Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 February 12
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 16:41, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
James Jameson Snodgrass[edit]
- James Jameson Snodgrass (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
I have not found evidence that James Snodgrass has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of him, hence I believe the article does not met WP:BIO. Plus, I do not feel it passes WP:ACADEMIC either. Allventon (talk) 23:54, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I can find nothing whatsoever on Google books or Scholar. The PDFs linked to as references are indeed valid federal studies, but those do not establish notability in any way. §FreeRangeFrog 00:33, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Notability not established. ¿SFGiДnts! ¿Complain! ¿Analyze! ¿Review! 16:38, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was No Consensus to delete. The concerns about sourcing are real, but even when properly weighted I don't see a consensus to delete. WP:N is guideline which must be applied "with common sense and the occasional exception," and I can see no consensus below to apply it strictly. Further discussion might result in a clear consensus but I feel that that is most likely after sufficient time has been given to see if more sources emerge, or not. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:41, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dixie Chicken (bar)[edit]
- Dixie Chicken (bar) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Unnotable local bar. DRV allowed new version to stand for new review, but still completely unnotable. The ring dunking section is overly inflated, and an A&M tradition that can occur anywhere, it isn't unique to this bar. Tradition itself is already covered elsewhere. This bar itself has not had significant coverage in reliable, third party sources. Out of the 19 sources in the article, 10 are all local papers: the local newspaper, a local TV channel, and the university newspaper. Of the remaining sources, 2-4 are directory type works that mention the bar in passing as part of promo-type blurbs for A&M university. Five is another trivial passing of someone's blog-type report of their trip through A&M. The Playboy "award" alone does not establish any actual notability, nor does Bush's minor mention in passing. 8 is another trivial mention. 10 is a piece by a guy from College Station talking about his pending return trip there. 15 is another directory listing, and again mentions the bar in passing.
Entire article is full of nothing but local trivia, with no actual claim of notability for the bar beyond what it iself claims and the minor Playboy award. Was deleted in an [that concluded on 28 January 2009], and immediately recreated by an editor who works extensively with A&M articles. The recreation was allowed to stay in a DRV despite deletion being endorse, without prejudice to be renominated again. Again, this bar completely fails WP:N and WP:CORP. Local sources are not "reliable, independent secondary sources", directory listings are not significant coverage, nor are passing mentions are not significant coverage. Per the company notability guidelines: "Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. The source's audience must also be considered; evidence of attention by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability, whereas attention solely by local media is not an indication of notability." This has not been established here. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:55, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 February 3. Bhaktivinode (talk) 00:02, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- DRV allowed you to recreate it, it does not protect it from renomination (as you yourself agreed on the article talk page), nor did the DRV say anywhere that this version was notable. Indeed, the deletion of the original was endorsed. The only thing the DRV endorsed was that this version of the article was sufficiently different to be reevaluated on its own. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:04, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Bhaktivinode (talk) 00:19, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. —Bhaktivinode (talk) 00:21, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Establishment is clearly notable amongst locals and people acquainted with College Station. Obviously CNN isn't covering the joint, but it's a viable search term that real people would look for, and the article itself is a reasonably well-developed work in progress. Townlake (talk) 00:30, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Local notability is irrelevant. If all notability required was a few local people to be acquinted with something, we might as well have articles on every last business every formed anywhere and tons of local "celebrities" because, hey, their local paper covered them! Except, that isn't how Wikipedia works and this is NOT the College Station Wikipedia (despite the efforts of various A&M editors), it is the English one. As such, notability requires significant coverage in third-party sources, not just local papers. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:36, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:CSB is all about protecting "local notability"... whether it the Phillipines or Texas. Local reliable sources covering a local landmark are eminently suitable. Not everything in Wikipedia made headlines in New York Times or Washington Post. The article is not about every last business ever formed, or even about one which had a "mention" in a small town paper... it's about one that has an incredible amount of coverage. This argument should not be about the author, his interests in Texas A&M, or College Station. Its about the quite well covered Dixie Bar. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 09:59, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The article in Playboy Magazine, of which the Dixie Chicken is the subject, is a reliable source and verifies its notability. In addition, comments on the subject by; Austin American-Statesman, Yale Daily News, ESPN, U.S. News & World Report and many other reliable sources have also verified this notability. Bhaktivinode (talk) 00:50, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Trivial mentions, again, do not estbalish notability, nor does ONE single relatively minor article on the Playboy website. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:03, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Regardless of your opinion of Playboy Magazine, and the many other notable reliable sources listed, these are notable and reliable sources. If you have sources that state otherwise, please add them to the discussion. The article is clearly notable and well sourced - If there is any evidence otherwise you should share it. Bhaktivinode (talk) 01:44, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No one said the sources are not reliable, but that does NOT mean they can establish notability when the bulk of them are local (and in this case, considering Austin is a neighboring town, it is still relatively local/regional. The article is NOT clearly notable, not matter how many local sources you stick on it. Nor are the sources all notable. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:49, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability is clear. As stated above, the article in Playboy Magazine, of which the Dixie Chicken is the subject, is a reliable source and verifies its notability. In addition, comments on the subject by; Austin American-Statesman, Yale Daily News, ESPN, U.S. News & World Report and many other reliable sources have also verified this notability. Bhaktivinode (talk) 01:54, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No one said the sources are not reliable, but that does NOT mean they can establish notability when the bulk of them are local (and in this case, considering Austin is a neighboring town, it is still relatively local/regional. The article is NOT clearly notable, not matter how many local sources you stick on it. Nor are the sources all notable. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:49, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Regardless of your opinion of Playboy Magazine, and the many other notable reliable sources listed, these are notable and reliable sources. If you have sources that state otherwise, please add them to the discussion. The article is clearly notable and well sourced - If there is any evidence otherwise you should share it. Bhaktivinode (talk) 01:44, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Trivial mentions, again, do not estbalish notability, nor does ONE single relatively minor article on the Playboy website. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:03, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- (ec'd) You and I simply view the current sources as providing different levels of confidence in the establishment's notability. I'll look forward to seeing what others say. Townlake (talk) 00:54, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Local notability is irrelevant. If all notability required was a few local people to be acquinted with something, we might as well have articles on every last business every formed anywhere and tons of local "celebrities" because, hey, their local paper covered them! Except, that isn't how Wikipedia works and this is NOT the College Station Wikipedia (despite the efforts of various A&M editors), it is the English one. As such, notability requires significant coverage in third-party sources, not just local papers. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:36, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep if President Bush has mentioned it in a speech, that is probably good enough along with the other articles to establish notability per Wikipedia's guidelines. I would agree that the guidelines in place on notability are sometimes to generous but I think most bars would have a hard time putting together the kind of resume for notability that this one has. |► ϋrбanяeneωaℓ • TALK ◄| 01:11, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The list of non-local sources indicates notability. →Wordbuilder (talk) 04:57, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep 19 sources, many nonlocal. Mentioned by the ex president. This is too easy. AfD hero (talk) 09:04, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Snow Keep Improved article per notability asserted and repeatedly shown. Even Texas can have a few notable things... though I'm half expecting to see The Alamo at AfD next. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 09:59, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Texas has tons of notable things. This small town bar is not one of them. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 13:58, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per others. Articles only need to be non-trivial if the references themselves are used to establish notability. Trivial mentions are perfectly acceptable to verify article content. There is more ways to establish notability beyond the WP:GNG. - Mgm|(talk) 12:15, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Notability is established by WP:N, and all a subject guideline can do is establish a grace period on the basis that WP:N will eventually be satisified. This article doesn't even manage that, as it doesn't pass WP:CORP, and the third-party sources are primarily trivial. The Playboy reference is the only non-local source that comes close to being the significant coverage necessary to satisfy WP:N. It is, however, only one source, and it takes multiple sources to pass WP:N.—Kww(talk) 21:44, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply Along with Playboy Magazine, there are many other notable reliable sources that verify this subject's notabilty. Please see; Texas A&M University Press, KBTX-TV, The Washington Post, Yale Daily News, The Eagle (newspaper), The Battalion, ESPN, Austin American-Statesman, and U.S. News & World Report. Bhaktivinode (talk) 00:17, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - clearly notable from the sources. Artw (talk) 07:14, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Many of the provided references are incidental and not substantial; they could happen at any bar anywhere (and probably do), and therefore aren't any substantiation of notability for this establishment. The cited Playboy reference looks notable--but isn't, since it isn't actually an award and is a dubious off-topic notability claim. (That is, if a magazine about bars declared the place the bar of the month, that would be meaningful; Playboy is not an authority on bars.) -- Mikeblas (talk) 20:15, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete in the spirit of collectonian, kww, and mikeblas. The sources given aren't sufficient to pass WP:N. A trivial mention from the president is still a trivial mention. Local sources aren't enough to justify wide-scale notability. A monthly award from Playboy magazine is the only thing the bar has going for it, and restaurant reviews are not what playboy is well-known for. A centerfold model in Playboy is notable because that's what the magazine is known for and that's its specialty, but since Playboy magazine isn't the Michelin Guide, the review can't be used as the sole indicator of notability. Themfromspace (talk) 22:49, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Playboy (the US edition) does routinely comment on university campus culture and hotspots - while I agree this isn't what the magazine is best known for, the mention is in keeping with what the magazine covers and the audience it talks to (for those who read the articles). Not to over-focus on that one source, and I do agree in no way is the mention an "award". Townlake (talk) 23:01, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Multiple sources have shown the Dixie Chicken to be notable. While there is not a featured New York Times article on the Dixie Chicken, this does not take away from this establishment's notability. Clearly, due to multiple reliable sources and clearly stated notability, this article should be kept. Bhaktivinode (talk) 01:05, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you post these sources? Themfromspace (talk) 01:09, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- For more information, check the references section, Google News and Google Books. Bhaktivinode (talk) 01:15, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- He's posted the list above. He doesn't seem to recognize that, with the exception of Playboy, they either fail to provide significant coverage, or are local to the bar. I'm not sure that badgering him about the list is much more productive than his constant insistence on the notability of the bar. The reasons the sources fail have been pointed out numerous times, and he has pointedly ignored or belittled those arguments.—Kww(talk) 01:18, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Your comments have been noted. These are your opinions, you are entiltled to them, but they are not facts. These are Wikipedia:Reliable sources and they have clearly estabilshed notability. Bhaktivinode (talk) 01:25, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- They may be reliable sources, and they do satisfy WP:V, but the argument is over WP:N, which they don't appear to satisfy. Themfromspace (talk) 01:41, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I respect your comments but I strongly disagree; these are reliable sources that clearly establish notablity. Bhaktivinode (talk) 01:46, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you please go through them and indicate for each one why you believe that they constitute a direct and detailed examination of the Dixie Chicken Bar or are not primarily concerned with news coverage local to the bar? Then at least we'd have something concrete to disagree about.—Kww(talk) 02:12, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I ask you to review these sources. These reliable sources are directly relevant, please review each of them. Also, please note any problem you have with them. These are reliable sources, you need to state why you believe they are not reliable. Bhaktivinode (talk) 02:18, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- When have I ever said they were unreliable? I said they were local (i.e the Austin Statesman, KBTX, the Battalion, the Eagle) or passing mentions (So, as is customary, the crowd then migrates off campus to the back porch of the Dixie Chicken, a popular saloon, for the next step of Ring Day protocol: ring dunking. from US News and World Report, One Friday night, just after the stroke of midnight, the Aggies practiced in a parking lot behind the Dixie Chicken, the students' favorite local watering hole that claims it serves more beer per square foot than any other bar in the U.S. from ESPN). I'm granting you the Playboy source. Please indicate just one other source that is not local coverage and is a direct and detailed examination of the Dixie Chicken bar.—Kww(talk) 03:13, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- All of these sources are reliable. There reliablity and notability are well estabilished. Bhaktivinode (talk) 04:01, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've got to assume that the reason you won't point out a source that is not local coverage and is a direct and detailed examination of the Dixie Chicken bar is because you can't find one. I didn't ask about reliability. I didn't ask if the sources were notable. I asked you to point out a source, aside from Playboy, that was not local that contained a direct and detailed examination of the Dixie Chicken bar. Since you are able to understand English, my question was straightforward, and it has been explained to you multiple times that no one is questioning the reliability, I have to assume that you are being deliberately evasive. I hope the closing admin takes that into account when evaluating your argument.—Kww(talk) 04:19, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- All of these sources are reliable. There reliablity and notability are well estabilished. Bhaktivinode (talk) 04:01, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- When have I ever said they were unreliable? I said they were local (i.e the Austin Statesman, KBTX, the Battalion, the Eagle) or passing mentions (So, as is customary, the crowd then migrates off campus to the back porch of the Dixie Chicken, a popular saloon, for the next step of Ring Day protocol: ring dunking. from US News and World Report, One Friday night, just after the stroke of midnight, the Aggies practiced in a parking lot behind the Dixie Chicken, the students' favorite local watering hole that claims it serves more beer per square foot than any other bar in the U.S. from ESPN). I'm granting you the Playboy source. Please indicate just one other source that is not local coverage and is a direct and detailed examination of the Dixie Chicken bar.—Kww(talk) 03:13, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I ask you to review these sources. These reliable sources are directly relevant, please review each of them. Also, please note any problem you have with them. These are reliable sources, you need to state why you believe they are not reliable. Bhaktivinode (talk) 02:18, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you please go through them and indicate for each one why you believe that they constitute a direct and detailed examination of the Dixie Chicken Bar or are not primarily concerned with news coverage local to the bar? Then at least we'd have something concrete to disagree about.—Kww(talk) 02:12, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I respect your comments but I strongly disagree; these are reliable sources that clearly establish notablity. Bhaktivinode (talk) 01:46, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- They may be reliable sources, and they do satisfy WP:V, but the argument is over WP:N, which they don't appear to satisfy. Themfromspace (talk) 01:41, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Your comments have been noted. These are your opinions, you are entiltled to them, but they are not facts. These are Wikipedia:Reliable sources and they have clearly estabilshed notability. Bhaktivinode (talk) 01:25, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- He's posted the list above. He doesn't seem to recognize that, with the exception of Playboy, they either fail to provide significant coverage, or are local to the bar. I'm not sure that badgering him about the list is much more productive than his constant insistence on the notability of the bar. The reasons the sources fail have been pointed out numerous times, and he has pointedly ignored or belittled those arguments.—Kww(talk) 01:18, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- For more information, check the references section, Google News and Google Books. Bhaktivinode (talk) 01:15, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Aitias // discussion 13:09, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Evansville Trading Post[edit]
- Evansville Trading Post (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)</includeonldumass :Articles for deletion/Log/2009 February 12#Evansville_Trading_Post|View log]])</noinclude>
Just an ordinary little store in a small village. Nothing notable about it. Student7 (talk) 23:36, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The notability required is absent and the references do not assert notability. --Stormbay (talk) 05:02, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- delete There is no way for us to establish notability for us because the article lacks sufficient sources about the paper rather than loosely-related people, events and organizations. - Mgm|(talk) 12:10, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails WP:CORP. ¿SFGiДnts! ¿Complain! ¿Analyze! ¿Review! 16:39, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 21:01, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Eagle (newspaper)[edit]
- The Eagle (newspaper) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Unnotable local newspaper, which is actually named The Bryan College Station Eagle. Fails WP:N. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:35, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Per the Handbook of Texas - The Eagle became a daily in 1913. Bhaktivinode (talk) 23:58, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay...but what has that to do with whether it is notable? The paper itself calls itself by both names, but The Bryan College Station Eagle is what it uses on its website. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:00, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
*Strong keep Notable Texas newspaper. Bhaktivinode (talk) 01:30, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- And your evidence is? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:31, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment As Collectonian and I have had disagreements concerning notability since Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Temple Freda back in 2007, it would be helpful if this article could be reviewed by 3rd party editors. Bhaktivinode (talk) 02:34, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Bhaktivinode, you had not edited this article before Collectonian nominated this article for deletion. How on earth could there be any conflict of interest here? I suggest you strike your comments, which appear to be made in bad faith. Karanacs (talk) 16:50, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I appreciate your concern for Collectonian. Also, I appreciate the consistant presence the two of you have had on my talk page for the past two years. Bhaktivinode (talk) 17:56, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Bhaktivinode, you had not edited this article before Collectonian nominated this article for deletion. How on earth could there be any conflict of interest here? I suggest you strike your comments, which appear to be made in bad faith. Karanacs (talk) 16:50, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It was mentioned in the handbook of Texas. Does that handbook list every single newspaper in the state though? It doesn't have a large circulation. Is every newspaper on the planet notable, or just the ones with a large circulation? There should be a set limit. I doubt you'll find newspapers giving third party coverage to each other, so that notable guideline would make no sense. Dream Focus (talk) 05:06, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, it pretty much does mention a town's local paper in the city history articles where there is one. It doesn't, however, have articles on every paper, just the most notable ones. Note that there is no article for The Eagle at all, while there are some for many other papers in Texas, even a student paper[1] -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 05:10, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- KEEP per WP:CSB. A regional paper is notable and of service to the people in its area. That a Texas newspaper that has managed to continue operating for almost 100 years may not be notable to someone in another state or country does not remove its notability. [2] & [3] Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 09:31, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- CSB is neither a policy nor a guideline, so it is not applicable here at all. Please actually show notability for this paper (and it is not a regional paper, its a local paper). Shall we also have articles for local power companies little monthly magazines? Sales papers that are shoved in people's mailboxes every week? Etc? Usefulness and being of service has nothing to do with notability. The paper is not notable. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 14:00, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Please do not be so dismissive of my opinion, as systemic bias is a real threat to the improvement of Wiki as an encyclopedia with a world-wide readership. We are not talking about power company mailers or sales brochures, and if articles are written on such, they will be dealt with at that time. We are speaking HERE about a paper that was founded as a weekly in 1889 and became a daily in 1913. It is reasonable to expect that this may have had some historical import as Texas expanded and grew over the next 120 years. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 20:10, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If there are reliable sources about them, yes. JulesH (talk) 15:27, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- CSB is neither a policy nor a guideline, so it is not applicable here at all. Please actually show notability for this paper (and it is not a regional paper, its a local paper). Shall we also have articles for local power companies little monthly magazines? Sales papers that are shoved in people's mailboxes every week? Etc? Usefulness and being of service has nothing to do with notability. The paper is not notable. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 14:00, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep. Reliable independent sources establish notability, and at least one has been mentioned already. I find it hard to believe that none of these would be an appropriate source. JulesH (talk) 15:27, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
*Delete. The newspaper's circulation is very low, and it has won no awards. I don't think this meets the Notability criteria. Karanacs (talk) 16:47, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The expansion, most prominently the awards won, appears to meet the notability criteria. Karanacs (talk) 20:58, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep per Schmidt's expansion. Clearly stated notablility and verified by multiple reliable sources. Bhaktivinode (talk) 20:53, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 16:39, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
RightAnswers, Inc.[edit]
- RightAnswers, Inc. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Advertising. The only assertion of notability is that the company is "the largest provider of technical support content for internal IT departments" however I can't find anything that bears this out. pablohablo. 23:19, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - this AfD was incomplete. It has been fixed. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:57, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Corporate advertisement. §FreeRangeFrog 05:58, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I think they meet WP:CORP. I've added some sources, some of which are not reliable for establishing notability, but provide backup information (press releases). — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 09:00, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fits the profile: yet another online consulting business with an article written in vague, evasive, and promotional buzzword language: RightAnswers also provides help desk and knowledge management solutions to capture, organize, and enhance an organization's knowledge. The added sources would appear mostly to be copies of press releases touting deals made or the business's growth: not really independent or non-company-generated sources. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:43, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Advertisement. ¿SFGiДnts! ¿Complain! ¿Analyze! ¿Review! 16:41, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete A well-sourced ad is still an ad. No information to show that it passes the notability guidelines. Themfromspace (talk) 22:39, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Notability seems established and the article can be rewritten to address concerns about its focus. Canley (talk) 07:31, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
April 6 Youth Movement[edit]
- April 6 Youth Movement (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Article is not notable and has had a notability warning tag since January. Stub contains a single sentence and does not provide information about the actual movement other than the very basic top layer of it. Article has no backlinks (other than a bot's log archive) and has a single source.
Article does not recite why it is notable nor why the reason for the movement was notable.
A number of users joining a Facebook group can hardly be considered a reason for notability as users joining a Facebook group don't necessarily support the group's ideals. Alpha 4615 (talk) 23:01, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: the reference from the New York Times is quite a good one, and would normally be enough to assert notability for any group. -- roleplayer 23:17, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Agree with Roleplayer, that's more than enough to establish notability. There are thousands of Facebook groups, but very few are mentioned anywhere outside of blogs or Facebook pages. §FreeRangeFrog 23:27, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: I agree with Alpha. It seems like the main focus of the article is to explain what/who the FaceBook group is, when (assuming by the title) it should be more about the movement itself (why the strike is occuring, etc). Phaux'' (talk) 23:36, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep A Facebook group that got the attention of the New York Times doesn't have a notability problem. --J.Mundo (talk) 05:27, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps it's a better idea to cover the protest and mention the group. I don't see how we can expand an article on the group without focusing on the protest. - Mgm|(talk) 12:02, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as it is getting coverage in reliable sources. This may be back at AfD on April 7, but until then its notability is sourced and growing. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 05:20, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, the group itself has been getting wide coverage in mainstream media, distinct from the strike movement which they support: just added three more refs. MuffledThud (talk) 21:40, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. A difficult one. on the one hand, some serious effort has been put into this page, and it's a shame to see it go. On the other hand, this page is not really appropriate for what is, after all, an encyclopedia. This isn't the first time this type of discussion has taken place (although I think it's the first time the article in question has been so polished), I think this deletion review sums it up best. See also here and the other discussions it links to. There's been a pretty clear consensus over the years that these articles should not be included. I don't think we need a redirect, as it's a rather improbable search term. yandman 09:01, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Post-close note: History undeleted because of previously and potentially merged content as result of Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 February 18; redirect retained. Chick Bowen 01:59, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
List of units in the Age of Mythology series[edit]
- List of units in the Age of Mythology series (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Largely game guide content with little sourcing other than from fansites and irrelevant mythological research, the latter of which is wholly irrelevant to the context. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 22:46, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 01:16, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This is the sort of combination article that should be encouraged--it's an example of the way we should do our material of these games. Game guide material, which I agree we don;t want to do, is much more detailed than this--but the only way to understand what a game is is to see this sort of brief summary.DGG (talk) 04:23, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it isn't. This is propped-up game guide material with all the numbers chopped off and stuffed full of impressive-looking references that don't mention the article topic. This is a list of indiscriminate factoids. Some of the factoids may or may not be worth saving to weave into other articles, and that is the only reason to save this from deletion. This is the sort of piecemeal nonsense that should be discouraged. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 21:14, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah yes, one of these again. Transwiki is the best way here, one of the Wikias may benefit from having a detailed summary such as this, but its not appropriate for Wikipedia. This is essentially the same sort of information that turns up in a game's instruction manual on the units, combined with quite a bit of original research; an approach better for the fansites than an encyclopedia. -- Sabre (talk) 11:31, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It was transwikied from the last AfD to here. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 14:15, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- In that case, I'd support a redirect to Age of Mythology, Nifboy has effectively summed up my views of this list below. -- Sabre (talk) 19:11, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What's bothering me most is the lack of references in the majority of sections. Isn't it easier to simply link to game guide website instead of attempting a complete duplication? - Mgm|(talk) 11:53, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Valid use of List article, doesn't really consitute a game guide since it doesn't list stats or how to use the units in their strategical context and per DGG. MLauba (talk) 16:56, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Virtually the whole article, apart from the weakly-sourced historical info, consists of information such as "Prodromos' are used most effectively against other cavalry." and "The Scylla is a naval myth unit with the ability to grow extra heads through battle.", which entirely pertains to their use in a strategical, game guide context. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 20:04, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep — as I said in the previous AFD (also to maintain consistency), the content is explained in a real-world context and not necessarily in a game guide context. However, I wouldn't oppose to a soft redirect to the StrategyWiki page for convenience as well as maintaining preservation of the content (which already is). MuZemike 17:06, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As AMiB and I have explained above, the real-world context is irrelevant and is merely a rehashing of content that belongs in the respective articles pertaining to the units' real-life counterparts; for example, "During the Roman Imperial age, the Murmillo was a strong class of gladiator.[21]" explains well enough the role of the Murmillo in a historical context, yet it adds nothing to the relevant context, which is the units of AoM. This is what the majority of sourced content in the article consists of. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 01:29, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect: My opinion on the article is largely unchanged from the previous AfD; it provides far too much detail (WP:VGSCOPE) and at the same time doesn't contribute any sort of holistic understanding other than "Faction A has units X, Y, and Z with attributes J, K, and L". I also disagree with the assertion that there's any real-world context here; once you start talking about the historical basis of the units, you're no longer talking about Age-of-Mythology units, you're talking about whatever it is that unit shares a name with. Nifboy (talk) 17:22, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I vaguely recall WP:VG deciding to mine this for relevant referenced details, merge it to the appropriate AOM games, and dispose of the rest. I'm not in the mood to trawl archives to find the discussion, though. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 21:14, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki: This article is composed solely of game guide information with no encyclopedic information. The so-called "real world information" is also original research. It should go into an external wiki or something like StrategyWiki.--ZXCVBNM (TALK) 23:42, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]- Actually, it's already been transwikied, so Delete - I don't see how such an obscure redirect will help anything. But if necessary, Redirect.--ZXCVBNM (TALK) 23:44, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep per DGG. Well referenced article, very well written. Ikip (talk) 19:34, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete – per AMiB, it's essentially game guide material wrapped up in references irrelevant to the context. Fails WP:VGSCOPE. I also agree with Zxcvbnm on not seeing where a redirect helps, but I'd be fine with that result as well. — sephiroth bcr (converse) 20:23, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, well referenced and well formatted. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:41, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep DGG has it right. This type of combo article that should definitely be encouraged as a perfect example of how to correctly handle such material for these types of games. Contrary to the tag placed in the article, it doesn't violate Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines... and actually follows them quite accurately. It is not a "cheat-sheet" or a "how-to". It is a properly detailed and coherent list of essential information (NOT minutiae) that would overburden Age of Mythology if merged, and would diminish Wiki and a readers understanding of the parent article if deleted. And Transwiki? The parent article is here... so should be the child. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 03:06, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- How is information such as "The destroyer is an infantry building with a bonus against buildings; it is also effective against archers." or "They are strong agaist human soldiers, cost no population; however only five may be used at one time.", which the article is largely composed of, notable and of any relevance to readers whom are trying to understand the subject from a non-player's perspective? This sort of information is wholly in-universe and the very definition of minutiae, and holds absolutely no significance in the reader's search for significance. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 19:51, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - previous editor above me has summed it up more succinctly than I could. Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:40, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- In my mind, this is comparable to a "List of Characters", or a "List of Episodes" article attached to a video game/television program article. Both of which, I believe, are acceptable under our current guidelines/consensus. This article is not a guide to playing the game, so that argument is irrelevant. It is not bloated with plot/in-universe information; it is concise, and mostly covers things with appropriate depth. While it may have some instances of excess in-universe content, as they love to say, AfD is not for cleanup! Finally, it provides (mind you, interesting) comparisons with and links to real soldiers/ships/mythological creatures. So there's some real-world context for ya. If the article is ultimately deleted, there is no need to leave a redirect in place. seresin ( ¡? ) 10:11, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Couldn't bring yourself to pop a keep at the front of the comment then, could you? ;) Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:16, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As I've stated before (this is to seresin), the real-world context is useless and irrelevant in this article because the sources only present information relevant to real-world historical subjects, not the in-game units. To compare the information from these sources to Age of Mythology is original research. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 19:51, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Couldn't bring yourself to pop a keep at the front of the comment then, could you? ;) Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:16, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Consider a biography of the form "James Smith (1975- ) is a farmer(ref:the OED definition of farmer) in Springfield, North Carolina(ref:atlas showing that Springfield is in North Carolina) who grows tobacco(ref:a botanical guide that shows that tobacco is farmed)." The sourcing in this article is of this form, and it's not good sourcing or good encyclopedia writing. WP:NOTPAPER doesn't just mean that Wikipedia isn't limited in size; it also means that Wikipedia is a hyperlinked web on top of being a series of discrete articles, and this article defies that, adding trivial factual claims that should be in other articles and hyperlinked from here. So no, this is not well-referenced, and the only comparison is juxtaposition, because there aren't any sources comparing the game roles of these units to the various units' role in history and/or myth.
That said, there is value in this article in the hyperlinking, to understand that these units are based on historical or mythical figures, even when you strip away the specious, badly-referenced factual claims about history that belong in the target articles anyway. What we're left with once the game guide and specious historical/mythical facts are stripped away is an interesting linkfarm that does increase understanding of the game as a whole, on a project where link-only lists of stuff that appears in a game are generally frowned upon. "Guns of [historical shooting game]" are routinely deleted, even if every single weapon is a historical one, and this is no different. Yet, this list does have the same value such lists of weapons or areas or whatnot would have.
Ultimately, I'm conflicted on whether we should have an article at this title; it wouldn't ever be a good encyclopedia article, but it would have some value in listing the myths referenced by this game series. Something tells me WP:VG has already made the general decision on this sort of list, and that decision is not to do it unless there's something you can say about the game other than "X, Y, and Z appear in it." By the same token, such lists are rarely deleted, because they can be mined for a smerge into the game/series articles.
For these reasons, I think this should be userfied/projectified, while WP:VG either decides to change their standards for "List of X in Y" or decides on what to mine from this to put into other articles. Ikip or A Nobody would probably be willing to accept this in their userspace if nobody else is. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 22:36, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply] - Strong Keep, this article does have several references. And for additional referencing, you could always look at the official game manual. This article is fairly well written.Smallman12q (talk) 01:28, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Where did anyone say it doesn't have references? We can't base an article on primary sources alone, it has to have real-world context as well, that of which in this article is very weak for reasons I have explained above. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 02:06, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Smerge and/or redirect, not keep: I've softened on this article, because there is some interesting information about the units in the lead, and the article passes the bare threshold of notability. But Wikipedia does WP:NOT cover every notable topic. This article violates WP:VGSCOPE's general rule against lists of weapons, which is based on an amalgam of WP:NOT#PLOT, WP:NOT#GUIDE, and WP:NOT#DIR. Basically, we should summarize the notable concepts within any game, but a complete and detailed list of units is simply a violation of policy-based standards of what Wikipedia is supposed to be. If there is limited support for merging or redirecting, then deletion would be fine by me. Randomran (talk) 05:26, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or merge - Excessive detail regarding in-game minutiae. SharkD (talk) 13:23, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Age of Mythology. ¿SFGiДnts! ¿Complain! ¿Analyze! ¿Review! 16:42, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge - perhaps not a game guide entirely, but a level of detail not needed for understanding of the game. A list of units in any game is a level of detail that is prohibited per WP:VG guidelines; just because there's some factoids about where the units came from in history does not mean that this gets a pass. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 01:22, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete Admirable effort has been put into making the game itself a featured article, which covers everything this list's preamble does and more, that part is duplicative. The list itself is exactly what WP:GAMECRUFT #6 refers to, it's surplus to requirements and falls between two stools - it's deliberately brief to avoid being a gameguide but at the same time does little to expand on the basic rock-paper-scissors system already explained in the main article. That leaves it as a list of internal links to articles which are about the mythic creatures etc. themselves, not their relationships in this game. Anyone who wants that is more than capable of using the search bar, the argument that they're based on real or mythical entities and therefore it's valid is bunk. It's exactly the same situation for the civillization special units in Age of Empires II and a very large number of the units from Age of Empires III. For instance, I'm playing as the Russians in AoE3 ATM and had no idea what an Oprichnik or Strelet is, except that I do now because I just looked them up - no list involved. This list is nicely presented but when it boils down to it there's no real purpose to it. Players wanting to know what is effective against what have their manuals or in-game descriptions anyway and anyone undertaking research isn't going to find the answers on this list. Someoneanother 18:08, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep per Wikipedia:Merge and delete and WP:PRESERVE (a policy, which trumps guidelines), as it seems information has moved around as such deletion is not an option in this case. Merge discussion can be held on article’s talk page. Article is consistent with our scope of coverage on games and an encyclopedia is essentially a reference guide, so it is consistent with what we are. No real reason to delete beyond “I don’t like it”. Article actually meets disputed WP:FICT as well by having multiple third party references cited. In any event, deletion is an extreme last resort and is not even a real option in this case. Moreover, I had tagged this article for rescue on the 13th, and apparently one of the deletes occurred after being asked by another editor to in effect disrupt rescue efforts for articles I tag for rescue (note it was the ONLY AfD that user commented in following that talk page post on either the 13th or 14th). I hope that this talk page request is not what brought the “vote” here, i.e. rescue efforts will be frustrated because of who’s attempting them rather than because of the actual validity of the rescue efforts, but it may be worth keeping an eye out if there is some kind of trend that suggests otherwise. In any event the article is consistent with what Wikipedia is and passes our scope of inclusion, which is generally favorable to lists of units. No reason really to delete as it unquestionably passes all policies and guidelines with flying colors. Also, “cruft” is never a valid or legitimate reason for deletion. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 19:37, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The main arguments seem to be "Keep, the references are sufficient and the form is pleasing," "Merge/userfy, some of of this content is dross and/or this is not an appropriate form for this content, but we can find a use for it in other articles," and "Delete/redirect, there is no content here worth saving that is not already present elsewhere." None of these are incompatible with the GFDL or with WP:PRESERVE. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 20:54, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The last one is per the GFDL in that it seems that content from this article has shifted among other articles as well and as such we need to maintain the attribution history. As far as WP:PRESERVE goes, because the content is not libelous, not a hoax, not a copy vio, but is backed by a variety of sources, we should preserve it in some capacity whether it's kept as a separate article as I believe to be best, or merged elsewhere, or redirected with the edit history intact. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 21:05, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The argument to delete is that it is redundant, duplicative of other articles, fails various clauses of WP:NOT, and/or original research, all of which are called out specifically in WP:PRESERVE (never mind that PRESERVE's list is far from exclusive).
