Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 February 18
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Ceded lands. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:02, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Kupuaina[edit]
- Kupuaina (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Contested prod. Non-notable group involved in a notable dispute. Even the article is vague about them: "appears to have been created sometime between October 1, 2008 and November 24, 2008" and is mostly about the thing they're fighting for, not the group themselves. Only one of the references mentions them independently. Only 62 non-Wikpedia hits on Google. Fails WP:N, WP:VER, WP:SOAP. I'm all in favour of them but they don't make the grade as far as an encyclopedia article is concerned andy (talk) 23:46, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I love Hawaii and I agree that this is a worthwhile effort, but the references really are vague. Notable effort, non-notable group. Delete with some regrets. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 23:54, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No comment on deletion but a lot of this information and referencing looks like it belongs somewhere on Wikipedia. This should be re-worked and salvaged. Miami33139 (talk) 02:22, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral. Appears to be a new group with limited mention, and uncertain future notability. The article itself definitely would need cleanup, to both references and tone. Moreover, too much of existing text is on background, not on organization itself. However, it appears that a couple cites really do mention the organization. LotLE×talk 02:27, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. —andy (talk) 09:34, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions. —andy (talk) 09:41, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Ceded lands. The group does not meet notability as there is no coverage in reliable sources. However, much of the material in the article is not about the group but rather are about issues with the ceded lands, complete with citations. As such the material appears to be a good candidate for a merge. -- Whpq (talk) 19:21, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Ceded lands as Whpq suggests. This material would improve that article. The references show that the issue is notable, but not the group. Aymatth2 (talk) 20:11, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to ceded lands. Aloha. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:50, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not convinced that this article actually fails WP:N. If anything, this group seems to be notable in a specific region, that is also isolated from the mainland U.S. It is entirely possible that this group is notable to that particular region. The first cited reference is to a monthly newsletter from a state agency. This group is the main feature of that monthly newsletter. An independent internet search (and unfortunately this other reference hasn't been cited in this article) shows that a regional broadcast news agency, KGMB9, featured a news story specifically on this group. You can find this at [1] At that site, you'll also see a video clip of the news broadcast that specifically mentions the group and emphasizes their efforts. At the site you can read text that reads, "Efforts to educate the public on the critical ceded lands case has taken a new form. . . . This is why a group of students from the William S. Richardson School of Law is helping educate the public." A Hawaii based non-profit also wrote about this group, [2] The organization was also featured on a Hawaii talk radio station (recording available at [3])I'm not sure I agree with the idea that there is no coverage in reliable sources. This group seems to have gotten coverage from print, broadcast news and radio sources.
"Smaller organizations can be notable, just as individuals can be notable, and arbitrary standards should not be used to create bias favoring larger organizations." [[4]] "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 . . . ." [[5]]
This organization's efforts could be interpreted as being "national" in scale if we consider the potential impacts of this organization's work on the pending U.S. Supreme Court case.
Merge to ceded lands might be appropriate but if notability is an issue, I'm not sure if it actually is an issue here for this regional organization. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RichardP1978 (talk • contribs) 08:25, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
— RichardP1978 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. andy (talk) 08:58, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If I may clarify something, I believe I am being "mis-characterized" here. I have not made any "edits" to the kupuaina page at all. I have however, made edits to a few other unrelated articles. My comments above were merely to join the discussion on the deletion of this page. I have not made any edits to that particular page although I believe parts of my commentary could be used for the article in the editing process. --RichardP1978 (talk) 02:01, 21 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 per evidence given of wide use.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:36, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Snack audio library[edit]
- Snack audio library (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable software library. Article has no sources other than a link to the home page. No hits on google news. Searching for documentation (like textbooks using this software library) on Amazon revealed nothing obvious. Generalized Google search did not really find anything either, 128 total hits for "Snack audio library". Books.google.com has ZERO results. Miami33139 (talk) 23:33, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep (or speedy keep even). This is overwhelming notable and widely used software. The nomination borders on bad faith, being done by an editor who is completely scattershod in nominating every article on audio software he can find for deletion, on no basis other than WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Many of the article so nominated deserve to be improved, but there are tags for that that are far more appropriate than AfD. LotLE×talk 00:04, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Quit stalking me. My nomination is based on core Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Subjects of articles must be notable. Information in articles must be verifiable. This article fails both of those ideas. I searched Google News, Amazon, and a general Google search looking for sources that would make a notability claim. I put those searches into the nomination and your claim that this is bad faith is therefore taken as an insult. 128 Google hits is not notable. but you are welcome to find sources to back up a claim of notability. Miami33139 (talk) 00:33, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominating Snack is about as wildly off-kilter as your earlier nomination of Xfce. I have no idea how you managed to do a search that found so few hits, but here's a better one to show "the Google test": Links to the snack homepage]. It really appears that you cannot discern the difference between articles that need improvement and ones that lack notability. I really wish you would read WP:NOTE to understand this! LotLE×talk 01:25, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Quit stalking me. My nomination is based on core Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Subjects of articles must be notable. Information in articles must be verifiable. This article fails both of those ideas. I searched Google News, Amazon, and a general Google search looking for sources that would make a notability claim. I put those searches into the nomination and your claim that this is bad faith is therefore taken as an insult. 128 Google hits is not notable. but you are welcome to find sources to back up a claim of notability. Miami33139 (talk) 00:33, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: I moved the article to the more appropriate title Snack Sound Toolkit. If you search on that phrase, Google shows many more hits, and that is the full proper name. Calling it an "audio library" is a correct description but not a proper name. Moreover, the proper name was already what was given in boldface in the lead of the article.
- Delete - counting Google hits doesn't establish notability. I could find no coverage in reliable sources. I can find lots of blog posts and such. Of course, I can be persuaded to change my mind if reliable sources can be demonstrated. -- Whpq (talk) 19:26, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: I have added two academic citations, and one commercial one. Please take a look at the current article (or even try to improve it further). LotLE×talk 20:22, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "For the speech processing part we have built Tcl/Tk scripts in combination with Snack Sound Toolkit, a public domain toolkit developed at KTH." That is the entirety of the reference in the academic citations. That is not a reference to notability. This is a brief passing mention. The academic citations are not about Snack, they merely mention that the researchers used it. This is no more notable than the brand of computer they used. This still fails the requirements of Notability: '"Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail.' Miami33139 (talk) 21:53, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I'm going to go with LotLE here, Snack is quite notable in the audio analysis field. I've seconded you on some of the other things you've pulled into AfD because they were borderline notable (i.e., some of the unknown media players) but you need to do a bit of homework before plunging things like these into the deletion process. I think everyone agrees that removing things from Wikipedia that need removing is as valuable as adding, but removal is something that needs to be done with more care. Of course the fact that the notability guidelines for software are quite broken doesn't help much. §FreeRangeFrog 00:03, 21 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 WP:SNOW keep with no prejudice to a merge. Equazcion hits the nail on the head below. AfD has never been a good place for merging articles, and a merge consensus, more often than not, defaults to a keep, effectively if not officially. A talk page discussion would be much better at finding a consensus to merge an article than AfD. I know this is a rather large NAC, but there is literally no chance that this article will be deleted, and thus an AfD is a waste of time. And please don't take this to DRV because it only lasted three days. (non-admin closure) Sceptre (talk) 14:42, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
King Kong defence[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}} . |
- King Kong defence (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable defense used yesterday. There is nothing special about this other than he used the words "King Kong". This is pure Pirate Bay POV. KnightLago (talk) 23:18, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion[edit]
- Comment This is a very poor choice of nomination, showing a complete failure to give an article a chance. Any attempt at answering the question of whether or not this topic is notable will depend on the extent to which the King Kong defence receives significant coverage in reliable sources over the course of the trial. There is no encyclopaedic emergency here, and the assessment of the notability of the topic should have waited until the dust had settled. To nominate for deletion while the story is developing is shortsighted and irresponsible, and will only lead to a disruptive AfD in which the early !votes cannot help but be based on an inaccurate view of the verifiability of the article. Skomorokh 23:25, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree. This is not an article about a legal matter. It is an article about something spreading on the Internet. Back off, give it a break and chill out. Jesus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.193.255.35 (talk) 04:32, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I stand by my nomination. This is an entire article based on two sentences. There is no grand legal theory here. Just the mention of "King Kong". The Guardian sites our article for what the "defense" is. The remaining sources are supporters of TPB. Nothing more. We are not a repository for two sentence arguments in trials. KnightLago (talk) 23:35, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course, this is a bit of a disingenuous statement to make given that you hadn't actually waited a news cycle until judging how many media outlets would mention it. In fact you didn't even wait a full news day. jaduncan (talk) 07:39, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Neither did the article creator. At Wikipedia we create articles based on their current notability, not an anticipation of future notability. If you thought all it would take would be a couple days for it to become notable, then you should've waited that long yourself, and then create the article if it did end up achieving that notability. Given that the article was created without existing notability, KnightLago was entirely justified in nominating it for deletion. It is never necessary to wait and see if a topic becomes notable before nominating it. Equazcion •✗/C • 12:35, 19 Feb 2009 (UTC)
- I hear that. But the article really shouldn't have been created until it was notable. Yeah we give articles a chance, in terms of letting people find sources and expand. But that doesn't mean that if we know a topic isn't notable yet, that we create articles in anticipation of them becoming notable at some point in the future. For now there's no reason this information should be presented outside the Pirate Bay trial, which is its only present context. Equazcion •✗/C • 01:43, 19 Feb 2009 (UTC)
- I agree completely to keep. The nomination is not worthy, and it's basis is false. This is new, uncharted and interesting legal territory. 76.238.130.192 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added on 06:16, 19 February 2009 (UTC).[reply]
break 1[edit]
- Keep and Comment, I agree with User:Skomorokh above. Lord Metroid (talk) 23:28, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Duh. This is clearly verified to be more than just a side show: it's becoming a story in its own right. If this was just an aspect of the trial that was trivially covered, I'd say merge. But the phrase is already part of the headlines. I'd call that significant coverage. Steven Walling (talk) 23:30, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep In addition to the obvious worldwide legal implications of the case in question, Wikipedia has an article on the Chewbacca Defense, so why not the King Kong Defense? Ender78 (talk) 23:47, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The Chewbacca defense has references to CNN, the AP, law reviews, Florida courts, and other journals. This is something literally created yesterday. KnightLago (talk) 23:52, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Agree with above comment - should this gain notability beyond the scope of the current trial it can be compared to the Chewbacca DefenseVulture19 (talk) 23:56, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - The Chewbacca Defense article was tested a number of times. There didn't used to be all the sources, they came over time. "If you build it, they will come." Wait it out, at least for a week or so. 209.162.26.254 (talk) 04:59, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.38.131.115 (talk) 23:50, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect Currently notable in the context of the trial, so for now it belongs on the trial's page. Should it gain any traction beyond the trial an article may be warranted.Vulture19 (talk) 23:54, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or more likely merge/redirect. Cover the trial in one article, not in 50 articles on buzzwords generated by the trial. It's just a more coherent and productive way to cover a topic. As impressive as references to "TorrentFreak.com" are... --Miss Communication (talk) 00:04, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment/Keep The King Kong Defense has become a part of "pop culture" and is now being talked about on all the tech blog spots including the prestigious TorrentFreak. It is a valid article. Pretend you have no idea what the KK Defense is and you hear the term and decided to go to wikipedia to figure out what it means. There is a page for EVERYTHING on wikipedia, and i mean pretty much anything. I believe you need to give the article a chance, In just a few short hours the page has grown to twice its original size. Whats the harm in keeping the page?Mkikta (talk) 00:14, 19 February 2009 (UTC)(twitter: s1l3nc3)— Mkikta (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Note This user's twitter account is currently rallying users to participate in this discussion. --slakr\ talk / 00:46, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- With a grand total of two followers, I don't think he'll have much impact. rootology (C)(T) 16:41, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- if trying to get more people to join in on the discussion is against the rules of wikipedia, then I appologize. I was just trying to get the people who the article impacted to weigh in on the discussion.Mkikta (talk) 21:35, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This article is of significant value and interest, and while related to The Pirate Bay Trial it exceeds the bounds of said article. --Intimidatedtalk 00:25, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to The Pirate Bay Trial per non-notable neologism/protologism, insufficient coverage of the phrase in independent secondary sources as well as insufficient coverage of the phrase outside the scope of the trial, Wikipedia is not a newspaper, and finally, Wikipedia:Give an article a chance is neither a Wikipedia policy nor guideline. --slakr\ talk / 00:40, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Give an article a chance doesn't seem to be applicable anyway. It's an essay written for a situation where an article has a couple of lines, no assertion of notability and no sources and only one editor that might add content to it but who would spend all their time defending an AfD instead of researching additional content to add to the article. This article has 50 edits by 20 editors, sources etc. - it's a completely different scenario. Ha! (talk) 01:26, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge this article is important informationwise because it is relevant to the current building of the filesharing laws and how the court/prosicuters handles the cases. it should be merged with the rest of the information regarding the case of this trail and tied to the general information about the piratebay's legal procedings. i also plead with you NOT to delete this important information because it also shows the Swedish court's process of handling cases they just dont like... bottom line: this entry has historical significance... (Sorry, might be some bad spelling...) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.217.7.175 (talk) 00:50, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- redirect to the The Pirate Bay Trial article doesn't have any notability beyond that. In any case king king was from Skull Island doesn't the defense lawyer know anything?Geni 00:52, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect for now. It's entirely possible that this term may turn out to be significant, like the Twinkie defense. But it doesn't appear to have any significance beyond the trial now, and putting the information here makes it less likely that people who want to know this will find it. If the time comes when this defense is used elsewhere, or referenced in significant ways, then there'll be time to create a more useful article that explores its importance beyond the trial. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 00:55, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Skomorokoh and IntimidatedBalonkey (talk) 01:24, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Pirate Bay trial. Has no context outside that parent topic, and the length of each article doesn't warrant a split for logistic reasons. Equazcion •✗/C • 01:30, 19 Feb 2009 (UTC)
- Delete (short mention in trial article), Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. It can be recreated in the future if it maintains popularity. Wikipedia should not be used as means to popularize something. /Grillo (talk) 01:36, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete A legal defense? Not even close. This article stands for nothing. Boatsdesk (talk) 01:37, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
break 2[edit]
- Keep per Skomorokoh and Intimidated --94.210.100.148 (talk) 01:38, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and Redirect to the trial article. Article can be re-created if proved in the future to not just one mention in one trial, with reliable secondary sources --Eastlygod (talk) 01:48, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect and merge with the main trial article. Otherwise I'd vote to keep the article. The analogy I will use is one of a DLL. This article is not applicable to any article other than the PBT, so I'd just include it in the main file (as a "static library"), unless it is relevant elsewhere. And even then only if the other article is reasonably unrelated. Basically the same argument as Eastlygod. ZtObOr 02:02, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and Redirect same reason as Eastlygod NekrosKoma (talk) 02:15, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Skomorokh -- well said. This is clearly notable, seeing as the Pirate Bay trial has received so much coverage, and the legal defenses used may very well end up having lasting legal repercussions. It would be irresponsible not to have this entry. A merge would work too, but it's not necessary. » K i G O E | talk 02:21, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It may have "lasting legal repercussions"...or it may very well not. Does anybody here actually know that yet? -- TRTX T / C 21:44, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Skomorokh and also see: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/02/pirate-bay-owns-big-content-on-pr-floats-safe-harbor-claim.ars as far as independent, third-party coverage. BC (talk) 02:40, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That's coverage of the trial and a passing mention (quotation, really) of the phrase this article is about. --Miss Communication (talk) 02:56, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge but I wouldn't mind keeping. I'm not sure if the term itself is all that notable, but I don't see a problem with keeping the article. Captain panda 03:04, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and expand per Skomorokh 189.216.238.35 (talk) 03:08, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep If chewbacca defense can have an article, why can't this?... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.147.137.114 (talk) 03:12, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as it has enough media coverage. Netrat (talk) 03:18, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge with The Pirate Bay Trial or keep. Sljaxon (talk) (contributions) - Fighting Vandalism Since 2006 03:57, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep so we can see where this goes... -- samj inout 04:05, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep since it is clearly notable on its own, based on the articles about the term itself. GoldenMew (talk) 04:22, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep KnightLago is so obviously out of line here. This is getting embarrassing for Wikipedia. The term and the event are historically notable. In less than 24 hours there are over 1500 mentions of this online. The original premature argument was there were only two; that's a long time ago. What with the importance of this trial and the attention it's getting the "King Kong Defence" - taken as the entire opening arguments by Per E Samuelson - is a bit of legal history. It was a staggeringly proficient presentation. Listen to the entire thing and you'll see.
- Keep it is a very intersting trial, and a novel legal argument that applies far outside this trial. (which may be why it is a long term keep) later on there may be reason to merge - but *I* found this article because someone referred to the king kong defnse in a blog post and thought - what is that? - and boom, wikipedia delivered. had it been deleted, I would not have found it.24.5.69.178 (talk) 10:17, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
break 3[edit]
- Keep and do not merge This is very notable in itself...the concept of such a legal defense has been talked about by many, many people and the same strategy may be used for other similar trials in the future. --hello, i'm a member | talk to me! 04:45, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not a type of defence. He was simply being mildly derogatory towards Roswall. There is no concept of a "King Kong Defence". But taken as a whole for the findings of fact for Carl Lundström by Per Erik Samuelson it is already a historic event. Quite simply it was brilliant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.193.255.35 (talk) 04:50, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I have to weigh in again on this, as most keep comments seem to reference how this is important and notable because of the trial. That's the point - this article has, at this time, absolutely NO meaning beyond the trial. The last google search I did on the term "king kong defense" yielded about 2400 comments, but the term "king kong defense" -pirate yields only 10% of that. Furthermore, there is an assumption that this defense will become notable after this trial ends. WP:CBALL anyone? Finally, the article cites two sources that crow about the defense already being an article on wikipedia. How does that differentiate an encyclopedia from a newspaper? I'll again argue that merge and redirect is the best solution for this - it maintains all of the article's history, includes the term as a viable search term, and allows the option of, should it move beyond the trial to Chewbacca Defense or Twinkie defense status, it's own article.Vulture19 (talk) 04:59, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I can see the King Kong defense only gaining in popularity after this trial, deleting or merging would only mean that the article would probably be recreated at a later time. Ailure (talk) 05:05, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and merge Within 48 hours, the "King Kong defense/defence" has entered into the discourse of the tech-news community. Google searches for "king kong defense" and "king kong defence" return about 1,410 and 417 results, respectively. (Many of which, obviously, may be redundant hits and those generated by these very discussions; however, in some views this would further solidify the reasoning for keeping the page.) mr_pollock (talk) 05:13, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
-
- If you're trying to ascribe a specific point of creation for the term, you're ignoring the context in which the term was invoked. As such, we see that the "thing" was not "made up in one afternoon" as it came forth from a specific historical and social context. Already we can see the connections between this King Kong defense and the Chewbacca defense, if only in the names of the two. Things don't just appear out of thin air at specific times, or in certain afternoons. Due to the contextual nature of the defense, though, I do think the page should be merged with the trial page, at least.mr_pollock (talk) 17:25, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Within a matter of days the term King Kong defense has spread to become a popular internet meme. If this was "Lawpedia" I would support its deletion as this is not a "legal strategy" per say, however this should be kept because it has become the latest big Internet Meme. If King Kong defense goes, so must "All your base are belong to us" and every other internet meme listed on Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.132.10.250 (talk) 05:25, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge/redirect Until this becomes common usage in some other context, it should be part of the article on the trial. Blackeagle (talk) 05:28, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I actually just had the experience of seeing this phrase used in a blog posting/tech news article, not knowing what it meant, and then coming to this Wikipedia page to understand further. At a minimum it seems silly to propose this for deletion on the same day that the page was created. The situation (and the article) is developing. We're not talking about a vandalism/spam page here, so chill out for a couple weeks to see if this goes anywhere. Brianwc (talk) 05:30, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep It seems clear that this should not be deleted or merged at this time, if only because so many off-site links point to this page, indicating that there is considerable interest in this defense as a topic in its own right. If, in a few months, you look back and conclude that this page is of little consequence outside the context of the trial, you can always fold it in later. It's not like Wikipedia is desperately scrounging for disk space here; this isn't a decision that has to be made right now, and frankly, probably the worst time to make a decision like this is in the heat of the moment during a trial of such a politically charged nature. I'd recommend postponing this decision for six months and revisit it at that time. Dgatwood (talk) 05:31, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
break 4[edit]
- Keep: if deleted it will only be re-written within days (or hours?) with more references pointing to its popularity from elsewhere on the net. IronChris | (talk) 05:37, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Moderate Keep. As a current event, its notability is somewhat tenuous in my view, but I fully expect it to become more well known as events transpire. Additional uses also are likely to accrue. JKBrooks85 (talk) 05:39, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep This article is being used as a source of information answering questions people are asking about this defense strategy. Here's one posting pointing to it The fact that this article got moderated up to 5 (in other words, randomly chosen slashdot posters and readers decided a link to this article was a very valuable contribution to the discussion) makes the topic very notable. Wikipedia is about supplying information and the dynamic nature of the Wikipedia allows us to define new terms more quickly than Britannica can. Should this become less popular or a historical footnote later on, we can merge the article. Samboy (talk) 05:51, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- First off, the moderations of a small group of people on a comment page does not constitute notability. You'll note in that same link there are two posts referencing the parent and quipping about the "metanotability" that is being generated by this wiki article. Both have been modded up to some extent. Second (and this probably is sliding away from good faith assumptions, but that post could've just as easily have been thrown out there by anybody who has been doing recent work on the article for the simple purpose of spreading the meme. Third (and most importantly...so really it should be first), shouldn't inclusion actually function the opposite of what you are proposing? Shouldn't a particular subject have to earn its way IN to having its own article? Otherwise I could go ahead and get a head start on some meme's I've seen brewing. You know, just in case.
