Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 November 20
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 author consent to delete. Pegasus «C¦T» 01:17, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Boulder Dam Brewing Company[edit]
- Boulder Dam Brewing Company (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable brewing company. My speedy deletion tag was removed for a specious reason. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 03:09, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Notability not established ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:42, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:57, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:58, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:58, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete There is an assertion, so that might have been the reason the A7 tag was removed, but that said this is NN. Fails WP:CORP and WP:V and may also be a COI. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 07:05, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please remember that COI is not a valid reason for deletion.- Mgm|(talk) 09:32, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- But failure to fit in to WP:CORP is. --Kickstart70TC 03:26, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The Google results yields at least two independent sources that discuss the place which would address the issue of the current referencing. Apparently, this place is a restaurant too. - Mgm|(talk) 09:32, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Independent sources available. The restaurant/brewery is used as a local museum for artifacts from the building of the Hoover Dam. It has been recognized by several magazines as a big attraction in the area.Gr0ff (talk) 14:24, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Question Which sources are you referring to? When I searched google, the only thing I found that meeting the references criteria was this, an article in Las Vegas Review-Journal. The other reviews on google were from a review website that anyone could submit to, and the two links on the article itself are from the brewery's website. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 14:51, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete because there is very little proper sourcing. I've had a look on Google and I can't find anything decent. Reyk YO! 19:56, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Unless there's some print sources we're missing. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 19:59, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I did a Google search and found nothing in the way of reliable sources. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 00:20, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. It's all about WP:CORP, and frankly editors refusing to heed that guideline, which was built on consensus. --Kickstart70TC 03:25, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails WP:CORP. The 458-odd hits on both Google and Yahoo are 99.9% not qualified as secondary sources. Geoff (talk) 15:55, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as author and sole contributor. If user-created content does not count as a secondary source, then agreed that article fails WP:CORP. I have no interest in being disruptive to argue this point. Gr0ff (talk) 00:44, 21 November 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. Grutness...wha? 00:12, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Kishan patel[edit]
- Kishan patel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This article appears to be written by the subject of the article. The article does in fact assert notability, and therefore no speedy criterion applies. However, the article does not appear to be on a notable subject. Will an admin please delete this article anyway? Richard Cavell (talk) 23:58, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Just saying someone's famous or has done "a lot of big things" is hardly an assertion of notability unless some of these big things are actually mentioned. In any case, I'd speedied this G7 by the time you listed it here. Grutness...wha? 00:12, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. John254 23:01, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Spruce Creek Fly-In[edit]
- Spruce Creek Fly-In (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
No coverage in secondary sources. No notability. There currently isn't a guideline for notability of airports but going by Wikipedia:WikiProject Airports/Notability, Spruce Creek wouldn't make it. Dismas|(talk) 23:48, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the appropriate experts should weigh in, but I would lean towards deletion. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:13, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I listed the article at the aviation groupChildofMidnight (talk) 05:15, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm actually tending towards a keep. The criteria suggest stronger requirements for private airports, but according to the article it was originally constructed for the US military, which would give the place military significance. (Can we cut down on the external links?) - Mgm|(talk) 09:21, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Meets
General Aviation airports
General aviation (civilian non-airline) airports which meet one of the following criteria are considered notable:
- it is currently or formerly owned by a local, regional or national government entity
Airports not meeting these criteria may still independently achieve notability per WP:RS and WP:N guidelines.
- Military or government airfields
Current or former military or government airfields are notable as airports if they meet basic notability
Mjroots (talk) 18:04, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Not only extensive FAA records alone exist on every operating airport in the US, it also is the subject of additional secondary sources. [1] --Oakshade (talk) 02:01, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Meets notability requirements. --Pilotboi / talk / contribs 18:59, 23 November 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 Good Olfactory. (non-admin closure) - Richard Cavell (talk) 23:54, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wes morrison[edit]
- Wes morrison (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Another hoax article in desperate need of a speedy criterion. Some kid-just-mucking-around, borderline vandalism. Richard Cavell (talk) 23:44, 20 November 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. MBisanz talk 01:47, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Riverfolk[edit]
- Riverfolk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This is almost an attack page. The article is little more than a dictionary definition. The term is not sourced, and even given the benefit of the doubt it would be a regional slang term that is of no value to an encyclopedia. Richard Cavell (talk) 23:40, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I was unable to find any reliable sources confirming the importance of this term or giving any context for it. I am open to changing my mind if better sources and more information is added. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:43, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete - Attack page, little context, no sources, no verifiability; apparent hoax/vandalism. AlexTiefling (talk) 00:10, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. While I don't see what Alex is seeing in this entry, I do believe it is a dictionary definition without chance of expansion. Historically, people tend to live near rivers because it is a invaluable source of water and that fact is most likely already covered in articles on early settlements. - Mgm|(talk) 09:18, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and redirect to whatever article contains info on mythological creatures inhabiting rivers. To me, this term refers to river spirits. 76.66.195.63 (talk) 12:36, 21 November 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. MBisanz talk 01:47, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ned Frame[edit]
- Ned Frame (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Contested prod. This article is a crude hoax: zero ghits; no-one of that name has received the Albert Einstein Award (which is not awarded by St. John's College); many incoherent statements such as the title of Frame's first publication; article created by previously warned vandals andy (talk) 23:40, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article must not be deleted yet again. Edward Frame is a tutor at St. John's College and is indeed author of the essay cited in the article as well as numerous others. He is himself a vocal opponent of the internet and especially wikipedia and his followers do their best to keep any information regarding him off the web. It would be a mistake to delete this article without first contacting St. John's.
Secondly He did not win The Albert Einstein Award but rather the "St. John's College Albert Einstein Award which is a different award. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mkilani (talk • contribs) 23:47, 20 November 2008 (UTC) [reply]
- So how do you explain your attempts to create "evidence" such as this edit? andy (talk) 23:49, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete - Vandalism, supported only by other vandalism. A very poor and unconvincing hoax, at that. AlexTiefling (talk) 00:12, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Unconvincing hoax/childish vandalism. - Richard Cavell (talk) 01:47, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: this article was speedily deleted a short time ago under the title Edward Hartwell Frame. •Life of Riley (talk) 05:07, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete - Hash! Hoax! Does wikipedia have a comedy column? Orthorhombic (talk) 09:45, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - speedy deletion is not allowed for hoaxes, but in any case AfD is better since it prevents the user simply posting it back and makes it easier to get any of his other acts of vandalism deleted or reverted - there have been quite a lot, both as Mkilani (talk • contribs) and probably as 204.69.190.75 (talk • contribs). andy (talk) 10:43, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure it is. It's called pure vandalism, which is criterion G3 for speedy deletion. MuZemike (talk) 19:36, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I went to school at Oxford with Ned Frame. We didn't talk much, since he was half my age, but I can assure you that he is the same prodigy described in the article. — 168.103.102.208 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- I am a student at St John's College, and confirm that Mr. Frame is indeed a tutor here. Furthermore, the title of his first paper, while very technical, not incoherent at all, and is indeed one of the most affecting papers on the subject I have read. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.69.190.75 (talk) 00:42, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. There is no such person on the faculty of St. John's, either at Annapolis or Santa Fe. Almost certainly a St. John's student whose friends are having fun. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 01:00, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Speedy delete G3 by Useight
Pilgore the puppet[edit]
- Pilgore the puppet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This article exists to disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. Again, no speedy criterion applies but will some kind admin please speedy it? Richard Cavell (talk) 23:32, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete as an attack page. AlexTiefling (talk) 00:16, 21 November 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 List of Wikipedias. Boldly redirected, nothing to merge. (non-admin closure) — neuro(talk) 17:28, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Scottish Gaelic Wikipedia[edit]
- Scottish Gaelic Wikipedia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Unsourced, non-notable web-stub. Notability is not vicarious and requires coverages in reliable sources to be established. MBisanz talk 23:11, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect to List of Wikipedias. Too short to keep on its own. - Mgm|(talk) 23:45, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect: This Wikipedia has had nothing notable happen to it to warrant an article, plus it's a 1k+ Wikipedia. – Jerryteps 00:00, 21 November 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. MBisanz talk 03:15, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neighbors from Hell 3: In Office[edit]
- Neighbors from Hell 3: In Office (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Appears to be a fake. Normal publisher, JoWood, makes no mention of it and doesnt exist on a GameFAQs search. A general google search returns only torrent site links, from two of these sites, Mininova and Pirate Bay, have users repeatedly stated it is a fake and that the thing isnt the game but something all in Russian Salavat (talk) 14:30, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. Salavat (talk) 14:59, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - perhaps a websearch using the Russian title ("Соседи от ада 3: В офисе") will get better results. Here's the ghits. Marasmusine (talk) 21:29, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No, then. So delete. Marasmusine (talk) 21:32, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SoWhy 23:05, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Notability not established. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:05, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete What is everyone waiting for?. There is no notability for this article. --SkyWalker (talk) 19:00, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Notability not established, and it does not appear it can be. Icemotoboy (talk) 21:19, 24 November 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. —Mizu onna sango15Hello! 06:54, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Baldev Raj Gupta[edit]
- Baldev Raj Gupta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
No improvement since last AfD, and I can't find any reliable sources on him. Wizardman 05:18, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —John Z (talk) 23:59, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete As per nom could not find any reliable sources. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 14:28, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep. A WorldCat search returned 7 hits for his books. One of his books, Research in Indian Linguistics, is held by 46 libraries worldwide. The others are held by fewer libraries. This may sound like a lot, but does not establish WP:PROF notability decisively. I think that having at least one book help by 300 libraries would be a more acceptable threshold. A Google Scholar search returned 1 hit and no citations. A few searches on academic databases returned no hits whatsoever.--Eric Yurken (talk) 02:41, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment per earlier AfD, Baladwa Rāja Gupatā & Baladewa Rāja Gupatā are name variants and provide more results.John Z (talk) 05:18, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I noticed that, and also did other searches - e.g., Google Books. Those name variants all seem to refer to the same person.--Eric Yurken (talk) 14:30, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SoWhy 22:52, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep Hard to know what's there until it's cleaned up. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:06, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Delete, hard to say definitively, as there may be non-English sources on this person, but a lack of non-trivial third-party coverage of this person and the fact that they do not appear to meet WP:PROF, definitely counts against it. Please disregard this if sources on this person are located in a language other than English. Lankiveil (speak to me) 05:53, 21 November 2008 (UTC).[reply]
- Weak delete per Lankiveil. Beagel (talk) 21:37, 23 November 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. MBisanz talk 01:47, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
David Sirlin[edit]
- David Sirlin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
I know I'm breaking my own rule and nominating this for deletion on the day of creation, but I don't see how this will ever be salvageable, and IMO it's better to sort it out now. Quite aside from the totally inappropriate tone (which can be fixed), there's an issue of the total lack of sources and total lack of the slightest suggestion of notability (which can't). – iridescent 22:29, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's in the process of being written, and a number of us are producing sources. There's good enough proof of his notability if you stop to even look for a little while in any online -- and even physical! -- game publication that has bothered to cover Super Street Fighter II Turbo HD Remix since he has literally been the driving force behind it. It's mainly up to those of us writing it to finish it, and that's what we're working on. It is salvageable (it already is leaps and bounds better than when it was originally written). --nothingxs (talk) 22:40, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sirlin is a Creative Professional, who is highly regarded within the gaming industry. The lack of referencing, as has been stated, is in the process of being remedied. He is also an accomplished Street Fighter player, placing highly and winning many high profile events. I'm not sure Wikipedia's stance on the notability of e-athletes, but it would be safe to say that David Sirlin has competed at the highest tournament level. - Psymunn (talk) 23:05, 20 November 2008 (UTC) — Psymunn (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Delete (for now). Fails WP:BIO. Sources are not about the subject and are either written by him or just mention him. But lets see what happens over the next 5 days.... GtstrickyTalk or C 23:07, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It's rather poor form to mark for deletion an article that had been tagged in good faith as {{underconstruction}} and was actively undergoing improvement by several editors. This one is far from a lost cause - Google News picks up over a dozen mentions, some of which I have added to the article. Give an article a chance, I say. the skomorokh 23:36, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep but edit out the unencyclopedic promotional quality... ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:03, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Apparent comment from subject:
I don't know if this helps, but I wrote a lot of stuff on gamasutra. You can go to gamasutra.com, click search and type "sirlin" to find this stuff.
World of Warcraft Teaches the Wrong Things Saving the Day: Save Systems in Games (they chose that title) Understanding the Fun of Super Mario Galaxy Difficulty Tuning in Games (was the lead design article in the print magazine, Game Deveoper Magazine) Power of Pacing (was also the lead design article in the print Magazine) An Achievement-Oriented CCG? Designing Kongai The Trouble With Patents My book excerpt on their site: [2]
The warcraft article [is]—even to this day—the most-read article ever on gamasutra.com, the industry's main trade site. I don't know where there's links to prove that, but here is at least proof that it was the #1 article in 2006 and the separate gamasutra post that's just about the RESPONSES to the article was the 4th most popular thing the entire year on their site.(ref removed)
I'm also mentioned in other people's gamasutra articles:[3] [4] I like this one because famous game designer and writer calls my patent article the best one ever written on gamasutra, even though actual patent lawyers wrote several articles on the same subject: [5]
And all that is just from gamasutra. Not to mention Puzzle Fighter and Street Fighter being high profile, or Kongregate's meteoric rise, with my Kongai game as the metagame for their entire site. Or that I'm in Bang the Machine. Hell, I got 5th in the last two years of Evolution's world finals in ST, I won ECC3, ECC4, and ECC7, just to name a few, and some people seem "notable" on wikipedia JUST for winning at games.
— User "Sirlin", "David Sirlin wikipedia page!", Sirlin.net, 22nd November 2008
- [6], the skomorokh 16:46, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This article has been listed as a video games-related deletion discussion. the skomorokh 18:21, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep — Only one day after its creation is a tad premature to go AFD. Let's give the article a chance, first. MuZemike (talk) 18:59, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Scrape clean and start anew as creator of article left no doubt that he had created the article as a joke. If it can be shown that Mr. Sirlin passes WP:BIO with reliable sourcing, I would not oppose a fresh, well-cited, objective restart of this article. Formerly 147.70.242.40, now 147.70.242.54 (talk) 19:06, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Sources demonstrate the subject's notability (at least the ones that are up as I can see them now). --UsaSatsui (talk) 19:38, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep: very intelligent commentator in game design circles. Start with gamasutra. Randomran (talk) 21:41, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - It seems that sufficient sources have been added to keep the article. And I know more exist. Fieari (talk) 21:52, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Being transparent, I worked on the latest game Sirlin developed, Super Street Fighter II Turbo HD Remix, though not directly with David in any capacity (my work was on the soundtrack with OverClocked ReMix). That being said, Sirlin's substantially built a reputation for balancing games as well as documenting the proper motivations and mindsets for top players across many genres of games. I know Google searches aren't be-all-end-all litmus tests, but aside from his own writings, there are many interviews out there regarding his professional work and many sources supporting his unique reputation and skillsets in professional game development. - Liontamer (talk) 22:32, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. A little off topic, but I find it more than a little funny that the author of the article created it to troll the subject, and has actually now been blocked for his vandalism in trying to have it deleted. An interesting little study in ownership... --UsaSatsui (talk) 23:11, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, notable and the article needs time for expansion. —Locke Cole • t • c 07:35, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. John254 22:59, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sub-Aqua Association[edit]
- Sub-Aqua Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Notability issues, and essentially an advert. The only references relate directly to the company to verify any certifications or affiliations it has. I've removed the external link spam a couple of times, but regardless the article has its mailing address on it and reads to me like an advert. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 22:17, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The article conforms to WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:C. The subject is a non-commercial organisation (a voluntary federation of independent scuba-diving clubs based in the UK). Therefore concerns about advertising should be met by identifying and removing what the proposer considers advertising before considering if the remaining content should be deleted (WP:ORG#Special note: advertising and promotion). The page is not flagged for notability issues, which should be the first step before prod. The references clearly show that SAA is both (1) national and international in scale and (2) verified by third-party, independent, reliable sources. This may establish notability by WP:ORG#Non-commercial organizations, but in any case, absent a warning of notability, this proposal should fail as premature. From WP:N: "If it is likely that significant coverage in independent sources can be found for a topic, deletion due to lack of notability is inappropriate unless active effort has been made to find these sources. For articles of unclear notability, deletion should be a last resort" (my emphasis). The necessary process leading to AfD has not been observed. --RexxS (talk) 17:41, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I looked and I couldn't find anything that would suggest this association is notable. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:26, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree, it's not easy to find solid references to SAA in the reliable media. It's taken me some time to sift through the 4000-odd google hits. I could point you to this BBC news item, which should suffice, but the sensitivity of the subject matter restrains me from adding it to the article. Hope that helps. --RexxS (talk) 03:17, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I looked and I couldn't find anything that would suggest this association is notable. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:26, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteAssociation of independent dive clubs? I don't see the notability. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:02, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep I'm willing to support the consensus and you've all made some good arguments. I think that article could be added noting that "members have been kicked out after misconduct" or something accurate and consistent with the article. I mean you're arguing they're notable, so if that's the biggest news item they made then i think it would be nice to include it, doesn't have to be in an overly negative way. Cheers. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:45, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Diver training in the UK/Europe has always been done by associations of independent dive clubs rather than the professional model preferred in North America (see List of diver training organizations). SAA is one of only 3 in the United Kingdom. If we are going to include the virtually non-existend KPDR (Russia) and IDF (Israel), not to mention some extremely small and non-descript North American agencies, I think we certainly include SAA. --Legis (talk - contribs) 19:03, 21 November 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. Although there is one more delete than keep, it's hardly a demonstration of clear consensus, so default to keep. —Mizu onna sango15Hello! 06:58, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
County Road 337 (Florida)[edit]
- County Road 337 (Florida) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Article has sat untouched for over two years without any references. In its current state it discusses the route the road takes, but it does not give any information that cannot be gleaned from a map. I therefore believe this entry is not encyclopedic and unverifiable and should be deleted Mgm|(talk) 22:00, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of county roads in Alachua County, Florida. Not enough content for its own article. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 23:09, 20 November 2008 (UTC)Nevermind, it's in 3 counties so a redirect isn't in order. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 23:09, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Useful encyclopedic entry. Could use expansion. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:01, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm claiming it cannot be expanded. Can you prove me wrong? - Mgm|(talk) 09:12, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I added a few of the mega-attractions along the road. I think notation of what communities it passes through would also be helpful. It appears to me to be an important road and I can't imagine why it should be excluded from the encyclopedia. Yes, I'm kidding with the mega-attractions, but there are notable features along the road and the road is notable in my humble opinion. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:13, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No reliable sources provided with substantial coverage, calling into question its notability. Some have argued for "inherent notability" of state and national roads, but the same presumption of notability does not extend to county roads, city streets, or my driveway. Edison (talk) 05:53, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment -- WP has lots of articles on long distance roads. The issues here are (1) that this appears to the only Florida County Road with its own article; (2) It needs to be determined what level of roads count as notable ones. Being on the wrong side of the Atlantic, I am not qualified to judge that. My initial reaction was to vote Keep, but I concluded that I was not qualified to do so. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:34, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment -- County Road 32 (Levy County, Florida) exists. --Son (talk) 18:07, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete -- Non-notable, no reliable sources. Maybe if Disney World was on this road it would be notable, but a park and two other places, neither of which will likely have an article (two are currently redlinks, of the three places which were added), I can't see a reason to have this article. --Son (talk) 18:07, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Notable road through three counties in Florida. I was able to expand it, so I move for withdrawal by nom so we can save this encyclopedic entry. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:43, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment -- I don't see how this road is notable. The expansion done to the article, while helpful, doesn't give the article notability. All the expansion speaks to is the way the route number is routed. (The article more-or-less doesn't hit WP:USRD standards in layout, by the way.) For me to switch my decision, the expansion would have to include something significant happening along the route (and then be verifiable). I see no reason why the nominator should withdraw their nomination. --Son (talk) 03:37, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know if the road is "notable" either. But I think the encyclopedia is better for its inclusion. It's a substantial road through three counties. It contains three trailheads to a major park. It's been the subject of budget discussions and meetings regarding maintenance and improvements. It's a significant artery that has been the site of serious motor-vehicle accidents.fourth entry It's also used as a reference point and located in an area where major natural disaters have struck.[7] It looks like its getting deleted as I'm decisively outvoted. So as an act of desperation I was challenging Mgml to back-up his challenge to me. I think I followed through, perhaps not enough to demonstrate great notability, but enough to improve the article with significant content and to demonstrate that this road is a substantial piece of infrastructure that is better left in teh encyclopedia than left out. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:00, 24 November 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. MBisanz talk 01:48, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-Stop Obliteration[edit]
- Non-Stop Obliteration (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
recreated deleted page of a fantasy kids backyard crap DanteAgusta (talk) 22:01, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, probably speedy. No notability claimed whatsoever, no sources either provided or apparent from usual search methods. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 22:48, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - it'll get speedied. - Richard Cavell (talk) 23:35, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - pretty much speedy delatable. --DAJF (talk) 03:21, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- SUPER SPEEDY DELETE NOW why has this not been deleted yet??? --DanteAgusta (talk) 19:47, 22 November 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. MBisanz talk 01:48, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Skeleton (wrestler)[edit]
- Skeleton (wrestler) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Kid pretending to be a wrestler DanteAgusta (talk) 22:04, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete, A7. No claim of notability... self-proclaimed "backyard wrestler". Blackmetalbaz (talk) 22:51, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - something made up one day/not notable/some kid mucking around. - Richard Cavell (talk) 23:35, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Now This page is of some kids weird fantasy, and he thinks posting on Wikipedia will make it real. Needs to be deleted ASAP. --DanteAgusta (talk) 19:49, 22 November 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) notability of individual has not been established. too little context to distinguish him from other film makers Mgm|(talk) 23:01, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Eric Lazzaroni[edit]
- Eric Lazzaroni (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Hoax? Non-notable, Wrong written The Rolling Camel (talk) 21:52, 20 November 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. —Mizu onna sango15Hello! 07:00, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nygårda Julmust[edit]
- Nygårda Julmust (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Swedish language article that dosent even exist on swedish wikipedia. The Rolling Camel (talk) 21:39, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Are you sure it's Swedish. All I get from machine translations is gobbledygook? From what I can read after machine translation, this looks like a joke or attack. Take a look at the first sentence. - Mgm|(talk) 22:59, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - it seems to make sense in Swedish; it's about a seasonal soft drink, and the author's enthusiasm for it. However, there are no sources, and almost no content. If the subject matter could be verified, there might be potential for an article or sub-section somewhere, but as it stands, it's not worth keeping. AlexTiefling (talk) 00:18, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per AlexTiefling. I understand Swedish, but the article only tells us that the product does exist. Punkmorten (talk) 07:49, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I won't be a wikilawyer and call for withdrawal of this AfD, but I would point out to the nominator that articles in foreign languages are supposed to be allowed two weeks for translation before AfD nomination, as explained in the {{notenglish}} template. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:37, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- But i am from sweden and thats why i of course can read swedish and this article isnt existing on swedish wikipedia and the content is nearly like this: I like the Nygårda soft drink. Its better than all the other soft drinks. The Rolling Camel (talk) 12:42, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to julmust. This appears to be merely a particular brand of the beverage described in that article. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:29, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Transwiki to the Swedish Wikipedia. Does not belong here unless it can be translated into English. MuZemike (talk) 17:42, 22 November 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. MBisanz talk 01:50, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Bank layer accumulation[edit]
- Bank layer accumulation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Disputed PROD. Clearly a WP:Hoax, should probably be speedied, but taking to Afd as a disputed PROD. ukexpat (talk) 21:37, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Hoax article. Mjpresson (talk) 23:30, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Hoax, and quite a funny one. Almost had me giving it the benefit of the doubt until about three-quarters the way through. - Richard Cavell (talk) 03:47, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Hoax, or, if this is true, then original research. GlassCobra 12:02, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Ditto per this comment on my talk page. – ukexpat (talk) 16:25, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy delete. G3, as vandalism, I checked textbooks, IUPAC and Pubmed and none of them heard of the term, so it's not a viable redirect either. Mgm|(talk) 22:18, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hydroponicide[edit]
- Hydroponicide (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This appears to be an elaborate hoax. The term literally translates to 'killing water work'. The external links do not support the text. For those with a knowledge of chemistry, the equations make no sense. Richard Cavell (talk) 20:48, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete. Page is essentially a copy and paste of hydrolysis with search & replace changes. As the c&p separates it from contributor history it is a copyvio. JulesH (talk) 21:03, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- What do you mean by the second sentence? The wikipedia hydrolysis article is not copyrighted. - Richard Cavell (talk) 21:39, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- G3 Cut & paste vandalism. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 22:07, 20 November 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. G11 J.delanoygabsadds 21:42, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
AuPairCare[edit]
- AuPairCare (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Blatant advertising. Oscarthecat (talk) 20:40, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete this, surely. It's sickeningly self-promotional. - Richard Cavell (talk) 20:42, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete - just an advert - not notable even if re-written. Camillus 20:43, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete Per above. JNW (talk) 20:53, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete per g11 and a7 The Rolling Camel (talk) 21:42, 20 November 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. duh J.delanoygabsadds 20:30, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This page is being used by J.delanoy to test something[edit]
- This page is being used by J.delanoy to test something (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
What kind of a moron would make this page? Who does he think he is? What the is wrong with him? Delete, salt, burn up, stomp on, eat, whatever it takes!!!!
Also, indef-block creator, delete and oversight all his edits, hack the servers and remove all references to his logs. Checkuser him and indef-hard-range block his entire ISP for daring to let this idiot on the internet!!! DO IT NOW, MAN!!!11!!!!one!!! J.delanoygabsadds 20:29, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep, there's other test pages out there, this deserves a page. Tan | 39 20:30, 20 November 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 Thingg, as copyvio. (non-admin closure) - Richard Cavell (talk) 03:44, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
BLAST programme[edit]
- BLAST programme (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
The article may be on a subject that is not notable enough for inclusion in wikipedia. The article appears to be written by someone associated with the project (see the use of the term 'we'), and appears to present an entirely positive view of the subject without criticism. The article is therefore tainted by conflict of interest and should be removed. Richard Cavell (talk) 20:25, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep I've had a go at removing some of the unnecessary wording and I've tagged as I feel appropriate.Paste (talk) 20:45, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as can't see any notability despite the later edit efforts. --Oscarthecat (talk) 20:49, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I've added citations and more supporting info on the page and it's talk page. The term 'we' was taken from a copy of the website text which I failed to edit. Enigmafx (talk) 22:15, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- What you just said doesn't really help your case. You can't copy and paste copyrighted website text. - Richard Cavell (talk) 23:29, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete as a copy violation. So tagged... GtstrickyTalk or C 23:03, 20 November 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. Mgm|(talk) 22:09, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fin man[edit]
- Fin man (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
nn superhero no independent sources also maybe wp:custral on the movie part also this seems to possably be a hoax as well contested prod Oo7565 (talk) 20:06, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as non-notable creative work (eds don't make any claims, I don't see any with a cursory search myself). The one editor (and his anon teammate) seem disinclined to address the article's problems that others have pointed out to them, preferring to ignore or shout down the complaints. DMacks (talk) 20:13, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete as hoax and/or nonsense. The provided external link leads to an unrelated site. At best, it appears to be little more than something made up in school one day. --Finngall talk 20:23, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as hoax/something made up one day/kids mucking around. - Richard Cavell (talk) 20:43, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete as hoax or nonsense The Rolling Camel (talk) 21:44, 20 November 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. Cirt (talk) 06:12, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Tad Coffen[edit]
- Tad Coffen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Could not find any articles or websites to prove notability. Would CSD, but article mentions significance of person. No notability per WP:BIO, possible WP:SPAM. ~Beano~ (talk) (contribs) 19:57, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. IKF (which considers itself a kickboxing sanctioning authority and is mentioned more than once in the article) does not record Tad Coffen as a past pro- or amateur champion, as attested in the article. According to the website: "If not listed here, or in the Current IKF World Rankings, they were NEVER an IKF PRO Champion." (caps from original source, same quote is found regarding amateur listings as well.) Steamroller Assault (talk) 20:27, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- However, there may be some confusion as to whether "IKF" is the same as "IKF Kickboxing". Unfortunately, IKF.com (which is mentioned in the article) does not appear to be an active website. Steamroller Assault (talk) 20:34, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Further investigation compels me to vote rather than simply comment. PKA.com--also mentioned in the article as a source to establish notability--directs the user to the college fraternity Pi Kappa Alpha, which I imagine is not a kickboxing authority. Article fails WP:VERIFY. Steamroller Assault (talk) 20:52, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- However, there may be some confusion as to whether "IKF" is the same as "IKF Kickboxing". Unfortunately, IKF.com (which is mentioned in the article) does not appear to be an active website. Steamroller Assault (talk) 20:34, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete fails WP:BIO. GtstrickyTalk or C 23:00, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete -- SPA creator of article has removed all assertions of notability. Article currently qualifies for a Speedy A7 delete. Certainly fails WP:BIO — CactusWriter | needles 15:24, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - as unverifiable. -- Whpq (talk) 18:40, 25 November 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 Withdrawn by nominator, no consensus to delete improved version.. SoWhy 23:04, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dan Kogai[edit]
- Dan Kogai (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Blogger and developer, but no apparent notability. -- Oscarthecat (talk) 10:10, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. No assertion of notability at all.Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 10:54, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Since Chris's comment the article has been updated to claim his blog as 'no. 5 in Japan', which probably saves it from speedy. However, that doesn't not exactly constitute a "well-known and independent award" or "multiple non-trivial published works" (WP:WEB), and the source given is another blog which in turn cites "Technorati, which is not super-reliable, we know". I've only done a brief search for other references and didn't find any, but there may be something out there (perhaps in Japanese) I've missed. Olaf Davis | Talk 16:31, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Forgot to say: even if his blog is notable it doesn't justify a separate page for him. So it's probably delete-worthy, and at most mergeable to an article on the blog itself. Olaf Davis | Talk 16:32, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Can we take down this ridiculous request for deletion? Dan Kogai is one of the most well-known bloggers in Japan as well as being a prominent developer and former CTO of Livedoor. Rather than lunge at the delete button, it would have been a bit more reasonable to post something on the discussion page first, where I had very clearly posted a message and would have responded right away. Most documentation is in Japanese so if you want me to substantiate stuff you'll have to allow for time to translate, or have a look at the Japanese-language page yourself. Iminai (talk) 12:52, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If Dan Kogai is one of the best known bloggers in Japan, I recommend posting some links to articles about him in reliable independent secondary sources. (Note that articles that merely mention him probably don't count, neither do mentions in other blogs. Articles that are merely about his childhood aren't likely to count for much either.) I did a gnews search and ZDnet may be a good start. I'm keeping my vote as delete at the moment (I'm removing the speedy as there is now at least an assertion of notability), but I'll change it to keep if suitable evidence arrives.