- As for content which has been merged, I don't think any such content exists, unless you can point to any. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 21:14, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The majority of third-party sources this article is backed by, as I and several others have explained several times before, are those which are impertinent to the article's subject, and merely provide redundant information on historical subjects, which belongs elsewhere on Wikipedia; this is exactly why we link to pages such as Hoplite and Minotaur instead of rehashing such information into different contexts. Take this historical info away, and all you have is a weakly-sourced game guide (see examples above), which constitutes as original research (which fails WP:PRESERVE). Wikipedia is a place to find reliably-sourced information on a subject, not user-written guides for game players to find out which in-game unit is compatible with what. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 21:21, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It is not redundant or duplicative, because the list section seems unique to this article. It passes WP:NOT because it is not all in-universe and because it is cited in non-primary sources it is unoriginal research, which means it meets PRESERVE.
- Some of the out of universe content has been merged to Age_of_Mythology#Units and Age_of_Mythology#Reception and back and forth since at least August of last year if not sooner. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 21:24, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No, by redundancy I was referring to the information which cites historical sources, which provide no information relating to AoM and therefore do nothing but duplicate information which should belong in articles for the historical subjects that the sources cover. An example excerpt is "The word Juggernaut refers to any force, metaphorical or physical, that is regarded as unstoppable or unconquerable. [9]", which belongs in the Juggernaut article, not here, as it provides no proof that the AoM unit was named with regards to the historical/nominal subject. Without this unsuitable information, all that is left is information such as "The Mummy is a dual ranged/melee myth unit. Its special attack instantly kills any human unit and turns it into a minion. Minions are fairly tough melee units, but die after one minute." and "Like other cavalry units, they are good against Archers, but the Jarl in particular also has bonus damage to myth units", which is wholly unsourced (sans a few unreliable cites from the Age of Mythology Heaven fansite) and nothing but OR.
- The only reliable citations in the article are a few in the lead, from several reviews of the game. This is hardly an indication of the necessity for a separate units article, though; at most, such info can be merged into the main AoM article. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 21:43, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Nevertheless, there's no reason why at worst we wouldn't merge and/or redirect with the edit history intact. I see no compelling urgency to redlink the article or delete its edit history. The article works as an effective spinoff or sub article of the main article and is a good navigational tool for fans of the game to find links to article on major mythological topics, which means having this article provides a means for those interested in the game to actually come across and learn about thse aspects of mythology. Thus, the article serves a beneficial educational function for our community. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 21:47, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This article does little other than cater to fans of the game for reasons I've explained above, and there are existing lists and other methods to locate mythological articles on Wikipedia. As Someone another explained above, it is more than easy enough for players of the game who are interested in subjects depicted in-game to type the subject's name into the search bar and find the appropriate article, which is much more likely to happen than them finding this article. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 22:05, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- These so called fans are members of our community, volunteer contributors and thousands of readers. Everything we cover "caters" to someone, whether it historians, biologists, musicians, or gamers. Sure there may be other lists of mythological topics, but here those specifically interested in the ones covered in this game have a convenient list that will broaden their horizons accordingly. So, long as 4,000 readers a month believe the article worthwhile and we know it is not nonsense or libelous, I say let those editors continue to improve it and let us continue to provide our readers with something that matters to those who actually will use this article. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 22:11, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Regardless of whether information is useful to someone, an encyclopedia should provide comprehensible and reliable information for everyone, something which original research and guides fail to do. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 22:44, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, but this content is not original research and nor is it purely game guide. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 22:50, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- How? Where are the sources to prove otherwise? Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 22:53, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- In published books and reviews of the games. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 22:57, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- All those two links seem to provide is irrelevant information/criticism pertaining to the main game itself, which can be adequately covered in the Reception section of the main AoM article; and strategy guides, which are useless because, although (sometimes) provided by a professional and reliable source, they add nothing to the real-world context and provide no meaningful information to anyone whom has not played the game. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 23:16, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually they provide critical commentary on the units in the game, i.e. real-world context and meaningful information that can be used for a reception section on this article. The strategy guides are especially useful because they are a professional and therefore reliable source that contains meaningful information to even non-gamer players. I typically look at game guides prior to actually playing the game to learn about it. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 23:27, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Then such reliably-sourced information should be added to the relevant sections of the main Age of Mythology article and only split when it becomes evident that the information can sustain an article of its own. What is here at the moment is either poorly-sourced or redundant and should therefore be deleted. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 23:43, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually they provide critical commentary on the units in the game, i.e. real-world context and meaningful information that can be used for a reception section on this article. The strategy guides are especially useful because they are a professional and therefore reliable source that contains meaningful information to even non-gamer players. I typically look at game guides prior to actually playing the game to learn about it. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 23:27, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- All those two links seem to provide is irrelevant information/criticism pertaining to the main game itself, which can be adequately covered in the Reception section of the main AoM article; and strategy guides, which are useless because, although (sometimes) provided by a professional and reliable source, they add nothing to the real-world context and provide no meaningful information to anyone whom has not played the game. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 23:16, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- In published books and reviews of the games. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 22:57, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- How? Where are the sources to prove otherwise? Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 22:53, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, but this content is not original research and nor is it purely game guide. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 22:50, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Regardless of whether information is useful to someone, an encyclopedia should provide comprehensible and reliable information for everyone, something which original research and guides fail to do. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 22:44, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- These so called fans are members of our community, volunteer contributors and thousands of readers. Everything we cover "caters" to someone, whether it historians, biologists, musicians, or gamers. Sure there may be other lists of mythological topics, but here those specifically interested in the ones covered in this game have a convenient list that will broaden their horizons accordingly. So, long as 4,000 readers a month believe the article worthwhile and we know it is not nonsense or libelous, I say let those editors continue to improve it and let us continue to provide our readers with something that matters to those who actually will use this article. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 22:11, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This article does little other than cater to fans of the game for reasons I've explained above, and there are existing lists and other methods to locate mythological articles on Wikipedia. As Someone another explained above, it is more than easy enough for players of the game who are interested in subjects depicted in-game to type the subject's name into the search bar and find the appropriate article, which is much more likely to happen than them finding this article. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 22:05, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Nevertheless, there's no reason why at worst we wouldn't merge and/or redirect with the edit history intact. I see no compelling urgency to redlink the article or delete its edit history. The article works as an effective spinoff or sub article of the main article and is a good navigational tool for fans of the game to find links to article on major mythological topics, which means having this article provides a means for those interested in the game to actually come across and learn about thse aspects of mythology. Thus, the article serves a beneficial educational function for our community. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 21:47, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The last one is per the GFDL in that it seems that content from this article has shifted among other articles as well and as such we need to maintain the attribution history. As far as WP:PRESERVE goes, because the content is not libelous, not a hoax, not a copy vio, but is backed by a variety of sources, we should preserve it in some capacity whether it's kept as a separate article as I believe to be best, or merged elsewhere, or redirected with the edit history intact. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 21:05, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The main arguments seem to be "Keep, the references are sufficient and the form is pleasing," "Merge/userfy, some of of this content is dross and/or this is not an appropriate form for this content, but we can find a use for it in other articles," and "Delete/redirect, there is no content here worth saving that is not already present elsewhere." None of these are incompatible with the GFDL or with WP:PRESERVE. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 20:54, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Deletre per not (game guide). Eusebeus (talk) 23:28, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:PERNOM is an "argument" to avoid in deletion discussions, especially in this case when it has been proven inaccurate, i.e. when it is apparent that it is not actually a game guide. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 23:33, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for that but I actually wrote per not; however I agree with nom as well. Eusebeus (talk) 08:50, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:PERNOM is an "argument" to avoid in deletion discussions, especially in this case when it has been proven inaccurate, i.e. when it is apparent that it is not actually a game guide. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 23:33, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. What doesn't consist of redundant factoids about history, legend, and mythology violates WP:NOTGUIDE. Deor (talk) 23:38, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This article however does not consist of redudant factoids and actually is consistent with what Wikipedia is. Moreover, due to the merge that took place back in the summer, it cannot be deleted per the GFDL. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 23:40, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Your argument, however, is wrong!
Empty gainsaying doesn't accomplish anything. Perhaps you could offer some examples of encyclopedic content in this article, or offer ways in which its problems could be addressed? If this isn't deleted, it'd at least help me figure out what to suggest to WP:VG to do with this. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 23:46, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Your argument, however, is wrong!
- This article however does not consist of redudant factoids and actually is consistent with what Wikipedia is. Moreover, due to the merge that took place back in the summer, it cannot be deleted per the GFDL. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 23:40, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- MY argument is 100% spot on! :)
- Deleting this article accomplishes nothing. The way to improve this article is to go through the various sources available in the Google News and Books results and to improve the article accordingly. Since this discussion will likely close within a few hours, we can do that after it closes at our leisure. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 23:49, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Improve the article in what way? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 23:52, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Use the secondary source for additional out of universe context, maybe restructure so as to have a reception section. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 23:54, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia should include information only when it can be sourced, not the other way around. If it was otherwise, WP:RS, WP:OR, etc., wouldn't even be policies.
- Also, on the subject of the GFDL, the article can be redirected if necessary to attribute contributions; we are discussing whether such information should be present in the live version of the article. I think that pretty much addresses that.
- And Deor, please assume good faith. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 00:00, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The content has been moved around from here with at least Age_of_Mythology#Units, which also is at worst a logical redirect place. As there is a logical merge/redirect location, that discussion should have been held on the article's talk page. Look, I think you can make a reasonable case for a merge and redirect. I think it should be kept, but if that's a middle ground, compromise, okay; however, I am not seeing anything to suggest that this should be redlinked or that there's something dangerous in the edit history. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 00:08, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What secondary source? As for reception, I daresay we don't need a reception section composed of cherrypicked quotes from reviews of the games; such nonsense would be high on the list of dross that will not survive a merge; what critical reception that is chiefly about this topic and not merely the individual games do you have to offer? This is the put up or shut up stage of article writing; I'm not interested in counting coup over the number of Google hits. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 00:01, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, unfortunately, this discussion has descended into a back and forth that is needlessly preventing us from doing what we can with the sources to improve the article. It is a bit much to be expected on a volunteer site to simultaneously argue in defense of the article and play games editing as well with some who are only going to be arguing against rather than helping the effort to improve. Because the discussion will close tonight, and it's clear it's a no consensus, we should probably stop arguing and instead either see what we can do with the sources and work together or move on. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 00:08, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- All you're arguing now is that deletion of unsourced content is unconstructive, which I've explained already is not true (per the policies). You're free to contribute reliable sources, etc., to content where applicable, but unsourced content should be omitted until that is done. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 00:20, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There is, however, sourced content in the article that I am arguing to keep. I am saying that we should incorporate additional out of universe content and references. Wikipedia is a work in progress with no deadline. Once we have something that is at least somewhat sourced with potential established we either merge what we can and leave a redirect with edit history intact so that when editors want to revise and reference further they don't have to just start over. I have come across articles that have been unreferenced for years and yet I referenced them after that time and did so because the article existed. I'm not great at starting articles, but I can help reference them. With regards to this article, I am currently going through it for grammar and format and hope to return to it source wise. The sooner we're done going back and forth here, the sooner, we can return to improving this content and discussing how best to go about doing so. Regards, --A NobodyMy talk 00:24, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The policies explicitly forbid inclusion of unsourced content. It's completely fine to use your user page, etc., to process and improve potential content for articles, but what is made live must follow the policies, regardless of how likely it seems it can be improved in the future. We are not building an encyclopedia by including information which isn't encyclopedic; encyclopedicity (that's not a word, but whatever) being defined by the policies and guidelines. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 00:38, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, then when all else fails WP:IGNOREALLRULES, because deletion is an extreme last resort. And we are not simply an encyclopedia, but also an almanac and gazzetteer. This content is of the list format one would find in an almanac and consistent per our first pillar with a specialized encyclopedia, but more so than anything else is exactly the kind of stuff I believe makes Wikipedia relevant, i.e. rather than a print encyclopedia, Wikipedia contains these kinds of articles that are helpful in an educational setting for students who say play this game and are learning about mythology. An instructor can point them to this article a la "See, you're game touches upon history, now follow these links for more information about the other uses of these concepts. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 00:42, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Nonsense. Deletion is a normal, everyday practice wholly supported by policies agreed as normal by the vast majority of the Wikipedia community, and not merely an "extreme last resort", as you put it, to hide libel and copyrighted material from public view. Your viewpoints go against the very fundamentals of Wikipedia's workings, and you'll have to change the enforced policies before you'll have any chance of practising things differently for this article. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 01:02, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Deletion of hoaxes, libel, and copy vios is indeed an everyday practice supported by policies, but deletion of encyclopedic content supported by hundreds of editors and thousands of readings goes against the very fundamentals of Wikipedia's workings, because the enforced policies unquestionably support keeping this article. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 01:34, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- These policies being? Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 01:48, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- All of them really. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 02:01, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That means nothing unless you can explain why. The only policy which you have cited, with reasons, is WP:PRESERVE, which you seem to be using as little more than a standing point for this "preserve everything regardless of whether it is notable" viewpoint, which I have explained is not how things work at Wikipedia. From here, you have been deviating into a wholly relevant contention over whether the normal process of deletion and cemented policies should apply to this article, weakly standing by WP:IAR in total ignorance of the other major policies which formulate this site. Sorry, but your best bet is to go elsewhere if you're intent on presenting original research. Wikipedia isn't going to change, and definitely not from your assertions alone. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 02:24, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia doesn't have to change for this article to be kept. I have yet to see any explanation as to why deletion is appropriate here rather than merging and redirecting at worst. This article should be kept because it is notable, it is verifiable, it is unoriginal research, it is consistent with a specialized encyclopedia concerning fictional topics relevant in the real world. There is as such no legitimate grounds for deletion. All I see is essentially "I don't like it" dressed up as if it's something more but that's all there. This article is what Wikipedia is here for. If you don't like that, then ignore it and work on whatever topics you know about and like. Just because you don't know about or care for this subject is not valid grounds for removing it altogether. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 02:42, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Then I give up. I don't see the point in arguing with someone whom is putting words in my mouth and attempting to shunt me aside in the interests of protecting clearly unsuitable and impertinent information for purely synthesised justifications. Push to allow original research all you want, but the day OR gives way is the day Wikipedia stops being an encyclopedia. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 03:01, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia is not just an encyclopedia, but also an almanac and gazetteer per WP:FIVE. The material is clearly suitable either as a separate article or as part of the main article, because it is unoriginal research. I am not closed minded to the possibility of a merge or redirect with edit history intact, but redlinking or deleting the edit history is unacceptable in this case, partially so because if say four accounts call for deletion in some five day discussion for an article that has existed for months, that dozens of editors saw fit to work on, thousands view every month, and over a half dozen say here to keep, merge, or redirect would be ignoring the wishes of the community and rather imposing a needlessly limited view upon them, but anyway, might as well agree to disagree. Have a nice night! Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 03:09, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This article is neither almanac- or gazetteer-style content, so I don't see where you're going with that. Furthermore, "the wishes of the community" is exactly what I'm pushing - the wishes of the whole Wikipedia community, as a consensus, to enforce the policies. There's a disclaimer clearly displayed at the bottom of every page which states, succinctly, that you must adhere to policies and guidelines and that your contributions may be butchered mercilessly with no regards to the effort put into producing it. Frankly, seeing as you've done so little to actually prove this article's content is suitable for inclusion and no-one else has truly contended my points, I'd say policies have established the true consensus. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 03:42, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This article is consistent with a specialized encyclopedia. The wishes of the whole community tends to support these kinds of articles and clearly there's no consensus anywhere nor here for deletion. The article adheres to the policies and guidelines for the many reasons elaborated on in the previous discussion and in this one by not just me but a half dozen plus editors. No one has proven that this article is somehow detrimental to our project and as such no one has presented a compelling reason for deletion. Those policies that have consensus support this article's inclusion even if at worst it is a merge and redirect with the edit history intact. Seriously, why is it such a big deal? We know it's verifiable, we know it can be improved further, and we know it is relevant to thousands of readers. We don't need anything else beyond those realities. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 03:46, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- How about we strip this down about to one obvious truth: no reliable source, no inclusion. This is incontestable. Look everywhere, ask anyone, if you want evidence of this. I've asserted, pages above, why the sources provided in this article are unsuitable. Now prove to me, with regards to my comments, why they are. If you can't do that, then your argument has no basis. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 04:05, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Interesting breakdown we have thus far; going with just the boldest text that resembles "votes":
- Speedy keep 1
- Strong keep 3
- Keep 5
- Merge 4
- Redirect 3
- Soft redirect 1
- Transwiki 1
- Userfy 1
- Delete 6 (at least two of these said okay with redirecting, although they didn't bold "redirect" and so I didn't count that in the redirect count above)
- Strong delete 1
- Clearly the community prefers a solution other than deletion and perhaps the merge and redirect middle ground is where to go. In any event, the article can be improved further by using these reliable secondary sources, which is why the majority if editors believe it should be included in some capacity and which is where there is no basis for deletion. If you want to meet at a half way point here as reflected by the above reality, okay. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 04:14, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Interesting breakdown we have thus far; going with just the boldest text that resembles "votes":
- How about we strip this down about to one obvious truth: no reliable source, no inclusion. This is incontestable. Look everywhere, ask anyone, if you want evidence of this. I've asserted, pages above, why the sources provided in this article are unsuitable. Now prove to me, with regards to my comments, why they are. If you can't do that, then your argument has no basis. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 04:05, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This article is consistent with a specialized encyclopedia. The wishes of the whole community tends to support these kinds of articles and clearly there's no consensus anywhere nor here for deletion. The article adheres to the policies and guidelines for the many reasons elaborated on in the previous discussion and in this one by not just me but a half dozen plus editors. No one has proven that this article is somehow detrimental to our project and as such no one has presented a compelling reason for deletion. Those policies that have consensus support this article's inclusion even if at worst it is a merge and redirect with the edit history intact. Seriously, why is it such a big deal? We know it's verifiable, we know it can be improved further, and we know it is relevant to thousands of readers. We don't need anything else beyond those realities. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 03:46, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This article is neither almanac- or gazetteer-style content, so I don't see where you're going with that. Furthermore, "the wishes of the community" is exactly what I'm pushing - the wishes of the whole Wikipedia community, as a consensus, to enforce the policies. There's a disclaimer clearly displayed at the bottom of every page which states, succinctly, that you must adhere to policies and guidelines and that your contributions may be butchered mercilessly with no regards to the effort put into producing it. Frankly, seeing as you've done so little to actually prove this article's content is suitable for inclusion and no-one else has truly contended my points, I'd say policies have established the true consensus. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 03:42, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia is not just an encyclopedia, but also an almanac and gazetteer per WP:FIVE. The material is clearly suitable either as a separate article or as part of the main article, because it is unoriginal research. I am not closed minded to the possibility of a merge or redirect with edit history intact, but redlinking or deleting the edit history is unacceptable in this case, partially so because if say four accounts call for deletion in some five day discussion for an article that has existed for months, that dozens of editors saw fit to work on, thousands view every month, and over a half dozen say here to keep, merge, or redirect would be ignoring the wishes of the community and rather imposing a needlessly limited view upon them, but anyway, might as well agree to disagree. Have a nice night! Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 03:09, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Then I give up. I don't see the point in arguing with someone whom is putting words in my mouth and attempting to shunt me aside in the interests of protecting clearly unsuitable and impertinent information for purely synthesised justifications. Push to allow original research all you want, but the day OR gives way is the day Wikipedia stops being an encyclopedia. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 03:01, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia doesn't have to change for this article to be kept. I have yet to see any explanation as to why deletion is appropriate here rather than merging and redirecting at worst. This article should be kept because it is notable, it is verifiable, it is unoriginal research, it is consistent with a specialized encyclopedia concerning fictional topics relevant in the real world. There is as such no legitimate grounds for deletion. All I see is essentially "I don't like it" dressed up as if it's something more but that's all there. This article is what Wikipedia is here for. If you don't like that, then ignore it and work on whatever topics you know about and like. Just because you don't know about or care for this subject is not valid grounds for removing it altogether. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 02:42, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That means nothing unless you can explain why. The only policy which you have cited, with reasons, is WP:PRESERVE, which you seem to be using as little more than a standing point for this "preserve everything regardless of whether it is notable" viewpoint, which I have explained is not how things work at Wikipedia. From here, you have been deviating into a wholly relevant contention over whether the normal process of deletion and cemented policies should apply to this article, weakly standing by WP:IAR in total ignorance of the other major policies which formulate this site. Sorry, but your best bet is to go elsewhere if you're intent on presenting original research. Wikipedia isn't going to change, and definitely not from your assertions alone. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 02:24, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- All of them really. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 02:01, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- These policies being? Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 01:48, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Deletion of hoaxes, libel, and copy vios is indeed an everyday practice supported by policies, but deletion of encyclopedic content supported by hundreds of editors and thousands of readings goes against the very fundamentals of Wikipedia's workings, because the enforced policies unquestionably support keeping this article. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 01:34, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Nonsense. Deletion is a normal, everyday practice wholly supported by policies agreed as normal by the vast majority of the Wikipedia community, and not merely an "extreme last resort", as you put it, to hide libel and copyrighted material from public view. Your viewpoints go against the very fundamentals of Wikipedia's workings, and you'll have to change the enforced policies before you'll have any chance of practising things differently for this article. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 01:02, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, then when all else fails WP:IGNOREALLRULES, because deletion is an extreme last resort. And we are not simply an encyclopedia, but also an almanac and gazzetteer. This content is of the list format one would find in an almanac and consistent per our first pillar with a specialized encyclopedia, but more so than anything else is exactly the kind of stuff I believe makes Wikipedia relevant, i.e. rather than a print encyclopedia, Wikipedia contains these kinds of articles that are helpful in an educational setting for students who say play this game and are learning about mythology. An instructor can point them to this article a la "See, you're game touches upon history, now follow these links for more information about the other uses of these concepts. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 00:42, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The policies explicitly forbid inclusion of unsourced content. It's completely fine to use your user page, etc., to process and improve potential content for articles, but what is made live must follow the policies, regardless of how likely it seems it can be improved in the future. We are not building an encyclopedia by including information which isn't encyclopedic; encyclopedicity (that's not a word, but whatever) being defined by the policies and guidelines. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 00:38, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There is, however, sourced content in the article that I am arguing to keep. I am saying that we should incorporate additional out of universe content and references. Wikipedia is a work in progress with no deadline. Once we have something that is at least somewhat sourced with potential established we either merge what we can and leave a redirect with edit history intact so that when editors want to revise and reference further they don't have to just start over. I have come across articles that have been unreferenced for years and yet I referenced them after that time and did so because the article existed. I'm not great at starting articles, but I can help reference them. With regards to this article, I am currently going through it for grammar and format and hope to return to it source wise. The sooner we're done going back and forth here, the sooner, we can return to improving this content and discussing how best to go about doing so. Regards, --A NobodyMy talk 00:24, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- All you're arguing now is that deletion of unsourced content is unconstructive, which I've explained already is not true (per the policies). You're free to contribute reliable sources, etc., to content where applicable, but unsourced content should be omitted until that is done. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 00:20, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, unfortunately, this discussion has descended into a back and forth that is needlessly preventing us from doing what we can with the sources to improve the article. It is a bit much to be expected on a volunteer site to simultaneously argue in defense of the article and play games editing as well with some who are only going to be arguing against rather than helping the effort to improve. Because the discussion will close tonight, and it's clear it's a no consensus, we should probably stop arguing and instead either see what we can do with the sources and work together or move on. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 00:08, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Use the secondary source for additional out of universe context, maybe restructure so as to have a reception section. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 23:54, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Improve the article in what way? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 23:52, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Numbers, numbers, numbers. Consensus is worthless if it's centred around ideas that violate policies, the wider consensus. Despite my repetitive replies to several people's posts above, no-one except you has truly partaken in this discussion on the keep side of things, so I'm assuming they have no deeper points to assert than "not really written in a game guide context".
Point is, the article is devoid of reliable sources, you and others have failed to show how policies support this article, therefore the article is deleted. That's Wikipedia. The end. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 04:34, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If you were curious, the previous discussion broke down as follows:
- Keep 13
- Weak keep 1
- Very weak keep 1
- Merge 2
- Transwiki 7
- Delete 15
- Which is pretty similar statistically to the previous discussion. Do you think perhaps that "despite your repetitive replies" simply suggests you haven't convinced the numerous keeps or merges above that the content is unmergeable of that it doesn't pass our policies and guidelines? In any event, the article contains reliable sources and you have not successfully shown otherwise. Thus, the article will either be kept outright or as a result of no consensus or a merge and redirect, which is indeed the paperless encyclopedia that anybody can edit. The article has developed considerably since nomination with the only new sources added being third party independent sources from Google News and Google Books for content on the game history, importance, and receptions as specifically relates to the units. Surely, at worst this content is mergeable or demonstrates further potential. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 04:50, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- All you've done is add headings, formatting and a few sources which still show no need for this to be a separate article. There is still absolutely no reason why the little sourced content there is be merged and whatever else purged. This is not a place for synthesis. Stop pretending it is. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 05:03, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I (and at least one other) am still improving it further. As such, you still are not showing any reason why we shouldn't at worst merge this material. Please do not focus on trying to "win" the argument at the expense of pretending their are reasons for deletion that if ever valid have been or are being addressed. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 05:11, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- All the policies I've stated before, which clearly state that content should only be included if reliably sourced, the large majority of this of which is not. That means information which doesn't comply with said policies is deleted, regardless of whether it could have potential (this is why there's an edit history).