- Does the fact that that comment's been down-modded mean that it's not notable now? --ascorbic (talk) 22:18, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and Redirect to the trial article. This article is not yet independently notable. From WP:NTEMP: "...articles should not be written based on speculation that the topic may receive additional coverage in the future." When there is a reference to "King Kong defence" that does not directly relate to this "short burst of news" about this trial, we can and should reconsider. But not until then. — Ken g6 (talk) 05:52, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep For now it should be kept, it might be a vital part of one of the most significant copyright trials in history so far. Also it is a description of an internet phenomenon. Just back of a few months and then look at the issue again. /Magnus — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.226.250.123 (talk • contribs) 05:59, 19 February 2009
- Keep: It's far too early to delete this article - it is currently very much notable and, depending on the outcome of the case, could remain so. Wikipedia has always been strong in keeping up with the most current information. Ramon Casha (talk) 06:02, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per Grillo; Wikipedia should not be used to popularize something. If it becomes a meme in the future, that's a different story entirely. For now, though, the only claim to notability is that TPB linked to it from its site after the words were uttered in trial. Encyclopedic? Hardly. Ourai тʃс 06:07, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as the article currently holds 6 references from news pages, 5 references with the phrase directly in their title, and 4 that are not connected directly with Torrent sites and thus could be considered neutral perhaps? This number is only likely to grow. Also could stand M/R. --Gedrean (talk) 06:22, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: I've just stumbled on the "King Kong Defense" on the Slashdot, had to lookup what does it mean Serg3d2 (talk) 06:28, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Since this phrase (The King Kong Defence) now is established and circulating around the world websites and news media, I find it valid to let it remain as it is. There are probably more people than me who got curious and searched for it on Wikipedia, because of the often cryptic explanation that was made on some news feed. Besides the fact that event and outcome of the Pirate Bay trial is important for the future use and activities of the Internet as free form of communication af any kind. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.25.141.205 (talk) 06:30, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and Redirect to the trial article. This defense tactic may have a catchy name but it's not very elaborate, not particularly related to King Kong (compared to the Chewbacca defense), and it's been used by ISPs and content providers in prior trials. This is only even being considered because of the cute name. Crimson117 (talk) 06:35, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and WaitWith time,usage of the KingKong defense could very well increase,and with that sources will come.EaswarH (talk) 06:46, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: I hit the article while searching what the hell the "King Kong defence" was. It was useful by itself. Reventlov (talk) 06:48, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - notable (see WP:N) as there are multiple references in independent reliable and verifiable sources 12 CooperDB (talk) 06:51, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - It's Wiki worthy. --Tarage (talk) 07:04, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - The size of this deletion discussion alone makes this article noteworthy. Cursoryusername (talk) 08:16, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
break 5[edit]
- Wait a month Put the AfD on hold, let the article live a month. This isn't a phrase some high school kids made up at lunch like the typical neogolisms that get speedied. If it has traction in a month, great. If it doesn't, kill it. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
- Comment Surely it should be the other way round. It "has traction" in a month, then recreate it. John Hayestalk 08:17, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- re: Comment It is better to err on the side of staying current rather than having too little information about this emergent neologism. Why should WP be responsible for stifling social phenomena to such a degree that I would almost call it censorship by trolls? I vote to remove all deletion and all other current article warnings/signs/tags. Wikidrone (talk) 08:48, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I totally disagree, since when is an encylopedia about being current. No-one is suggesting censorship, or completely deleting the content, but simply following the rules, and merging it into an article which is notable in it's own right. John Hayestalk 10:06, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- re: Comment It is better to err on the side of staying current rather than having too little information about this emergent neologism. Why should WP be responsible for stifling social phenomena to such a degree that I would almost call it censorship by trolls? I vote to remove all deletion and all other current article warnings/signs/tags. Wikidrone (talk) 08:48, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Surely it should be the other way round. It "has traction" in a month, then recreate it. John Hayestalk 08:17, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep There is always the possibility to delete later on, but for now it is a valuable source of information. Paxinum (talk) 07:24, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Give it a week This is a current event article about something which has some immediate attention, and which has strong potential to become notable, and deletion will remove content which would be valuable if notability becomes more apparent. Keeping the article with some warnings on top and waiting a bit to see how events unfold is worthwhile. If the judge dismisses the defense, or it otherwise becomes unimportant, then delete, if it remains a part of the zeitgeist and keeps some traction, then keep it for good. Huadpe (talk) 07:25, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep A successful or unsuccessful defense due to a lack of linkage between the users of the site and the administrators would in fact be an extremely notable point. As a more generalized defense it has applications outside of the immediate trial. The phase 'King Kong defense' is how it is known at the moment. The move to delete this is just another example of Wikipedia's irritating recent move to deletionism. jaduncan (talk) 07:35, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This is a no-brainer. This trial has enormous media visibility and cultural, commercial and political significance. The 'King Kong defence' is, if nothing else, shaping up to be the most memorable soundbite. The 'Twinkie defence' and the 'Chewbacca defence' have their Wikipedia pages, not because they represent startling new legal theories, but because of their cultural currency. The defence doesn't even need to succeed: as long as people keep talking about it, it's relevant (c.f. Twinkie defence). At least give it a month or two! Ian Henty Holmes (talk) 07:41, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Probably Keep I want to quickly share my experience, to explain my point of view. --Because I do under stand why it could go either way... I read an article on slashdot about the third day of the trial, and read "with the already legendary 'King Kong' defense." There was no explanation of what that meant. I wanted to know what it meant so I googled it. The first two articles I googled both used similar terminology and neither explained it. I was hoping if I rephrased my google search that Wikipedia would have an article explaining it. I was in luck because it did, and the article explained it perfectly. Wikipedia once again succeeded at doing what it was meant for. If this article had been party of the trial page, I doubt I would have found it through google. I would have either spent much more time looking through other random sites trying to find my anser, or I would have given-up and not learned at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CobaltBlueDW (talk • contribs) 07:43, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep for now. If neccessary, combine or move later. Right now this is a hot article and the future of some internet laws are based on what goes on today. Precedence is being set right now Four Q (talk) 07:59, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The issue is notable at this time, and describes an interesting and apparently novel legal argument. Whether it remains notable independent of the Pirate Bay trial in the long term can be judged later, for instance if the King Kong defence tactic is employed in other legal disputes. If it is re-used in other scenarios, especially in legal cases brought to wide attention, then it will obviously aquire enduring notability as a distinct topic (whether or not the legal argument proves persuasive in any particular case). If not, then it may still remain notable per se, depending on whether it forms a point on which the Pirate Bay case is decided. If it is deemed irrelevant by the court and on any subsequent appeal, then it may be appropriate to merge the article on the King Kong defence into the article on the Pirate Bay trial. In other words, the time is not yet ripe to judge the long term notability of the King Kong defence independent of its use in the court case involving The Pirate Bay.AliasMarlowe (talk) 08:06, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect Something cannot be notable at this time. This is not notable outside of the Pirate Bay trial. If it becomes notable, it can be recreated later. I think a lot of you want to keep it because you like the article, but the information is not lost if it is a subsection of the Pirate Bay trial article, and a redirect can allow for users accessing this URL John Hayestalk 08:15, 19 February 2009 (UTC).[reply]
- keep AliasMarlowe pretty much sums it up. Notability does not exist in isolation, it is a function of time, location etc. and at the moment this is clearly notable. As there are no other reasons to delete, it's a clear keep. --Apyule (talk) 10:10, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect. slakr said pretty much what I wanted to say. Julle (talk) 08:17, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect. Seems notable enough in sense of the trial, but not enough for it's own article at this time. It can always be split back out later if it gains enough notability. A redirect link will still help in the search example mentioned above in finding it even without a separate article. PaleAqua (talk) 08:27, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep (commenting as an AFD regular, not one of the many people who have visited this page and seen the deletion notice). Page clearly passes WP:N with several third party references to well-known reliable sources. The fact that most of them refer to the subject of the article in their headlines suggests their authors consider this an important topic. While WP:NOTNEWS may apply, it will be easier to tell if it is relevant in, say, 3 months' time, when we can see whether or not thhere are ongoing references. In the meantime, we should keep this informative, well-sourced article, because there's no real reason not to. JulesH (talk) 08:31, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Clearly just feeding the trolls to continue this deletion debate. Like others have noted it meets WP's minimum requirements to be an article. Strong Keep. Wikidrone (talk) 08:48, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Too soon to delete, this will most likely get quite notable before long fno (talk) 09:47, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect (and merge if needed). It's currently only used in The Pirate Bay Trial so it hasn't been substantially covered by reliable sources as a separate entity. When that happens, it can be spun out. - Mgm|(talk) 10:14, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Let's wait and see how big this becomes. Let's see if the meme lives or dies before a premature deletion. --ReCover (talk) 10:21, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and wait. Also current events are notable, this is from high public interest and has reliable sources. - 194.237.142.7 (talk) 16:08, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
break 6[edit]
- Delete. Come on, have you lost all reason. This is not "a legal strategy" - it is an example of a very classic legal strategy. The only reason it exists is because it is similar to "Chewbacca Defense" and sounds funny. If it had the slightest resemblance of anything serious, Ifpiss cider would probably be written too. Thankfully it is not. Very well, this AFD should be snowballed as keep. Us content-hating deletionists can try again when the dust has settled... (unless, of course, it actually becomes a notable internet meme) Plrk (talk) 10:22, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge Or Keep. Yet, the fact that this is real, and not fictional, seems to have flown over your head? This is worthy of staying, it already has been linked to several times, and it has grounds of being referenced / used again. If this is to be merged, so too should the Chewbacca Defence. If not, then they both should be kept. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.241.134.24 (talk) 12:36, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. If this is successful it has the potential to be fairly important in the future. I don't think we can judge the importance of this subject at this point in time. Re-nominate for deletion in a week or so if necessary. fraggle (talk) 10:25, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge. This is only relevant in the context of The Pirate Bay Trial. If it does become an Internet meme at a later point, it can always be created afterwards. -- gcbirzantalk 10:48, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge. Should a possible legal principle that "service providers are not responsible for the contents of information passing through their websites" already be covered in an article, this article should be merged into that article. --Hapsala (talk) 11:36, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge. Merge with The Pirate Bay Trial, as it thus far is only brought up in that context with no outside references. — Northgrove 11:37, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- keep for now. Let stuff settle down through normal editing before we start deleting stuff. Thue | talk 12:15, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete/Merge. This is clear propagandizing by Pirate Bay fans, an attempt to create a phrase by turning an analogy made by a lawyer into some kind of legal argument. At best, it belongs to a page discussing the Pirate Bay trial, with a possible redirect based upon the fact that abusing Wikipedia in this way has actually caused the phrase to be picked up. It shouldn't be Wikipedia's role to spread memes, only to document them, and allowing this one through allows pretty much anyone to abuse Wikipedia to spread new memes of their own. Strongly agree with the proposer that the article should either be deleted or merged with the trial discussion. --66.149.58.8 (talk) 12:23, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I encountered the term by following up Slashdot coverage, landed here. It is a useful term, needs an entry. 59.56.217.30 (talk) 12:34, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I'm a tourist, but I come to Wikipedia to see what stuff that I read about (e.g. on Slashdot) means... I came here to find out what a "King Kong defense" was, and found out. Isn't that what Wikipedia is for? I don't see what "It's not a staggeringly important new defense" has to do with it - it's a currently common and new term, will likely be a common term in the future, and needs to be explained. (Thanks for letting me visit and comment... hope I did it right!) 208.48.253.227 (talk) 12:53, 19 February 2009 (UTC)Sam Galetar[reply]
- So what? If you'd found this information on The Pirate Bay trial, would that have made any difference? darkweasel94 (talk) 13:27, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This term is in current use and I am impressed that there is already a page on wikipedia to describe the history of the phrase. You cannot ignore the term because you think it is trivial when clearly there is a lot of interest about the subject at present. Ozebuddha (talk) 13:06, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge I don't think that one little defense in front of the court really needs an own article. While it is notable enough to be mentioned somewhere on Wikipedia, I think that The Pirate Bay trial is a better place for that and all of the information really can be integrated there. darkweasel94 (talk) 13:23, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge with The Pirate Bay trial, in the event that this defense were to be used again in a later trial, then it could be used in it's on article. In the mean time, the actual trial article should be able to capture a sufficient level of information relating to the defense. Darkstar949 (talk) 13:44, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge. There's no way this has gained any significance beyond the trial itself. If it ever does, then it can easily be recreated. --ascorbic (talk) 14:00, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge, Redirect - not only is this only relevant within the pirate bay trial, but these two sentences are pretty insignificant within the trial itself and have only garnered interest due to their humour. just merge it. there's no need for a separate article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.133.155.8 (talk) 14:24, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge or Keep Like others here, I came to Wikipedia explicitly to look up more information on the prhase 'King Kong Defense' out of context of the current trial. If nothing more I was unsure as to whether this was a new phenomenom or an already established legal defense, this article served that purpose. I can understand the arguments to merge the article with that of the trial it was used in, but this is a rapidly developing situation on a phrase that has gone 'viral' with the Tech community in an explosively short amount of time. Give it some time to mature, source it as neccecary. If it takes a life of it's own, keep it, if not, merge or delete as neccecary. Please.C4Cypher (talk) 14:43, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. This has taken on a life of its own and is spreading like wildfire all over the internet. If it turns out to not be notable, why not merge it at that time? I wouldn't outright delete anything - clearly the information in this article is of value at least within the context of the trial. Rich0 (talk) 15:06, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
break 7[edit]
- Keep. Yet another example of trigger-happy admins enforcing the increasingly strict policies that are ruining Wikipedia! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.32.228.17 (talk • contribs) 15:12, 19 February 2009
- Keep. At least for now to see what becomes of this. Cli wayne (talk) 15:49, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as a first choice, would be ok with a merge. It's got plenty of sources to establish notability, it's long enough to be its own article, and POV problems are not a reason to delete. --Explodicle (T/C) 15:52, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- 'Keep - gave an explanation to a term I saw on the 'net, which is the purpose of Wikipedia.--Yurik (talk) 16:05, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and Redirect. The comparison to the Twinkie defense is very instructive here. The Twinkie defense has its own article because it gained significant reputation in the legal world and in popular culture. In addition, laws in California were changed partly because of the Twinkie defense. It was even referenced by a member of the Supreme Court. In contrast, the King Kong defense has no legal history. Its only claim to fame at this point is as a minor internet phenomenon with less than a day of history. Such a topic could be easily covered under The Pirate Bay trial. If it turns out to create significant legal precedent in the future, then creating a separate article will be justified at that time. My point is this: if the topic can be satisfactorily covered under in an existing article, there is no justification for creating a new article. Jace Harker (talk) 16:20, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge with, and redirect, to The Pirate Bay Trial. It can be broken out again later if necessary. ukexpat (talk) 16:59, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- delete - This is not notable - if anything, merge, redirect. It is a meme, with only momentary popularity due to the people following a trial. Achromatic (talk) 17:03, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge, redirect, and close already - There is some verifiable information in this article and neither The Pirate Bay trial article nor King Kong defence are large enough that this warrants a separate article at this point in time. Enough with the drama, guys. Wickethewok (talk) 17:28, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Notable and sourced. Kittybrewster ☎ 17:42, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as the article is still only hours old and has gone through marked improvement since it was so quickly nommed. While tossing new articles into AfD before letting them be improved in order to see if they "can" be improved inside that 5-day period of discussion (Wiki has no WP:DEADLINE) is not what AfD is supposed to be about, it had exactly that result. No matter its name, the article is now worthy of wikipedia. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 19:06, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The question isn't the quality of the article. The question is whether it's notable enough to have its own article. --ascorbic (talk) 19:58, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually both issue are at stake as a brand new article in the process of being improved to meet wiki standards being tossed into an AfD while that process as being undertaken has to scurry to meet voiced concerns... even though Wiki admits to being imperfect and has no WP:DEADLINE. Notability assertions are being met even as the discussion is ongoing and working under the ticking clock of an arbitrary timeline is not the easiest thing to do. They are to be congratuated. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 21:27, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It needs to be asserted that the topic is notable by itself, apart from the trial. The article was created based on the notability of the trial, and that's why it ended up here so quickly. This isn't an issue of the article having sufficient time to be improved, because currently there's no evidence that it can be improved the way it needs to be. We don't keep topics in separate articles based on the possibility that they could become notable in the future. And PS, don't abbreviate Wikipedia as Wiki! :) Equazcion •✗/C • 23:12, 19 Feb 2009 (UTC)
- Keep I wanted to know what the "King Kong defense" was, so I typed it into wikipedia and gained a clear understanding. That's the purpose of this place, no? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.14.57.27 (talk • contribs) 19:11, 19 February 2009
- Keep - "This was an illustration of the fact that Lundström had no idea who uploaded what and could not be prosecuted for assisting copyright infringement if he had no contact with the person committing the copyright infringement and it is required by the prosecutor to show a connection.[4]" explains it all... gives an idea to people about what is "King Kong Defense" , too... --89.203.64.49 (talk) 19:22, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Plus, with this article, what we have is a name for a new trick...allow this article more time so more information will be available --89.203.64.49 (talk) 19:25, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Again, this isn't about deleting the content, it's about having it on the correct article. With the correct redirects, this is nothing more than an administrative detail. John Hayestalk 20:09, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree of course. Regardless of this being a "deletion discussion", the content won't be lost under any circumstance. In the case of a Delete decision, this page will undoubtedly become a redirect to the trial article, and most of the information on the King Kong defense will be available there. The repeated Keep !votes that say the content is valuable are mostly irrelevant, as no one disagrees with that point. This discussion is only to determine whether it should be regarded as a standalone topic with its own article, and so far there hasn't been any good argument in defense of that. Equazcion •✗/C • 20:29, 19 Feb 2009 (UTC)
break 8[edit]
- Merge and Redirect - This is an example of a non-noteable comment in a trial being made notable by the same people who are creating this article. Some of the earliest news stories covering the "King Kong defense" are actually referencing back to this article. Which means the article is essentially feeding itself. Sure, the "King Kong defense" may become notable if future cases make use of it. But who are we to look into our crystal balls and decide that we should have the article ready "just in case" that happens? Make reference of the defense's statements in the trial article. If it starts to grow ON ITS OWN MERITS then we can split it into it's own article. -- TRTX T / C 21:10, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Additional Comment: It should be noted that the "Popularization" section of the article (which would be the most important for demonstrating notability consists solely of the following content:
Only one source (which judging by it's use elsewhere in the article was the original source for the "King Kong defense" going public) is actually used to support this. No additional sources what so ever are used to support this. Either with examples of it's popularity, further use in culture, or even to prove that it's recieved any kind of major coverage. -- TRTX T / C 21:17, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]The term "King Kong defense" was quickly popularized by use in online blogs, micro-blogs, file-sharing news feeds, and in media reports on the Pirate Bay Trial.