- What will not carry any weight in the discussion is branding the nomination of deletion "ridiculous". The whole point of these deletion debates is to give people the chance to present evidence as to why the article is sufficiently notable for inclusion. A foreign language wikipedia may have less strict consensus on notability there, so you should never assume that inclusion on a foreign wiki automatically means inclusion on the English version. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 17:35, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Let me qualify "ridiculous". Wikipedia in English (and the net generally in English) has an incredible sparsity of information on Japanese bloggers, despite the country having one of the largest (if not the largest) blogging communities in the world. Where the English-speaking world does know something about Japanese bloggers, the info tends to be about idols whose "notability" comes from TV appearances, etc. What I am trying to do is to bring a different perspective on this world, by highlighting bloggers who are well-known locally but virtually unknown in the West. What is ridiculous is that whereas there are oodles of pages on e.g. American bloggers, there are only a handful on Japanese ones, and yet when someone comes along trying to add to this list they are told that despite a blogger being ranked 5th most popular in the country (among many other things), that blogger may be eligible for deletion (or even speedy deletion). That is ridiculous. I'm not questioning that the cleaning-up/organization/etc. of Wikipedia pages is not an easy task, but the approach here is wrong-headed and will turn off many potential contributors, especially non-native English speakers who will not have the capacity to respond promptly to requests like this. ... In any case, I've included a list of books Kogai has written, when I have time I'll add more. Also I am copying comments here to the talk page for Kogai so that they are kept with the entry itself (otherwise most people will not find this discussion). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iminai (talk • contribs) 00:20, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem is that Wikipedia is deluged with self-promotional articles for websites and other people or businesses and so on. Usually when deletion of these articles is contested, the defence is that the website/person/business is "important" without presenting any evidence to back it up. That is why users will insist on independent and verifiable evidence that subject of the article is notable - believe me, it is done that way for very good reasons. There are some other arguments you are using which are in the list of arguments to avoid in deletion discussion. Having said that, the books you have presented is a better argument for notability. As I don't know much about Japanese publishers, I'm not sure whether these will qualify as notabile, so I'm changing my vote to Neutral until someone can advise me on this. But I will repeat my advice I've already given: find reference to Dan Kogai in independent reliable third-party sources, and the article will probably stay. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 18:24, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I can only imagine how many self-promotional articles must be posted every day at Wikipedia, and believe me I understand that policing these new entries must be a huge task. But this is clearly not the case here: I have a history contributions, I am not just someone coming out of nowhere to promote my company/product/etc. I do see now that starting an entry with just a sentence describing someone will not work, so in the future I will try to at least make a mention of references/achievements etc. I also see (as a translator) that straight translation doesn't really work well on its own either, which has been another lesson I learned from this. What I'd ask that you try to take from this on your side is that language matters (a lot): I expect that there are many fewer people trying to post entries like this one, about people who are well-known (and IMHO very noteworthy) in one lang. community but unknown in another, than there are promoting something "unnoteworthy" about which there is already tons of info in English. Also dealing with non-native English speakers means that "concensus" will always favor the English side, and that needs to be factored in (to be clear, I am a native English speaker). I'm not preaching here and I'm sure you know more about this than I do, just speaking from the Japanese/English perspective. I was pleased to learn recently actually that Wikipedia in English accepts non-English references, which actually makes a big difference in leveling the playing field.Iminai (talk) 04:38, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 16:51, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 16:52, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 16:52, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as non-notable since no non-trivial third-party references appear to be forthcoming. --DAJF (talk) 07:58, 20 November 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 19:54, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Withdraw - I requested this AFD a few days ago. Article since improved significantly with multiple reliable sources added, so request that this AFD be withdrawn. --Oscarthecat (talk) 20:04, 20 November 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 06:47, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reliance Flag Telecom Acquisition[edit]
- Reliance Flag Telecom Acquisition (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Appears to be mostly pro-corp advertising, already speedy deleted per db-advert, but recreated. So AFD posted. Perhaps a merge to Reliance Globalcom would be appropriate. Oscarthecat (talk) 17:20, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We at IIT Bombay did a study on the acquisition and this wiki entry is a part of our project. We do not intend to advertise any stuff as we are not remotely associated with any of the entities involved. Satyakamd(talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 17:29, 10 November 2008 (UTC).[reply]
- Merge It's nice that someone is studying this, but the subject belongs in the parent article. Part of their study should now include collaborative learning as their content is merged where appropriate and an extraneous topic and article eliminated. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:56, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Anyone who is looking for Reliance's acquisition over Flag Telecom would directly land up in this page, which has all the information about the history and the effects of the merger. I assert, this page should not be deleted as merging it with Reliance Globalcom would make the whole purpose of this article redundant. This article describes the acquisition and not the company in general. Satyakamd(talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 08:37, 11 November 2008 (UTC).[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, StarM 04:45, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I feel no one has any more problem with the article being present. The article, as clearly seen, if only of academic interest only and no hidden motive attached.Satyakamd(talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.78.217.160 (talk) 09:21, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as I remain of the opinion it's of little interest, or at the least warrants merging into the main article. --Oscarthecat (talk) 10:29, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 00:06, 17 November 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 19:48, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete fails WP:N. GtstrickyTalk or C 22:59, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, a corporate acquisition of little general interest - happy for something to be merged into the relevant company articles, but I'm not sure that any of the writing in the article is of a suitably high quality to keep. If kept, needs major work, as it is poorly written, overly promotional in tone, and not written like an encyclopædia article. Lankiveil (speak to me) 05:49, 21 November 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 The Kingdom Keepers#Characters. SoWhy 09:45, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Isabella Angelo[edit]
- Isabella Angelo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This character does not establish notability independent of The Kingdom Keepers through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of original research and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so any coverage in the main article is enough detail on the character. TTN (talk) 23:57, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to main article and request a protection if it doesn't stick. - Mgm|(talk) 00:05, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- merge and redirect Article's subject may not be notable, but individual pieces of information do not need to pass WP:N, just WP:V. --Kraftlos (talk) 04:34, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 21:52, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 21:52, 16 November 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 19:47, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to The Kingdom Keepers#Characters. Character not that notable on their own, but information might be useful in the context of the list. Lankiveil (speak to me) 05:42, 21 November 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 Tim Vickers (talk) 23:28, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Becca Lish[edit]
- Becca Lish (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
No biographical sources. A few marginally notable voice acting roles but no real sources outside IMDb et al. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 22:40, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:33, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep. I understand and agree with the reasons for the nomination, but the article appears accurate and adequately sourced. I lean towards keeping it, in line with 'deletion as a last resort'. --Lockley (talk) 01:16, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as a non-notable voice actor, a few minor parts here and there, no significant third party coverage. Lankiveil (speak to me) 04:56, 15 November 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 19:46, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Notability has not been attained. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:50, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. "Filmography" is mainly appearances in to TV shows, apart from a newspaper about her wedding they are no other references. -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:37, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete A search finds no significant coverage for her. Just a basic journeyman actor - fails WP:ENTERTAINER and WP:BIO. — CactusWriter | needles 20:56, 25 November 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. reliable sources have been provided Mgm|(talk) 22:27, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Jay gluck[edit]
- Jay gluck (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
No notability or reliable sources per WP:BIO or WP:N. Would CSD, but the article describes the significance of the person. ~Beano~ (talk) (contribs) 19:45, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and cleanup. Notability is asserted and this verifies books published.[8]]— Ѕandahl ♥ 19:49, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep It's clear from this and this that he did exist and wrote the books described: a properly-sourced article is clearly possible. JohnCD (talk) 19:56, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for your source input. I tried looking this guy up but I couldn't find anything. ~Beano~ (talk) (contribs) 20:00, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 15:44, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Consider Bennett[edit]
- Consider Bennett (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable film. Seems like an advert for some amauter documentary. Lugnuts (talk) 19:36, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No hint of notability unless making a movie for very little money counts. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:48, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No third-party sources found. Only relevant search results are Youtube and Google videos. LeaveSleaves talk 16:54, 24 November 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. MBisanz talk 03:14, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What's Your Crazy Green Idea?[edit]
- What's Your Crazy Green Idea? (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Advertising which is not notable. SEWilco (talk) 19:13, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Although, as it stands, there's nothing in the article to establish notability (links to YouTube or XPrize who sponsored it don't count), there do seem to be a few matches coming up in Google News. Not sure whether this is enough to warrant a seperate article from YouTube or XPrize, but it's not a zero claim to notability case. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 19:29, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No referenced basis for notability (unrelated 3rd party sources lacking), advertising tone. Just another youtube-based contest. Probably qualifies for speedy as non-notable web content, but may as well go for consensus since it's been deleted and recreated already. Cquan (after the beep...) 19:53, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Notability not established. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:46, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I don't believe a specific contest promotion is notable, they are too common to pass [WP:N] - DustyRain (talk) 09:38, 24 November 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 21:56, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
John Olson (poet and writer)[edit]
- John Olson (poet and writer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
I entered "John Olson" into Google numerous times, each time coupled with one of his works as mentioned onto the page. Most of them received hits only in the 20s range, and one or two had sixties at most. From what I can gather, the only real claim of notability that he won an annual "Genius award" from "The Stranger", an alternative weekly newspaper in Seattle. CyberGhostface (talk) 01:02, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep. There are some secondary references to the author on google, although many of the ghits do not refer to the same person. As the recipient of the award, he is considered slightly more notable. However, the notability of the award itself is questionable. Conversely, Amazon proves he's well published. Billscottbob (talk) 01:27, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and develop. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:13, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 05:29, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 05:30, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 05:30, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As a member of the innovative poetry community, I can attest that John Olson is a widely respected and influential author. He represents an American strain of surrealist and Dada writing and has been published by prominent presses and in countless literary magazines. His book of selected poems, BACKSCATTER, was published by Black Widow Press. Check out the web site of Black Widow and you'll see their list of authors is world class. And I don't know how CyberGhostface performed his Google search, but when I searched John Olson's name coupled with BACKSCATTER I got 194 hits on this new title. It would do a great disservice to Wikipedia's mission of representing a broad spectrum of cultural activity, as opposed to corporate-sponsored trivia, to delete John Olson's entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ignaz Mees (talk • contribs) 03:41, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You're about 100 hits off. If you had clicked on the later numbers, you would have seen the number of hits decrease dramatically. And I don't see how being published by "Black Widow" makes you automatically notable, either, as it appears to be a rather small indie publisher.--CyberGhostface (talk) 04:16, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi -- creator of article here, to kindly suggest considering the following, from the May 2008 on-line calendar of Open Books: A Poem Emporium (a venerable poetry bookstore): "Olson was an early winner of The Stranger's Genius Grant and is well-known in Seattle's, and the nation's, experimental writing communities." http://www.openpoetrybooks.com/calendar/archives/000322.html The Open Book people know what's up with poetry: it's their specialty. Thanks.
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:07, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep — It has minimal secondary sources establishing notability. Cleanup and better referencing would be necessary to make sure we're not here again in the future. MuZemike (talk) 19:35, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Plenty of reviews linked in the article, which look reliable. A notable small-press writer. JulesH (talk) 21:07, 20 November 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. Cirt (talk) 06:11, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Kenneth "Ken" R.L. Parker[edit]
- Kenneth "Ken" R.L. Parker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Was speedied but article improved, however there must be 100s if not 1000s of candidates for Mayor and I see no indication that this person is in any way notable! Paste (talk) 19:00, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Newton is basically the same size as Cambridge, MA and their mayor has a Wiki page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._Denise_Simmons
Their city manager has a page....he's not elected http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_W._Healy
Also several current members of the Cambridge, MA City Council have their own Wiki pages, which can be seen in the Cambridge, MA wiki page. Newton's population is 85,000 and Cambridge is 100,000. Ken Parker is a current office holder in Newton.
Searching for candidates...unsigned comment added by Spfitz (talk • contribs) 19:20, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I can see that both Healy and Simmons are notable, Parker is not in my opinion! Paste (talk) 19:25, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
City Councillor Toomey's notability seems similar to Parkers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spfitz (talk • contribs) 19:28, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Northampton MA mayor has a page, and her City is a third of the size of Newton. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spfitz (talk • contribs) 19:34, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The mayor of Newton has an article David B. Cohen (mayor)? Paste (talk) 19:57, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I guess Mayor Cohen does have an entry. I'm guessing he didn't write it. It seems to me that there are many cities that are comparable or smaller in size to Newton whose elected officials have Wiki pages. As an at-large alderman, Parker represents the entire City of 85,000 people, has held office for 17 years and is a credible candidate for mayor.--Shawn P. Fitzgibbons (talk) 20:07, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Notability not established. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:44, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Mayors or city managers of even medium sized cities normally have pages in Wikipedia, and Newton is large enough to qualify.Candidates for mayor? perhaps major party candidates for the very largest cities--but they will almost always have done sufficient to have an article anyway-and multiple news stories. We seem to sometimes accept now major party candidates for positions in national legislatures, and these will usually have substantial political backgrounds as well. (I would urge we accept them all, in countries with a clear 2 or possibly 3 party system). But candidates for mayor in small or medium size cities? No. As for city councils, I remember when we had quite an argument before we got that accepted for Chicago. It is accepted now for large cities. newton is not a large city. Perhaps we need numerical cutoffs, but it will also depend to some extent to which the city is prominent nationally or internationally. DGG (talk) 15:08, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete - why though would elected officials who serve on City Councils be allowed pages? Ken is a long time elected official. At the time of his election, he was one of the youngest elected representatives of a city the size of Newton. Also, there are many mayors and even city managers who have wiki pages who are from much smaller cities. A city manager is simply an appointed administrator. As an at large alderman, in Newton, Ken Parker represents many more people. He also serves as a member of the Massachusetts State Democratic Party.--132.183.223.35 (talk) 20:12, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your point about City Councils would hold true if there were no other city councilors with Wiki pages, but there are as I noted at the top. Also, you point out that the City should be noteworthy. Newton, MA is a noteworthy city in many ways as you can see on the city's Wikipedia page. Just this week it was once again rated the 4th safest city in the country. It is home to nationally prominent individuals from many fields including sports, academia and business. --132.183.223.35 (talk) 15:12, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you establish his notability with substantial coverage in reliable media? ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:55, 24 November 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. —Mizu onna sango15Hello! 17:08, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Montreal's Community Garden's - A Personal Guide[edit]
- Montreal's Community Garden's - A Personal Guide (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Original research essay. Furthermore, WP:NOT a travel guide. KurtRaschke (talk) 18:54, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- See also Montreal's Community Gardens and Montreal community garden, both currently listed at Proposed Deletion. Uncle G (talk) 19:51, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Note the references at the end of the article. -- Eastmain (talk) 21:31, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This sure looks like a copyvio. Or is it just an essay? ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:38, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Reads like a travel guide, or, even worse, an advertizement. Additionally, I can say that even at a local level this program is not notable enough to warrant anything more than a passing mention in the article Montreal. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 13:34, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete A travel personal essay. Wikipedia is not a place to host your articles or essays. Doc StrangeMailboxLogbook 16:25, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- USERFY so the author can start over after getting educated on the wiki way. The article should also be renamed when it is re-created. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 04:30, 24 November 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 clear Spartaz Humbug! 22:32, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Bjørn Sagvolden[edit]
- Bjørn Sagvolden (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Not notable; soapbox. Recently deleted from the Norwegian Wikipedia. — the Sidhekin (talk) 17:46, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:SOAPBOX. --Kjetil r (talk) 17:51, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, as quoted. Beware of redirects. --Orland (talk) 18:08, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. --KEN (talk) 18:46, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: If this article is deleted, the closing admin should remove the section Forsvarets_Spesialkommando_(FSK)#FSK-special_forces_soldiers as well. --Kjetil r (talk) 19:03, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Question: The sentence: "In 1982 he was one of the pioneers during the establishment of the special forces of the Norwegian Ministry of Defence, Forsvarets Spesialkommando (FSK) He performed FSK's first official military dive with oxygen in 1983, off the coast of Horten" seems to imply notability. Can someone explain why it should still be deleted, and why it was deleted from the Norwegian WP to begin with? (I'm not going to follow their lead blindly if I don't know why they did it). - Mgm|(talk) 19:15, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That the accident took place during an «first official» event seems to be one journalist's idea[9] – if anything, the impression I get from other sources is that this was a «secret» event, and a routine event at that – it seems he had made similar dives "7–8 times privately in the 1½ years past, aside from several dives on duty".[10]
- Moreover, it presents only Sagvoldens side of the story – deviating far from the view presented even in the referenced sources, the first of which opens the lead with telling us the Sagvolden is charged with 40 crimes ("I alt er Ellingsrud-mannen Bjørn Sagvolden tiltalt for 40 forhold") and opens the main text by telling us that neighbors, parking valets, ex-neighbors, and ex-bosses are accusing him of among other things threats of violence, unprovoked violence, harrassment(?), and violation of privacy ("Naboer, parkeringsvakter, tidligere naboer og tidligere overordnede har anmeldt ham for blant annet voldstrusler, umotivert vold, sjikane og krenking av privatlivets fred").
- And what it does tell us of his current case – with a single, fairly short newspaper article as the only "source" – is similarly one-sided. The testimony in court that supports his view is referenced, while the testimony that doesn't, is not.
- I'm not sure under what soapbox heading I should put it – propaganda? a thinly veiled opinion piece? scandal mongering or gossip? certainly the original author (who is not the user who translated it to English) has a strong personal involvement – just check the talk page – but what makes it a soapbox article in my view, is the lopsided presentation, where Sagvolden is presented as a pioneer, a victim, and an accuser, while ignoring what others think or say of him, except to the extent that it fits with his own ideas. — the Sidhekin (talk) 19:48, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply : Mister Sagvolden has 40 "anmeldelser". However, where/what are the charges, that possibly made it, to court ? When 40 crimes are reported by police, generally, then 40 ( or less, or none ) will actually make it to court. Were any "anmeldelser " for speeding etc. ? If he was convicted for 1 or 40 "counts" in a court of law, then what were the counts ?
- And if he was concicted on 1 or 40 counts, eventually which 1 ( or 40 ) were wiki-relevant.
- ( Also, it is my right to make frivolous crime report, one time every day for 40 days, concerning wiki-user the Sidhekin. However, a person making frivolous crime-reports, are subject to punishment, if the frivolous crime reports are false. You have the right, to be dishonest. However, the judiciaries regulate, that such actions are punishable, by law. )
- Furthermore, I claim that Mister "the Sidhekin " is "soapbox"-ing on this arena ! ( Similar to a claim, that he has made about me. For the rest of the discussion, may we please not attach labels, to our opponents, in this debate ? Let us simply stick to argument, about what is true, and what is not true.
- What is documented well, and what possibly is not documented well. Sju hav (talk) 03:12, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment : I disagree with the comment from " --Kjetil r " . The Forsvarets Spesialkommando-article, has nothing to do with this discussion. Sju hav (talk) 04:46, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not encyclopedic. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:35, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Propaganda in connection with the ongoing lawsuit. 3s (talk) 08:37, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment : I think the subject of the article is notable, but unfortunately the article does not tell the whole story, as Sidhekin points out, and it seems futile to correct this. --Mollerup (talk) 08:54, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:SOAPBOX. The relevant redirects and similar inserts into other artcles should also be checked.Inge (talk) 17:55, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:SOAPBOX, with the same warnings about redirects and links mentioned by others. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 18:06, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:SOAPBOX. Blue Elf (talk) 20:39, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep E92f+ (talk) 21:11, 21 November 2008 (UTC) — E92f+ (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.Sock per checkuser. Daniel (talk) 00:00, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- comment [11]... Finn Rindahl (talk) 22:42, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete! Subject might be notable, but article fails to indicate this. Claiming that he was one of the pioneers during the establishment of FSK without elaborating isn't good enough in my opinion, and this is apparently the only thing he might be notable for. Bjelleklang - talk 23:57, 21 November 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 (G7) courtesy of J.delanoy. Non-admin closure. Ecoleetage (talk) 18:15, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Brodie's Little Brats[edit]
- Brodie's Little Brats (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
I suspect this as a hoax and serves nothing but to attack. I've no knowledge about Canadian politics, but I've tried to search this and Google gives no hits. If there are reliable sources to support this article, then I'd say this article stays. Dekisugi (talk) 17:21, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete. I can't tell if it's a hoax or an attack page (it might be both: a hoax created to attack people), but either way it does not belong in Wikipedia. Like the nominator, I got zero ghits on "Brodie's Little Brats". --Orlady (talk) 17:31, 20 November 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. While all users are welcome and noone's !vote is more important than someone elses, here the only ones in favor of keeping where those associated with the subject,. That said, the consensus, even if the discussion is long, is for deletion. SoWhy 09:51, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Chicago:1968[edit]
- Chicago:1968 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This is essentially an ad placed here by the artist who draws the strip (username: LenKody). Speedy and prod tags were deleted by an anonymous IP who has a very similar edit list to LenKody. --Bachrach44 (talk) 17:12, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Article is objective
The article is objective. There is no "advertising language" used in the body of the article. There are already red links looking for the article in other articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lenkody (talk • contribs) 17:26, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment: above comment (unsigned) reformatted as use of section heading was screwing up the format of the rest of today's AfD MadScot (talk) 17:38, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- comment For my own part, article does not appear to meet GNG; no WP:RS cited, and no real assertion of notability either. I won't !vote yet, because I can't do a thorough check for sources, but it looks weak right now. MadScot (talk) 17:42, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No advertising language is necessary to demonstrate the nature of the author's edits [12], all of which have been to promote his webcomic. These included additions to articles about Richard J. Daley and Abbie Hoffman that said "Richard J. Daley appears as a character in the weekly webcomic Chicago:1968" and "Abbie Hoffman appears as a character in the weekly webcomic Chicago:1968". This is not the place to promote books, businesses, candidacies... or web comics. Mandsford (talk) 17:48, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't Delete It is simply a more in depth look a piece of work that is already mentioned (and linked) on the site. For reference, here is the Shadowline page [13] and a link to another piece of work entitled Platinum Grit listed there [14].
- I see no difference between the two. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JoeKody (talk • contribs) 17:53, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't Delete Despite what some might perceive the author's intentions to be for writing the article, the article is objective and informative. Perceived intent shouldn't interfere with the evaluation of the finished product. In fact, the intent of writing the article is to compliment and more fully flesh out the information provided on the Shadowline [15] article on Wikipedia —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lenkody (talk • contribs) 18:26, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- In Closing I've learned a lot about what Wikipedia finds acceptable and what it doesn't through the method of experience. I took that experience and did my best to create an objective and informational an article, taking great pains to not even have a hint of what might seem like an ad. I believe the article is necessary and unbiased --Lenkody (talk) 18:42, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Articles included on Wikipedia have to demonstrate notability. This is determined by showing they have been covered by newspaper, media, or other mainstream media. You can enter wp: notability and wp: references in the search box for more information. Good luck. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:47, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability Most notably, Chicago:1968 was covered twice by the Chicago Tribune's arts and entertainment paper, the RedEye[16][17]. It's also been covered by independent comics media outlets. And is affiliated with Image Comics' Shadowline imprint, a long established publisher with a community of webcomics (some of which already have their own wikipedia entries). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lenkody (talk • contribs) 18:58, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- KEEP I'm the person most recently held responsible for keeping the Shadowline wiki page updated. There are numerous other stubs and articles which began this very same way. As the Shadowline Wiki already made reference to Chicago:1968 months ago and in conjunction with the other references in the media to Chicago: 1968 I believe this article should not be deleted. It is not an advertisement any more than the Wiki page for Law and Order is an advertisement for the TV show. Give the page time to develop. Should we really not allow the creator to recognize that there are parallels to be drawn between the Convention (and election) 40 years ago to what happened this past year. This page will certainly draw parallels to both eras as the webcomic evolves along with this article. Please don't be so aggressive with deletion. As the rules of Wikipedia Deletion state, not all articles are created equally in the beginning. Supermarc (talk) 19:13, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Who are you? Since you say you keep the Shadowline page updated I'm assuming you have another user name. It makes things easier if you keep all your wiki edits under the same username. --Bachrach44 (talk) 20:11, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm Me This is my only username and I only signed up for this today. My prior work on the Shadowline Wiki was prior to me signing up for one. My real name is Marc Lombardi and I do freelance work for Shadowline comics. Supermarc (talk) 20:15, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I misunderstood your original statement. (I thought you had been saying you were a wikipedia editor who kept the wikipedia Shadowline page up to date. Since this clearly wasn't the case I assumed you had two names). I understand now. Welcome. --Bachrach44 (talk) 20:52, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for the welcome. Very much appreciated, especially coming from someone who has done so much for Wikipedia (12,000+ contributions is incredible!). Please understand that while it may appear that I have a conflict of interest in adding content to the Shadowline page, I do take pride in my ability to remain neutral in the content that I add and only alter/edit information that is not factual or grammatically incorrect. I imagine that my time served editing and writing for magazines has helped me with this endeavor. I do hope that you reconsider the request for deletion on this article as, in time to come, there will be relevance. I trust Len to his word that this will not be a self-serving, ad-based article. Supermarc (talk) 21:16, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I misunderstood your original statement. (I thought you had been saying you were a wikipedia editor who kept the wikipedia Shadowline page up to date. Since this clearly wasn't the case I assumed you had two names). I understand now. Welcome. --Bachrach44 (talk) 20:52, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm Me This is my only username and I only signed up for this today. My prior work on the Shadowline Wiki was prior to me signing up for one. My real name is Marc Lombardi and I do freelance work for Shadowline comics. Supermarc (talk) 20:15, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Who are you? Since you say you keep the Shadowline page updated I'm assuming you have another user name. It makes things easier if you keep all your wiki edits under the same username. --Bachrach44 (talk) 20:11, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails WP:WEB. RayAYang (talk) 19:16, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions. -- RayAYang (talk) 19:16, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- RayAYang Read what you linked please. Explain to me how the Chicago Tribune is not a "reliable secondary source" or not "independent" of this piece of work. As Supermarc stated above, it is no different than any other page on this site that talks about other topics on various media outlets. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JoeKody (talk • contribs) 19:25, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I suggest reading the comments made by experienced editors and fixing the article accordingly. Have you added the articles you mention and cited them? Are they sufficient to establish notability according to the guidelines I suggested you read? This is more effective than arguing, people can change their votes and be asked to reconsider. But something has to change to warrant their reconsideration. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:34, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- adding... One of the Tribune links is already up. I'll add some more of the press to the external links section. Remember this is just the stub. There is lots of room for this article to grow. The content goes beyond webcomics to address history and present day politics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lenkody (talk • contribs) 19:52, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fails WP:WEB and WP:RS, serious WP:COI. This AfD appears to have been compromised by sock puppeteering/vote stacking. Wyatt Riot (talk) 20:21, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There is nothing illegitimate about the entry in question. Wiki is loaded with entries for other comic book periodicals, so to single out this one for no earthly reason is questionable. Len is remaining very respectable in this matter, and the in-house biasness being exhibited by Wiki-mods is revolting. -Richard Caldwell/nilskidoo
- comment This article was speedy deleted before as G11: blatant advertising. --Bachrach44 (talk) 20:57, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete as spam; the lack of promotional language does not disguise the promotional intent of the article; and the subject-matter appears not to be notable. AlexTiefling (talk) 00:23, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Your perception of what the article's intent might be isn't as important as the article's content, which is unbiased and informative. or the article's purpose, which is to provide further information from a blank link in another wikipedia article about this webcomic that was noted by a national print newspaper, the Chicago Tribune.--Lenkody (talk) 13:57, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The problem gentlemen is that you have to establish notability. The way to do that is to demonstrate this subject is notable and has been written about by established and reliable media. As a new comic, it may not meet the requisite criteria for inclusion. It's not a conspiracy, it's not an attack on any of you, it's just editors following the rules and guidelines of what is included and what isn't in this encyclopedia. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:48, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You have a list of restaurants who you think warrant entries. An eatery means more than a crafted work? A webcomic that gets more hits than anything with your name on it does not live up to "criteria"? You ARE biased, and sorely behind the times. Having mod powers on an encyclopedia site is not an excuse for a power trip, and not an excuse for you to ostracize something that is apparently lightyears beyond your grasp. I could even argue that any entry concerning a living person or ongoing work or existing business is just another advert, hypocrite. Richard Caldwell/nilskidoo
- Delete as non-notable. Majoreditor (talk) 04:31, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Question any reviews or 3rd party references besides the Chicago Tribune? DGG (talk) 06:00, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The Tribune is a national newspaper, on par with the New York Times, LA Times, or Boston Globe. I did, however, include some links to news services that are quite respected inside the world of comics/entertainment. Newsarama, for instance, is the gold standard for comics industry news. According to Wikipedia, Newsarama has been quoted as a source of comics news by the New York Times and Entertainment Weekly. The Publishers Weekly online column, The Beat, is also a respected source of comics news for the mainstream media.--Lenkody (talk) 13:57, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Something to keep in mind is that graphic novels are on the cutting edge of publishing (which is why Publishers Weekly has taken note of them), and that webcomics are on the cutting edge of graphic novels. Much like Wikipedia is on the cutting edge of encyclopedic information on the Internet. These are valid cultural phenomenons that are just starting to poke through and be recognized by traditional media outlets as relevant. I think Chicago:1968's being noted by the more tech savvy, progressive arms of the Chicago Tribune and Publishers Weekly is pretty notable given the unique challenges of Internet-based media to achieve "notability."--Lenkody (talk) 14:47, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Graphic novels are most certainly notable and have an article. What isn't clear is whether this particular comic is notable based on our guidelines. I haven't seen any sign of in depth coverage of this comic beyond brief mentions that acknowledge its existence. Maybe you should make your case to the New York Times and Washington Post?ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:17, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The audio interview with the Chicago Tribune's RedEye columnist [18] is certainly more than just a brief mention of the comic's existence. Scroll down and listen to it. It is an extended, in depth interview with myself and my collaborator. Perhaps the NYT or the Post would be equally interested in a story about Chicago history as the Chicago Tribune is. But, at that point, we're setting the bar awfully high for "notability," aren't we? And since when was the credibility of the Tribune ever in question? --Lenkody (talk) 18:40, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- A blog entry of that type (part of Comic-con coverage) is significant, but an article in the paper would have made a stronger case. When established and reliable media determine the comic is notable and cover it, that will go a long way to support its inclusion in Wikipedia. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:47, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Absolutely, the bar is set quite high for notability, but that's the point. The inclusion criteria on Wikipedia is significant coverage in reliable, third-party, published sources that are independent of the subject. In other words, if multiple major news sources aren't talking about something, it doesn't belong here. This is a core principle of Wikipedia. Wyatt Riot (talk) 19:30, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- A blog entry of that type (part of Comic-con coverage) is significant, but an article in the paper would have made a stronger case. When established and reliable media determine the comic is notable and cover it, that will go a long way to support its inclusion in Wikipedia. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:47, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The audio interview with the Chicago Tribune's RedEye columnist [18] is certainly more than just a brief mention of the comic's existence. Scroll down and listen to it. It is an extended, in depth interview with myself and my collaborator. Perhaps the NYT or the Post would be equally interested in a story about Chicago history as the Chicago Tribune is. But, at that point, we're setting the bar awfully high for "notability," aren't we? And since when was the credibility of the Tribune ever in question? --Lenkody (talk) 18:40, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't get me wrong I think it's a good thing Wikipedia has such great standards. But I don't think I'd have to dig too deep to find Wikipedia articles that don't meet the standards you've just stated - that the subject of an article must not only be noted by a paper of the Chicago Tribune's esteem, but by the Washington Post and New York Times, as well. I assert that Chicago:1968 is notable because it has been noted by the local Chicago press (even nationally recognized outlets like the Trib), and the comics/entertainment media, like Newsarama and Publishers Weekly's online comics column. Also, the comic is not an independently run operation. It is featured content on the Shadowline website, an imprint of Image Comics. Which is in a whole different league than a dude with a blog who puts comics on it.--Lenkody (talk) 19:52, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You have tried your best to convince us that your webcomic is notable, and I don't think that any of us are at all convinced. "Chicago:1968" is one of hundreds of webcomics that exist on "Webcomics Nation", which permits anybody [19] to create and manage their own webcomics account. But what many of us find worse is the use of Wikipedia to promote yourself. I think it's great that people have an outlet for their artistic talents. Wikipedia is a godsend for many a talented writer who has been blocked out of the world of publishing. Wikipedia's standards are flexible enough that the editors are permitted to make their arguments about whether something is notable enough for its own article. But Wikipedia also has some inflexible standards when it comes to self-promotion, and this particular internet site is not a vehicle for getting someone to notice someone's weekly internet comic strip. It's clear that the article "Chicago:1968" is nothing more than a blue-link to insert into other articles on the online encyclopedia. You can write words about and draw pictures of Mayor Daley and Abbie Hoffman on your corner of the internet. But it's egotistical to edit an article about the famous (or infamous) Richard J. Daley in order to include a promo that "Richard J. Daley is a character in a webcomic to be found here". The mere fact that the Trib mentioned an internet site while reminiscing about the '68 convention is not the attainment of fame. I imagine that someone will write a comic, or make a great video, or sell stovepipe hats during Lincoln's bicentennial in time for February 2009, but that won't justify an article either. I hope that some day that you make it into print, or even get syndicated in newspapers; or that you make it on to other internet sites. But Chicago:1968's stay on Wikipedia must draw to a close. Mandsford (talk) 00:54, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- With all due respect, Mandsford, there are right ways and wrong ways to respond to a civil discussion here in the AfD section of Wikipedia and your "input" above is both rude and condescending. Not only that but you make assumptions that are not only incorrect but also ignorrant. I think it's very sad that you are a representative of Wikipedia's "article selection committee" and hopefully your brashness and ill-formed opinions have not prevented other notable articles from receiving inclusion in the apparenly prestigious realm of Wikipedia. May I recommend that you also make yourself familiar with these two particular portions of the Wikipedia:COI page: "Importance of civility / During debates in articles' talk pages and at articles for deletion, disparaging comments may fly about the subject of the article/author and the author's motives. These may border on personal attacks, and may discourage the article's creator from making future valuable contributions." and "Avoid using the word "vanity" or similar judgmental terms — this is accusatory and discouraging. It is not helpful, nor reason to delete an article. Assuming good faith, start from the idea that the contributor was genuinely trying to help increase Wikipedia's coverage." I don't think that you or some of the other professional Wikipedia mods and editors in this discussion have abided by those official recommendations.Supermarc (talk) 00:08, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You have tried your best to convince us that your webcomic is notable, and I don't think that any of us are at all convinced. "Chicago:1968" is one of hundreds of webcomics that exist on "Webcomics Nation", which permits anybody [19] to create and manage their own webcomics account. But what many of us find worse is the use of Wikipedia to promote yourself. I think it's great that people have an outlet for their artistic talents. Wikipedia is a godsend for many a talented writer who has been blocked out of the world of publishing. Wikipedia's standards are flexible enough that the editors are permitted to make their arguments about whether something is notable enough for its own article. But Wikipedia also has some inflexible standards when it comes to self-promotion, and this particular internet site is not a vehicle for getting someone to notice someone's weekly internet comic strip. It's clear that the article "Chicago:1968" is nothing more than a blue-link to insert into other articles on the online encyclopedia. You can write words about and draw pictures of Mayor Daley and Abbie Hoffman on your corner of the internet. But it's egotistical to edit an article about the famous (or infamous) Richard J. Daley in order to include a promo that "Richard J. Daley is a character in a webcomic to be found here". The mere fact that the Trib mentioned an internet site while reminiscing about the '68 convention is not the attainment of fame. I imagine that someone will write a comic, or make a great video, or sell stovepipe hats during Lincoln's bicentennial in time for February 2009, but that won't justify an article either. I hope that some day that you make it into print, or even get syndicated in newspapers; or that you make it on to other internet sites. But Chicago:1968's stay on Wikipedia must draw to a close. Mandsford (talk) 00:54, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please educate yourself on the topic before you speak up, Mandsford. After reading your above comment I am to conclude that you did about two minutes worth of research with a deletion bias before posting that unbelievably condescending piece of garbage. First off this webcomic is NOT just carried on the "Webcomics Nation" site, it is also part of Shadowline Comics [[20]]. Now seeing by your blatant ignorance about the subject of webcomics and comics in general, I will tell (as others here have mentioned many times) that Shadowline is part of Image Comics[[21]]. So to make it sound like this is simply a guy who threw up a webcomic on free site and is hoping to use Wikipedia as a mean of advertisement is incorrect. Wikipedia has a page about Image Comics which includes a link to one of its divisions, Shadowline. On the Shadowline page there is a link to projects that it currently working on, one of which is Chicago:1968. So please tell me why if someone who is reading up on Shadowline and sees a title like Chicago:1968 that grabs their interest that there can not be a Wiki page about it? Also your can save your "hopes" that maybe someday Len Kody will "make it into print" because he already has numerous times [22]. Your comments about getting "syndicated in a newspaper" and reference to a "comic strip" only amplifies your ignorance on the subject. As I sat back rereading your comment and trying to figure out why you would lash out so inappropriately one line stuck out..."Wikipedia is a godsend for many a talented writer who has been blocked out of the world of publishing." I'm sorry you never made it in to the world of publishing, but stop trying to impose your outdated and uneducated view on a subject you know very little about. Maybe you should save your "hopes" about getting published or syndicated for yourself and someday you can stop hiding behind a keyboard. Until then, I would remove yourself from the article selection committee as not only do you embarress yourself but are detrimental to the growth of Wikipedia as a whole. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JoeKody (talk • contribs) 16:25, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Beg your pardon, but I think I've made it clear by now that Chicago:1968 goes through an editorial process by a professional publishing company - ShadowLine Comics. It's true that I launched the comic from Webcomics Nation, and maintain my updates there. But since then, I was invited to be part of the regularly updated content on the ShadowLine website by their editorial staff. Jim Valentino had to okay the strip before he let it become part of his website's content. ShadowLine is an imprint of Image Comics. The comic has met the rigors of professional editors. And they have chosen to attach their company's name to it.--Lenkody (talk) 03:28, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If it's as notable as you say it is, there should be plenty of references from reliable, third-party published sources proving so, and that's what we're looking for here. You also do realize that, as the author of this comic, you are strongly discouraged from editing this article, correct? Wyatt Riot (talk) 05:52, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Re:"...you are strongly discouraged from editing this article" Yeah. That makes sense. When I saw the red link on the ShadowLine entry I clicked it and it brought me to a page asking me if I wanted to write an article on the subject. So I did. And, well, here we are. If the article gets to stay, I'll leave all future edits to the hive mind. That is the Wikipedia way, after all.--Lenkody (talk) 11:10, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If it's as notable as you say it is, there should be plenty of references from reliable, third-party published sources proving so, and that's what we're looking for here. You also do realize that, as the author of this comic, you are strongly discouraged from editing this article, correct? Wyatt Riot (talk) 05:52, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Notability not established. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:12, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Notability HAS been established, just that your regulations are contradictory enough so as to block out any topics you yourself remain personally ignorant on. Mindsets like some of those here are the ones insistent that comics are but sunday funnies fare, or men in tights purporting acts of violence upon themselves, while in truth the medium is vastly more than that. The strip cited is historical fiction, though well researched and so educational. Web-comix in particular, as with all modes of technologically based forms of information/communication, are growing rapidly enough so that the standards of this cite must adapt with the times. Don't make me post links to the MANY forums on the net wherein wiki is openly criticized for just this manner of discrepancy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Decan lude (talk • contribs) 18:40, 24 November 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. —Mizu onna sango15Hello! 17:07, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rodney Morison[edit]
- Rodney Morison (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Not Wikipedia notable. There does not appear to be enough reliable, secondary published sources independent of the subject and with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy to maintain an independent article on this topic. -- Suntag ☼ 17:04, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. -- Elonka 17:08, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- Elonka 17:09, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- Elonka 17:10, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There may not be lots of google hits for this person, but since his obit comes from a educational institution, I doubt it is a hoax. Also, most of his life was in the pre-internet era. I'm not comfortable deleting this before someone checked newspaper records either in Lexis Nexis or offline. (I have access in 13 hours at the earliest) - Mgm|(talk) 19:24, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 00:59, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Get some refs and I'll happily change my "comment" to a keep. Ryan4314 (talk) 01:31, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep -- The problem is that the creator went away and stopped expanding it. The proximity fuse is a notable invention. Its inventor is said to have had other patents, suggesting monor notability, but until we are told what they are, we cannot really judge. Note. I have just removed the longstanding promise to expand and substituted a stub-tag. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:47, 21 November 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 Law & Order: Special Victims Unit (season 6). SoWhy 09:44, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hooked (Law & Order: Special Victims Unit)[edit]
- Hooked (Law & Order: Special Victims Unit) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable episode, no secondary sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 16:48, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:50, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, love the series and all, but this is not a notable episode. No significant coverage in reliable, third party sources, no awards, nothing ground breaking about it. Just plot summary and quotes/trivia likely lifted from IMDB. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:54, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge with the Episode list article per established precedent. Note there are also several other episode articles from this particular season, which should also be merged. Per WP:NPOV we cannot make the determination which episodes are more notable than others, therefore all get articles or all are merged into a single list. 23skidoo (talk) 19:17, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I wouldn't say that. If one won an Emmy or something, it would clearly be more notable than the others.
