mountainsarehigh (talk) 00:34, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This sounds like WP:IDONTLIKEIT. As I said above, it's notable (has been covered non-trivially in notable publications), so it deserves to stay. --Pwnage8 (talk) 18:43, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I am interested in and have knowledge of Ron Paul related things, which is why I made a comment about a Ron Paul related thing. For the record, I have little interest in commenting on things I am not interested in and/or have little knowledge of. I think that's a positive, not a negative. --18:07, 14 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mountainsarehigh (talk • contribs)
- Comment: A primary source for the number of members: [64]. JJB 19:55, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Paulville was just mentioned on Fox News Special Report with Brit Hume (which I added to the article). There are plenty of secondary sources and it's clear this article meets all notability criteria. Buspar (talk) 08:17, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Website returned on 15 May per forum dates. JJB 23:25, 17 May 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.