- Slashdot has sited the "king kong" defense now. 76.120.46.35 (talk) 22:29, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The Slashdot article you are mentioning comes from a user submission that (surprise) points back to the TorrentFreak article who's reliability and notability are in question in this AfD. -- TRTX T / C 01:10, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Additional Comment: It should be noted that the "Popularization" section of the article (which would be the most important for demonstrating notability consists solely of the following content:
- Keep - Let It Be. ViridaeTalk 21:12, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - This article was useful to be as several sites are refering only to the "king kong" defence and not explaining. I don't know whether it should be kept permenently, but in the mean time, the amazing fact that wikipeadia has an article about it already is one of the things that makes wikipedia shine above and beyond a normal encyclopedia. 76.120.46.35 (talk) 22:27, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- A redirect to The Pirate Bay trial would do just as well in that case. --ascorbic (talk) 22:43, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Several blogs and newspapers have linked to this page and therefore it should be kept. The article has many sources and is very well structured, not meeting any deletion-criteria (not being well structured, not having sources, etc.). Retle (talk) 00:11, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "Several blogs" have been mentioned time and time again (including in the "Popularization" section of the article). Yet the article (and those stating "several blogs" have been unable to actually point to these sources. And no, those sources that point back to this Wiki article do not count. -- TRTX T / C 01:10, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Passes general notability guidelines for inclusion with multiple independent reliable sources. AfD hero (talk) 00:27, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect: Only notable in the context of the trial and would fit nicely into The Pirate Bay trial. An analogy used on one day in one trial; if it's used in others or becomes noteworthy in legal circles it can have it's own article then. Most keep arguments are served by a merge and redirect. Wikipedia is not an incubator for memes. Wikipedia is not Slashdot or other social news site. Ha! (talk) 02:17, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep. -- Zblewski|talk 04:27, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Currently available sources are: PC Pro, The Guardian, Wired News and FastCompany. --116.206.169.247 (talk) 04:55, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect Mind you, though the Chewbacca defense has its own article. Orderinchaos 08:14, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect Articles should not be created speculatively; Wikipedia should reflect reality, not try to influence it. The article subject is not yet notable in its own right. It is noteworthy enough to merit a mention in The Pirate Bay Trial article, which would make this the perfect candidate for merging and redirection. I am surprised that this has not happened yet. Wikipedia is not 4chan or some other such place made for creating memes and running wild with them. Wikipedia should accurately reflect the current reality from a neutral point of view, not be a battleground for ten thousand ideas. --193.11.177.87 (talk) 11:25, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment If this topic lacked notability in it's own right, then why would people be coming here looking for information on it, explicitly seeking information on 'The King Kong Defense' as opposed to the trial? I would encourage that people err on the side of caution on the guideline of WP:NOTE as opposed to using said guideline to bludgeon new articles hours after they've been written. This is not 4chan, wikipedia did not create this 'meme' ... but the fact remains that people are coming here looking for clarification on a new phrase, and the article as it is written now serves the purpose of providing encyclopedic information on what I personally beleive IS a notable (if recent) subject. This is all my own opinion and interpretation of guideline, what we seek is consensus. Merging the article with the trial would probably also serve this purpose. My main point of contention is the time frame that a new subject I've taken intrest in is getting slammed with an AfD over a procedural issue in what is supposed to be a flexible guideline.C4Cypher (talk) 19:16, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I submit that by having its own article, people who are coming here because they heard the phrase (from blogs or social news sites) are being mislead regarding the importance of the phrase. All we know about the KKD is that it was mentioned, once, in a trial that has just begun - there isn't even evidence yet that it is effective. By redirecting the inquiry to the trial, the meaning of the KKD is still being conveyed, but now people know that this is not a legal theory or strategy that has gained wide acceptance and begin to understand the context. From what I'm reading here, the merge and redirect proponents (including myself) are not denying the notability, just the context of the notability. If it gains a legal following, or gains meaning beyond the scope of this particular problem, break the article out. WP:TIND (view 1)
Vulture19 (talk) 05:06, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
break 9[edit]
- Keep - I believe that we should keep this article for now, as per WP:PNJCS and WP:TIND. CaptainDDL (talk) 20:53, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge back to the Pirate Bay trial. Wikipedia isn't a collection of neologisms that were made up yesterday. Themfromspace (talk) 02:09, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per above. Well sourced article, if editors would spend half the time they do trying to get other editors contributions deleted, this would be a featured article. What a waste of time. Ikip (talk) 04:04, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This is a fascinating defence in a trial of worldwide importance, and the fine wiki page on this is one that I wish to show others. Eadon-com (talk) 07:35, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Something I find funny/interesting: Deletion discussions have never been for deciding on a merge. In fact a Merge consensus defaults to a close as Keep. Merges can be performed at any time with no AfD (though they do require a discussion if controversial). Unless I'm mistaken, there's actually no one here in favor of a straight delete -- everyone either wants a Keep or a Merge -- I think that may even include the nominator. So really, this AfD should be closed as Keep per WP:SNOW, since that's what everyone wants. Then we can have an RfC or something to determine whether or not the merge should happen. I just thought that was funny and interesting. Teehee. PS. In all seriousness, shifting to some sort of discussion probably would be the most productive thing to do at this point, rather than sit here and keep watching people cast xeroxed one-line votes from further up the page. Equazcion •✗/C • 08:46, 21 Feb 2009 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Withdrawn by nom. Bongomatic 02:56, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
NEAT chipset[edit]
- NEAT chipset (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Good faith web and news searches do not suggest this product is notable. The entry falls under numerous categories in WP:NOT—adding additional technical details does not make the article encyclopedic. Happy to be proved wrong with some good references, but it’s been tagged for nearly four months, so not optimistic. Bongomatic 23:18, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to C&T, the company article. Miami33139 (talk) 23:45, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep or merge. This product was well enough known in the late-1980s or early-1990s that I remember it from numerous magazine articles. However, the article is unlikely to need any huge expansion (other than a few citations), and the C&T article isn't all that long either; a merge and redirect would be fine, I think. LotLE×talk 00:08, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Quit stalking me. Miami33139 (talk) 00:34, 19 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. Black Kite 08:23, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neo-Capitalism[edit]
- Neo-Capitalism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
A non-notable neologism with only one 3rd party source, largely reliant on author's self-published writing; see discussion at Talk:Neo-Capitalism. CarolMooreDC (talk) 23:10, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteNo citation of notability and high-probable conflict of interest. The footnotes at the bottom point to the author's own website, or to sites unrelated to the subject of this article. This appears to be propaganda, not a reflection of an existing theory or movement. -Markeer 23:18, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete As I note on the talk page, the term has been used at various times by various people to mean various different things. The meanings don't agree with each other, and none of the uses were notable. In other words, its a non-notable neologism until one of the uses becomes firmly established. --LK (talk) 02:36, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, I just poked around Google Scholar for a bit, and it seems to be a word used widely in academic literature. More importantly, books have been written on the concept. Whether or not the current content of the article reflects its usage and theoretical base within scholarship is irrelevant. Articles that are about notable topics and can be improved should be kept, per WP:Deletion. SMSpivey (talk) 04:36, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete It was put up by some person that wrote a manifesto and the content is based on that, and the kitchen sink... it connects with a couple of blogs for sources. While the name may sound familiar.. to other material... that material is not connected to this article... Wikipedia:Vanispamcruftisement or so it seems. It seems like the author of this may have put this all up in good faith, maybe without understanding guidelines or criteria, but there is nothing to salvage for another article here, except maybe the title... and that can be recreated. skip sievert (talk) 06:14, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Tag for sources and send to WP:Cleanup. If google books and google scholar are any indication, this could become a terrific addition that improves wiki. Definitely needs attention from experts in the field. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 19:15, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep [Disclaimer: I'm the guy who wrote the page] There are two separate issues going on here because the page consists of two quite separate parts: (i) the definition of the term 'Neo-Capitalism' as historically used by Giddens among many others in the post-WW2 academic economic discourse up until the 1990s and (ii) usage in the 2009 The Neo-Capitalist Manifesto. Now I'm getting the very strong impression that the latter is out until at least the first of my books gets published and my peer reviewed academic articles finally appear, in which case fine, I'll resubmit the material then. So therefore how about I kill off the 2009 stuff and just make it a historical article? As I offered on the talk page, I can have a go at this this weekend. BTW, the article was written in good faith and attempted to objectively overview my own work in a detached fashion as anyone should be able to tell from reading it. I object most strenuously to the constant implications that I am some sort of glory seeking propagandist. Feel free to embark on five years of your own research first, THEN throw your implications freely. In the meantime, have some respect for a content contributor. I have plenty to be doing other than writing Wikipedia pages. (Niall Douglas (talk) 00:03, 20 February 2009 (UTC))[reply]
- Comment I suggest you refactor the above comment. You can remove this suggestion/comment at the same time... in the process of doing that. Swearing at people on Wikipedia is not a good idea, and could get you blocked. You need to read up on Wikipedia guidelines. If your work as a writer is sufficiently notable, someone may start an article about it. You can not. It is not appropriate for you to do it, because of the conflict of interest. skip sievert (talk) 04:46, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Response No where in my comment did I swear, but I removed the reference to God anyway. I am keeping the rest of it because to be quite frank, judging by the comments based on this page so far and the implied assumptions being freely bandied around, half of you guys need a serious attitude readjustment. There is no need to be so cynical and to assume that most contributors to Wikipedia are by default crackpots and losers, and the rest incapable of contributing objectively - some HELPFUL COMMENTS on where there are clear signs of conflict of interest in my article would be constructive rather than just bitching. Right now my current mindset is that the lot of you can go take a running jump - contributing to Wikipedia is more effort than it's worth when people prefer to moan and criticise than contribute constructively. (Niall Douglas (talk) 11:11, 20 February 2009 (UTC))[reply]
- Comment You are quite correct that it is appropriate for Wikipedia editors to assume good faith, in fact it's one of Wikipedia's core values. However, I will ask that you not take criticisms personally , since assuming good faith goes both ways. Those editors above (including myself) may well have been inappropriate in calling the post-2008 section of the article "propaganda" or the like, but we were not incorrect that there was an underlying conflict of interest that expressed itself in those sections. Of course many people are capable of being objective in writing about their own work. However, from wikipedia's point of view, writing about one's own work in the complete absence of verifiable secondary sources is a serious concern. I see that you have already removed those sections, thank you, and doubly thank you for offering to work on the historical uses of this term to make a much stronger Wikipedia article. But there's no reason to become upset when editors expect the guidelines for inclusion (verifiability and notability) to be upheld in an objective manner. -Markeer 00:13, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or Userfy appears to be self-promotional more than RS informational at this point. Indeed, it appears to be a personal essay more than a general article. Give the author time to work on it and remedy the cavils made. Collect (talk) 13:58, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Markeer and LK. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 19:14, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep...This editor may have written a book on Neo-Capitalism but he did not invent the word...or the concept. Once again, we squeeze a new editor to death before he even has a chance to look around. I suggest that Editor:Douglas ignore the naysayers and focus on improving the article from other sources. As a note to him he should know that other editors that support his efforts are, more than likely, doing some research to assist in that process.--Buster7 (talk) 23:33, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per SMSpivey, widely used in academic literature. Ikip (talk) 06:49, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment the article has been completely re-written and trimmed back to a manageable stub since nomination. I would suggest that those of you who are suggesting a delete re-evaluate the article. SMSpivey (talk) 09:02, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It still needs WP:RS to prove that it is a phrase used with any regularity or consistency by any one in sufficent numbers and weight to make it notable. CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:26, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Per SMSpivey, Buster7, and Ikip. Article needs and will be developed, but is certainly a notable economic theory deserving of an entry. EagleFan (talk) 15:20, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete the description in the article doesn't lead me to believe that this is anything other than a synonym of social democracy. Therefore delete and merge any useful content to there Cynical (talk) 21:42, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment if this article is not deleted... and that may be the best course because of confused notability and application of the term... then a redirect to social democracy as per suggestion by Cynical, may be a good option. If the article is deleted... then a brief mention... very brief, of this term could go on the social democracy page in relation to that term. skip sievert (talk) 06:27, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Neologism? Are you serious? Look here, it is a term known since 1960s! Didn't read the article though, it may require more sources. Anyway it is notable. Netrat (talk) 06:34, 23 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 00:02, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
T.J. Tedesco[edit]
- T.J. Tedesco (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable Studerby (talk) 22:54, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've searched for any reliable sources on the Internet and have found none; everything I find on this person seems to come from himself, his businesses, or his business associates. That he's written some books, as is clear from amazon.com, doesn't establish notability, as per WP:N. If some reliable sources can be found, perhaps this article can be rescued. Studerby (talk) 23:05, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as G11 Spam --DFS454 (talk) 19:03, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I can find his name mentioned, or being quoted but no significant coverage about him. -- Whpq (talk) 19:30, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Does not meet WP:BIOFingersOnRoids 22:29, 19 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. Xclamation point 02:47, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Pinstripes[edit]
- The Pinstripes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Not notable, only reference is of citybeat which does articles on 100's of local bands each year 74.129.0.221 22:11, 18 February 2009 (UTC))[reply]
- Delete - Obvious failure to meet WP:BAND. How many ska bands are there in London anyway? Unrelated to the AfD itself, someone should talk a bit more forcefully to User:RasterFaAye, whom I see has a habit of de-PROD-ing articles without much explanation or effort to improve them, as this particular case. §FreeRangeFrog 22:26, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I only deprod a small number of articles, and often for procedural reasons. Those I do deprod, I do so because I believe deletion is not uncontroversial. RasterFaAye (talk) 22:33, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Judging from your talk page, I disagree. And deletion is rarely uncontroversial, which is why there's a process built around consensus for it. Anyway, this is hardly the place to discuss it. §FreeRangeFrog 23:09, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It does make for some interesting reading though. Esradekan Gibb "Talk" 02:14, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Not uncontroversial delete, fails notability per WP:MUSIC. Searching pulls up no reliable, third-party, sources. Esradekan Gibb "Talk" 02:14, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: no significant 3rd party sources WP:BAND. JamesBurns (talk) 05:53, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - they may become notable in the future but not there yet. A single local paper article isn't enough to establish notability -- Whpq (talk) 19:37, 19 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 deleted momentarily before the AfD message was placed on it. The rationale was that the article "already exists at Vault (soft drink) and this is not a viable redirect". --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:17, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Vault 2[edit]
- Vault 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Attempted CSD for nonsense, that took forever so I thought I'll bring it her. I think with MAJOR cleanup, the page could be salvaged. Let's settle this. Cssiitcic (talk) 21:13, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Odd All I see is an empty page, created by you, with a CSD on it by someone else. No evidence of an AfD. Odd. What's going on? -Lilac Soul (talk • contribs • count) 21:42, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete per CSD A7 - the page was created with an AFD tag, so the creator apparently wants it deleted. The creator/nominator also subsequently blanked the page, which is considered a deletion request as well. Although it would really help if said creator/nominator explained the situation to everyone, because in a scenario this unusual, incorrect interpretations of the facts are very likely.--Unscented (talk) 21:52, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - This is most likely caused by Twinkle, which has been experiencing problems for the last 12 hours or so. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 21:59, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The bug report is here. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 22:02, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Is it possible an admin speedy deleted the page while you were trying to replace the speedy delete tag with an AFD tag? Could that possibly cause this result? Calathan (talk) 22:09, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, that is exactly it. It was deleted at 21:13 with the comment "already exists at Vault (soft drink) and this is not a viable redirect" and at 21:13, presumably a few seconds later, the AfD tag was added. I'll tidy up. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:13, 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 00:03, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
LadyDelay[edit]
- LadyDelay (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Article about a new artist, whose notability is questionable, as the citation provided was 1) provided by a new account whose first edit was to this article and 2) is only a top level domain (prdailysun.com) ←Signed:→Mr. E. Sánchez Get to know me! / Talk to me!←at≈:→ 21:08, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- CSD A7. Article gives absolutely no assertion that its subject is notable. Firestorm (talk) 21:44, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete under A7. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 02:04, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: There are currently two other sockpuppet accounts editing this article which are about to get clobbered along with the original contributor. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 02:06, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: [6] (Glasspuppy (talk) 10:49, 19 February 2009 (UTC)) — Glasspuppy (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Arbitrarily0 (talk) 14:11, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete No verifiable sources, not notable. --DFS454 (talk) 19:05, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: no significant independent 3rd party sources WP:MUSICBIO. JamesBurns (talk) 04:11, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: This is a scan of the real article: (A Different Light (talk) 05:17, 21 February 2009 (UTC))[reply]
- (A Different Light (talk) 05:17, 21 February 2009 (UTC))[reply]
- There's also errors on the wikipedia article which I am now fixing: references, article names, dates, and copy. (A Different Light (talk) 05:17, 21 February 2009 (UTC))[reply]
- Delete. The PR Daily Sun article is not significant coverage. —C.Fred (talk) 05:38, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No? It's the 2nd biggest newspaper of Puerto Rico out of 4 and the only one in English. There are no local music magazines in the island, and only 5 magazines in total (A Different Light (talk) 06:26, 21 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. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:04, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Warrick cycles[edit]
- Warrick cycles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Probably factually correct, but sources fail WP:RS. I'm not familiar with the company, and I am a cyclist and live in the town where it apparently was founded, but that does not mean it's nonsense, only that it's not well known. Speedy requested under A7, but notability is clearly asserted; if that could be supported form reliable sources then fine but there are a total of eight Google hits of whihc two are Wikipedia so I don't hold out much hope. Guy (Help!) 20:59, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - only a handful of google results suggests this isn't a notable subject. PhilKnight (talk) 21:55, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I don't see anything unreliable about the main source quoted. Long-defunct companies are unlikely to generate many Google hits, but that doesn't mean they are not notable. . . Rcawsey (talk) 22:02, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Per Rcawset. Also, Google scholar search adding the word Reading turned up "this"..Vulture19 (talk) 23:24, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Little-known, but historical. WP can afford the space for this type of item. Collect (talk) 14:04, 20 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. Xclamation point 02:50, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Smoothie Song[edit]
- Smoothie Song (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Despite what this article says, Billboard does not have a Triple A chart. This song may have charted on a third-party Triple A chart, but we generally don't accept third-party charts. The only source in this article is a forum post, which is not a reliable source at all. Although it was nominated for a Grammy award, that doesn't inherently make it notable enough for its own article, especially given that there are no sources to be found. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 20:47, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. While it was nominated for a Grammy [7], once you remove all the unsourced filler in the article, you're only left with an infobox, and 1 sentence; "its a song by Nickel Creek, and it was nominated for a Grammy." That can easily be a mention on the This Side page, but not enough for a stand alone article. Esradekan Gibb "Talk" 21:22, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Esradekan. Dismas|(talk) 21:31, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to the album This Side. The song may not establish standalone notability but information such as a grammy nomination raise it above the run-of-the-mill single and should belong somewhere, and that somehwere in this case is the album. Note that there is some minor coverage about the song such as this article which identifies it as a hit on "adult album alternative" stations across the US. This is sourcing is enough to establish that the material should be merged as a significant track from the album. -- Whpq (talk) 19:49, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Grammy nomination generates real-world coverage, even though sometimes hard to find. Nominations for many less significant awards seen as conferring notability. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:42, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If there are sources, then add them. Even then, I don't see anything else than a merge. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 00:06, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: insufficient independent 3rd party sources WP:NSONGS. JamesBurns (talk) 05:08, 21 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 00:05, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Prize Fighter[edit]
- The Prize Fighter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Not a notable band. Does not appear to meet WP:BAND requirements. Record label is not notable. No sources. Previous members aren't notable, and there's not even any evidence they were with the band in the first place. Enigmamsg 20:47, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note I declined the speedy per WP:BAND #6, but perhaps I was mistaken. It is admittedly a tenuous assertion of notability. –xeno (talk) 20:49, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, fails notability per WP:MUSIC. Searching pulls up no reliable, third-party, sources. Esradekan Gibb "Talk" 21:04, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:MUSIC and also a suspected WP:HOAX. Firestorm (talk) 21:45, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or Redirect to Taking Back Sunday as proposed in WP:BAND. but it would be a stretch. FingersOnRoids 23:33, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: insufficient independent 3rd party sources WP:BAND. JamesBurns (talk) 05:01, 21 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. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:06, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Devdas (1937 film)[edit]
- Devdas (1937 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This article is asserted to be substantially incorrect, and was speedy tagged for that reason, but I don't see it as an obvious hoax (vandalism); it is, however, unsourced, other than from IMDB (which is not a reliable source, being user-edited); in any case, the IMDB stuff disagrees in part with what the article says. Guy (Help!) 20:35, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
deleteA search on imdb for the director shows no film of this name for 1937. A gScholar search yielded a fairly lengthy article that referenced another film from 1937 that was thematically similar, leading me to believe, well, something. Maybe the author got confused?Vulture19 (talk) 23:37, 18 February 2009 (UTC) COMMENT I was contacted and given some more information. Given that info, I retract my delete entry.Vulture19 (talk) 20:29, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That was me diff informing an editor that I found a source. I did not request he change his opinion, simply informed of a souce being added since his first comment. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 22:24, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
deleteIf Mr Barua directed Devdas in Asamese language, it should be remarkable film in this language.But imdb search shows only 93 Assamese titles. First assamese movie Joymoti was released in the year 1935[8]. Then second assamese movie Indramalati(1939)[9]. Mr Barua born in Assam but he directed films bengali and hindi language.-Thanks. Jayanta Nath (Talk|Contrb) 05:11, 19 February 2009 (UTC)COMMENT I was also contacted and I retract my delete entry.-Thanks. Jayanta Nath (Talk|Contrb) 05:04, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Imdb is not RS, for what it contains nor what it omits. [10] refers to it and the director. Should be dispositive. [11] gives a date of 1935 however. and 1936 is in [12] What we are left with is the apparently chaotic state of film distribution in India during the Depression. The article (with a query as to actual year possibly) shoud remain. [13] Barua was Assamese. Collect (talk) 14:14, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 20:26, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- STRONG Keep Sources, though difficult to find, are available toward this particular film and its historic notability in the development of cinema in India. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 21:34, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, needs a few references, not an afd.Smallman12q (talk) 23:05, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I found sourcing to show Barua making an Assamese version in 1937 and added it to the article: Multiple Takes: Devdas’s journey in Indian cinema -- from the silent era of the 1920s to the opulent Hindi blockbuster of 2002. Pity IMDB did not catch it. Others have. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 10:11, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep per above. Re: "it is...unsourced" WP:INTROTODELETE & WP:POTENTIAL "Remember that deletion is a last resort. Deletion nominations rarely improve articles, and deletion should not be used as a way to improve an article, or a reaction to a bad article. It is appropriate for articles which cannot be improved." Ikip (talk) 18:10, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well..... it took more than a cursory search. I easily found many sources that simply listed the two 1935 versions and skipped on to the 1955, but I found the answer in an in-depth article about the phenomona about the entire fascination with Devdas in India film, covering the original and 9 of the 10 remakes (didn't cover the 2008 version). IMDB has its strong points and its weak. One weak one is that it does not contain every film ever made. So we use it as a starting point and look elswhere... and then find the gold. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 18:51, 22 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 Biofuels by region. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:07, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Biofuel in the UK[edit]