- Merge and redirect to the episode list article. - Mgm|(talk) 19:37, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and/or redirect to LoE. I tagged this along with all other L&O eps for lack of notability last month and intended to bold-redirect it in December (i.e. 2 months on probation), but if you want to delete it now, go ahead. Per WP:NOT#PLOT, WP:NOTABILITY, and WP:DEADLINE#View one, as usual. – sgeureka t•c 20:36, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge - to the episode list article...no reason that this is notable DavidWS (contribs) 23:17, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge but only if a proper merge is done. Too many of the existing merged episodes here are inadequate; they need to indicate the resolution of the episode, if there is one. A episode summary ending in a teaser is not encyclopedic. I'd also advocate putting in more real world information, such as the playing time and production details--but arguing this is for another place. The only excuse for even discussing how to do the merge is when something that could be merged is brought here for delete--just as we sometimes explain what a spammy article would need to be acceptable. DGG (talk) 18:06, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete this as non-notable outside and create a nice list of episodes with short summaries. -- Magioladitis (talk) 01:38, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. John254 22:56, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
===Van Duyn v. Home Office===this case was important because it established that a directive can have direct effect
- Van Duyn v. Home Office (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of facts; the article is incredibly unclear, provides little context, and one reference. KurtRaschke (talk) 16:10, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:53, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:53, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
*Speedy Delete Fails WP:RS and completely unclear as to what this is about... to the point that I feel that it should be tagged with a {{db-nonsense}}. --Pmedema (talk) 17:07, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, but needs improvement. A quick Google search for the title indicates that this case is considered notable in EU law, because it was one of the first to deal with the rights of movement of workers between EU jurisdictions. (Further, EU law is less well-covered than U.S. law and British common law on Wikipedia; it would be nice to expand its coverage a little bit.) The article itself is a mess...and is already tagged for improvement on those counts. TheFeds 17:57, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I don't think the existing material is going to provide help for a redraft. Just make sure that a possibly interested WikiProject is informed of the potential article before it is nuked. - Mgm|(talk) 19:45, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep article rewritten into something vaguely useful. 600+ book citations [24] means this clearly is notable case of international law. Set multiple precedents. Article still needs work but is at least a stub now. --Rividian (talk) 20:23, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - a notable precedent in international law. - Richard Cavell (talk) 21:56, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as notable case. Should be expanded. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:01, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as it seems to be a notable case. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:24, 23 November 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. (non-admin closure) — neuro(talk) 17:29, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Frog Princess (novel)[edit]
- The Frog Princess (novel) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Declined speedy; no context, no sources, and not encyclopedic. KurtRaschke (talk) 16:05, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- RayAYang (talk) 16:55, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, this article needed some work. I cleaned it up and added a reception section with reviews from the following reliable sources Publishers Weekly, Booklist and School Library Journal. So the article now passes the requirements of WP:BK. --Captain-tucker (talk) 17:53, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep following the changes by Captain-tucker. RayAYang (talk) 19:07, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep with changes--Beligaronia (talk) 19:08, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Satsifies notability. 23skidoo (talk) 19:18, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per WP:HEY and recommend withdrawing this AfD now. – sgeureka t•c 20:41, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep. Article is now a classic example of what an article on a low-importance novel should look like. Three reliable sources providing real world context combined with a short & to-the-point plot summary. Good work. JulesH (talk) 21:11, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The book is evidently a best-seller -- 1212 libraries according to WorldCat. It's quite possible that the ed. who started the article didn'tknow thatthe book is actually a notable one by objective standards, but so it turns out to be. that's why we don't do speedies on books. DGG (talk) 22:48, 20 November 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 Susan McClary. MBisanz talk 20:22, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Constructions of Subjectivity in Franz Schubert's Music[edit]
- Constructions of Subjectivity in Franz Schubert's Music (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Article is a point-by-point summary of an essay that does not appear to have any inherent notability. Unable to find reliable sources that give substanital coverage (the only source cited in the article is the essay itself), and it has only been cited 7 times according to Google Scholar. SheepNotGoats (Talk) 15:37, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:23, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been notified to WikiProject Classical music and WikiProject LGBT studies. - Voceditenore (talk) 19:15, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteThis sort of thing is inappropriate for Wikipedia (see WP:NOT); we're not a respository of reviews of music criticism. Thus, I did not find it necessary to research notability issues. RayAYang (talk) 16:57, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]- Change to Keep following voceditenore's edits. I wasn't aware the essay was that famous; in this case, it seems Google Scholar was misleading. There's a considerable difference between an academic article with 7 citations and an article that gets discussed at length in multiple books, as well as mentions in the popular press. RayAYang (talk) 19:53, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keepand re-write as a brief but viable stub with proper references to secondary sources. Or at the worst re-direct to Susan McClary. It's currently a badly written bit of original reasearch, but the essay itself is quite notable, apart from Google Scholar there are these three articles which include the New York Times. Quote from NYT (Anthony Tommasini , What's So Gay About American Music?, New York Times, October 24, 2004...
- [...] a well-known musicologist, Susan McClary, winner of a MacArthur Foundation "genius" award, whose contentious 1991 article "Constructions of Subjectivity in Schubert's Music" became a manifesto for a number of queer theorists. Ms. McClary tried to identify homosexual qualities in the slow movement of Schubert's "Unfinished" Symphony. Her notion that Schubert was inviting listeners to "forgo the security of a centered, stable tonality" and "experience - even enjoy - a flexible sense of self," has always struck me as a convoluted way to account for perfectly explicable disruptions of key.
- But Ms. McClary's lead was followed by smart critics like K. Robert Schwarz, long a contributor to The New York Times, who died in 1999. Schwarz wrote impassioned liner notes for a shamelessly commercial though perfectly harmless 1995 recording, "Out Classics: Seductive Classics by the World's Greatest Gay Composers.[...]
- This essay is also mentioned in over 35 books, several of which devote considerable space to it [25] (Note the first one is the book that contains her essay - Queering the Pitch: The New Gay and Lesbian Musicology- so that doesn't count) Voceditenore (talk) 18:57, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Change to Merge Banjiboi's link [26] (below) isn't compelling in itself as this simply goes to the essay reprinted in Queering the Pitch where McClary discusses the controversy the paper originally generated. From the NYT articles on the subject from 1992 onwards, it did cause a kerfuffle involving several well-known critics, e.g., [27], [28], [29], [30], [31],[32]. Having said that, I now have serious reservations about keeping this as a separate article, apart from the "articles about articles" issue. For one thing the title is wrong as it implies that the article about Schubert's music, not about a particular work/theory by McClary. It also implies that "constructions of subjectivity" in his music actually exist, when this is a moot point. Since it's a clearly notable essay, material about it and the references should be located in her article. I'm going to write a section about it in her article, and then perhaps people could consider redirecting this page there. I'll post back when I've finished. Voceditenore (talk) 06:20, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Voceditenore's excellent argument. - Mgm|(talk) 19:50, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, we do have articles on important articles (...er, sorry about that!), such as Disneyland with the Death Penalty, and given Voceditenore's arguments, this seems to be important. --Jashiin (talk) 19:58, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw as nom, if possible. The new sources presented here show my nomination was clearly misplaced. Can we speedy keep this or something? SheepNotGoats (Talk) 20:19, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]- Ok, for what it's worth, I'm withdrawing my withdrawal, since this is now too contended for a Speedy Keep to apply. SheepNotGoats (Talk) 18:58, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Susan McClary. The present article IMO is not encyclopedic. We don't need articles about articles. Articles about authors and their views are appropriate, hence this could be a worthwhile section on the Susan McClary page, crossreferenced as necessary. --Kleinzach 23:59, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete we do not and should not have articles on individual academic articles unless the articles are truly famous. I doubt the article would have even been proposed except for the context. The author is notable, perhaps her theory is notable enough for an article, a particular article she wrote setting forth her theory is not. Other publications referring to it or citing it should be considered as about her work, not about this particular essay., As the Wikipedia article under question itself concludes, "McClary's ideas on Schubert hhave generated considerable controversy," the operative words her are her ideas, and the place to discuss them is the article about her, and as a sentence or so in the discussion of Schubert. 35 references to an academic article is in any case trivial. Accepting WP articles like this is trying to say everything several times over. DGG (talk) 00:20, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I think this article may be the exception to a common understanding that academic papers don't usually become famous on their own. The article could stress it better but this apparently was a notable first in a few respects and did become famous in turn. -- Banjeboi 03:10, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete per DGG and WP:NOT. This is patently unacceptable material for an encyclopedia. Eusebeus (talk) 00:38, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Seems to have surpassed the GNG. I found this to be compelling. Article may need clean-up and certainly adding sourcing to show why we have they article would also make sense. -- Banjeboi 03:05, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Update I have written a section on this paper in Susan McClary. Despite my initial reaction to "keep", (see above for why I changed to "merge"), I would strongly suggest that this article be re-directed there where the subject can be developed within the context of her other work, preferably by editors who have actually read the original in its entirety and are familiar with the subject in general. Incidentally, the Susan McClary article is itself quite a dog's dinner and basically unreferenced apart from the new section on "Constructions of Subjectivity in Franz Schubert's Music". Voceditenore (talk) 12:50, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Susan McClary. Almost pure WP:OR as it stands, and it desperately needs cites. Nonetheless, it is a valuable discussion that only needs some cleanup. Notable enough. —La Pianista (T•C•S) 23:03, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or Merge to Susan McClary. As well as being very silly, this is largely unnotable. Lots of people write essays expressing opinions about everything under the sun. Is this widely discussed? I doubt it. Paul B (talk) 01:18, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to [[[Susan McClary]]. She, and her writing, are famous (or perhaps rather notorious?), so notability is not a problem here. It's really better to discuss individual articles in the context of the author's overall work. Opus33 (talk) 06:59, 24 November 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.
The full result should read "No consensus possible for now". Let me explain: When this article was nominated for deletion two days ago, it looked completely different (permalink) from the current revision (permalink). All discussion that took place within the last days revealed one thing: That this topic is so complex at times that people cannot even agree on the correct article name. The recommendation by Rlevse should be followed: agree upon a title and improve the article with renewed focus.
Following a suggestion by the nominator, Timtrent (talk · contribs), and after input from admins Rlevse and Jennavecia (permalink), I decided to close this AfD early because it cannot possibly lead to any consensus for reasons outlined above. This does not mean this article cannot be renominated for deletion again very soon if nothing changes. The current article name has WP:NPOV issues and the topic itself may fail WP:NOT. A new deletion discussion might even benefit the article and allow us to reach consensus on the topic.
Deletion debates are a way to reach consensus and there are several procedural points to follow when dealing with them. While "speedy keep" and "speedy delete" are valid options, "speedy no consensus" usually isn't. The whole reason why there is a 5 day period is so that there is time to reach consensus. Here, I decided to bend the rules a bit, with an interpretation of the snowball clause: Judging any consensus here will be very weak because the closing admin, who'd have to decide "keep" or "delete", cannot judge which !votes were cast for which revision of the article. So if there is no way that clear consensus can be reached, there is, going with WP:SNOW, no reason to complete the whole process. Again, I believe that consensus is possible and can be sought very soon once the article is reasonable stable. It is just not possible to be determined from this discussion.
Regards SoWhy 16:39, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
List of trans people now dead by year[edit]
- List of people killed because they were transgender (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
I was in two minds about this article. I see it may be potentially "important" in some manner and have no wish to upset LGBT folk by nominating it for deletion, but it feels like an indiscriminate collection of information, thus I am proposing it here for the community to reach a consensus upon. The article does need work if it survives, but that is not the basis of my nomination Fiddle Faddle (talk) 15:15, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been added to the list of LGBT related deletions. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 15:21, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Arbitrary section break to ease editing 0[edit]
- Keep and rename The title really doesn't do this article any favours. What it is is a list of trans people who have been murdered, not who are 'now dead' Should be renamed to something like List of murdered transgendered people by year. 'Trans' should be expanded as it's not a word that everybody may naturally understand from the title. --Ged UK (talk) 15:38, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per Ged UK - This absolutely can be improved per WP:LISTS but the name is unclear.--otherlleft (talk) 15:48, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]- Delete unless copyright problems are addressed; article has been moved to a title that establishes a clear and notable criterion for inclusion, so if it's rewritten my concerns will have been addressed. I generally don't buy the "delete so a better version can be rewritten later" argument, but copyright violations are an exception supported by policy.--otherlleft (talk) 02:25, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Wikipedia is not a memorial. Since the criteria of this list simply seems to be anyone who is transgendered and was killed by someone else, this is nothing more than a memorial. There is no real notability here, at least no more so than a list of right-handed people who were killed or list of blind people who were killed. I do not see how this list adds to the quality of information contained by Wikipedia. This is not at all an attack on this subset of the population, but the list seems non-notable. If the list was based on people killed as a result of hate crimes because they were transgendered, that would be one thing, but there is no indication in the article that these people were killed because of their "status" for lack of a better term. For all the article says, most of these people may have been killed in various altercations having nothing to do with their gender, such as due to robbery, domestic violence, etc. I therefore think this list should be removed, or converted to a list of people killed because they are transgendered, not simply people who were killed, and happened to be transgendered. Theseeker4 (talk) 16:18, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- comment You make a persuasive point. I'm hoping that the creator and others will pick up on your point and reshape this into something that is not a memorial and is worth including. I wonder if you might also join in and have a go yourself? I may have nominated it, but I'm also trying to improve it. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 16:27, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- comment I made the logical leap of that intention myself. However, rewording the lead to establish that criterion should be sufficient to address that legitimate concern.--otherlleft (talk) 16:30, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- comment I have reworded the opening paragraph to reflect the intent. I'm not a subject expert here, so have no idea which of the content to weed, however. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 16:32, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I understand the desire to keep a list that has been created, but the fact is that there are no sources to back up the intention of the list. What I mean is, the people included have no evidence that they were in fact killed because of their transgendered status. Unless citations can be provided to show the people on the list were killed for that reason, I suggest letting this list be deleted and re-creating it with a new name and with citations once the required research is complete enough for the list to survive. Theseeker4 (talk) 20:29, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- comment I have reworded the opening paragraph to reflect the intent. I'm not a subject expert here, so have no idea which of the content to weed, however. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 16:32, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:22, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:22, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy until it is significantly improved. See below. I believe that a list of transgendered people who were victims of what appear to be hate crimes is potentially encyclopedic, but this list article is not ready for article space. Not only is the article title seriously problematic, but most of the entries are unsourced (including unsourced statements about alleged perpetrators who are still living people), there is much nonneutral POV, some of the text appears (based on wording) to be copied from news sources, and the style is inappropriate.
I'm not sure what the title should be ("List of murdered transgendered people" is a good suggestion, except that it's not clear that all of these people were murdered), but I do not think it should be organized "by year." IMO, this would be effective as a wikitable arranged alphabetically by person's surname and secondarily sortable by date and location. --Orlady (talk) 16:55, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]- comment I've added {{BLP}} to the article talk page, though am not, myself, acting upon it. While it isn't a perfect warning template it will suffice for the present. Even userfied that problem still exists, though. I've put a strong request on the originator's talk page. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 17:06, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Falls into the indiscriminate collection of information area. There must be at least one LGBT wiki where this could reside happily and become a memorial page. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 17:15, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I can envision that someone might save the article to their computer hard-drive, and possibly bring it back in a form that doesn't break so many rules. Besides a non-encyclopedic style, POV (point of view) writing, and Wikipedia not being a memorial, this article suffers from a lack of citations that support the author's assumption--- i.e. that these persons were killed "primarily because of their gender status". Mandsford (talk) 18:01, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per RHaworth; further, this could be taken as an attack page, and it comes close to being listcruft. --KurtRaschke (talk) 19:04, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I don't see the point of listing people by this criteria. The fact they died in a certain year is not necessarily linked to the fact they are "trans". In the event this list is kept, it needs a new title as "trans" doesn's mean anything; if you mean transsexual/transgenered, then say so. And what the heck does "now dead" mean??? 23skidoo (talk) 19:20, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Change to Delete as copyvio(I previously said Userfy).Changing again; see below. Article looks like it was copied from this "Transgender Week of Remembrance" blog created two days before the article was created. --Orlady (talk) 20:42, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]comment I checked that blog. The article is strictly "Copyright © 2008" (see the footer) so it has no place here in that form. If someone chooses to rescue it by editing every segment that still looks unlikely to save it from deletion. I feel that "a" list of trasngender folk who have been killed because of their status is appropriate here, but this list needs to go.That concern has now been fully addressed. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 22:34, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Arbitrary section break to ease editing 1[edit]
- Weak keep Needs some further improvement for objective tone and sourcing. But basically a suitable combination article. One can;'t say "murdered" unless there is evidence that it amounts to murder, but the title does need to be clarified. DGG (talk) 22:51, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, Wikipedia is not a memorial for crossdressers. Tavix (talk) 23:48, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- comment your comment really ought to be rephrased As it stands it is capable of being read as offensive. Wikipedia is not a memorial, period. Though it may document memorials, of course. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 23:54, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: 1) Wikipedia is not a memorial. 2) Transgendered people are not cross-dressers in any relevant sense. 3) Transphobic violence is a notable topic; could this material be merged in some way to an appropriate general article? AlexTiefling (talk) 00:28, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- CommentWhile phrased a little abruptly, Tavix's comment is not entirely incorrect. Our article uses the euphemistic "gender non-conforming clothing", but the list clearly contains cross-dressers.Matt Deres (talk) 01:16, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Que? You might wish to rephrase your comment, Matt . . . "our article" gives the impression that you believe that a particular group of editors owns the content, which probably isn't what you intended. As it stands, I need to rethink my position (above) based on the copyright violations; technically I guess someone does own it as it's written right now, so it needs a big ol' rewrite if it's gonna stick around.--otherlleft (talk) 02:25, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- CommentWhile phrased a little abruptly, Tavix's comment is not entirely incorrect. Our article uses the euphemistic "gender non-conforming clothing", but the list clearly contains cross-dressers.Matt Deres (talk) 01:16, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The purpose of this article needs to be clarified first. Is it just for transsexual people, for people who identified as the opposing sex, or for cross-dressing people? Or all of the above? Whichever is chosen, the title will need to reflect that somehow (and hopefully a little more lucidly). I'm leaning towards suggesting we delete this mess and perhaps start over with more focused article(s). I'd also prefer less frequent use of euphemisms in the resulting articles. Matt Deres (talk) 01:24, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Firstly, I've boldly moved this article to a more grammatically and accurate title. Secondly this will be quite a huge list - "As of Nov. 11, the Remembering Our Dead Project reported a total of 20 reported transgender killings for 2008 — 13 people in the U.S. and seven people overseas. Since 1970, when records began to be kept, the project has reported 284 deaths in the U.S. and 126 deaths internationally." There are, of course, many people killed that were never reported to that project. Secondly, like any list, it should be cleaned-up, referenced, and uncommon terms explained. If a cross-dresser was killed for their gender expression then yes - they would seem to fit the basic criteria. Reliable sourcing can help solve these issues as well. Likewise violent death is being utilized as murder is a legal term - similar to hate crime now is. Hate might have been the motivation for the murder with a hate crime amendment but the defendant(s) may not be charged with either. The entire list can be sourced and BLP concerns addressed, of course. These are editing issues - not reasons to delete. -- Banjeboi 02:18, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Here is an interactive list with 350+ people] each link includes a brief description and source that they utilized. -- Banjeboi 02:27, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If you are committed to saving this article, you had better deal with the WP:COPYVIO situation. Adding reference citations to text that was copied verbatim from a copyrighted source does not resolve the copyvio. --Orlady (talk) 03:13, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
*Delete This list seems indiscriminate. I think the issues and notability are best addressed in the appropriate articles. But lists of people according to how they died doesn't seem notable. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:06, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep - I'm not a big fan of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but I'd like to point out:
- List of people who died in aviation accidents and incidents,
- List of people who died onstage,
- List of women who died in childbirth,
- List of people who died in road accidents,
- List of racing drivers who died in racing crashes,
- List of people who died of starvation,
- List of sports people who have died during their playing career,
- List of Mayflower passengers who died in the winter of 1620–1621,
- List of veterans of World War I who died in 2008 -- and that's just the first page of three or four in my Google search.
- But that's not a valid reason to keep. What *is* a valid reason is that the list is defined, not a memorial, properly sourced (or will be), and is notable - a search for "transgender murder hate crime" turns up 591 newspaper entries. I would also note that today, in a twist of fate, is Transgender Day of Remembrance, an event that started back in 2001 - see [33]. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 04:44, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That's good enough for me. I think recognizing what we do and don't include, and the precedents do have some significance. I'm happy to admit when I'm wrong and while this list seems rather morbid there seems to be a justification for keeping it. These lists seem more indiscriminate to me than the bow-tie and top hat controversies, but to each their own (list).ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:19, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- But that's not a valid reason to keep. What *is* a valid reason is that the list is defined, not a memorial, properly sourced (or will be), and is notable - a search for "transgender murder hate crime" turns up 591 newspaper entries. I would also note that today, in a twist of fate, is Transgender Day of Remembrance, an event that started back in 2001 - see [33]. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 04:44, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Arbitrary section break to ease editing 2[edit]
- Comment Such a list should be a list of "notable" transgendered people who were murdered, by year. That is, they should be notable for something else, like being a musician with numerous hit recordings, or being a scientist, or an entertainer, or a politician, or a writer, etc. The "Notable" is assumed in such a list. It would be a "keepable" as a list of Lesbian, Homosexual, or Heterosexual Notable people murdered by year. A list of otherwise nonnotable people who are transsexual, tonedeaf, sing in the shower, left-handed, right-handed, are tall, are short, blond, brunette, etc should be deleted as a memorial, which Wikipedia is not.Edison (talk) 06:06, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no reason a list has to be only of people who are notable - just like other lists don't require such. Some lists do add such a restriction to reign in listcreep but there's no reason to do that here. Simply noting a person who has been killed violently is hardly a memorial. -- Banjeboi 10:50, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I also disagree with Edison's point. Per WP:CLN, each item on the list does not need to be notable in and of itself, so if the topic of the list is notable, others that do not have other notable characteristics may be included.--otherlleft (talk) 16:29, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as a reasonable sub-article of Hate crime per WP:SUMMARY. This is not a memorial page, as it is not being used to honor the people on it but to document them. Otto4711 (talk) 12:04, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Withdraw Nomination on the basis that the work in progress in the article currently has rendered it to be notable, presumed free from copyright violation, and NPOV. It appears to be written in such a manner that, while conclusions may be drawn by the reader, it draws no conclusions, reporting cited facts. The people in the list donot have to be notable for the facts of the multiple deaths by virtue of their gender status to be notable. For my part all my concerns are removed. YMMV Fiddle Faddle (talk) 14:33, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- We had this on another AFD recently - basically when the AFD has run for this period of time it's now belongs to the community and need to run it's course (otherwise as I found out all sort of fun and games occur...). --Cameron Scott (talk) 14:58, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I am simply pointing out that the concerns that I had have gone. AfD belongs to the community as soon as it is issued. It is up to the person closing the AfD, not up to the nominator. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 15:04, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- We had this on another AFD recently - basically when the AFD has run for this period of time it's now belongs to the community and need to run it's course (otherwise as I found out all sort of fun and games occur...). --Cameron Scott (talk) 14:58, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
* Delete Wikipedia is not a memorial. Wikipedia is not a indiscriminate collection of information. --Cameron Scott (talk) 15:00, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- comment I wondered if it were a memorial, too, at first. I hope that you will see on closer inspection that it is different from that, though I can see why one might consider it to be one. Perhaps this could be made clearer with the introductory paragraph(s) in some manner and thus meet your concerns? Fiddle Faddle (talk) 15:13, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- On closer inspection - half of the entries seem to be included simply because they were transgendered not because they were murdered for being transgendered. So the more I read it, the more I am concerned that it's a memorial. --Cameron Scott (talk) 15:32, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Not entirely sure whom you are referring to in your edit summary about foot stamping and toys being thrown out of prams, but I wanted to assure you that, if it was me you refer to, my feet nor my toys have hit the floor. :) I think one should keep personality out if this entirely. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 15:48, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- On closer inspection - half of the entries seem to be included simply because they were transgendered not because they were murdered for being transgendered. So the more I read it, the more I am concerned that it's a memorial. --Cameron Scott (talk) 15:32, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No not you - go to the article and see what it's now called. --Cameron Scott (talk) 16:01, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The final thing is the title, really. No point in rearranging the deckchairs if the ship is sinking. It can be called anything anyone agrees on Fiddle Faddle (talk) 16:50, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No not you - go to the article and see what it's now called. --Cameron Scott (talk) 16:01, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- delete as still without a good discrimination rule. The title currently talks about "violently killed", and the leading says that it's a list of those who "who have met a violent death"... that's silly... whose POV defines what's a violent death? --Damiens.rf 16:14, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep We have all sorts of lists for all sorts of things. Why is this any different? Bstone (talk) 16:53, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- keep is a notable phenomenon of notable people. Is reliably sourced and has no original research. We should remove any entries where there are no reliable sourcing saying that victims gender-identity was relevant, but that's more book keeping than anything else. JoshuaZ (talk) 16:55, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Is that in relation to it's current title, it's old title or a combination of the two? I'd vote "keep" for a cleaned up version at it'd old title but not at the current which I think is indiscriminate. --Cameron Scott (talk) 16:57, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That's in relation to List of people killed because they were transgender. "List of violently killed transgender" people seems less helpful and is POV about what constitute "violent". JoshuaZ (talk) 17:00, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Is that in relation to it's current title, it's old title or a combination of the two? I'd vote "keep" for a cleaned up version at it'd old title but not at the current which I think is indiscriminate. --Cameron Scott (talk) 16:57, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Indiscriminate collection of information area - it also suffers from POV issues. What is violent? And it seems to imply that the common significant fact with these deaths is the victim's gender status. But is that so? I've happily see an article on Violence against transgendered people - because that could potentially include sourcing that indicated not only that they died violently and were transgender, but that those two facts were somehow related, or vieed to be related in significant sources. But simply this pastiches facts to create the impression of a phenomenon that however politically correct, its sources do not sustain. "List" must not be allowed as an excuse for motivated original research through a synthesis of sources to give the impression of a phenomena (that may, or may not, exist).--Scott MacDonald (talk) 17:01, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I think this AFD is slightly broken as the article has changed names twice since it started and I think we are now all talking about different thing. As for the significant of the death - half of those included under the old title "list of people killed because they were transgendered" did not actually meet their criteria - no motive was provided in the sources, that's why the article was moved to it's current title because anyone killed could be included and the sourcing issues could be brushed away. --Cameron Scott (talk) 17:09, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete the subject of Transphobic violence is notable, whereas a list of dead transpeople is not. WP:MEMORIAL and all that guff. X MarX the Spot (talk) 19:44, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Close and list new - Consensus cannot be determined from this AfD because the name of the article has been changed twice and the name changes resulted in the above contributors discussing different topics. "List of people killed because they were transgender" is different from "List of violently killed transgender people" which is different from "List of unlawfully killed transgender people". Otherwise, Keep List of unlawfully killed transgender people since it is a valuable information source and in the aggregate serves as natural tables of contents and indexes of Wikipedia. Simple Google book, news, and scholar searches show that killed and transgender status is often used by media sources, providing sufficient reliable source material for this topic and making this a viable intersection list. -- Suntag ☼ 19:51, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge/convert into an article on Violence against transgendered people. This article has been evolving rapidly. As old issues are resolved, new ones seem to be created. I'm not comfortable with the latest title and I'm concerned that the list is not a good way to present the topic. Scott MacDonald's comment about the "violence against" article is the best suggestion I've seen thus far. --Orlady (talk) 21:14, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Arbitrary section break to ease editing 3[edit]
- Keep for the moment, I've worked on the article for a bit and there is the crux of a article there. If someone had a better suggestion for a name, I recommend they be bold the most recent move was because the last move was to such a horrible POV title. --Cameron Scott (talk) 21:18, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - per User:Theseeker4, and others. I appreciate what you are trying to accomplish here, but here are my issues:
1) the original title was actually better because the new one, "List of violently killed transgender people", is both bizarrely worded and broad to the point of cruft. If anything this needs to be less broad, not MORE broad. "Violently killed" is particularly bizarre and gives the strong impression that the only reason the change from "murdered" to "violently killed" was made is so that POV-fueled speculation by LGBT publications and groups could be used in place of hard data as inclusion criteria for someone who has never been proved to have been "murdered", much less murdered specifically due to their orientation. The only other good faith reason I could think of is if you wanted to add every transgendered person ever killed due to physical trauma...yeah, like I said.