- Anyway, I'm not going to lecture on at you about what seems to be obvious. This is clearly a conflict of interest, which I will address in the morning. Goodnight. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 05:23, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Nevertheless, when you say "large majority" it means there is still material that is reliably sourced, i.e. keepable or mergeable content. What seems obvious to any one person is not necessarily so to everyone else. Again, the majority in this and they previous discussion argue for something other than outright deletion and the articles has actually improved from the first AfD and now further since your nomination. In any event, I'm surprised the discussion is still open, so hopefully we won't be going back and forth come the morning! So, with that, yes, good night! :) Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 05:27, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I (and at least one other) am still improving it further. As such, you still are not showing any reason why we shouldn't at worst merge this material. Please do not focus on trying to "win" the argument at the expense of pretending their are reasons for deletion that if ever valid have been or are being addressed. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 05:11, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- All you've done is add headings, formatting and a few sources which still show no need for this to be a separate article. There is still absolutely no reason why the little sourced content there is be merged and whatever else purged. This is not a place for synthesis. Stop pretending it is. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 05:03, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, this seems like a reasonable subarticle to have. Everyking (talk) 23:48, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "I like it" isn't a very strong argument. Can you provide reasons for your considering it "reasonable"? Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 00:06, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I don't see how this discussion could be so involved. The article is a list of units in a video game - it clearly fails WP:GAMEGUIDE. The sources provided are either game guides/fansites or generic references for mythological creatures that have absolutely nothing to do with the series or the units of the series, so there is nothing to indicate that notability has been established. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 03:58, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I am surprised it has been so involved as well, as the article clearly passes our video game inclusion guidelines by containing content that is inconsistent with game guides. The sources provides are actually secondary source reveiws of the game from the Google News seach. It gets so many results that it is notable by any reasonable standard. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 04:00, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 16:38, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Poder Paralelo[edit]
- Poder Paralelo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Deleted from portuguese wikipedia per AfD. pt:Wikipedia:Páginas para eliminar/Poder Paralelo (10 delete x 1 keep, 9 of the ones who vote for delete are brazilians). The basic reason is WP:CRYSTAL. Descíclope (talk) 22:34, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. —Descíclope (talk) 01:20, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - To paraphrase the sole dissenter: the article is well-written and has good references, Google has plenty of hits about the soap opera. If it's well-written, has lots of references then there's no reason to delete. Correct me if I'm wrong here, my Portuguese is rusty. You are correct in the WP:CRYSTAL reference, however that establishes that articles about future "things" are valid if and only if they are notable and well-sourced. Is that not the case here? Certainly a major telenovela on the second largest television network seems notable to me, as does the cast. Also, I'm not assuming bad faith or anything but a 10-1 ten-pound hammer delete vote on an article that detailed seems kind of weird. Each project has it's own idiosyncrasies of course. §FreeRangeFrog 23:40, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Usually you can only be sure about one or two weeks before, when they start airing the commercials about the new soap opera. Several brazilian soap operas are canceled or change their names: it happened a lot on pt wikipedia. That's why people on pt wikipedia hate these articles. It's completely crystal because no one can be sure if it's going to air. I'm not against recreation when/if the soap opera starts. Descíclope (talk) 01:28, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This is definitely crystalballing. No predjudice against recreation if this show ever comes out. Edward321 (talk) 23:59, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: notability not established WP:CRYSTAL. JamesBurns (talk) 05:39, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Aitias // discussion 13:11, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Meadows of Dan (band)[edit]
- Meadows of Dan (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Nothing in the article suggests that the band is in any way notable. It is also completely free of sources. faithless (speak) 22:13, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Fails WP:BAND big time. It's a shame because it looks like they put a lot of work into it, but a lot of text about not being notable is the same as just a paragraph. All those images as well... §FreeRangeFrog 22:22, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - is any information verifiable? Bearian (talk) 02:46, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: no reliable independent sources WP:BAND. JamesBurns (talk) 05:44, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails WP:BAND. ¿SFGiДnts! ¿Complain! ¿Analyze! ¿Review! 16:44, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wikipedia:Speedy keep Nominator has withdrawn. All keeps. SilkTork *YES! 14:16, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Elizabeth McCaul[edit]
- Elizabeth McCaul (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Notability of subject is unclear to me. Also, much of the text appears to be a copyright violation, but main contributor claims source is public domain. HeirloomGardener (talk) 21:34, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Formerly New York State's chief bank regulator; I don't think every state's chief bank regulator is notable, but there's an argument that New York's is. 150 Gnews hits, though some of those are press releases and judicial opinions where she's not named in her individual capacity. THF (talk) 22:06, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep. The article is a part of documenting the New York State Banking Department, which is a state agency with 600 full time employees. The Superintendent of Banks is the head of that agency, and I have included in that article a wikitable showing the Superintendents between 1851 through the present. Elizabeth McCaul is listed there as well as in the infobox of Governor George Pataki's cabinet. These links prompted me to create this article, which includes various sources. I invite HeirloomGardener to improve the article further, and I have tried to meet her objections. In response, she has started this AfD for reasons that are unclear to me. The Superintendent of Banks is the second most visible bank regulator in America. Although large US banks are regulated by the Federal Reserve, large foreign banks, such as the United Bank of Switzerland, are regulated by New York instead because they have New York offices. Hence, McCaul was a leader in recent efforts to make Swiss banks compensate Holocaust survivors. Anyone who regulates $2 trillion in bank deposits and serves in a Governor's cabinet for six years meets the notability test. Although I believe this is presented concisely in the article, I welcome HeirloomGardener to edit the article further. This is not an edit war. Racepacket (talk) 22:08, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Sources are not independent sources. One is text of a speech given by McCaul, two are press releases, and the last is essentially a copy of her bio from the company's website. This is why I questioned the notability of the subject. However, I can see where New York's Superintendent of Banks may be inherently notable, as THF mentioned above. HeirloomGardener (talk) 23:03, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There are 20 New York Times articles which reference her, and I have included footnotes to two of them. Also, "Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves" The other sources include press release from the Attorney General's Office and entities that hosted McCaul as a speaker. Racepacket (talk) 23:27, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the additional sources and info. It seems to me that notability has been established. I'll switch to Keep on this. HeirloomGardener (talk) 03:10, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There are 20 New York Times articles which reference her, and I have included footnotes to two of them. Also, "Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves" The other sources include press release from the Attorney General's Office and entities that hosted McCaul as a speaker. Racepacket (talk) 23:27, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Before people decide to say there are no sources, they might do well to actually look. Of course the author should do it initially. But if other people would do it themselves when they find an article they think not sufficiently documented, we'd get much further. DGG (talk) 04:27, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, you've made your point. Glad to know you never make mistakes. Can someone close this before I get attacked again? HeirloomGardener (talk) 17:24, 13 February 2009 (UTC) Obvious Keep Lots of news sources. Tractops (talk) 06:17, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 19:14, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ghoulstock[edit]
- Ghoulstock (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable event. No hits on Google news archives. The only hits on Google are the group's own website or related blogs and youtube channels. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 21:04, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: not notable, not encyclopedic, POV problems, no reliable / independent sources...Nikkimaria (talk) 02:44, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Local Notable, Some reliable Media Press sources, Probably just needs a clean template update Ghoulstock (talk) 12:17, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment If there are reliable sources, please feel free to add them. None of the sources you've currently cited could be considered "reliable" as they are all primary sources (from the Ghoulstock website itself) or from blogs which are generally NOT considered reliable sources as there is NO peer review process at all. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 14:16, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment So the screencap of the temporary SouthJerseyLocalNews.com article doesn't count since it's unfortunately being mirrored by the site? It was on the web but the online articles are temporary so it was screencapped, the physical newspaper printing I have. There were also many earlier newspaper clippings about the show but unfortunately those I don't have copies of but they were about the cancellation of the 5th show and the Night of the Living Dead musical. EDIT: I added some more outside sources from 2008 competitions featuring Ghoulstock. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ghoulstock (talk • contribs)
- Response It counts, but one article in a local newspaper does not convey notability. And the sources regarding the 2008 competitions don't really apply to the Ghoulstock festival, but rather to a group of people who claim some relationship to that festival engaging in entirely unrelated competitions (a bicycle fundraising ride and a very local film-making competition, in which they did not even place very well). None of these sources asserts notability on a scale required for a Wikipedia article. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 13:06, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Response Fine, you win. I guess Ghoulstock isn't Wiki-material yet considering how many of you are so eagerly hopping on the takedown wagon. As for you, WikiDan, I was fine with this when it was civil but you didn't have to get snooty and shove your asinine aside into your last response. Who are you to tell me that 3rd runner up isn't placing very well? Honestly, it was an unnecessary comment and the fact that you are judging the content on Wikipedia only proves why the whole site can be taken with a grain of salt.Ghoulstock (talk) 12:41, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment One of the criteria under WP:NF is that a film has won an award at a major film festival. The film in question neither won an award, nor was this a major film festival. That was my point. Had the film won the award rather than placing as 3rd runner up, that might have conferred notability, but the placement it received does NOT confer notability. If I sounded snide, I apologize. I was merely trying to point out the facts that were relevant. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 18:50, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Verifiable sources very much lacking. ¿SFGiДnts! ¿Complain! ¿Analyze! ¿Review! 16:45, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Unless reliable sources establish notability. I gave up after about 7 gpages of search. Almost all blogs, twitters or youtubes. When there's nothing to be seen in that distance, I begin to wonder if there's anything to see at all. (That's a challenge: prove me wrong. I'm always happy to be PROVED wrong.) Peridon (talk) 19:43, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Canley (talk) 07:35, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Porkupus[edit]
- Porkupus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
WP:NEO. No real hits on Google save occasional forum name. • \ / (⁂) 20:50, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete!!! This neologism doesn't belong here and cannot form a viable article. Urban Dictionary may be a more appropriate place for this word, not Wikipedia. Valley2city‽ 21:22, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete-nonsense article ttonyb1 (talk) 21:59, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, not notable yet. May be notable in the future, but it will be costless to recreate then. THF (talk) 22:07, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, non-notable neologism. I was hoping for an article on what you get when you cross a porcupine with a platypus. What a letdown! - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:45, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. And discuss a potential redirect at the article's talk page. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 16:37, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Arran Fernandez[edit]
- Arran Fernandez (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)<noincludre>(View log)</noinclude>
I did prod this originally but it was removed. A few issues come to mind really, firstly and most obviously BLP1E. Secondly, further expansion of the article (if remotely possible) would involve including personal details of the subject (a minor). Thirdly, the article content is already viewable on another article . Thanks. — R2 20:24, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - To General Certificate of Secondary Education section as mentioned by nom. This is clearly WP:ONEEVENT. §FreeRangeFrog 20:29, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Reversing. The expansion work done by 86.42.133.228 clearly invalidates WP:ONEEVENT. This is a much different article than the one that was initially AfD'ed. §FreeRangeFrog 21:23, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
*Redirect - What they said ^^ - Ddawkins73 (talk) 20:56, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to General_Certificate_of_Secondary_Education#History_and_format, per above. Enigmamsg 22:37, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, and alter General_Certificate_of_Secondary_Education#History_and_format if thought necessary. It is not correct to state that this is WP:ONEEVENT. The subject's examination records set in 2001, 2002, and 2003 were all reported in the international media, as Google News verifies.86.42.133.228 (talk) 23:32, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well not to the letter of the law, but it's one narrow context, WP:ONEEXAM. Remarkable individual, but I'm not sure about the notability to warrant a separate bio at this stage of his academic career. He does have a record, but being sensible, everything necessary to say about him is covered by GCSE. Redirect to the article is ample imo, but it would not be surprising if he does several notable things in years to come. Ddawkins73 (talk) 00:51, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- But that would be against WP:CRYSTAL. ;) — R2 01:00, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes. Ddawkins73 (talk) 09:56, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- But that would be against WP:CRYSTAL. ;) — R2 01:00, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well not to the letter of the law, but it's one narrow context, WP:ONEEXAM. Remarkable individual, but I'm not sure about the notability to warrant a separate bio at this stage of his academic career. He does have a record, but being sensible, everything necessary to say about him is covered by GCSE. Redirect to the article is ample imo, but it would not be surprising if he does several notable things in years to come. Ddawkins73 (talk) 00:51, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect. Every qualification and every award in every country in the world has a youngest winner. People sitting exams at a young age are unusual, but not that unusual. – iridescent 01:54, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- How are WP:N requirements not met? The spirit of the law on WP:ONEEVENT is surely temporariness? If subject's records, and reporting thereof, came within one week, rather than being spaced out over three years, there would be a case for invoking this, but this is not the case.86.42.133.228 (talk) 08:41, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm (thinks)... maybe that guideline is a red herring here, because there's something not right about a separate bio. The point at issue is that it's one narrow context, and there's nothing appropriate to add to the article. I think the thing to consider is whether it's better left as the stub it is, or redirected into the GCSE article. It comes down to whether a reader searching for his name or stumbling upon the article would be better served by context of the GCSE article. It's just that a bio is not appropriate, (and) there's no independent notability. Ddawkins73 (talk) 09:56, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What sort of biographical details might be addable to the article if they could be verifiably found? I will try to look for some. The subject was the "Person of the Week" on Frank Elstner's chat show on German TV in 2001. In 2003 he appeared on Terry Wogan's show on British TV and trounced mathematics populariser Johnny Ball in a mental arithmetic contest. There are some other bits and pieces too. Perhaps these could usefully be added to the article? One problem is that although everyone seems agreed that this subject's records are encyclopaedic, in the GCSE article as it stands they look as though they have just been parachuted into the "History and Format" section. Thus if the question is which is preferable, to keep this as a stub or to have the information only in the GCSE article, I am not sure that the answer is the latter. I feel that there is scope for improving both articles.86.42.133.228 (talk) 17:52, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, fine. Keep - Ddawkins73 (talk) 22:34, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What sort of biographical details might be addable to the article if they could be verifiably found? I will try to look for some. The subject was the "Person of the Week" on Frank Elstner's chat show on German TV in 2001. In 2003 he appeared on Terry Wogan's show on British TV and trounced mathematics populariser Johnny Ball in a mental arithmetic contest. There are some other bits and pieces too. Perhaps these could usefully be added to the article? One problem is that although everyone seems agreed that this subject's records are encyclopaedic, in the GCSE article as it stands they look as though they have just been parachuted into the "History and Format" section. Thus if the question is which is preferable, to keep this as a stub or to have the information only in the GCSE article, I am not sure that the answer is the latter. I feel that there is scope for improving both articles.86.42.133.228 (talk) 17:52, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm (thinks)... maybe that guideline is a red herring here, because there's something not right about a separate bio. The point at issue is that it's one narrow context, and there's nothing appropriate to add to the article. I think the thing to consider is whether it's better left as the stub it is, or redirected into the GCSE article. It comes down to whether a reader searching for his name or stumbling upon the article would be better served by context of the GCSE article. It's just that a bio is not appropriate, (and) there's no independent notability. Ddawkins73 (talk) 09:56, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- How are WP:N requirements not met? The spirit of the law on WP:ONEEVENT is surely temporariness? If subject's records, and reporting thereof, came within one week, rather than being spaced out over three years, there would be a case for invoking this, but this is not the case.86.42.133.228 (talk) 08:41, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe I'm reading this wrong, but wouldn't this be WP:THREEEXAMS rather than ONEEXAM or ONEEVENT. - Mgm|(talk) 10:48, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Mebbe. 3 times same exam (Had to resit :D). Ddawkins73 (talk) 12:26, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No - certainly three different exams, namely the Foundation, Intermediate, and Higher tiers of the GCSE in Mathematics, which each had their own syllabuses and separate examination papers. According to the news reports, he got the highest available grades each time, and did not resit anything :-) (Nowadays, as described in the GCSE article, Mathematics only has Foundation and Higher tiers, having been brought into line with other subjects).86.42.133.228 (talk) 17:52, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Mebbe. 3 times same exam (Had to resit :D). Ddawkins73 (talk) 12:26, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect. While a record of this sort should certainly be covered in the relevant article, there's not sufficient other material like biographical details to warrant a separate entry. (Incidentally, personal details of a minor are fair game if they're relatively widely published outside of Wikipedia) It should be redirected as a likely search term. - Mgm|(talk) 10:52, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have added some biographical details with sources, hopefully improving the article and making it less of a stub. These do not appear in the GCSE article or (as far as I know) anywhere else on Wikipedia.86.42.133.228
- I have also added a sentence on the
threeseven integer sequences he has submitted to (and had published by) the On-Line Encyclopedia of Integer Sequences86.42.133.228 (talk) 10:48, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have also added a sentence on the
- I have added some biographical details with sources, hopefully improving the article and making it less of a stub. These do not appear in the GCSE article or (as far as I know) anywhere else on Wikipedia.86.42.133.228
- Keep. Thanks for notifying me of the deletion notice, R2. In its current version the article is much better than my original effort, now that the context is broader.Carpet chair (talk) 23:51, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Propose: remove stub status and keep. I have tried to fix the obvious weaknesses: narrowness of context (restricted to three GCSE records) and apparent difficulties in locating additional material. (I haven't actually removed stub status, waiting to hear how other editors feel).86.42.133.228 (talk)
- Keep. Now expanded, this is no longer dubious under WP:1E or a case for redirection. Content is also sufficient in terms of Croughton-London "rule", so destubbed.158-152-12-77 (talk) 20:33, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 United States presidential election, 2012. MBisanz talk 19:14, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Third party presidential primaries, 2012[edit]
- Third party presidential primaries, 2012 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Content fork of United States presidential election, 2012, all information on this page is available on that one. I also take issue with the title and its implication that most third parties will be holding primaries (several parties' nominees are decided solely by convention, and the numerous independent candidates on here aren't subject to any nominating procedure). Should be redirected to the election page for now, and recreated as Third party (United States) presidential candidates, 2012 much closer to the date of the election. — Hysteria18 (Talk • Contributions) 19:50, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This is silly. In the United States, third parties like the Libertarian Party do not hold presidential primaries to decide who will be the nominee. This is more of a copy of Ron Gunzberger's musings about "potential candidates". Mandsford (talk) 01:37, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is no editorial need to split or duplicate this material. - Mgm|(talk) 10:29, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]- Merge and redirect for attribution purposes. The main article did not contain the material about the third party candidates it does now when the supposed spin-off was created. Thus the article was either merged without redirecting, or such a redirect was undone. Deletion would lose relevant edit history. - Mgm|(talk) 10:32, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Super-speculative, and thir party primaries don't even exist. ¿SFGiДnts! ¿Complain! ¿Analyze! ¿Review! 16:54, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 16:34, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Republican Party (United States) presidential primaries, 2012[edit]
- Republican Party (United States) presidential primaries, 2012 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Content fork of United States presidential election, 2012; all the information on this page is also available on that page. Should be redirected there for the next two years or so, then recreated when more information on the primaries and candidates becomes available. — Hysteria18 (Talk • Contributions) 19:46, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If there's truly no new content in the subarticle, then redirect. But I don't see the point in holding people off from fleshing out the article for 2 years or whatever... I seriously doubt I'll join them, but if they want to add valid, sourced content... might as well let them. --Movingday29 (talk) 23:01, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I created the article (initially as a redirect); under no circumstances do I think the article qualifies for AfD. If anything, it should be a redirect, but I personally think that this article is a keep. With some work, this could potentially be a valuable addition to WP's series on the upcoming presidential election. United Statesman (talk) 23:07, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete It has the potential to be valuable; it just doesn't have the potential to be valuable today. Although the information concerning the "Ohio plan" looked promising, the April 2008 blog page noted that it was non-binding and that decisions would be made at the GOP Convention. If anything came of that, it's not in this article. While I realize that at some point in the next two years, dates will be announced for which states will have caucuses or primaries on which Tuesdays (Jan 10, 17, 24, 31; Feb 7, 14, 21, 28; etc.), this article makes up for its lack of something concrete with pictures of people who might run in those primaries. No reason to put a foot in the door unless you've got something to sell. Mandsford (talk) 01:50, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I vote to keep the article.Ratemonth (talk) 04:23, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect per Hysteria Majoreditor (talk) 07:28, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not currrently notable, nor will it be for two years. ¿SFGiДnts! ¿Complain! ¿Analyze! ¿Review! 16:56, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as a stub. It will expand as coverage does, but the topic is already notable the predictions are well-coveraged by independant, reliable, third-party sources. Themfromspace (talk) 22:34, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Aitias // discussion 13:14, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wired Desire[edit]
Based on the following searches:
- Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
- Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
there doesn't appear to be significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject, therefore the band doesn't comply with the notability guideline. PhilKnight (talk) 15:32, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: no significant independent 3rd party notability WP:BAND. JamesBurns (talk) 01:41, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias // discussion 01:03, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep They tour with Nazareth, more notable than many bands. An article entitled "Wired for sound" by Chris Sweeney in the 11 July 2008 The Sun (a British newspaper), said "Young headbangers are turning the clock back - and giving old-school rock 'n roll the kiss of life." and later "The guys have also been on tour with legendary Scots rock veterans Nazareth - who reckon Wired Desire are their best support act ever." An article by Kerry McKittrick in the 27 August 2008 Belfast Telegraph Derry Edition p. 15, said "Wired Desire are playing at the Spring and Airbrake tonight. These Scottish rockers only formed in 2005, but are already gaining a reputation as the pioneers for a new generation of rock music." I understand that there exist, but I do not have citations for, other published articles about them in the British music press. --Bejnar (talk) 02:11, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Impossible to verify claims from here as the above references listed are not online. Not all physical libraries have the Belfast Telegraph Derry Edition. A search through the Google News archive turned up nothing, not even for The Sun. JamesBurns (talk) 08:38, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The Belfast Telegraph Derry Edition is available on Lexis/Nexis if you have access to an academic library nearby. I would like to see a copy of the October 2008 issue of Classic Rock Magazine from which amazon.co.uk quotes with regard to their first album. --Bejnar (talk) 06:49, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I can confirm the (short, 392 words) "The Sun" article through access to NewsBank via my local library, though it is the only significant coverage to be found there. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:38, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:V does not require sources to be available online or in all libraries, only that they exist and for it to be possible for readers to find copies of them. And I think 392 words is quite long for a Sun article... they use large print and have most of the page taken up with pictures. As an example, their current headline story on the web site ("84 dead in Oz bush fires") is 394 words. Another front-page story clocks in at 226 words. I'm not sure, but I believe their writers' guidelines are to keep stories as short as humanly possible. JulesH (talk) 13:11, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not the article to discuss it over but whether The Sun is a reliable source is another thing entirely... JamesBurns (talk) 07:41, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias // discussion 19:17, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Unable to verify claimed sources. A-Kartoffel (talk) 00:33, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete the nom's search results show that this isn't notable. Themfromspace (talk) 22:32, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 16:32, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Privatelektro[edit]
- Privatelektro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Unknown group of artists with no reputation or noticeable success. Basically an advertisment, written by some member itself. Also nominated for deletion in Wikipedia DE. --Niabot (talk) 18:40, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: self-publishing artists on their own online digital label. Insufficient independent 3rd party sources WP:CORP. JamesBurns (talk) 05:38, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete One would think a notable rock label would recieve significant coverage in the news, but this label only has 6 references in google news. And they appear to be trivial mentions. Themfromspace (talk) 22:31, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- NON Delete This is no rock label and not only a digital netlabel. please read before writing. this article already stayed here for more than 2 years, only a german contributor says this is nominated for deletation in germany. he maybe not like to expand this kind of music in wikipedia. please read reviews on the pe site and on english ambient review sites (http://disquiet.com/?s=privatelektro) and http://www.google.com/search?ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&domains=neural.it&sitesearch=neural.it&q=privatelektro&btnG=Find. Sinuswelle (talk) 02:49, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - subject is notable, even if the article itself is in a very poor state, so please expand it and use the corresponding talkpage to discuss possible improvements. --Angelo (talk) 19:12, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Haman Stadium[edit]
- Haman Stadium (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Looks pointless to me... Tarheel95 Talk T-H (talk) 18:39, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Are you familiar with WP:STUB? Also, your personal opinion of the article is not a valid reason for deletion. - Mgm|(talk) 10:23, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Yes it is a stub and needs substantial expansion but it is also notable as the site of at least 2 major football tournaments in that country. KuyaBriBriTalk 15:50, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep No reasonable need to delete.
- Speedy keep. No reason for deletion remotely resembling anything in deletion policy has been offerred. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:23, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. GiantSnowman 01:33, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - an article "seeming pointless" is not valid grounds for deletion. GiantSnowman 01:33, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - no valid reason for deletion. matt91486 (talk) 11:43, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep - a project this size/kind will have sources covering it by its very nature. Agathoclea (talk) 17:50, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Aitias // discussion 13:15, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Emirates Inflight Entertainment[edit]
- Emirates Inflight Entertainment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Speedy for this was declined. Wikipedia is not a place for advertising, and looking as previous AfDs, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emirates Lounge, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emirates Airline Services, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emirates Airline Cabins, this is no different. Issues this advertarticle has include is the IFE really that notable? There is nothing asserted in the article which gives it notability. The article is totally unsourced, so it does not comply with our verifiability policy, and is already covered at Emirates_Airline#ICE, basically making this an advert fork. Looking at it again, I am somewhat inclined to contact the admin who declined and raise it with them, but it's easier to bring it here and hope that Emirates fabulous peanuts isn't the next advertarticle created. Russavia Dialogue 18:17, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - per nom. Speedy, actually, on all of them, before the peanuts one is also created. None of them are encyclopedic in any way or merit anything beyond a blurb on the main article. This is a case of implied notability by wiki-association. And the creator is not an admin, BTW, not that it would have any bearing on the AfD. §FreeRangeFrog 18:26, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - if really necessary it can be injected into the article about Emirates Airlines. Otherwise not really notable to merit its own article. Valley2city‽ 20:13, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The article claims that "Emirates was one of the very first airlines to offer all class personal entertainment systems. With its introduction in the early 90s, it has been an Emirates policy since to fit all seats with inseat screens and an entertainment system." Now, 'one of the very first' is clearly weasel wording that cannot be properly substantiated. If however, they are the first, than that's clearly of historical significance. Also, if the second sentence is true, they introduced something significant to airline inflight systems. Of course, neither is substantiated, but that means at leas the article has a problem with verification rather than the notability cited by the nominator. - Mgm|(talk) 09:59, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. MilborneOne (talk) 20:51, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was closed as moot. Page has been redirected to Nephilim as a spelling variation, and as a redirect AfD lacks continuing jurisdiction. I can't spell it the same way twice myself, and I like the band. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 20:07, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nephelim[edit]
- Nephelim (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Created by an editor recently given an indef block for OR, this seems to be an almost unique spelling for Nephilim - I guess it could be kept as a redirect in case someone mistypes, but then we'd probably want to create Nefilim as well. The lead even spells the name a different way! Neither Google Scholar nor Google books seems to have this as a relevant spelling. dougweller (talk) 18:04, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I can find no third-party sources for nomads called Nephelim. The second section of that article is just the passage quoted in the Nephilim article. This might be an attempt at a hoax. I would probably keep the redirect to Nephilim as it seems to be a common misspelling. §FreeRangeFrog 18:21, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Nephilim. To judge by the Google hits, it seems to be a common enough misspelling. Nefilim (about something else) already exists, with a hatnote directing readers to Nephilim. Deor (talk) 19:21, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Nephilim. As a side note, for a case like this I think an AfD is overkill, I would favor in cases like this, just making the page into a redirect...no need for discussion. Cazort (talk) 19:43, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 16:29, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Finger Circle Punch Game[edit]
- Finger Circle Punch Game (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
No reliable sources (I have looked) to establish notability, simply being mentioned in a Mike Myers movie is not enough. kelapstick (talk) 17:43, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Complete lack of notability other than in the fiction of the film. We need a new CSD for "fictional games I want to share with everyone which I think are funny and but are really not". §FreeRangeFrog 17:51, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Non-notable or non-existent game — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 18:19, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Article appears to be simply a description of the rules of the game, violating WP:NOTGUIDE. Also borders on WP:NFT violation. KuyaBriBriTalk 20:18, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - per Kuyabribri. Alpha 4615 (talk) 20:45, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Punch Buggy" got by with a lot less than what I have put forth here. That was mentioned in The Simpsons, so that's acceptable for wikipedia? This is a real game, no different than Beer Pong, Punch Buggy, paper football, etc. Not sure what is needed to prove that. "Games made up in one day"? Find me a game that wasn't invented in one day. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Munch606 (talk • contribs) 18:26, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Punch Buggy actually has reliable sources cited as references.--kelapstick (talk) 19:17, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- CommentNot sure what you're looking for as sources. How about this?
- .--User:munch606
- The first is a WWW site whose author is not identified, and so whose reputation for fact checking and accuracy cannot be determined. (How does the world know that that WWW site is the truth? It's not as if there's never been a joke WWW site full of false information before.) The second is a work of fiction and not documentation of the factual world in any form. Fiction is not fact. Uncle G (talk) 12:00, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete per WP:SNOW and CSD G3. Nick-D (talk) 22:15, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Vice President of the Confederacy of Independent People[edit]
- Vice President of the Confederacy of Independent People (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
WP:MADEUP position in a WP:MADEUP country. If bits of the USA had decided to go off and do their own thing we would have heard about it Ironholds (talk) 16:38, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- delete. Absolutely. If there are no new sources, it's not a legitimate item. Opus33 (talk) 16:42, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Per Nom.--Cube lurker (talk) 16:51, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Can't say it any better than the nom. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 18:23, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Just piling on that consensus. --Explodicle (T/C) 18:29, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete BOLLOCKS. Per WP:Articles for deletion/President of the Confederacy of Independent People, this is apparently a rip-off of Confederacy of Independent Systems; uses the same logo. Baileypalblue (talk) 19:00, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 04:53, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
William V. Harris[edit]
- William V. Harris (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Failed CSD even though article did not back up its assertions of notability. This person is non-notable and the article lacks references outside of a single website. -- smurdah[citation needed] 17:24, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Where independent sources exist, a neutral article is possible to write (neutral in the sense of reflecting multiple views on the subject--see wp:npov). Where a neutral article is possible to write, deletion is not appropriate. In this case, the Mellon citation, though rather breathlessly written, seems to be an independent source. I imagine that others exist. Deletion therefore seems inappropriate here. 160.39.213.152 (talk) 17:43, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While the article may not include reference for it notability a simple google search shows several published books Gnevin (talk) 17:54, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep perhaps, Speedy Keep. "William R. Shepherd Professor of History, Columbia University" meets WP:PROF, and the books confirm it. This material was already in the article when the speedy tag was placed, including the Bancroft Prize for one of the books. DGG (talk) 18:21, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, per arguments above. Cazort (talk) 19:45, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Per Gnevin Alpha 4615 (talk) 20:48, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, sorry if I did not get everything right on the first round -- but I have little doubt that WVH should be on Wikipedia. Thanks, ZsV --ZsVarhelyi (talk) 21:14, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- ZsVarhelyi we have no intention to WP:Bite you . Sometimes users have content disagreement you did nothing wrong and I hope this will not discourage you Gnevin (talk) 22:04, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:26, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- keep Fellow of the American Academy of Arts & Sciences, [4] Pete.Hurd (talk) 05:49, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep Gnevin's argument is not really valid (it's not publishing books that makes one notable, but the influence/impact that those books have). However, besides that there's the award, named chair, and AAAS Fellowship. Meets multiple criteria of WP:ACADEMIC as nom could easily have checked. I suggest that nom withdraws the nomination to save us all time. --Crusio (talk) 08:34, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Meets WP:PROF criterion #1 (significant impact in scholarly discipline, broadly construed). Has at least one book, Ancient literacy, currently in more than 750 libraries worldwide according to WorldCat. Also meets WP:PROF criterion #5 (named chair or distinguished professor appointment).--Eric Yurken (talk) 02:48, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 16:26, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cryptic Implosion[edit]
- Cryptic Implosion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable album of non-notable band (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Odious Mortem)... Searching for this album brings up only 3 mere mentions... fails WP:NALBUMS... Adolphus (talk) 17:16, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - per nom Alpha 4615 (talk) 20:47, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: non-notable release WP:NALBUMS. JamesBurns (talk) 06:37, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Canley (talk) 10:46, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Conjoritory[edit]
- Conjoritory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
WP:NEO -- smurdah[citation needed] 16:55, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - This is either a non-notable neologism or WP:MADEUP. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 18:25, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Zero Google hits. Strong evidence for it being a non-notable neologism or made-up. Sketchmoose (talk) 19:03, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Cazort (talk) 19:45, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:NFT/WP:NEO. I make up words like this all the time but don't add them to Wikipedia. Maybe I should start a WP article called "List of words made up by KuyaBriBri" </sarcasm>. KuyaBriBriTalk 20:38, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was nomination withdrawn. NAC. JulesH (talk) 22:39, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Investors Chronicle[edit]
- Investors Chronicle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Delete - Non-notable "investment" magazine. NJGW (talk) 16:47, 12 February 2009 (UTC)Withdrawn, see my last comment below. NJGW (talk) 20:51, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Not sure what's with the scare quotes as this magazine, run by the Financial Times, is quite clearly about investment. We're talking about a publication which has been produced on a weekly basis for nearly 150 years. Clearly, over this long history, there have been plenty of sources written about it, although finding them between the hundreds of sources that simply quote text out of it will be time consuming. One useful source would probably be this biography of Brendan Bracken, a former owner of the magazine. Other sources include Temple First Steps in Shares, Michie The London Stock Exchange and other books similar to these two. JulesH (talk) 21:03, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This may be the case, but it has to be established with sources. I nominated it because it is very similar to the MoneyWeek article, a publication which is on WP's blacklist for spam. They seem to have the same scope, but this one has less circulation... so if that one's not notable this one may be less so. If you can find sources that's good. The history may be the only interesting thing about it. If no sources showing true notability can be found though, perhaps it should simply be merged into Financial Times. NJGW (talk) 04:24, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Money Week is on the blacklist for spam because so many spammers link to it, not because it isn't notable. (And actually, perhaps we should reconsider it, because it also has suitable material for non-spammers as well. We should instead go after individual mis-use.) They are notable, and so is this. A 33,000 circulation in the uK is v. substantial for a publication of this sort, & equivalent to a larger circulation in the US--they are essentially different spheres of the world in this respect. If we're going to go my comparisons, the largest 5 or 10 publications in each subject area in each individual country should have articles. DGG (talk) 04:38, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep A Financial Times publication, into which judging from the website a lot of work and attention has been put. --Mr Accountable (talk) 09:52, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep The nomination has obviously fails WP:BEFORE. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:49, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The current refs which have been found are still only tell us about the circulation, a few lines about history, and are directly covering the parent company. Still no direct coverage of this topic has been shown. I was going to withdraw this nom when I saw more refs had been found, but when I read them I saw that they are not yet convincing. Suggest you also look over the article and read it's refs and decide for yourself if they are really enough. NJGW (talk) 17:20, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- How is an article with the headline "'Investors Chronicle' put on sale by Pearson" not about the subject? And notability is an attribute of the article subject, not of the article as it currently exists. Looking over the article is not the way to determine notabilty; looking for sources, such as these and these is. Please don't ask me to identify specific sources amongst those. I'm not going to read them all to identify exactly how many thousand of them are independent and reliable and have significant coverage, because it's just as easy for you to do that as it is for me. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:08, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Have you read the three books I gave details of above? Sure, they may be about other topics, but they do include non-trivial coverage of this magazine while doing so. JulesH (talk) 20:33, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The current refs which have been found are still only tell us about the circulation, a few lines about history, and are directly covering the parent company. Still no direct coverage of this topic has been shown. I was going to withdraw this nom when I saw more refs had been found, but when I read them I saw that they are not yet convincing. Suggest you also look over the article and read it's refs and decide for yourself if they are really enough. NJGW (talk) 17:20, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was KEEP (non-admin closure). Per calling and observance of WP:SNOW. Alpha 4615 (talk) 22:09, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ejection (sports)[edit]
- Ejection (sports) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
The article has been tagged requesting verification for over a year and has not been done. Thus finding reliable sources to verify the information has failed. Pinkkeith (talk) 16:36, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep WP:SOFIXIT. The concept is well-known in sport, and a scan through official rule books and news articles would easily confirm the notability and influence of ejections on athletic events. There's no deadline for completing Wikipedia articles, so I don't understand that part of the nom rationale. Townlake (talk) 16:55, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment My rational comes from reason for deletion point six. I would also like to see a list of these scans so they could be added. --Pinkkeith (talk) 17:25, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Townlake. The Major League Baseball rule book was easy enough to find. Other sources should be also. Rklear (talk) 18:04, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, inherently notable subject. Stifle (talk) 20:10, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep. Inherently notable subject. I don't know what WP policy establishes a time limit on when articles need to be cited but if there is one pls point it out to me. MLB official rule book is easy to find online; FIFA, NFL/CFL, and NBA/FIBA should be just as easy. KuyaBriBriTalk 20:24, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - this is definitely a notable practice in sports. Alpha 4615 (talk) 20:50, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and snowball. It's good that the lack of sources has come up. I'll link to the football ones now (actual football that is played in that other place called The World :D ), and obviously there will be secondary sources on sports sections of the reliable news sites. Ddawkins73 (talk) 21:12, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WP:SNOW applies. Stifle (talk) 20:11, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
President of the Confederacy of Independent People[edit]
- President of the Confederacy of Independent People (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
See WP:MADEUP; a fake position leading an organisation that doesn't exist. I'm pretty sure if "regions declared their social secession from the United States" there would be something on the news Ironholds (talk) 16:25, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete WP:NFT. Not verifiable, no reliable sources, and so on. Townlake (talk) 16:34, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Until legitimate news sources are cited, we should treat this as the output of the author's imagination. Opus33 (talk) 16:38, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom & others.--Cube lurker (talk) 16:49, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete-Looks like either a hoax or something made up one day. Either way, it doesn't belong here. As an aside, am I the only one to notice that their "symbol" looks like the side panels on a TIE fighter? Umbralcorax (talk) 18:27, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Close, check the infobox for Clone Wars (Star Wars).--Cube lurker (talk) 18:34, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Good catch. Umbralcorax (talk) 19:25, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Close, check the infobox for Clone Wars (Star Wars).--Cube lurker (talk) 18:34, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above. Is it starting to snow? — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 18:27, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Snowball delete --Explodicle (T/C) 18:33, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete made up hoax probably from someone who believes Wikipedia is like MySpace. Doc StrangeMailboxLogbook 18:40, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Seems like something a bored middle schooler created (created at 11AM, says the president has to be at least 13 years old). No sources, hoax. If any regions of the US did try to secede, that would be major news being reported on all the news stations and online. TJ Spyke 19:52, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Clearly there is consensus to write about the incident, although it does appear that "hoax" may not be perfectly applicable to this situation. Move/rename discussions should occur outside of AfD as consensus for that came later in the discussion, and hasn't been shown. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 15:21, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Jennifer Figge[edit]
- Jennifer Figge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
- Delete This article was written because it seemed that the woman had accomplished a significant "first" in human achievement. Now that this is known to be untrue, the incident is not notable. If, however, reaction to the inaccuracy of the reporting becomes notable, a new article might be written about that. --DavidK93 (talk) 19:25, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom.--Edgehead5150 19:53, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep (article creator) - Yep, I got duped too. But even the controversy of the reporting has become notable by some very reliable sources like The Guardian and others.[5][6][7]. An example of journalists believing and repeating any press release that's shoved in front of them without critical analysis. --Oakshade (talk) 20:18, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete but maybe create an article about the hoax. --JaGatalk 22:03, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know if "hoax" would be the word for it. Exaggeration would be more accurate. --Oakshade (talk) 22:10, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- *Shrug* your second source called it a hoax, but no matter, they were probably just having fun with the title. The point is, I think the exaggeration is more notable than the, er, exaggeratrix. She was notable when we thought she'd swam the Atlantic. Now we know she hasn't, boom, non-notable. But the story about the story is notable, IMO. --JaGatalk 22:19, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, that source has the word "hoax" in the title. But even the text of that story doesn't support it being a "hoax." I think a hoax would be a complete fabrication, like she didn't swim in the water at all and then showed up in Trinidad prompting a press release saying she "swam the Atlantic." Even the "hoax" article says the 250 miles she probably did swim "is nothing to scoff." --Oakshade (talk) 22:25, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Jennifer Figge controversy or Jennifer Figge misrepresentation would be more neutral WP:NPOV than hoax, in my opinion. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 19:02, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and never, ever speak of this again. Keepscases (talk) 22:24, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep for now. She's getting a lot of media coverage (695 google news hits doesn't tell the whole story, she's on TV a lot as well). She could be the next Rosie Ruiz. If, in 6 months, she's utterly forgotten... then I might want to delete this. But we might as well keep it around so people can work on it now. --Movingday29 (talk) 23:15, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This represents a major media SNAFU, and is notable on that account. Giving a person international coverage for something she didn't do is notable in its own right. 99.246.90.33 (talk) 00:32, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep She may not have done exactly what it was advertised she did, but still it's a notable feat. Besides, she's getting a lot of media coverage, as pointed above. --Waldir talk 00:59, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep She may have not done what was reported, but the controversy that erupted afterwards makes her notable. She still swam a lot of the atlantic ocean, and as noted above, is getting ton of media coverage. Myzou (talk) 14:59, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep- She's already become notable thanks to her original (now debunked) claim. The media frenzy covering what is now known as something that didn't quite happen will only enhance that notability. Umbralcorax (talk) 17:18, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and move to Jennifer Figge controversy. She's only notable for this hoax/controversy, so we should cover the event not the person WP:BLP1E. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 18:58, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:NOT#NEWS, as interpreted by WP:NOTNEWS. Deor (talk) 19:26, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. This is an interesting enough hoax, to be notable, I think. It fooled MANY mainstream news outlets, and the error is pretty egregious. I'm open to debate about how to name the article--I think that it's more appropriate to have an article focusing on the hoax itself, than focusing on the individual. But I do think we must keep the material. Cazort (talk) 19:52, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, possibly move to a title describing the controversy rather than the person. This can and should be rewritten to be an article about a hoax per WP:HOAX. KuyaBriBriTalk 20:31, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge. First of all, several people are calling this a hoax--it's not a hoax, it's a misrepresentation. Secondly, this shouldn't really about the miniature media circus--that clearly falls under WP:NOT#News. I would argue that Jennifer Figge and Benoît Lecomte should both be merged to an article called Swimming the Atlantic (or something similar) that would discuss both accomplishments and the difficulty in assessing them (and the fact that they have often been called something which is inaccurate). Chick Bowen 03:29, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and/or/but move to Jennifer Figge controversy Vartanza (talk) 23:18, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and move to Jennifer Figge controversy or similar. The controversy itself warrants an article, but the person does not. —David Levy 13:39, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and move per above. She's notable (now) but only as part of a larger event. Themfromspace (talk) 22:51, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 04:46, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Alex Ruoff[edit]
- Alex Ruoff (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Article is about a college athlete who is otherwise not notable except as a member of a particular team Student7 (talk) 14:44, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteCollege athlete. As per nom - Ddawkins73 (talk) 14:51, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]- Keep- As per the logic in the previous AFD. While he may fail WP:ATHLETE, he does meet the general notability guidelines, having coverage in multiple independent sources, thus rendering WP:ATHLETE moot. Umbralcorax (talk) 16:08, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. This guy has EXTENSIVE coverage in news sources. Hundreds of articles (over 700 recent ones?) in newspapers and 50,000 google hits spells notability for me, no matter how un-interested I personally happen to be in college sports. Cazort (talk) 19:57, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep. The previous AFD was barely a month ago. Nothing has changed. No new argument for deletion. No attempt to go to WP:DR. Waste of everyone's time. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:49, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep Previous AFD conditions have not changed. The references provided clearly show this person to meet the criteria of notability. WVhybrid (talk) 23:28, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm confused - Is it that US College Basketball is especially popular? Or that he is especially brilliant? Do they all get that much coverage, and does WP:ATHLETE apply or not? - Ddawkins73 (talk) 12:38, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply Is US College Basketball especially popular? Simple answer is yes. Is it more popular than NBA basketball, probably. I'm sure we could get a lively debate started on that subject, but it should be done somewhere else. WVhybrid (talk) 04:04, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply. Thanks for the pointer. Exactly! He is not a WP:ATHLETE and therefore should not be covered.Student7 (talk) 21:32, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- oic - He is an athlete but doesn't meet WP:ATHLETE. That's what I thought. - Ddawkins73 (talk) 11:44, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:ATHLETE is onw way of establishing notability for athletes. Not the only way. Please read the page more fully: "A person is generally notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included. . . Should a person fail to meet these additional criteria, they may still be notable under Wikipedia:Notability." Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:47, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I get that. Hence why I asked the other questions. Why does he get that much coverage and do all college basketball players get that much?- Ddawkins73 (talk) 22:35, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Some do, some don't. It depends on the person. LeBron James for example, was getting plenty of stories about him while he was in high school. So, while he didn't meet wp:ATHLETE, he certainly met the general notability guidelines, and thus including him was permissible. Same goes for this guy. He's gotten enough press that, even if he hasn't met the requirements set under WP:ATHLETE, he can still be considered notable. Umbralcorax (talk) 00:06, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I get that. Hence why I asked the other questions. Why does he get that much coverage and do all college basketball players get that much?- Ddawkins73 (talk) 22:35, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:ATHLETE is onw way of establishing notability for athletes. Not the only way. Please read the page more fully: "A person is generally notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included. . . Should a person fail to meet these additional criteria, they may still be notable under Wikipedia:Notability." Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:47, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- oic - He is an athlete but doesn't meet WP:ATHLETE. That's what I thought. - Ddawkins73 (talk) 11:44, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply Is US College Basketball especially popular? Simple answer is yes. Is it more popular than NBA basketball, probably. I'm sure we could get a lively debate started on that subject, but it should be done somewhere else. WVhybrid (talk) 04:04, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply I think this discussion has hit on why I defended this article. Ruoff meets the general criteria per WP:N (The fact that I am a fan of his play may have helped a bit B-) )
- All the positive press he has received around the country has made him notable by the criteria of this organization. I didn't set the criteria, but I took am glad to use that criteria to defend this article when it gets hit with AfD and now, AfD2. WVhybrid (talk) 03:49, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, ty. Lots of hits - no point arguing with his general notability. Keep - Ddawkins73 (talk) 08:45, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm confused - Is it that US College Basketball is especially popular? Or that he is especially brilliant? Do they all get that much coverage, and does WP:ATHLETE apply or not? - Ddawkins73 (talk) 12:38, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Canley (talk) 10:48, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Kevin Bowes[edit]
- Kevin Bowes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
- Delete nn biography Mayalld (talk) 14:40, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete As per nom. - Ddawkins73 (talk) 14:54, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: no verifiable independent 3rd party sources. JamesBurns (talk) 06:21, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Almost a WP:CSD#A7 speedy deletion, but I suppose the assertions of touring and TV and radio appearances get past that, although they are very vague. None of the Google News hits for the name seems to be about this Kevin Bowes, and this autobio doesn't mention anything that would be likely to result in notability, although it is nearly five years old. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:32, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 13:19, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Caspar von Winterfeldt[edit]
- Caspar von Winterfeldt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
A minor film executive--and 'executive' may be stretching things--with much name-dropping and little suggested notability, nor sources testifying to same, apparently self-created (by Casparvw (talk · contribs). A prod tag was added, but was removed by the article creator, with the only changes being the removal of the list of celebrities the subject has 'worked with' and the addition of a press release and a SEC form. CalendarWatcher (talk) 14:08, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No indication of notability. Edward321 (talk) 14:34, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I can find no notable sources outside individual credits and minor film-industry sites. ; Ddawkins73 (talk) 14:58, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Fails WP:BIO. The whole thing is written to imply notability when there is none to be had. §FreeRangeFrog 23:58, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Do not DeleteThank you for the heads-up regarding the process of deletion. I have checked out a number of the peers who have contributed to the Wikipedia community and can see no more "notability" than illustrated here. Caspar von Winterfeldt has produced several films which have themselves won awards and achievements which can all be sourced at the respected IMDB website. For industry buffs, he is also included in the 'Studio System' and has been listed in numerous websites pertaining to filmmakers. 'PLAYED' which Caspar von Winterfeldt produced has been released in many different languages and countries around the world and was premiered at the Cannes Film Festival in 2006. The film starred Val Kilmer, Gabriel Byrne, Vinnie Jones and a host of other notable talent all of whom Caspar, as the producer of the film, hired and 'worked' with. Wikipedia is attempting to compile an encyclopedia of members of the film and acting community under the Wikiproject: Actors and Filmmakers. How is it possible that this then cannot include individuals like Caspar von Winterfeldt who has not only acted in films alongside notable talent but also produced them and subsequently won awards with them, such as the Washington DC Best Picture audience award for 'Raw Footage' or the Hollywood film festival Best Picture award for 'Played' or the Palm Springs Best Picture award for 'Gypsies Tramps and Thieves'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.136.156.99 (talk) 05:07, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- ^ Only contribution. - Ddawkins73 (talk) 12:43, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. It's not really useful to compare yourself to other people that have Wikipedia articles about them. There are many others that probably shouldn't be here, but we deal with deletion one article at a time, and here we are discussing your article. If anyone (including you) wants to nominate for deletion those peers that have no more notability then we will discuss those separately. What would be needed to keep your article are references to publications such as newspapers and magazines that have written about you - not simply listings in directories such as IMDb and AMG. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:12, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment.I wasn't comparing myself to my peers nor putting in question their notabilty. Caspar von Winterfeldt has created artistic and cinemartic products which have entertained the public at large worldwide. This is verifiable. The first award his films won was the young filmmakers of the year award presented by Esquire Magazine under its Celluloid Style Film Prize in 2004, for his film 200x1 directed by Eva Husson. This is verifiable - http://www.afi.com/Docs/about/annualreport/AFI_AR_04.pdf. If his work as a producer is worthy of inclusion (Played) in the Wikipedia film archives then I argue an entry regarding the individual who was behind the project and produced the project should be included also and deemed notable: If you haven't seen the film here is a trailer.... http://www.spill.com/Movie-Reviews/MovieReview.aspx?Name=Played&VideoId=391814. Perhaps this discussion will also help to shift the focus back on producers, who support and seek to finance the visions of directors and strive to produce entertainment which will satisfy an audience. When things go right, often the director or the actors are given the spotlight. However, there is a reason the producer picks up the Best Picture award at the Oscars, and why it is the last award given. If this page is deleted, then it is done so without the interest of the public at heart. For it is they who research your pages to discover information and will potentially be stumped to learn more about an individual that has created something that interests them. The information on the Caspar von Winterfeldt page has been verified. It is concise and informative. Also, to suggest that IMDB is a mere directory, suggests little knowledge of the industry which relies on the information on that website as much as researchers may rely on Wikipedia. This is why when you google any notable individual or project related to film, the first entry will almost always refer you to IMDB. It is a premiere information source and contributions to the site are strictly controlled. Perhaps this is also why 95% of all notable biographies relating to the cinematic arts uses it as a reference in this encyclopedia. I am trying to contribute to the encyclopedia by starting with what I know best and branching out, this is why I have focused on this article and the article on Played and had hoped to contribute much more in the future on historical figures that directly come from my family such as my great grandfather Walter Cramer who was hung for his involvement in Operation Valkyrie, my great grandfather Detlof von Winterfeldt who signed the Armistice with Germany to end WW1 and my ancestor Hans Karl von Winterfeldt who was Frederick II's favorite general.....and much more that I wanted to research and bring to this website. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Casparvw (talk • contribs) 06:31, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Firstly, the invite to watch trailers is not appropriate. Lots of other places to advertise.