- Biofuel in the United Kingdom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Contested (correctly) speedy. This is an article which fails to establish how biofuels in the UK differ from biofuels generically, and has no proper sources. Guy (Help!) 20:27, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If you want to delete this, do you want to delete Biodiesel in the United Kingdom as well? Biscuittin (talk) 20:52, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Good idea. Merge text into Biodiesel, merge graph and redirect into Biodiesel around the world#United Kingdom. I think that one day there could be also separate article about Biodiesel in the United Kingdom, but it needs a new start. Beagel (talk) 13:57, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:46, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:46, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect to Biofuels by region which does explain differences between countries. (the list of major companies and other UK specific content can be merged). - Mgm|(talk) 10:08, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect to Biofuels and Biofuels by region for now. I think that one day there could be also separate article about Biofuel in the United Kingdom, but it needs a new start.Beagel (talk) 13:52, 21 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 00:43, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hotel Massachusetts[edit]
- Hotel Massachusetts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Borderline A9. Has a couple bluelink artists, but it's on a red link label and doesn't really assert notability with any kind of sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 20:19, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, article fails to establish notability per WP:MUSIC#Albums. Esradekan Gibb "Talk" 21:02, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: insufficient 3rd party sources WP:NALBUMS. JamesBurns (talk) 06:07, 19 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 G3: Vandalism / hoax. Hu12 (talk) 20:27, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neteraantmwmw[edit]
- Neteraantmwmw (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Invented Egyptian deity. "What little is known of Neteraantmwmw comes from an inscription on the tomb of the 18th Dynasty Egyptian Queen Nefertiti" - however, Neferiti's tomb has not been found. [14] Additionally a previous version of the page contains a claim that the whole thing was made up[15] to fool Godchecker.com, which is the only web source except for Wikipedia and its mirrors. pablohablo. 20:18, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. It was my homework that uncovered this while rating articles for Wikiproject Egyptian Religion. -- Secisek (talk) 20:23, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Deleted I'd say delete, but it's been G3'd as a hoax. dougweller (talk) 20:26, 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 00:08, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sheri Allen Yengst[edit]
- Sheri Allen Yengst (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable professor; does not come close to meeting WP:PROF. OhNoitsJamie Talk 20:02, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I can't find any evidence that meets criteria. dougweller (talk) 20:31, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Google scholar search and news archive search comes up empty, google search is sparse and showed nothing that convinced me of notability. Cazort (talk) 20:41, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:07, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Could not find enough to establish notability under WP:PROF. Does not seem to pass WP:BIO either.--Eric Yurken (talk) 18:38, 19 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 00:09, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Justin Blackburn[edit]
- Justin Blackburn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Has been tagged for non-notability and no sources for almost a year. Northwestgnome (talk) 19:23, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - 182 hits for "Justin Blackburn"+"Gifted Disabilities"; impossible to source that Secret Service claim; abandoned and unsourced BLP. §FreeRangeFrog 19:27, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete fails WP:BIO. —Snigbrook 23:34, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:06, 20 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 00:12, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Prohawk[edit]
- Prohawk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Delete no indication that this neologism has significant traction; google has lots of Prohawk hits but most seem to be about a Taiwanese company and a boat model and none of the first 30 or 40 -as far as I skimmed- seem to be this usage. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:09, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Unless sources can be found that tell us something about this haircut. Northwestgnome (talk) 19:33, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as something made up in one day/hoax. I could find no sources verifying a haircut with this name even exists. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 22:06, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Even if it does exist there need to be sources that tell us something about it. Northwestgnome (talk) 06:14, 19 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 00:13, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DigitalFos[edit]
- DigitalFos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Delete. Company not notable, have not released any products, one product in development does not make them notable. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 19:01, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - This page has already been speedied once. I thought it looked familiar because I'm pretty sure I tagged it. The contents and the (non-existent) claims to notability seem to be identical. Failed WP:CORP then and fails now. §FreeRangeFrog 19:12, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 20:32, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, no references to establish notability. Possible CSD A7 as no indication of importance or significance. --Muchness (talk) 00:45, 19 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 rename to A5058 road Black Kite 08:51, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Queens Drive[edit]
- Queens Drive (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Delete this article, at least, claims the road is "major", but is bereft of sources and "major" is in the eye of the beholder. Anyway, it doesn't appear to be notable. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:17, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep it is one of the major roads in the city, and also a primary route. Some sources that can be used: [16][17][18]. —Snigbrook 19:27, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:34, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:34, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Abstain Koptor (talk) 22:29, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- REname to A5058 Road, which is at present a redlink, assuming that we can trust Snigbrook as to its importance. A-Roads with 4-digit numbers are usually short or unimportant or both. There are a lot of articles in the suggested format, dealing with the whole length of a road, which may well go by differnet names in different areas. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:36, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If it was renamed, it would probably be A5058 road. —Snigbrook 00:46, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - In addition to the sources found by Snigbrook (more direct link to the book ref here), it appears one of the primary roads of Liverpool [19] Nominating a non-hoax article that asserts its notability for AfD on it's second edit and withing four hours of its creation [20] is not helpful to this project. --Oakshade (talk) 00:07, 19 February 2009 (UTC) (Additional comment) For the record, I'm neutral on the rename proposal. --Oakshade (talk) 19:10, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: If kept it certainly needs some form of renaming. I don't know how many "Queens Drives there are worldwide, but I can think of three fairly locally off the top of my head. There must be a considerable number, even just going by the number of different Queens Drives mentioned in Wikipedia articles. Grutness...wha? 00:16, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it's usually known as Queens Drive, at least that appears to be its name for its entire length and most sources prefer to name to the number (similar to roads in London, where the number is only a redirect). None of the other roads with the same name appear to be notable enough for articles, and although the road in Kilmarnock is part of an A-road but that doesn't necessarily mean it would be a useful redirect or search term for it (just imagine what the High Street (disambiguation) page would look like). However, if there is another Queens Drive that is notable, disambiguation would be needed. —Snigbrook 00:46, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It is known as Queens Road for most of its Liverpool stretch but not for the Bootle segment nor for the Allerton end. For that reason, I think that redirecting A5058 road was premature. The way forward is a rename, IMHO. Smile a While (talk) 01:15, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it's usually known as Queens Drive, at least that appears to be its name for its entire length and most sources prefer to name to the number (similar to roads in London, where the number is only a redirect). None of the other roads with the same name appear to be notable enough for articles, and although the road in Kilmarnock is part of an A-road but that doesn't necessarily mean it would be a useful redirect or search term for it (just imagine what the High Street (disambiguation) page would look like). However, if there is another Queens Drive that is notable, disambiguation would be needed. —Snigbrook 00:46, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and rename A5058 road - since most (but not all) of the A5058 is known as Queens Drive this seems logical and enables this major road to be covered in one place. Smile a While (talk) 01:15, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree, it should be moved to A5058 road – I hadn't noticed the continuation with the same number but a different name at the Bootle end, or the change of name at a minor junction at the other end where the A5058 turns off Queens Drive. —Snigbrook 01:44, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename A5058 road in line with other roads articles, it can be expanded from there. Jenuk1985 | Talk 07:52, 19 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 00:06, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hillsmore Way[edit]
- Hillsmore Way (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Delete nothing to indicate that this road is notable. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:14, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete no assertion of notability, appears to be a road that has recently been built as part of a residential development (I can't find it on any maps). —Snigbrook 19:54, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:32, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:32, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Abstain Koptor (talk) 22:29, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete -- a minute stub about a NN street. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:29, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete "random" street that does not meet WP:N Jenuk1985 | Talk 07:54, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete The context is there...partly. But the article fails to provide any specifics and is thus a speedy based on the lack of content. - Mgm|(talk) 10:01, 19 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 15:05, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Gallant, Inc.[edit]
- Gallant, Inc. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Notability cannot be established, company does not appear to have a significant coverage in reliable secondary sources Crowsnest (talk) 18:05, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I see two claims to notability there. One is ...It was one of the very first agencies to offer unique promotional services on the internet, which is backed up with a link to the company's website. I can't find anything in Google that might indicate this to be true, and I think it would be impossible to verify anyway. The second is the claim that the company is a women-owned minority business, which might have been notable in 1917 but not in 2008 (or some other type of business that had traditionally been male dominated). This looks like the usual corp advert article disguised with extraneous claims of notability in an attempt to clear WP:CORP. §FreeRangeFrog 18:12, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - A minor mention in a 2001 Miami newspaper, but nothing else. The claims made are either unsourced or not very extraordinary, as mentioned above. Flowanda | Talk 07:58, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - The article has been updated to reflect more outside references. Notability is defined as "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article" and has nothing to do with whether or not the editor thinks the topic is extraordinary or popular. Whether or not being woman owned is out of the ordinary in this day and age should not be an issue. It is part of Gallant's company history and therefore part of the article. Kirkman775 (talk) 22:14, 20 February 2009 (UTC) 16:58, 20 February 2009 (UTC) — Kirkman775 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Comment - According to WP:CORP: "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." The only press coverage referenced in the article at this moment is an article in the Orlando Business Journal. -- Crowsnest (talk) 23:08, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Along with coverage from winning an award on an international level, also referenced -- Kirkman775 (talk) 23:08, 22 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 00:10, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Pilot Breakdown[edit]
- Pilot Breakdown (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Delete apparent hoax, or at minimum nothing that is claimed to make this band notable can be verified. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:45, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - WP:HOAX. Nice try though. §FreeRangeFrog 19:15, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as a WP:HOAX. Esradekan Gibb "Talk" 21:00, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom and two preceding votes. Firestorm (talk) 21:53, 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 00:14, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Bailout mentality[edit]
- Bailout mentality (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This article about a recent neologism returns just around 20 Google News hits. Trivial coverage: simple use of the phrase doesn't denote notability. Grsz11 17:34, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Neologisms must go. Actually this is WP:OR anyway since it's trying to argue that the term is notable simply because it's been repeated in the news a few times. §FreeRangeFrog 19:13, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This is not even a neologism. It is just two words that happen to sit next to each other. Northwestgnome (talk) 19:36, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I was going to say what Northwestgnome said. It's just an article about words that happen to appear next to eachother in a few articles. --Miss Communication (talk) 22:35, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Protologism of no particular currency, and the few Google hits are of the Hitler turnip sort. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 22:50, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Bailout. It does appear to be a neologism (i.e. more than a protologism, but still only recently used) and probably unsuitable as an article title, but sources are cited, the results found on Google news are valid, and do specifically mention the phrase, and the content is more useful than some sections already in the bailout article. Recentism could be a problem, but the situation that resulted in the phrase being coined, and the criticism that is mentioned, is likely to have lasting notability. —Snigbrook 23:30, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:NEO. caknuck ° is a silly pudding 19:06, 22 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. WP:CSD#G12, copyright violation of http://davmodeliitkgp.org/dload/davpro.pdf (no prejudice against non-vopyvio recreation with independent sources) Mgm|(talk) 09:59, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DAV Public School Sasaram[edit]
- DAV Public School Sasaram (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Contested speedy delete. Entire article appears to be copied out of brochures and/or handbooks for the school, failing WP:ADVERT KuyaBriBriTalk 17:21, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Stub - This is terrible and probably a copyvio to boot. Inclusion guidelines are usually very forgiving of schools, so I wouldn't argue for a delete. But it definitely needs to be stubbed and the author(s) gently pointed in the general direction of WP:FIRST and WP:STYLE. "Dedicated souls"? Hmmm. §FreeRangeFrog 18:16, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:24, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:24, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - this is a significant high school. The issues should be dealt with by cleaning up and sourcing, not by deletion. TerriersFan (talk) 20:38, 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 00:11, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reverse Sheep[edit]
- Reverse Sheep (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Contested speedy. Article makes no particular claims of notability; only source is a forum and a supporting article (Fleebrog Method) that was created at the same time and deleted as vandalism. A cursory search makes it apparent this is WP:MADEUP at best. §FreeRangeFrog 17:11, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Frog - both this and the "Fleebrog method" had just the one source and it seems as though each article was created to give the other credibility. pablohablo. 20:10, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete no genuine supporting sources i could find, without any should be deleted Kurtk60 (talk) 20:30, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:N and WP:NOT#MADEUP. Firestorm (talk) 21:56, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per everyone. Edward321 (talk) 00:25, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete WP:MADEUP Andy Dingley (talk) 01:50, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete for reasons stated above Cabe6403 (Talk•Sign!) 19:14, 21 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 00:14, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Venetian diaspora[edit]
- Venetian diaspora (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This is nothing but a fork from Venetian People, and the entire content was in that article until I removed it as POV OR dougweller (talk) 17:05, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:22, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:22, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as a POV fork. There doesn't even seem to be anything worth salvaging for a merge. Firestorm (talk) 21:57, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I can't understand which is the subject of the article. The Istrian exodus? the or the italian diaspora in the years after the italian unification? User:Lucifero4
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:15, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Unband[edit]
- The Unband (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
- Retarder (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
No sources at all, and none that i can find. Certainly no charted hits, no gold records, and no coverage trivial or otherwise anywhere. Clear fail of WP:MUSIC Bali ultimate (talk) 16:45, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Added their album as well. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 17:17, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Coverage by allmusic, rolling stone and pop matters is enough. Rolling Stone, Allmusic, pop matters, [EZ Rock]. Article needs serious work though. --neon white talk 20:32, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep per Neon white, sources do exist to satisfy C1 of WP:BAND but the article needs major work. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 20:49, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, passes WP:MUSIC#C1. I tickled up the album page too and added the Allmusic review. Esradekan Gibb "Talk" 20:56, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep winrar Koptor (talk) 23:09, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep-- A Rolling Stone review is enough to establish notability. --J.Mundo (talk) 03:53, 19 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 per WP:SNOWBALL - This school appears notable per consensus. Perhaps a cleanup of said article is in order. (non-admin closure) Alpha 4615 (talk) 20:45, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Notre Dame Preparatory School (Towson, Maryland)[edit]
- Notre Dame Preparatory School (Towson, Maryland) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Most of the content looks like it was copied out of brochures for the school, thereby failing WP:ADVERT. Nominating here instead of G11 because the article has been around for a long time. KuyaBriBriTalk 16:43, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- STRONG KEEP. Let's just fix it up, it should be deleted as one of the oldest schools in the country. EagleFan (talk) 18:21, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep As noted by Eagle, this school would be notable even without the presumption that we indulge for high schools. It's been around since '73, and that's 1873, and it was a school to give girls and advantage in going to college. Maybe the article has become spammy from time to time, although I suspect its the writing style of a teacher or student, rather than being lifted out of a brochure. Would a Notre Dame Prep girl plagiarize? Surely not. Mandsford (talk) 19:10, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:19, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:19, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - historic high school. The issues should be dealt with by cleaning up and sourcing not deletion. TerriersFan (talk) 20:44, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep-- Consensus in Wikipedia is that high schools are notable. Issues with content can be deal with editing. --J.Mundo (talk) 03:57, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. For our UK readers, I'd like to note that Preparatory school has more than one meaning. While the phrase "Notre Dame Preparatory School is one of Baltimore's oldest Catholic, college preparatory schools for girls." contains a bit of weasel wording, the idea it is actually the oldest is possibly true and its historic significance and notable alumni make it worth rewriting to get rid of any advertorial content. - Mgm|(talk) 09:51, 19 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 00:16, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
White Feather[edit]
- White Feather (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. Andre666 (talk) 15:19, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, fails to meet WP:MUSIC and WP:CRYSTAL. Esradekan Gibb "Talk" 20:58, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, this fails, delete it.--124.184.23.114 (talk) 05:30, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete fails to meet both Tej68 (talk) 21:39, 22 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. Xclamation point 02:50, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Pete & Mike Band[edit]
- The Pete & Mike Band (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable band. Only Google hits are to compilation sites or the band's own MySpace. No Google News hits. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 13:56, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Certain publications that have featured this band are not currently available online. The Band has, however been featured nationally in various other formats. If the publications involving this band are available online, they will be added to this article. Namely the Falmouth Enterprise, which has covered the band's residency in Woods Hole for 3 years. This band has also sold over 10,000 records independently and should therefore be considered "notable." digital and non-digital sales figures are available. Heymikey84 (talk) 18:24, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete fails WP:MUSICBali ultimate (talk) 19:57, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, fails notability per WP:MUSIC. Searching pulls up no reliable, third-party, sources. Esradekan Gibb "Talk" 21:00, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Boston Globe - Boston.com Special Report...and in rotation on major radio network WMVY. Links To Both Media Sources In Article. This is notable. 68.44.69.20 (talk) 22:11, 18 February 2009 (UTC) srry, not logged in Heymikey84 (talk) 22:15, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you Mike of Pete & Mike? If so there is a conflict of interest WP:COI issue with the article. JamesBurns (talk) 05:54, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Sorry -- the Boston.com site shows up blank when I search for "Pete & Mike Band". The link you have provided leads to a blank page (although this may be an issue with my company firewall -- I'll check again later when I'm home). And WMVY is not really a "major radio network" -- it's a local radio station which has a program highlighting local talent. That may make the band LOCALLY notable, but that is not sufficient for the criteria of WP:MUSIC. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 13:25, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: no significant 3rd party sources WP:BAND. JamesBurns (talk) 05:56, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, this makes senese. delete, and article will be reposted when sufficient national third-party sources are available. 68.44.69.20 (talk) 13:38, 19 February 2009 (UTC)Heymikey84 (talk) 13:52, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Boston Globe link definitely works on this end, it is from 2006, so not currently on boston.com, no, but w/o firewall should pull up from archives...would like to know if this will still work as a third-party source in the future... WMVY being a local source i understand. thanks. Heymikey84 (talk) 13:52, 19 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 00:16, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strathclyde Personal Interactive Development and Educational Resource[edit]
- Strathclyde Personal Interactive Development and Educational Resource (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable software (appears to be limited to two universities as an internal resource), no assertion of notability. Previously deleted via a PROD. Blowdart | talk 13:50, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nomination. Non-consumer software with no showing of any notice by anyone other than at the two universities that use it. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:47, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Does not meet notability criteria (WP:N) - lacks reputable 3rd party references to establish notability of the software. Dialectric (talk) 15:28, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I originally prodded this, and there are no references asserting notability, nor are there likely to be any. Verbal chat 16:29, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - no evidence of notability. Deb (talk) 17:12, 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 Deleted - Already discussed & closed as delete, see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Dou_(Alexandra_Burke). CSD #G4
Alexandra Burke Dou[edit]
- Alexandra Burke Dou (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Per WP:CRYSTAL, this is unsourced information about an upcoming album -Lilac Soul (talk • contribs • count) 13:30, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Unverifiable. I can find no sources writing about this album. Is the name ieven correct? Dou? Considering the calim to duets in the article, is it supposed to be Duo? -- Whpq (talk) 14:06, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment So very hard to tell with apparent hoaxes :-) -Lilac Soul (talk • contribs • count) 14:13, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - For the same reason I used in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dou (Alexandra Burke). DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 16:48, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I'm not going to call it hoax, I am going to call it completely unverifiable. Cool3 (talk) 16:56, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- G4 per DitzyNizzy, recreation of material in that above afd. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 20:24, 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 00:17, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That makes two of us[edit]
- That makes two of us (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Article is about an unreleased single that is not verifiable. Article claims that the single will be from the 50 Cent album Before I Self Destruct. However, from the album article, there is no information identifying this song as even being on the track list. A search for more information via Google turns up no reliable sources. Whpq (talk) 11:53, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, obviously either a hoax or someone leaking unsourced information. Hmm, I wonder which is more likely... Both instances merit deletion, of course... -Lilac Soul (talk • contribs • count) 13:24, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Songs. Esradekan Gibb "Talk" 13:32, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. (Also, seeing as she won the X Factor on 13 December 2008, how can it be recorded between 2006 and 2008?) DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 16:51, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- G3 Blatant misinformation. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 20:21, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above --Dferg w:en: - w:es: 11:25, 21 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. Xclamation point 02:51, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Party Down Scandal (LG Williams)[edit]
- Party Down Scandal (LG Williams) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Not notable. Also not news, original research, conflict of interest and others. This is a recreated article that was previously speedied although it probably should have gone to AFD at the time. Now it has been recreated we may as well do this properly.