- 2) What is notable enough about independently-non-notable murdered transgendered people (specifically) that suggests a list is needed? This title suggests that simply being transgendered and being killed (for whatever reason) is sufficiently notable to justify an article. We don't do arbitrary lists of dead people by sexual orientation when there's no proven connection between their death and their sexual orientation (or hair color, or favorite TV show). That's POV cruft and rather insulting, to be honest. If you want to include a tie-in between "killed" and "transgendered" in the title, you need to provide a reason why it's notable. Which brings me to...
- 3) Let's say a more descriptive title is used, such as "List of notable people murdered due to being transgendered". This would satisfy the notability/cruft issue in the title itself, but the included entries would still have to have reliable citations that specifically state that the individuals in question were targeted for a hate-crime (murder) due to their status as a transgendered person, and not for any one of the other 9000 reasons people of all sexual orientations murder each other all the time. Otherwise, it's cruft at best and shameful POV pushing at worst.
- 3.1) At this time, there are precisely 1.5 entries out of 8 that even bother to suggest the individual's trans-status had any role to play in their murder. The rest are shockingly speculative POV-fueled nonsense, to be frank. Just because a LGBT coalition somewhere ominously "suggests" someone was murdered solely because they were transgendered does not make it so. When it comes to crimes, we run on evidence here, not POV speculation from POV advocacy groups. I happen to believe that Gerald Bull was murdered by the Mossad. There's a great deal of conjecture and speculation, some of it highly compelling, that this is the case, and this is presented on several pages. However, to add Bull's name to a list entitled "List of people murdered by the Mossad" or even "List of people violently killed because of their dealings with the Mossad" would be unfounded POV pushing not supported by the sources. See what I'm saying?
- 4) Both titles truly feel to me like they are trying desperately to create a "Memorial page for transgendered people murdered by bigots solely due to their status as transgendered people". I'm fine with all of it except the memorial part, but you can't make a claim to notability without hard sources to back it up, and as the article stand the sources just aren't there and nobody seems overly concerned with the details. The title changes suggest that the original topic was indeed seen as EXCESSIVELY inclusive, when in reality it was barely inclusive enough. Now it's so bad I can't see keeping the article without basically kowtowing to POV enthusiasm and turning a blind eye to our notability criteria. I recognize that none of this will matter and at this point enough drama has been made in a controversial subject area that there's no way any admin would delete it, unless they're fond of the pillory. Bullzeye (Ring for Service) 23:56, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note, please that the title is, currently(!) List of unlawfully killed transgender people it seems to have moved so many times that it might have wheels. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 00:01, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I think you underestimate the admins, you know, though it will take a calm head to close this AfD well. The article title is List of unlawfully killed transgender people at present. Unsourced people or those where their presence appears to be synthesized can be removed easily enough (and should be, forthwith). The discussion should really be about the merits of having an article of this sort, assuming that content per se is correctable. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 00:06, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- At this point, just to clarify, I vote Keep if the title is changed to something akin to "List of people murdered due to their transgendered status", the scope is reformatted to only include transmen and transwomen who were murdered specifically due to their status as transmen and transwomen, and legitimate authoritative (preferably official legal) sources are presented which identify that the murderer's motivation was proven to be based on hate for transgendered individuals. Anything other than that, I vote Delete, Merge or Userfy. In short, tighten the scope and kill the speculative sources and it's a solid keeper. Bullzeye (Ring for Service) 00:22, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Entirely agree with the above. --Cameron Scott (talk) 02:13, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I also agree. With those considerations in place I would not have nominated it originally. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 13:32, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Entirely agree with the above. --Cameron Scott (talk) 02:13, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Procedural point May I suggest that, because there has been such a lot of title changing and draconian editing to alter the article for the better (after all, no-one purposely edits an article to make it worse!), that this be closed ear;y procedurally as "no consensus possible because the target moved about so much", and, if desired, relist it in its current form in a few days for a full discussion based on the much different article? In reality it matters little whether the relisting is immediate or at any time in the future, since any article may be listed at any time if sufficient reason is there in the eyes of the nominator. At present anyone trying to find a consensus in this list of strong arguments for and against the article will be thoroughly lost over precisely which version of the article anyone was talking about. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 13:32, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I have raised this on the administrators' noticeboard with a view to making it possible to move forward with much more ease. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 13:46, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: When the title can not even be agreed upon, an afd will inevitably be hard to reach consensus on because the focus of the article is so nebulous as a result of an often-changed title. I have no problem closing this as no consensus with a very strong recommendation to those interested in it to agree upon a title and improve the article with renewed focus if no one objects. I posted this on the AN thread too. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:05, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - There are at time of this posting two entries in the article. Grsz11 →Review! 14:12, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- comment Even the greatest journey starts with a single step. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 14:21, 22 November 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. Spartaz Humbug! 20:20, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Preacher's kid[edit]
- Preacher's kid (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article has an extreme POV, and it is very unencyclopedic. It is more like an Urban Dictionary entry than an encyclopedia article. I cannot imagine how this article could be worded so that it does not violate any policies (and WP:IAR certainly does not apply here), so it is probably best to just delete the article. If someone thinks they can write a good, neutral, and encyclopedic article on the subject, they are free to recreate it. Nat682 (talk) 06:53, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per our policy on neologisms. There's no real evidence that "preacher's kid" is a real term worthy of discussion and not just a natural part of American English (i.e. actually no different from such phrases as "police officer's kid"). The article does not cover the neologism but instead is a coatrack which is used to document stereotypes of the children of clergy. --Anthem 11:14, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:28, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Not sure of the value of this article at all. Most of it appears to be WP:OR. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:32, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and flag for rescue. The term is notable as a stereotype. People have made some effort to record sources, even if those have not been fully utilised yet, and I found this academic paper at Wayback Machine to replace the dead link. There's enough reliable material to be able revise the article into something decent. - Fayenatic (talk) 07:45, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This link isn't even a footnote. So this link is not even backing anything in the article.Curb Chain (talk) 11:16, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. There is no deadline. The previous AfD closed as a clear keep. Sources do seem to be available. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 00:42, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The whole article is all original research or synthesis.Curb Chain (talk) 11:10, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This was certainly true, but I think that's largely fixed now. -- 202.124.73.40 (talk) 09:19, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep -- This is a poor article on a legitimate topic. The article should be improved not deleted. Its problems are well-tagged, so that when come one comes along who can deal with it, they have something to start from. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:02, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete — this is bad enough that there's nothing to save, so anyone rewriting it will have to start over completely. The absence of an article at this title may be a better inducement to someone to write anew about it. Nyttend (talk) 12:08, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- comment - the reason that there currently appears to be "nothing to save" is that on 20 June user:Curb Chain deleted citations along with a paragraph that he considered all synthesis -- perhaps it was, I haven't looked up the sources yet, but those four deleted citations might yet be useful for building a better article, along with the resources still shown at the end. - Fayenatic (talk) 23:08, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. With 5,380 Google Books hits, the topic is clearly notable. The article just needs improving. As noted in the previous AfD, deletion is not a cleanup technique. -- 202.124.73.40 (talk) 07:41, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I've cleaned up the article slightly and added several references to relevant books. -- 202.124.73.40 (talk) 08:37, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Google hits do not make it notable. Google Books is not much different. --Nat682 (talk) 22:17, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: those Google Books hits include a very large number of reliable sources, discussing both the sociology of the phenomenon and the role of the stereotype in literature; that makes it notable under WP:GNG. The article is currently well-referenced, with references to 7 books and some other sources, and I'm not understanding the arguments for deletion. 202.124.73.65 (talk) 00:33, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - There is nothing of real value here, most of it is based on assertions and assumptions. Any useful information would be better placed as small parts of other articles. ItsZippy (talk) 15:42, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You may not personally get any value out of the article, but the content is thoroughly referenced with reliable sources. 202.124.73.65 (talk) 01:00, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I see that the related German article Priesterkind has material which might be relevant. 202.124.73.65 (talk) 01:06, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The recent improvements in response to this AFD nomination has almost completely fixed most of the reason I cited in the deletion nomination. This improvement was done by two IP addresses who are most likely the same person using a dynamic IP address. However, the article still has major NPOV violations, and I don't think it could be reworded to sufficiently conform to the NPOV policy; therefore, I continue to support deletion of this article. However, this discussion has been active for fourteen days, and currently there is clearly no consensus for either side. --Nat682 (talk) 00:52, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I see you have added an POV tag to the article, but neither here nor on the article talk page have you explained what the supposed NPOV violations are. There is a phenomenon (that of children of clergy) which is discussed both from outside the religious community (as sociology of religion, with considerable academic work) and within the religious community (as pastoral theology); the stereotype derived from the phenomenon is widespread in books, TV, and films (and is also discussed academically). The article incorporates all three points of view. WP:NPOV specifies "representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." In my view this has been done, and there is no POV bias. Accordingly, I am removing the tag. I have found no other significant views that have been published by reliable sources -- if you are aware of them, please indicate what they are. 202.124.74.154 (talk) 01:33, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No. You have expressed that there are NPOV violations. We will take this into account.Curb Chain (talk) 04:37, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Problems mentioned in the nomination can be (and indeed have now been) fixed by normal editing. Eluchil404 (talk) 17:11, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was userfied. Created by a new user who is resisting attempts to provide him with some clue. His last comparitive "article" (XP vs Vista) was speedy deleted and he got very stroppy. So I've userfied this one pending him ever reading his talk page. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 14:47, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Differences between Beowulf the book and the movie Beowulf and Grendel[edit]
- Differences between Beowulf the book and the movie Beowulf and Grendel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Original research. Blowdart | talk 14:40, 20 November 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 A7 by Thingg. (non-admin closure) MrKIA11 (talk) 23:40, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Asphyxia (band)[edit]
- Asphyxia (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Contested prod. Doesn't meet notability criteria as outlined at WP:BAND CultureDrone (talk) 14:35, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:21, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails WP:MUSIC; only one self-released album to their name. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 17:18, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Non-notable Myspace band. Lugnuts (talk) 17:54, 20 November 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. MBisanz talk 02:58, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mayfield Athletic FC[edit]
- Mayfield Athletic FC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
I am requesting the deletion of this page on Mehmet Ramiz's behalf. Since the page has been created personal details and harmful information about Mehmet Ramiz has appeared on the page.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamiehutber (talk • contribs)
- Speedy keep - no reason for deletion given. A leak of private data is not a valid reason to delete the article. In this case, you may wish to request an admin to delete the revision, or (in a serious case) request oversight. --Flewis(talk) 14:36, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:17, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment btw, where is this team is the league structure? I couldn't quite workout Amateur Football Combination in the league pyramid. Govvy (talk) 19:34, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Amateur Football Alliance leagues are not part of the English football league system at all..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:27, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Is there a suggestion of notability? ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:53, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Although the reason for requesting the deletion is flawed, if I'd seen this article I'd have AfD'd it for being totally non-notable. пﮟოьεԻ 57 13:33, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete club is non-notable. GiantSnowman 19:39, 21 November 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. MBisanz talk 02:58, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Marc Montoni[edit]
- Marc Montoni (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Procedural nomination...the sockpuppet of the user who created this apparently wants it deleted. It asserts some notability, whose sufficiency I leave up to the editoriat to decide. the skomorokh 14:22, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been listed as an Anarchism task force deletion discussion. the skomorokh 14:23, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Not very notable. Kingturtle (talk) 14:45, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Not notable is not a particularly revealing comment. Would you care to explain the reasoning behind your assessment a little? It could help in generating consensus. Thanks, the skomorokh 14:51, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete It's a straightforward G5. Lightning Thundercat (talk) 14:53, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]- Note Struck comment from indef blocked sockpuppet. Fear not, he will rise again! the skomorokh 15:46, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:20, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:20, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails WP:POLITICIAN. Gnews search comes up with 14 hits, the majority which are letters to the editor; the remaining mentions are purely incidental to his political role (or a self-written op-ed in a local paper). RayAYang (talk) 17:00, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per notability guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:51, 21 November 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. MBisanz talk 02:58, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mario Zayadi[edit]
- Mario Zayadi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
No hit in google, highly possibility a hoax. Matthew_hk tc 13:28, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete appears to be a hoax. No evidence of anyone with this name playing 11 times for Lebanon on FIFA.com or national-football-teams.com. Jogurney (talk) 14:11, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. GiantSnowman 14:43, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:17, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:17, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:17, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I see no publications of any kind for this name, Lebanon football structure and information is not very good anyway. Govvy (talk) 19:41, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Where the heck did {{BLPunsourced}} come from? WP:BLP only applies to negative comments and nothing in policy says unsourced material about living people should be removed immediately. - Mgm|(talk) 19:58, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It came from me :-) but is based on {{BLPsources}} and copies the text from there. I have no problem with changing the text on both templates (the older template had the same text for over a year now). And BLP is defintiely not only about negative material: it says in the intro "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons — whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable — should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion, from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space." Fram (talk) 07:59, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom as possible hoax. GiantSnowman 00:46, 21 November 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. MBisanz talk 02:58, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Icestep[edit]
- Icestep (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Dubious as to whether this sub-genre exists. No references, and nothing comes up on google. - filelakeshoe 13:20, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Definition makes little sense and is not supported by any sources. Googling only brings up a couple hundred hits, (almost?) all of which are entirely unrelated. Wickethewok (talk) 15:24, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:16, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom, discussion and lack of notability. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:49, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. It's nonsense. Pandyu (talk) 00:42, 22 November 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 Persian war elephants. Mgm|(talk) 13:42, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Zend−hapet[edit]
- Zend−hapet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
No sources, at best this is a definition which should be in the appropriate article(s) and in fact is better covered in Sassanid army already in the section War elephants and mentioned in the article Persian war elephants dougweller (talk) 08:31, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Persian war elephants. The only source I could find is George Rawlinson, and no further information is apparently available. Since the post seems not to have been otherwise notable, there is no reason for a separate page. Constantine ✍ 12:35, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:59, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:59, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, StarM 04:35, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 13:20, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy keep. per unanimous HEY turnaround (non-admin closure) — neuro(talk) 17:31, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Chamberlain-Ferris Act[edit]
- Chamberlain-Ferris Act (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable, unreferenced. ṜedMarkViolinistDrop me a line 17:42, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:03, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect to Southern Pacific Transportation Company (which is what Southern Pacific Railroad Company redirects to) Not notable on its own, but it is in context. - Mgm|(talk) 13:45, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I think that every act passed by a national or sub-national legislature is likely to generate coverage from reliable sources. This one probably did at that time. I am going to argue that inherent liability ought to be extended to cover legislation such as this. -- Eastmain (talk) 15:11, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Although I agree with Eastmain, I would also point out that this particular Act was especially notable. It was a significant step in a political issue that has endured for well over a century over that involves federal vs. local control of these lands, school funding, and many other issues. It may need to be expanded a little to fully establish notability; I have made a few tweaks, and will try to continue that process. -Pete (talk) 21:59, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- Elonka 17:15, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. -- Elonka 17:15, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. -- Elonka 17:17, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- Elonka 17:19, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- Elonka 17:20, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. User:Uncle G has sourced this, and in its current expanded and much-improved form, it should stay. --Lockley (talk) 19:54, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: this action determined the fate of a significant portion of Oregon lands. As others have alluded, an act of Congress of this magnitude ought to stand on its own. —EncMstr (talk) 22:58, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I'm sure there was plenty of coverage in the media of the day, plus it has been the subject of both state and federal litigation, including a challenge of the validity at SCOTUS. Aboutmovies (talk) 23:26, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment/question: Anyone object to snowball keeping the article to spare unnecessary discussion? I'm sure the original nom and the first !vote were made in good faith, as the article was only a sentence or two then and wholly uncited. I believe notability has been thoroughly established in the meantime though, and the article has been expanded significantly. Speaking for myself, I don't see a need to keep this nomination active anymore. -Pete (talk) 00:17, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, per above comments; a historically significant piece of legislation that was also the subject of a Supreme Court case. I'd like for more references to be added to the article, however. Nsk92 (talk) 04:13, 21 November 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. MBisanz talk 02:54, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
List of Canadian Soccer players playing abroad[edit]
- List of Canadian Soccer players playing abroad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Originally prodded (by myself) with the complaint that "A list which is out of date, incomplete, and unrefenced. Category:Canadian expatriate soccer players already exists and provides similar information." Prod was removed by TakTak (talk · contribs) who said that "Content will be updated to be current and layout will be reorganized for a cleaner appearence", but I still feel that the content is already covered by the category. GiantSnowman 17:41, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. GiantSnowman 17:43, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Category:Canadian expatriate soccer players should suffice. – PeeJay 17:50, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per PeeJay. пﮟოьεԻ 57 18:24, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:03, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Article's creator welcome to work on existing article. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:47, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Punkmorten (talk) 07:44, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I don't see any grounds to remove this. Looks quite encyclopedic and appears to be being updated. Claim is that category is just as useful, but going to that page, it doesn't really say anything. Nfitz (talk) 05:12, 22 November 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.
Once I discounted the comments that either boiled down to accusations of bad-faith on the part of the nominator, or assertions along the lines of "It is interesting", "It is useful", "It is popular", or "I like it", only Peregrine Fisher, John Z and DHowell actually referred to sources that they felt established notability. Since these comments were outweighed by those feeling that the article failed our notability policy, I think this has to be a Delete Tim Vickers (talk) 23:41, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- NOTE - After the close above, closer Tim Vickers agreeded to let the article be merged instead of deleted.[35] A. Nobody then merged the material.[36] The merge is identified in the history of List of problems solved by MacGyver by closer Tim Vickers.[37] -- Suntag ☼ 08:37, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
List of problems solved by MacGyver[edit]
- List of problems solved by MacGyver (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This is not notable and is fancruft. There is solely an in universe context and no real world notability can be established. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 18:14, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep As far as i know, "in universe context" is not a valid reason for deletion. There are many articles that describe things that only apply to a universe created by a book, movie, or television series. Why specifically harass this one? --Commons:User:Greggor88 10:50, November 14th (PST) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Greggor88 (talk • contribs)
- Yes, it can be. Please read Wikipedia's deletion policy. MuZemike (talk) 19:55, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep You only started this because it's on digg. --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 18:34, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This comment doesn't address any of my concerns. Recommend you strike it and write something that adds to the discussion. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 18:36, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree. Please try to assume good faith with the nom. MuZemike (talk) 19:55, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: This isn't a valid reason for why to keep. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 23:03, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge cited real-world context to MacGyver#MacGyverisms and leave behind the plot detail. We can copy the article's external link to the main article to point readers to a list of MacGyverisms. And yeah, being on Digg.com, others should be forewarned of dealing with popular vote vs. policy-driven consensus. —Erik (talk • contrib) 18:40, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- To clarify my !vote, Wikipedia articles use plot summaries in support of a topic as fleshed out by real-world context. This article does the opposite; real-world context was provided (probably to rescue the article from previous AfDs) to support all this plot detail. I think that the real-world context that was added was misapplied and merging the information to the main article should suffice, especially with the one external link detailing MacGyverisms off-wiki. —Erik (talk • contrib) 18:46, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep It's been nominated twice before and always failed. Plus, as mentioned above, the fact that this nomination came up the same day that the article was posted on Digg is no coincidence. Eightball (talk) 18:50, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I saw it on digg, noticed the problems with the article, and brought it to AFD. Being in the spotlights illuminates problems just as well as it illuminates the high points of Wikipedia. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 19:02, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, the most recent AFD is nearly one year ago. Consensus can change. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 19:03, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The fact that the article has been nominated for AfD before is irrelevant. Consensus can change over time. The first AfD was to keep, while the second afD had no consensus, defaulting to keep. Who knows? The outcome of this AfD may be to delete. I would encourage a stronger argument than the fact it's been up for AfD before. The system is clearly designed for an article to be renominated. —Erik (talk • contrib) 22:36, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: This isn't a reason to keep. It's part WP:NOREASON and part "It was nominated before and it was kept." That's not a reason. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 23:02, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I think this should be kept. It's a popular subject in of itself among persons. Its common for analogies to be made explicitly to how macgyver solved something. A couple of published books have been written specifically on MacGyver and his solving of particular dilemmas. Its generally a subject of its own. I think that this is just a ploy because the article appeared on Digg. Nobody said anything when this comment was mentioned weeks before today when it appeared in the HTML of an xkcd comment referencing the skill of Macgyver solving dilemmas. Though, because it appears on Digg it needs to be nominated AGAIN for a THIRD time for deletion. Wtf? The people have already spoken TWICE before that the article is fine where it is.