- Secondly, having a conflict of interest, it's best if you don't write your own entry. If you're notable enough, someone will do it independently.
- Thirdly, that's a very long post. "I have added verified independent sources to the article" would be more appropriate.
- Fourthly, IMDB is a notable directory, but specific to the industry, and being in it doesn't make you generally notable of itself.
- Importantly, Wikipedia has a set of guidelines as to what constitutes notability. To put it crudely, if you're in the independent news i.e CNN, BBC, etc you have a much better chance of being in the encyclopedia.
- Note - Vinny Jones, Val Kilmer and your Great Grandfather do not make you notable.
- Please add sources to the article, maybe let us know what they are, and that's it. Try not to special plead. Thanks. - Ddawkins73 (talk) 12:00, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Aitias // discussion 13:17, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
YUCC[edit]
- YUCC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable club. Speedy declined by anonymous IP. PROD removed by article's author. So here we are at AfD. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 13:38, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As posted on Talk:YUCC - "Speedy declined by anonymous IP. PROD removed by article's author. ". What exactly are you talking about? What is Speedy? and PROD? Just because the club isn't notable to you, doesn't mean it isn't notable at all. It's well known in certain circles (the UK university kayaking circle), so I really don't see how your argument stands. Mankeyrabbit (talk) 14:44, 12 February 2009 (UTC)— Mankeyrabbit (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Delete, No assertion of notability. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 14:46, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete 3 hits on Google for the club itself. - Ddawkins73 (talk) 15:01, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Non-notable. Also, the IP edits and removal of the speedy template are suspicious. -- smurdah[citation needed] 15:58, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "Also, the IP edits and removal of the speedy template are suspicious" What on earth? "Suspicious"? suspicious of what? I talked to the author and he informed me that the "wiki police" had been very abrupt and rude, and as an amateur not really knowing what he was doing followed their advice. The page has been edited by another member of the club - representative for press&publicity actually, who doesn't have a wikipedia account. I don't understand what's "suspicious" about it... Mankeyrabbit (talk) 23:51, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- -- Clarified that the suspiciousness relates to the removal of the "speedy" template - that was not done by a member of the club. Mankeyrabbit (talk) 23:53, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There is nothing at all suspicious about IP edits (i.e. edits made by non-logged-on users). Much of our best content has been written by IP editors. And removal of a speedy deletion template is simply indicative of an editor who is unfamiliar with our procedures, and has no bearing on this debate. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:21, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. It is a small college sports club with approximately 15 members. No notability is asserted. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 00:00, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Captive orcas. MBisanz talk 13:19, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Taima (whale)[edit]
- Taima (whale) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
lacks notability, reliable 3rd party sources. Appears to include original research. Rtphokie (talk) 13:22, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete This one lacks notability unlike that other article involving a whale you nominated for deletion. Pickbothmanlol (talk) 17:07, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree. Redirect to section in Captive orcas. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:49, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 13:18, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Lolita (orca)[edit]
- Lolita (orca) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
lacks notability, reliable 3rd party sources. Appears to include original research. Rtphokie (talk) 13:19, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Question - How is this a different AfD from the 1st one here ? --Triwbe (talk) 14:03, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Notability is asserted in the article. Edward321 (talk) 14:53, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- See the new merged article Captive orcas. Maybe better as a section in this article? Aymatth2 (talk) 16:09, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - This is a very notable animal due to its record longevity and the controversy surrounding it. Rlendog (talk) 20:37, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 13:17, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Katina (whale)[edit]
- Katina (whale) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
lacks notability, reliable 3rd party sources. Appears to include original research Rtphokie (talk) 13:14, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Notability is asserted in the article. Edward321 (talk) 15:05, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
KeepHave added another source. Aymatth2 (talk) 18:37, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]- Delete Asserting notability is never sufficient; notability must be demonstrated by referring to reliable third-party sources. A sea-world press release, like press releases in general, is never a valid way of references notability because press releases are usually biased towards promoting a particular agenda. The other reference is a website that, while certainly interesting, a quality site, and valuable for the "External Links" section of a website, isn't really a reliable source--it doesn't even say who runs it, and it certainly doesn't have any evidence of a rigorous editorial process. Cazort (talk) 20:03, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment press releases are self published sources and are not suitable as references. That being said, these press releases are republished (often as is) by 3rd party news organizations (such as newspapers, magazines, television stations, etc). These are considered reliable sources and serve to vet the information enough for use as a wikipedia citation. Bottom, if this information is credible and notable, it is likely to be found in another news source other than a company press release, but company press releases are not suitable references, especially to establish notability. --Rtphokie (talk) 04:57, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This orca (and most others now in the AfD process) has bios in several sites devoted to orca-lovers. Some are fan clubs, others are campaigning for release. I suppose they are sort-of independent sources. Some seem well-researched, presumably reliable. To me, they are acceptable as sources of information, but dodgy as proof of notability. Katina does not seem in any way exceptional, unlike others who have made the news for one reason or another. I am more comfortable redirecting to the section in Captive orcas that describes Katina as an example. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:40, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 captive orcas. MBisanz talk 13:16, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Kalina (whale)[edit]
- Kalina (whale) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
lacks notability, reliable 3rd party sources. Appears to be original research. Rtphokie (talk) 13:13, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Captive orcas. No sources, nothing to show notability. Aymatth2 (talk) 16:49, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 captive orcas. MBisanz talk 13:16, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ikaika (whale)[edit]
- Ikaika (whale) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
lacks notability, reliable 3rd party sources. Tagged for over a year with reference concerns Rtphokie (talk) 13:11, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Not very notable, and not much content. What there is, now in a section in Captive orcas. Could redirect to the section. Aymatth2 (talk) 17:38, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Google says its a slim to moderate hint of notibility but it does lack 3rd party sources. Pickbothmanlol (talk) 17:04, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and merge into captive orcas, unless more reliable sources can be found to establish the notability of this whale in particular. Anaxial (talk) 19:01, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Derry. MBisanz talk 13:16, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dopey Dick[edit]
- Dopey Dick (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
lacks notability, essentially an article on this WP:ONEEVENT Rtphokie (talk) 13:10, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree. But I have put the content into a small section in a new article on Captive orcas, even if it does not really belong. Aymatth2 (talk) 17:16, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It doesn't belong at captive orcas since the whale wasn't captive. I suggest merging with Derry. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:43, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. While it is somewhat unusual for the whale to be disoriented yet survive the ordeal, I'm not convinced his salmon hunt is a memorable event or had any lasting effects on the town -- hence, he's not notable. - Mgm|(talk) 22:34, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 13:15, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Trashball[edit]
- Trashball (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
OK, this game is re-invented every day worldwide. But what of this article? Re-write in a sensible tone? Or delete because there is no professional trashball circuit? — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 12:53, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - not really a notable 'sport', but rather a backyard variation of basketball. Alpha 4615 (talk) 20:54, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Whether a game/sport is professional doesn't really matter unless we're discussing the notability of the players. We should focus on whether we can write an article about it using reliable sources without turning it into a game guide. At the moment I think it has one suitable reference which might make it a good candidate for transwikification to a wikibook of games (or Scout games) - Mgm|(talk) 22:31, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fails notability. Adds no value. --Orrelly Man (talk) 19:53, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 13:15, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Paul_Sheehan_(entertainment_journalist)[edit]
- Paul_Sheehan_(entertainment_journalist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Not notable. He is an entertainment journalist with no claim to have a public profile. The only references given are examples of articles that he has written, not articles about him. It has the look of an article written by the subject in the hope of building his profile. Le poulet noir (talk) 12:29, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Have to agree. I can't see any notability here. Alberon (talk) 13:20, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, not particularly notable. Love the list of celebs he has written about, as if that somehow connotes notability. I note that somebody had removed the AfD notice and removed this discussion from the deletion log. I have reverted and the notice and discussion are restored. PKT(alk) 11:35, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 13:15, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wilver (Rio) Johnson[edit]
- Wilver (Rio) Johnson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Did not manage to find any significant coverage of the subject. Offline sources given in the article only seems to consist of passing mentions. --aktsu (t / c) 11:43, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. -- Nate1481 12:14, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- Nate1481 12:14, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No indication of high level completion or anything else too pass WP:Athlete --Nate1481 12:17, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Notability questionable, no sources found. Marty Rockatansky (talk) 18:36, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 13:15, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Bernardo Jua[edit]
- Bernardo Jua (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Did not manage to find any significant coverage needed to pass WP:GNG. --aktsu (t / c) 11:41, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. -- Nate1481 12:15, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- Nate1481 12:16, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No indication of high level completion or anything else too pass WP:Athlete )--Nate1481 12:18, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No sources found of any amateur or pro career as a kickboxer. Marty Rockatansky (talk) 18:40, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 13:15, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Abraham Lincoln book reviews: New and Old[edit]
- Abraham Lincoln book reviews: New and Old (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This is essentially a collection of book reviews/essays regarding books about Abraham Lincoln. It's completely unencyclopedic. Violation of Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought plus some other guidelines. --User:Woohookitty Diamming fool! 11:11, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per nominator. Edward321 (talk) 15:38, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:NOT#JOURNALISM and WP:NOTBLOG. Wikipedia is not a place to post book reviews. Doc StrangeMailboxLogbook 18:42, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as it is not an encyclopedia article, nor a subject for one. WillOakland (talk) 12:24, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete Eek!!! For all the reason noted above Paul75 (talk) 23:01, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above, lets give this article the same fate as Abraham Lincoln: Death... Tavix (talk) 04:28, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 04:40, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Loki's Wager[edit]
- Loki's Wager (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
A reference has not been found, after more than a year, for the article's basic premise. Aseld talk 10:48, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The article's basic premise, as given in its title, is that Loki once made a bet with the dwarves Brokk and Eitri, and lost. That's not only documented in the cited source, but also documented in plenty of books on Norse mythology as well. Fixing the mere three sentences out of the whole article that attempt to subvert this premise into a discussion of logical fallacies is a matter of simply editing the text of the article. Deletion isn't required. Instead of nominating articles for deletion that need fixing, try fixing them yourself in future. It would have taken you three fewer edits to do so than making this AFD nomination and your talk page discussion contribution did. AFD is not cleanup. Uncle G (talk) 12:03, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No. The MoS states that the first sentence in an article should summarize its subject: "Loki's Wager is a form of logical fallacy.". This shows the focus of the article as it was created. Read the "What links here". None of those articles are related to Norse mythology; all of them treat the subject of the article as being a logical fallacy. The story is clearly only the example usually used to illustrate the supposed fallacy. This is even evidenced by the title, "Loki's Wager". Proper noun, initial capitals, not to be found in any book on Norse mythology that I have read. This article is about a logical fallacy, not Norse mythology. --Aseld talk 13:28, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Wrong. The article is about Loki's Wager, which is the wager made by Loki, and which is documented not only in books such as ISBN 9781406739893 on page 68 (It's listed as "Loki's wager with Brokk" in the book's index.), but in the very source cited in the article. I can only conclude from this that you've never read any books on Norse mythology.
Furthermore: What the Manual of Style says should be the case is a far cry from what is the case here. The Wikipedia Manual of Style is a house style guideline. It's not a definition of how to interpret every article, especially poor ones.
You've identified a problem with the introduction: it contains original research, namely an original analysis of a story in Norse mythology. Please stop acting so helpless. AFD is not a crutch. The introduction is not immutable, and can be edited, by you, as much as any other part of the article. You could even fix the title, with your rename button, to lowercase the second word. You are not helpless. You have an edit button. Use it! Remove the three sentences from the article and write a better introduction. You could have done that in, now, four fewer edits than you've currently made.
When you see a problem, fix it! See the sign on the door when you arrived here at Wikipedia? It said "Be bold!". Be bold! And stop frittering about with deletion nominations and clearly fallacious wikilawyering over what the Manual of Style says, and edit the three sentences out of the article. Uncle G (talk) 00:04, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Wrong. The article is about Loki's Wager, which is the wager made by Loki, and which is documented not only in books such as ISBN 9781406739893 on page 68 (It's listed as "Loki's wager with Brokk" in the book's index.), but in the very source cited in the article. I can only conclude from this that you've never read any books on Norse mythology.
- No. The MoS states that the first sentence in an article should summarize its subject: "Loki's Wager is a form of logical fallacy.". This shows the focus of the article as it was created. Read the "What links here". None of those articles are related to Norse mythology; all of them treat the subject of the article as being a logical fallacy. The story is clearly only the example usually used to illustrate the supposed fallacy. This is even evidenced by the title, "Loki's Wager". Proper noun, initial capitals, not to be found in any book on Norse mythology that I have read. This article is about a logical fallacy, not Norse mythology. --Aseld talk 13:28, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The article can be rewritten to focus on the Norse mythology story or be redirected to Loki. At no time is deletion neccesary. - Mgm|(talk) 12:07, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I learned about this in school and it was one of those things that stuck with me through the years, and I found the fallacy alive and well in the course of many message board debates back when I enjoyed that sort of thing. I continue to be surprised that I (or anyone else) can't find a good reference for it since it was a basic philosophy/Intro to Logic class. I can only find online mention prior to when I wrote the article of it in passing (like a guy who named all his servers after logical fallacies and named one of them Loki's wager) so I know I'm not crazy. Of course, the wager is famous in and of itself, but I think other articles cover it. -- Kendrick7talk 04:22, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and for that matter keep the three sentences because they provide the background. Just add other material discussing the fallacy. Of course, most topics are covered to some degree by other wp articles, but that's inevitable. Things have connections, This topic is sufficiently distinctive, sufficiently notable & sufficiently sourced., DGG (talk) 04:50, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep It's all right. Thank goodness for Wikipedia consensus. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 05:14, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 13:15, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Elyse Ribbons[edit]
- Elyse Ribbons (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
person is not notable enough to have page Gwangqq (talk) 09:22, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- DeleteThe subject created the page herself, which calls into the candidate's notability into question. Search engine query shows that the subject has not created a dramatic work of note. Externally linked pages largely cite the curiosity of a non-Chinese person producing plays in China, rather than the quality of the of plays themselves. Therefore the candidate seems like a specimen of a notable phenomenon, rather than bearing any notability herself.Gwangqq (talk) 09:51, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
-The journal article appears to reference subject's opinion on food served at Chinese venues. This can hardly be considered the accolades of a playwright/actress. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phostorm (talk • contribs) 09:44, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, this is Elyse (I found this article while googling for a picture that a journalist had posted) and wow, no, I didn't write the article and I'm not sure why you think that I had. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cheekythemonkey (talk • contribs) 10:33, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- CommentThe profile of the article's creator user:lajex is identical to Elyse Ribbons's bio, and Elyse Ribbons is apparently the only article lajex has written. This is all discussed in the article talk page. Regardless, the entry is not notable by its own merit, regardless of who wrote it.Gwangqq (talk) 11:08, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why does the author of the page say she didn't create a page about herself, if the Wikipedia folk say she is the creator. How strange...and retarded. If everyone wanted to make a page for themselves, what would the world come to? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.243.119.30 (talk) 15:49, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note that Gwangqq, who put this up for deletion, only did so after thoroughly vandalising it. Edits to Elyse Ribbons are this user's sole contributions to Wikipedia. Phostorm also vandalized the Elyse Ribbons article, and those form the majority of that user's Wikipedia edits. I pointed out the similarity of the page to user:lajex, but if that's just someone pretending to be Elyse Ribbons, then I don't see any reason to delete this article. Zhwj (talk) 14:10, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The reason for the author's user page being about Elyse Ribbons is very likely that the author created a draft for this article there. Please let's assume good faith and believe each other in discussions unless there is a very strong reason not to. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:11, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The links provided (except for the Wall Street Journal one that is just a quote about chinese food) provide sufficient coverage for notability. Yes, the publications may have given the subject more coverage because the subject is "a curiosity", but we base notability on the coverage that exists, whatever the reason for that coverage, as long as it comes from independent reliable sources. It's unfortunate that we have too little coverage of the majority of people (i.e. Chinese people) in China of similar notability, but the way to address that is to create those articles, not to delete this one. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:20, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. According to the links in the article, the subject has had multiple productions covered in the media. Zhwj (talk) 02:34, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete If a few reviews on obscure websites were all that were required for notability, hundreds of thousands of minor playwrights would swamp Wikipedia. Vartanza (talk) 07:31, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. These are hardly "obscure websites". Beijing Today and City Weekend are print publications, China Radio International is the Chinese equivalent of the BBC World Service or the Voice of America, and china.org.cn is the main Chinese government portal. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:18, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete minimal material on major search engines. if she has been featured in international magazines, i can't find them. and the wsj comments don't really count as a source in my book. even if we do keep the article, i think the wsj link should be deleted as trivial and irrelevent. Tractops (talk) 04:14, 15 February 2009 (UTC) Tractops (talk) 04:14, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Yes, the WSJ source is trivial, but the other sources cited in the article are not. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:32, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Fritzpoll (talk) 10:36, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Phillip Guthrie[edit]
- Phillip Guthrie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Contested Prod. A very long biography. The subject is a involved with TV production but I can't see the notabilityPorturology (talk) 09:25, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - That's a lot of text just to say "I'm not important but here's my website". OK, I'm a cynic. Fails WP:BIO, but most importantly, unsourced WP:BLPs should go. §FreeRangeFrog 00:08, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I just read through the whole article hoping to find a nugget of notability, but it just seems to go nowhere. I would expect anyone notable in the contemporary US media business to have attracted some coverage in the sources covered by Google News, but none of these articles seem to be about this Phillip Guthrie. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:34, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Hoaxes are vandalism. Lycopersicon syndrome is a relatively rare condition in which the smell of certain plants in the tomato Solanum lycopersicum family can trigger the a-systene-adreline gland in pregnant women to secrete an enzyme that results in children being born with two different color eyes. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:01, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Lycopersicon syndrome[edit]
- Lycopersicon syndrome (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Contested (deleted actually) CSD; WP:HOAX at best. §FreeRangeFrog 09:06, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as HOAX: not finding any evidence of this term in use, or any evidence that tomatoes cause heterochromia. Baileypalblue (talk) 09:26, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No google scholar hits. Person cited as discoverer lived in Italy prior to the generally understood date at which tomatos were introduced into Italy, so very unlikely to have discovered a disease caused by them. JulesH (talk) 09:32, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Fritzpoll (talk) 10:35, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Parallel-idiosyncratic-perception Theory[edit]
- Parallel-idiosyncratic-perception Theory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable neologism; no tertiary sources given or found for term. Possible WP:HOAX. §FreeRangeFrog 08:47, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Pretty clear case of OR. Name given of developer of theory is somebody google has never heard of. Date of development is 2009. No publications given. JulesH (talk) 09:37, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per Jules and nom. - Ddawkins73 (talk) 15:06, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 07:14, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Anchor Systems[edit]
- Anchor Systems (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Notability, seems to fail WP:ORG. Possible WP:CSD#G4, as article was previously deleted in AfD. Guy0307 (talk) 07:43, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, notability not asserted. --Anna Lincoln (talk) 08:48, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Article is not the same as the previously AFD'ed version, so it's not a G4. -0 Mgm|(talk) 12:03, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, this looks like an advertisement or promotion for the company...the only references are to the company's own website. Cazort (talk) 20:05, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Corporate spam. §FreeRangeFrog 00:05, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 07:13, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sebastian Grace and The Electric Insects[edit]
- Sebastian Grace and The Electric Insects (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Hoax to provide background info for a Life on Mars episode. I am also nominating the following related page because it is a duplicate:
—pfahlstrom (talk) 07:26, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wkikpedia has some fictional bios on it, but this guy was only on one episode, hardly enough to have page. 72.220.175.219 (talk) 15:13, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, doesn't meet the criteria of WP:FICT. FreplySpang 02:38, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is not the inclussion of this article but rather the amount of space given to the fictional bio. Something along these line might be more appropriate: Sebastian Grace is a fictional 1970's, one hit, glam rock artist featured in one episode of the ABC drama, Life on Mars, which first aired in February of 2009. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fsuis1 (talk • contribs) 04:23, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. One-off characters in TV shows aren't notable enough for articles; one or two lines in an episode list, sure, but not a whole article. And while I'm not sure if anybody's clear on what happened here, it would appear from the history that the article was originally written so as to imply that this person actually existed in real life. Bearcat (talk) 08:26, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect all to Life on Mars (US TV series), seems like these would be harmless and useful as redirects. (And before anyone thinks of invoking WP:HARMLESS and WP:USEFUL, please note that those are perfectly valid reasons for keeping a redirect.) DHowell (talk) 05:39, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 07:13, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Theoretical Highest Countable Number[edit]
- Theoretical Highest Countable Number (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Besides referencing issues, I'm not sure what the notability of this "number" is supposed to be. This doesn't meet WP:NUMBER IMHO. Prod was removed by article's primary editor. Mr. Vernon (talk) 07:09, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Not even an actual number, just a couple of (unrealistic) calculations of how high a person could count, one of them OR -- because it's not actually a number, it can't satisfy WP:NUMBER. Baileypalblue (talk) 07:23, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Original research and no indication of notability Nick-D (talk) 07:37, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Not a unique number and hence fails WP:NUMBER. Besides its calculation is based on pure assumptions. Salih (talk) 08:09, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as non-notable. OR. Could be notable for dumbness of assumption: It takes the person an average of five seconds to speak each number. - Ddawkins73 (talk) 15:10, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - for managing the rare double of contravening WP:OR and containing sheer dumbness (It takes the person an average of five seconds to speak each number.). DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 15:31, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete—The word 'countable' has a definite meaning in mathematics, and it doesn't have to do with a person's life span. The title is misleading and this article is in the nature of a back of the envelope calculation with no particular notability.—RJH (talk) 17:26, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete obvious OR (would have been a dead cert for BJAODN). Gandalf61 (talk) 12:07, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. This could theoretically be merged with Natural number, as many of our mathematical articles lack information on the human implications of what they describe, but we would need to have reliable sources that discuss this subject. Phil Bridger (talk)
- It's not a serious mathematical treatment though. - Ddawkins73 (talk) 11:41, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This might be (but probably not) worth a terse sentence within some (but I can't guess which) other article, but it's not worth an article. Michael Hardy (talk) 19:39, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. nom made by banned user using sock Ronhjones (Talk) 21:09, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Old Crow Review[edit]
- Old Crow Review (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
No evidence of notability outside the Manhattan Samurai/BillDeanCarter initiative. Written by a known sock puppeteer. No independent, reliable sources asserting notability have been provided. Delete promptly. Issue 12 exists (talk) 06:25, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Copyvio StarM 04:20, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cherrybrook Rural Fire Brigade[edit]
- Cherrybrook Rural Fire Brigade (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
I am nominating this article on the Cherrybrook Rural Fire Brigade for deletion because there are no reliable, published sources (Wikipedia:Reliable sources) that can be used to verify the content of this article (Wikipedia:Verifiability) and demonstrate that the subject of the article meets either the general notability inclusion guideline (Wikipedia:Notability) or the more specific notability inclusion guidelines for organisations (Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)).
I also observe that no serious content contributions have been made to the article since November 2006, the only edits since then have been grammar tweaks or cleanup tagging, and that the current content would be better suited for the organisation's own website[9] (Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a blog, webspace provider, social networking, or memorial site and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not your web host), but understand that these in themselves are secondary to the issue of lack of verification.
On searching Google News for possible articles (i.e. this search for [Cherrybrook fire -canton (because results are being picked up for a volunteer fire fighting unit on Cherry Brook Road in North Canton, Ohio, which is a long way from Cherrybrook, New South Wales), I have found that most of the articles referring to the unit are behind paywalls. All of these articles are from local level newspapers, and most of these appear to be passing mentions (either loosely connecting the unit to a fire or other event... "A fire truck from Cherrybrook attended the scene.", or loosely connecting the subject of an article to the unit as part of a 'local citizen of the week'-type piece) or notification of events (such as open days, fundraising activities, etc). The National Library of Australia has records for a history book, but according to the bibliograhic data given, this book is self-published by the unit and as such is not a reliable source.