Apologies for the voluminous commentary. Unfortunately, I have found that when discussing articles by Art4em (talk/contributions) the reading lists and in-line citations sometimes appear convincing if one only has a quick look at the article. Art4em is a single purpose account (all substantive edits have been limited to articles about LG Williams and Wally Hedrick, who LG Williams apparently knew). LG Williams is not a notable artist and all contributions on or about LG Williams have previously been speedied or deleted following AFD.
The substantive reference in this article is one 1999 novelty piece in a college newspaper. The additional references are "Hurst artwork rescued from rubbish, Guardian News, October 19, 2001"[22], which makes no mention of the "Party Down Scandal", and Artweek magazine, which is a new addition. Although I have not tracked down the Artweek article, based on past history the odds of it containing any reference to this "incident" are not good. Regardless, a single additional source wouldn't even come close to demonstrating notability here. I've done an extensive search of popular and academic databases and haven't been able to find anything additional myself.
Note also that the "Further Reading" section is not a reference list, it is simply a list of sources, some of which mention LG Williams in passing and some of which don't. None, however, mention the 'Party Down Scandal'. This reading list is routinely added to the bottom of Art4em's various articles. If anyone is interested, each one was teased out in detail during previous AFDs, particularly on the talk pages of the now deleted articles L. G. Williams and House_where_the_Bottom_Fell_out (See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/House_where_the_Bottom_Fell_out). Debate 木 11:27, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. – Ty 12:03, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No indication of notability. Edward321 (talk) 14:52, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Author's comments: Let us be clear here
My apologies to any new editor, but my patience has run thin:
1. This another clear case of harassment: please note that the actions taken by the above debate were statedly unlearned, taken "without tracking down the additional articles". Wiki policy does not state anywhere that actions can be taken without disproving references, therefore, again, this instance is another instance of ignorance, slander and harassment.
2. Please note from my above quotation, another impartial learned editor said that upon supplying an additional, credible source, my article could be reposted. Therefore, again, this instance is another instance of ignorance, slander and harassment. All this is on my discussion page, however, I will quote the editor, again, here:
- (If you can supply another) One or more reliable sources of that general calibur (you can repost the article). - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 17:47, 13 May 2008 (UTC) [1]
3. The Artweek article is not the 'single' credible source but the third. Artweek magazine is one of the largest art magazines in California. This characterization is another instance of ignorance, slander and harassment.
4. I object strongly, additionally, to my characterization of 'single purpose' -- rather, i would call it intelligent purpose, writing only on material which i am an authority. This characterization is another instance of ignorance, slander and harassment.
5. As per the above mentioned deleted articles, they were deleted outside the parameters of wiki policy, as in this particular case. Currently, I am in the process of returning all the deletions due to the injustice and continued harassment (per impartial editors advice and input -- as stated above).
--Art4em (talk) 17:44, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The "additional reference" is in reality a reinforcement of an existing, offline archived news bit, stored on the editor's own webspace. Nothing fundamentally new here. See my further commentary on the user's talk page for additional reason for deletion. (I will not redress issues of the author's 'patience' and perception of harrassment. This is how the process works; if you consider being on the 'losing' side of an issue "harrassment," then you shouldn't be editing on Wikipedia.) - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 20:56, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- 1. You show your true colors and intention in the first sentence: Hello? I thought the purpose of your requests for wiki citing multiple sources was for the multiple citations to report on a single situation -- not,(I cannot belive I am writing to point out such obvious ignorance...) cite multiple sources to report on multiple situations? LMAO! OMG, OF COURSE MULTIPLE SOURCES REPORT ON A SINGLE EVENT OR SITUTATION! HELLO! Please, do the wiki community a favor, and excuse yourself from this discussion.
- 2. I only gave the online link because I knew that the wiki community would never go to a real library, omg. (More on this below.) So, knowing that, I saved you the hassle of performing real research by giving you a link to the exact same 1992 (pre-electronic) hardcopy article. (Is everyone this dim on this website? I would like to meet someone with some intelligence on this site: please pvt me!)--Art4em (talk) 06:05, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete A completely trivial event. Clearly a joke.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 22:12, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- 1. You show your true colors and intention in the first sentence: you have ablsolutely no right to weigh in this discussion as an art critic. Your comment proves without a doubt that you are a joke, your merit it a joke, and you think this process is a joke. However, please note: THIS IS NOT A JOKE. The citations are valid and credible. Note: If you were an art critic, you would know (as Dave Hickey said) art critics don't know a f$%king thing. Given this, please remove yourself from this discussion.
- 2. A joke is not valid or invalid -- however it can be notable or not. Clearly, the real, educated, learned editors and readers of the action deemed it important by its sheer NOTABITY. Please take your lame personal, provincial, out-dated criticism elsewhere and see if you can find a publisher, possibly The New Criteron. But I seriously doubt you would have the merit. By the way brilliant, can you name one of the most importantly pieces of 20th Century sculpture,(hint Post 1945) that was made strictly as a inside joke? My point duffus is this: name an important work of Post 1945 art that does not have MD's tounge in its cheek? Good Luck --Art4em (talk) 06:05, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - The crux here is that the artist is not notable, not so much the work (which in reality isn't, either). We speedy articles about albums where the singer/band don't exist - why should this be any different? There simply aren't any verifiable sources there that could establish notability of anything. Having said that, judging from the author's talk page I see User:Debate's summation of the issue is perfectly correct and should also be considered here, since the article for the artist has been deleted at least twice already for lack of notability, and the author has had at least one other article about the work of this artist also deleted. §FreeRangeFrog 22:51, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- 1. You show your true colors and intention in the first sentence: you have ablsolutely no right to weigh in this discussion as an art critic. The citations are valid and credible. Note: If you were an art critic, you would know (as Dave Hickey said) art critics don't know a f$%king thing. Given this, please remove yourself from this discussion.
- 2. The crux here is the article and the action, period. -- not the artist.
- 3. This was such a notable event from someone that does exist which has multiple credible / notable sources covering the event.
- 4. The previous articles WAS NOT DELETED because of notabilty, but for 'lack of another citation' -- which i strongly objected too; and which I have now supplied.
- 5. I am currently reinstating the articles that were erronously deleted, thank you.
- 6. "PERFECTLY CORRECT SUMMATION!!!!" Would you really like me to list all of Debate's errors? I have done that in the past, and would love the pleasure of pointing out its mistakes over and over again. Please advise! In fact, he/she/it is the genius that said "I did such an exhausting web search on Party Down, and could not find another article about the incident". To which I reply, "maybe you should visit a common library and search the ART BIBLIOGRAPHY! hahahahaa! The citation was there in black and white. Or when Debate said Wally Hedrick was invented by Art4em! Should I continue? Read my discussion page for the luminious / volumious errors! Or when Debate said "Drawing Upon Art: Workbook for Gardner's Art Through The Ages by LG Williams" didn't exist!!!! hahahaaa! Or, that House Where The Bottom Fell Out had no documentation??? Hello!, What is this: http://www.mauiweekly.com/2008/06/19/house_art/ ?! Hahahaaaa! I have been laughing at all those written lines while reviewing my copy of Wikipedia: The Techno-Cult of Ignorance by Paulo Correa. "PERFECTLY CORRECT SUMMATION, INDEED !!!!" HAHAHAHAAAAA!
All of the above hopefully will remain in the record of ignorance and harassment. I take no fun at wasting my time pointing out ignorance. --Art4em (talk) 06:05, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom and salt (and salt all speedy deleted related articles). freshacconci talktalk 11:43, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above, this is really not happening...Modernist (talk) 04:09, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You should be ashamed of yourself for this stupid comment...I have read most of your stuff and it "is really not happening". Shame on you for being a wiki bully.
- Do Not Delete this process is a sham. The article obviously has the sources and it is valid and notable. Leave your personal bias out of the discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Art4em (talk • contribs) 23:45, February 20, 2009
- Do Not Delete: the following negative editors are a bunch of bully's, period. I am ashamed at their behavior. DO NOT DELETE. This article does meet the wiki requirement, but does not pass the terrible wiki art critics. It must stand -- deletion is NOT wiki policy just because you are a group of small minded unhappy art critics.
- Delete and salt per others. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 17:37, 22 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. Closed early per the snowball clause. This article is trolling, and ultimately disrupts Wikipedia to make a point. Deletion also resolves any conflict of interest, since the author of xkcd545.com notes that "If the Wikipedia article gets deleted, null doesn't pay". Regardless of that clause, however, we should not fall into the ridiculous trap that our actions necessarily constitute a conflict of interest on the matter. This is a scenario constructed specifically to disrupt the system and shouldn't be lent credence even if we love xkcd. {{Nihiltres|talk|log}} 19:00, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutrality Schmeutrality[edit]
- Neutrality Schmeutrality (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
As much as I am an inclusionist and as much as I love xkcd, I do not think we need an entry about every logical concept Randall Munroe makes up in his webcomic. Note: I tagged it for prod but it was contested. It was previously speedy deleted but it fails all criteria in its current state (I declined the latest speedy myself). Regards SoWhy 10:40, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete It fails to satisfy the notability criteria. There is not yet any coverage of this concept in any independent source. --Farzaneh (talk) 11:10, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Lack of independent sources. - Mgm|(talk) 11:35, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to xkcd -- redirects are cheap. Baileypalblue (talk) 11:49, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sounds reasonable. Baileypalblue (talk) 13:02, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteRedirect even though I'm still - not sure I see the point of a redirect. It's a one-off neologism and the title of a web comic. If you have the phrase in your head, it's because you've already been to the one source (the comic) or you're headed there because somebody told you to check it out. No need whatsoever for treatment in an encyclopedia. J L G 4 1 0 4 11:51, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, probably some people will hear the phrase and then forget exactly where they heard it and search trying to figure out where it came from. As a casual follower of xkcd, I have a hard time remembering that combination of letters, but I would remember a phrase like "Neutrality Schmeutrality". For that matter, people might come up with the phrase "Neutrality Schmeutrality" independently, as a snowclone, and then find out xkcd did it first, in which case they've learned something new. Bottom line, redirects are cheap. Baileypalblue (talk) 12:22, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I buy the point that redirects are cheap, and I have changed my recommendation accordingly. I still don't see a need for it though. A simple Google search will turn up plenty. J L G 4 1 0 4 13:50, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect - It is now a part of the main XKCD article. Mmmeee0 (talk) 12:17, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Why should that be the name of a 'concept' or the like? The use of schm as a prefix is very common and usually not to be taken very seriously. I also don't think we need a redirect for the title of a certain comic. Rror (talk) 13:19, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete -- due to a lack of secondary sources. - Longhair\talk 13:21, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete -- Zero words is even, and even should win. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.177.59.52 (talk) 13:53, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Although this comic is full of win, reluctant redirect per obvious notability reasons. Bsimmons666 (talk) 14:44, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not notable and not worth a redirect. Edward321 (talk) 14:59, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect If we keep this, we'll have an endless flamewar of people adding words. Also, unless this comic is actually mentioned anywhere verifiable, it fails notability and should point to xkcd. Yellowweasel (talk) 15:14, 18 February 2009 (UTC)Delete and salt as per Chris Cunningham. Yellowweasel (talk) 17:23, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]- Delete Honestly, I think xkcd's comics are funny enough by themselves and cannot be improved by being 'made real' on Wikipedia. He's probably rolling his eyes at us right now. Even beside all the points made by other people here, which are valid in and of themselves, I think this page should be deleted because it doesn't really contribute anything to xkcd either. However a redirect would be probably just as good since I think interest in this page will die down in a day or so anyway. Soap Talk/Contributions 15:26, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect If we redirect, though, we create a little paradox ourselves because by removing the content and simply redirecting to the part of the xkcd article called "Activities inspired by xkcd" then the page is no longer such an activity and doesn't warrant inclusion into that article. Of course, redirecting would be nice for people searching for this.IncidentalPoint (talk) 15:36, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually there's a good argument for not always creating redirects there; if we make a redirect, it kind of implies that we intend to have some information about that subject in the target article at all times. This is not the case with all redirects; there was a long period of time when Rule 34 redirect to xkcd with no rule 34-related content in the xkcd article. So, while not endorsing deletion of the info about this week's comic in the xkcd article, I would endorse deletion of this instead of just a redirect in case it ever leads to a situation like the above. Soap Talk/Contributions 15:39, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect but after the week has passed, otherwise how would the benefactor know where to make the donation? 75.125.126.8 (talk) 15:40, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That's cute, but delete. Artw (talk) 15:41, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and full protect for the time being. Though the comics are very amazing, this does not pass the notability policy, and likely never will. I hoped we would not have to do this, but :( Interestingly, this article itself is indeed pretty neutral. It also has 144 words. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 15:41, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and protect from re-creation Soap is right on the mark...guys like Munroe and Ryan North just like to make crazy suggestions and then watch how crazy people actually carry them out, and I'm sure they get a kick out of seeing people get worked up over such a trivial thing. (I guess they're kind of like the Joker, but not creepy.) We should never be creating an article or editing an article because xkcd, Dinosaur Comics, or whoever else told us to; these things are meant to be jokes. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 15:42, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete the comic has a good point, but this is going to encourage silly editing of a barely-notable concept. Sceptre (talk) 15:42, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well...it's rapidly becoming vaguely notable. The concept is notable, I know of several people writing articles now, hours after the comic was put up, and it seems at least two people are actually offering to donate real money based on the outcome. However, agreed it probably won't be very notable at all two weeks from now. 75.125.126.8 (talk) 15:53, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and salt. Fails notability criteria, and a general lack of reliable sources. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 15:58, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to XKCD- While the whole thing is amusing, it really isn't deserving of its own article, and there is no harm from a redirect. Deleting, or deleting and salting, seem like overly harsh measures for something so harmless. Umbralcorax (talk) 16:10, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails notability as an event or for web content. If many notable third-party sources run the story, which I hope to your deity of choice they don't, we should reconsider then. FlyingToaster 16:24, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No third-party coverage «O73» 16:30, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and salt. Policy is not to create redirects every single time someone who may be notable in and of himself makes something up. Redirecting this sets a horrible precedent, considering how often xkcd covers Wikipedia. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:38, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:MADEUP has nothing to say about redirects -- could you point us to the policy you have in mind? For reference, here's the list of valid reasons to delete a redirect. Baileypalblue (talk) 18:19, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, non-notable, no third-party sources. — Hysteria18 (Talk • Contributions) 17:20, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I propose that this discussion be closed per WP:SNOW. Skomorokh 17:58, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I contest your proposition. Such an article could potentially be beneficial to those with interest, and certainly supplements the common knowledge. Apollo2991 (talk) 18:21, 18 February 2009 (UTC)Apollo2991—Preceding unsigned comment added by Apollo2991 (talk • contribs) 18:15, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Take off and nuke it from orbit Some of us still have to do permanent trollwatch on Wood thanks to XKCD. 8-( Andy Dingley (talk) 18:17, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This article is neither an xkcd endorsement, nor vandalism. It simply provides a holistic interpretation of a topic, for the good of common knowledge. Apollo2991 (talk) 18:24, 18 February 2009 (UTC)Apollo2991[reply]
- Delete and protect. Other articles get deleted when they fail to establish notability through reliable sources, I don't see why this article would be an exception. Protect because it's very likely to be recreated by fans of XKCD. -- NathanoNL [ usr | msg | log ] 18:46, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep for sure. What are you bureaucrats so afraid of? DrTall (talk) 18:50, 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. willing to consider restoring to produce a redirect, but there is no consensus for a target at this time Fritzpoll (talk) 13:43, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Iberian-Guanche inscriptions[edit]
- Iberian-Guanche inscriptions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Contested prod, the reason was The term Iberian-Guanche inscriptions itself is a misnomer not used by epigraphists, rendering an article by that name obsolete. The content relies substantially on the pseudoscientific "findings" of an author not qualified in either linguistics or epigraphy. Cf. [23] for referees. I put it here for your consideration now. Tone 08:39, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Mainly because historically there are a lot of RS books drawing a connection between Iberian and Guanche, and the matter is open for real discussion. Your ibi-project cite, in fact, accepts that people in the past made such a connection. If you wish to dispute RS for an article, the RS/N board is the place to do it. Collect (talk) 11:54, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as per Collect. Edward321 (talk) 15:20, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep.Changed to Move and Rewrite. The article needs work, but it looks to be well-sourced. Most of the sources are offline, and not in English, so I'm assuming good faith, but this appears to merit an article. Cool3 (talk) 17:00, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]- Delete. The article looks well-sourced, but is only seemingly so. So do please bear with me if I go a little bit into detail: The only author to propose such inscriptions — even among those many whose works are used as references for the article, mind you! — is the geneticist Antonio Arnaiz-Villena, whose linguistic and epigraphic methodology is severely flawed. The Institutum Canarium [24], probably the academic spearhead on Canarian epigraphy, will confirm on query that there is no such thing as Ibero-Guanche inscriptions. Prof. Werner Pichler, one of its members (the one quoted in the article as the compiler of these inscriptions), does not consider any to be in the Iberian alphabet, which would have been the sole basis for Arnaiz-Villena's transcriptions (he's also the one in the above link [25] dismissing and slightly ridiculing Arnaiz-Villena's attempts at translation); the same is true for Renata Springer Bunk, another leading authority quoted in the article.