Macgyver problem solving in my opinion can stand on its own. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 214.13.141.100 (talk) 19:17, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia does not indiscriminately collect plot detail; see WP:PLOT. We strive to be an encyclopedia by providing real-world context about a topic, only including plot summaries to complement the topic. This article is by no means a summary. —Erik (talk • contrib) 22:36, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep In many ways, MacGyver's problem-solving was at the heart of the eponymous television show, and as such constitutes a relevant encyclopedia topic (both because of its centrality to MacGyver and because MacGyver's problem-solving has entered the popular consciousness -- clever, parsimonious solutions to real-world problems are often likened to something MacGyver would have come up with.) Killdevil (talk) 19:38, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that the MacGyver's problem-solving is central to the TV series, but this does not permit an indiscriminate collection of plot detail. The real-world context of MacGyverisms can be merged to the main article, and a few examples can reflect the topic, but not every single problem he's solved in the TV series. —Erik (talk • contrib) 22:36, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Interesting and useful. While sometimes consensus can change over time, there's nothing that's happened in the past year that should change the reasoning behind the previous consensus. Of course, now that the article was on Digg someone desiring to delete it will probably say that we shouldn't listen to all the keep votes. That would be silly, so when that happens, in the words of that one scientist in that one simpsons episode, "let's not listen." Balonkey (talk) 19:41, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This article has both significance and relevance to many engineers. It uses multiple illustrations to highlight the fact that many practical engineering problems can be solved using wits and available technology. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.215.54.133 (talk) 20:01, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- LOL. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 20:07, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This needs to go on deletionpedia for eternal preservation. -72.93.211.14 (talk) 20:41, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep MacGyver remains in popular culture, and people have to know the problems and how he's solved them. 68.43.196.134 (talk) 20:46, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If they are interested in plot detail, the primary sources are not beyond their reach. Wikipedia is not intended as a substitute to watching the TV series. For fictional topics, it covers real-world context, and it can be complemented by select plot detail, not every single problem solved by MacGyver. —Erik (talk • contrib) 22:36, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep As mentioned by Greggor88 being "in universe context" is not a basis for deletion, untold thousands of articles exist related to the "universe" of specific literature or other media. Additionally MacGyver and the resourcefulness the character demonstrated in the series have become integrated into the very fabric of society (in the U.S. at least). As represented by many references or parodies in other media as well as being used in ordinary conversations, especially when referencing examples of or need for unusual/exceptional resourcefulness. Raitchison (talk) 21:24, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The fact that other stuff exists is not a reason to keep it. Wikipedia is constantly changing, and articles that are solely made up of plot detail continue to go out the window. You are arguing for the importance of MacGyverisms, and I don't think anyone disputes this; see MacGyver#MacGyverisms. This, however, does not merit an indiscriminate collection of plot detail. Plot detail needs to complement real-world context in a limited fashion, not the other way around. —Erik (talk • contrib) 22:36, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete While interesting it is not notable, more akin to trivia and not noteworthy at that. --nycmstar (talk) 21:25, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As much as I love reading this article, it's not encyclopedic. BrokenSegue 22:24, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Total WP:FANCRUFT, not all that notable. There's already a List of MacGyver episodes; this is basically a duplication of that, only more verbose. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 22:59, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I just checked WP:FANCRUFT and will quote from the very first sentence "importance only to a small population of enthusiastic fans of the subject in question". I find it hard to argue that this article qualified in any way. MacGyver and specifically his resourcefulness have become well known in general society to the point where "MacGuyver" is ofent used as a verb and is understood by people who have never even seen the show. Raitchison (talk) 17:06, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails WP:PLOT by design. This article not only fails to present real world context, there's no room for its inclusion. This article is basically a spinout to keep trivial details off of the episode list. Jay32183 (talk) 23:05, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Excellent example of what Wikipedia is best at. - Mvuijlst (talk) 23:37, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I assume you mean best at unconventional articles? I think a better example would be the recent Featured Article of the Day, Anti-tobacco movement in Nazi Germany. This particular article is solely lacking in real-world context, being entirely composed of plot detail. —Erik (talk • contrib) 23:39, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. It's not really fancruft. It is a list of things that Macgyver has solved. I can easily see someone turning to Wikipedia to cite instances of what happened in the series. Keep, keep a thousand times keep. Wikipedia is not paper, relevant, notable, take your pick. StayinAnon (talk) 00:01, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Fancruft is just a coarse word for an overabundance of plot detail. If we cited instances of what happened in the series, we are still using primary sources and still skimping on real-world context. The AfD has nothing to do with the instances being unsourced; it has to do with the fact that the article's primary goal is to convey plot detail, not to provide real-world context about the given topic. The TV series in general and MacGyverisms are notable, both being covered at MacGyver. This does not permit one to go on at length about the in-universe ongoings of a TV series. We have an external link that we can point to for a collection of MacGyverisms off-wiki. —Erik (talk • contrib) 00:06, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Considering "solving problems" is the cornerstone of a very notable show, this is in fact notable.—DMCer™ 00:13, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability is not inherited. A real Wikipedia article about MacGyverisms would explore what writers had to do to come up with new MacGyverisms every episode, how realistic the MacGyverisms are, how the MacGyverisms served as a source of inspiration, how MacGyverisms have permeated themselves in various media, et cetera. This does not mean it's OK to indiscriminately collect plot detail. Plot detail is meant to complement real-world context, like the various points I suggested. (And man, am I tired of making counter-arguments, haha.) —Erik (talk • contrib) 00:21, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge reasonable well-cited initial paragraphs to series article; delete the rest. The specific details of per-episode difficulties is merely regurgitation of plot summary. --EEMIV (talk) 03:10, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I agree with the nominator. This article doesn't, nor will it ever, have real world notability established in independent sources. Previous AFDs aren't relevant to this discussion, but while others who refer to the previous discussions should note that in the last AFD no consensus was established. It is time to remove clear fancruft from Wikipedia and enforce well established policies Carlsher (talk) 05:04, 15 November 2008 (UTC). — Carlsher (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Keep, for all the reasons people gave above to keep it. And of course to stem the tide of stupidly deleting articles just for being fandom-related. --CF90 (talk) 20:20, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, this is the kind of article that makes Wikipedia a more interesting encyclopedia and information resource than Encyclopedia Britannica. MacGyver is a notable TV show. And "fancruft" isn't even a real word (if you think it is, go ahead and try to write a decent article about fancruft). Notability is not something that can be "established." In response to Jay32183, this article is note solely a plot summary (nevermind that the editor who proposed WP:PLOT recently expressed at WT:NOT that he wants PLOT removed from WP:NOT). It's time for people who incorrectly use the word "notability" and who use the word "fancruft" to actually write articles on those topics. I would also ask the closing admin that if they decide to delete the article, please userfy it first under User:A Nobody's userspace, because I'm sure he would like to work on it. Thank you. --Pixelface (talk) 21:43, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. This whole idea of it having no "in-universe context" is ludicrous. People obviously find it interesting, and for that reason alone it has in-universe context. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia made by people for people, and as such we all are the ones who decide what has context and what does not. If people appreciate it, if it has context for them, if there are situations in which they desire the information that is provided on this page, then there is no reason why it should be deleted. --C4 Diesel (talk) 05:43, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It's interesting is not an argument to keep, and Wikipedia is not a democracy. People can appreciate things like manuals, guides, and textbooks, but Wikipedia doesn't present these to people. It provides encyclopedic coverage of a given topic, and per WP:PLOT, plot details are meant to complement the real-world context of a fictional topic. As you can tell from this article, it is more plot detail than it is real-world context. Articles need to be written in accordance to policies and guidelines. Topics can be interesting and appeal to a wide number of people as long as they are in accordance, but this article clearly is not. —Erik (talk • contrib) 05:50, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This article may be based entirely on fictitious plot, but it is still worth keeping. Maybe it should just be more obvious that this is based on a television show, and not necessarily part of the real world. I see this article as being much more informative and useful than many one sentence articles on small, unnotable towns from third world countries, and soccer players that have done nothing significant besides being on a team. There are also multiple articles (stubs and full size) based on characters and other elements of plot, why not an extensive article on the actions of one of these notable characters. --omnipotence407 (talk) 00:00, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If you find other articles that you think fail to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines, you are welcome to nominate them for AfD. There have been a number of articles full of plot detail, but they can wind up getting deleted if they lack merit. For this article, I don't think anyone disputes that the TV show is notable and that MacGyverisms within them are notable. However, this does not suddenly make it OK to write nothing but plot detail in an article. We don't include plot detail because it's informative and useful on its own; we include plot detail to complement the real-world context of fictional topics. —Erik (talk • contrib) 00:23, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and expand. Though falls into the vast minutiae of popular culture, this article's references to science and everyday objects make for a thorough study spanning several subjects that expands the interest and knowledge of Wikipedia readers. This is of value. Truly it is unlikely that a reader of articles on chemistry and physics would trace information to an article about MacGyver, but fans of MacGyver who want to replicate the character's problem-solving in the form of experiments suddenly becomes students of the sciences. This is applied science—if not at its finest, at least at its most entertaining. Morganfitzp (talk) 01:23, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you saying that the article should be a guidebook instead of a real article, full of plot detail to theoretically educate readers to become students of the sciences? There are many resources of value in the world, but Wikipedia's goal is to provide encyclopedic articles, not guidebooks. —Erik (talk • contrib) 01:43, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Wikipedia is more than just an encyclopedia. Where else can people go to find things like this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.220.72.80 (talk) 06:13, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it isn't more than just an encyclopedia. Its definition as an encyclopedia is one of the five pillars. It is not a collection of indiscriminate plot detail or a guidebook. —Erik (talk • contrib) 06:29, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Anyone with a LiveJournal or website could recreate this info. Lots42 (talk) 12:52, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:03, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Zero encyclopedic value, completely trivial. We are not a MacGyver fansite, we're an E-N-C-Y-C-L-O-P-E-D-I-A. Please get this through your skulls people. JBsupreme (talk) 13:07, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep EVERYTHING is fancruft to the novice. Lugnuts (talk) 13:47, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect (and cull), MacGyverisms are obviously notable (the word entered the English language), but most of them cannot be verified without looking at the episodes themselves making the content unverifiable. We can use the ones referenced in outside sources as examples and mention a list of MacGyverisms in the external links section. Result: we retain the information and don't have a massive list of unsourced text. (Disclosure: my full username is MacGyverMagic)- Mgm|(talk) 13:51, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete -- as completely violating WP:ENC and WP:NOT. If possible, ban anyone who supports it from ever editing this site, as they clearly are not hre to edit an encyclopedia. (I know that last bit won't happen, but, geez, what's wrong with people?) DreamGuy (talk) 15:18, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Based on that logic (super strict interpretation of WP:ENC as the exclusive domain of reality based subjects we could make a case for AfDing every article that has anything to do with any work of fiction. 16:54, 20 November 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raitchison (talk • contribs)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:11, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:11, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - a book is written on the subject.[38] - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 16:41, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That looks like a great "Further reading" link to add to MacGyver. It can substitute all the indiscriminate plot detail gathered here. We could write at the "MacGyverisms" section, "In 2005, a book called The Unofficial MacGyver How-to Handbook was published, detailing the show's MacGyverisms." —Erik (talk • contrib) 17:31, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect MacGyver solved a lot of problems, but there not all notable and plus Wikipedia is not a fan site of anybody, I mean Robert Horry has hit a lot of game-winning shots, but you don't see an article called "List of Robert Horry's game-winning shots", do you? No, because they have been merged into his article, so what I say we do is merge Macgyver's problems into his article.HairyPerry 16:49, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect to MacGyver. The content is verifiable but as for notability, on its own I can't see this as more then WP:FANCRUFT, but it is quite viable as part of the parent article of the show that it belongs to. --Pmedema (talk) 18:21, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete — an indiscriminate collection of information. I also note likely canvassing/meatpuppetry, not to mention every every possible argument to avoid in deletion discussion used, in every above keep reason. MuZemike (talk) 20:02, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per User:Raitchison. --Explodicle (T/C) 20:30, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The centrality of the topic to the show is enough to argue for keeping, but the easily proven fact that MacGyver's MacGyverism's have been the object of significant "real-world" reliable source interest, (mentioned already in the article) - Mythbuster's, the book mentioned by Peregrine Fisher "The Unofficial MacGyver How-to Handbook", along with What Would MacGyver Do? which has refs to some of the show's problem solving, makes this a clear keep by wikipedia's general notability guideline.John Z (talk) 21:07, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Not in the slightest bit indiscriminate, or fancruft. The unusual problems and Macgyver's unique approach to solving them are basically the most notable part of the series. JulesH (talk) 21:15, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - found this AfD as monitoring AfD's for lists, so no axe to grind. IMHO WP:FAN WP:INDISCRIMINATE WP:ENC WP:NOT WP:PLOT all point the clear way to deletion, notwithstanding the clear desires of a vocal fanbase. Springnuts (talk) 22:13, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- To be clear not all of those who believe the article should not be deleted are fans of the show in any way, personally I find the show unwatchable. However the resourcefulness demonstrated by MacGyver in the show transcends the show and as I have already mentioned has become a part of the fabric of society. The article is most definitely not Fancruft as per the very first sentence of WP:FAN and is also pretty clearly notable in general. Raitchison (talk) 22:43, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks - yes fully accepted that not all those voting 'keep' are fans of the show. Springnuts (talk) 15:16, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment One of the first things mentioned in WP:ATA which has been referred to as an argument for deletion without any specific reasoning behind their view is "it is important to realize that countering the keep or delete arguments of other people by simply referring them to this essay is not encouraged". I would like those doing so to please see WP:BASH and keep in mind that deletionism is not the only way to go. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.27.21.253 (talk) 01:14, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please assume good faith and not devolve this into a inclusionist/deletionist
shitfestshoutfest. We just got over a presidential election, already! MuZemike (talk) 05:11, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please assume good faith and not devolve this into a inclusionist/deletionist
- Keep This article is more than plot summaries, as it focusses on the science and technology used in the solutions to seemingly insurmountable challenges in each episode. The principles of science and technology covered in this series and this article are actually quite important outside the McGyver series, in the real world. A plot summary would pay more attention to motivations or the fate of the characters, which is pretty much ignored in this article. Since they are sourced to the episode, they are not original research. The point of the article is not to show that the McGyver character is clever, it is to cover the technology and science, and presentation of science and technology has been encyclopedic since the time of Diderot or the first edition of Britannica. It would benefit from Wikilinking to articles covering the scientific or technolological bases of the gimmicks. It is a useful navigational aid to help the reader find episodes of this notable series, and to relate episodes to the scientific principles involved.(Note: I have argued far more often for deleting than for keeping articles). Edison (talk) 06:18, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This is already hosted at Wikia where it belongs. http://macgyver.wikia.com/wiki/List_of_problems_solved_by_MacGyver -JBsupreme (talk) 07:58, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Everything on Wikipedia is also hosted somewhere else. Why does it matter if a specialized wiki has some similar information? --Explodicle (T/C) 11:59, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per significant coverage in reliable sources, including the two books already mentioned above. Meets all content policies (WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV). Claims of violating WP:NOT are based on personal opinions about being "indiscriminate", rather than on what the policy actually says. As WP:PLOT says, the "plot summary" here is appropriate as part of the larger coverage of the fictional work. And the reliable sources mentioned in this discussion alone already provide enough real-world context and information to justify plot details in this article. DHowell (talk) 03:45, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This article solely consists of plot detail. It is completely indiscriminate in how it goes on and on about the events throughout this TV series and provides no real-world context. A "summary" would be identifying maybe a half dozen examples overall, and that would fit well in MacGyver#MacGyverisms. That does not excuse one to have an entire article, 70 kb in length, with nothing but plot detail from the TV series. We don't list every punchline from comedy sitcoms, we don't list every romance from soap operas, we don't list every technique used in a criminal investigation show, and so on. There should be select examples to reflect to readers the concept of MacGyverisms in summary fashion, but having an article with every single in-universe detail related to this topic is unencyclopedic. —Erik (talk • contrib) 04:12, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:N. As explained above, most of the material clearly consists of fancruft. If we really were to keep to relevant material in this article, it probably wouldn't be longer than a few sentences. Thus it seems that whatever notable information exists in there, it can be merged/included in the Angus MacGyver article. --m3taphysical (talk) 00:54, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Feel that the article is relevant and valuable both in relation to the show MacGyver and in allowing users to gain an insight into what MacGyver is/does. AlbertSimon (talk) 18:54, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. As said above, gives a clear idea of MacGyver's skills, which may not be fully understood without this article. --Fathermocker (talk) 09:32, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 'Delete. Fails WP:PLOT and probably some WP:OR issues. It reminds me a bit of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of traps in the Saw film series (3rd nomination) and the interesting Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/List of traps in the Saw film series (3rd nomination). There is a strong point here that there is a book about MacGyer's skills. Well, i think this prove that MacGyer is notable and its skills are notable but this doesn't imply we need a full list if the skills. -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:52, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per clear consensus in first discussion. WP:ITSCRUFT and WP:JNN are not legitimate reasons for deletion. Nominating for a third time is disruptive and pointy. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 18:55, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- First discussion was in December 2006, quite a long time ago, and resulted in keep. Second discussion was in December 2007 and resulted in no consensus. Citing the earliest consensus while ignoring the previous one is misleading. Third time nomination is not disruptive; the ability to revisit consensus is built into the process. Disruption is nominating an article a month after the previous AFD. The last one was 11 months ago. Also, arguments for deletion have not solely been calling it fancruft; they have been more substantial than that or saying "just not notable". The article has too much indiscriminate plot detail where a limited selection in an article's section would adequately tell the reader what a MacGyverism may be. —Erik (talk • contrib) 19:03, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- A no consensus is a default to keep, which is why the article is still around. After two discussions have not closed as delete or merge or redirect, efforts should instead be made on improving the article in question and not just renominating it continuously until it gets deleted. The article is clearly discriminate. It cover a specific topic "problems" solved by a specific individual "MacGyver". Thus, it has two discriminating parameters for inclusion and because MacGyver is a notable show that has even been parodied on SNL and Family Guy with parodies focusing on the problem solving and his problem solving is arguably the most memorable aspect of that show, we can verify the items on this list. If you think a limited selection in a main article would be okay, then I see no reason why not to at worst merge and redirect there without deletinon. The nomination is pointed considering that it seems consistent with some kind of mission. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 19:11, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Nobody disputes the existence of the TV series, the main character, and his common trait. This does not mean that there should be an entire article of every instance of his common trait. Plot detail needs to support real-world context, not the other way around, and the way the article is set up, there's no intended summary. Its full intention is to list as much plot detail about MacGyverisms as possible. If there was so-called "narrative complexity" that ties some elements together, that could be an argument. Each instance is as separate as they come. Attacking the nominator seems like a failure to assume good faith, too... we all have our missions, I'm sure, but since the nomination, multiple substantial viewpoints have weighed in, so it shows a credible discussion plenty of time after the previous AfD. —Erik (talk • contrib) 19:22, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- One does not have to assume when the nominator outright laughs at those arguing to keep. I do not see problem with listing things just as a list of Academy Award winners, table of the elements, etc. are supplements to the text of the main articles. This article I see serving two purposes. First, it is a spinoff or sub-article of the main article and provides those who want more detailed knowledge about the subject with a more extensive list of examples. Kind of like how the published Britannica have the Micropedias with the overviews, but the Macropedia books with the much more detailed coverage. Second, the article serves as a table of contents of sorts because it lists different problems solved that were solved in different episodes and thus can lead us to which episode each thing was solved. On another note, the article was viewed 42,000+ times last month alone. So, obviously a good deal of our readers come here looking for this kind of information and these readers become editors and donors. Because we can see that the article is not just total nonsense, there is no problem or libel or anything that I aware of, I would much rather allow such a large number of readers and editors to use this information for whatever they can than go with the handful that think it should be deleted as non-notable (which is subjective as it is obviously notable from the many keeps above and the readership and that is verifiable in published sources as well as the primary sources and because it has been parodied on multiple notable shows), as cruft (not a policy or guideline), as violating plot (which based on the talk page is also disputed), or as indiscriminate (as indicated in my earlier reply I think it has a clear criteria for inclusion that prevents the article from being infinite in coverage). Again, I judge these articles on what Wikipedia stands to gain or lose. If we keep this verifiable content, maybe we gain readers. Maybe we enhance our comprehensive nature. I see at least potential for positives. If we remove it, maybe we insult those who worked on it by using subjective claims of it's cruft or it's not notable that are not really rooted in policy as we failed to reach a consensus on fictional notability. If we remove it, it is not as if those who worked on it are suddenly going to decide to work on whatever articles those arguing to delete would rather they work on. So, I am just not seeing any benefit for our readership by not covering this article or again not at worst merging and redirecting without deletion so that we do at least have the foundation laid for when additional sources come along we do not have to just start over. Thus, by contrast I see more benefits than not. Anyway, absolutely no assertion of non-notability whatsoever. Regards, --A NobodyMy talk 23:31, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete – pure excessive plot summary. Fails WP:NOT#INFO and WP:NOTE for absolutely no assertion of notability whatsoever. — sephiroth bcr (converse) 23:21, 25 November 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 PayPoint. SoWhy 09:42, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Paypoint.net[edit]
- Paypoint.net (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable, no independent reliable sources. Lots of Google hits, but Google News shows only 6 hits with no significant secondary coverage among them. Huon (talk) 22:23, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Huon,
I am new to wikipedia, so I am not quite sure what went wrong. I've edited a couple of bits on the article and I hope that would have made the difference.
What do you mean by google hits? Please let me know if there's anything else that could be wrong with this article and I will edit it to reflect this.
Thanks, (Dina Jones (talk) 10:01, 20 November 2008 (UTC))[reply]
- This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:03, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Dunbot,
Apologies for all these questions.
What do you mean is now listed? is it still up for deletion? if so what can I do to change this?
Thansk in advance for your help. (Dina Jones (talk)) —Preceding undated comment was added at 14:17, 20 November 2008 (UTC).[reply]
- Comment - it just means that the person who nominated the article for creation didn't do it properly and the bot has fixed it. It is still nominated for deletion.
Deleteper nomination: a processor of secure, real-time, online credit and debit card transactions - i.e. a non-consumer, Internet related business, founded in July of this year. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:58, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge them per Huon's discovery. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 17:00, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I just learned that there's an article on the (notable) parent company PayPoint. So merge and redirect seems another option. Huon (talk) 15:39, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect with/to PayPoint. I had originally suggested to the article's creator that, rather than a separate article, appropriate information about paypoint.net should be added to the PayPoint article. My advice, it would seem, has been ignored... – ukexpat (talk) 16:54, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi all,
I believe that Paypoint.net should have its own page. Yes it is owned by paypoint plc but the services that they offer are different is not just paypoint services for ecommerce sites.
I will get sources added to the article, and I hope that will make a difference.
Thanks (Dina Jones (talk) 17:32, 20 November 2008 (UTC))[reply]
- Merge and redirect As the company (division?) becomes more established if it generates substantial newspaper and magazine coverage there might be cause to reconsider. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:45, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sources have been added to the article. Thank you.(Dina Jones (talk) 11:56, 21 November 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. MBisanz talk 02:53, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dexter's Kill Count[edit]
- Dexter's Kill Count (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
WP is not an indiscriminate collection of info, and frankly, the lack of WP:RS for WP:V only further lends to the possibility of WP:OR. The bigger question though, is whether such a list, on a purely fictional and redundant topic is necessary - I guess that's up for you to decide. Flewis(talk) 12:59, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Not even a good fork to free up article space. These victims are barely even notable in the series, much less for our purpose. The article should mention epic kills, but a list like this is just for the fans. Law shoot! 13:27, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Already amply covered in the list of characters. There's also a similar article listed for deletion which has a spoiler warning in the title. - Mgm|(talk) 13:54, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as serving no encyclopedic purpose. Someone really needs to create Wikitrivia site so the people who want this kind of nonsense have a valid place to put it all. DreamGuy (talk) 15:21, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete both -- it appeears there are two identical articles up for grabs here, differing only in their titles. This pushes things too far into fansite territory, even by my loose standards. 23skidoo (talk) 19:24, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are not two pages, one page had spoiler alert in it and that was removed. Just because it doesn't just focus on the "epic" kills does not mean it not interesting information to viewers of the series. It is different from the character list because it shows exactly how many kills he has thoughout his life.Just because a fan made it doesn't mean that it not true or relevant information. Wikipedia is a site for fans made by fans. There are references in this article. The kills are organized by what episode they occur in. If you think the information is false then watch the episode and verify it yourself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Plugz15 (talk • contribs) 00:16, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete this is the sort of trivia which might just possibly b article content, but not conceivably a separate article. However, merging would have eliminated the need to bring it here, DGG (talk) 01:32, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
shouldnt it be on a different page so people that are browseing the main page arent going to see whats happened already. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Plugz15 (talk • contribs) 03:03, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, there's no need for a special page for this. MoraSique (talk) 11:12, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
then merge it with the main dexter article. whats the big deal if there it an extra or not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Plugz15 (talk • contribs) 23:47, 21 November 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. MBisanz talk 02:52, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
PerfSpot[edit]
- PerfSpot (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Seems like an advert, without any useful information. From personal experience this site seems to just be a marketing ploy, and therefore shouldn't be on Wikipedia. I would follow through with the other steps in the deletion process, but I don't have an account. 151.32.171.132 (talk · contribs) Text copied from article talk page. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 12:28, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as spam. No reliable sources provided for information, no notability established, only attempt at doing so was a press release from the company and some supposed site metrics, which is not a primary source and is easy to manipulate anyway. A quick Google search finds no real reliable or notable sources mentioning the company's existence. No news coverage for a site of this type means it's not notable. DreamGuy (talk) 15:26, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Looks advertisey and references don't seem to hold up to scrutiny. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:42, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - The 2 references provided are not valid references, the business wire source (via all business) is self published. Quantcast is notoriously inaccurate and the reference about Alexa was self published. a Google search does not provide additional reliable sources. Delete as per WP:N, WP:V. - DustyRain (talk) 08:32, 24 November 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 deleted. IAR, rouge, etc. As Mgm says, most likely a non-controversial delete: the article isn't going to survive this AfD; and there's nothing meaningful to redirect it to. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 12:31, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
21-1-1988[edit]
- 21-1-1988 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Does not fall under any speedy criterion. This date article falls outside the guidelines of the appropriate Wikiproject. Richard Cavell (talk) 11:45, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Technically not a speedy, but as this fails to meet the common naming conventions for dates, I don't think deleting this would be controversial. - Mgm|(talk) 12:17, 20 November 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. A3, lack of content Mgm|(talk) 12:18, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Beowls[edit]
- Beowls (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
An article in search of a speedy deletion criterion. This is an unverifiable and unsourced slang dicdef, and something made up one day. Richard Cavell (talk) 11:33, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete with extreme prejudice per nm. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 11:34, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete: I think neologisms fit under G1, but i'm not completely sure, but it should be speedied anyway, u could of just done {{db|non notable neologism, see [[WP:NOT]]}}. – Jerryteps 11:37, 20 November 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. MBisanz talk 01:46, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mate Mahadevi[edit]
- Mate Mahadevi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Notability not established even with the one 'ref' to google books. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 11:14, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The book which has no apparent relation to her is summarized as "Leading women scholars address their own traditions as they explore seven world religions in this unprecedented feminist treatment." Together with the fact she is a well-known speaker/lecturer, I believe notability has been established despite the fact just one source is given. - Mgm|(talk) 12:23, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I have removed a text dump which looks suspiciously like a copy-paste job together with personal information. - Mgm|(talk) 12:25, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:06, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:06, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:06, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I suppose we could add some more refs to google books, there doesn't seem to be any shortage. Juzhong (talk) 17:15, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteI don't think any of her books are notable and I don't think she's notable. But if someone can come up with references I'm willing to reconsider. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:39, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]- She appears to be notable within her circle as demonstrated by the coverage she recieves. Keep ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:16, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, I think she's notable. Juzhong (talk) 05:32, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. A Google Books search [39] unearths plenty more references. This search was only one click away from the reference already provided, so I'm a bit surprised that I'm the first one to point that out. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:37, 21 November 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. Article deleted by Herbythyme (talk · contribs) [40]. Procedural closing of discussion by non-admin. Darkspots (talk) 11:47, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Todds[edit]
- Todds (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Again, I wish I could fit this into a speedy criterion. This article is a blatant hoax/some-kid-mucking-around. Richard Cavell (talk) 11:12, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete Nonsense, as tagged. At the very least G3 vandalism. Darkspots (talk) 11:14, 20 November 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 Luna Santin (non admin closure). - Richard Cavell (talk) 11:02, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oompa-Loompa Virus[edit]
- Oompa-Loompa Virus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
I cannot find any CSD criterion that this falls under (but I wish I could). The article is patently a hoax (I'm medically trained), and not a very clever one at that. At any rate it is unverifiable and unsourced. Richard Cavell (talk) 10:57, 20 November 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. G12, copyright infringement Mgm|(talk) 12:27, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Budakova[edit]
- Budakova (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
I am unable to say what language this is, and so I'm not able to work out what the article says, but I can say that it is not suitable for inclusion in .en.wikipedia.org. This does not satisfy any strict reading of the CSD criteria. Richard Cavell (talk) 10:54, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that user has also created the following pages: Bukoshi, Bllaca. Neither are in English. I forgot to sign this when I wrote it. - Akamad (talk) 11:05, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I just noticed that these three articles are direct copy and paste jobs from this website: http://www.theranda.com/portal/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=107 . I'll tag the articles with CSD G12. - Akamad (talk) 11:04, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed. Thanks. - Richard Cavell (talk) 11:13, 20 November 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. G10, attack page Mgm|(talk) 12:29, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ólafur Fríman[edit]
- Ólafur Fríman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This article is unsourced, and makes unverifiable criticism of the subject. The article contains information that is not relevant to an encyclopedia, and is not written in wikipedia markup style. Google does not seem to have any information on this person. Richard Cavell (talk) 10:46, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- An article that makes unsourced negative claims only is speediable under criterion G10 (attack pages). - Mgm|(talk) 12:29, 20 November 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. Spartaz Humbug! 20:49, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Kyu Lee[edit]
- Kyu Lee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Article appears to fail criteria for WP:ATHLETE, WP:ENTERTAINER and WP:BIO. Lee only played football at the college level. His IMDb page shows only role was as a waiter in two episodes of a TV show. Job titles indicate employment as a lower-to-mid-level marketer for Sony and as a marketer for a a non-notable webpage. A search finds no significant coverage. (Note: I was unable to access two external links provided because they are listed as internet attack sites.) — CactusWriter | needles 10:16, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. — — CactusWriter | needles 10:25, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. — — CactusWriter | needles 10:30, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — — CactusWriter | needles 10:42, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 17:08, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per nom. RayAYang (talk) 19:19, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Were the magazine links looked at? (Peterheater (talk) 23:56, 20 November 2008 (UTC))[reply]
I also don't understand how ELLE MAGAZINE and PREMIERE MAGAZINE websites are 'attack site...' those are major publications. (Peterheater (talk) 23:59, 20 November 2008 (UTC))[reply]
*Keep per referencing. Seems quite notable to me.ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:23, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]- Comment I'm not sure. Where are the references? ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:35, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The 2 references have direct links to the magazine articles - ELLE/LUEL and PREMIERE. (Peterheater (talk) 07:48, 21 November 2008 (UTC))[reply]
- CORRECTION... under external links. Thanks. (Peterheater (talk) 07:50, 21 November 2008 (UTC))[reply]
- Comment The external link for Premiere Magazine is still listed as an attack site. The second link is now available, however it does not appear to be Elle magazine's Korean edition (http://www.elle.co.kr/) as the ext. link denotes, but rather Luel which acts as the hosting website for Elle but is a separate entity. Because this is the only reference offered, and it is not in English, it needs to be clear how this relates as significant coverage. From the text of the biography as it is currently written, I am still unable to find any real assertion of notability. — CactusWriter | needles 07:52, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- how is PREMIERE MAGAZINE'S website an 'attack' website, it's one of the top publications in the world? and LUEL is the men's version of ELLE. (Peterheater (talk) 08:38, 21 November 2008 (UTC))[reply]
- It is understood that Premiere is a large publication - however, it is the online host site which is limiting the access. Furthermore, Luel is not associated with Elle magazine, but rather is a Korea-only magazine produced by the same publishing house. The discussion here concerns 3 issues. 1) Access to information to allow verifiability. 2) Determination if it constitutes significant coverage. and 3) whether or not there is any degree of notability. It would be great if you could address these issues, because as yet there appears nothing of substance in the article which makes this person notable. — CactusWriter | needles 09:55, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- how is PREMIERE MAGAZINE'S website an 'attack' website, it's one of the top publications in the world? and LUEL is the men's version of ELLE. (Peterheater (talk) 08:38, 21 November 2008 (UTC))[reply]
- Comment. Dunno what to say about this to be honest, though I'm leaning more towards "delete". I can't read the Korean links, but giving them the benfit of the doubt I would think that this is possibly just about enough to meet the basic criteria of WP:BIO. That said, I'm inclined to agree with the nominator that the article makes no real assertation of notability, that the achievements of this individual don't seem to be particuarly significant or noteworthy. I did, however, manage to find this English language interview. PC78 (talk) 19:02, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
DEAR WIKIPEDIA. I AM KYU LEE. I WAS TOLD BY SOME FRIENDS I WAS ON THIS SITE. I'D RATHER NOT BE ON THIS SITE DUE TO THAT FACT THAT I AGREE WITH MOST OF THE ABOVE. PLEASE REMOVE ME FROM THIS ASAP - THAT WOULD BE MUCH APPRECIATED. I DO NOT NEED THIS KIND OF ATTENTION. THANK YOU. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.183.158.17 (talk) 11:01, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- General information for people who want help with a biography about themselves can be found at this link: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Help. In particular, Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Dealing with articles about yourself provides a quick summary. However, information cannot be accepted from an anonymous IP address claiming to be the individual. For this reason, it is necessary for the individual to register with WP and have their identity confirmed; or to contact Wikipedia directly (using the contact address provided on the above linked page). — CactusWriter | needles 12:10, 23 November 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. MBisanz talk 02:51, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fédération des associations étudiantes du campus de l'Université de Montréal[edit]
- Fédération des associations étudiantes du campus de l'Université de Montréal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Federation of student associations - no independent assertation of notability - would seem to fail WP:ORG and guidelines at Wikipedia:UNIGUIDE#Student_life CultureDrone (talk) 09:20, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 16:02, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This is the main students association, and would therefore be notable, as for other major universities. it would help very much if the present inadequate article were improved to sufficiently demonstrate that. DGG (talk) 01:50, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This is no ordinary student association. The university's third provincial charter defines it as being a public institution in which students have a right to participate. This is mainly done through the FAECUM. From what I've seen, and judging from policy guidelines, the FAECUM is definitely not less notable than McGill's SSMU. The FAECUM has been involved in notable public events [41] such as the 2005 student protest, and its historical/political role has even been subject to scholarly research [42]. Thus I agree with DGG: the article simply needs to be expanded. --m3taphysical (talk) 16:04, 21 November 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 Białołęka#Education. MBisanz talk 20:22, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Jan Marcin Szancer Primary School 342[edit]
- Jan Marcin Szancer Primary School 342 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Article proposed for deletion because "Non notable elementary school, fails WP:NOTE". Prod contested "Per long-standing disputes, schools should go through AFD". Bizarre reason, because a) every article can be prodded and b) per WP:OUTCOMES, "Most elementary and middle schools that don't claim notability are now getting deleted in AfD" anyway, making the deletion uncontroversial and a ProD perfectly applicable. Anyway, someone wanted an AFD, so here we are. No claims to notability, few Google hits[43], one Google News hit[44]. Young, large primary school, no indication of any notability. Fram (talk) 09:19, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- With the alternative script used in Polish and similar languages I don't think you can rely on an English google search. By the way, what does the news article say? - Mgm|(talk) 12:32, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:57, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:57, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment apart from the fact that this school does not seem to be notable at all, I offer my linguistic services. Anyone need anything? --Ouro (blah blah) 17:31, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I wouldn't know where to start on a Gsearch. My guess is that the long name, given in the article, is not the name by which the school is known in the local media and hence not a good search term. It would be helpful if you would carry out a search on the Polish Google news to see if you pick up anything worthwhile. TerriersFan (talk) 00:56, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, let's start by googling for the polish name of the school, which returns just over 1300 hits. I wouldn't say whether this is a lot, but it's not much. I couldn't find anything special among the search results to indicate that this school is very different from most other primary schools in Warsaw or Poland. The name of the article is a very direct translation of the name of the school, and it's as elegant as a 40 foot container if you ask me. The history of the school spans a mere 16 years (which is not much). The text of the article is practically in whole a translation of a text from the school's own site. Oh, and it's not present over at pl.wiki either, where only a handful of primary schools, most of them with a long history and a certain significance have their own articles. Agree with ChildofMidnight below, minor not notable school. Therefore delete. --Ouro (blah blah) 21:02, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge/redirect to Białołęka#Education. This is a provisional recommendation pending Ouro turning up anything significant. UK primary schools are never deleted but are merged/redirected to the lowest level of locality article available and I see no reason to treat Polish schools any differently. TerriersFan (talk) 00:56, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge or delete Primary school = non-notable as far as I can tell. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:20, 21 November 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. MBisanz talk 01:44, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Children of Albion: Poetry of the Underground in Britain[edit]
- Children of Albion: Poetry of the Underground in Britain (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Completely unsourced, assumptions and statements are backed my no facts, is by default all opinion βcommand 09:06, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Book written by notable poets and published by a notable publisher. Issues can be addressed by editing instead of deletion. - Mgm|(talk) 12:36, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. There is plenty of factual detail. Please use templates to prompt rather than nominate in this way. AfD is properly about the topic. Charles Matthews (talk) 14:07, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- NB I added a number of references quickly. I suggest {{fact}} from now on. Charles Matthews (talk) 17:42, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. This article about a poetry anthology easily makes out the case for its importance. I frankly don't even see the "opinionated" statements made out by the nominator, at least not in the version I read (did not check the history). The summary conclusions of the opening paragraphs are sustained by the more specific and adequately referenced statements. In literary matters, judgments of significance and criticism are allowable. And, as Mgm points out, all of this would only be a cleanup matter if it existed. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:08, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. An important influential anthology. Stumps (talk) 00:38, 24 November 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 Kinnikuman. MBisanz talk 20:21, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Akuma Choujin[edit]
- Akuma Choujin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Unnotable fictional subrace from Kinnikuman series. Pure plot, OR, and non-free images. Fails WP:N, WP:PLOT, and WP:WAF. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 07:00, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following related pages for the exact same reasons:
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 07:01, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or merge into List of Ultimate Muscle characters or List of Kinnikuman characters (why are there 2 lists?): Nothing on the pages even hints notability, no references, nothing. -- Goodraise (talk) 08:08, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into one of the above character lists. It appears the article is nothing but 'vital statistics' of those involved. Useful, but not in their own article. Also requires a cleanup to fix the number of non-free images. - RD (Talk) 09:26, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Choujin or if that gets deleted to Kinnikuman. Delete non-free images with extreme prejudice. - Mgm|(talk) 12:42, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect per Mgm. Jonny2x4 (talk) 19:24, 20 November 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. MBisanz talk 02:50, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Choujin Olympics[edit]
- Choujin Olympics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Unnotable fictional tournament from Kinnikuman series. Events already covered in plot summary. Article is purely excessive plot and OR. Fails WP:N, WP:PLOT, and WP:WAF. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 06:59, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 07:00, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Cruft at its best. Get rid of it. -- Goodraise (talk) 08:10, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete not appropriate content for an article. Would possibly warrant a sentence or so somewhere in a more comprehensive article --it may well have it already. DGG (talk) 02:04, 21 November 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. MBisanz talk 01:44, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Choujin Kyoudo[edit]
- Choujin Kyoudo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Extremely unnotable fictional element of the Kinnikuman manga series for describing character power levels. Almost purely WP:OR. Also fails WP:N, WP:PLOT, WP:WAF. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 06:58, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 07:00, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: No information given on why it is notable. No wonder - it's not. It's pure cruft. -- Goodraise (talk) 08:15, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per comments above. Any redirects targeting this page should be deleted as well. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 18:59, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete this is the sort of thing i regard as gameguide material and not encyclopedic content--let alone an article.DGG (talk) 01:59, 21 November 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. MBisanz talk 01:45, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Choujin[edit]
- Choujin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Unnotable fictional race from Kinnikuman series. Pure plot and OR. Fails WP:N, WP:PLOT, WP:WAF. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 06:57, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 07:00, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Cruft, cruft, cruft. No, seriously: No references, no links, not even a hint at notablitiy. -- Goodraise (talk) 08:18, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Per WP:N policy. No notability or references at all. ~Beano~ (talk) (contribs) 16:03, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to List of Ultimate Muscle characters if that's what these actually are.DGG (talk)
- Delete Notability not established and article isn't encyclopedic. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:14, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete/Merge it could be merged into the Kinnikuman article, or deleted. Plus it needs a macron... わwaらraうu Smile! 23:46, 22 November 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. MBisanz talk 01:44, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hangover Hannukah[edit]
- Hangover Hannukah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable and without sources. No relevant google hits. Wikipedia is not for something you made up in school one day, nor for something you made up while getting drunk after school. Gimme danger (talk) 05:55, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hangover Hannukah is a new phenomenon at the University of Richmond. It is a thoroughly thought through and developed game, precisely not something that was just thrown together while getting drunk. The gameplay is on wikipedia now as an anticipation of its gradual establishment among college kids around the country. The page was made by the creators of the game, making references and citations unnecessary. There is no harm in keeping the page up, and it can aid in the game's spread. As the game grows, the page will be improved upon by others, and therefore more useful. We the creators only mean to preserve the credibility and usefullness with which wikipedia has provided internet users. The goal of the article is not to personalize wikipedia for our own gains, but to continue making wikipedia the best.(sjack (talk) 06:34, 20 November 2008 (UTC))[reply]
- See WP:CRYSTAL. Cunard (talk) 06:54, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Non-notable game, Wikipedia is not for things made up in one day. Cunard (talk) 06:54, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Notability must be established before an article is created. It should not be created by the article itself.--Beligaronia (talk) 08:03, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Wikipedia is not a place for new concepts to make their debuts; they need to be reported elsewhere first, hopefully in reliable sources. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 09:04, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom and other commenters. - Mgm|(talk) 12:43, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom just madeup crap. JBsupreme (talk) 13:08, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:NFT, and if it really does become popular among "college kids around the country", I'll eat my hat -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:39, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If you really do eat your hat, I'll eat my hat. --Gimme danger (talk) 14:08, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Spill it out Egad, no -- a bunch of college kids inventing a drinking game for Hanukkah? Hey, who needs a dreidel when you have a keg? Ecoleetage (talk) 18:22, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete — Oy, vey! I thought you were supposed to go to college to, like, you know, get an education instead of writing Wikipedia articles about obscurely different ways to blow your brain with booze? MuZemike (talk) 20:07, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I resent that last comment. Get rid of the page, whatever, but stop ridiculing and making assumptions about the creators of the page. I'll have you know that while I appreciate having a good time on the weekends I value my education a whole lot and understand how lucky I am to be in college. We study hard so that when we graduate we can do something with our lives other than sit around on Wiki petitioning to get rid of a page that means nothing to me.sjack (talk) 02:41, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Let's all be civil! There is no need for name calling. Just comment on the AfD, not the author.--Beligaronia (talk) 05:03, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- FYI, I work at a university right now, already have a bachelor's, and probably spent a couple more undergraduate evenings than I should have participating in willful inebriation instead of studying; in other words, I might have very well fit the same stereotype I described above. I realize there are many hard-working students out there (you have to be when working with numbers and stuff), and I appreciate that. However, the fact remains that it's still just something made up; my reason to delete stands. MuZemike (talk) 19:50, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- delete - unsourced and not even a claim of notability. Springnuts (talk) 18:37, 21 November 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. MBisanz talk 02:50, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Solar hot carbon[edit]
- Solar hot carbon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
There's no references that mention solar hot carbon or anything that resembles what's described in the article.