I mean no disrespect to the people of this organisation: some of my relatives are volunteer firefighters, and I know the valuable work they do. I am also not contesting the notability or verifiability of the New South Wales Rural Fire Service. However, I believe that this article does not meet Wikipedia policy and as such should be deleted. -- saberwyn 06:25, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —-- saberwyn 21:31, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The timing of this AfD could have been better, but the article does not meet the criteria set out in Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Non-commercial organizations. WWGB (talk) 22:58, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. While the Rural Fire Service as a single entity is notable, there's nothing notable or encyclopaedic about each individual branch.--Lester 23:24, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Elem Pomo. MBisanz talk 13:15, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Loretta Kelsey[edit]
- Loretta Kelsey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Speaking a laguage does not make you notable, especially when there isn't even a page for the language you speak. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adamc714 (talk • contribs)
- Ask, and it shall be given you -- Elem Pomo language, ex nihilo! Baileypalblue (talk) 06:28, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep - Being the last native speaker of a nearly extinct language makes you notable as verified by the multiple sources I added to the article. Someone might bring up WP:ONEEVENT, which I think doesn't apply since the ability to speak a language isn't really an event. If she is only notable for on ability, so be it. Another possibility would be to merge this into the article on the language, but this is not the place to discuss that. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 06:32, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: added sources satisfy the general notability guideline, and I agree that the last remaining repository for a non-written language is notable, particularly when the individual in question is spearheading a campaign to keep the language alive. Satisfies WP:CREATIVE: "is regarded as an important figure" among her peers. WP:ONEVENT does not apply -- her campaign to save the language is not just a one-time event, and there's also an article about how she got kicked out of her own tribe -- that's two different context points. There's room for separate articles on the language and on the individual. Baileypalblue (talk) 07:12, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep or merge I wholehartedly agree with the sentiments above. Being the last fluent speaker of a nearly extinct language makes a person noteworthy. However, I'm not convinced there's enough article make an article separate from that about the language, so I'd be happy to support a merge. - Mgm|(talk) 12:01, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge both this and Elem Pomo with Pomo people. Anyone searching for her is searching for the last living speaker of Elem Pomo. There's not two articles there. And there doesn't seem to be any specific notability for this colony's language aside from the news story (so the article can't be expanded), but there is for Pomo people. - Ddawkins73 (talk) 15:25, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge with Elem Pomo, as the subject is better decribed in context. Any further merge to Pomo people is a matter for a separate discussion - this AfD is not about Elem Pomo or Pomo people. In case I don't manage to contribute to that possible further discussion, I would like to point out that language and ethnicity are usually not synonymous, so I would be surprised if such a further move was appropriate. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:59, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No, they are not synonomous, but one set fits firmly inside the other. It isn't like Spanish or English: The language belongs to the Pomo of the Elem colony only. What this AfD shouldn't be about is bureaucracy for the sake of it. We can comfortably manage the merge to Pomo People. - Ddawkins73 (talk) 11:38, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 07:13, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Theory of natural falsification[edit]
- Theory of natural falsification (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
original research Wuhwuzdat (talk) 05:54, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete unsourced original research. Edward321 (talk) 06:02, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete original research. Rcawsey (talk) 11:46, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete As above. Alberon (talk) 13:27, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- But it's science!... Okay, Delete. - Ddawkins73 (talk) 15:29, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as above.--Prosfilaes (talk) 15:32, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 The Most Beautiful Girl in the World -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:43, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The most beautiful girl in the world[edit]
- The most beautiful girl in the world (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
non encyclopedic essay, original research, vanity article, author removed ProD Wuhwuzdat (talk) 05:45, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - per nom. Unverifiable essay, a perfect example of original research. OlEnglish (talk) 05:51, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per nominator. Edward321 (talk) 06:05, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Because I like it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adamc714 (talk • contribs) 06:07, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- See WP:ILIKEIT -- Longhair\talk 06:10, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect - per User:ChrisTheDude -- Longhair\talk 20:24, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:VANITY article whose purpose is to claim that the page creator's sweetheart, "Indrė", is the most beautiful girl in the world. A noble sentiment, but wikipedia is not a valentine's day greeting service. Baileypalblue (talk) 06:14, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]- Redirect per User:ChrisTheDude, as it's apparently a useful search term. Baileypalblue (talk) 08:54, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete WP:OR, unencyclopedic. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 06:49, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to The Most Beautiful Girl in the World. Besides, this girl can't be the most beautiful girl in the world, because my wife is :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:26, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - WP:OR. (Plus my girlfriend's better looking than she is. :)) DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 10:22, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete It is an unencyclopedic essay filled with original research. - Mgm|(talk) 11:39, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect per ChrisTheDude above. This is essentially a greeting card, which would more appropriately be given to the recipient in handwriting and with a nice box of chocolates. Townlake (talk) 15:14, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and Redirect to
DitzyNizzy's girlfriendto the other dab as per Chris. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ddawkins73 (talk • contribs) 15:39, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply] - Redirect per prior comments. -- smurdah[citation needed] 16:00, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect per the above. --Explodicle (T/C) 18:47, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Reads like an essay, the "Reference" is non-researchable and non-notable, plus this seems to be an opinion based article Tarheel95 Talk —Preceding undated comment was added at 22:48, 12 February 2009 (UTC).[reply]
- Delete No encyclopedic value. Pastor Theo (talk) 01:24, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I've made the obvious redirect per WP:IAR. I don't know how to close an AfD discussion so someone please do that. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:06, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 13:14, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Institute for Unpopular Culture[edit]
- Institute for Unpopular Culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
- Organization is not notable.
- Only reputable source San Francisco Chronicle may not be as reliable as it once was.
- Remaining sources SF Weekly and East Bay Express are reliable only for facts about what is happening in the Bay Area but their reporting may not be thoroughly fact-checked.
- Some of the article may be original research
- The Article uses a link to its own website as a source
- The article appears to be somewhat promotional in nature
Uwishiwazjohng (talk) 05:38, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - the citations provided in the article seem to indicate otherwise. --ZimZalaBim talk 05:43, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Of the citations provided, all appear to be purely local, and all but one are free weekly tabloids, so I'm not seeing any actual sign of notability or sources which show other-wise. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 08:25, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - you consider the San Francisco Chronicle to be "purely local"? It is ranked 12th by circulation nationally, so I'm not sure what your concern is with that particular source. --ZimZalaBim talk 13:47, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course I consider it 'purely local', given that it is exactly that, both in general and here, functionally. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 20:42, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- So, please point me to the policy that states that only nationally-distributed newspapers are reliable sources. Short of that, the "only local" position to reject a source seems inappropriate. --ZimZalaBim talk 04:45, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, Wikipedia's article on the Chronicle. has old information. The Chronicle is no longer 12th in circulation but more like 20th and it's in competition with papers that actually charge, and the SF Chronicle is giving it away for free. When I lived in San Francisco, I had to call them every 6 months to tell them to stop littering the driveway. It was once a respectable paper but has been a free tabloid for about 10 years now. Check it's ratings on Yelp. As a reliable source, I think it should be questioned, at least when it comes to entertainment sections that are fluffy interviews or pieces whose main goal is clearly meant to promote some upcoming event. In addition, please look at SF Weekly. Wikipedians have stated in that article that the news coverage is erratic. It is certainly reliable to find out what is happening when, but there is no shortage of people complaining about it's accuracy, even in its own editorial pages. -- Uwishiwazjohng (talk) 05:52, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- So, please point me to the policy that states that only nationally-distributed newspapers are reliable sources. Short of that, the "only local" position to reject a source seems inappropriate. --ZimZalaBim talk 04:45, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Although stronger citations are always desirable, the SF Chronicle article combined with the the various (certainly weaker) free weekly publications seems to pass the notability guidelines for multiple verifiable secondary sources. While this is far from a strong article, to be honest my first impression is there is a seemingly antagonistic level of "citation needed" and "clarification needed" messages thrown around, often right on top of citations and links (e.g. "citation needed" tag on Cassandra Richardson being a former IFUC CFO when millimeters away is a link to a page with this person's bio, which states she was the CFO of IFUC). I'm have zero problems with someone using "X needed" to prompt useful work and keep other editors honest, but the current look feels destructive rather than constructive. -Markeer 16:46, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- And my impression is that of relentless self-promotion, based on this and the related David Ferguson (impresario) page. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 20:42, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I added the tag. The link leads to what appears to be a self-promotional site with a biography that sounds like a press release. Does that really meet WP:RS? --Uwishiwazjohng (talk) 04:40, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This organization seems notable enough to me to warrant a small page. It should be cleaned up, however...also, the website of the institute should not be used as a reference but rather should appear in an "External Links" section. Cazort (talk) 20:10, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect to David Ferguson (impresario). There are a number of problems with this article, primarily having to do with the poor sources. For instance, a press release is not a good source: David Ferguson Joins Subculture Books. Nor is a non-fact-checked Q&A with the main subject: Ferguson finds unconventional fits him just right. Nor are entertainment section articles written without fact-checking (see the last letter on this page: SF Weekly: Letters to the Editor: Con Art: Poorly spoken). Once you take out all of the above, you're left with a whole lot of not much—so just add that small bit on to Ferguson's article. Dori (Talk • Contribs) 22:47, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep:
- Two things. First, regarding the claim that only SF media has reported on IFUC. Over the course of its 20 year history, IFUC has been mentioned or covered in multiple sources outside of San Francisco.
- In November 2003, The PRO was also profiled on CBS Radio's The Osgood File(http://www.acfnewsource.org/art/punk_orchestra.html), a nationwide radio show that is today aired on 381 CBS radio network stations with a total listenership of approximately 8 million. The transcript of PRO's appearance on the Osgood show (http://www.punkrockorchestra.com/osgood.php) says "The Punk Rock Orchestra is the brainchild of David Ferguson, Director of the Institute for Unpopular Culture (IFUC)."
- On April 24, 2004, the Punk Rock Orchestra (PRO), was featured on NPR's Weekend Edition...
- http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1850470
- Second, 'uwishiwasjohng' is providing inaccurate information about the San Francisco Chronicle. The SF Chronicle has never been a free newspaper (unless during limited promotional runs). It is the SF Examiner that is now a free newspaper. Regarding uwishiwasjohng's circulation numbers. Editor and Publisher showed a circulation, as of March 31, 2008 of 370,345, ranking the SF Chronicle 12th in circulation among U.S. newspapers. Audit Bureau of Circulations(ABC) statistics, which keeps official statistics on newspaper circulation, also shows the SF Chronicle with the 12th largest circulation -- not 20th -- among all U.S. newspapers with a total paid circulation of 339,430 (as of October 2008).
- The links for the circulation numbers:
- www.sfgate.com article displaying Audit Bureau of Circulations statistics through October 2008 (posted at http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/10/28/BU0113P1HJ.DTL&type=printable)
- Editor and Publisher statistics thru March 31, 2008 (posted at http://www.bizzyblog.com/2008/05/01/newspaper-circulation-figures-as-of-march-31-2008)
- NOTE - according to the Audit Bureau of Circulations, the combined total of online (Chronicle is found at www.SFgate.com, a site accessible, obviously, to anyone in the world with a computer and a browser) and print readership is 2.05 million - a figure which had increased in the year leading up the October 2008 publication of the Bureau's circulation statistics.
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 07:13, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
History of disruptive technology within communications[edit]
- History of disruptive technology within communications (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
The characterization of these (selective) technologies as "disruptive" is not support by the citations, and is WP:OR & WP:POV. (Besides the printing press was pretty disruptive in its day....so was the telephone...so was...) ZimZalaBim talk 05:19, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Looks to me like an attack on VoIP to me, looks to be mainly composed of WP:OR. Res2216firestar 05:28, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Took some time to think this one through. While the article idea and related topics are certainly interesting, this article simply does not meet Wikipedia's core policy of verifiability, and like the nominator said, it has rather loud overtones of original research and opinion. If sources can be found that specifically state that this technology is a "disruptive technology" and shows the information in the table, no problem. As it is, it's all synthesis. Tan | 39 05:30, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note to nominator: Your parenthetical statement about other technologies being disruptive makes no sense in the context of this article - see disruptive technology. It's a perfectly acceptable industry term. Tan | 39 05:33, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I think we can safely say that Internet Protocol is a disruptive technology. Still, not the point - It's too selective an article title. Sourced and attributed as disruptive technologies is different, but that's not this article's title (or presentation). Delete and merge content to disruptive technology? That article has citation issues too, incidentally. - Ddawkins73 (talk) 15:53, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete sources don't really support the claim of the article that these are disruptive technologies. The article would be better if it covered existing technologies that had been disrupted, but given the current article is future facing, I'm calling for delete.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 01:45, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Student activities and traditions at UC Irvine. I'll redirect in a week. yandman 10:25, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Associated Students of the University of California - Irvine[edit]
- Associated Students of the University of California - Irvine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
A non-notable organization, since it doesn't meet the notability standard for inclusion: no independent reliable sources. AndTheElectricMayhem (talk) 03:34, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Non-notable organization. Mkdwtalk 03:48, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect to University of California, Irvine. Questionably notable as its own search term or for a standalone article. Townlake (talk) 04:20, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —TerriersFan (talk) 04:42, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been added to the list of university deletions. —AndTheElectricMayhem (talk) 04:42, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Precedent has been set at WP:UNI by their article guidelines. This org doesn't satisfy organization guidelines either as far as notability. —Noetic Sage 04:54, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to University of California Students Association. UCSA survived AfD process and ASUCI is already enumerated in the list. I should note that if the consensus is redirect/merge, the hyphen in this article title should be replaced with a comma to keep consistent with articles relating to UC campuses. KuyaBriBriTalk 21:46, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The comparable redirect for the Berkeley campus's ASUC goes directly to the UC Berkeley article. Redirecting to the broader students' association instead of the Irvine campus article would be inconsistent. Townlake (talk) 21:51, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Then perhaps we could change the ASUC redirect to UCSA, or delete it outright. KuyaBriBriTalk 22:49, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tan | 39 05:14, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge/redirect to Student activities and traditions at UC Irvine, the WP:SUMMARYSTYLE spinoff article from University of California, Irvine that already discusses this subject. University of California Students Association should probably have links to local student governments where they exist in their schools' parent articles, rather than trying to cover each local association in the parent article. Oh, and don't worry about the misspelling, that's okay for redirects :) Baileypalblue (talk) 08:46, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect to Student activities and traditions at UC Irvine - Baileypalblue sums it up well. Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:00, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 00:09, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Grandpa's Property[edit]
- Grandpa's Property (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Contested prod that doesn't fall into any CSD and thus this bit of bureaucracy seems required. No claim to notability. Kubigula (talk) 04:52, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Completely non-notable beyond family and friends of the property owner. Even the one provided external link states, "this is mainly a website for family and friends." -- OlEnglish (talk) 05:14, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No assertion of notability, not verifiable as "Grandpa's Property," not CSD eligible. Townlake (talk) 05:17, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Non-notable, no google results relating to it, only ref is a website that says it's "mainly for family and friends". No-branier IMO. Res2216firestar 05:33, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete quickly per WP:SNOW, because of the reasons given above. I don't say "speedy delete", because that is a technical term that means that an article meets one of the criteria for speedy deletion, but I don't see the need to continue this discussion any further. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:33, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete non notable small bit of land. MilborneOne (talk) 20:54, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:10, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Maternal near miss[edit]
- Maternal near miss (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Nothing but a definition of a term used in medicine/public health. Does not seem that the article can grow beyond this - growth would happen in articles about obstetrics, childbirth or similar, not under this title. FreplySpang 03:34, 7 February 2009 (UTC) Rewritten article looks good, so I've stricken my nomination. FreplySpang 00:38, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The article is a stub! Why precisely do you think the stub can't grow, seems to be violating WP:CRYSTAL. Power.corrupts (talk) 12:17, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you are misunderstanding WP:CRYSTAL. It means an article should not be based on speculation. It does not mean that we cannot exercise judgement about the future when we do administrative tasks - otherwise they would be impossible. Anyway, it still seems to me that the kind of material that would go into a "Maternal near miss" article would work better in specific articles about obstetrics. If you're writing about maternal near misses due to some particular cause, that would go in the article about that particular cause. If you're writing about changes in the ways obstetrical statistics are compiled and analyzed, that would probably go in Obstetrics. But I don't think that "Maternal near miss" is the name that people would use to look for this kind of information. FreplySpang 02:05, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The article is a stub! Why precisely do you think the stub can't grow, seems to be violating WP:CRYSTAL. Power.corrupts (talk) 12:17, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Non-notable medical term. Wikipedia is not a medical dictionary. Jo7hs2 (talk) 05:17, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Questions: (1) Is there some codified Wikipedia rule that says Wiki should not have a definition of a term used in medicine/public health? I think such a rule would be unwise; I can't see why it's grounds for deletion. (2) On what grounds do you regard this as being of questionable notability? You've merely made an assertion, here on this page. Two references on the page demonstrate general accepted use of the term. Power.corrupts (talk) 12:09, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- In response to your first question: Yes. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. It has nothing to do with whether the term is medical; it has to do with whether there is, as the nominator said, room to grow beyond the dictionary definition. I'll quote from one of the articles that you added as a reference: "Falling numbers of maternal deaths in developed countries have stimulated an interest in investigating cases of life threatening obstetric morbidity or near miss. The advantages of near miss over death are that near miss are more common than maternal deaths, their review is likely to yield useful information on the pathways that lead to severe morbidity and death, investigating the care received may be less threatening to providers because the woman survived, and one can learn from the women themselves since they can be interviewed about the care they received."[10] Now that is the kind of information that makes the difference between a dictionary definition and an encyclopedic article, and if you want this article kept, you should be working to find more of that. Don't tell us what the words "maternal near miss" mean; tell us why the concept "maternal near miss" matters. -- 65.78.13.238 (talk) 22:48, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well put. FreplySpang 02:05, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- In response to your first question: Yes. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. It has nothing to do with whether the term is medical; it has to do with whether there is, as the nominator said, room to grow beyond the dictionary definition. I'll quote from one of the articles that you added as a reference: "Falling numbers of maternal deaths in developed countries have stimulated an interest in investigating cases of life threatening obstetric morbidity or near miss. The advantages of near miss over death are that near miss are more common than maternal deaths, their review is likely to yield useful information on the pathways that lead to severe morbidity and death, investigating the care received may be less threatening to providers because the woman survived, and one can learn from the women themselves since they can be interviewed about the care they received."[10] Now that is the kind of information that makes the difference between a dictionary definition and an encyclopedic article, and if you want this article kept, you should be working to find more of that. Don't tell us what the words "maternal near miss" mean; tell us why the concept "maternal near miss" matters. -- 65.78.13.238 (talk) 22:48, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Questions: (1) Is there some codified Wikipedia rule that says Wiki should not have a definition of a term used in medicine/public health? I think such a rule would be unwise; I can't see why it's grounds for deletion. (2) On what grounds do you regard this as being of questionable notability? You've merely made an assertion, here on this page. Two references on the page demonstrate general accepted use of the term. Power.corrupts (talk) 12:09, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep (I removed the PROD tag some time ago). Notability of term is established in article stub. The term might be relatively novel - it would fit into an overall trend of changing focus from the worst outcome itself, to situations which could have led to the outcome under slightly different circumstances. Hence the "near miss" concept - I refer to Near miss (safety) for the general use of this concept in other areas. A focus on near-miss also leads to a general change in performance indicators, as normal indicators become unreliable when observations are few (a property of the Poisson distribution). Near-miss indicators are therefore becoming more and more popular. A Gscholar search returns an impressive 40.000 hits. The assertation that this stub cannot grow is absolutely unfounded. Power.corrupts (talk) 12:39, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is simply a definition, not even the basis for an article. The term is not even particularly notable; I don't think every form of near miss that occurs in medicine deserves its own article.Keep The new version (if that's even worth saying, now that the nomination has been stricken). Anaxial (talk) 17:18, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete A term notable within medicine does not equal a notable concept at Wikipedia. The relevant concept is near miss (statistics), if any. Or, (medical statistics). Anyhow, this isn't an article about that. Or an article at all - it's a dictionary entry. -- Ddawkins73 (talk) 13:42, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This concept could be included in Near miss (safety) under the health care subsection until there is sufficient detail and references to require a separate article. Ryanjo (talk) 15:08, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Wouldn't it be more appropriate to call for Merge to near miss (safety), then, rather than for Delete? -- 65.78.13.238 (talk) 21:36, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I would say that was looking at it as "two related topics so merge" without considering what the reality of the merged article would be. - Ddawkins73 (talk) 22:19, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If it's me you're responding to, I question how you know that I haven't "consider[ed] what the reality of the merged article would be." -- 65.78.13.238 (talk) 02:08, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What I am saying is that there's almost no content there and only specialized notability, so it's not worth arguing the toss. Discussion is 100 times longer than the "article". I won't add to it anymore :) Ddawkins73 (talk) 04:45, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If it's me you're responding to, I question how you know that I haven't "consider[ed] what the reality of the merged article would be." -- 65.78.13.238 (talk) 02:08, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I would say that was looking at it as "two related topics so merge" without considering what the reality of the merged article would be. - Ddawkins73 (talk) 22:19, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The rewrite saves the article, and I recommend those who previously opined take another look. THF (talk) 13:25, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - article rewrite I am quite surprised of the consensus to delete this stub article. Deleting stubs, merely because they are stubs, mostly on hand-waving assertations of "no potential here", is not only deeply, deeply problematic, it is also contrary to basic wiki policy WP:PRESERVE. I have therefore taken the effort to completely rewrite the article. It's of course far from perfect, or even complete. I'm not a subject matter expert, and it took me about 3 hours -- demonstrating the asymmetry in effort between deleting articles and keeping them. Power.corrupts (talk) 13:38, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for rewriting, great job! FreplySpang 00:38, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note to closing editor. The article is now entirely different from the one that was nominated for deletion. I therefore request a relist for AfD to extend the time window before article is deleted. Power.corrupts (talk) 13:45, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 04:29, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep A serious article about public health and midwifery, full of peer review journal references. --Mr Accountable (talk) 07:19, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: good article save. Dicdef/notability concerns have been addressed by the rewrite. Baileypalblue (talk) 09:07, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Point May I make a point, now I've thrown precious time into this article. Take a look at the article's history. It was created by a once-off editor. It managed to exist for 9 minutes (nine minutes!) before it was tagged for speedy deletion (no content whatsoever) - a claim I find very dubious indeed. It eventually develops into PROD, which I delete, I add two references, the article then sees a new PROD, which is converted to this AfD. Arguments in favour of deletion are "lack of notability" in various cloaks, a postulated "no room to grow" and the very fact that the article is stub, and it therefore looks like a dictionary definition to some people. I'm aksing myself, what has happened to Wikipedia? What happened to WP:PRESERVE and the idea that Wiki is the encyclopedia that everybody can edit? An analogy to looking at ancient Greek art comes to my mind: some people only see the missing parts of the statutes, the damages etc; others try to visualize the beauty of the original artwork. Ideally, editors should spend their time improving articles, not deleting them. Power.corrupts (talk) 11:39, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong and Grumpy Keep. I found numerous references in the scholarly literature: [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], etc. I got 70 hits in google scholar, and probably will get more if you include synonyms for the term. Many of the articles are primarily about this topic. I agree with Power.corrupts's comments that the strong and quick pressing for deleting this page is seriously out of line. At the very least, someone checking for speedy deletion should have run a google scholar search and quickly seen that this is a highly notable term. And I also agree with the comments made by numerous others above that a page being a stub or having little content alone is never grounds for deletion. Cazort (talk) 20:15, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 03:07, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2090 Virus[edit]
- 2090 Virus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Prod contested by a third party. Computer virus. The article does not mention anything about it that is special when compared to the dozens or so that are discovered each day. Delete. Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 03:57, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Just another virus with no notability like Conficker or whatever the current one is called. §FreeRangeFrog 04:52, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I found no references outside of forum-like, specialized computer websites. If someone can find a couple reliable news sources mentioning this virus, however, I would say to keep it. Cazort (talk) 20:20, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep - Provides information that might prove useful to users trying to research it. Google results do return a few pages. Alpha 4615 (talk) 20:58, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Deletion Cancel - 2090 Virus is really existed and I can prove it and its dangerous. and this damaged especially some of korean netizens. and by it, Stock Price of AhnLab Inc (KOSPI) was upwarded because they made vaccine for this dangerous 2090 Virus. If you want to know about this in detail, see below.
- "Virus 2090 Annoys Korean Computer Users" from Hack in the Box:: Keeping Knowledge Free 2009/02/12
- "Virus 2090 Annoys Computer Users" from The Korea Times 2009/02/12
- Information about Trojan.Win32.Crypt.15872.B (so-called 2090 Virus) - HAURI
- 2090 Virus - Christopher is Awwwesome, a Bigspot blog
- There are millions of dangerous computer viruses that really exist. That a virus "really exists" is not a criterion for inclusion. That it is dangerous is no criterion either, even if it has the potential to wipe out the entire Internet in a matter of seconds. To have a Wikipedia article about it, a virus has to be notable. According to the Korea Times (which is the only one of the above sources that we deem reliable), the virus only appeared earlier this week, and the cure already exists. Will people remember the virus even three months from now?
As for removal information, sorry, but Wikipedia must not become a how-to guide. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 11:32, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There are millions of dangerous computer viruses that really exist. That a virus "really exists" is not a criterion for inclusion. That it is dangerous is no criterion either, even if it has the potential to wipe out the entire Internet in a matter of seconds. To have a Wikipedia article about it, a virus has to be notable. According to the Korea Times (which is the only one of the above sources that we deem reliable), the virus only appeared earlier this week, and the cure already exists. Will people remember the virus even three months from now?
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 G12 (non admin close). Umbralcorax (talk) 03:44, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Chapter of Heaven - The Ancient Oriental Zodiac System[edit]
- Chapter of Heaven - The Ancient Oriental Zodiac System (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Prod contested with the rationale, This article attempt to correct the misconception about ancient oriental zodiac system (sic). Problem is, there are no sources, and no indication that it is anything other than original research. Delete. Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 03:08, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Crackpot OR. Graymornings(talk) 03:10, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: It's a copyright violation from http://eusoon.blogspot.com/, anyway. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 03:12, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note - Comment below was registered after deletion decision. Nate • (chatter) 12:25, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non violation of Copyright[edit]
- Comment: This article does not violate the copyright of http://eusoon.blogspot.com. I am the rightful owner of the blog. I wish to publish my view on the ancient oriental zodiac system as there are too many misconception that have been published in the Wikipedia. This article is just the first part of a series of articles related to ancient oriental zodiac system, meteorology, acupuncture and ancient oriental medicine. This article discuss the ancient zodiac system from an ancient text, HuangDi NeiJing --Eusoon (talk) 10:02, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 03:06, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Europe & Me[edit]
- Europe & Me (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
The article's author removed a Prod tag and a subsequent Speedy Delete tag was also removed. The subject of the article does not appear to pass WP:RS or WP:WEB standards. Pastor Theo (talk) 03:03, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Sounds promotional, and very short on notability assertion. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 03:04, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as advertising. No third-party mentions. No ghits, news hits, or anything that might indicate notability. Graymornings(talk) 03:13, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Do not delete. Hope it is ok now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.133.8.114 (talk) 14:28, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The magazine seems to have had significant media echo in the German magazine 'Focus Campus' and German national radio 'Deutschlandradio Kultur': http://www.dradio.de/dkultur/vorschau/20080701/. Was promotional initially, as material was copied from the website, but indeed better now. Let's keep it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.1.237.143 (talk) 15:25, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you tell us how that reference is even remotely related to the magazine Europe & Me? -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 12:03, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Blanchardb, this was just to point out that the magazine is notable no-nonsense. If you scroll down, there is a 13 minute interview with one of the editors. If you google the radio station, you'll see it has regular 13 million listeners. More generally, I don't see why a political magazine with several ten thousand readers should not have a tiny article here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr fabs (talk • contribs) 15:57, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Basically, you are asking us to find a needle in a haystack. A 13-minute interview is not much, regardless of how many listeners the radio station has, if that's all there is. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 00:51, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There are more sources (complementing those mentioned in "Refrences"): http://www.paediatrie-links.de/krippenbetreuung_FAZ2008.pdf This is a scan of an article in German newspaper Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung and http://209.85.129.132/search?q=cache:SIlPzAjh7VIJ:www.euroclio.eu/joomla/index.php/NGO-s/EUStory/+%22Europe+%26+Me%22&hl=de&ct=clnk&cd=68&client=safari This demonstrates the connection with EUSTORY (see article about Athisaari's Noble Prize) and EUSTORY, of course, has its place on Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cwratil (talk • contribs) 13:04, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Basically, you are asking us to find a needle in a haystack. A 13-minute interview is not much, regardless of how many listeners the radio station has, if that's all there is. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 00:51, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Blanchardb, this was just to point out that the magazine is notable no-nonsense. If you scroll down, there is a 13 minute interview with one of the editors. If you google the radio station, you'll see it has regular 13 million listeners. More generally, I don't see why a political magazine with several ten thousand readers should not have a tiny article here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr fabs (talk • contribs) 15:57, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you tell us how that reference is even remotely related to the magazine Europe & Me? -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 12:03, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. This article asks us to believe that there was no European lifestyle magazine on the Internet before July 2008. That's an extraordinary claim that needs extraordinarily strong sources if we are to believe it. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:11, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 WP:CSD#G12. faithless (speak) 04:37, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Epic Advertising[edit]
- Epic Advertising (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Fails WP:CORP, WP:N, and, partially, WP:SPAM -Zeus-uc 02:46, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete and borderline blatant advertisement via corporate vanity. Also a mirror of their website https://www.epicadvertising.com/ , failing WP:NOTWEBHOST (I'm assuming the copyright holder is adding the material here, so it wouldn't be a copyvio). MuZemike 04:18, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I'm pretty sure the adder is the copyright holder, but that doesn't matter to us unless they have filled out a form to release it from copyright. Speedy deleting via G12 for [17] -Zeus-uc 04:26, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 00:08, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Roosterball[edit]
- Roosterball (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Contested PROD. Made-up sport. Very few Google hits, no reliable third-party references. The only ref in the article is a blog that's a copy of the Wikipedia article. Graymornings(talk) 02:38, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Incredible! Copying a Wikipedia article to a blog, then using the blog as an external reference for the Wikipedia article. I have to admit, that gave me a good laugh! Now Delete. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 04:13, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - WP:MADEUP. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 06:51, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- KEEP I have actually seen this, it's hilarious, never thought I'd see a wiki on it, but glad it's here! If we can define playground games like four square, surely we can keep this. For those who want to delete... how many soccer tournaments have you been to in the last year to confirm it's not real?! LyricalLance (talk) 08:10, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 00:08, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
F-mail[edit]
- F-mail (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Neologism for Facebook messaging. The sources in the article don't mention the term itself. I'd redirect, but this doesn't seem to be a likely search term - I couldn't find even one instance of this word being used on the internet as a term for Facebook messaging. There's a Facebook application called "fmail," but it's a completely different thing. Graymornings(talk) 02:33, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete the term F-mail is not used by Facebook nor by the general community at large. Not a likely search term. Alpha 4615 (talk) 03:17, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete non-notable or non-existent neologism. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 06:51, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:08, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
New Jersey Youth Hockey League[edit]
- New Jersey Youth Hockey League (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Contested prod. Editor who removed the prod did so to this and many other articles with the reason that "could be notable" with no evidence that it actually is. Anyways on to my reasoning, this is a local youth league which does not meet notability requirements and such leagues have many times before been shown to not be notable enough for inclusion on wikipedia. Djsasso (talk) 02:30, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hockey-related deletion discussions. —Djsasso (talk) 02:33, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Plenty of sports press coverage, especially in New Jersey, solid affiliation with regional and national youth hockey organizations, but article needs those references and links: Example: Red Bank Generals are currently ranked 2nd in Tier 2 AA Squirt at National Hockey Rankings (front page) --Mr Accountable (talk) 07:30, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - In order to meet notability guidelines you have to do more than just have scores etc posted in papers. You have to have articles about the league. For example you mention the squirt team. That is for ages 10 and under. This level of hockey is no different than the local bowling league for kids. The site you are have listed is not even an official ranking site, its just a site someone has put together with a formula they have decided upon to rank teams based on their comments at the bottom of their page. As far as affiliations go, notability is not inheirited so it doesn't matter who they are affiliated with. -Djsasso (talk) 13:34, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom comments. I think the only minor hockey league article we have here is the Greater Toronto Hockey League, notable for being the largest minor hockey organization in the world. This league does not assert any notability. – Nurmsook! talk... 16:21, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:N, with a focus on WP:HOLE. This article does not establish notability. Every city/region has a minor hockey program that will get scores printed in the local paper. What sets this one apart? Resolute 06:09, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete fails WP:N, prodded one of the teams. Secret account 22:54, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Non-notable. Grsz11 00:59, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:08, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Brad Herauf[edit]
- Brad Herauf (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Minor league hockey player fails WP:BIO#Athletes. JaGatalk 16:10, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 17:17, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias // discussion 00:03, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 02:22, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Seems non-notable. Hogvillian (talk) 03:11, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No indication that this player ever got past junior level or became pro. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 03:13, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The article says he's in the American Hockey League, which is professional. That's an indication. - Mgm|(talk) 11:53, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- My bad. The team was AHL, not junior. Still ain't the National Hockey League. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 05:19, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - played years in fully professional CHL/ECHL and now AHL, therefore passes WP:ATHLETE. Grsz11 00:31, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep played fully professional, which meets WP:ATHLETE. Also, at three relists, I think one could safely have closed this as no consensus at worst. Resolute 01:20, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:21, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Bayonet (band)[edit]
- Bayonet (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable band: having searched I can turn up no reliable sources; film for which band recorded music is not itself notable. Gonzonoir (talk) 19:19, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: no reliable independent 3rd party sources WP:BAND. JamesBurns (talk) 02:02, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias // discussion 00:01, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 02:22, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - per JamesBurns above. Hogvillian (talk) 03:12, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:08, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ashraf Ribhi Banar[edit]
- Ashraf Ribhi Banar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
- Delete. A soldier killed in battle after destroying one tank. Not notable per Wikipedia guidelines. WWGB (talk) 02:21, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep He was the commander of a unit, he was one of the most notable figures killed in the recent Gaza conflict, and a search reveals that his name comes up several times. PatGallacher (talk) 02:25, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Delete. I don't know. He and many other guys were involved in the Conflict, but he could be notable. A search makes me lean to keep, but small volume deters me.--Riotrocket8676 You gotta problem with that? 02:39, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. A total of eleven Google hits, all either unreliable sources or trivial mentions. This is a textbook example of the difference between significant coverage and brief, non-notable references. Graymornings(talk) 02:59, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Google shows only the one PFLP announcement in different languages. Nothing in books. How many millions of people have died for their cause throughout history? Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It cannot list them all. Aymatth2 (talk) 03:02, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Non-notable, too few secondary sources to pass. Grsz11 00:28, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was bold redirect by author to Crisis Core: Final Fantasy VII. Non-admin closure. MuZemike 07:21, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Final Fantasy loveless[edit]
- Final Fantasy loveless (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Even more complete and total fancruft. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 02:12, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 13:23, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Question — Maybe I'm missing something, but wouldn't this be a copyvio? MuZemike 16:07, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Speedy Close as the sole author has since redirected the page to Digimon World 3#Vemmon. Nifboy (talk) 15:34, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Venmon[edit]
- Venmon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable fancruft, with unreliable references. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 02:10, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 13:23, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:07, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
SAM Linux[edit]
- SAM Linux (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Not notable. distrocruft. Doesn't claim to be notable. No references show that it is notable. Nothing shows that any significant number of people use it. It does nothing particularly special that makes it unique. It doesn't take much to make a Linux distro and put it on a website and make some forum posts about it. This article has been tagged for cleanup for almost a year with nothing to show for it. Miami33139 (talk) 02:06, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Distrocruft? •••Life of Riley (T–C) 04:17, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per lack of third party sources... can't write a proper encyclopedia article without that. --Movingday29 (talk) 23:04, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Carl Wickman. MBisanz talk 02:07, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Olga Rodin[edit]
- Olga Rodin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Does not meet WP:BIO standards. Pastor Theo (talk) 02:00, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect: to Carl Wickman. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 02:01, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect: to Carl Wickman. Grsz11 00:26, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:07, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
-graphy[edit]
- -graphy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Transwiki to wiktionary: 100% dicdef. The list of "*graphy" words would correspond to wikt:Category:English words suffixed with -graphy - 7-bubёn >t 01:41, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that this article has been in Wikipedia for over six years. It's pretty well established by now. We also have -logy and -onym. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 04:25, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- there have been several dozen suffix articles. And even two templates to navigate anomg them. Most of them are gone, and for a reason. - 7-bubёn >t 17:26, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. At least the etymology of it is encyclopedic. The list could be cut, but I think it should stay because it has a navigational role. - Mgm|(talk) 11:51, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. This is a quite likely search term and provides links to numerous other Wikipedia articles. The use of this type of suffix article is well established in Wikipedia and there are many similar articles. See Category:Greek suffixes and Category:Latin suffixes. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 21:44, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Transwiki Etymology is for a dictionary. A list of -graphy's seems somewhat trivial to me. These two things combined do not make an encyclopedia article, in my mind. --Movingday29 (talk) 23:12, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Transwiki or delete this is pure dicdef, and an encyclopedic article on a suffix cannot be built IMHO. At best this would be a disamb page, but even that would be very awkward. It's pure etymology.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 01:47, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:20, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
GoodTherapy.org[edit]
- GoodTherapy.org (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Community website for people involved in mental health treatment. Stuff full of links to their website but no evidence that it is notable even within Alaska. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 01:35, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Alpha 4615 (talk) 03:13, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete It's not a community website. it's a marketing network of therapists pretending to be a community. Disguised spam. DGG (talk) 04:38, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete unable to find sources to establish notability per WP:WEB. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 06:45, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep It gathers 3800 professionals, it is a genuine community website, publishing works of its members [18], [19], it organizes education modules [20] (+20 per year). It offers also resources for the public [21]. Besides the certification from NBCC (already listed in the article), it is one of the few approved organizations by The Center for Self-Leadership (the authority for Internal Family Systems Model), by Foundation for Human Enrichement (the authority for Somatic Experiencing). I'm considering to introduce also these links in the article. As for the links to the website, as you can see, I used them here too to show what is going on there, please advise if there is a problem with their presence there. --Vpopescu (talk) 10:26, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No quality sources. I also found a blog: [22] that claims that this website has been involved in extremely aggressive marketing. One poster on the blog mentioned filing an FTC complaint. I suspect this page is simply part of this aggressive self-promotion. Cazort (talk) 20:25, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Could you explain what do you understand as quality sources? These are already endorsements from accepted authorities, which you dismiss without any apparent reason, while taking for granted the unsupported claims from a blog. Yes, as that lady says, in the directory of therapies (here) there are listed all kind of current therapies, introduced with a common sense disclaimer. Clearly this is not an endorsement for all of them, as she states. This while the list appears as one of the most comprehensive existing on-line, as far as I know (show me a better one!). Concerning the unsubstantiated claims of that lady + the complaint of that guy who replied, every public entity has its share of such (un)deserved nuisances. Important is to clarify what is true and reliable on whatever appears visible.