- My suggestion was that Arnaiz-Villena's theories are more than suited for inclusion on his own page, but that a separate article titled "Iberian-Guanche Inscriptions", and somewhat misleadingly furnished with references to other epigraphic works, should be discouraged. Trigaranus (talk) 19:30, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- article is pure bs. The name of the valid topic behind this would be Libyco-Berber inscriptions. [26]. Delete, but create an article on the inscription corpus. Note that Libyco-Berber is presently a redirect. Remember to also delete the home-grown imagery that came with the article. --dab (𒁳) 19:50, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The idea of creating another article seems reasonable. The article as a whole has some problems with neutral point of view, and possibly with original research. I am not a linguist or an expert on this topic in any way, but it would appear to be a simple fact that there are inscriptions found on the canary islands, and that these inscriptions have been the subject of scholarly debate. An article covering the topic in this manner seems most appropriate. Thus I have changed my vote to Move to a neutral title and rewrite as much as possible. Such a course of action would also naturally move this article out of the AfD process. Cool3 (talk) 22:43, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think dab and Cool3 both have a point, and it looks like a possible way out. As far as inscriptions from the Canarian Islands are concerned, the article in question should be Libyco-Berber inscriptions. There is an academic society, the Institutum Canarium, a brain trust of specialists in the field of Canarian epigraphy who have catalogued and edited all known inscriptions into a corpus. There is scholarly debate amongst epigraphists about the correct interpretation of these inscriptions, but within reasonable limits. It is a matter of unanimous consensus among specialists that the alphabets used are the Libyco-Berber script (currently a redirect) and the Latin alphabet, and that understandably they are not to be transcribed into the modern Basque language. The present article, on the other hand, is based essentially on Antonio Arnaiz-Villena, whose methods and results are the source of wry amusement among epigraphists, along with a certain measure of exasperation. There is virtually not a lot in it that could make for a decent foundation to the more appropriate article Libyco-Berber inscriptions. However, there are two very outspoken supporters of Arnaiz-Villena's theories, who have created this article and are now worried that they are being silenced. It is solely in order to act on their concerns that I think the theory should be included with the others under Antonio_Arnaiz-Villena#Iberian-Guanche_theory. Trigaranus (talk) 23:36, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Arnaiz-Villena is a master of ethno-linguistic BS, usually disguised within articles whose claims to be RS lie in his qualifications as a geneticist. In condensed form this is well suited to form a section on his page, and an article on the inscriptions could legitimately be created as dab says - but not with this title. Paul B (talk) 23:59, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I have done my best to improve the page :added ISBN of a book and where you can find it in the Canary Islands.Also,I have added scanners from the rocks where the inscriptions are.THEY ARE NOT LYBIC INSCRIPTIONS,they were named as "Latin" as stated in the page because they were not familiarized with Iberian inscriptions.They never called "Lybic" to these inscriptions.This is clear in the page and figures from both kind of iscriptions can be see :
Lybic and Iberian-Guanche (Latin) .Please,read it and go to the links.Even someboby non-familiarized with scripts will be able that the acussations form "Delet2" promoters are not true.
I do not think that Wikipedia will remove a good information because of insults or attacking one name,personally--Iberomesornix (talk) 14:15, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Were Trigaranus and Paul B the same executioners who started Arnaiz hunt some years ago because of an article about Palestinians?
Did Arnaiz make up the Iberian-Guanche inscriptions 2,000 years ago?--UrkoB (talk) 17:09, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Lovely argumentation in the form of an accusation (ad hominem never fails) and a rhetorical question (ad absurdum is always a winner). Unfortunately, nah: I hadn't heard of Arnaiz-Villena until a few months ago. However, out of curiosity I actually — as you certainly did, too — went and read his article on the Palestinians and Jews last week (seems the library didn't have it torn out of their copy), finding the historical section and the quality of his English a bit sloppy; but nothing that would have justified a modern-day book burning. And no, neither Antonio Arnaiz-Villena nor anybody else wrote any Iberian-Guanche inscriptions that lend themselves to "Basque" translations. So, let's move on. But thanks for the gratuitous suspicions. Trigaranus (talk) 18:58, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- And thanks, UrkoB, for your contributions. They are what makes Wikipedia great! Sorry if I sound bitter. I want this over and done with. No witch-hunt, no "censorship", no low blows, but please do not pretend that this theory warrants an entry in a non-fringe encyclopedia. Trigaranus (talk) 19:07, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The so-called Iberian-Guanche inscriptions are not related in any way to the Iberian scripts (or Paleohispanic scripts) nor to the Iberian language. No one serious researcher defends the point of view expressed in the article.--Tautintanes (talk) 19:09, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. There are many reasons why the article is simply absurd and fringe science.
- In first place I quote some of my own editions on this theme: rejecting the works of Arnaiz and Alonso on Iberian, rejecting the whole usko-theory, rejecting the Iberian-Guanche theory. In these editions I afforded reliable sources, independent experts opinions, and some common sense on why all these theories are simply absurd and pseudo-science; whereas the Iberian-Guanche supporters have never find a reliable source in their favour (at best they have used pseudo-arguments as: if Bengtson believes in Dene-Caucasian and that Basque has relatives, then the usko theory and the Iberian Guanche theory are true). Any person wo read my critical comments can see which kind of lunacy is all the linguistic word of Arnaiz Villena and Alonso García: who claim that egyptologist do not understand old Egyptian and the same on some other well known ancient languages (As Hittite, Ugaritic, Sumerian, etc. etc).
- In second place. ON the article itself. It is bad edited and biased. Some quotes from the "article":
- "based on phonetic equivalence and semantics that are rejected by other authors" but the reality is that it is rejected by all the experts that have write on Alonso and Arnaiz ideas as absurd, and simply ignored by the rest;
- "but are rejected by many authors (see discussion)" again : by all authors, but to hide these references in the talk page is against WP:NPOV
- "he methodology has been based on the old inscriptions meanings of the Usko-Mediterranean " a methodology debunked as can be seen in my reference [27]. And I could add more authors.
- In the same sense: references to Gómez-Moreno, Gimbutas, Garibay, Humboldt, Mitxelena and other considerations on the languages related to Basque are simply off-topic, and the bibliography is full of books who do not believe Arnaiz ideas (the only who believed him was the amateur Pellón, and I think that in the second edition of his book he changed his mind). There are many other authors who have studied these Canarian inscriptions and they are not quoted.
- The name Iberian-Guanche is absurd as the authors pretend they are inscripcions in Iberian script and Iberian language, so at best they should be in the Iberian language page (as there is no a page on Sardinian-Iberian for the one Iberian inscription found in Sardinia, nor on Iberian-Gaul for the many Iberian inscriptions found in France).
- Third. The references of the articles of Arnaiz and Alonso lack the identification of the inscriptions (their corpus reference, their place of origin), this complete amateur reference system by A & A make it difficult to find these inscriptions in the web of the Institutum Canarium. But some of them can be found and with a good explanation.
- FOurth. The Iberian question:
- You may see how signs as A I V are frequent (just as man can expect from an alphabetical inscription) whereas its Iberian values (KA, BA, M; this later wrong, it is not M in Iberian) are not as frequent in Iberian (of course any syllabic sign is less frequent that an alphabetical). The result is the absurd KAKAMMBABAMKA and similar of the A & A readings.
- The shape of the signs is odd as Iberian: for example try to find some of their alleged CE (in nº 25), BU (in 81), R (in 15) or L (in 229 et alii), simply can not be found in an Iberian table of signs.
- Finally they lack some Iberian signs (specially those who are different from LAtin or Punic ;-): such as BE, BI, BO, TA, TE, TI, TO, TU, KI, KO, KU or the vowel A (more than a third of the Iberian possible signs!!!). Very frequent Iberian signs as are the vowels E, I or U are odd and dubious, whereas as stated the very frequent A is missing.
- The readings are simply garbage, and very different from the words that can be read in the Iberian inscriptions.
- You can find in the Iberian language page reference to two recent doctoral dissertations on Iberian: try to find in them any reference to the Iberian-Guanche. As a matter of fact Arnaiz himself claimed that his proposal has been ignored by all the linguists expert on Iberian.
- Last but not least. I am upset by the lack of civility, accusations, personal attacks and victimism (an some vandalims and manipulations Btw) made by the supporters of this article (see the editions of user:Iberomesornix and user:Virginal6). Some users have afforded reliable data, and have been rewarded with offending comments, accusations, insinuations, and ad hominem. It's not fair.
- It's also not fair their claim against an alleged censorship, as Arnaiz Villena and Alonso García have published (often or always self-published) more than ten books on their alleged discoveries.
- --Dumu Eduba (talk) 20:23, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep
The late Federico Krutwig was one of the ETA founders (Basque Freedom Movement) under the Franco's regime.He repented and left as soon as they started killing people. He wrote a book ,GARALDEA, and assimilated some "Guanche " words to Basque words.He also wrote in the book (Edited by Txertoa,Donosti) that the first Catholic bishop appointed for the Canary Islands after their conquest was Basque.Both the Norman and Castillian conquerors were convinced that Guanche people spoke Basque,because they could understand quite a lot of words as Basque language. Why not relating Guanche and Basque,particularly when now many people here in the Basque Country can understand Iberian scripts transcriptions? --Elorza (talk) 14:51, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep .My impression is that if Iberian is related or not to Basque is not the point.
The point is:Do Iberian rock scripts exist in the Canary Islands?
After carefully reading the page and appended documents my opinion is YES.
However,if any of the readers is close to Iruña (Pamplona) ,a Basque speaking area ,go and watch at the monument to the "Fueros" (particular Pamplona Laws),built in the past century..One can see a text in Iberian script written by the Catalan historian Fidel Fita ,asserting agreement with "Fueros" and not with another laws.Basque speakers all believed that Iberian and Basque were derived or close,anyway-
Dumu Eduba position today is out-dated.Nowadays,many people speak Basque in the Basque Country,while it was forbidden in Fanco's times,when you was built up and protected. Students here in Euskal Herria,do not pay any attention at that period appointed professors:to whom you call scholars.
We all understand Iberian trascriptions ,more or less. Iberian is related to Basque.Do you know Basque?.Do you know Iberian?--Askatu (talk) 16:05, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Careful: Let's try to return to the content of the article, and centre on what the proposed deletion is all about (dear Dumu and his contenders have trailed off a little bit). This article is concerned with inscriptions from the Canaries, so let's stick to that. There are only two questions relevant to the standing of this article:
- a) have trained epigraphists identified Iberian rock carvings on the Canaries?
- b) is there any reason why these writings should be translated into Basque?
The answer to both of these questions is No:
- a) The only epigraphist to suggest such a reading and translation is geneticist Arnaiz-Villena. Epigraphists specialised in Canarian inscriptions dismiss or even ridicule his theories as nonsensical, which should warn us to treat what A-V suggests with caution. Specialists have identified the writing systems used as the Libyco-Berber and the Latin script.
- b) We as WP editors cannot make any attempt at determining the relationship of the extinct Guanche language; even the linguistic community is hard pressed, owing to the fragmentary nature of the corpus. At present, consensus among linguists favours a connection to the Berber languages, due to minor but compelling shreds of evidence (such as the numerals); but the last word on this has not yet been written. Now, if a methodologically sound paper suggesting a (modern) Basque transliteration for ancient Canarian inscriptions were to pass the first few stages of peer review, it would certainly warrant an article on WP, even if such a theory were not adopted by the mainstream. Unfortunately, no serious scholarly publication has achieved this so far.
So, sorry to expand: Given that peer-reviewal has rejected the core theories of this article and that we are trying to build up a reliable encyclopedia here, we should be clear about one thing: "On Wikipedia, you’ll have to wait until it’s been picked up in mainstream journals, or get that to happen first." Due to its important methodological shortcomings, Arnaiz-Villena's theory is unlikely to make it much farther into academic publications than it already has. This deletion suggestion is not about silencing Arnaiz-Villena or his proponents (in spite of a rather clumsy attempt at sock puppetry in this discussion), but about undue weight. A sub-section on the Antonio Arnaiz-Villena page is as much as this matter deserves. To say it in the words of Jimbo: "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article." Trigaranus (talk) 17:26, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note to closing admin At least 3 of the people who voted for keep have made no edits to WP other than to this page. What of course does not make their arguments less valid but should be pointed out nevertheless. --Tone 16:33, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Whoops, sorry for moving you down here, Tone! No offense. It's just to make it easier to see where I had started writing. The last few edits had strayed off-topic a little. Trigaranus (talk) 17:30, 22 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 00:42, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Concept of Inertia Drive[edit]
- Concept of Inertia Drive (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Yet another cranky perpetual motion machine. The author clearly realises the concept is unworkable because they created a link to it from the reactionless drive article! (It is also non-notable as work of fictional.) — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 08:27, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: original research. Baileypalblue (talk) 10:01, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per nominator. Edward321 (talk) 15:22, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Before delete this page please explain why. I'm disagree with RHaworth. This is not perpetual motion machine. This is the workable concept. 173.52.131.235 (talk) 01:59, 19 February 2009 (UTC) Alex Belov[reply]
- Delete as advertising a patent, possibly as a solicitation for licensing. 76.66.196.229 (talk) 06:16, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not the patent advertising (patent does not exist yet). But up to wikipedia community. I will agree with any decision. Nothing hurt. 173.52.124.32 (talk) 19:01, 19 February 2009 (UTC) Alex Belov[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy redirect to Red Dwarf. deleting prior to redirect because of copyvio lyrics. Mgm|(talk) 11:31, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Lunar City 7[edit]
- Lunar City 7 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable in-universe place that is mentioned in passing in one episode of Red Dwarf. Lugnuts (talk) 08:05, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Red Dwarf; redirects are cheap. Nothing in the article worth saving. Baileypalblue (talk) 10:07, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Nothing in the article is worth saving (also note how - deletion warnings aside - it's not been edited since New Year's Eve 2007). DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 10:28, 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 00:17, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
People's Republic of Davis[edit]
- People's Republic of Davis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Delete - no indication that this title is of more than local usage or is notable anymore than nearly any liberal leaning town has some "People's Republic" appellation. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 07:41, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No evidence of widespread usage. Derogatory names are dime a dozen. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:09, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above comments. J L G 4 1 0 4 12:21, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Absolutely no citations, by it's own definition a neologism, and in 10 sentances I already see "implied", "it is believed that..." and "perhaps" weasel words. This is not an article. -Markeer 13:09, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Davis, California (home of University of California system's UC-Davis) is only the latest place to be cleverly nicknamed "People's Republic of _____".
It's been applied to Berkley, Cal., Boulder, Col., Madison, Wis. and a lot of college towns, as well as Burlington, Vermont. Maybe someone can make a list of places that get that name and put this under section "D". Mandsford (talk) 13:57, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, Madison, Wisconsin is on a whole different planet ;) MuZemike 18:17, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete WP is not a collection of jokes and clever remarks, which this one is not even so very so. Northwestgnome (talk) 15:14, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The article cites the Davis Wiki as a source, and while this doesn't look like a straight copyvio (Davis Wiki apparently is under a Creative Commons license for what it's worth), the tone and content of the articles are certainly similar. Townlake (talk) 16:10, 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 00:29, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Black Guns[edit]
- Black Guns (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non notable Band. No albums. No charting EPs. No allmusic entry. Nothing of note on Google. No independent third party sources. Band has ceased to exist. Fails WP:BAND JoannaMinogue (talk) 07:32, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, a failed band who fails to meet WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb "Talk" 08:03, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: non-notable band. Very little on Google WP:BAND. JamesBurns (talk) 05:46, 21 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 00:27, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tom Kat Records[edit]
- Tom Kat Records (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable record company. Prod removed by originator, User:Musickat. I seconded the prod, stating Originated by User:Musickat, a clear conflict of interest. Simple existence is insufficient to demonstrate notability of a record company - reviews of releases and charting history of releases are needed, too. It appears to fall short of WP:CORP. B.Wind (talk) 06:12, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, fails to meet WP:CORP & the spirit of WP:MUSIC#C5. Esradekan Gibb "Talk" 08:01, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: How can Dust be on this label, when the label was founded in 2007 but the band has not existed since the 1970s? Some very bogus information in the article WP:CORP. JamesBurns (talk) 08:11, 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 nomination withdrawn. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:22, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Prince of Chota[edit]
- Prince of Chota (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This whole article, indeed its very title, is fiction in its entirety. It is based on the myth of the "House of Moytoy", and more, unlike the invented title "Emperor of the Cherokee" which Alexander Cumming bestowed upon Moytoy of Tellico, the title "Prince of Chota" was never used by anyone of the period, only belatedly in Victorian pseudo-histories. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 19:32, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The use of this title in British-Cherokee diplomacy is attested in published histories and some of the primary sources are available online [28]. The person so identified appears to be the Beloved Man of Chota, variously identified as Kittagusta, Oconostota, or Attakullakulla. Some sources ambiguously refer to "X, Y, the Prince of Chote, and Z", leaving it unclear whether Y was the "Prince" or someone else. There is a contrary source where Oconostota signed a document separately from the "Prince." WillOakland (talk) 00:48, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I could see altering the article to merely state that fact, after removing everything else, but that wouldn't really leave very much of an article worth keeping. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 01:03, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as rewritten. Hopefully someone can come along with reliable sources that are not available online and expand it beyond a stub. WillOakland (talk) 04:13, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. As the article now stands, it is accurate, if short. It does, at least, give an idea of where the myth came from. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 00:26, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Those of you who keep reverting the article, it's not going to work unless you provide some sources. WillOakland (talk) 05:27, 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 04:01, 13 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 04:56, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Deletion request has been withdrawn by the nominator, above. WillOakland (talk) 05:31, 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 00:26, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Gary Ring[edit]
- Gary Ring (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
A non-notable junior player. Author removed prod notice so bringing the matter here for discussion on notability. Longhair\talk 04:23, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Longhair\talk 04:23, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Not notable, not even close to meeting the WP:ATHLETE guideline. WWGB (talk) 04:51, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: as per WWGB above. --Roisterer (talk) 06:05, 20 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 00:25, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Power Magazine Hong Kong[edit]
- Power Magazine Hong Kong (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Fails notability test for a magazine per WP:BK. Chuckiesdad/Talk/Contribs 04:20, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Further, the article was created by User:Prestigehongkong, which is suspiciously close to the article's subject. Quantumobserver (talk) 04:40, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: insufficient independent 3rd party sources. JamesBurns (talk) 08:19, 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 keep. RS added to article. (non-admin closure) Erik9 (talk) 02:58, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Right Brothers[edit]
- The Right Brothers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Delete I don't see any references. This looks like a vanity page to me. Unless you can find some sources I say delete. George Pelltier (talk) 03:51, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No evidence that this group meets the requirements of WP:BAND, as it appears to be a strictly MySpace/YouTube outfit. Reliable sources that treat the group in detail are necessary. Deor (talk) 05:29, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and improve: I can see references for much of what's claimed here online, and will work to improve it. MuffledThud (talk) 05:14, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - yeah i see sources but none really indicate notability, it's a shame too since george w bush deserves better than hes gotten, he was really a good president - unfortunately this just appears to be a vanity page and other than a mocking reference on keith olbermann has little play :( Aurush kazeminitalk 17:14, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, definitely WP:BAND, possibly fails WP:NOTE Raven.sorrow (talk) 21:26, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Covered in major media and sourced out the wazoo. Back up the deletion train. - Draeco (talk) 08:03, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I've added several more references, including several international press articles. It might be argued that the band is only notable for one song, but in that case the article should be moved, not deleted. MuffledThud (talk) 08:26, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- rename/merge to "Bush was right" or whatever the song was that made all the news. WP:ONEEVENT seems very on-point. But the song and/or event (however you look at it) is clearly notable. If no merger/rename happens, then keep as notability is clear, but ONEEVENT tells us how to cover it. Hobit (talk) 20:44, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: insufficient independent 3rd party coverage WP:BAND. JamesBurns (talk) 08:03, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - please explain: coverage in USA Today, Washington Post, Boston Globe, The Guardian, Gazeta Wyborcza, 20 Minuten, Clarín, B.T. and MSNBC is insufficient? What would be sufficient? MuffledThud (talk) 09:41, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and expand, it is covered in major media. May not be overtly famous yet, but maybe someday=PSmallman12q (talk) 15:05, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. A band does not have to have Top 40 hits to be included. Notable for coverage on national news/cable news as well as albums produced, including other songs getting some play on radio. EagleFan (talk) 15:23, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep Per above, extensive media coverage. As for what the nominator said: "I don't see any references. This looks like a vanity page to me. Unless you can find some sources I say delete."