I tried searching for "solar hot carbon" on Google and the only results that turned up was references (directly or indirectly) to this article. Also, the article makes a poor job at explaining what this is, at least in a way that makes any technical sense. Of the alternative names listed only "solar methane" returned any somewhat relevant results [45] but that does not appear to be what is described here.
—Apis (talk) 05:43, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Like Apis, I can find no websites that describe this. If this was even remotely viable, like solar hot water, there would be at least one website about it. The cited source does not include any information on this topic either. It's either non-notable or simply made up. -Atmoz (talk) 06:56, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It sounds sort of legitimate. But there is NOTHING readily available on the web. Not even for hot carbon. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:16, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, the introduction says: "It is essentially the same as [Solar hot water] except that the heat carrying medium is carbon dioxide, methane or smog", and it then goes on talking about greenhouse gases and their ir-properties. But the water (or whatever is used as a heat transfer medium) in a normal solar panel is never in direct contact with the sunlight, instead a black surface is used to absorb the sunlight. So the optical properties of the heat transfer medium does not affect the efficiency of the panel. And what would be the point in using smog?! This article really makes no sense, and it's unreferenced so there is no way to verify that something like this even exist.
—Apis (talk) 00:55, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, the introduction says: "It is essentially the same as [Solar hot water] except that the heat carrying medium is carbon dioxide, methane or smog", and it then goes on talking about greenhouse gases and their ir-properties. But the water (or whatever is used as a heat transfer medium) in a normal solar panel is never in direct contact with the sunlight, instead a black surface is used to absorb the sunlight. So the optical properties of the heat transfer medium does not affect the efficiency of the panel. And what would be the point in using smog?! This article really makes no sense, and it's unreferenced so there is no way to verify that something like this even exist.
- Delete, this is original research. Fee Fi Foe Fum (talk) 05:03, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to know if this is feasible for use in the newer tube type technology currently using vacuum to prevent heat loss from the absorbers which convert sunlight to heat. Even if efficiency in available heat from the sunlight conversion is less, perhaps there is a savings on creating heat collection tubes with carbon dioxide in them instead of vacuum, also fewer seal leakage problems such as occur in vacuum tube solar heat systems. Also should have use as a medium between window double and triple glazing in homes to help stop heat loss. Joe Zyzyx —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.251.206.154 (talk) 19:35, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The vacuum surrounding the black surface is there to prevent convective heat transfer. Using CO2 instead of a vacuum would only cause the panel to loose extra energy by convection, thereby lowering efficiency.
—Apis (talk) 00:55, 24 November 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. MBisanz talk 02:49, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Carlos Burgos[edit]
- Carlos Burgos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
I think this article might be a hoax. Burgos is not playing for UCF, and I see no evidence for the other claims in the article. Zagalejo^^^ 05:41, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 06:31, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 06:32, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 06:33, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 06:33, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails WP:ATHLETE. A search for sources across Google and Google News returns unrelated results. This article is probably not a hoax, since the article does not make any spurious claims. I strongly suspect it's autobiographical, though. In the last paragraph of the article, the creator of this article writes, "Carlos transferred to UCF where he will be a walk-on and hopefully play the 2008-2009 season. Burgos' plans are to attend college and study Criminal Justice and play basketball." Since the article was created in July 2008 (probably before the UCF basketball players were chosen), this looks like speculation by someone with a WP:COI. Sadly for Carlos Burgos, he didn't make the UCF team as seen in Zagalejo's link. Cunard (talk) 07:45, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Notability not established per guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:11, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - As a blantant hoax. The only player whose last name was "Burgos" to play in 2004 (his supposed "rookie year") is named Gary Joe and the same goes for 2005, 2006, 2007 and 2008. As a matter of fact my BS-meter went skyhigh as soon as I read the article, it is really strange that someone who followed the BSN from 2004-2006 first hand hasn't heard of this "phenom". - Caribbean~H.Q. 04:29, 24 November 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. MBisanz talk 01:44, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2007–08 North Dakota Fighting Sioux men's ice hockey team[edit]
- 2007–08 North Dakota Fighting Sioux men's ice hockey team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable amateur team season article that is contrary to previous AfDs and agruments. Fails WP:N and WP:V. Grsz11 →Review! 05:41, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. —Krm500 (Communicate!) 05:46, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hockey-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 06:27, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 06:29, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Kaiser matias (talk) 06:44, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Also worth noting that article is incomplete and was abandoned at the beginning of the season. --Smashvilletalk 13:33, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Deleteper nom. This article was started then abandoned, no improvements for a while, needs to be deleted unless some helpful contributions come up. HairyPerry 16:54, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Ha, it didn't occur to me that this was last season. Oh well, even more deletion-worthy because of that. Grsz11 →Review! 19:22, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom and ample cases of deleting this sort of article. -Djsasso (talk) 19:39, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Transwiki to Ice Hockey Wiki on Wikia. Powers T 00:54, 23 November 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 while I was writing up the AfD nom. :) Protonk (talk) 05:35, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Lupercal Institute[edit]
- The Lupercal Institute (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Hoax article, though not blatant. I declined the speedy (though the article was previously speedied). There are "references", of course, but the think tank is a fiction (as are the references). Some time spend looking at the formatting and the claims in the article should make this clear. Please don't speedy this outside of this process--I'd rather we just work through the AfD process as WP:HOAX suggests. Protonk (talk) 05:29, 20 November 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. (non-admin closure) — neuro(talk) 17:33, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dick Wertheim[edit]
- Dick Wertheim (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
No offence to Mr Wertheim or his family, but this seems inappropriate and non-notable as far as WP articles are concerned. It might be plausible to redirect this to whichever year's US Open (tennis, presumably) this occurred at, but outright deletion must also be a possibility. Grutness...wha? 04:57, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - sources are here, here, and here. This has to be a notable event - although it is a once-off, it was a professional tennis tournament and it's pretty rare for officials to be injured and killed on the professional tennis circuit. - Richard Cavell (talk) 05:08, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 06:35, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 06:36, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Death at a sporting event is a thankfully rare occurance, as the deaths of Ray Chapman and Brittanie Cecil, along with Hillsborough can tell us, and any incident where a spectator, official or player is struck by an object and killed is sadly very notable for usually instituting changes in safety practices at a sports venue. This is no different and is a candidate for expansion. Nate • (chatter) 07:49, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Richard Cavell. I have made some edits in hopes of improving the article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 09:31, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Nate and Richard's reasoning. (Did he really fall on pavement? I would expect gravel or grass) - Mgm|(talk) 12:46, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- keep 84.13.129.44 (talk) 12:47, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You provide no reason for keeping the article. MuZemike (talk) 20:08, 20 November 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. still falls under G11 L'Aquatique[talk] 07:52, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nutricosmetic[edit]
- Nutricosmetic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Originally tagged for speedy G11, but the promotional material was then removed by the creator. What is left is a dicdef that asserts no notability. Delete.
Also nominating:
- Nutricosmetic Pill (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Nutricosmetics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 04:37, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Agreed. I just G11'ed another article by the same user. J.delanoygabsadds 04:41, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Nutricosmetic Pill as WP:NEO and WP:DICDEF (and an ad); less sure about Nutricosmetic/Nutricosmetics which may be viable if the advertisements are removed, so weak keep on them (redirect one to the other). JJL (talk) 04:47, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as spammy. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:50, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah I see why I'm confused. The three articles all lead to the same AfD.
- Comment Regarding the article that used to be less spammy, would a better approach be to seek Admin action regarding the editor creating these unreferenced advertisements? ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:48, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, I put two of the three up for speedy. Is it better to let the AfD run its course? ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:53, 20 November 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. MBisanz talk 01:43, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dexter's Kill Count - Spoiler Alert[edit]
- Dexter's Kill Count - Spoiler Alert (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Pentasyllabic (talk) 03:57, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unencyclopedic content and redundant with List of Dexter characters (sections Villains and Victims of Season X).Contested PROD (see article history). Pentasyllabic (talk) 03:46, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Uncyclopedic informtation that can easily be found in the better redundant article, and the title doesn't meet article title standards at all. Nate • (chatter) 04:01, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - 'spoiler alerts' are no longer allowed by Wikipedia guidelines. (I ought to say that I opposed this change, but we have a clear consensus on the matter and it sticks). - Richard Cavell (talk) 04:57, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Unencyclopedic and not notable per guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:01, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Also bad article title and entirely in-universe-focused. – sgeureka t•c 10:31, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete bad title so not suitable for a redirect, already amply covered elsewhere. - Mgm|(talk) 12:51, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Every single thing about this article is full of fail. JBsupreme (talk) 13:09, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as being too fan-page-ish, even by my standards. Please note a nearly identical article is up for AFD farther up this page. 23skidoo (talk) 19:25, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Redundant article. — neuro(talk) 21:56, 20 November 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 Bering Strait bridge. MBisanz talk 02:48, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
St. Lawrence Dam[edit]
- St. Lawrence Dam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Contested prod. Non-notable research project. Only very recently published. Could not find any third-party reliable sources. Millbrooky (talk) 19:06, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Hope nobody takes the proposal (the dam I mean) seriously. NVO (talk) 19:14, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge/Redirect – To Bering Strait bridge under Alternatives. It would flesh out this paragraph, and if or when it gains more popularity, could be split out at that point. ShoesssS Talk 19:26, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. This is just a proposal put forward by an architect that has not been accepted or endorsed by either government. The only valid news coverage found again only details the plans and benefits with no details on implementation. Should be deleted per WP:CRYSTAL. However, if current sources are satisfactory enough, a merge to Bering Strait bridge might be fine. Although, since the connection is established by the proposal itself, I personally doubt the credibility of such merger. LeaveSleaves talk 03:07, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - If reviewing under your proposed criteria, all articles concerning the Bering Strait bridge should be deleted as they all would fall under Crystal, in that all are just in the proposal stage at this point. A merge is a more prudent decision, regarding this piece, in that the proposal has not been accepted or rejected, but just suggested as an alternate solution to the situation. ShoesssS Talk 23:10, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You know, when I wrote my response I did feel that somebody would say how is this article different from Bering Strait bridge. Well, what my line of thought was: although Bering Strait bridge is a proposed project, it has significant historical and media coverage to consider that it is notable. Its viability has been considered on both engineering and political level. When we evaluate present article on this level: it has been proposed by an independent architect couple of months ago and has had very scarce media or technical coverage, at least from what my search results indicate. Now, I'm not an expert in the area and perhaps my search criteria is very narrow. But, I feel the the encyclopedic value of this topic at the moment is extremely spotty and perhaps in future, if the project is considered seriously this may be covered.
- On a separate note, the article based completely on a single primary source and lacks third-party reliable sources. LeaveSleaves talk 01:13, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Hey Sleaves, I agree, the proposal itself does not deserve an article, St. Lawerence Dam section that is. However, since a noted geogeaphical engineering, Rolf Schuttenhelm, has received more than a little coverage concrning his proposal, as noted here [46]], I felt the piece should not be descarded out of hand, but rather merged into the Bering Strait bridge piece. This fleshes out the Bering Strait bridge article under alternatives and does justice to the Dam piece. Thanks! ShoesssS Talk 12:33, 15 November 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 18:31, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alaska-related deletion discussions. —Dual Freq (talk) 22:00, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. —Dual Freq (talk) 22:00, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. —Dual Freq (talk) 22:00, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jamie☆S93 03:45, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete fails notability. Dlabtot (talk) 03:56, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Bold merge? If notable at all seems to belong in a broader article on the subject matter. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:03, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge with Bering Strait bridge, since it doesn't appear to have enought notability for its own article. LinguistAtLarge 05:27, 20 November 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. MBisanz talk 01:43, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Lucia Newman[edit]
- Lucia Newman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Unnotable news journalist. I couldn't find many sources for her besides what she has covered herself, which makes her a victim of WP:V and possibly WP:OR. Tavix (talk) 03:37, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete no sources. Dlabtot (talk) 03:57, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 04:26, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete until someone comes up with sources and notability. I haven't seen her on CNN. Did she have an on-camera role? Some journalists with CNN would be notable, and others... not. - Richard Cavell (talk) 05:04, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Notability not established. I don't think being a tv journalist is enough in and of itself. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:04, 20 November 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. Improper forum MBisanz talk 03:07, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
UD Almeria squad[edit]
- UD Almeria squad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Improper CNR to a template, bot created, probably an accident. MBisanz talk 03:05, 20 November 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:G4 and G5. Stifle (talk) 11:38, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
List of the Heads of the House of Plantagenet[edit]
- List of the Heads of the House of Plantagenet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
OR,POV fork,created by sock puppet of banned user Agricolae (talk) 02:51, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I forgot to mention that the material not on the House of Plantagenet or House of York pages is the same material already AfD under a different name, as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heads of the House of York, and that the 'List' does not have a corresponding page Heads of the House of Plantagenet, as is supposed to be the case with lists. Agricolae (talk) 03:03, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. —Agricolae (talk) 03:03, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. —Agricolae (talk) 03:03, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
G5 as creation of a sock of a banned user, unless I'm misunderstanding G5. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 03:08, 20 November 2008 (UTC)Strong delete PoV fork, created by sock of banned user. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 03:11, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]- Delete I understand the policy-- "Any edits made in defiance of a ban may be reverted to enforce the ban, regardless of the merits of the edits themselves. As the banned user is not authorized to make those edits, there is no need to discuss them prior to reversion."; and I realize that that's unquestionably a ground for a delete. But I've got to ask, however, what is this a fork of? In other words, is there a similar page that trails the House of Plantagenet after King Richard III? Mandsford (talk) 03:35, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Long story, but as best I can follow it: The page Britain's Real Monarch was (before that part was edited out) a POV fork of the 'true' right to inherit the throne of England, based on WP:FRINGE speculation and redefinition of the rules of inheritance made by a UK uni prof who managed to get his theory picked up for a BBC special. The line is still to be found at Alternate successions of the English crown. The Plantagenet page (and the deleted Heads of the House of York page) present an alternative theory of who should be heir, given that the initial assumption of the first POV fork was right, but then applying different (arbitrary) rules in a subsequent generation. After first putting this forward as an alternative right to succeed to the throne, the creator shifted arguments and suggested that the rights to head the House of York, and to inherit the family's claims, diverged, and the Head of the House of York page was created to show this. Since the House of York was part of the House of Plantagenet, a second page was created showing the same people as heirs to the Plantagenets, but the sole reason for this page is to present an alternative POV to the Real Monarch claim. Agricolae (talk) 04:20, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom and discussion. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:06, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ugh, this again. Clearly WP:OR. I can't see the York article as I'm not an admin, but based on Agricolae's comments it sounds like Speedy delete G4 (recreation of deleted material). Stephen Turner (Talk) 08:19, 20 November 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. Lots of weak comments both ways, but I see a rough consensus to keep, apparently out the deference to the fact that we're dealing with non-English sources. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 01:43, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Gabor G. Gyukics[edit]
- Gabor G. Gyukics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 07:46, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:54, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. These sources indicate that he's pretty big on the Budapest poetry scene, but they don't exactly provide extensive coverage. Also a Google search using the eastern name order comes up with quite a few hits, but I can't evaluate them because my Hungarian is non-existent. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:41, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep. Links provided above indicates he is notable in Budapest poetry scene. -- OceanWatcher (talk) 18:03, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 02:29, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 05:06, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 12:56, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete. While I understand the points above, the article as it stands now does not appear to establish notability. Wizardman 05:07, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep - while we don't have sourcing, Phil's work has demonstrated that sourcing might be possible but difficult due language. -- Whpq (talk) 18:14, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 02:03, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Notability not established. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:09, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Sources exist, so the way to meet the article's problems is to add them, not delete it. - Mgm|(talk) 12:53, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep if there are sources that he's nationally notable as a poet. the amount of published work would seem to substantiate it, but perhaps we should try once more to find someone to comment who understands at least the language. DGG (talk) 02:07, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Even if he has some national popularity, that seems a bit provincial in the grand scheme of things, no? Lots of poets are translated and written about internationally. I respect the stretch to include a Hungarian poet, but so far there hasn't been a strong indication that this one is notable. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:47, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep. Seems to be nationally notable, but verification from Hungarian speaking fellows is needed.Beagel (talk) 21:40, 23 November 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. MBisanz talk 15:45, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Edwin Day[edit]
- Edwin Day (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
- Delete No reliable sources, non notable, not verifiable, OR. Mwanner | Talk 13:13, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, notable politician. Stifle (talk) 14:21, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Gnews turns up several references in his local county paper, the Lower Hudson Journal; not sure that consitutes enough sources to be "notable". Notably, though, Google turned up no mention of him that I could find in NYC papers; the one hit I got in the New York Times was about S. Edwin Day, a NY state assemblyman of the 1890s. Rklear (talk) 17:07, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Very limited hits on Google, no visible national press coverage, fails WP:POLITICIAN as not in the highest sub-national level of government (county legislator) and no notable contributions on the local level. Theseeker4 (talk) 17:21, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep notable as Chief of Detective in the Baltimore police. A major position--one of t he highest officers--of a major city police force. We do need to find some sourcing about it, but that's what we should be looking for. that it might not be easily accessible online is irrelevant. DGG (talk) 02:41, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:21, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:21, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:22, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Non notable politician who fails WP:BIO for politicians. Valenciano (talk) 06:45, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 02:02, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete no sources, non-notable. Dlabtot (talk) 03:59, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Notability not established. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:10, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I dug up a source from Lexis Nexis that discussed his appointment to head the Baltimore Police Department and an article about him submitting legislation. I have to pry it out, but sources do seem to exist. Being both a police chief and a politician makes someone notable (in my opinion at least) especially when sources exist). - Mgm|(talk) 13:03, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The requisite non-trivial coverage from reliable third party sources appears to be lacking. JBsupreme (talk) 13:10, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails WP:POLITICIAN (sub-state level), and Chief of Detectives is not so high a spot that it gets automatic notability. In this case, we consider WP:BIO, and it is clear that Mr. Day has not received *significant* amounts of coverage in reliable secondary sources. RayAYang (talk) 17:06, 20 November 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 Redirected to The Agonist NAC Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 02:14, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Danny Marino[edit]
- Danny Marino (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Fails WP:MUSIC. Not independently notable, band seems to fail as well. SummerPhD (talk) 13:36, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to The Agonist. Doesn't seem to meet WP:BIO or any other notability guideline. Stifle (talk) 14:15, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to The Agonist for failing to establish individual notability per WP:MUSIC. I don't believe it should be merged since none of what is said in the article is referenced. Esradekan Gibb "Talk" 22:39, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:15, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 02:01, 20 November 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. MBisanz talk 20:21, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Metal Storm (webzine)[edit]
- Metal Storm (webzine) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Metal webzine that fails WP:WEB; no coverage about the webzine in independent sources. Only claim to notability is an Alexa score, which just doesn't cut it. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 13:56, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, doesn't seem to pass WP:WEB or WP:GNG, and doesn't include the requisite citations from reliable sources. Stifle (talk) 14:10, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I tried searching on Google News archives, and also in a library database of newspaper and magazine articles, but could not find any independent sources that would help to establish WP:N notability. Delete unless sources appear before the end of this deletion discussion. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 17:47, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:15, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:15, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This web site is very notable. --68.103.2.240 (talk) 20:36, 15 November 2008 (UTC) — 68.103.2.240 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Comment That is not an argument. What sources do you have to demonstrate notability? Blackmetalbaz (talk) 20:42, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep If you do a Google search with the name in one word and e.g. the awards (as done in the link provided), you will see that quite a few bands links to those awards every year TheWutheringRaven (talk) 09:03, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It's rather unimportant whether bands link to the site, and the awards are not pertinent to WP:WEB, as the site itself would have had to have received a major award, rather than doling them out. Any webzine can award an album of the year. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 15:11, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Do you consider the fact that other sites use their reviews and interviews as something that can establish notability? An example in that case could be Gamespot.com or Metal-Rules.com. If not then I can't provide other than the fact that people use it for metal related news if they're not comfortable with Blabbermouth. TheWutheringRaven (talk) 17:13, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Blabbermouth has used a MetalStorm interview once or twice as well, and some Wikipedia pages has MS listed as references too. TheWutheringRaven (talk) 14:07, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The best of the bunch there is that Blabbermouth reprinted one of their inetrviews... which let's face it, is not particularly special. All the others are other non-notable internet fansites. Oh, sorry, apart from Wikipedia, of course ;-) Blackmetalbaz (talk) 13:39, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Blabbermouth has used a MetalStorm interview once or twice as well, and some Wikipedia pages has MS listed as references too. TheWutheringRaven (talk) 14:07, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I don't see how they meet notability for web or general notability. They haven't been covered in any articles in reliable sources, nor have they won any awards. Distribution of their content is basically themselves and the one reprint on another site. It just doesn't add up to notability for a webzine. That many bands have been given an award by Metal Storm doesn't establish notability. If these awards were significant and were covered in reliable sources, that would be a different. But I found no coverage about these awards in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 18:01, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 02:01, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep Seems to be a somewhat notable site. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:17, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete (weakly)--as sympathetic as I am to the project, it needs to be covered to establish notability, that's simply how it works. That quite a few WP pages use Metal Storm to establish notability for the article, that's something that needs to be addressed individually, but it doesn't confer notability on Metal Storm. Drmies (talk) 15:49, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The site is undoubtedly one of the top places to get information about metal bands. So since many bands have links to it for reviews, interviews and other stuff, I think a wiki article is justified. But a "clean-up" of the article is needed, so it has a more neutral view. Iaberis (talk) 18:32, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, many other less notable metal webzines have wikipages, so I don't see why not this one too. Iaberis (talk) 18:41, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 11:53, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I don't know if anyone have noticed the part about being an official partner of French festival HellFest under Concert Reviews. As stated there MS have participated in the upcoming DVD about the festival. TheWutheringRaven (talk) 19:30, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Have to agree on this, HellFest's site is a reliable source and generally speaking the 2nd biggest metal event of Europe. Iaberis (talk) 02:31, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Biggest metal webzine on the internet, so obviously highly noteable. The site is recognised by many large labels and festivals around the world, some band members & organisers even have accounts on the site. Also, as stated above, Metal Storm is also credited in the new Hellfest DVD.Bazanderson88 (talk) 19:49, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - none of these keep arguments adress the lack of independent reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 11:17, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment How is HellFest, record labels and bands not independent reliable sources?? TheWutheringRaven (talk) 17:46, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply - This is in respect to notability. Notability is established with coverage in reliable sources such as newspapers, trade magazines, etc. A band or record label linking mentioning an award doesn't establish notability. A sponsorship agreement doesn't establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 20:28, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- CommentWhpq, you didn't answer The WutheringRaven's question. He asked WHY Hellfest, record labels, bands aren't considered as independent reliable sources. OzmanM (talk)
- Reply - Please read the notability guideslines, WP:N. I have answered the question. -- Whpq (talk) 10:57, 25 November 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. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:27, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Bernard Morris[edit]
- Bernard Morris (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Does not meet WP:Athlete User:2008Olympianchitchatseemywork 20:48, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry, but you'll have to explain why it doesn't meet WP:ATHLETE, cause I'm confused. It specifically states that we can keep "Competitors who have competed at the highest level in amateur sports." How does the quarterback for a Division I school fail that criteria? I'm not saying he was stellar or that the article couldn't be improved, but those are separate issues. Just because an article needs improvement doesn't mean it should be deleted. — BQZip01 — talk 23:37, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Playing college football alone isn't enough to satisfy the requirements, otherwise we would have tons of college football-only player articles (and college baseball, college basketball, college golf), which we do not have. I interpret "Highest levels of amateur sports" to refer to Olympic or World Championship-level sports that do not have comparable professional levels: track, volleyball, etc. By your reasoning, anyone who competed at the "highest level" of amateur street racing or amateur skateboarding would be in. Either you get paid full-time for your competition or that competition has some newsworthy medals attached to it is how I read those sentences.--User:2008Olympianchitchatseemywork 12:12, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no linkage between #1 and #2. Look above and below and you'll find they are just lists of criteria, not "#1 XYZ and #2 if he doesn't fit that, but only if he isn't Y, then it can stay unless #3 he's born on October 22nd..." etc.
- Playing college football alone isn't enough to satisfy the requirements, otherwise we would have tons of college football-only player articles (and college baseball, college basketball, college golf), which we do not have. I interpret "Highest levels of amateur sports" to refer to Olympic or World Championship-level sports that do not have comparable professional levels: track, volleyball, etc. By your reasoning, anyone who competed at the "highest level" of amateur street racing or amateur skateboarding would be in. Either you get paid full-time for your competition or that competition has some newsworthy medals attached to it is how I read those sentences.--User:2008Olympianchitchatseemywork 12:12, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry, but you'll have to explain why it doesn't meet WP:ATHLETE, cause I'm confused. It specifically states that we can keep "Competitors who have competed at the highest level in amateur sports." How does the quarterback for a Division I school fail that criteria? I'm not saying he was stellar or that the article couldn't be improved, but those are separate issues. Just because an article needs improvement doesn't mean it should be deleted. — BQZip01 — talk 23:37, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep This article is definitely notable enough to be kept since he was a college athlete who was a starter and was invited to the NFL Combine this year. Which obviously makes him notable enough to have a Wikipedia page. --Iamawesome800 (talk) 21:55, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Hasn't played professionally in what is basically a professional sport. Doesn't meet WP:ATHLETE per nom. Unusual? Quite TalkQu 22:21, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The vast majority of college athletes don't go to the Pros. Besides, he meets the WP:Athlete criteria to a T (see below for more). — BQZip01 — talk 23:37, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteBecause having been a college starter and having been invited to the NFL combine is insufficient to establish notability according to Wikipedia guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:31, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
*His amateur career seems to satisfy the guidelines for inclusion. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:07, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I'm returning to my original conclusion. He competed at a high level, but I don't think he competed at the highest level. There just doesn't seem to be any notability demonstrated. Unless the policy is that all div 1 athletes who start in college automatically qualify, I just don't see why he belongs in the encyclopedia. His achievements are impressive, no doubt about it, but does he belong in the encyclopedia because he played quarterback at Marshall? I don't think so. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:06, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:06, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:06, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:06, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Long-established practice is that individuals in professional-type sports, including American football, aren't notable for non-professional play, unless they're really distinctive. This guy isn't really distinctive, and he's not professional. Nyttend (talk) 05:40, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Not quite sure where you are getting the "long-established practice" part because I don't see anything even close to what you purport. WP:BIO, a well established guideline, states to the contrary and no policy states anything close to what you support. If you want to change policy/guidelines, please do so on those pages, but I think it's a keeper under our current guidelines/policy. — BQZip01 — talk 00:20, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- keep meets guidelines set forward in essay on college football notability. Needs work. The "long-established practice" mentioned above is not really "accepted" or "established" as the existence of the NFL does not negate notability at the college level, as discussed here.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:59, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Just an FYI but that is not a guideline just an essay. GtstrickyTalk or C 20:20, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- EMPHATICALLY STRONG CAPITALIZED LETTERS KEEP (ok a bit of overkill there, but you get the point). This particular person explicitly meets the criteria in WP:BIO which state "Competitors who have competed at the highest level in amateur sports." The quarterback for a team is inherently the highest position for an athlete on a football team. — BQZip01 — talk 23:32, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep. I think he meets the current form of WP:ATHLETE. I seem to recall that an earlier form of the guideline suggested that subjects would be presumed notable for their amateur careers only if they played in sports with no professional equivalent. However, the current version makes no such distinction. I suppose one could argue that because Marshall doesn't play division I football, he didn't participate at the "highest level", but given that he played the most visibile position on the team, and apparently started his entire junior season, is probably enough. I would feel differently about a reserve player. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 15:02, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Marshall does play Division I football. Football Bowl Subdivision level too. — X96lee15 (talk) 15:20, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yep! From Marshall Thundering Herd: "Since moving to Division I-A, Marshall is 5-2 in bowl games and has finished in the Top 25 three times" ...--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:33, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I stand corrected. You know, I'm not sure I'm happy that I'm more up to date on WP:N than Div I football... Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 16:38, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I forgive you!--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:49, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I stand corrected. You know, I'm not sure I'm happy that I'm more up to date on WP:N than Div I football... Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 16:38, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:59, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment As I said above, "Long-established practice is that individuals in professional-type sports, including American football, aren't notable for non-professional play, unless they're really distinctive". For proof: consider that most amateur league baseball players competed in college baseball, which corresponds quite well to college football, but we've long considered that minor leaguers aren't inherently notable. If they, being former college baseball players, aren't notable, how can former college competitors in another sport be inherently notable? Nyttend (talk) 02:52, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Seriously, who is this "we" you speak of? Where did you find such a consensus? — BQZip01 — talk 05:49, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Delete based on no demonstrated notability, and no entitlement at all to inherent notability. The phrase "Competitors who have competed at the highest level of amateur sports" is preceded by another section that refers to "Competitors who have competed in a fully professional league, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport such as swimming, golf or tennis." If it had been intended that "competed in an high-level amateur league" was entitled to the same treatment as "competed in a fully professional league", then something of that nature could have been added. But it wasn't. I would conclude that WP:ATHLETE does not mean that all college athletes are notable just by having competed in a major college football conference. "Highest level of amateur sports" would not mean a bye just by playing NCAA Division I-A football. Arguably, Bernard Morris could potentially be shown to be notable in comparison to other college (amateur) football players, such as an All-America selection, or being invited to play in an all-star college game (Hula Bowl, Shrine Game, etc.). Passing for 1,346 yards isn't too shabby, but it's not passing leader material either. Mandsford (talk) 03:45, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It may be preceded by another section, but that section lists ONE form of criteria. It isn't inclusive (you don't have to satisfy both conditions). This is inherently notable. He doesn't have to be an All-American or even a trophy winner. — BQZip01 — talk 05:48, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Under your interpretation of the guideline, every college football, baseball, volleyball, basketball, golf, track, soccer, softball, lacrosse, fencing, rowing, etc to ad nauseum player would be notable. That's why the guideline is 1. Fully professional is there exists such in that sport and 2. Highest level of amateur sports for those that do not exist: Olympics and World Championships.--User:2008Olympianchitchatseemywork 12:33, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Your interpretation of the guideline is interesting, but the guideline states nothing of what you stated above. — BQZip01 — talk 17:17, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Under your interpretation of the guideline, every college football, baseball, volleyball, basketball, golf, track, soccer, softball, lacrosse, fencing, rowing, etc to ad nauseum player would be notable. That's why the guideline is 1. Fully professional is there exists such in that sport and 2. Highest level of amateur sports for those that do not exist: Olympics and World Championships.--User:2008Olympianchitchatseemywork 12:33, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It may be preceded by another section, but that section lists ONE form of criteria. It isn't inclusive (you don't have to satisfy both conditions). This is inherently notable. He doesn't have to be an All-American or even a trophy winner. — BQZip01 — talk 05:48, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: My interpretation of the athlete guideline is that if there is a pro-league, they should have played a game in that league. This really does open the door to considering all college players as members of the highest-level of an amateur sport. I don't think a minor league player is notable, which could be construed as being even closer to professional sports than a college player. Law shoot! 13:38, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment but a minor league player (such as arena football, world league, etc) would be a professional league. College football is separate, different, and distinctive--and the highest level of the amateur expression of the sport.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:55, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- What about college tennis? If college football has this distinction, then the athlete guideline would allow all college footballers to have an article. I believe a college ballplayer, for any sport, would have to pass WP:N as opposed to ATHLETE. Law shoot! 14:16, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Regarding the minor league sports, the usual outcome on those has been that lower level players still have to demonstrate notability within the sport. We had a discussion a few months back when someone created articles for every player on the Fort Meyers Sun Sox, which plays in the Class A Florida State League in baseball. The consensus was that, despite the fact that the FSL is a "fully professional sports league" (all of its players are paid to play), that didn't mean that all players were inherently notable. Inherent notability is, and should be, limited. We don't have a bye for every scientist involved in cancer research or the search for alternative energy either. I think that Mr. Morris himself would acknowledge that there are lots of things that are more important than playing college football. As for saying that all college athletes should be inherently notable, its not much different than those blue ribbons that say "participant", and which are handed out to every kid who didn't place 1st, 2nd or 3rd in a competition. Or giving a little trophy to every kid that plays Little League baseball. Somehow, I think that most college football players will not worry too much about whether they have been honored on Wikipedia, and that the trophies that really matter are the ones that they have earned. Mandsford (talk) 14:24, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Nice, but what does that have to do with this particular article?--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:14, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Regarding the minor league sports, the usual outcome on those has been that lower level players still have to demonstrate notability within the sport. We had a discussion a few months back when someone created articles for every player on the Fort Meyers Sun Sox, which plays in the Class A Florida State League in baseball. The consensus was that, despite the fact that the FSL is a "fully professional sports league" (all of its players are paid to play), that didn't mean that all players were inherently notable. Inherent notability is, and should be, limited. We don't have a bye for every scientist involved in cancer research or the search for alternative energy either. I think that Mr. Morris himself would acknowledge that there are lots of things that are more important than playing college football. As for saying that all college athletes should be inherently notable, its not much different than those blue ribbons that say "participant", and which are handed out to every kid who didn't place 1st, 2nd or 3rd in a competition. Or giving a little trophy to every kid that plays Little League baseball. Somehow, I think that most college football players will not worry too much about whether they have been honored on Wikipedia, and that the trophies that really matter are the ones that they have earned. Mandsford (talk) 14:24, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- What about college tennis? If college football has this distinction, then the athlete guideline would allow all college footballers to have an article. I believe a college ballplayer, for any sport, would have to pass WP:N as opposed to ATHLETE. Law shoot! 14:16, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Response Since you asked... It gets back to the simple statements in WP:ATHLETE concerning which players are inherently notable and which ones are not. Bernard Morris is not inherently notable, and not any more notable than any other college player. Your argument for "Keep" is "meets guidelines set forward in essay on college football notability." Let's be absolutely clear on this, since the word "guidelines" implies some type of acceptance by the Wikipedia community. What you refer to as "guidelines set forward in an essay on college football notability" are not guidelines at all. They appear to be one man's proposals [49]. If anyone takes the time to read the essay, they will see that it includes suggestions on how to respond to people who refer to the established guidelines [50]. Arguing that Bernard Morris is entitled to his own article because it meets a proposed guideline is not much different than saying that I'm entitled to have my mortgage paid off because there is a "law" that has been introduced in Congress. I'm afraid that your personal opinion is entitled to no more deference than the personal opinion of any of the other persons in this discussion. Mandsford (talk) 20:57, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. There's nothing that would set him apart from any other starting member of his own team, much less the players on a multitude of similar teams worldwide. BQZip01's assertion that the quarterback is "inherently the highest position for an athlete on a football team" is too strong a statement: other positions are often occupied by superior athletes, and team captains (when designated) are not necessarily quarterbacks. There's no reason that quarterbacking (on an NCAA team) should guarantee notability. As for WP:Athlete, I'd say that in general, international competition in amateur sport is considered to be "the highest level" (e.g. Olympics, world championships, etc.). Although within the U.S., the NCAA would probably be viewed as being "the highest level", it's probably useful to be aware of WP:Bias when evaluating notability. TheFeds 18:29, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't say he was always the superior athlete, but the QB is the "field general" and makes the calls on the field. I'll grant you they aren't always the team captains either, but most are. I concur that internationally, international competition is indeed the highest, but since we're talking about football (almost exclusively an American sport), the highest amateur status they can attain is in college/NCAA. Therefore I say keep. Can you explain why you don't exactly. I'm a little confused. — BQZip01 — talk 19:13, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I think we need to consider whether or not notability guidelines should be interpreted with a regional bias. It seems to me that if we consider the NCAA to be "the highest level", then we're ignoring international (American) football leagues and tournaments. In any other amateur sport played at an international level, we'd consider tournaments between nations to be higher-level than tournaments between schools. Also, consider the CIS from Canada: while football is similarly widespread there, there is no special cultural recognition of university football teams, and likely no compelling reason to designate any of their team members (much less quarterbacks only) as being notable on Wikipedia. TheFeds 21:44, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm okay with CIS football notability. There's even a canadian football project that digs into it...--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:54, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "I think we need to consider whether or not notability guidelines should be interpreted with a regional bias."