- I hope for a relevant and serious discussion about this article, not about "suspects" and "feelings". I see that anyone of the users who voted previously did not comment yet, while they made sweeping statements without some previous research. It looks like the things would have had a more relaxed flow if it would have been a previous discussion about the references and the notability of this organization, not to turn into just another congregation of delete-happy users. --Cinagua (talk) 21:58, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Vpopescu --Cinagua (talk) 22:00, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per DGG. Zero notability, zero reliable sources. Bearian (talk) 02:49, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I see the endorsements by the other organizations mentioned above as instances of cross promotion, and , if anything, good evidence about the unsuitability of this article for an encyclopedia--we should keep an eye on those articles also.DGG (talk) 05:12, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The merits of the organization aren't relevant. I just don't see how it's notable. Tractops (talk) 06:36, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Air Bud. Cirt (talk) 00:19, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Air Bud: Aussie Rules[edit]
- Air Bud: Aussie Rules (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Explicitly fails future film notability guidelines. No prejudice towards recreation when reliable sources indicate that filming has already begun. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 14:59, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 17:05, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Air Bud. Its getting some coverage diff, but has yet to begin filming. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 09:09, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:21, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The coverage it's getting isn't of the reliable kind. - Mgm|(talk) 11:44, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete That movie poster looks so fake it's not funny, that website looks even faker. Anyway Disney has already started a spin-off series based on Buddy's children it's highly unlikely they'd make another Air Bud film. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.53.89.115 (talk) 08:10, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I don't see any independent, reliable sources. On the other hand, www.keypics.com looks to be the website of the real, relevant production company, so it is unlikely to be hoax. A redirect may be the best solution. Eluchil404 (talk) 21:11, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:19, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Philippa Page[edit]
- Philippa Page (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
the soap All By Myself doesn't seem to exist Plenty afoot (talk) 14:26, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:18, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete When I searched for "All By Myself" all I could find was an unrelated Grey's Anatomy episode. I also found a page for Pippa Page on TV.com, only one lead role, three guest appearances. Article is unverifiable. - Mgm|(talk) 11:49, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Did some searching and came away with basically nothing on the soap. Tractops (talk) 06:18, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:18, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cyberraga[edit]
- Cyberraga (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Fails notability per WP:MUSIC. Album track in limited markets only. Paul75 (talk) 13:26, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: non-notable b-side WP:NSONGS. JamesBurns (talk) 09:00, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:17, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Songs. Esradekan Gibb "Talk" 04:08, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —JD554 (talk) 11:03, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Music (Madonna song). Doesn't meet the notability guidelines at WP:NSONGS. --JD554 (talk) 11:03, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: non notable track, did not chart. A-Kartoffel (talk) 00:53, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:18, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Harmon Golf Course[edit]
- Harmon Golf Course (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable golf course with no obvious historic link to the sport. Pastor Theo (talk) 13:23, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No claim to notability given. Might warrant a mention in Lebanon, Ohio though. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 13:43, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:17, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect/Merge a brief entry to Lebanon,_Ohio#Landmarks. Not notable enough for its own article, but apparently the founder and the park he established are notable enough in the history of the city to warrant a mention. Baileypalblue (talk) 02:48, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete golf course aren't notable, even for a merge. Secret account 22:40, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:18, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Our Flat Earth[edit]
- Our Flat Earth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable revue that played in a Chicago theater in 2006. A Google search turns up nothing to support notability. Pastor Theo (talk) 13:15, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Delete. Only hits found in GNews are a couple from Chicago papers mentioning them in articles covering several shows. Not enough to support notability. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 13:49, 7 February 2009 (UTC).[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:17, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:18, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Assyrian - The Struggle for Identity[edit]
- Assyrian - The Struggle for Identity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
No notability asserted. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 15:16, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 17:05, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete fails Wikipedia:Notability_(films)#General_principles, the nature external links leads to the assertion of the article being used for self promotion. --DFS454 (talk) 14:40, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd say WP:USERFY back to author EliasAlucard, but though he has a looooong history on wiki, he has not been editing for almost a year diff. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 05:00, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:16, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:18, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ladislaus Michalowski[edit]
- Ladislaus Michalowski (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable union organizer whose activities were mostly limited to a small Connecticut city. A Google search brings up nothing to support notability. Does not meet WP:BIO and WP:RS standards. Pastor Theo (talk) 12:09, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:16, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:17, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Gustavo The Lion Lopez[edit]
- Gustavo The Lion Lopez (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
No sources, and only claim to fame is amateur competition. Does not pass WP:ATHLETE. --aktsu (t / c) 10:52, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No fighter has any business listing the following: 1) criminal records, legal dealings or troubles of other people as a means to excuse poor training, lack of training, reason for losing, etc. and 2) listing the time and round and execution (i.e. left uppercut) of how the fighter defeated an opponent, but leaving out the opponent's name and venue of the fight. This is all unverifiable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.167.71.194 (talk) 04:43, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:16, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:16, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Brian Hunter (card player)[edit]
- Brian Hunter (card player) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
- Delete Non-notable, significance asserted. -Zeus- [t|c] 16:05, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Good grief. As per nom. Proxy User (talk) 18:46, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or merge - The world champions of SWCCG are listed here Star Wars Customizable Card Game#Past world champions, and perhaps Brian can be merged to that article somehow? Otherwise delete. LinguistAtLarge • Msg 19:23, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Evidently notable as champion of a notable game, covered as such in reliable sources. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:58, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - First of all, what reliable sources, and second, if I recall correctly from my searching several days ago, he was never champion, the best he did was finish second. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 06:48, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:15, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The only source currently listed in the article carries a byline of... Brian Hunter. I couldn't find anything else about him beyond bare lists of people who play this game. Townlake (talk) 05:14, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: non-notable, finding no reliable source coverage. Could be redirected to Star Wars Customizable Card Game#Past world champions, per User:LinguistAtLarge, but that's not a likely search phrase, and he doesn't deserve more coverage in that article than he already has. Baileypalblue (talk) 18:44, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:16, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ali Z. Omar[edit]
- Ali Z. Omar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Unable to find any sources. --aktsu (t / c) 10:43, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I haven't been able to find evidence that an Ali Z. Omar of the type described in the article even exists. I feel the article should be deleted per failing WP:V, and WP:N by extension. Possible hoax article imo. Franklinville (talk) 11:06, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. —Franklinville (talk) 11:11, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —Franklinville (talk) 11:11, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. —Franklinville (talk) 11:11, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:15, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete Not on sherdog & no other sources included, the nickname 'towel head' look like a generic insult page. --Nate1481 12:57, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as unsourced and most likely non-notable, and the "towelhead" comment raises concerns. Majoreditor (talk) 07:32, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:16, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Brian Donaghy[edit]
- Brian Donaghy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Found no sources to confirm what's in the article. It says he participated at Mass Destruction 12, but Sherdog's record of the event shows no mention of him. --aktsu (t / c) 10:18, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. --aktsu (t / c) 11:16, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The article should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. The article is not notable, upon verification.--Ped Admi (talk) 19:31, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:15, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete sources don't support claims not mention on NAGA or Sherdog. --Nate1481 08:51, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:16, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Doug Pierre[edit]
- Doug Pierre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Completely unsourced and found no relevant sources. --aktsu (t / c) 09:54, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. --aktsu (t / c) 11:16, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:15, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Non Notable looks like an advert of his 'new' style, no sources included --Nate1481 13:05, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. —Bluemask (talk) 14:08, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:16, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Renzo vargas[edit]
- Renzo vargas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Quick search turned up nothing on this guy. Possibly a hoax? --aktsu (t / c) 09:47, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. --aktsu (t / c) 11:17, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:14, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Hoax? No. Non-notable? Yes. This was the best "source" I could come up with. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 06:55, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not on sherdog & no other sources included the was a link to a Tony DeSouza interview claiming it was with Renzo sounds like a hoax--Nate1481 13:03, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:15, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Kate Nash's second album[edit]
- Kate Nash's second album (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Per WP:MUSIC and WP:CRYSTAL, forthcoming albums do not get their own articles until an actual title and full track listing have been officially announced by the artist or their record label. This was previously prodded for the same reason, but the prod notice was removed by an anon IP with no edit summary to explain their rationale. Delete until a properly-sourced article about this album, at a real title and including a confirmed track listing, can be written. Bearcat (talk) 17:00, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, per The Hammer. Merge any sourced info into the Kate Nash article until more is known. Esradekan Gibb "Talk" 21:52, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete — STOP.... Hammertime!!!! MuZemike 01:48, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:13, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Because I like it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adamc714 (talk • contribs) 06:06, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- See WP:ILIKEIT, sir. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 10:26, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —JD554 (talk) 11:09, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete/Merge: Fails WP:NALBUMS as there is insufficient information to keep, what little information there is could be merged into Kate Nash. --JD554 (talk) 11:09, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: notability not established, fails WP:NALBUMS, WP:CRYSTAL. JamesBurns (talk) 05:16, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete fails WP:NALBUMS A proper article can be established when there is confirmation about the album. This type of OR is just nonsensePaul75 (talk) 22:59, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:14, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Kirby Bliss Blanton[edit]
- Kirby Bliss Blanton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Does not appear to satisfy notability criteria for entertainers Jvr725 04:38, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:12, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:14, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Newcastle Stuff[edit]
- Newcastle Stuff (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
On notability watch since October 2008. The magazine web site has not been updated since the end of 2006 and the last edition of the magazine seems to be from late 2004. The page states that the magazine was to be re-established in April 2008 but there is no independent evidence that this occurred. In brief a short lived regional magazine with limited independent evidence of widespread circulation.Porturology (talk) 03:45, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: notability not established. JamesBurns (talk) 06:03, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:12, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:14, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Games on ice[edit]
- Games on ice (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Lacks notability and unreferenced Orrelly Man (talk) 17:30, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Besides being unreferenced, it is really not about the games but about how to play them. Steve Dufour (talk) 18:18, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom and above comment. KuyaBriBriTalk 15:31, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:12, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:13, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A.R.E. Accessories[edit]
- A.R.E. Accessories (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Unreferenced, unable to establish notability Oo7565 (talk) 02:47, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:11, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:13, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Metin Türkcan[edit]
- Metin Türkcan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Unreferenced BLP. No indication that this person meets WP:MUSICBIO. No clear target band for a redirect. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 01:52, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge with Pentagram (band). He seems to be a real person but not have sufficient independent activity to require his own page. --Carbon Rodney 15:12, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:11, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, lack of reliable, third-party, sources to show standalone notability, therefore not content to merge, per WP:MUSIC. Same goes for the other members of Mezarkabul; Murat İlkan, Hakan Utangaç, Tarkan Gözübüyük, and Cenk Ünnü. Esradekan Gibb "Talk" 04:07, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —JD554 (talk) 11:13, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. —JD554 (talk) 11:13, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: no reliable 3rd party sources WP:MUSICBIO. JamesBurns (talk) 05:28, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:13, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Stephane Ngoumou[edit]
- Stephane Ngoumou (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Does not meet wp:bio, references are either not reliable sources (note that Bleacher Report is "fan-driven journalism"), or contain significant coverage. Does not meet wp:athlete, hasn't even played in college yet, which wouldn't meet wp:athlete anyhow. Also has obvious crystal ball issues Omarcheeseboro (talk) 01:09, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:12, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2003 FINA Men's World Water Polo Championship Squads[edit]
- 2003 FINA Men's World Water Polo Championship Squads (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
As per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bandy World Championship 2007 squad lists, the grouping of groupings of people isn't notable in itself. Also WP:LISTCRUFT items 2,4 and 10 Benefix (talk) 19:52, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:08, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete WP:NOT#STATS Secret account 22:34, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:11, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Blind pew prime[edit]
- Blind pew prime (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Disputed prod, I tagged it as a Neologism. ViperSnake151 01:04, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete no sources for whrt seems to be a very trivial matter indeed--possibly there's a place for some of it in Enduro if there is any RS at all. DGG (talk) 03:39, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Unreferenced, very obscure term. Jargon, known only in the world of Enduro. Note that the sole external reference provided is a blog, and does not discuss the term blind pew prime. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 04:41, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I don't understand what this article is even about. The number is just a jersey number, right? Are these people somehow causing the event cancellations? Is the number chosen important or relevant? I tried to look it up, but this article is the sole google hit for "blind pew prime", a fact that speaks for itself about plausible notability. (Full disclosure: I previously tagged the article A1 no context, which seems to have vanished somewhere along the procedural path, but as an AfD is going, it makes most sense to finish it out.) gnfnrf (talk) 06:22, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Censorship in Thailand. MBisanz talk 02:04, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Boonsong Chaisingkananont[edit]
- Boonsong Chaisingkananont (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Stub article about a professor in Thailand who is allegedly a victim of poor human rights laws; while it's referenced, it seems to be a clear example of WP:BLP1E. His status as an assistant professor means that he's not notable simply for his academic position. Nyttend (talk) 01:02, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Not notable as an academic, but the notability is political. BLP iE does not apply, because the notability for the political event is related to his professional role and not incidental. DGG (talk) 03:41, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know where DGG got the idea that blp1e does not apply when the event is related to the person's profession. It seems to be a distinction without a difference. As currently written, this article is, in fact, a canonical wp:blp1e violation. The sources cited are not about the professor but about the controversy over the exam he administered and the Thai government's reaction. Per Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons, either sources must be found that are actually about the professor, or the article must be refactored and renamed to make clear that it covers the controversy and not the professor. 160.39.213.152 (talk) 17:55, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Not proven to be notable under WP:PROF, but there is quite enough on him and the controversy - he was accused of Lese majeste over exam questions and refuses to provide the students' exam papers. This type of article is not really what WP:BLP1E is for, which is much more for people incidentally, not integrally and actively involved in "an" event. (Prolonged situation and dispute are better descriptions here.) There is no "larger subject" and by his own decisions he has not "essentially remain[ed] a low-profile individual." Renaming is a kind of keep, not really for AfD, and in this case clumsy and not too sensible - it does not in any way protect anyone and is more appropriate for things like murders.John Z (talk) 20:51, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Like DGG, you are trying to draw an artificial distinction. It is simply not true that blp1e makes a distinction between "incidental" and "integral" involvement. Nor should it. Boxxy, Daniel Brandt, Allison Stokke, and Crystal Gail Mangum were involved "integrally" in their respective controversies. But those articles were removed because Wikipedia does not host biographies when the sources actually cover something other than a person. Contrary to your suggestion, there is a difference between having one's name in a Wikipedia article and having a Wikipedia article that purports to be one's biography. The potential for harm to the person is much greater in the latter case.
Turning to the article under discussion, it is not true that the sources are about him. Your description of the controversy itself belies your own conclusion that "there is quite enough on him" and that "there is no larger subject." Of course there is a larger subject here--it is the very subject you describe and refer to repeatedly in your comment as "the controversy" and the "prolonged situation and dispute." Unfortunately, no one's given a name to the controversy, and it naturally seems odd to you to give the article a title that's not an actual name. Nevertheless, the sources cover the controversy, not the man, so the Wikipedia article should cover the controversy, not the man. Likewise, your suggestion that he is not a "low-profile individual" is unsubstantiated and belied by the lack of sources about him. His refusal to cooperate with the authorities was not a self-promoting decision, and indeed, it didn't promote him, it engendered the controversy that is the actual subject of the cited sources. 160.39.213.152 (talk) 15:31, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Some good points, but what title the article should be under is secondary, "Boonsong Chaisingkananont" or the "Boonsong Chaisingkananont controversy". Since the articles would be identical, and his name would be a redirect to the controversy, from one point of view, the second is not "a larger subject," and the sources are about him. The wording of the second "cover the event, not the person" paragraph of BLP1E doesn't make too much sense in such no larger subject "event" = "person" articles. So I think the potential for harm is identical (and very small - more coverage of such controversies usually protects the individual). I don't care about the title, just that the actual content be kept, so we are probably not arguing about much, just saying the other is making artificial distinctions. I think a distinction between incidental and integral is not irrelevant to BLP1E - e.g. in "larger subject" and "low-profile" Self-promotion per se is not too relevant; assassins do not self-promote, but perform acts that tend to put them in the public eye, which they usually avoid. Chaisingkananont did not self-promote for its own sake , but acted in a way which he must have known could lead to publicity which in all likelihood he now welcomes. In either case, I don't think the person should be viewed by Wikipedia as desiring to remain or actually "remaining a low-profile individual."John Z (talk) 22:21, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Like DGG, you are trying to draw an artificial distinction. It is simply not true that blp1e makes a distinction between "incidental" and "integral" involvement. Nor should it. Boxxy, Daniel Brandt, Allison Stokke, and Crystal Gail Mangum were involved "integrally" in their respective controversies. But those articles were removed because Wikipedia does not host biographies when the sources actually cover something other than a person. Contrary to your suggestion, there is a difference between having one's name in a Wikipedia article and having a Wikipedia article that purports to be one's biography. The potential for harm to the person is much greater in the latter case.
- Comment In case this is confusing: my point in the last sentence is to say "if we find his recent political activity insufficient for the article, we should delete, because his position as a professor by itself isn't enough for notability". Simply trying to make sure that you know my opinion about the guy's notability before this recent controversy. Nyttend (talk) 19:18, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:12, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment People are notable for what they do. a mid;-level academic who takes on the King of Thailand is notable, if the newspapers pick it up,and so they did. One event is notable if the event is important. It's meant to let us discard trivia and tabloid style gossip. This is not. as for professional vs other: if an academic gets in trouble with the government there for something unrelated to his profession,it is likely to be less notable than when it involves such basic issues of academic freedom intrinsic to the profession. DGG (talk) 02:45, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Does not seem to pass notability requirements under WP:PROF or WP:BIO. DGG states that “a mid-level academic who takes on the King of Thailand is notable”. I agree, but only if he or she does that consistently over the years, and gains notability as a result of that. Otherwise, what we have is a “one event” incident, which is covered in WP:1E.--Eric Yurken (talk) 02:55, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If the biographical article is not kept, coverage of the event should be merged to Censorship in Thailand, Lèse majesté, or another appropriate target. --Paul_012 (talk) 09:00, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. —Paul_012 (talk) 09:00, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I agree with DGG's comment above and was going to say much the same. That the notability is related to his job is important, and notable cases like this involving academic freedom should be kept as a general principle. In fact he does satisfy WP:PROF - under #7 "The person has made substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity." ( or #4 "The person's academic work has made a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions.") BLP1E generally advises merging, not deletion, though it is frequently misapplied that way. Because he is notable for something integral to his lifework as an academic, it is illogical to use it here. If an academic or author writes one paper or book that is important enough, that can make him notable. Should we delete such articles? Should Chaisingkananont get accused of Lese majeste against a different king?John Z (talk) 17:23, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Whatever I think on other subjects, I don't want to see the guy get accused of Lese majeste against King Norodom Sihamoni or anyone else :-) Nyttend (talk) 19:52, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:04, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Moise Paul[edit]
- Moise Paul (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
None notible athlete, fails WP:BIO. Page is just for advertsing. Also important to note, this edit, original prod tag was removed by IP user, who didn't want the page deleted. Crash Underride 18:23, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I'm curious, since he participated in the National Championships at college level, would that satisfy the following criteria at WP:ATHLETE: "People who have competed at the highest amateur level of a sport, usually considered to mean the Olympic Games or World Championships." This isn't a vote. Just a question. Antivenin 18:49, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As far as I can tell, national championships don't meet the criteria. LinguistAtLarge • Msg 23:43, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 00:40, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, simply being a minor member of the national championship college football team isn't enough. There's plenty of precedent for average college football players being considered nonnotable, and I don't see any reason that he's otherwise than average. His position with the NFL doesn't affect anything, as he's clearly not played any NFL games, that being the criteria for inclusion. Finally: I don't see anything of the in-depth reliable coverage that would make anyone notable. Nyttend (talk) 01:05, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:04, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
HPANA[edit]
- HPANA (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable website. Has not been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works and has not won a major award. Delete for failing WP:WEB. Peephole (talk) 00:37, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Awards from USA Today and Movies.com establish the site's notability, so the references are not needed to establish it (only for fact verification). - Mgm|(talk) 11:33, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The site did not win an award from USA Today, it merely got mentioned as a "hot site",[23] among hundreds of other websites.[24] WP:WEB clearly states that a site needs to receive non-trivial coverage, which doesn't include "a brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of Internet addresses and site". The "Movies.com award" or whatever it is, is neither "well-known" nor "notable", as WP:WEB requires (I find only 444 google links [25] and no mention on Wikipedia). Also, no reference to the site actually winning the award is provided.--Peephole (talk) 14:50, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - There are twelve sources, so it passes the notability criteria. --Joshua Issac (talk) 21:46, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment And all sources are either 404's, don't even mention the site, provide only a passing mention or aren't reliable at all.--Peephole (talk) 22:16, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - At least two sources ([26] [27]) with more than just a passing mention. I have not checked all of them. --Joshua Issac (talk) 23:47, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The first provides us with only 2.5 sentences about the website and the second doesn't even talk about the site.--Peephole (talk) 01:18, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Sorry about the second source; I thought hpfansites was part of HPANA. Here is another source [28]. Also, what do you mean by "2.5 sentences"? --Joshua Issac (talk) 11:07, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I meant that's all the coverage the website gets in that one article. It's a good example of "trivial coverage", which isn't enough for establishing notability, you should read WP:NOTE. Your new source doesn't help either. It's just a comment from the author of the Harry Potter books on her own website. --Peephole (talk) 15:01, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - In the first source, there are two paragraphs about the site and it is mentioned in another paragraph after them. How is that trivial? And what's wrong with the source being a comment by the author of the website? It is not published by the subject (HPANA) and HPANA is not affiliated with the J.K. Rowling so it is an independent source. I have already read Wikipedia:Notability. --Joshua Issac (talk) 15:28, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment From WP:NOTE: "Sources," for notability purposes, should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally preferred. We need reliable, secondary sources to establish that J.K. Rowling saying stuff about a fan site is notable. The other source you provided, deals mainly with the webmaster of the site, not the site itself. The site itself gets only a description of two sentences and then there's half a sentence that mentions the shite was temporarily shut down. --Peephole (talk) 16:07, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I thought I was looking for sources which establish HPANA's notability, not the notability of "J.K. Rowling saying stuff about a fan site". If you want sources which talk about JKRowling.com see [29] and [30]. --Joshua Issac (talk) 16:33, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - No, you're not following, Rowling saying she likes a fan site does not in the least make the site notable, unless, there's major coverage of the act of Rowling giving recognition to that fan site, that might lend some notability to the subject.--Peephole (talk) 16:43, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - So if a newspaper, say the New York Times, talks about a website in detail, it cannot be used as evidence of notability (not evidence of the website being mentioned) unless there is another source saying that it was mentioned in the first source? --Joshua Issac (talk) 20:37, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment No. Again, Rowling's comments don't establish any notability. Articles in newspapers talking about the site (in detail) do establish notability. If the subject of an article in the NYTimes is Rowling's comments about the site, that might help establish notability, because it's an article in a major publication, not because of what Rowling said. --Peephole (talk) 20:50, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - "Articles in newspapers talking about the site (in detail) do establish notability" but the site being talked about on JKRowling.com (in detail) does not? According to which policy? --Joshua Issac (talk) 21:07, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Sorry about the second source; I thought hpfansites was part of HPANA. Here is another source [28]. Also, what do you mean by "2.5 sentences"? --Joshua Issac (talk) 11:07, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The first provides us with only 2.5 sentences about the website and the second doesn't even talk about the site.--Peephole (talk) 01:18, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - At least two sources ([26] [27]) with more than just a passing mention. I have not checked all of them. --Joshua Issac (talk) 23:47, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment And all sources are either 404's, don't even mention the site, provide only a passing mention or aren't reliable at all.--Peephole (talk) 22:16, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Here's a site recognising HPANA being awarded the fansite award [31]. It's a list of links, and is not being used to establish HPANA's notability but to show that the award is recognised. --Joshua Issac (talk) 21:23, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a .pdf of links to Harry Potter sites. What we're looking for is stuff like newspaper articles, providing more than trivial coverage (which excludes mere mentions by means of only a couple sentences). Read WP:WEB, WP:RS and WP:NOTE if you don't understand Wikipedia's notability guidelines. We're not looking for articles from other Harry Potter fansites or comments from Rowling (I just looked, and the award you're talking about isn't even an award, just some comments about several fansites).[32]-Peephole (talk) 21:33, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have already read those guidlines. I was telling the truth when I said I had, before. I believe JKRowling.com is a reliable source, since it is not affiliated with HPANA. I have posted it at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#JKRowling.com. The purpose of the PDF list was not to show that HPANA is notable (I already knew it was a list when I posted the link and I said " It's a list of links, and is not being used to establish HPANA's notability". It was to prove that the subject did win the award (it says it is an award in the PDF file). Of course, it (the list) probably won't pass the reliable sources critera, but if the message you were trying to get across was that JKRowling.com is not reliable, then you could have just said it. --Joshua Issac (talk) 22:33, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Here's a site recognising HPANA being awarded the fansite award [31]. It's a list of links, and is not being used to establish HPANA's notability but to show that the award is recognised. --Joshua Issac (talk) 21:23, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete An actual review of the given sources only shows fleeting mentions of one paragraph or a sentence. No source is dedicated to the site itself. If this is notable, then so is every old lady having a birthday mentioned by the Today show weatherman. Miami33139 (talk) 01:56, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and Redirect all of these to List of Harry Potter web sites. They're collectively notable, but, with the possible exception of MuggleNet and The Leaky Cauldron (website), aren't quite individually notable. Note that just about all of these sources talk about HPANA in the context of being one of several Potter sites. When you have something that falls just short of notability, a larger conglomerated article will be of higher quality and prevents the loss of worthwhile material. THF (talk) 23:09, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:11, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Xfuel, Xfuel4Gamers[edit]
- Xfuel, Xfuel4Gamers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Delete Unremarkable product. respectable website, but not many relevant google hits. -Zeus- [t|c] 20:09, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - lacks notability --Cybercobra (talk) 10:24, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 14:25, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Web search results seem to be limited to press releases. Marasmusine (talk) 00:24, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 00:39, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:10, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sipie[edit]
- Sipie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Not notable, doesn't claim to be notable. No major edits in more than 18 months, orphaned except for template transclusions. contested PROD. Miami33139 (talk) 00:29, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete no evidence of notability; lots of ghits but none in news. JJL (talk) 01:27, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Delete. I love Sipie. Unfortunately no on knows about it. Therefore, it's not notable :-( -Gr0ff (talk) 20:34, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I wish people would stick to the point in deletion nominations. None of "No major edits in more than 18 months, orphaned except for template transclusions. contested PROD" is in any way evidence that this should be deleted. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:51, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - default to delete. The discussion came to no particular consensus on this subject, with appeals by participants to both our various policies on the biographies of living persons and our guidelines on inclusion. Many of the participants saying that the individual was notable did not assert why, or indirectly supported the notion that the event and not the person should be covered, to the point of proposing a rename of the article. Other participants supported deletion on the grounds that notability, while existent, was marginal and believed the need to protect the subject of the article was more significant.
As such, this is a classic no consensus close, meaning no consensus to keep or to delete. There is sufficient precedent at AfD to suggest that a discussion on a biography of a living person may default to delete in the case of no consensus, and based on the discussion below this is the course that I have opted for. Fritzpoll (talk) 10:22, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fred Shapiro[edit]
- Fred Shapiro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Very weak delete. WP:BLP1E, combined with the fact that the subject of the article does not appear to want the article in Wikipedia. He's occasionally quoted in the media as an expert on white-collar experience in prison. Eight Google News hits for "Fred Shapiro" and "fraud" (don't confuse with Fred R. Shapiro, the Yale Law librarian when searching). THF (talk) 00:30, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Notable. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:31, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Notable, and I don't believe the subjects COI opinion of his bio matters. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 00:57, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. This guy has generated some comment in the press, which is true of most criminals that get convicted of serious crimes. But should every repentant criminal from Kinshasha to Kobe be included in Wikipedia? There are millions of them. Aymatth2 (talk) 03:29, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The criminal activity is sufficiently notable in the first place, and the subsequent activity significant, and the sources adequate. BLP 1E does not refer to important crimes, and the fraud, though minor by 2009 standards, was still a notable one of public significance. DGG (talk) 03:43, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Because I like it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adamc714 (talk • contribs) 06:04, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You might want to take a look at WP:ILIKEIT. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 06:56, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Appears to be notable to me. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 06:56, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete WP:BLP has a provision against prolonged victimization. I believe it is reasonable to extend this line of thought to prolonged criminalization of a person who is not well-known outside limited geographical area. This person is not in any way a celebrity so covering him with a focus on his crimes is a violation of his privacy. - Mgm|(talk) 11:27, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I would agree that in general, if crimes are not exceptional (these ones do not seem to be), the criminal should be allowed to get on with their life after serving their sentence. A Wikipedia article is a sort of perpetual punishment.