WP:INTROTODELETE & WP:POTENTIAL "Remember that deletion is a last resort. Deletion nominations rarely improve articles, and deletion should not be used as a way to improve an article, or a reaction to a bad article. It is appropriate for articles which cannot be improved."
Wikipedia:Deletion "When in doubt, discuss first on the talk page...If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion" Wikipedia:Notability "If an article fails to cite sufficient sources to demonstrate the notability of its subject, look for sources yourself."
WP:PRESERVE policy: "Preserve information. Whatever you do, endeavour to preserve information. Instead of removing, try to (examples).
Nominators first edit to this page was to add an AfD, in violation of these rules. Ikip (talk) 19:20, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply] - Note to closing administrator Another editor accomplished what the nominator should have, and what a simple google search shows. Since this AfD nomination, the article has had 14 sources added by User:MuffledThud Ikip (talk) 19:26, 22 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 01:22, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Web 3.0[edit]
- Web 3.0 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
It's been a while since it was recreated, and despite assertions that the article could be improved "Web 3.0" remains an amorphous protologism without a single coherant meaning, and should be deleted again. Artw (talk) 03:28, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and Salt due to it being created and deleted many times. Non-notable term with no defined meaning. Nothing more than what different people think will be the next evolution of the web (with the term being created almost as soon as the term Web 2.0 was created). TJ Spyke 03:36, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Please explain how the latest DRV was in error. Apparently, the subject has multiple reliable sources to build on. - Mgm|(talk) 11:28, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete unless reliable sources are found. --Litherlandsand (talk) 11:30, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Like it or not, "Web 3.0" is now a commonly used term in the news -- as of today, googlenews found over a hundred current mentions. Article needs work? Not a sufficient reason for deletion in itself. With such a common term, people will expect a current encyclopedia to at least explain what the term means. Collect (talk)
- Query - could someone point to policy or guidelines on this type of article. Clearly the "thing itself" does not yet exist; it's a speculative entity. Yet it is also clearly a phrase lots of people are using and thus has significant media reach. How, for example, does this really differ from Web 2.0, which begins:
- The term "Web 2.0" describes the changing trends in the use of World Wide Web technology and web design that aim to enhance creativity, communications, secure information sharing, collaboration and functionality of the web. Web 2.0 concepts have led to the development and evolution of web-culture communities and hosted services, such as social-networking sites, video sharing sites, wikis, blogs, and folksonomies.
- That sounds pretty sprawling and nebulous to me. Perhaps the "social" aspect of Web 2.0 is a feature around which a consistent "meaning" is coalescing, but it doesn't seem particularly concrete or specific, either. J L G 4 1 0 4 12:32, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Web 2.0 actually has a pretty solid definition. It's a waffly, catch all definition that incorporates several disperate trends, but at least there is broad agreement on what those trends are and the language used to describe them. The same cannot be said of Web 3.0 Artw (talk) 15:52, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The nom mentions several AfDs but following the links here the last one was over 2 years ago, and obviously the topic's level of notability has changed. Going through the common AfD arguments, there's no question of notability based on the news coverage, there's no question about lack of sources given the 18 footnotes (as of my typing this), and there's no inherent OR argument considering the heavy use of quotations and the upfront references to the speculative nature of the topic. Beyond that I would imagine the most likely argument would be that wikipedia is not a crystal ball but that's simply a directive to article editors to solely focus on the news coverage and to avoid guesswork about the future direction of the web. This article could be improved, but that could be said for every article on Wikipedia. In it's current form, this article is acceptable by wikipedia's guidelines. -Markeer 14:27, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. As far as I can see, this is a neologism in search of a referent, just like the equally vacuous Web 2.0 was. Apparently when anyone goes into a spasm of vacuous musings about the Future of the Internet, they upgrade it by one whole integer; nobody ever told us what Web 1.9 or Web 2.1 was all about. If this is kept, expect to see Web 4.0 very soon. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:00, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Still a neologism with no defintion regardless of it's use. --neon white talk 20:41, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The wide variety of viewpoints in the article make it clear that nobody's actually sure what "Web 3.0" is or will be, besides the Next Big Thing after Web 2.0. The "See Also" link to buzzword is probably the best definition here. Zetawoof(ζ) 21:29, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'm surprised by the three delete recommendations above as I hadn't thought this would be a particularly complicated AfD. I suppose my confusion is regarding article mandate and sourcing. Looking at the article it seems to use clear language that any definition is uncertain (e.g. "the nature of defining Web 3.0 is highly speculative", sentence 2). This tells me that the article editors to date have not tried to define the term, but are only writing an article in reaction to its regular usage in journals and newspapers. Am I incorrect in this? Because if so, it seems to me that sourcing overrides vague feelings about a lack of definition. I suppose my main argument here is based on a direct quote from WP:CBALL: "It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced." -Markeer 21:46, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I'd personally be happy to see Web 2.0 go as well. I defy anyone to read the opening paragraphs of that article and point to some actual object that the phrase points to. It seems instead to be a vague marketing buzzword used to piffle about "forward looking" statements about milking money from the Internet, the sort of merda that was popular when Bill Clinton was getting blown in the Oval Office. I generally do not feel that undefinable marketing buzzwords make good subjects for encyclopedia articles. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 22:11, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- DeleteThe term has no context yet, and is redundant. There are no Web 3.0 services yet, nor does anyone ever talk about web 3.0. Queer As Folk (talk) 23:50, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete As per nom. If a meaning ever is found for the term, that will be time enough to describe it. --Nigelj (talk) 17:42, 20 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 00:24, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The String Game[edit]
- The String Game (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
- Delete no indication that this game is notable Carlossuarez46 (talk) 03:11, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete: It's too short! Why are there no sources? Alexius08 (talk) 13:32, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete- Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. Reyk YO! 06:36, 19 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 00:23, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Musican Middle Class[edit]
- Musican Middle Class (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable neologism. Editor also created TAXI (A&R) and this may be an example of trying to build notability for the main article, per WP:COAT? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:03, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:18, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: non-notable neologism. JamesBurns (talk) 08:04, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No evidence of notability for this expression. The thing has existed since before the dawn of history as musicans have made a living from their music. Some of my friends are in this class but I have never heard it called this until today.Northwestgnome (talk) 15:18, 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 00:21, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WavePad[edit]
- WavePad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
OK, I'm trying to follow the byzantine instructions to raise an AfD again for this advertisement of a non notable commercial product WavePad. Greglocock (talk) 02:50, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, the problem with this article as I see it is that the software itself is a commercial product, and the article does not establish notability, and is basically just an ad for the software. It does have google hits, it is a real product, but none of the hits I saw were reviews or articles on WP:RS websites. (sorry this is my first AfD and I have screwed it up one way and another). Greglocock (talk) 04:31, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - There are very few hits for this software, and most of those are only for downloading the product. It appears that this does not meet notability. Looking at the original poster, and the history of this article, this appears to be an advertisemt. -- Pax85 (talk) 07:49, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Does not meet notability criteria (WP:N) - lacks reputable 3rd party references to establish notability of the software. Dialectric (talk) 15:29, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete For all the reasons said. Miami33139 (talk) 21:44, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Agree that since this is a commercial product, it needs to establish notability beyond "it exists". As it stands it's nothing more than an advert for the company that sells it. §FreeRangeFrog 00:20, 21 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 Speech synthesis. MBisanz talk 04:56, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
TextAloud[edit]
- TextAloud (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Was CSD'ed (incorrectly) by Graymornings, then PROD'ed by FlyingToaster (which the original author declined), so now I am bring it here - there is no assertion of notability within the article. Just PR pieces in the news, and I can't find anything asserting notability on a good scour of the web, either. — neuro(talk) 08:26, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Imrpvove the article. I post this on their own forum site so that Ken or Jim might improve it. --Samlaptop85213 (talk) 17:33, 13 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) 01:19, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Non-notable software, corporate spam. §FreeRangeFrog 02:09, 18 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 02:45, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep but improve - Just passing through and noticed this. I think it's a rather important piece of accessibility software for visually impaired people. I've actually been hearing of TextAloud increasingly recently as I'm part of a disability accessibility forum at work. At the very least it should be mentioned on Speech synthesis. I don't know enough about it to improve the entry, but I know of no other text-to-speech programmes by name. Mabalu (talk) 03:20, 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 00:20, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Irisu Syndrome[edit]
- Irisu Syndrome (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Article about a seemingly non-notable freeware game written in game guide style. Unreferenced and none of the external links can be used as RS references. Google shows lots of non-RS coverage (as might be expected for a downloadable game) making RS coverage hard to find. I couldn't see any. Article was previously deleted by PROD and then recreated by the same author. DanielRigal (talk) 23:39, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 01:01, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. "The object of Irisu Syndrome is to achieve a high score." Duh!
On a more serious note, even for a freeware game, reliable sources such as reviews should come up at the top of a Google search if the game is indeed notable. That is not happening here. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 01:25, 14 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 02:31, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I can't find any reliable sources either. The hits I found were mostly places to get the game, or people talking about it on forums. -- Pax85 (talk) 08:17, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Even remaining mindful of the language barrier I've failed to find anything resembling a reliable source, and the pieces found in Japanese were small blog posts. Doesn't have the sources necessary to demonstrate notability and is not verified at this point in time. No prejudice against recreation/undeletion if sources are shown. Someoneanother 05:00, 19 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 01:22, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Michael Johnson (ODNI)[edit]
- Michael Johnson (ODNI) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
WP:BIO. He's not the Director. He's not the Principal Deputy Director. He's not one of the four Deputy Directors. He's not even one of the three Associate Directors. He's the *Associate* Deputy Director, which isn't one of the top 20 positions on the org chart. One Google news hit (cited in the article), but that leads to a dead link; only other reference is an internal newsletter. Tagged since 9/2007 without improvement. Prod removed because he "operates a notable website," but the article doesn't support that claim. THF (talk) 23:54, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- delete I tagged the article in 2007 and there is still only one fact that is referenced in a third party source and that is a broken link. All other information is from a press release from his former employer. I think many of these related articles should be cleaned out for the same reason. PDBailey (talk) 00:46, 14 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 02:28, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as the person responsible for Intellipedia, a major information service. DGG (talk) 02:58, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. There is absolutely no evidence that Johnson is "responsible for Intellipedia." He's not mentioned in the Intellipedia article, and the single source cited in the article does not say he's responsible for it. THF (talk) 03:35, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. After a cursory search, I find a fair number of references in reliable sources. I cant find too many articles about him as such, but quite a few reference him, including: The National Science Center (NSC) and the U.S. Army — A Partnership Benefiting the Nation’s Youth, Experts Consider Data Collaboration Strategies (which seems to label him an important expert) An article by Johnson, Another reference to Johnson as an expert, another, etc. I found this many reasonably good references, after a quick Google search. If someone's willing to do a little more work, the article could be brought up to standards quickly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cool3 (talk • contribs) 05:09 18 February, 2009
- comment some of these just lift the same quote form his employers website sources while others are press releases (i.e. the US army acquisitions support center link). But the important questions is which exact criterion from WP:PEOPLE do you think is met? PDBailey (talk) 00:12, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I was going for the basic criteria: "the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." I'm not quite sure that this has been met, as most of the mentions in the articles above are admittedly trivial, and WP:BIO cautions that "trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability", so I guess this is really a matter of just how trivial those mentions are. I think it's safe to say that at least some of the material cited is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject, so it really boils down to how we interpret "trivial". I'll keep looking around for some others, but I think that there are enough citations up there, plus other out there to be more than just trivial. I may, of course, be wrong. Cool3 (talk) 04:11, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Passing mentions in articles. Position not notable. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:54, 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 00:19, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Sandy Gill Affair (band)[edit]
- The Sandy Gill Affair (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
non-notable band; fails WP:MUSIC. A mention of it in a university blog doth not a notable band make. Ironholds (talk) 02:05, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Fails WP:BAND big time. §FreeRangeFrog 02:07, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, article fails to establish notability per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb "Talk" 08:07, 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 keep or "nomination withdrawn", take your pick (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 21:02, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Bill Sharpe (WCSC-TV)[edit]
- Bill Sharpe (WCSC-TV) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This subject does not appear to meet notability requirements. Aleta Sing 22:29, 13 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) 01:29, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep He appears to be well-known within his TV market: [29]. Pastor Theo (talk) 04:58, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: award-winning, widely-respected news anchor meets the requirements of WP:BIO. I have added reliable sources to the article to satisfy the general notability guideline. Baileypalblue (talk) 06:07, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Though I nominated the article for deletion, with all of the recent work and addition of multiple references, I now support keeping it. Kudos on the improvements! Aleta Sing 20:36, 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 00:18, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Baytek International[edit]
- Baytek International (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Corporate promotion page; no notability beyond the mere existence of the entity and its products. Being a Microsoft or Oracle partner does not automatically clear WP:CORP. §FreeRangeFrog 22:11, 13 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) 01:28, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Promotional article about a non-consumer software business. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:02, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:11, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oghma (Magazine)[edit]
- Oghma (Magazine) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Delete nothing to indicate that this former journal was notable. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:50, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep It has an entry in this specialist encyclopedia, for starters. Zagalejo^^^ 23:23, 13 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) 01:28, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. A google search turned up very few related hits in the first several pages. In fact, the gbooks link provided above might be the only one. I don't think that one paragraph blurb alone establishes notability or qualifies this article for inclusion. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 04:59, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The above-mentioned specialist encyclopedia was cited several times and written by an expert of Celtic culture. - Mgm|(talk) 11:17, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If the current version is not satisfactory, please userfy to me or Zafalejo if he wants it with a talk page note. I'd be happy to expand. - Mgm|(talk) 11:19, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Lack of google hits for something that ceased to exists in 1998 is not unusual. I think a bare notability is established by the fact that an encyclopedia of Celtic Culture saw fit to include this defunct journal, and the article should be allowed to stand and grow (it was created 8 days ago - give it a chance). Given that the journal was published in a language other than English further argues for its survival on the English encyclopedia. Scarykitty (talk) 02:55, 19 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. – sgeureka t•c 20:05, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Henga[edit]
- Henga (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Delete no indication that this WP:NEOlogism is notable. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:17, 13 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) 01:27, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Notability doesn't matter. It's a dictionary definition and wikipedia isn't a dictionary. If possible speedily for lack of content (beyond the def). - Mgm|(talk) 11:11, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- When the first thing that one discovers from reading the results of a search is that this is in fact the Tongan name for the Blue-crowned Lorikeet (Henga), one knows that this claim to the existence of a new concept in popular culture is on shaky ground. Notability isn't the issue, but not for the reason given above. Notability isn't the issue because it's not a question of the independence, provenenance, or depths of sources. It's the fact that no sources seem to exist at all. I can find no sources at all to back up the claim that there's any such concept as this. (It doesn't make sense as a concept on the face of it anyway. Hentai manga is a proper subset of manga — just as, say, science fiction is a proper subset of fiction. And that's what it's called.) Delete. Uncle G (talk) 11:48, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Fg2 (talk) 10:06, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete not even a dictionary definition. Its a fake word or something some otaku came up with attempting to sound cool while really, just sounding silly. Basically Henga is a fusion of manga and manga...uh huh....-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 14:53, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 14:53, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Wikipedia is not a dictionary. -- Goodraise (talk) 14:55, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete A quick search found no sources whatsoever (of course). And furthermore, the term makes no sense. Manga isn't a genre, it simply means a comic from Japan. Hentai would be a "sub-genre" of that. So, makes no sense whatsoever. Delete with a vengeance. Dendlai (talk) 15:01, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as hoax. --DAJF (talk) 15:08, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No reference at all. So that means either it notable by common sense or that is utter bullshit. I have never ever read that term so it must be an hoax. --KrebMarkt 18:27, 19 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 as G11 by Star Mississippi. NAC closure. Pastor Theo (talk) 04:10, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FALPO (for-a-limited-period-only) Equity Financing[edit]
- FALPO (for-a-limited-period-only) Equity Financing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Spammy, non-notable support article to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SME Relief Foundation. Lack of reliable sourcing to satisfy the general notability guideline. Baileypalblue (talk) 01:23, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. It's at best a neologism, at worst spam. Majoreditor (talk) 03:14, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - This one seems like it is just a giant piece of everyone's favorite lunchmeat. -- Pax85 (talk) 08:22, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete (G11) as blatant advertisement. This and the SME Relief Foundation article was created by their executive director. Definitely corporate vanity and spam. MuZemike 01:09, 19 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) 21:01, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Augusta Exchange[edit]
- Augusta Exchange (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable (outside of local contexts) strip mall, albeit a large (80-acre) one. Tagged with Notability tag, but doubt this is salvagable. Google News hits are almost entirely all from local media, which do not automatically fufill Notability guidelines. As is, article consists mainly of a list of tenants & laundry list of former tenants. wikignome431 (talk) 15:08, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —wikignome431 (talk) 15:17, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I see nothing in WP:N that prevents local media from establishing notability. Sure, a common sense approach would give it less weight, but if the local media stories are significant and numerous enough I see no reason not to include it. JulesH (talk) 15:33, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Had to hunt down where I had read that... it actually is at Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria. (Assuming privately-owned shopping center developments count as a "company, corporation, organization, team, religion, group, product, or service", which maybe they do not) If you go by the Google News hits, most of the hits are by local news media. There are at least 1-2 hits by non-local newspapers/etc, but those only mention Augusta Exchange as an incidental (see guideline linked above) mention, in reporting similar projects. The best source that this article can hang its notability may be the "Knight Ridder/Tribune Business News" hits, but many of these are about stores that are opening and closing, which just happen to be at the shopping center (which may or may not count as an incidental mention, depending on your viewpoint). The question is what is the bar for a shopping center being "notable". This is just another suburban American strip mall. It is notable locally as being the largest such strip mall complex in its metro area, but WP is not a compendium of all things locally-notable in a particular metro area. wikignome431 (talk) 18:42, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- How big is your Local? If something is notable to British readers, but not Canadians, should we AFD it? Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 05:06, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Had to hunt down where I had read that... it actually is at Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria. (Assuming privately-owned shopping center developments count as a "company, corporation, organization, team, religion, group, product, or service", which maybe they do not) If you go by the Google News hits, most of the hits are by local news media. There are at least 1-2 hits by non-local newspapers/etc, but those only mention Augusta Exchange as an incidental (see guideline linked above) mention, in reporting similar projects. The best source that this article can hang its notability may be the "Knight Ridder/Tribune Business News" hits, but many of these are about stores that are opening and closing, which just happen to be at the shopping center (which may or may not count as an incidental mention, depending on your viewpoint). The question is what is the bar for a shopping center being "notable". This is just another suburban American strip mall. It is notable locally as being the largest such strip mall complex in its metro area, but WP is not a compendium of all things locally-notable in a particular metro area. wikignome431 (talk) 18:42, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep- I'm not sure why this large shopping center wouldn't be kept along the lines of malls such as the Augusta Mall. Sure, the thing isn't under one roof, but I believe it has nearly as many stores and certainly has more square feet than the Mall. I'm from the area and can attest that there was a ton of coverage about this shopping center being built in local media since people didn't want the area where it was constructed to be bulldozed. I could go find some references for that, but I'm not sure that would assuage the fears about lack of non-local media. It's been covered mostly by local media, but heavily and deeply covered, indicating its notability within the community. SMSpivey (talk) 06:55, 16 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) 01:23, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep If it actually is the largest mall in the area, then that's a fact worth noting. Personally, I'd treat it like I'd treat a school with WP:BEEFSTEW (nothing official). It contains significant non-trivial information in the article without being overly promotional, so I don't see any problems. - Mgm|(talk) 11:05, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep because the effects on the community referenced by SMSpivey go beyond the purely routine business transactions of a non-notable local business. If anyone wants to insist on non-local coverage per WP:CORP, the Knight-Ridder articles could be added in (I planned to do that but gave up). Baileypalblue (talk) 12:37, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- BTW Augusta Mall claims to be the largest mall in the Augusta area/have more footage. Baileypalblue (talk) 12:38, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep (again) - Nom is relying on the non-existant Local clause of WP:N. Enough WP:RS's present to satisfy Notability concerns. Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 05:01, 20 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 Speech synthesis. MBisanz talk 04:56, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
TextAloud[edit]
- TextAloud (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Was CSD'ed (incorrectly) by Graymornings, then PROD'ed by FlyingToaster (which the original author declined), so now I am bring it here - there is no assertion of notability within the article. Just PR pieces in the news, and I can't find anything asserting notability on a good scour of the web, either. — neuro(talk) 08:26, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Imrpvove the article. I post this on their own forum site so that Ken or Jim might improve it. --Samlaptop85213 (talk) 17:33, 13 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) 01:19, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Non-notable software, corporate spam. §FreeRangeFrog 02:09, 18 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 02:45, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep but improve - Just passing through and noticed this. I think it's a rather important piece of accessibility software for visually impaired people. I've actually been hearing of TextAloud increasingly recently as I'm part of a disability accessibility forum at work. At the very least it should be mentioned on Speech synthesis. I don't know enough about it to improve the entry, but I know of no other text-to-speech programmes by name. Mabalu (talk) 03:20, 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 SPEEDY DELETE, as either clear advertising or non-notable organisation. -Splash - tk 22:57, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
SME Relief Foundation[edit]
- SME Relief Foundation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable organization, paucity of available reliable sourcing means it fails WP:ORG. Baileypalblue (talk) 01:19, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
VERY FUNNY Bailey! What makes an organization notable??????????????????????????????