- Great. Please bring it up on the guideline's page. Until that changes, our discussion is based on the current criteria.
- "It seems to me that if we consider the NCAA to be "the highest level", then we're ignoring international (American) football leagues and tournaments."
- Why? Is there a higher level of amateur competition in American football of which I am unaware? The section you point to makes only a passing reference to a single amateur league (CIS).
- "In any other amateur sport played at an international level, we'd consider tournaments between nations to be higher-level than tournaments between schools."
- Well, this isn't any other amateur sport, is it? Since there are no tournaments between nations for football, this is a wonderful academic discussion, but it simply doesn't apply here.
- "Also, consider the CIS from Canada: while football is similarly widespread there, there is no special cultural recognition of university football teams, and likely no compelling reason to designate any of their team members (much less quarterbacks only) as being notable on Wikipedia."
- So because there is cultural recognition of football teams in the U.S. and there isn't a cultural impact in Canada, we shouldn't put any of them on Wikipedia? I would argue the exact opposite. If people in the U.S. care about football, then it would be reasonable to have a in-depth section on it. If they don't care then we might not even bother because no one would read it. IMHO, I wouldn't care one way or another if they included it or not. They too seem to be the pinnacle of Canadian experience in American football. — BQZip01 — talk 16:48, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "I think we need to consider whether or not notability guidelines should be interpreted with a regional bias."
- I'm okay with CIS football notability. There's even a canadian football project that digs into it...--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:54, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I think we need to consider whether or not notability guidelines should be interpreted with a regional bias. It seems to me that if we consider the NCAA to be "the highest level", then we're ignoring international (American) football leagues and tournaments. In any other amateur sport played at an international level, we'd consider tournaments between nations to be higher-level than tournaments between schools. Also, consider the CIS from Canada: while football is similarly widespread there, there is no special cultural recognition of university football teams, and likely no compelling reason to designate any of their team members (much less quarterbacks only) as being notable on Wikipedia. TheFeds 21:44, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't say he was always the superior athlete, but the QB is the "field general" and makes the calls on the field. I'll grant you they aren't always the team captains either, but most are. I concur that internationally, international competition is indeed the highest, but since we're talking about football (almost exclusively an American sport), the highest amateur status they can attain is in college/NCAA. Therefore I say keep. Can you explain why you don't exactly. I'm a little confused. — BQZip01 — talk 19:13, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete As a group, NCAA football players do not meet the WP:ATHLETE requirement. They would then need to be notable on their own (and satisfy WP:BIO) and he is not. GtstrickyTalk or C 20:20, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Question Why do we even bother to have WP:ATHLETE if people are going to completely ignore it without cause or resaon?--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:23, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Because Wikipedia:Notability (sports) failed to reach consensus. Thank God WP:ATHLETE is only a guideline and not policy and we can apply some common sense (WP:IAR). GtstrickyTalk or C 22:22, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, thank goodness we have ambiguity. That way we can continue to have heated discussions like these. Just because someone doesn't agree with you doesn't mean they don't have common sense; please keep that in mind. — BQZip01 — talk 06:27, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Because Wikipedia:Notability (sports) failed to reach consensus. Thank God WP:ATHLETE is only a guideline and not policy and we can apply some common sense (WP:IAR). GtstrickyTalk or C 22:22, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per WP:ATHLETE. Marshall is a member of NCAA Division I FBS, the "highest level in amateur sports". The way WP:ATHLETE is written, Morris is notable. Seems pretty clear-cut to me. Issues with that guideline should be brought up elsewhere. — X96lee15 (talk) 20:27, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, there's no indication that he competed at the "highest level". I didn't see any notations on bowl games. He wasn't, apparently, selected for any major team or conference honors. So while he competed at a high level, he clearly hasn't competed at the highest level, unless you argue that every Div. 1 college athlete (or starting athlete) deserves an article on Wikipedia. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:27, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, the old "bowl game" argument. Sigh. If you want to re-write WP:ATHLETE please move your discussion there.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:43, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Simply put: he has not competed at the highest level. This is why you're stuck arguing (wikilawyering?) instead of being able to add cited content that would establish notability based on established guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:57, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Stop calling me names, man. Stick to the issue. Just do a freaking google search and you'll find 7,670 articles for +"Bernard Morris" +Marshall. Okay, probably not all of them are reliable, probably not all of them are third party, probably not all of them are even about our subject here. But I'd gather that just by glancing at the first articles brought up (including one from CBSSports.com that there's some reasonable notability here. And just because "User:Paulmcdonald doesn't have time to add references to an article" is certainly an argument to avoid in deletion discussions--although I can't even believe I have to mention that! Yes, the article could be improved. No, it should not be deleted.--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:05, 20 November 2008 (UTC)\[reply]
- Simply put: he has not competed at the highest level. This is why you're stuck arguing (wikilawyering?) instead of being able to add cited content that would establish notability based on established guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:57, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, the old "bowl game" argument. Sigh. If you want to re-write WP:ATHLETE please move your discussion there.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:43, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It's been a good discussion, and I've enjoyed the debate. Regardless of how the discussion on Bernard Morris comes out-- keep, delete, no consensus-- it's not likely to set any type of precedent. I'm sure that all of us-- Paul, Midnight, Zip, Stricky, Olympian, etc.-- will be meeting again in future debates. I regret that we can't all have a few beers, but I plan to have one here in a few minutes. As for Mr. Morris, looks like he's having a good senior year, and I hope that he has a great career ahead of him. Nice talking with everyone. Mandsford (talk) 23:28, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed first rounds on me!--Paul McDonald (talk) 23:49, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Finally something we agree on... ;) respectfully, ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:14, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This discussion about the guideline might be instructive for some here.--User:2008Olympianchitchatseemywork 01:34, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No indication of particular accomplishments as an amateur athlete. Probably we need some intermediary step between saying all players who make game appearances for Division one schools are notable, and requiring a major national level award. I leave it to the fans. I don't even want to think about below division I. If he is drafted, and plays, he'll be notable. DGG (talk) 02:13, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. WP:ATHLETE says "competitors who have competed at the highest level in amateur sports", not "competitors who have competed at the highest amateur level in sports". This is not an amateur sport, so the subject isn't notable on these grounds. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:59, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment College football most certainly is an amateur sport.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:26, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Sorry if I'm showing my ignorance here as someone to whom "football" means a sport played with the feet, but isn't college football the same sport as the one played in the NFL? And isn't the NFL professional? Phil Bridger (talk) 20:37, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I think I understand the question. "Professional" in ordinary usage means to show the highest standards in performing a task, and "amateur" can refer to a hobby. Although players in college and the NFL both work very hard at what they do, "professional sports" (more commonly "pro") refers to being paid money for doing the task and amateur means that one is not paid. Mandsford (talk) 23:16, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I understand that. My point is simply that american football is a professional sport, so the player can't be said to play at the highest level in amateur sports. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:42, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Where is a higher level in amateur football? You are saying that the highest level in football is the pros, fine, but college is the highest an amateur can achieve. After that they become pro. There isn't a distinction in the guideline. Like I said before, you are welcome to try and change the guideline, but as it stands now, there isn't a linkage that says "if there is a professional version of the sport, then the highest amateur league is not valid". They are two separate criteria and they aren't linked. — BQZip01 — talk 20:26, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That bit of the guideline says "highest level in amateur sports", so only applies to amateur sports, of which American football is not one. For all less parochial sports such as association football and cricket the guideline is interpreted to mean that it doesn't apply to amateur players because the sport is played professionally, so why should we make an exception for this sport? Phil Bridger (talk) 20:47, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- College football is, by definition, an amateur sport. It has no direct links to professional football.
- The guideline doesn't say "amateur sports with no professional leagues." It just says "amateur sports".
- Your snide remark/link thinking this to American exceptionalism is out of line. I'm not stating my points on the subject because it is American, I'm stating it because I believe it to meet the guidelines. Your attempt to push the article into a WP:BIAS argument is uncalled for. — BQZip01 — talk 23:12, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- But college football is the same sport as professional football. And, as regards American exceptionalism, I'd just like to point out that articles on even professional association football (soccer) players routinely get deleted on the technicality that they play in a league where some other clubs are not fully professional, and articles on players in amateur leagues, even if they are playing at the top amateur level in their country, get laughed out of court. Why should American football players be treated any differently? Phil Bridger (talk) 00:01, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Why treated differently? Well, 1) there's a lot more press, as evidinced by the simple google search referenced above; 2) there are differences between college ball and NFL, specifically in a) selected rules, b) pagentry, c) exhibition d) length of time played (college since 1869, NFL since 1920; 3) AfD discussions should really be handled on a case-by-case basis, and WP:ATHLETE is a guideline not a policy, and 4) I can't help it that people have misinterpreted WP:ATHELTE on other sports, why should that mistake apply here?--Paul McDonald (talk) 04:34, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That bit of the guideline says "highest level in amateur sports", so only applies to amateur sports, of which American football is not one. For all less parochial sports such as association football and cricket the guideline is interpreted to mean that it doesn't apply to amateur players because the sport is played professionally, so why should we make an exception for this sport? Phil Bridger (talk) 20:47, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Where is a higher level in amateur football? You are saying that the highest level in football is the pros, fine, but college is the highest an amateur can achieve. After that they become pro. There isn't a distinction in the guideline. Like I said before, you are welcome to try and change the guideline, but as it stands now, there isn't a linkage that says "if there is a professional version of the sport, then the highest amateur league is not valid". They are two separate criteria and they aren't linked. — BQZip01 — talk 20:26, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I understand that. My point is simply that american football is a professional sport, so the player can't be said to play at the highest level in amateur sports. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:42, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I think I understand the question. "Professional" in ordinary usage means to show the highest standards in performing a task, and "amateur" can refer to a hobby. Although players in college and the NFL both work very hard at what they do, "professional sports" (more commonly "pro") refers to being paid money for doing the task and amateur means that one is not paid. Mandsford (talk) 23:16, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Sorry if I'm showing my ignorance here as someone to whom "football" means a sport played with the feet, but isn't college football the same sport as the one played in the NFL? And isn't the NFL professional? Phil Bridger (talk) 20:37, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment College football most certainly is an amateur sport.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:26, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- CommentI think this has been said before but don't say delete just because you think it needs work. Fix it don't say delete since it needs work. It stupid and pointless. And he does meet WP:Athlete since he has played in DI which is the highest level of amatuer sports.--Iamawesome800 (talk) 20:25, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Just playing at D-1 is not the highest level of amateur sports. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:02, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll bite what would be a higher level of amatuer sports for American football?--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:33, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The "highest level" is a guideline consistent with all the other guidelines for notability. Playing at the highest level would be demonstrated by achieving notability in any number of ways. If you think the standard should be that all Division 1 athletes get their own article on Wikipedia, I suggest getting consensus for that clarification. I don't think every player who starts or plays at a Division 1 school is notable and every player on every Div. 1 football team isn't playing at the highest level. It doesn't make sense to me to say this player played at the same level as more notable players, let alone more notable players who played at the same position and were recognized as notable. They played in the same conference, but not everyone plays at the highest level. If you can come up with a notable accomplishment that justifies this subject's inclusion (and shows he played at the highest level for a college quarterback or football player) please provide a citation to the source, and I will be happy to consider it. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:46, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Currently we do not have pages for every Div-IA football player, nor for any players in other college sports. What would be next? College baseball and softball players would have to be included as well, as there is no Olympic competition in those sports anymore. This would be a vast change in the way that the policy has been interpreted until now, one that shouldn't be made on this page but would need a consensus for that change. There are a few college players who achieved notability by themselves, see Tommie Frazier, but they are rare and achieved notability on their own although they didn't meet WP:ATHLETE. Think about this: players in af2 do not as of now get in under the guideline, as they are only paid $200 per game, not enough to live on. Yet every single player in that league played collegeg ball somewhere, a lot of them in Div-IA. If they don't make it when they are playing at a professional level above college, then why would experience at a level below that which didn't qualify them now do so?--User:2008Olympianchitchatseemywork 00:16, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I've heard a lot of music here, but I ain't dancing. I'm still waiting for a simple, straightforward answer about how college football is not the highest level of amatuer American football. "That's not the way we do it in _____" is not an answer, it's a dodge.--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:06, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. And I'm still waiting for a simple, straightforward answer about how American football is an amateur sport. It's obviously not, so any guidelines about players in amateur sports don't apply. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:23, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- How is it NOT an amateur sport? They don't get paid. How is it professional? Declaring something to be "obviously not [an amateur sport]" doens't make it so. — BQZip01 — talk 23:14, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that football is not an amateur sport. The problem is the hyperlinking in the guideline of amateur sport, which goes on to qualify collegiate football as amateur. My interpretation of ATHLETE is 'if the player does not play in a sport that has a professional level, then that player has to play in the highest level offered' - meaning without playing a single pro-football game, ATHLETE is not satisfied, just as a minor league American baseball player is not notable. Law shoot! 22:42, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- THat just doesn't wash. Your interpretation is completely different from the actual text.--Paul McDonald (talk) 23:31, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- So BQZip01 and Paul McDonald, you do understand that under your interpretation of the guideline, every college baseball and softball players would now be eligible for inclusion? Law, I find your interpretation to be the most realistic. Let me ask the others this: why have the first category? Who would get in under the first category who wouldn't already have gotten in under the second? --User:2008Olympianchitchatseemywork 10:43, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Answer any number of athletes who skip college and go right to the pros, which is fairly common in both basketball and baseball.--Paul McDonald (talk) 11:40, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Clever but disingenuous. The first criteria doesn't exist solely for the few dozen NBA players who skipped college, or even the few football players like Eric Swann and Dominic Rhodes who didn't play college football.--User:2008Olympianchitchatseemywork 06:43, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No. It's accurate and destroys this argument (not all of yours, just this one). You can't say "besides, who else would this apply to?" and then, when someone mentions those to whom it applies, you don't change the discussion to "well, that's not why the first rule was written." No one said it was. We just answered your question and proved that there are reasons why someone could fall in #1 and not in #2. That's all. — BQZip01 — talk 06:54, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Clever but disingenuous. The first criteria doesn't exist solely for the few dozen NBA players who skipped college, or even the few football players like Eric Swann and Dominic Rhodes who didn't play college football.--User:2008Olympianchitchatseemywork 06:43, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Answer any number of athletes who skip college and go right to the pros, which is fairly common in both basketball and baseball.--Paul McDonald (talk) 11:40, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- So BQZip01 and Paul McDonald, you do understand that under your interpretation of the guideline, every college baseball and softball players would now be eligible for inclusion? Law, I find your interpretation to be the most realistic. Let me ask the others this: why have the first category? Who would get in under the first category who wouldn't already have gotten in under the second? --User:2008Olympianchitchatseemywork 10:43, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- THat just doesn't wash. Your interpretation is completely different from the actual text.--Paul McDonald (talk) 23:31, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. And I'm still waiting for a simple, straightforward answer about how American football is an amateur sport. It's obviously not, so any guidelines about players in amateur sports don't apply. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:23, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I've heard a lot of music here, but I ain't dancing. I'm still waiting for a simple, straightforward answer about how college football is not the highest level of amatuer American football. "That's not the way we do it in _____" is not an answer, it's a dodge.--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:06, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Currently we do not have pages for every Div-IA football player, nor for any players in other college sports. What would be next? College baseball and softball players would have to be included as well, as there is no Olympic competition in those sports anymore. This would be a vast change in the way that the policy has been interpreted until now, one that shouldn't be made on this page but would need a consensus for that change. There are a few college players who achieved notability by themselves, see Tommie Frazier, but they are rare and achieved notability on their own although they didn't meet WP:ATHLETE. Think about this: players in af2 do not as of now get in under the guideline, as they are only paid $200 per game, not enough to live on. Yet every single player in that league played collegeg ball somewhere, a lot of them in Div-IA. If they don't make it when they are playing at a professional level above college, then why would experience at a level below that which didn't qualify them now do so?--User:2008Olympianchitchatseemywork 00:16, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The "highest level" is a guideline consistent with all the other guidelines for notability. Playing at the highest level would be demonstrated by achieving notability in any number of ways. If you think the standard should be that all Division 1 athletes get their own article on Wikipedia, I suggest getting consensus for that clarification. I don't think every player who starts or plays at a Division 1 school is notable and every player on every Div. 1 football team isn't playing at the highest level. It doesn't make sense to me to say this player played at the same level as more notable players, let alone more notable players who played at the same position and were recognized as notable. They played in the same conference, but not everyone plays at the highest level. If you can come up with a notable accomplishment that justifies this subject's inclusion (and shows he played at the highest level for a college quarterback or football player) please provide a citation to the source, and I will be happy to consider it. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:46, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep -- anyone who doesn't understand the magnitude of top-level NCAA football doesn't really follow American sports: It's a bigger sport, by money and viewership, than many, many so-called professional leagues in other countries (save for top-level soccer). Here are some facts and figures to prove it (and help my co-editors in the future): A top level football school make major revenue: Texas ($60.9 million), Michigan ($50.4 million), Florida ($48.2 million), etc. The 44 schools from BCS conferences that played in a bowl game in 2007 had combined revenue of $1.3 billion. No one can credibly dispute that Texas, Ohio State or USC football isn't financially (as well as in media coverage) bigger than a Greek professional basketball team like Olympiacos B.C., yet those players are somehow okay --in fact, the entire Euroleague (not merely the Greek professional league) has a revenue of less than one hundred million. Let's compare the big boys of EU soccer: Looking at German soccer, the top-league Bundesliga had 2006/07 revenues of €1.3 billion ($1.7b). Looking at UK soccer: While top-level Premier League is obviously a major league with exceptionally high revenue (€2.2 billion ($2.8b)), The Championship clubs' revenues in 2005/6 were £318m ($470m) at an average of £13m ($20m) per club (League One for the same year totaled £102m, League Two £61m). Stepping slightly away from football, the NCAA has a $6.2 billion, 11-year media contract. Thus, discounting a top-level college football player for the reason that he plays in "college" and not the NFL doesn't really meet the idea that was meant with WP:ATHLETE. I am not extending this to other NCAA sports or football levels (though top-level men's basketball could probably argue just as easily), but for top-level NCAA football, the line must be drawn. --Bobak (talk) 16:16, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability for a biography isn't established by the profitability of the sport a person participates in, but on how notable the person and their individual accomplishments are.ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:03, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment of course. But there's been a lot of talk here and on other AfDs about the legitimacy of college football as a highest professional league. That was the intention of the information being provided, and I for one welcome it to the discussion.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:56, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No one is saying that a player can't get in under general WP:N guidelines. See Tommie Frazier or Jamelle Holieway as examples. Or Eric Crouch who wasn't drafted and never played for an NFL team. But all of these guys got significant coverage in reliable sources fir their college accomplishments. I don't think Bernard Morris has reached that level of notability, and he doesn't meet WP:ATHLETE either, so he should go.--User:2008Olympianchitchatseemywork 06:43, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This article needs work so don't delete because he hasn't done much, I mean he has to have been on a some team as a practice squad player at sometime right? I mean why else would he have been invited to the combine, I mean he has talent.--Iamawesome800 01:42, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If you can find a cite that he signed to a practice squad, that would get him in.--User:2008Olympianchitchatseemywork 06:43, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Why? Are you going to write about how he really tore up the practice field? Let's keep notable athletes and delete non-notable athletes. That's my guideline. If they ain't been written about, they ain't notable. Not even if they were on the roster. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:33, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If you can find a cite that he signed to a practice squad, that would get him in.--User:2008Olympianchitchatseemywork 06:43, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment of course. But there's been a lot of talk here and on other AfDs about the legitimacy of college football as a highest professional league. That was the intention of the information being provided, and I for one welcome it to the discussion.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:56, 24 November 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 E-Trade. MBisanz talk 02:45, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Etrade baby[edit]
- Etrade baby (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
An unnamed baby that featured in a TV commercial is notable enough for an encyclopedic article? I don't think so. My speedy got declined because "Advertising character is not a "real person" for A7 deletion". AFAIK a baby is a real person, but okay, let's bring it here. SIS 21:56, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Not notable in any way. Unusual? Quite TalkQu 22:08, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Verifiable corporate mascot and used in various commercials, most notably during Super Bowl XLII. How is this any different than the Taco Bell Chihuahua? Tavix (talk) 22:51, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Well, for me, the difference is that Taco Bell Chihuahua became notable in its own right, appearing in other shows over a period of years. Unusual? Quite TalkQu 23:03, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Ads has been very popular prompting lots of questions about how the ad was done, etc. Article serves as a reference to those interested in how it was done. comment added by --RobertGary1 (talk) 01:04, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd say Computer animation or Chroma key would be more useful articles to those interested in how it was done.
SIS14:07, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Then put it in the See Also section. I don't see what your trying to say. Tavix (talk) 20:41, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sure there are always people who will wonder how a particular ad (and that can be any ad, for that matter) was done. That's no reason to include all those ads in Wikipedia.
SIS00:10, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply] - This isn't about an ad, but a baby that was included in a series of ads. And we are not including any other ads in Wikipedia to see "how a particular ad was done". I would like to see an example of this if this is going on. Tavix (talk) 02:49, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sure there are always people who will wonder how a particular ad (and that can be any ad, for that matter) was done. That's no reason to include all those ads in Wikipedia.