In this case though, given his choice of career, the subject may welcome the publicity. Don't know if that is an argument for or against keeping. From the history, this subject clearly wants to shake off the past. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:15, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I would agree that in general, if crimes are not exceptional (these ones do not seem to be), the criminal should be allowed to get on with their life after serving their sentence. A Wikipedia article is a sort of perpetual punishment.
- Keep The article provides ample reliable and verifiable sources about the individual to establish the clear claim of notability. The article's subject appears to be editing the article, and while I can sympathize with not wanting an article about oneself that includes negative information, the content here is factual, relevant and notable. Any details regarding his rehabilitation should also be included, as long as it is also supported by reliable and verifiable sources. Alansohn (talk) 16:36, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep Very clearly seems notable to me based on sources given alone...and I find this a very interesting/relevant subject to include in wikipedia. Cazort (talk) 20:27, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. It seems to me that Shapiro took the wrong approach to deleting his article. If he had simply turned it into an autobiography with a glowing set of encomiums with a lengthy resume and lots of wikipuffery, there would be many many calls to delete this. What happened to WP:NOTNEWS?—Preceding unsigned comment added by THF (talk • contribs) 20:36, 12 February 2009
- Keep Notable crook, repeated coverage over several decades. Ray (talk) 21:34, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete, per WP:BLP1E, WP:NOT#NEWS and the fact that although there is some notability, and maybe just about enough to meet the relevant guideline, most of it is based on coverage in one city and within a period of one or two years. Both the author and the subject of the article want it to be deleted, and I don't think it is essential for Wikipedia to have the article. —Snigbrook 14:04, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - per WP:BLP1E, primarily and per User:MacGyverMagic's rationale above - Alison ❤ 22:54, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment
cannot find any rationale from User:MacGyverMagic in this debatefound it. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 23:26, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment May a pit open in the ground and swallow all those who use BLP1E as a deletion rationale. Read the thing chaps; if a person is notable for one event, then the event is bloody well notable and the article ought to be moved there. Cover the event, not the person != cover nothing. Skomorokh 15:55, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think the event is notable, either. Wikipedia doesn't catalog every local scandal, no matter how many Philadelphia newspapers talked about it. THF (talk) 15:59, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not commenting on the specifics, but rather the general principle. If you feel that the event was not notable, then how do you reconcile that with citing a guideline regarding people notable for one event? Skomorokh 16:02, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I cited it for the proposition Wikipedia is not a newspaper. The bare fact that someone has been in the news does not in itself imply that they should be the subject of an encyclopedia entry., which seems perfectly applicable here. THF (talk) 17:52, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not commenting on the specifics, but rather the general principle. If you feel that the event was not notable, then how do you reconcile that with citing a guideline regarding people notable for one event? Skomorokh 16:02, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think the event is notable, either. Wikipedia doesn't catalog every local scandal, no matter how many Philadelphia newspapers talked about it. THF (talk) 15:59, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of lasting notability. Make it an article about the event, as a second choice. Wkdewey (talk) 16:09, 14 February 2009 (UTC)Keep (and revise) per Enric Naval Wkdewey (talk) 01:16, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]- Weak Delete - this is a borderline case, as the sources provided do give reasonable grounds for notability. However, on closer inspection, it seems that lasting notability wasn't achieved here - all the sources are from a relatively brief period in 1990-1991, and all from the same city. Therefore, given that he's only marginally notable, and apparently wants his article deleted, I think we should acquiesce to Mr. Shapiro's request on this one. Robofish (talk) 07:43, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and rename to event It doesn't look that he doesn't want the publicity, or that the event is not notable, or that the event only had local relevance. He appeared on the CNBC to explain his experience[33], and also at NYC law firm Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom [34], at a conference on the Georgia Society of Certified Public Accountants [35], USC's Marshall School of Business [36], Widener University School of Law [37] etc. It's obvious that the fraud is considered a notable event by many people in the financial world of the US, so let's apply BLP1E and rename to something like Biggest white-collar crime in Philadelphia and tweak the article adequately so it's not centered on the persona of Fred Shapiro. --Enric Naval (talk) 14:51, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Since there will clearly be no consensus to delete, the above suggestion by Enric Naval seems reasonable and in line with policy. Aymatth2 (talk) 15:16, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Cirt (talk) 00:10, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Pardus (computer game)[edit]
- Pardus (computer game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable web/browsergame. No evidence in the article of the topic having received significant coverage in multiple, reliable sources. Delete for failing WP:NOTE. Article was deleted once already for this reason. I searched Google and found nothing useful. Peephole (talk) 00:28, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. Peephole (talk) 00:32, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep There is one news source referenced...are there more we can find? A google search seems to suggest that the game is rather popular. I do think the size/extent of the page should be greatly reduced though. I doubt much of the material on it could be referenced in reliable sources. Cazort (talk) 20:36, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep - see http://www.pardus.at/index.php?section=about_coverage for lots of sources. --Joshua Issac (talk) 23:24, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Per Joshua Issac, Nom confuses notability with importance, there's further a risk of systemic bias due to Austrian origin. Enough RS exist to support article. MLauba (talk) 17:02, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and cleanup — notability easily established above. However, the article can use some cleanup and wikification to make it more encyclopedic in nature and better sourced via mentioned reliable sources. MuZemike 17:14, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: This game has an article at StrategyWiki:Pardus which contains a fair bit of gameplay info about the game. A lot of the gameplay section here should be either moved there, or reduced since it matches a lot of the other games in the genre and is not important. -- Prod (Talk) 20:31, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The article should also be renamed to Pardus (video game). SharkD (talk) 13:21, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Pardus (game) would be even better. --Joshua Issac (talk) 13:28, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The naming convention established at WikiProject Video games generally prefer "(video game)" over plain "(game)" and certainly over "(computer game)". MuZemike 17:36, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Pardus (game) would be even better. --Joshua Issac (talk) 13:28, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:03, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Stephen Fowler[edit]
- Keep but edit. This event is notable enough to make it to the main page of Yahoo.com and sent me (and I'm sure others) to search for it. Its robustness as a news story can only be ascertained in retrospect. The last two sections need to be severely edited or deleted as they betray bias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.104.241.114 (talk) 12:50, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Stephen Fowler (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Notability is fleeting and limited. Falls under WP:ONEEVENT. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 00:28, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree as to the "OneEvent" categorization. The extent of the blogosphere's reaction to Stephen Fowler, both in number of posts and breadth, says that this has become an Internet meme. Documenting a meme early, if nothing else than starting the Wiki stub, is not bad. This is equivalent to Joe the Plumber, a cultural icon that needs explanation when it is used around people that weren't exposed during the U.S. election 2008. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronbtni (talk • contribs) 00:45, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree. Redirect is a good option, but only after this process forms consensus on that resolution. Otherwise, it will be reverted endlessly. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 00:52, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Supporting Non-Deletion. OneEvent says "Cover the event, not the person." The article is covering _the event_ that _the person_ so offended such a broad swath of people that it/he created a significant activity in the blogosphere, and has impacted numerous organizations that have had to publicy assert their separation from him. The "Wife Swap" aspect is tertiary to the concept that an individual could so inflame the blogosphere by a 40 minute television apperance. --Ronbtni (talk) 01:01, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The entry should also cover a short biography, including milestones from his work in the US and abroad. His actions during "Wife Swap" episode does not completely characterize the person. His wife and her work should also be considered as a link. I believe his actions are very noteworthy in terms of people who compartmentalize their thinking about social good. An expanded entry can serve to advance discussion about education, military service, environmentalism, verbal abuse, elitist behavior, nutrition and many other topics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.142.130.35 (talk) 03:11, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and recreate as redirect, high coverage from blogs surely isn't what we mean by coverage from multiple reliable sources! This is a classic case of WP:BLP1, as noted by the nom: he is known simply for his appearance on an average syndicated TV show. There are plenty of cases of reality show contestants being seen as nonnotable at AFD, and I don't see how this guy (being a reality show participant, although not contestant) is really any different, even though reality show contestants tend to get some coverage. Again: nonnotable except for one thing = nonnotable = delete. Ultimately, the only thing that the blog coverage demonstrates is that plenty of people are talking about him in some form or another, so a redirect to the television show would be helpful. If it is thought helpful, we could merge the bit about the controversy into the Wifeswap article. Nyttend (talk) 01:12, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. This event is notable enough to make it to the main page of Yahoo.com . Stephen even issued a public apology for his behavior on the show, which in itself, is unusual and noteworthy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.216.9.107 (talk) 01:17, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and Redirect to a new section in the Wife Swap article. It is a notable event in the history of the show, but Fowler himself is not notable outside of his involvement with this episode. Any claim to notability is tied to the show for the time being, so it seems like the best solution unless Fowler does something in the near future to make him notable in his own right. Jvr725 01:34, 12 February 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jvr725 (talk • contribs)
- Delete Classic BLP territory. Offending people on television is not necessarily worth recording. unless he himself is notable independently, and a public figure, which I do not see, this is tabloid material. That he did it voluntarily does not make it any the more notable. I take a very limited view of the applicability of BLP 1 Event, but this is part of where I think it is needed. DGG (talk) 01:51, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep It appears he has been the subject of multiple media reports. [38] Seems to pass the definition of notability on any scale imaginable. Cardsplayer4life (talk) 03:37, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete (G10) as what appears to be a violation of the official biographies of living persons policy, notable or not. The lone source indicated backs absolutely none of the content listed in the article. I do not see anything about the attack website mentioned. I do not have a problem with recreation, provided more care is taken in properly sourcing the BLP reliably in not a way to cause harm onto the person. MuZemike 04:27, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]- Keep - Not G10 G10:"Pages that serve no purpose but to disparage or threaten their subject ". Page was created after I saw the original article in the local newspaper[1] about a firm having to explain that they didn't know who Stephen Fowler was, nor had any relationship with him. I went to Wikipedia to find out who could, how could, someone cause that kind of a disturbance. The article concisely answers that question, it is not an attack, threatening, nor disparaging, rather direct information. Additional references added.--Ronbtni (talk) 04:46, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, this is a clear case of WP:BLP1E and warrants a comment on the Wife Swap page, not a page of it's own. Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 13:10, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. First of all the page is not needed WP:BLP1E, second the page is not nearly neutral and/or sourced enough for such a page. Sander123 (talk) 14:16, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Change to a regular delete as this is still a BLP1E, but no longer a BLP violation as sources have been added. MuZemike 16:19, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. First of all, I don't see substantial sources other than blogs here, which indicates a possible lack of notability. But more importantly, WP:BLP1E does apply here, if it applies anywhere. Mangojuicetalk 19:10, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - (1) Note SF's local ABC afficate TV station now covering it, and (2) using "...other than blogs" dismissively as a notability criteria harks to old-age thinking along the lines of dismissing Wikipedia because it's "only online". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.160.119.159 (talk) 20:04, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Here's the local TV station coverage of it: [39]. That is a good source and changes a lot as far as notability is concerned. But it doesn't change the WP:BLP1E concerns. I maintain that this material should be covered, but not in a biography of Stephen Fowler; rather, at Wife Swap and Internet vigilantism. Mangojuicetalk 15:52, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirected. After learning more of your Wikiways and as the creator of the article I've redirected the article to Internet Vigilantism which addresses my initial question about how could some random guy cause such problems for legitimate organizations that had nothing to do with him. The Wife Swap/Reality TV aspect is immaterial to the topic. In editing the article to redirect, the AfD notice is no longer visible and I couldn't figure how to redirect and have the notice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronbtni (talk • contribs) 19:55, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, rewrite, re-evaluate. Perhaps you should be able to mark articles for re-evaluaton within, say, a year. It is extremely convenient as a current events guide. I don't think that we can tell at this time whether this will be a flash in the pan or not. The article should have more about his life, if it is going to be under his name, and it needs to be a little more neutral in its wording. I think that this at least belongs permanently in the article about the show, but right now it is bigger than that. With this episode, Wife Swap has created a parable for many of our social divides, and I believe that Fowler has provided fodder for those who disapprove of the things that he stands for. I recently saw a very negative book on liberals and the environment (Iain Murray, The Really Inconvenient Truths) and I wouldn't be astounded if Fowler is added to the paperback edition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LizRoot25A (talk • contribs) 21:21, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments If this is "an average syndicated TV show", I'm definitely staying without TV. I'm slightly puzzled by "the things that he stands for." (above post). What does he stand for, apart from making money and making a fool of himself in public? Perhaps the article ought to be expanded to tell more about him. On the other hand, I also feel that too much publicity is given to these 'reality TV' people (certain UK so-called newspapers contain little else), so perhaps a deletion would be good too. Decisions, decisions.... Peridon (talk) 21:57, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Response to above Comments I refer to things like his t-shirts and comments about the environment. He has already resigned from organizations and in his apology asked people not to judge the environmental movement by his behavior. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LizRoot25A (talk • contribs) 19:13, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
references[edit]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:09, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Caesar (2008 film)[edit]
- Caesar (2008 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Film by unknown directors, unknown production company. "Vintage Studio Productions" gets very few Google hits, none of them notable. No news hits, no notable actors, no third-party sources, nothing. Graymornings(talk) 00:24, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Non-notable film. Lugnuts (talk) 08:20, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. If this happens to make it big, get great reviews or gather a cult following, that's another story, but right now it's just another amateur film among others -- and a yet-unreleased amateur film at that. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 15:25, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 09:50, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete/Userfy without prejudice and allow return if receieves significant coverage. Production's website says it is only now making the festival circuit. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 08:50, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:02, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Boubaker polynomials[edit]
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:spa|username}} ; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}} . |
- Boubaker polynomials (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
The above-captioned article was created and, most importantly, deleted numerous times on a number of wikis (e.g. fr it, sv, de, pt) some time last year (non-notable). It also was the subject of massive sockpuppetry and spamming, particularly on :fr (see fr:Wikipedia:Vandalisme de longue durée/Mmbmmmbm for a detailed list and background story).
The article was lately re-pushed by Luoguozhang, who pretended to be editing from China. Well, a CU showed that it is not really the case, and the user was banned (again) both here and on fr. Then there was the off-wiki legal threat yesterday against the French admin who dealt with the AfD request. If this article gets deleted, I think it would help everyone that re-creation be blocked for the foreseeable future (this has been going on for a year now).
- Notability: H-index of Boubaker polynomials is about 2. Scholar has 17 occurences, 7 of which are actual peer-reviewed articles (the rest look like poster abstracts). All of them are the work of either one of two authors, K Boubaker or KB ben Mahmoud (both from Tunis U.). I looked into Scopus and found that these papers were cited only once or twice, presumably as a form of circular reference.
There has also been a submission to Planet maths with one of the references being... Wikipedia. The matter was reported to project maths but after initial acknowlegement that there were some papers out there the discussion forked into the massive sockpuppettry issue. Thus, I'm putting this back onto the AfD track.
This is not about the reality of these polynomials (which exist by the truckload) but rather the aggressive self-promotion of otherwise non-noted, non particularly notable work. Oops forgot to sign, thx A.R.Popo le Chien throw a bone 16:37, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Manually fixed nomination about 15 minutes ago. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:18, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Proposal: Trim, and merge to Chebyshev polynomials. Concur that they appear not to be used by anyone other than Boubaker. (They differ from the other similar polynomials, such as Lucas polynomials, by being linear combinations of the same Chebyshev polynomials, with only a scale factor of 2 to content with. Lucas polynomials would have to have an imaginary argument if they were to correspond.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:17, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete is acceptable, but merge and protect redirect seems a reasonable alternative. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:11, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete : it has been a long vandalism on wikipedia fr. Frankly, the notability is very very weak. All references point to this single author/website which is very active in communicating. I don't think that anyone has really written on these polynoms except this guy and a few of his friends. So delete in my opinion. Poppy (talk) 16:37, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete : no notability whatsoever. A show of vanity. Gede (talk) 19:12, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I don't usually take part in his kind of thing here -tho I did with the 2nd nomination (where an old vandal copiously attacked/defamed me under various accounts...)-, but this case is particular. It involves advertising/vandalizing/heavy-sockpuppeting/etc. on several Wikipedias. It's been going on for almost 2 years and even escalated to RL threats recently (tho there could be other occurences I'm not aware of). The article itself has no notability and will most probably be deleted, but due to the many aggravatings activities of the author, I'd like ask the page (and other probable titles) to be protected against recreation too. DarkoNeko x 20:07, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Waow ! First edition on Wikipedia and it happens to touch Boubaker polynomials. Welcome, Mr Twice2222. French Tourist (talk) 20:39, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The scholarly articles seem more than sufficient to demonstrate notability for me. Also, I'm against a merge into Chebyshev polynomials...that page is already too long. That said, I think this current page is pretty bad...lots of equations and not much prose. That needs to change. Cazort (talk) 20:35, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This is more difficult a choice than can be thought at first glance. It is useful to read again the comments made when the article was recreated and discussed at Project Mathematics. There was nobody to stand up strongly for it, but there were a few participants to underline (rightly) that these polynomials have been used in articles published in peer-reviewed journals. e.g. :"One of the necessary conditions for a paper to be accepted in a peer-reviewed journal is for one's peers to be sufficiently interested in the subject matter so as to believe it merits wide dissemination. (...) I don't see why this article should be in danger of being deleted.". The question might hence be : should Wikipedia blindly include everything that has been mentioned in peer-reviewed journals ? I think not, but this is a rather difficult question. I don't modify my position since previous nomination : accepting such blatant self-promotion puts Wikipedia at risk. French Tourist (talk) 20:35, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I am strongly against Arthur Rubin's proposal to merge with Chebyshev polynomials. While it is not completely obvious to determine whether Boubaker polynomials should be or not included in WP, if the answer happens to be "yes include them", they have not to be included in an important article, which would be a violation of WP:UNDUEWEIGHT : it's important not to give a casual reader of Chebyshev polynomials a hint that Boubaker polynomials are in some way at the same scale of importance than say Lucas polynomials. Hierarchising information is the main task in building encyclopedic content. French Tourist (talk) 20:35, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see how the (correct) impression that Boubaker polynomials are a trivial modification of Chebyshev polynomials gives undue weight. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:08, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak KeepI wrote the passage quoted by French Tourist above. I do not myself have any connection to or even any interest in Boubaker polynomials. (I have edited the article, but all of my edits involved reformatting the references, in particular making sure that all authors' names appeared in each reference.) I know relatively little about the sock-puppetry issues, but if anything that seems to be a point in my favor since I think that those issues are quite distinct from this AfD. To answer French Tourist's question: yes, I think that any topic in the mathematical sciences that is cited by at least 10 different papers in peer-reviewed journals has sufficient notability for wikipedia. (More precisely I am less uncomfortable with this statement than with its negation.) I don't see what is gained by deleting this article. Moreover, I completely agree that including this material in the article on Chebyshev polynomials would be giving the topic undue weight. Plclark (talk) 21:13, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]- I am retracting the above "weak keep" recommendation. I now feel that the present circumstances are so unusual so as to not be well-covered by general policy discussions. I still do think that it would be possible to have an article on a concept that most qualified mathematicians agree is a trivial variant on another mathematical concept, provided that the variant has seemed useful to practitioners in a different field. (For instance the mathematical content of the Hardy-Weinberg law is simply .) But I think there is something strange (and possibly deceptive) going on in the Boubaker polynomial related publications. Plclark (talk) 00:48, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The Hardy–Weinberg law does not say ONLY that. It also says the relevant Markov chain converges to equilibrium in just one step. Michael Hardy (talk) 07:07, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
KeepWeak keepKeep The notability standards are not intended to judge whether the scholarly work is worthwhile, just whether it is mentioned sufficiently often and specifically enough in reliable sources. For mathematics articles, 10 articles in peer reviewed journals is usually considered sufficient. Even if they are just a trivial modification of Chebyshev polynomials, the fact that so many referees and editors have agreed to publish the material is what we should be considering, not our own viewpoint on the worthiness of the mathematics or on the conduct of its authors. We do not and should not care whether this is good scholarly work; we should only concern ourselves with whether reliable sources have judged it to be worthy of publishing. As an example of a trivial modification that actually has some scholarly dignity, see fundamental pair of periods which is very little more than graphing SL(2,Z) from a strict point of view. We do not have the duty or the responsibility to judge the merit of the original research; we only have the duty of organizing the judgements of the journal editors and textbook authors. JackSchmidt (talk) 22:02, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]- Comment Ten articles in peer-reviewed journals would normally be sufficient notability, but they're all by Boubaker himself, and Google scholar only finds 7, according to the nominator. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:08, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment As we have been lied to several times about the authorship of these papers, it does seem believable that the papers themselves were published under false pretenses. I have therefore changed from Keep to Weak Keep. 10 independent, peer reviewed articles, published in reliable, scholarly journals without the likelihood of fraud are clearly sufficient to establish notability of a mathematical concept, no matter who the authors or what the name of the concept. However, it is no longer clear that this is the case. JackSchmidt (talk) 23:37, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Looking over the bibliography, WT:Articles for deletion/Boubaker polynomials (3rd nomination)#Reference list, I have managed to do cursory verification of enough sources from enough respectable journals. I read through a few of the articles and while they don't strike me as nobel prize work, they also do not strike me as fraud or trickery, etc. I think we can assume that (some of) the articles cited are just fine. For me, there are enough significant coverage in independently edited and published reliable sources to satisfy the notability guideline. JackSchmidt (talk) 03:08, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment As we have been lied to several times about the authorship of these papers, it does seem believable that the papers themselves were published under false pretenses. I have therefore changed from Keep to Weak Keep. 10 independent, peer reviewed articles, published in reliable, scholarly journals without the likelihood of fraud are clearly sufficient to establish notability of a mathematical concept, no matter who the authors or what the name of the concept. However, it is no longer clear that this is the case. JackSchmidt (talk) 23:37, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Ten articles in peer-reviewed journals would normally be sufficient notability, but they're all by Boubaker himself, and Google scholar only finds 7, according to the nominator. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:08, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mr JackSmith, as you are the single voter to clearly honestly and independently take position: (10 independent, peer reviewed articles, published in reliable, scholarly journals without the likelihood of fraud are clearly sufficient to establish notability of a mathematical concept) , and in refernce to your own confirmation : we give you the scoop of th 30 and not 10 independent, peer reviewed articles -take your time to verify each one , one by one...!!!<ad by your honour...none dare lying to you...>
1. " ENHANCEMENT OF PYROLYSIS SPRAY PERFORMANCE USING THERMAL TIME-RESPONSE TO PRECURSOR UNIFORM DEPOSITION ", European Physical Journal-Applied Physics, EPJAP , Vol. 37 pp.105-109 (2007).
2. " A CONTINUOUS SOLUTION TO HEAT EQUATION USING COMBINED DIRICHLET-NEWMAN BOUNDARY CONDITIONS - CASE OF SPRAY PYROLYSIS TECHNIQUE DEPOSITED NON-UNIFORM LAYER ", Journal of Energy heat and Mass transfer, Vol. 29(1) pp. 13-25 (2007).
3. " A STURM-LIOUVILLE SHAPED CHARACTERISTIC DIFFERENTIAL EQUATION AS A GUIDE TO ESTAB-LISH A QUASI-POLYNOMIAL EXPRESSION TO THE BOUBAKER POLYNOMIALS ", Journal of Differential Equations and C.P. Vol. 2, pp. 117-133 (2007).
4. " ON MODIFIED BOUBAKER POLYNOMIALS: SOME DIFFERENTIAL AND ANALYTICAL PROPERTIES OF THE NEW POLYNOMIALS ISSUED FROM AN ATTEMPT FOR SOLVING BI-VARIED HEAT EQUATION ", Journal of Trends in Applied Science Research, Vol. 2(6) pp. 540-544 (2007).
5. " THE BOUBAKER POLYNOMIALS, A NEW FUNCTION CLASS FOR SOLVING BI-VARIED SECOND ORDER DIFFERENTIAL EQUATIONS ", F. E. Journal of Applied Mathematics, Vol.31(3) pp. 299 - 320 (2008).
6. " ESTABLISHMENT OF AN ORDINARY GENERATING FUNCTION AND A CHRISTOFFEL-DARBOUX TYPE FIRST-ORDER DIFFERENTIAL EQUATION FOR THE HEAT EQUATION RELATED BOUBAKER-TURKI POLYNOMIALS ", Journal of Differential Equations and C.P. Vol. 1 pp. 51-66 (2008).
7. “ A SOLUTION TO BLOCH NMR FLOW EQUATIONS FOR THE ANALYSIS OF HOMODYNAMIC FUNCTIONS OF BLOOD FLOW SYSTEM USING M-BOUBAKER POLYNOMIALS ", International Journal of Current Applied Physics, Vol. 9 (1), pp. 278-283 (2009).
8. " HEAT TRANSFER SRAY MODEL: AN IMPROVED THERMAL – TIME RESPONSE TO UNIFORM LAYER DEPOSIT USING BESSEL AND BOUBAKER POLYNOMIALS ", International Journal of Current Applied Physics, Volume 9, Issue 3, May 2009, Pages 622-624
9. " AN ATTEMPT TO SOLVE THE HEAT TRANSFER EQUATION IN A MODEL OF PYROLYSIS SPRAY USING 4q-ORDER m-BOUBAKER POLYNOMIALS ", Int. Journal of Heat and Technology, Vol.26(1) pp. 49-53 (2008).
10. " ESTABLISHMENT OF A HOMOGENEOUS CHARACTERISTIC DIFFERENTIAL EQUATION FOR THE APPLIED PHYSICS CANONICAL FORMULATIONS-RELATED BOUBAKER POLYNOMIALS ", Journal of Analysis and Computation, Accepted, Vol. 4(2) In Press (2008).
11. " INVESTIGATION OF THERMAL DIFFUSIVITY-MICROHARDNESS CORRELATION EXTENDED TO SURFACE-NITRURED STEEL USING BOUBAKER POLYNOMIALS EXPANSION ", Modern Physics Letters B, Volume: 22, Issue: 29 (2008) pp. 2893 – 2907
12. " A BOUBAKER-TURKI POLYNOMIALS SOLUTION TO PANCREATIC ISLET BLOOD FLOW BIOPHYSICAL EQUATIONS IN THE CASE OF A PRESET MONITORED SPATIAL ROTATING FIELD", Research & Reviews in BioSciences ٍVolume 2, (1)pp. 78-81 (2008).
13. " ESTABLISHMENT OF A GENERATING FUNCTION AND A CHEBYSHEV DEPENDENT INHOMOGENEOUS SECOND ORDER DIFFERENTIAL EQUATION FOR THE HEAT EQUATION RELATED m-BOUBAKER POLYNOMIALS ", International Journal of Applications and Applied Mathematics (AAM) , Vol. 3, No. 2 (December 2008) pp. 329 – 336
14. " A NEW POLYNOMIAL SEQUENCE AS A GUIDE TO NUMERICAL SOLUTIONS FOR APPLIED-PHYSICS-RELATED PARTIAL DIFFERENTIAL EQUATIONS UNDER DIRICHLET-NEWMAN-TYPE EXOGENOUS BOUNDARY CONDITIONS ", Numerical Methods for Partial Differential Equations NMPDE, DOI: 10.1002/num.20374, Accepted: 2 April , Published Online: 10 Jul, 008 (2008).
15. " A NEW ANALYTIC EXPRESSION AS A GUIDE TO ESTABLISH A CHARACTERISTIC DIFFERENTIAL EQUATION TO THE HEAT EQUATION-RELATED BOUBAKER POLYNOMIALS ", International Journal of Applied Mathematics , Vol.21 No. 2 pp. 171-177 (2008).
16. " A BOUBAKER POLYNOMIALS SOLUTION TO HEAT EQUATION FOR MONITORING A3 POINT EVOLUTION DURING RESISTANCE SPOT WELDING ", International Journal of Heat and Technology, 26(2) (2008) pp. 141-146.
17. "A DYNAMICAL MODEL FOR INVESTIGATION OF A3 POINT MAXIMAL SPATIAL EVOLUTION DURING RESISTANCE SPOT WELDING USING BOUBAKER POLYNOMIALS", European Physical Journal-Applied Physic, EPJAP , Vol. 44, 317-322 (2008)
18. " NEW TERNARY COMPOUNDS STOECHIOMETRY-LINKED THERMAL BEHAVIOUR OPTIMISATION USING BOUBAKER POLYNOMIALS ", Journal of Alloys and Compounds, Accepted: 18 September (2008); DOI:10.1016/j.jallcom.2008.09.148
19. " STUDY OF TEMPERATURE 3D PROFILE DURING WELD HEATING PHASE USING BOUBAKER POLYNOMIALS EXPANSION ", Thermochimica acta, Volume 482, Issues 1-2, (15 January 2009) 8-11
20. "MORPHOLOGICAL AND THERMAL PROPERTIES OF -SnS2 SPRAYED FILMS USING BOUBAKER POLYNOMIALS EXPANSION", Journal of Alloys and Compounds, Accepted: 2 October (2008).
22. "LIMIT AND UNIQUENESS OF THE BOUBAKER-ZHAO POLYNOMIALS SINGLE IMAGINARY ROOT SEQUENCE", International Journal of Mathematics and Computation Vol. 1, No. N09, (2008) 13–16
23. " ESTABLISHMENT OF A GENERATING FUNCTION AND A CHEBYSHEV-LIKE DIFFERENTIAL EQUATION FOR THE HEAT EQUATION RELATED M-BOUBAKER POLYNOMIALS ", Bulletin of Pure and Applied Mathematics Accepted: 28 July (2008) To appear in Vol. 3, No.1, June 2009.
24. " THE OPTOTHERMAL EXPANSIVITY: A BOUBAKER POLYNOMIALS EXPANSION-RELATED PAPRAMETER FOR OTIMIZING PV-T HYBRID SOLAR CELLS FUNCTIONAL MATERIALS", Functional Materials Letter Accepted: 30 October (2008).
25. " EXPERIMENTAL AND THEORETICAL COOLING VELOCITY PROFILE INSIDE LASER WELDED METALS USING KEYHOLE APPROXIMATION AND BOUBAKER POLYNOMIALS EXPANSION ", Journal of Thermal Analysis and Calorimetry , Accepted Jan. 2009, Ref: No. JTAC-D-08-00021R1
26. " A SOLUTION THE HEAT TRANSFER EQUATION INSIDE HYDROGEN CRYOGENIC VESSELS USING BOUBAKER-ZHAO POLYNOMIALS ", Cryogenics, Paper N° CRYOGENICS-D-08-00142, Accepted (2008).
27. " SOME NEW PROPERTIES OF THE APPLIED-PHYSICS RELATED BOUBAKER POLYNOMIALS , Journal of Differential Equations and C.P. Volume 1 (2009) pp.7-19.
28. " THE 3D AMLOUK-BOUBAKER EXPANSIVITY-ENERGY GAP-VICKERS HARDNESS ABACUS: A NEW TOOL FOR OTIMIZING SEMICONDUCTOR THIN FILM MATERIALS", Materials Letters Accepted: Jan 21 (2009).[40]
29. " ON THE EARLIEST DEFINITION OF THE BOUBAKER POLYNOMIALS IN THE PAPER: ENHANCEMENT OF PYROLYSIS SPRAY DISPOSAL PERFORMANCE USING THERMAL TIME-RESPONSE TO PRECURSOR UNIFORM DEPOSITION (COMMENT)", European Physical Journal-Applied Physic, EPJAP , Accepted: Jan 19(2009).[41]
30. " LEGENDRE, BESSEL AND BOUBAKER POLYNOMIALS THEORETICAL EXPRESSIONS OF LOW TEMPERATURE PROFILE IN A PYROLYSIS SPRAY MODEL: CASE OF GAUSSIAN DEPOSITED LAYER ", Modern Physics Letters B, Accepted: Dec.29 (2008).
- Comment User Arthur Rubin repeated twice "but they're all by Boubaker himself", it is not the matter of this 'Boubaker' but of the polynomials ! let's hope User Arthur Rubin was only not-informed. For his clearence, can he answer to the question: what about the following ????
- , it is not the matter of this 'Boubaker' but of the polynomials. Indeed. the polynomial that this "Boubaker" desesperatly tries to make us believe that they are known and revelvant. Even tho he has to create most of the "proof" of that supposed fact himself. DarkoNeko x 09:20, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment User Arthur Rubin repeated twice "but they're all by Boubaker himself", it is not the matter of this 'Boubaker' but of the polynomials ! let's hope User Arthur Rubin was only not-informed. For his clearence, can he answer to the question: what about the following ????
Neil J. A. Sloane, Triangle read by rows of coefficients of Boubaker polynomial B_n(x) in order of decreasing exponentsA138034
Roger L. Bagula and Gary Adamson, Triangle of coefficients of Recursive Polynomials for Boubaker polynomials, OEIS (Encyclopedia of Integer SequencesA137276
Roger L. Bagula, Triangle of coefficients of Boubaker recursive polynomials with even powers transformed as x->Sqrt[y]A137289 Neil J. A. Sloane and R. J. Mathar, Irregular triangle read by rows of coefficients of Boubaker polynomial B_n(x) in order of decreasing exponents A135936
S. Slama. A Boubaker Polynomials Solution to Heat Equation for Monitoring A3 Point Evolution During Resistance Spot Welding,. International Journal of Heat and Technology [ISSN: 0392-8764, by EDIZIONI ETS] Volume 26(2) (2008) pages:141-146.
Roger L. Bagula, Differentiation of:A135929 Triangle read by rows: row n gives coefficients of Differential Boubaker polynomial P(x,n) in order of decreasing exponents, A136255
A. Bannour, Triangle read by rows: row n gives coefficients of the modified Boubaker polynomial mB_n(X) in order of decreasing exponents, OEIS (Encyclopedia of Integer Sequences), A138476A138476
Roger L. Bagula, Integral form of A135929 :Triangle read by rows: row n gives coefficients of Integral form of Boubaker polynomial B_n(x) in order of decreasing exponentsA136256
J. Ganouchi. A attempt to solve the heat transfer equation in a model of pyrolysis spray using 4q-order m-Boubaker polynomials. International Journal of Heat and Technology [ISSN: 0392-8764, by EDIZIONI ETS] Volume: 26 (2008) pages: 49-53.
Ting Gang-Zhao, B. Ben Mahmoud, M. A. Toumi, O. P. Faromika, M. Dada, O. B. Awojoyogbe, J. Magnuson and F. Lin (2009). Some new Properties of the Applied-physics Related Boubaker Polynomials. Differential Equations and Control Processes 1. Ting ganZ (talk) 22:43, 12 February 2009 (UTC) — Ting ganZ (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Comment This is the key point to agree on in my opinion. If peer-reviewed respectable journals are ok with Boubaker's embarassing self-promotion, then why are we not ok with recording it? The wikipedia article is very clear about the shameless self-promotion involved and stands as a public place where everyone can come to laugh and marvel at such a man and such a collection of academics that refereed and published it. Note that Boubaker did not publish these papers (nor even author *all* of them, just most), so that the judgement of their notability is not made by him, but by the journals. JackSchmidt (talk) 22:23, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I was reporting the nominator's view that all the references were by Boubaker. However, thinking it over, we should not use a count of peer-reviewed papers as evidence of notability, but only of accuracy. As a sometime-reviewer myself, I wouldn't consider the question of whether a concept is notable in considering whether to accept a paper about it. The number of different authors who are not coauthors with Boubaker might be an indication of notability, which this concept fails miserably. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:47, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Rubin's comment is squarely against wikipedia policy, and an AfD does not seem to be the appropriate place for a policy discussion. Moreover it is also decidedly against my experience: I believe the job of a referee is to weigh in on the notability and importance of the work presented in the paper. Most instructions to referees contain explicit directives to this effect, and many point out that this is even more important than verifying the correctness of the results presented. In my opinion it would be a major and unwise change of course to attempt to overrule determinations of notability by peer (i.e., subject area expert) reviewers. Plclark (talk) 02:10, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I disagree. The reviewer's job is not to ascertain notability but to (i) check the quality of the work and (ii) ascertain its originality. Notability is irrelevant, there's about 800 thousand scientific articles published every year in the Life Sciences alone, I doubt every single one of them is notable: what matters is the impact factor (which, for Boubaker et al., is very low). Popo le Chien throw a bone 08:02, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Rubin's comment is squarely against wikipedia policy, and an AfD does not seem to be the appropriate place for a policy discussion. Moreover it is also decidedly against my experience: I believe the job of a referee is to weigh in on the notability and importance of the work presented in the paper. Most instructions to referees contain explicit directives to this effect, and many point out that this is even more important than verifying the correctness of the results presented. In my opinion it would be a major and unwise change of course to attempt to overrule determinations of notability by peer (i.e., subject area expert) reviewers. Plclark (talk) 02:10, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I was reporting the nominator's view that all the references were by Boubaker. However, thinking it over, we should not use a count of peer-reviewed papers as evidence of notability, but only of accuracy. As a sometime-reviewer myself, I wouldn't consider the question of whether a concept is notable in considering whether to accept a paper about it. The number of different authors who are not coauthors with Boubaker might be an indication of notability, which this concept fails miserably. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:47, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This is the key point to agree on in my opinion. If peer-reviewed respectable journals are ok with Boubaker's embarassing self-promotion, then why are we not ok with recording it? The wikipedia article is very clear about the shameless self-promotion involved and stands as a public place where everyone can come to laugh and marvel at such a man and such a collection of academics that refereed and published it. Note that Boubaker did not publish these papers (nor even author *all* of them, just most), so that the judgement of their notability is not made by him, but by the journals. JackSchmidt (talk) 22:23, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment User Arthur Rubin confirms he 'was reporting the nominator's view' Ok, but his own opinion was Delete is acceptable ?! The nominator him self does not deny notability but evokes other problems ...Now the question stands fot this user: the polynomials are, according to WP rules and to the number of contributors -from America ,china, Romania,Rwanda , Uzbezkistan, Nigeria ... - NOTABLE or NOT ?? his answer to this question will really be a key for the debate ...
- Keep according to WP rules What is strange in this discussion is that the AFD establisher Popo le chien is himself admitting the NOTABLITY, So what is the issue??
In fact, if there are problems linked to sockpuppetry, racism, xenophobia, extra-wiki problems, they might be solved away from this frame.
Any one can ‘say ‘ these polynomials are not notable , but WIKIPEDIA has an expressive, written and clear rule for that!! (see the passage from http:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_Notability of special functions)
Examples Polynomials, Mathematical identities etc.
The questions to ask (for NOTABILITY) are:
1. Have they been the main subject of (at least two) published papers, or chapters in a book, or an entire book about this sequence?
2. Are they cited in MathWorld or PlanetMath ?
3. Are they cited in in the Online Encyclopedia of Integer Sequences (OEIS)?
4. Do they have a demonstrated (and/or) published expression?
An affirmative answer to one these questions indicates that the polynomials or mathematical identities are notable for Wikipedia to have an article about it.
So, any contributer should first answer to the simple question: Do these polynomials respond to these (above 1. 2. 3. &4) written rule of notability ??
As long as the AFD is about notability, any extra debate should be held out of this scientific field. i e. for merging, the article is enough long ans self-standing, and merging it with Chebyshev (because there is a link) will lead to merging Dickson , Lucas an tens of other polynomials. Since the debate is about notability, this issue in not adequate ( i.e. if notability is not established, how to merge ??) Ting ganZ (talk) 22:04, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment
The following section which explains the links to other polynomials has been erased from the article (by user:Arthur Rubin,24h earlier with the mention WRONG !!!)
Links to other polynomials[edit]
- Like Lucas polynomials , Dickson polynomials and Fibonacci polynomials , Boubaker polynomials are related to Chebyshev polynomials Tn and Un by:
- The Boubaker polynomials are also related to the Dickson polynomials Dn by:
The same user DELETED yestrday a part of other pages that refers to the article. In such way, users will be wrongly informed. Moreover,discrediting OEIS as a source of notability, although one could make a good case for absence from OEIS being a good source for absence of notability is equivalent to discrediting eminent and world-wide known and awarded scientists who worked on boubaker polynomials (i.e. Neil J. A. Sloane,A. Bannour... see refernces above)
user:Arthur Rubin is doing his best to discretise the Boubaker polynomials (up to descretise internationnaly recognized institutions and to recall???? a discussion at WT:MATH where OEIS was discredited ), that is his right, but things must be carried out in respect to WP rules and scientist's reputation. Ting ganZ (talk) 07:23, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The issue of the behavior of the sockpuppets is quite serious, but they have been blocked. Their continued disruptive editing on the article is grounds for a community ban from this topic. However, protecting the article from conflict of interests and disruptive editing is very different from deleting it. Also, the inclusion criteria on frwiki and enwiki are different, and frwiki need not follow our decision at all (from my brief observations, frwiki consensus is clear to delete). JackSchmidt (talk) 22:02, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment those notability criteria were added to the notability page by an anonymous contributor, and do not reflect any discussion. In fact, I recall a discussion at WT:MATH where OEIS specifically was discredited as a source of notability, although one could make a good case for absence from OEIS being a good source for absence of notability. MathWorld isn't even considered evidence of accuracy. PlanetMath is a Wiki; for the most part, it's named in guidelines becasue it has a compatable GDFL with Wikipedia, so we may copy material from it. Generally, a peer-reviewed book on the subject might be considered evidence of notability, but chapters of peer-reviewed books, and even a large number of (unreferenced) papers on the subject, should rationally not be so considered. But neither the list of claimed notability criteria nor this comment should be on this page. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:27, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. These "Boubaker polynomials" B(2x) are nothing more than the trivial linear combination 4Un(x) − 6Tn(x) of Chebyshev polynomials. Having an article on these is like having an article titled "Finknottle function" about 4sin(x) − 6cos(x). Mathscinet gives exactly one hit: a paper by Boubaker.r.e.b. (talk) 04:31, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment : In the section removed by user:Arthur Rubin (see above); User R.e.b. can see he was mis-informed: Dickson polynomials are linked to Chebychev by a simple 2-digit formula!Dn(2x) =2Tn(x) !! so :Having an article on Dickson polynomials is also like having an article titled "Finknottle function" ?? . Oppositely, a notable Polynomial MUST have links to other notable that is trivial Ting ganZ (talk) 07:23, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per R.e.b. Normally I would think a mathematical subject with published papers by three separate parties (Boubaker himself, Slama, and Ganouchi; I don't count the OEIS entries) would be enough for a keep. But in this case we appear to be party to an attempt by Boubaker to promote himself inappropriately as the discoverer of something that he didn't discover. WP:NPOV says that this is too minor a contribution to be included in an article on as important and broadly studied a topic as Chebyshev polynomial, but it also says that we shouldn't allow ourselves to be party to this kind of self-promotion: we should report neutrally on what contribution is made to mathematics by these polynomials. Or in other words, we should say that they are only a trivial combination of Chebyshev polynomials and leave it at that. But a one-sentence article saying that these polynomials are 4U-6T, renamed in a self-promoting way by Boubaker, wouldn't make a satisfactory encyclopedia article, so I think it's best in this case just to delete. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:36, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Due to the rather special circumstances around this article, I underline that in this discussion, everything should be fact-checked. I see you consider as significant the papers of 2008 by Slama and Ganouchi (correct spelling seems to be Ghanouchi). I could not find on the web the tables of contents of International Journal of Heat and Technology for 2008 - by some unhappy circumstance, they have not been refreshed since 2007 on their website [42]. We should not forget that socks of Mr B. editing the article had willingly "forgotten" the name of Boubaker in at least one author list, as results from some independant fact-checking by Jitse Niesen [43]. Hence I fear your naive assertion according to which we know until now papers published by three "independent parties" should not be used as a decision basis unless previously thoroughly checked. Assuming WP:GOODFAITH from KB sockpuppets would not be very reasonable. (As far as I could search myself, Slama coauthored very recently a paper with Boubaker : [44] I have no access to its contents, but reading a line of its bibliography through Google, it seems that the 2008 paper to be found pp. 49-53 in International Journal of Heat Transfer and Technology is coauthored by J. Ghanouchi, H. Labiadh and K. Boubaker). French Tourist (talk) 09:31, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You have a good point. Since we have seen such a strong willingness to use sockpuppets here, how are we to believe that the authors of these supposedly independent papers are also not sockpuppets? That only strengthens my feeling that we should delete. —David Eppstein (talk) 14:51, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Due to the rather special circumstances around this article, I underline that in this discussion, everything should be fact-checked. I see you consider as significant the papers of 2008 by Slama and Ganouchi (correct spelling seems to be Ghanouchi). I could not find on the web the tables of contents of International Journal of Heat and Technology for 2008 - by some unhappy circumstance, they have not been refreshed since 2007 on their website [42]. We should not forget that socks of Mr B. editing the article had willingly "forgotten" the name of Boubaker in at least one author list, as results from some independant fact-checking by Jitse Niesen [43]. Hence I fear your naive assertion according to which we know until now papers published by three "independent parties" should not be used as a decision basis unless previously thoroughly checked. Assuming WP:GOODFAITH from KB sockpuppets would not be very reasonable. (As far as I could search myself, Slama coauthored very recently a paper with Boubaker : [44] I have no access to its contents, but reading a line of its bibliography through Google, it seems that the 2008 paper to be found pp. 49-53 in International Journal of Heat Transfer and Technology is coauthored by J. Ghanouchi, H. Labiadh and K. Boubaker). French Tourist (talk) 09:31, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete : I agree with Popo le Chien and French Tourist. DocteurCosmos (talk) 07:28, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The AFD is about Notability of a mathematic item, not about the notion of Notability (which can be discussed elsewhere)
Some hits could give answer to this :
---To the question :“Have they been the main subject of (at least two) published papers, or chapters in a book, or an entire book about this sequence?
The answer is :
In Science-direct (20 hits, only peer reviewed publications) [45]
In Google Scholar (17 hits, only peer reviewed publications, oppositely to 7 as it was wrongly confirmed by the AFD nominator Popo_Le_Chien) ) (20 hits, only peer reviewed publications) [46]
---To the question: Are they cited in MathWorld or PlanetMath ? The answer is :
In PlanetMath (3 pages, with no-mention of WIKEPEDIA !! , oppositely to what ‘informed’ the AFD nominator Popo_Le_Chien) [47]
---To the question :Are they cited in the Online Encyclopedia of Integer Sequences (OEIS)? The answer is :
17 hits for Dickson Polynomials [48]
13 hits for Boubaker Polynomials [49]
---To the question :Do they have a demonstrated (and/or) published expression?
The answer is : Yes see the article itself. Gilles mecrire (talk) 09:10, 13 February 2009 (UTC) — Gilles mecrire (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Comment. This page is becoming a sock-puppets fest (User:Ting ganZ, user:Twice2222, user:Gilles mecrire that last one being a reference to fr:user:GilleC, a french sysop that that guy harassed in RL recently, and more to come probably) like the 2nd nomination was. This is unsightly. DarkoNeko x 09:25, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. (Should it be possible to semi-protect the page?) First of all, here are a few explanations. I am not very familiar with the various procedures here on en:, as my mother-wiki is fr:. I mostly come here from time to time for interwikis or light corrections, as part of my activities of creation of categories on fr:. I will not therefore express myself in favor or against the deletion of the article. However, I have seen things here I feel the need to comment.
- The fact that IRL, somebody writing from Tunisia has launched what can be interpreted as harassment and smear campaign against me, involving e-mails to professional contacts of mine, has in fact nothing to do with the conservation or deletion of this article. Those are two distinct things. That is what I have already written on the french Administrators' noticeboard. This is a matter of content, and we are not speaking here about the behaviour of this person, but about the content of the article.
- In the same line of thought, the "sock show" Future Perfect at Sunrise has mentionned should not be taken into account, unless it is clear that it somehow gives a false impression of notability of these polynomials. I mean the multiplication of sock-puppets has to be ignored and gives no clue about the real notability of the subject of the article. But it gives a bad impression about the article creator, and that impression should have no influence on the final result. Let's focus on the facts that are exposed, not on the person who writes them.
- Every polynomial family is a linear combination of Chebyshev polynomial. This is normal, they form a basis. This should not be generally regarded as a criterium for non-notability. However, in this case, the linear combination is very trivial.
- As a physicist, I am not a specialist in mathematics. I cannot therefore express a legitimate opinion on the intrinsic quality of the published papers cited in reference. I just notice that most of them are co-written by the inventor of this family. Peer-reviewed publications in theory accept papers that expose something new. The authors may name such or such algorithm or tool (as these polynomials are) as they like. As far as I know, this is not taken into account when the article is reviewed. Therefore, articles co-written by the inventor of these polynomials give in fact, to my mind, no clue about the real notability of the family amongst the mathematical community. This is not the case of papers written by anybody outside the inventor's team. This leads me to only keep three references: the sequences published in the On-Line Encyclopedia of Integer Sequences, and the two articles published in the International Journal of Heat & Technology in 2008 (the table of contents of which I have not found inline), by Ganouchi and Slama (references to K.B. Ben Mahmoud being in fact references to Karim Boubaker Ben Mahmoud, Ben meaning "son" in arabic). For information, Ganouchi has written a book prefaced by K. Boubaker. And S. Slama works at the ENIT, and has already had Mr. Boubaker as "tutor".
- I am sorry for having developped so longly on the subject. Please make whatever you want from my remarks ;-) GillesC (talk) 09:32, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- After careful checking by French Tourist, it appears that the only references to published papers which are not co-signed by Boubaker (under the names Boubaker or Ben Mahmoud) are the computations reported on the On-Line Encyclopedia of Integer Sequences. GillesC (talk) 11:57, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment User:GillesC repeats what was said about TRIVIALIY
if in his mind the relations:
are TRIVIAL
What about the relation that defines Dickson Polinomials
- ??? !!!!!
One must be aware about what one says; otherwise it will be felt, that (in good faith) anythig is Ok for banning this page???
Edwarddd (talk) 11:41, 13 February 2009 (UTC) — Edwarddd (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- not to Delete If any opposite vote is banned or blocked , it won't be a discussion.
Acoording to the whole discussion and the deep advise of User GillesC, two major issues are confirmed:
... The polynomial first pretender is a bad guy (as long as he never tried to prove the opposite)
... The polynomials are notable according to WP rules.
As the vocation of WP is not to punish evil, to associate the bad acts of a person who did not contribute to this page, to the outcome of this page is sipmly abusive. PS. If any opposite vote is banned or blocked , it won't be a discussion.
- Comment All references to peer-reviewed articles quoted in Boubaker polynomials have now been checked (thanks the bibliography found in this article [50]). Note that all of them are papers coauthored by Mr Boubaker, (some of them under the signature "K.B. Ben Mahmoud"). French Tourist (talk) 11:54, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per results of both previous AfDs. And salt this time, too. Gandalf61 (talk) 12:00, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as having no independent coverage in the literature. Stifle (talk) 12:59, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete The deep and long Refcheck showed that this Boubaker is not a Professor, but a simple meaningful engineer, Wikipedia is not the place for shuch marginal and low leveled persons' work. Onlythat (talk) 13:39, 13 February 2009 (UTC) — Onlythat (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Delete Per French Tourist. Nothing more than a few publications with the same author, no notability that could be confirmed by an independent source. Though my opinion is already towards delete, it is clearly becoming a strong delete when I consider the threats against some admins and the extreme pushing that we can see on various editions (most notably fr and it). Clem23 (talk) 15:27, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- CommentWould you change your mind if there are 30 peer-reviewed sources involving more than 30 authors from more than 11 countries ??? Just say Yes or No to save time?
- Comment (This is not a vote)
I helped by shifting contested references to 'Additional reading' and refreshing the remaining ones in a neutral way, with no-link to the controversial fellows 'Boubaker'and 'Ben Mahmoud'. The new version will help the community concentrating on the AFD purpose according to Wikpedia rules.Jonespoll (talk) 18:17, 13 February 2009 (UTC) — Jonespoll (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Comment. Clémouille la Fripouille (talk · contribs) (yet another single purpose account) blanked this discussion three times, and has been blocked indefinitely as a vandalism-only account. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:12, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment (aimed mostly at admins following this page, not relevant for the AfD). This user name is typical from the obsessions of a major vandal, known on :fr as MS and who has already been active on Boubaker polynomials pages - more info at meta:Vandalism reports/BogaertB. French Tourist (talk) 19:46, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Not to Delete notable, and satisfying the notability rulesJonnyHallid (talk) 19:43, 13 February 2009 (UTC)— JonnyHallid (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
PS. To Administrators: User Arthur Rubin (see above) has vandalised the project page Boubaker Polynomials twice under the reason ( Dickson Polynomials are the chebychev ones!!!???? ) WP can verify that these two Polynomials are different and even HAVE DIFFERENT PAGES IN WIKPEDIA !!!, is this user serious ???. Please prevent this UNFOUNDED vandalismJonnyHallid (talk) 19:43, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I explained on the talk page. Those "Dickson polynomials" are not properly described (Dickson polynomials have two arguments), and are, in fact, Chebychev polynomials. If you want to add the corresponding formula for Chebychev polynomials, I'd consider it irreleant and non-notable, but it wouldn't be wrong. If someone would refactor these rants which about the proposed article, not about the deletion arguments, to the talk page of this AfD or the talk page of the article, I would appreciate it. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:49, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sir Arthur Rubin, you had changed the concerned page on awrong fundament (from your own sayings) :
Dickson polynomials are Chebyshev ones !!!!
Despite You were told they HAVE DIFFERENT PAGES AT WIKIPEDIA !!! (they are historically and Mathematically different) When yo do change on this basis , when other contributors try to correct it, it is VANDALISM as the message you sent me :
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Boubaker polynomials.... may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. .... — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:40, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Now , you say publicly : If you want to add ..., I'd consider it irreleant and non-notabl?????e Why this threat??? please do not block me , it is not a war, and blocking is a sign of failure... not fairJonnyHallid (talk) 20:08, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You are clearly a sock puppet of an editor banned for sock puppet abuse. That being said, if you were to add a statement describing combinations of the Boubaker polynomials as Chebychev polynomials, I'd tag it as non-notable and off-topic, but I wouldn't summarily delete. The statement you and the sock drawer have added (without a source, but sources for equations are not always available for mathematical articles) is mathematically incorrect. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:22, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sir, sometimes sockpuppetry is caused by blocking abuse. This is not the case, you are not abusing and we are normal contriubutors on a shared server, and who can transmit to you any information (address telephoe ..etc) but as the edition 'war' (as you told me in the warning on the discussion page) is not balanced, you have the right to block and revert , we do not, we finally agree with you , Dickson's are Chebyshev's. But do you alllow us a restructuration of the reference section (with no change to the remaining etxt) that would, for sure, help the community to have a consensus on this page ?JonnyHallid (talk) 21:20, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If the sockpuppetry were caused by blocking abuse, the correct remedy would be to appeal the block from the primary account of the blocked user, not bypassing the block. I'm calling the latest set "sock puppets" only by behavior, not checking IP addresses. (In fact, I cannot check IP addresses.)
- Restructuring the reference sentence, without adding unsourced material or removing references for sourced material, might be helpful, provided the article author names are not removed. (Sloan, in the context, is acting as a cateloger, not a scientist. Referring to him by name in the body of the article, and referring to more than one of his sequences, is a mistake.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:30, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Quote: These "are a polynomial sequence established in an attempt to solve a bi-variate heat equation in a particular case of one-dimensional applied physics model". Without getting bogged down in equations, was the attempt successful, and how notable is the particular case? Have there been any spin-offs from this attempt that are of import? Answers in English please, not in mathematical jargon. Peridon (talk) 22:57, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Not to Delete Enough notable, but Link to other polynomials must be developed.
- In answer to the question of Peridon : “ Have the Boubaker polynomials been any spin-offs from this attempt that are of import? Answers in English please, not in mathematical jargon. (talk) 22:57, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Hits in the Scientific domain gave these applications (with explanation in simple English) :
--Heat transfer spray model: using Bessel and Boubaker polynomials (a thermal device)
--Temperature 3D profiling in welds (which means drawing temperature variation)
--A Boubaker polynomials (BPES)-related protocol for thin films ( a method for studying the characteristics of the sprayed materials)
--Sulfur/selenium substitution effects using (BPES) (a physical-chemical study)
--A solution to Bloch NMR flow equations using m-Boubaker polynomials (Medical application)
--Properties of β-SnS2 sprayed thin films using Boubaker polynomials (Material science)
--Stoichiometry-linked thermal behavior optimisation using Boubaker polynomials(a physical-chemical study)
There are also some Mathematical studies.Etaittunpe (talk) 19:30, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment If they are not Notable, at least they have notable applications …
- Query So are there references for these applications? Would the other polynomials people are talking about not give the same results? Peridon (talk) 19:38, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Commentsee the list of 30 peer-reviewed sources above (in hidden area) there are pages volumes ... a simple web hit reach leads to... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Etaittunpe (talk • contribs) — Etaittunpe (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Not to Delete a work elaborated by Sloan, Bannour, Bagula, Z.Liu Wen, an such scientists, and so many hits in Science Direct , Scopus, Elsevier,Sicience direct wit authors from different continents is evidently notable.Hilberts (talk) 12:01, 14 February 2009 (UTC)— Hilberts (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Comment Substantial Error : (To User Arthur Rubin : you claimed: Sloan, in the context, is acting as a cateloger, not a scientist. Referring to him by name in the body of the article, and referring to more than one of his sequences, is a mistake.)
In the last line of the referred work it is clearly written that Sloan is the AUTHOR and not cateloger!!! (a bit of respect to scientist works, please ). So the mistake is user Arthur Rubin’s (none is perfect!) Hilberts (talk) 12:01, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Warning: to EN:WP administrators!! at 22:20, 12 February 2009 French Tourist (who is also an active WP FRENCH ) DELETED a part of EN:WP NOTABILTY Rules lastly edited by Michael Hardy22:02, 30 November 2008
So, in order to diminish the notability of a simple item; an old recognized Vandal (see his historics) IS ALLOWED TO ERASE A WP:EN RULE ind descretise a whole international institution ?????? with a reason evoked 5 times in the last AFD : (edited by an Arab country issued account ) ????
This irregular action is strangely endorsed by Arthur Rubin who answers to him:
Good work ( French Tourist ) !!! . For an integer sequence, I'd say it not appearing in OEIS is definitive that it is not notable, but that's just me. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:55, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
And so, OEIS is DEFINITIVELY banned (as likely in Freach WP) as a not notable source just for a purpose !!!!
It seems, as usual, that FrenchWP users are going to impose their rules to En:WP (see the last AFD where the arrival of clem and his group has deviated the regularly begun discussion.) what is the opinion of JackSchmidt?? Hilberts (talk) 12:01, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment For those who would be puzzled by this last intervention by Hilberts and find it a bit difficult to understand what it is about, my recent intervention (a section removal) on Wikipedia:Notability (numbers) is to be found here, the explanation I gave and Arthur Rubin's answer are to be found there. French Tourist (talk) 12:20, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Three of the four provisions of the deleted guideline have been specificially rejected at WIkipedia Talk:WikiProject Math. I assume the remain provision has equally bad provenance. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:56, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment For those who would be puzzled by this last intervention by Hilberts and find it a bit difficult to understand what it is about, my recent intervention (a section removal) on Wikipedia:Notability (numbers) is to be found here, the explanation I gave and Arthur Rubin's answer are to be found there. French Tourist (talk) 12:20, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and enhance found an extra independent source :[51] by Matte M:Topics on polynomials/Non Orthogonal Polynomials.
( I am also an Arab country issued account user , watching this thing from the beginning,) but please consider my opinion on the Notability, not on the 'boubaker' person.Georgesy (talk) 13:29, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment To honest WP:EN administrators : 4 of the tagged "from single-purpose account " are each second (unavoidably created) voice of users who are now INDEFNITELY blocked by the EN:WP , guess why? because their original IP address belongs to a very range belonging to an Arab country denominated expressively and PROUDLY by The FR:French Tourist!!! [52]
Hence, a whole people is BANNED, <Range of 10 000 000 IPs!!!, like what happened in FrencWP> even those with old accounts...
For a discussion of Notability it become a discussion on rules of Noatbility , then on a person Notability, and finally on a person's RACE Notability ... it is amazing ...It must be called:
the FrenchTourist-Arthur Rubin One way Discussion (is a FRENCh:WP adminstrator !!! [53] with a long vandalism past (see the hisotrics linked to his French page [54] and see what he was considered to be !!!)
Or :
the Fr:WP conquest on En:WP (see last AFD) ... honest WP:EN administrators, be aware!!! Hilberts (talk) 18:34, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. All peer-reviewed sources are by Boubaker himself. That's not sufficiently notable for me. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 15:37, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- CommentWould you change your mind if there are 30 peer-reviewed sources involving more than 30 authors from more than 11 countries ??? Just say Yes or No to save time?Etaittunpe (talk) 02:02, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I can't speak for Jitse, but I would be very likely to change my mind if there were a set of papers that mention these polynomials nontrivially and that have many authors all of whom could be shown to be established mathematicians not equal to Boubaker/Ben Mahmoud. But his willingness to use multiple names on the papers we already know about, and the willingness of single-purpose accounts here to use multiple names in this AfD in support of his work, make me disinclined to trust new evidence in the form of new papers by or coauthored by previously unknown authors. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:13, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If the 30 peer-reviewed sources are all (co)written by Boubaker then my opinion would not change. I need sources independent of Boubaker to change my opinion. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 16:39, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- CommentWould you change your mind if there are 30 peer-reviewed sources involving more than 30 authors from more than 11 countries ??? Just say Yes or No to save time?Etaittunpe (talk) 02:02, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Slight merge to Chebyshev polynomials or delete. I opposed speedy deletion when this most recent iteration of the mess started up. However, that was based on the existence of apparently independent references. As has been shown here, Boubaker quite frequently makes use of pseudonyms; hence, I don't see how I can naively accept those references as independent any longer. Without the references, this is just a variation of Chebyshev polynomials without any assertion of importance. I leave it up to others to decide what, if any content, is useful to merge, but we should not retain this without evidence of independent references; Boubaker's own actions make it quite difficult to establish this. — Gavia immer (talk) 03:59, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and salt per all above. Resolute 04:10, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or mention briefly in Chebyshev polynomials I'm not a mathematician, but I am interested in the subject (I also read murder mysteries...). When I asked above for a clear English answer to my query, I got the following (copied to here from hidden area as it is non-abusive) (line spacing condensed):
"Hits in the Scientific domain gave these applications (with explanation in simple English) : --Heat transfer spray model: using Bessel and Boubaker polynomials (a thermal device) --Temperature 3D profiling in welds (which means drawing temperature variation) --A Boubaker polynomials (BPES)-related protocol for thin films ( a method for studying the characteristics of the sprayed materials) --Sulfur/selenium substitution effects using (BPES) (a physical-chemical study) --A solution to Bloch NMR flow equations using m-Boubaker polynomials (Medical application) --Properties of β-SnS2 sprayed thin films using Boubaker polynomials (Material science) --Stoichiometry-linked thermal behavior optimisation using Boubaker polynomials(a physical-chemical study) There are also some Mathematical studies.Etaittunpe (talk) 19:30, 14 February 2009 (UTC) o Comment If they are not Notable, at least they have notable applications …" I then posted:
- "Query So are there references for these applications? Would the other polynomials people are talking about not give the same results? Peridon (talk) 19:38, 14 February 2009 (UTC)"
So far there has been no response; I therefore conclude that references are not available. This is the opinion of a non-mathematician who can hardly be accused of bias in the matter. The applications given do look reasonably notable to me. But without independent, reliable, and verifiable references they count for nothing, I'm afraid. My apologies to those who may resent an outsider sticking an oar in. I have often found that an outsider's view can be of use (if only by causing amusement at his ignorance...). Peridon (talk) 15:42, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have received a response from Hilberts giving a list of scientific papers mentioning these polynomials. I am not going to copy the list to here - it may already be in a hidden section. It is available for inspection on my talk page, and will remain there until this discussion is concluded. The papers are mostly not internet linked and I have no access to them. I leave it to those with more knowledge of these things - or better access to them. I have still not had a response from anyone to whether the other polynomials would do the same job. Peridon (talk) 16:46, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Answered on your talk page. About 26 on the 35 references can be found in 10 sec' on google, and mention Karem Boubaker as author or co-author. In the last 9, 4 have been written by the same person, "Roger Lee Bagula", 1 by Neil J. A. Sloane (
who is co-author of one of the four Bagula's paperwhich is just a copy of one of Boubaker's entry), 1 by A. Bannour (co author of number [6] with KB), and the last three are not, for now, findable directly on the net (but look in the title very similar to Boubaker's paper). Rhadamante (talk) 18:30, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]- Also note that many of the Bagula and Sloane ones are not papers at all. They are entries in OEIS, another online encyclopedia that I don't think we should be using to infer notability (it accepts basically anything that is mathematically correct regardless of its significance). —David Eppstein (talk) 18:44, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Answered on your talk page. About 26 on the 35 references can be found in 10 sec' on google, and mention Karem Boubaker as author or co-author. In the last 9, 4 have been written by the same person, "Roger Lee Bagula", 1 by Neil J. A. Sloane (
- Just worked out that Bagula has an Erdős number of 3 if he's co-authored with Sloane who on the Wikipedia article about him is given as being a 2. (I do know about Erdős numbers.) Bagula appears to be a real person and quite a polymath. If not, he's very well constructed. If I knew more maths, I could do a story based on this lot. I'd love to know what's behind all the acrimony and so on. Peridon (talk) 21:47, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Hum. Note they are not papers co-written or written by Sloane (it'is Hilbert's presentation of theese entries that made me beleive it), but juste entries on OEIS maintained by N. J. A. Sloane on OEIS, which is a strong difference. Rhadamante (talk) 22:20, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well. at least we're getting the picture a bit clearer - for me at least. Never knew Maths could get so exciting. It's getting like music and religion, isn't it? Peridon (talk) 22:40, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. There's a discussion going on in this AfD's talk page about this list of publications. Seemingly, they all fall into three categories: (1) papers that are definitely by Boubaker, with various co-authors, (2) papers that might be by Boubaker but we're not sure because we can't find enough online information about them and the sockpuppet who gave us the list of papers didn't include authors, and (3) non-papers (OEIS entries). —David Eppstein (talk) 22:45, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Rhadamante has added names to the list on my talk page, and has boldened Boubaker's name in its various forms. I have quite a lot of dealing with people with Arabic names. and it is sometimes difficult to work out which is the first and which the last name (in English terms, that is). That is the reason for the name appearing differently in different places. It is not a reason for any of the alleged sockpuppetry that has gone on. Peridon (talk) 23:11, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have received a response from Hilberts giving a list of scientific papers mentioning these polynomials. I am not going to copy the list to here - it may already be in a hidden section. It is available for inspection on my talk page, and will remain there until this discussion is concluded. The papers are mostly not internet linked and I have no access to them. I leave it to those with more knowledge of these things - or better access to them. I have still not had a response from anyone to whether the other polynomials would do the same job. Peridon (talk) 16:46, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, as the notability of this family of polynomials cannot be verified by independent sources. No merge as this would represent undue weight. Cenarium (talk) 16:18, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, same reasons. Zetud (talk) 22:38, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete because it has been established that these polynomials are not notable (no independent non-trivial coverage); and salt to prevent further disruption. --Hans Adler (talk) 23:06, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Per r.e.b. This subject doesn't seem notable to me. After having looked through the first few pages of hits from google, the discussion of these polynomials seems to mostly be a wiki-phenomenon. Thenub314 (talk) 14:42, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.