- I'd say Computer animation or Chroma key would be more useful articles to those interested in how it was done.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:41, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, now I understand your objection. "E-Trade Baby" is not meant to be the proper name of the child depicted in the ad; its the actual name of the series of ads. E-Trade's site lists them as "E*Trade Baby.....". So this article is not about a random baby; its about the interesting affets used to create the ad as well as the unusual excitement and following the ads have generated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RobertGary1 (talk • contribs) 19:11, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Additional examples Marlboro Man, GEICO Cavemen, Ronald McDonald, etc --RobertGary1 (talk) 19:31, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep - It is not clear that this particular series of ad will sustain the test of time, and be more than just one event. However there is this, this, and this amongst many more so coverage in reliable sources exist. At the very least, a merge to E-trade would be in order given the newspaper coverage. I see no need for deletion. -- Whpq (talk) 17:51, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:58, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep or Merge. Given media Coverage seems to have notability. If not notable enough should merge with E-Trade article as documentation of publicity.--Beligaronia (talk) 08:14, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to E-Trade. It is not particularly clear whether the baby is notable in itself, but it does fit perfectly in the company article which is on the small side anyway. - Mgm|(talk) 13:07, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge w/ E-Trade. Agree with MGM. The E-trade article is small enough to include it. GtstrickyTalk or C 19:50, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to E*trade seems reasonable. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:05, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not every TV commercial deserves an encyclopedia article. Evidence to support notability is lacking in this case. This baby is no Marlboro man, no "Mr. Whipple (1965) squeezing the Charmin," no "Clara Peller" asking "Where's the beef?", no "Speedy Alka Seltzer," no "Cheerios kid with go-power," no "Little Mikey," no I'm a PC, no Mrs. Fletcher who fell and can't get up and no "Dunkin Donuts donut maker." Most characters in TV commercials are little noted and not long remembered. Wait for secondary sources to comment on how the "Etrade baby" was memorable years later, like Mr. Whipple. Edison (talk) 06:35, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per above. I have mixed feelings about this one, but it's not that original an idea, and I doubt it will be remembered five years from now, any more than the Quizno's Subs ad campaign of 2006 will be. For the most part, ad campaigns are fleeting; they run for awhile, and then the advertiser either switches ad agencies, or goes to something different. In some cases, the campaign is either a notable flop (like "Herb" from Burger King more than 20 years ago) or something new that nobody has seen before. Although the E-trade baby is cute, it can in no way be said that the campaign represents anything original. I think that most people have forgotten the ads that had a baby saying "um um um um good", or that the little actor was praising a product that baby teeth would have a problem with (toasted subs--mmmmm). Baby Bob does have an article, but it's because there was a brief television series based on the character. The E-trade baby is only the latest in a long series of talking babies-- and it didn't start with Look Who's Talking, as can be seen by a TV show [51] that is mentioned in TV encyclopedias, but hasn't been written up yet on Wikipedia. Mandsford (talk) 14:48, 21 November 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. Wikipedia is not a dictionary and the article already exists at Wiktionary. Mgm|(talk) 13:09, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mishuga[edit]
- Mishuga (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Should be a wiktionary term either mishugana or meshugana Clubmarx (talk) 03:43, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Can anyone confirm this word exists? It sounds a bit made up. If it does, we should transwiki. - Mgm|(talk) 01:13, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. It does sound made up, but I was going by this [52]--Clubmarx (talk) 01:33, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 00:20, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:38, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This is a variant spelling of a real and well-known Yiddish word which has actually made it into the American Heritage College Dictionary under the spelling "meshuga" or "meshugga", defined in English as being slang for "crazy" or "senseless". But this article is just a dictionary definition, and Wikipedia is not a dictionary. I wonder if Wiktionary has this word already ... wikt:mishuga? no. wikt:meshuga? yes.... so they have it under the other spelling. Delete from Wikipedia; encourage the creation of a redirect at wikt:mishuga instead. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 09:40, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Deletewikipedia is not a dictionary. 84.13.129.44 (talk) 12:41, 20 November 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. MBisanz talk 20:20, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wildscaper[edit]
- Wildscaper (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable software product. Has previously been speedy deleted as blatant advertising, the current version is not as bad but the software is still of questionable notability. Note that while there are three sources presented, they all just define the term "RAD", and do not mention either of the products discussed in the article. RAD technology is notable, but these are non-notable implementations of it. Lankiveil (speak to me) 04:39, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Lankiveil (speak to me) 04:46, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete - The article consists mostly of marketspeak. Rilak (talk) 07:06, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Maybe a rewrite to bring it into line as far as advert qualities and market-speak, but there are a ton of obscure software articles at Wikipedia, and this one is no different except in needs a clean-up. Proxy User (talk) 20:25, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, this seems to be an argument of the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS form. Can you provide any information to establish the notability of this software package? Lankiveil (speak to me) 09:49, 16 November 2008 (UTC).[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 00:06, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:37, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - although not as bad as previous versions, it's still kind of written as an add (but not totally, which is why it's not speedy material). Dubious notability. RockManQ (talk) 02:26, 20 November 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. MBisanz talk 01:43, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WinAsm Studio[edit]
- WinAsm Studio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
I put an advert tag on this article in July. Nobody's touched it since, so now I'm not even sure it's notable. Mbarbier (talk) 05:07, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - it's not notable. The article is written like an ad, and so the text is tainted. Best to get rid of it. - Richard Cavell (talk) 09:49, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 00:00, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:36, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Simply put... the software fails notability standards. --Pmedema (talk) 19:28, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. And express surprise that anyone's still using MASM. JulesH (talk) 21:20, 20 November 2008 (UTC) (developer of parts of Netwide Assembler, so perhaps not entirely independent...)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz talk 02:41, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Popular Democratic Party (Canada)[edit]
- Popular Democratic Party (Canada) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Not an actual registered political party; no notability established through media coverage; the few Google hits one does find are mirrors of this Wikipedia page or merely listings of having appeared on the ballot. Even fails the more generous proposals in Wikipedia:Notability (political parties) Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:09, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:13, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. —Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:15, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Paucity of reliable sources. Its founder, Daniel Knezetic, is more notable, in my opinion. As an alternative the article can be moved to Daniel Knezetic and expanded. Ruslik (talk) 13:13, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:35, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It appear someone tried to cover the minor Canadian parties. Could they be combined into a... "list of?". If not, then they don't have notability on their own so Delete. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:02, 21 November 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. MBisanz talk 01:43, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
RyuKoOh/KoRyuOh[edit]
- RyuKoOh/KoRyuOh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
These elements of the Super Robot Wars series do not establish independent notability. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, these are just made up of unnecessary plot summary, game guide material, and original research. Relevant AfDs include Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Database (Super Robot Wars), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arado Balanga, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AS Soleares/AS Alegrías, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ruach Ganeden. Magioladitis (talk) 08:15, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 15:24, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete for the same reason all the other 50+ articles were deleted. -- nips (talk) 23:12, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:34, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete no reliable third-party sources, and thus article inherently fails WP:V and WP:N. Randomran (talk) 06:50, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Randomran. Edison (talk) 06:39, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - entirely in-universe, with a large amount of cruft. Does not demonstrate how these entities are notable outside their work of fiction, and no sources for verifiability, so fails on many counts. I can't see how it can be rescued. Should any reliable, third party references for out-of-universe information turn up, it's probably best to start the thing from scratch. Title not a useful redirect. Marasmusine (talk) 15:21, 22 November 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. SoWhy 13:12, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
St. Louis Stunners[edit]
- St. Louis Stunners (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable ABA basketball team. Since being "formed" in 2006, this team has yet to compete in a single game and the ownership group recently announced that they will NOT be playing in the '08-'09 season. Millbrooky (talk) 01:34, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 04:14, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 04:14, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment They did play at least two games, according to this. Zagalejo^^^ 05:28, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- So they have played a pair of games. Would never have thought of looking for news about a St. Louis basketball team in an Alaskan newspaper. Not sure, however, if that's worthy enough for me to withdraw the nomination. --Millbrooky (talk) 15:54, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Withdraw nomination. --Millbrooky (talk) 16:16, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Should have included my reasoning: this article here on Wikipedia, American Basketball Association (2000-) Standings, suggests the Stunners played a full season. Having seen this before would have kept me from nominating in the first place. --Millbrooky (talk) 19:15, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If only the article was referenced! :) --Fabrictramp | talk to me 01:03, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Should have included my reasoning: this article here on Wikipedia, American Basketball Association (2000-) Standings, suggests the Stunners played a full season. Having seen this before would have kept me from nominating in the first place. --Millbrooky (talk) 19:15, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete (sorry, Millbrooky, I know you want to withdraw now). The Alaska newspaper article is nothing more than a passing mention. Unless something more substantial can be found, this doesn't meet WP:Notability.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:53, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There's also this. I'm a little unsure how to handle ABA 2000 teams, since that league is so bizarre, but I'd say weak keep just for the sake of completion. We should at least mention the team in a list or something. Zagalejo^^^ 19:19, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've seen a lot of articles regarding the intended start of the team. I just haven't found any sources concerning the games they played outside of the 2 games they played in '07-'08. --Millbrooky (talk) 19:29, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Found articles for games they played in '06-'07: [53] [54] [55] [56].--Millbrooky (talk) 23:25, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Cool. It seems like they receive much more attention outside of St. Louis than within. Not so suprising, I guess, since St. Louis has plenty of major league sports to discuss in their newspapers, while those other places don't. Zagalejo^^^ 23:28, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- We're piling up more passing references, but at least these are a bit better. I'm kind of stunned a professional team doesn't have more quality sources, even if it's only a full article by a sports columnist mocking them.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 01:03, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Cool. It seems like they receive much more attention outside of St. Louis than within. Not so suprising, I guess, since St. Louis has plenty of major league sports to discuss in their newspapers, while those other places don't. Zagalejo^^^ 23:28, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Found articles for games they played in '06-'07: [53] [54] [55] [56].--Millbrooky (talk) 23:25, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've seen a lot of articles regarding the intended start of the team. I just haven't found any sources concerning the games they played outside of the 2 games they played in '07-'08. --Millbrooky (talk) 19:29, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There's also this. I'm a little unsure how to handle ABA 2000 teams, since that league is so bizarre, but I'd say weak keep just for the sake of completion. We should at least mention the team in a list or something. Zagalejo^^^ 19:19, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep per verifiable sources. matt91486 (talk) 04:06, 24 November 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. MBisanz talk 01:43, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Randgrith/Randgrith Raven[edit]
- Randgrith/Randgrith Raven (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
These elements of the Super Robot Wars series do not establish independent notability. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, these are just made up of unnecessary plot summary, game guide material, and original research. Relevant AfDs include Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Database (Super Robot Wars), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arado Balanga, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AS Soleares/AS Alegrías, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ruach Ganeden. Magioladitis (talk) 08:17, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 15:24, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete for the same reason all the other 50+ articles were deleted. -- nips (talk) 22:31, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:33, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete no reliable third-party sources, and thus article inherently fails WP:V and WP:N. Randomran (talk) 06:48, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - rationale per that given at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RyuKoOh/KoRyuOh Marasmusine (talk) 15:23, 22 November 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. MBisanz talk 01:43, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Scientific Reyada School (SRS)[edit]
- Scientific Reyada School (SRS) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Unsourced and incorrectly titled sub-stub on a small school created by single purpose account who seems to have lost interest. Guy (Help!) 01:33, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - high school, for which sources are invariably available. In this case web sources are thin on the ground, but Jordanian schools usually have a poor web presence in English. To avoid systematic bias, this should await the search for local sources. TerriersFan (talk) 02:06, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —TerriersFan (talk) 02:25, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 04:13, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep Seems like a bit of a borderline case. But we seem to lean towards including schools. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:31, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep per TF. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 01:06, 22 November 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. MBisanz talk 01:42, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weiss Ritter/Rein Weiss Ritter[edit]
- Weiss Ritter/Rein Weiss Ritter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
These elements of the Super Robot Wars series do not establish independent notability. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, these are just made up of unnecessary plot summary, game guide material, and original research. Relevant AfDs include Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Database (Super Robot Wars), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arado Balanga, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AS Soleares/AS Alegrías, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ruach Ganeden. Magioladitis (talk) 08:17, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 15:24, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:33, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete no reliable third-party sources, and thus article inherently fails WP:V and WP:N. Randomran (talk) 06:49, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note Similar elements such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thrudgelmir (Mecha) have been recently deleted. -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:41, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete for the same reason all other elements of Super Robot Wars were nominated and deleted. -- nips (talk) 10:57, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - rationale per that given at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RyuKoOh/KoRyuOh
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz talk 01:42, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Itzik Basman[edit]
- Itzik Basman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Self-published Canadian lawyer. No other qualifications for an article noted. Given the name of the article creator, clearly autobiographical. CalendarWatcher (talk) 01:00, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(Note: this was created a few days ago, but not listed here for some reason.) --CalendarWatcher (talk) 12:37, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 16:38, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 16:39, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 16:39, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:31, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I'm all for self-publishing, but this book did not receive reviews from notable reviewers like Kirkus or Publisher's Weekly and the author does not otherwise appear to be an expert on the subjects he writes about. I would have speedied this under A7. - Mgm|(talk) 13:13, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Notability not established. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:25, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Speedy deletion G4 as recreation of article deleted via AfD. ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:11, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Copa Toyota America[edit]
- Copa Toyota America (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Deletion along the same lines asCopa Toyota de America at User_talk:Perucho08 billinghurst (talk) 01:29, 20 November 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. NAC. Schuym1 (talk) 18:44, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Addis neger[edit]
- Addis neger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
A conflict of interest with creation by User:addisneger. Not notable. Raymie Humbert (TrackerTV) (receiver, archives) 19:22, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per being VANISPAMCRUFTISEMENT. MuZemike (talk) 19:28, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep There are many sources citing the paper. Ignore the fact that the user is VANISPAMCRUFTISEMENT. The paper is sill notable. Sources:
- http://www.abugidainfo.com/?p=5486
- http://allafrica.com/stories/200811070161.html
- http://cpj.org/2008/01/ethiopia-blocks-freed-journalists-from-launching-n.php
I found these sources within minutes of search. Give the article some time and it will eventually evolve. If the article didn't reach considerable amount of detail with sources after a month, than you should remove it. --Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 19:48, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per the addition of references and content referred to by Diaa. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:13, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 22:33, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 22:34, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 22:34, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 22:35, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:27, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The website seems to be notable. Northwestgnome (talk) 01:30, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - seems to pass WP:Notability (web), by being the subject of verifiable sources. RockManQ (talk) 02:18, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - sources uncovered by Riaa establish notability the usual way. Article seems to have been cleaned up. WilyD 13:02, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The references talk about the editor being sentenced. They're not about the paper. - Mgm|(talk) 13:16, 20 November 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. MBisanz talk 01:41, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
SteppingStone Theatre for Youth Development[edit]
- SteppingStone Theatre for Youth Development (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
I looked around for some third-party sources to indicate notability, but couldn't find much. Of course, the article has no sources either. And the whole "plans to move into a new home in late 2007" bit doesn't look too good either - if it looks like someone wrote this for promotional purposes, never intending to maintain the article, well, that is what likely happened: its creator's only contributions are for this article. In sum, then, fails WP:N and WP:RS. Biruitorul Talk 23:19, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sounds like a nice organization, but hasn't established notability. Thanks for making the effort of looking for references to improve the article.ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:30, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]- Keep per rewrite with additional sources. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:24, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 22:13, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 22:13, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The theater is well recognized by the local community and media, see here. And one of the references given in the article establishes the introduction of new theatre. LeaveSleaves talk 02:56, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, but do those news sources, as required by WP:N, accord "significant coverage" to the theatre, or merely note that it has staged certain productions? The latter seems to be the case. -- Biruitorul Talk 03:00, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Here are a few which concern the theatre: [57], [58], [59], [60], [61]. Unfortunately, most of these stories (except for No. 4 here) require subscriptions. So it's not practical to use them as sources in the article, but I think they are sufficient to establish notability. LeaveSleaves talk 03:14, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I think they should definitely be added to the article. They are good sources and relevant to the article. I think some rewriting of the intro noting the major theater purchase and other notable events would also be helpful. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:24, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Here are a few which concern the theatre: [57], [58], [59], [60], [61]. Unfortunately, most of these stories (except for No. 4 here) require subscriptions. So it's not practical to use them as sources in the article, but I think they are sufficient to establish notability. LeaveSleaves talk 03:14, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:24, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - sources uncovered by Sleaves easily meet the requirements of WP:N to justify inclusion. Nothing else to see, I think. WilyD 12:56, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, it's unfortunate that many of the sources are not easily available online but the sources do exist to satisfy this article's notability. Eóin (talk) 04:15, 22 November 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 redirect to List of characters in Warhammer Fantasy. Mgm|(talk) 13:20, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Aenarion[edit]
- Aenarion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This character does not establish notability independent of Warhammer Fantasy Battle through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of original research and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so any coverage in the main articles is enough detail on the character. TTN (talk) 23:32, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 22:10, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. —Raven1977 (talk) 22:10, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:21, 20 November 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 redirect to List of characters in Warhammer Fantasy. Mgm|(talk) 13:21, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Caledor II[edit]
- Caledor II (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This character does not establish notability independent of Warhammer Fantasy Battle through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of original research and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so any coverage in the main articles is enough detail on the character. TTN (talk) 23:33, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 22:10, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. —Raven1977 (talk) 22:10, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No notability. -- nips (talk) 22:38, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:20, 20 November 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 redirect to List of characters in Warhammer Fantasy. Mgm|(talk) 13:22, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Caradryel[edit]
- Caradryel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This character does not establish notability independent of Warhammer Fantasy Battle through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of original research and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so any coverage in the main articles is enough detail on the character. TTN (talk) 23:34, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 22:09, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. —Raven1977 (talk) 22:09, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:20, 20 November 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 redirect to List of characters in Warhammer Fantasy. Mgm|(talk) 13:22, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Tethlis[edit]
- Tethlis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This character does not establish notability independent of Warhammer Fantasy Battle through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of original research and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so any coverage in the main articles is enough detail on the character. TTN (talk) 23:35, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 22:08, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. —Raven1977 (talk) 22:09, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No notability. -- nips (talk) 22:38, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:19, 20 November 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 redirect to List of characters in Warhammer Fantasy. Mgm|(talk) 13:23, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Phoenix King[edit]
- Phoenix King (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This group of characters does not establish notability independent of Warhammer Fantasy Battle through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of original research and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so any coverage in the main articles is enough detail on the group. TTN (talk) 23:36, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 22:04, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. —Raven1977 (talk) 22:04, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No notability. -- nips (talk) 22:36, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:19, 20 November 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. MBisanz talk 01:41, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Volumen[edit]
- Volumen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
fails WP:Notability_(music), no sources Dlabtot (talk) 01:18, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 04:10, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 04:10, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nominator. - Mgm|(talk) 13:24, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I added a reference. The band has been around a while and has had some success. If someone wanted to they could probably establish a good case for a weak keep. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:18, 21 November 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. MBisanz talk 20:20, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rho Delta Rho[edit]
- Rho Delta Rho (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
A massive article which nonetheless manages to entirely avoid citing a single source independent of the group, which appears on the face of it ot be a generic fraternity. Guy (Help!) 00:45, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
how about pages such as Scouts Royale Brotherhood, Alpha Kappa Rho or Tau Gamma Phi with absent citations as such, yet seem to freely exist in the pages of wikipedia? this organization is the same league as theirs Supremo106 (talk) 03:21, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 04:09, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you please include some newspaper and/ or magazine articles discussing this institution? That would be very helpful. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:28, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 04:10, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep The statement that, "The organization has been, through the years, misinterpreted as a Fraternity and on several occasions also misidentified as a street gang" suggest notability. The article needs to be referenced and cleaned up. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:28, 20
- Keep I assume it's a national student club of some sort, but in the absence of any 3rd party evidence I don't know just what. The most a NPOV article could say is that they insist they are not a fraternity. A low quality article--they even put in an external link limited to members only, but there is the potential for a real article, since the subject appears notable. DGG (talk) 03:24, 21 November 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. MBisanz talk 01:37, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Phi Beta Epsilon (Philippines)[edit]
- Phi Beta Epsilon (Philippines) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Tagged as lacking sources since February and not fixed, this is a self-sourced article on a generic fraternity. Guy (Help!) 00:42, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 04:08, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 04:08, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep A major fraternity dating to 1947 seems inherently notable to me. You're welcome to prune and reference the article, but I don't think an entry on this subject is unencyclopedic or inappropriate. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:18, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Chapters at only four universities. Not a national fraternity; the lack of encyclopedic content is made evident by the details about just who formed what chapters that make up the article. FWIW, it's not that common for Guy and me to agree so thoroughly at AfD.DGG (talk) 03:59, 21 November 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. MBisanz talk 01:37, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Gamma Epsilon Fraternity[edit]
- Gamma Epsilon Fraternity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Self-sourced article on what appears to be a generic fraternity. Guy (Help!) 00:40, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 04:08, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 04:08, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Needs to be referenced and cleaned up. I hope people with access to Tagalog language resources will weigh in. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:26, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete There's some chance that this is actually national, but it seems to have been entered as part of the material for a single university, St Thomas. DGG (talk) 04:01, 21 November 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. MBisanz talk 01:36, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Alpha Phi Epsilon[edit]
- Alpha Phi Epsilon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
A fraternity which is different from all the others because er.... er... actually it is the same as all the others. No independent sources. Guy (Help!) 00:36, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 04:07, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 04:07, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. There appears to be abundant coverage of this group (or others with the same name) at this Google News archive search. -- Eastmain (talk) 04:23, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Without referring specifically to this fraternity or the others in this batch of nominations, I would like to point out that fraternities sometimes become particularly notable because of misconduct by their members or the organizations because of hazing, alcohol abuse or related issues. Fraternities aren't all the same: some emphasize the idea of service to the community and others emphasize partying. -- Eastmain (talk) 04:23, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. And here's coverage of a presumably unrelated group with the same name in The New York Times: BURN BOY AT INITIATION.; Students Set Fire to Alcohol Used by Mistake for Witch Hazel. The New York Times. December 23, 1911, Saturday -- Eastmain (talk) 04:27, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep Needs massive clean-up and referencing, but appears notable. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:20, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Needs references, but is notable. Majoreditor (talk) 04:36, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- weak keep if it can actually be deciphered what the group is--not all the chapters seem to be at colleges, and the text of the article does not seem to ay anything substantial in a clear manner. This one needs some real sources. DGG (talk) 04:53, 21 November 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. MBisanz talk 01:36, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Alpha Phi Beta Fraternity - UP College of Law[edit]
- Alpha Phi Beta Fraternity - UP College of Law (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
A fraternity just like all the others, with no independent sources. Guy (Help!) 00:33, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 04:06, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 04:06, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Independent mention that I got was only in passing [62], [63], [64]. Strongest ref that I found was a list of fraternity related casualties in the University of the Philippines. The frat got two dead members, one in hazing and the other in a rumble. Still I think that ref alone can't be the basis of a whole article.--Lenticel (talk) 09:00, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep And add references. Has a history to 1939. Quite notable and encyclopedic as well as controversial given the issues raised by outside references. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:17, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete essentially at a single law school and some of the colleges that feed into it. Not a national group, and local fraternities are generally not notable. DGG (talk) 04:54, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It's at the main university's law school. And with that long a history it's almost inherently notable. Who's going to search through all those years for references or say that there isn't anything substantial during that history? The history itself is notable. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:29, 21 November 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. MBisanz talk 01:34, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
List of fraternities and sororities in the Philippines[edit]
- List of fraternities and sororities in the Philippines (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
WP:INDISCRIMINATE list (there being no obvious reason to link fraternities and the Philippines) most of whose entries are WP:LINKFARM, the logos would violate WP:FUC, the unlinked ones violate WP:LIST (lists are supposed to be navigational), the linked ones don't look that notable and anyway could be linked by a category. Guy (Help!) 00:32, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 04:05, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 04:06, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete for all of the reasons that Guy gave above and the complete lack of references and lead paragraph which would provide context (what should (not) be included) and claim of notability. Category:Philippine fraternities and sororities exists as a way to link notable examples. ★ Bigr Tex 17:02, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and improve this one; individual article imo have no future. Maybe the phenomena of copycatting American college drinking does exist in the Philippines; maybe it is notable in scope, I'd give it a chance. NVO (talk) 17:07, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Absolutely delete: This article doesn't have a chance at passing notability and even if it did, it lacks the references and the sources. Plus everything that Guy said is also very true. HairyPerry 19:33, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep This is absolutely a discriminate list of encyclopedic value. See also List_of_fraternities_and_sororities. There are lots of references for the fraternities themselves They are insitutions with significant social, cultural and even economic influence. And a comprehensive list is quite useful. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:13, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep This list was split off from the List of fraternities and sororities in order to give a more coherent geographical area to both that list and the resulting one for the Philippines. Similarly, the one for Puerto Rico was split off, as well as, I believe, a list for similar groups in Europe. Some of the images are properly noted, for example, Alpha Phi Omega, but I recognize given the reference on the talk page that they may not be appropriate.Naraht (talk) 03:14, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep there are likely to be a number of these kept at afd. Therefore the list is justifiable. In this sort of case, with a finite universe of groups, all of which have some claim to some minimal significance, I don't think even a complete list would violate Not directory. DGG (talk) 05:11, 21 November 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. MBisanz talk 02:41, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Isabelle Arnfjell[edit]
- Isabelle Arnfjell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Isabelle Arnfjell is a non-notable singer because there are little to no third party references for her and I couldn't find any other sites that genuinely include her except for the external links at the bottom of her article for her. Therefore, she fails WP:MUSIC. Tavix (talk) 00:19, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 01:22, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 01:22, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:Notability_(music) Dlabtot (talk) 02:42, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 04:05, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete I cannot find the artist in question anywhere else, besides a few other artists by a similar name. If the author of this article has any valid reasons why she is notable, keep, but otherwise just delete (per WP:NM). Rtyq2 (talk) 22:06, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete notability not established. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:08, 20 November 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. Mgm|(talk) 23:03, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Inline roller skating tricks[edit]
- Inline roller skating tricks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
No references; therefore not verifiable. Notability of the topic is not established, and the article's present format is listcruft. KurtRaschke (talk) 00:14, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- strong delete How-to guide. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 00:37, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - it really needs sources. - Richard Cavell (talk) 01:06, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm, where to start. Well WP:V is certainly the most basic, and it fails that by not having any reliable, independent third party sources. By doing so it also violates WP:OR; the article has oodles of information, but none cited. It's also WP:LISTCRUFT, the tricks are presented in a highly trivial list format. It's a indiscriminate collection of tricks, one that could not be maintained as there are likely many more than that. It's also a prime example that wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, or a how-to-guide. Whew, hope that was pretty insightful and thoughtful analysis. RockManQ (talk) 02:07, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your insightful and thoughtful analysis. Now I know that wikipedia discuss what kind of tricks inline skaters perform, because that would be a how-to guide and a list. That's probably why the article on parallel bars is so disappointing too. Juzhong (talk) 05:33, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 04:05, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Original research, and a how to guide. — neuro(talk) 06:01, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete It's just a laundry-list of bullet points with no notability whatsoever, nor are there cites. Definetely agree with Neuro above that it's original research. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 07:04, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete WP:NOT a how to guide or a repository for poor, original researched drivel. JBsupreme (talk)
- Delete. WP:OR. Notability is not a problem. Inline skating tricks are notable, it's the way this article is set up. - Mgm|(talk) 13:28, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above comments. HairyPerry 16:00, 20 November 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. —Mizu onna sango15Hello! 05:56, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
David M. Alter[edit]
- David M. Alter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable marketer. Possible COI. Definitely no notability from working at Madacy. President of Fresh Marketing might have been notable, but no google hits on "Fresh Marketing FFM" so unlikely that the business brings notability to the subject. —Noah 17:11, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nominator. --Nick—Contact/Contribs 19:31, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete unless independent reliable sources are provided. As the article stands there is nothing notable about its subject. Nuttah (talk) 11:28, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Mizu onna sango15Hello! 20:48, 28 November 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 improve it!. DrKiernan (talk) 08:33, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dual monarchy[edit]
- Dual monarchy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
The article replicates material at Personal union, an identical or similar concept. Propose deletion and a redirect to Austria-Hungary. Austria-Hungary is commonly named 'The Dual monarchy'. I'm not aware of the term used for other monarchies. Gazzster (talk) 08:54, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, of course - Yes, Dual Monarchy with upper case D and M will apply to Austria and Hungary, but the generic term would apply to all the other monarchies in that list. Certainly William of Orange/Mary of England, Castile and León, etc. The Portuguese call their Brazilian/Portuguese dual monarchy the monarquia dual luso-brasileira. Surely James I of England who was also James VI of Scotland should be an example as well?? Another one that needs to go there is the Primorias which was in fact a mini monarquía dual caused by the Asturian Pelayos and the Cantabrian Duque Pedros. So yes, keep it. It's a generic term. Dual Monarchy refers to Austria-Hungary, but 'Dual monarchy' refers to that one and any other examples. Tris2000 (talk) 12:24, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I have never heard it used to describe Castile and Leon or Holland and England, let alone Asturias, for which I have never seen the slightest hint of a reference to there being two monarchies. It is not a question of whether we could find examples where it could be used, or cases where such a term may de facto apply, but whether it explicitly is used, and specifically where 'dual monarchy' is being used as a complex noun (as a term of art, if you will) and not just an adjective-noun sequence because the author liked the sound better than twin monarchies or combined monarchies. It is portrayed in the article as a generic term, but is it really used that way? (Can a union of England and Ireland and Scotland, or Castile and Leon and Galicia and Toledo really be called a dual monarchy? Do we need Triple monarchy, Quadruple, etc.?) Or is it used by historians for just one or two specific cases? Agricolae (talk) 10:13, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment Wikipedia presents itself as an encyclopedia. Concepts and terms need to be referenced. There are no references and citations for this article. Even if this AfD fails, appropriate tags will have to be placed on it. More importantly at this point, we should ask ourselves, is 'dual monarchy' being invented here? Are as many 'examples' as possible being crammed here to give credence to a term which appears to be invented solely for the purpose? If 'dual monarchy', why not 'triple monarchy' or 'quadruple monarchy'? In other words, is this article self-serving? Now I believe it's fairly well established that 'dual monarchy' is a term used by historians to describe the Austro-Hungarian monarchy. And I'll give you Portugal-Brasil if it can be adequately reference. But to the best of my knowledge, Scotland and England were never called a 'dual-monarchy'.
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. -- Elonka 15:42, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- Elonka 15:47, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Peronal Union. Due to replicated material. --Cameron* 16:19, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Okay, so I read the two articles. I couldn't identify significant differences in the meaning of the terms, although I am of limited expertise in this area. I then added dual monorachy to the personal union intro. It was reverted noting, "personal union can involve more than two states, eg, Calmar Union, realms of Elizabeth II of UK)". So I'm wondering whether this distinction supports keeping two separate article or, if not, how they can be appropriately merged? I have heard the term dual monarchy, but never personal union. Please be advised if you're going to attack me for original research and or pointy editing, I'm wearing my finest suit of armor! ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:44, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- My friend, I'm not attacking you. I'm discussing the content, not personalities. By all means, let's have a courteous discussion about the content.--Gazzster (talk) 23:01, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Hey, to be honest I didn't compare who made the reversion of my edit to who is engaged in this discussion, and I definitely didn't feel attacked by the reversion. I thought the explanation was great, which is why I posted it here! Perhaps taking my question to the talk page (or raising it here) would have been a better approach than the way I went about it, so I was just kidding about being attacked, and was only trying to explain my effort to understand these two terms and how best to approach this AfD. My question, respectfully :), is whether a redirect (or deletion of dual monarchy) is appropriate if they aren't really the same thing? Especially, as seems to be the case, if dual monarchy is a more common term for the more typical type of personal union? Perhaps Dual monarchy should be the main article with the other article's content? ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:10, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Cool, man. Yes, the two concepts don't identically match, so a redirect isn't the answer. I don't know that 'dual monarchy' is a commonly used term for any union between two sovereign monarchies, apart from Austria-Hungary. That's why I suggest a redirect there.--Gazzster (talk) 23:18, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Hey, to be honest I didn't compare who made the reversion of my edit to who is engaged in this discussion, and I definitely didn't feel attacked by the reversion. I thought the explanation was great, which is why I posted it here! Perhaps taking my question to the talk page (or raising it here) would have been a better approach than the way I went about it, so I was just kidding about being attacked, and was only trying to explain my effort to understand these two terms and how best to approach this AfD. My question, respectfully :), is whether a redirect (or deletion of dual monarchy) is appropriate if they aren't really the same thing? Especially, as seems to be the case, if dual monarchy is a more common term for the more typical type of personal union? Perhaps Dual monarchy should be the main article with the other article's content? ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:10, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- My friend, I'm not attacking you. I'm discussing the content, not personalities. By all means, let's have a courteous discussion about the content.--Gazzster (talk) 23:01, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and redirect per nom. Tris2000's suggestions, while worthy, are a form of original research. England and Scotland in personal union are never, to the best of my knowledge, referred to as the Dual Monarchy. If the Brazil-Portugal claim is proven, as a secondary use it should be referred from the Dual Monarchy/Austria-Hungary page with a hatnote. AlexTiefling (talk) 00:37, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep the page clearly identifies itself as a form of personal union, and links to the more fully realized article there. I've never heard the term personal union before so I've learned something by reading the dual monarchy page, even though the concept of a dual monarchy was familiar to me. The article seems to fulfill a distinct purpose from the personal union page by describing a notable subset of personal unions. Dlabtot (talk) 01:27, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I suppose the question we need to ask ourselves though, is whether it is a 'notable subset of personal unions'? How do we know that? For the moment, all we have is this article saying that they are.--Gazzster (talk) 03:57, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep its a standard academic and political concept, at least for Austria-Hungary.. Therefore it is reasonable to have an article about it--though from the discussion above, it needs to be explained more fully DGG (talk) 05:13, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- CommentI agree it is standard for Austria-Hungary, which is why I suggest a redirect to Austria-Hungary. If it can be demonstrated that it is a 'standard academic and political concept' beyond Austria-Hungary, I'll reconsider. But no-one has yet.--Gazzster (talk) 10:07, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Dual monarchy, as a concept, was central to the philosopy of Arthur Griffith - see History of Sinn Féin. Redirecting to Austria-Hungary is not appropriate. Scolaire (talk) 23:12, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I see that. Cool, we're gettin' somewhere. So instead of a redirect, how about a rewrite? Mentioning only Austria-Hungary and the Irish political theory? Unless someone can suggest another notable 'dual monarchy'? I'm open to new ideas.--Gazzster (talk) 22:53, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Additional comment: Austria-Hungary is a redirect, therefore this proposal is for a double redirect. Scolaire (talk) 23:12, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Arbitary classification
Another issue is the apparent arbitrary classification of a number of the monarchies in the list as ‘dual monarchies’. For example:
The Netherlands and Great Britain 1689-1702. But why classify this as a ‘dual monarchy’? For a start, the Netherlands was not a monarchy; it was a republic. And ‘Great Britain’ at the time was ‘’two’’ monarchies- England and Scotland. So it should be a quadruple monarchy: England, Scotland, Ireland and the Netherlands. But let’s treat, for the sake or argument, Great Britain as one entity; England and Scotland. Why single (or double?) out Great Britain and the Netherlands as a ‘dual monarchy’? Ever heard of Ireland? Why don’t we call Ireland and the Netherlands a ‘dual monarchy’? Or the union of Scotland and Ireland? Or the union of Ireland and Hanover from 1714 – 1801? I’m not trying to humiliate the persons who wrote the article. I’m making a point that the classification can be very arbitrary indeed.
Babylon and Nippur? Egypt and Kush? How can we possibly transfer the relatively modern concept of a personal union to civilizations that existed before the Christian Era?
Aragon and Castille. Castille was composed of four state unions before it united with Aragon. So you may as well call it a quintuple (have I invented a word?!) monarchy.
So I believe the term should only be applied to countries which are habitually dealt with by that term.--Gazzster (talk) 10:40, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- While I think of it, Australia and New Zealand are two monarchies with the same monarch? Is Australia and New Zealand a 'dual monarchy'? --Gazzster (talk) 10:58, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed, I could add any number of monarchies to this category:
- Russia and the Kingdom of Poland
- France and Andorra
- Denmark and Greenland
- England and Normandy
- The Netherlands and Luxemburg (for a time)
- The Patrimony of Peter with the March of Ancona
- Schleswig-Holstein and Denmark
- Bohemia and Austria
- The Principality of Mordor with the Grand Duchy of Narnia
But by what justification? I have made my point.--Gazzster (talk) 11:07, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Personal union. This deals with the subject in a much more satisfactory manner than the present article. I am not at all sure how good some of the cases in Gazzster's list are. Greenland is better classified as a colonial possession; Schleswig-Holstein was a Duchy belonging to the Danish crown in the Holy Roman Empire. Andorra is actually a co-dominion between the French Prsident and a Spanish bishop. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:39, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Personal union per nom, and per Wikipedia:Content forking. --Mais oui! (talk) 08:06, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I prefer it as a separate article, mentioning just those instances where the term has actually been used, such as Austria-Hungary and Ireland-Britain (where it was proposed but not implemented). DrKiernan (talk) 08:07, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I would also note that dual monarchy is not the same as personal union. A personal union involves two or more states where the head of state is the same, but the two governments of the countries pursue entirely different policies. In a dual monarchy, the two states act together usually with identical financial structures and the same foreign policies. In Austria-Hungary, for example, the Emperor held responsibility for the military, for foreign policy, and the two states were in a customs union. Whereas nations in a personal union have separate foreign policies, separate militaries and separate customs rules. DrKiernan (talk) 12:11, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Notable enough for its own article. Thanks to Gazzster for the informed discussion that, I think, has clarified and improved both articles and to other editors for contributing good content to improve the dual monarchy article. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:40, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can we say anymore?[edit]
I think the idea is changing from keep, delete or redirect to 'edit heavily'. And DrKiernan and myself have already started. Unless there are other comments I think we can close this Afd?--Gazzster (talk) 00:32, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree. Thanks for your efforts and explanations. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:45, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Closure[edit]
The closure tag is on the article. But I can't do the pretty blue backround/border stuff.--Gazzster (talk) 01:54, 25 November 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.