Unfortunately, an encyclopaedia is a reference work that contains information on all branches of knowledge so what makes verifiable knowledge such as a registered non-profit organization with a website not qualified to be on wikipedia?
What you need to realize is that, knowledge is not only what is known by you but what is known whether by you or somebody else! I think it is a mark of arrogance and spite to discard knowledge just because you aren't privy to it and do not care to find out.
Do what you may but wikipedia was started by noble people who knew what they knew and decided to share and not by manufacturers of knowledge. I am only pleased the web allows for competition and most once-thought invincible portals became defunct due to such arrogance and thoughtlessness.
Go ahead people! Ask yourself, what makes a piece of knowledge relevant and relevant to who and for what purpose? I have contested this for far too long and I won't do it again! If a few people want to hold knowledge ransom, so be it.
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 04:17, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DANILOG[edit]
- DANILOG (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Can find no references to support the factual accuracy of the article. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 03:48, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Per Google hit #1, which leads to this nice overview of its history. I won't even suggest redirecting it given how detailed the source is (although Army Operational Command (Denmark) is a reasonable redirect target, itself implying Danish International Logistical Center would be a better title for the stub). THEN WHO WAS PHONE? (talk) 05:02, 13 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, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- SNOW Keep - omg, this is a real unit of the Danish military. I expanded and sourced the article, added stubs and categories. It needs to be moved to Danish International Logistical Center though, per naming conventions. Feel free to do an early close on the AfD and I'll move it :) §FreeRangeFrog 02:39, 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 00:17, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nils Janson[edit]
- Nils Janson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Delete fails WP:MUSIC, has only a debut album. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:19, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This nomination fails to take into account there are 12 WP:MUSIC criteria. - Mgm|(talk) 12:53, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Which of the 12 do you contend he meets? No nomination is required or expected to negate all aspects of the criteria; see WP:BURDEN. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:59, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Out of the 12 criteria he meets 4,7 and 12 out of which at least #12 can be verified.
4.He's been mentioned several times in German and Austrian press concerning his participation in tours with Mando Diao. Trivial or not? I don't know.
7.He is one of the most notable musicians of the Jazz scene in Stockholm, Sweden.
12.February 6th, 2009 swedish national radio (SR) had a 90 minutes broadcast of a live consert with his quartet. http://www.sr.se/cgi-bin/p2/program/artikel.asp?ProgramID=3015&Nyheter=1&artikel=2605657Ikterus (talk) 09:53, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Out of the 12 criteria he meets 4,7 and 12 out of which at least #12 can be verified.
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 14 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, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Delete Criteria 12 might work if there is coverage in reliable sources but the others are unverifiable. sounds unlikely that criteria 4 would be significant coverage and 7 would need to be verified. Overall there seems very little to create the article with. --neon white talk 20:47, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- In my mind there is no question about Criteria 12. The other criterias are indeed weaker and can be disregarded in further discussion. Verification of criteria 12 is in swedish (see link above) but the criteria is nonetheless met. For your information P2 is one of four nationally broadcast public radio stations in Sweden. The show was 120 minutes out of 90 min was solely about Nils Janson's music. Ikterus (talk) 14:10, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- To be honest an article of this length this is depending on swedish sources for both notability and sourcing is probably better transwikid to Swedish wikipedia. --neon white talk 16:31, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Nevertheless, criteria 12 IS met. If there is a criteria that say that sources have to be in english then so be it. Is there such a criteria? Since I've tried to keep the article clean from uncontrolable info I've kept the article short, but the article in Swedish wikipedia has a lot more info with swedish sources to back it up. Ikterus (talk) 09:48, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no criterion that sources have to be in English. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:12, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Why on earth should it be transwikied to Swedish Wikipedia? How then would those of us who read English but not Swedish be able to find out about the subject? Remember that Wikipedia exists for its readers, not for the convenience of people checking sources for the purposes of a deletion debates. The concept of verifiability doesn't mean that sources have to be verifiable by everyone with no effort. Would you expect, for example, Manx Wikipedia to be restricted to subjects that can be sourced in Manx? Of course not, so why should you be trying to put an equivalent artificial restriction on what sources can be used in English Wikipedia? Phil Bridger (talk) 13:12, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Transwiking to different language areas is an accepted procedure on wikipedia if a subject only has relevence in a particular language. In this case the article is likely to be a permanent stub due to lack of verifiable sources and has no notability outside his home country. --neon white talk 17:12, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you provide any evidence that this is an "accepted procedure"? Tranwikiing to another language is sometimes done when article is written in that language, but not because the sources are in another language. And how can an article only have relevance in one language? This is an encyclopedia that covers the whole world, not just the anglosphere. If sources are available to write an acceptable article in Swedish then the same sources can be used to write an article in English. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:43, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Transwiking to different language areas is an accepted procedure on wikipedia if a subject only has relevence in a particular language. In this case the article is likely to be a permanent stub due to lack of verifiable sources and has no notability outside his home country. --neon white talk 17:12, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Nevertheless, criteria 12 IS met. If there is a criteria that say that sources have to be in english then so be it. Is there such a criteria? Since I've tried to keep the article clean from uncontrolable info I've kept the article short, but the article in Swedish wikipedia has a lot more info with swedish sources to back it up. Ikterus (talk) 09:48, 20 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. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:39, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Zinf[edit]
- Zinf (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Not notable, doesn't claim to be notable, obsolete and isn't going to become notable, no references Miami33139 (talk) 01:01, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete no evidence of notability. JJL (talk) 02:49, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. According to the article and google hits on Zinf/Freeamp, this used to be a well-known music player. It's our job to document obsolete software as much as current software -- perhaps more so. I disagree that the article is non-notable, and references are being added. -- phoebe / (talk to me) 07:01, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- nothing has been added to this article in over a year, particularly not any references. Miami33139 (talk) 22:11, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, I just assumed that since there are references there and you said there weren't any in the nom, that they were new additions. Whether they are good references is a different question. -- phoebe / (talk to me) 00:51, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- nothing has been added to this article in over a year, particularly not any references. Miami33139 (talk) 22:11, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep. Not the most notable software, but definitely past minimal threshold of "worth an article". LotLE×talk 22:24, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Minimum threshold is the criteria test of WP:Notability. This article does not meet that. Miami33139 (talk) 23:01, 17 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) 01:10, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Of all the non-notable software projects on Wikipedia, at least this one has some history and pedigree. §FreeRangeFrog 02:41, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Thus far, it appears only one person wants to delete this article and this same person has created a controversy by this and similar actions. This was a highly popular program at one time, as evidenced by the massive footprint it has left behind in the Bitpedia. Regardless of whether it is actively supported or not right now, it is definitely notable for the large number of people who used it then and remember it now. Please state clearly and in detail precisely why you think it is not notable, using the text of the WP:Notability page because thousands of past users would disagree and it would inevitably be created again by people who didn't know of your opinion or your action to erase this tiny historical record of it's existence. I'm glad I happened to check on it today. I was following up on freeamp after examining the huge number of records it left in the BitPedia. Aaron Walkhouse (talk) 07:35, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I also recommended a delete, and I note that the "strange" example you cite is of a page that was indeed deleted. There is no evidence of notability for this software. References 2 and 3 do not contain the text string Zinf at all! Reference 4 is simply an WP:OR assertion. Reference 1 is a promotional message in a newsgroup. There is no coverage in reliable sources demonstrated. The article should be deleted (or possibly redirected). JJL (talk) 13:02, 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 00:38, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DeliPlayer[edit]
- DeliPlayer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Not notable, doesn't claim to be notable, no references Miami33139 (talk) 00:51, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No claim made for notability, no 3rd party sources. LK (talk) 20:19, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep. Defunct software, but worth documenting for historical record. LotLE×talk 22:37, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Please base that statement on our notability criteria, not personal feelings. Without references, there is no historical record. Miami33139 (talk) 22:58, 17 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) 01:09, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete- seems to be fairly run-of-the-mill software with no notability either asserted or demonstrated. We are not a directory of every bit of software ever written. Reyk YO! 06:32, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete fails the notability guidelines. Themfromspace (talk) 01:30, 22 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. Mgm|(talk) 10:52, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Jason Geoscience Workbench[edit]
- Jason Geoscience Workbench (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Essentially an advert for a specialised product for a niche market. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 00:25, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Other articles on other products in the same market are already in Wikipedia. This article was intended to add to the options available for readers. I can reformat the article to follow the style of the Microsoft Word article, if that would better meet editorial standards.76.88.21.232 (talk) 02:22, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No claim made about notability, no external sources about the product. All sources cited do not refer to the product itself. LK (talk) 20:10, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Article now rewritten to add external sources, statement about notability and sections on history and versions. Boldstroke (talk) 21:42, 15 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) 01:04, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I'm not finding any significant reliable sources that establish the notability of this software. The Fugro-Jason Web pages cited in the article don't count, and all the other references are to sources dealing with general concepts, which don't mention the software. If sources that treat this in detail, other than ones produced by Fugro-Jason itself, can be adduced, I'm willing to reconsider; but as it stands, the article is clearly inadmissible. Deor (talk) 02:17, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - This is an advert for a product that borrows from geological material already in Wikipedia. Most of the references are to the company's website anyway. It's clever though. §FreeRangeFrog 02:43, 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 no consensus. MBisanz talk 01:22, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Gramsci melodic[edit]
- Gramsci melodic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Fails WP:BAND. Rankings in Pittsburgh City Paper are not sufficient to confer notability. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 00:54, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:58, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment:: The article has an additional source listed. Being that the Pittsburgh City Paper is considered an acceptable independent media source, I am hoping that this quells some concerns over legitimacy. Additionally, the article confirms that the band did win the Joker Rock Off (in response to Mufka's inquiry. Abtmcm (talk) 17:50, 18 February 2009 (UTC)Abtmcm[reply]
- Comment - Sources:: BMI Registration has been included in addition to several additional articles Abtmcm (talk) 14:02, 20 February 2009 (UTC)Abtmcm[reply]
Hello, There are other print copies of articles and coverage that are going to be included, but are not posted on the web for some reason. The print copies are available. Furthermore, the information provided was taken from legitimate articles. The articles were written by objective journalists. The article was not written by a party with any vested interest. There are no claims made that are overstated or fictitious.
Also, the information is encyclopedic in nature. Granted, the Pittsburgh City Paper Rankings may not be of utmost importance, but it is a legitimate list compiled by a Wikipedia-recognized, independent media type in a fairly large metropolitan area. Abtmcm (talk) 01:22, 18 February 2009 (UTC)Abtmcm[reply]
Hi Mufka. I reviewed all of your comments, and I would agree with your suggestion to redirect the band members, with the exception of the band's founder(added - 20 Feb) - I apologize for my oversight in regards to the creation of those articles. However, I still believe that the band as a whole merits its own article. As stated previously, the band has been the subject of independent, verifiable, and objective coverage. The article meets criteria provided under WP:BAND - specifically, point "1" and "9". Also,WP:BAND clearly states that the subject must only meet one of the criteria to be considered notable. The guidelines are ambiguous at times. The concept of "notability" is, itself, quite subjective. I understand that there should be safeguards to prevent e-vandalism, spamming, and other such abuses. However, an article should not be discounted simply because it is "relatively obscure." The mere fact that the article is labeled as a "stub" should be sufficient in notifying readers that the subject is outside of the mainstream. If Wikipedia only allows articles to be created for individuals or groups who have already achieved broad acclaim or have attained widespread name recognition, then the uniqueness that set this community apart from traditional encyclopedic sources has been compromised. I sincerely appreciate your comments and suggestions, even if I disagree with some of them. While I have visited Wikipedia for many years, I am new to the world of article submission and editing, so I am certainly prone to "beginner" mistakes. That said, please consider my argument. Incidentally, could you explain the AfD process? I read the description provided on the main AfD page and it said that the disputed article could be deleted within 5 days. However, I was unable to determine how the final decision was reached. Furthermore, if the article were deemed Wiki-worthy, would I be susceptible to these types of disputes on a daily basis? This conversation was certainly necessary, but I could easily see how it could become redundant if this label can be applied in the future by those who fail to check the publication/editing/log history of the article. I look forward to hearing from you. Thanks. Abtmcm (talk) 02:53, 18 February 2009 (UTC)Abtmcm[reply]
- You are correct that the guidelines are hazy in some areas. They are open to interpretation. Looking at the references provided, it would appear that this band does not meet WP:BAND 1 and 9. Here is why: The coverage is only in local newspapers - the first appears to be not much more than a press release. The award was a reader's poll in a local newspaper. The Jokers Rockoff also appears to be a local contest, but I can't find a good reference that says it is otherwise to clear that up. I will comment on the AfD process on your talk page so it doesn't clutter up the discussion here. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 13:12, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (added to response posted by 24.154.187.75 for organizational clarity based on the following message) I agree with this last comment. I am from Pittsburgh and a fan of the band, and they are very well-known in the area. More importantly, the article does not include anything that is not supported by an outside, independent, unbiased source. It's not like the author used shamless self-promotion. Isn't the point of wikipedia to inform the uninformed? I am a high school teacher, and am one of the few in my school who truly realize the value that wikipedia offers. Most other teachers discourage students from using it, I do the opposite. But now seeing what is happening here, I'm beginning to rethink my stance. Is this truly an open forum where resource-supported facts are welcome? Or is this more of the same rubbish I find with other online resources and hard encyclopedias where the few decide for the many? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.154.187.75 (talk) 04:13, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The references establish some notability. As mentioned, they seem to meet #9 of wp:band as well --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 10:54, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The assertion of notability seems to rest mostly on the fact that the band placed in an alternative newspaper's reader's poll alongside winners for "best wifi spot", "best karaoke bar" and "best kid's menu". From what I can tell the "Joker Rock Off" is a local Pittsburgh battle of the bands contest (and I can't find reference to support that they won.) Either way it doesn't seem to meet #9 as a major competition. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 15:46, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The band did win the Joker Rock Off (which is a regional competition) but the sources are offline (except for the actual Rock Off page which would not be accepted as a source). Second, the first source clearly states that they are in the final round (which would satisfy the Place criteria set forth in #9. Therefore, even if they had not won, the argument can be made that they would still satisfy the requirement. As for defining a "major competition", does it require Simon Cowell producing the competition for it to be called a "major competition"? In essence, isn't American Idol a better produced (and far more profitable) Battle of the Bands? Who is defining "major"? Granted, the competition was not played at Madison Square Garden, but it was performed at a club in a sizable mid-level rock club in Pittsburgh. No one is claiming that the band is or will be famous - but they are certainly notable based on the sources provided. Furthermore, a reader's poll in the city paper is much more noteworthy than having a single journalist decide to write a brief article. I am going to abandon my previous argument for a moment and now subscribe to the viewpoint that numbers entitle noteworthiness. Thousands of opinions led to inclusion in the readers' poll. One or two opinions (author/editor) could be all that led to inclusion in a traditional article. For that matter, the poll is certainly a greater indication of the band's popularity (notability as defined by this site) than any of the other sources - even if it is listed next to "Best Karaoke Bar" (which, incidentally, also was decided by the masses instead of the few). Abtmcm (talk) 16:51, 18 February 2009 (UTC)Abtmcm[reply]
Keep - I posted the article (full disclosure) - I would disagree with the assertion that "local" coverage automatically implies a lack of notability (pertaining to the comment "The coverage is only in local newspapers".) Being that both sources are available on-line and in-print, the potential audience is unlimited (if distribution is the point of contention). Most newspapers are, in essence, "local" newspapers. Does a "regional" magazine received with junk mail carry more validity (i.e. "notability") than a "local" city newspaper (in a city of 250,000) simply because of the geographic base? It appears that the criteria in WP:Band were left vague in order to allow an open forum where topics could be accessed and discussed regardless of their international appeal, so long as the information provided was cited, accurate, and independent. I mean no disrespect, and the nature of my argument has less to do with the band's inclusion than it does with the underlying ideas that gave life to forums like Wikipedia. Is something only relevant when 500,000 people are aware of it? Should that number be 50,000 or 1,000,000? Restrictions are implemented so swiftly (and thankfully I noticed the request for speedy deletion in time to save the article). and as little as two people can quietly eliminate a set of cited information. It is interesting to me that the site now makes it easier to censor/delete than it does to express/publish. Is that what Wikipedia has become? It seems to me that as long as the information provided can be cited by independent sources it should merit inclusion (even if the article only consists of a person, group, or concept whose name recognition is confined to a relatively small corner of the world).Abtmcm (talk) 15:25, 18 February 2009 (UTC)Abtmcm[reply]
- To clarify my comment above, I'm not saying that a local newspaper cannot be a reliable source, just that the format of the article seemed more like a press release and therefore isn't a good source to establish notability. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 15:27, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Having read the references and above arguments, i am unconvinced that either the references are enough per WP:RS or that any criterion of WP:BAND is passed. tomasz. 16:45, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The argument is based around the stated guidelines as listed at WP:BAND. In any case...
- "A musician or ensemble (note that this includes a band, singer, rapper, orchestra, DJ, musical theatre group, etc.) is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria:"
- "It has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the musician or ensemble itself and reliable."::::
- and::
- "Has won or placed in a major music competition."::::
- Based on the exact wording of the guideline, this criteria has been met::::
- furthermore::
- "notable if it meets any one of the following criteria"::::
- If one meets the stated criteria then there should certainly be no reason to deny said author. I am not asking for a change in the guidelines. Quite to the contrary, I am asking that the guidelines be followed and not changed retroactively. Thanks again. Abtmcm (talk) 18:24, 18 February 2009 (UTC)Abtmcm[reply]
- You forgot an important part of the guideline, especially the part that begins with except ... press releases, other publications where the musician or ensemble talks about themselves ... works comprising merely trivial coverage, such as articles that simply report performance dates ... an article in a school or university newspaper (or similar) would generally be considered trivial but should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. One of the sources is a school newspaper. Some national recognition must reasonably be a part of the requirement for notability as is inferred by statements like national music chart, national radio or tv network, national concert tour, etc. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 18:47, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
However...
- The new article post is not a university newspaper, and you stated earlier that the CP was a reliable independent source.
- Also, that still does not address the fact that only one of the criteria is needed. Based on the wording that existed when I composed and posted the article, Gramsci Melodic did indeed meet the requirement set forth in section 9 (assuming no one has since decided to alter the wording.)
- As for "national" exposure being inferred, I would respond by saying that does not hold up in terms of arbitration. The rules were followed as they were written. "National" appeared no where in rule 9. Additionally, is a national music competition in Liechtenstein more prestigious than a music competition in NYC? That said, I fully realize the decision is not mine to make regarding the future of this article. Still, the time I spent scanning and searching needs defended. Certainly it is within any administrator's authority to alter or reinterpret the rules and apply them retroactively, or use any number of additional criteria to erase information (just as publishers of text books, print-based encyclopedias, and other reference books have done for generations.) Still, I respect everyone's opinion on this matter.Abtmcm (talk) 19:50, 18 February 2009 (UTC)Abtmcm[reply]
- Comment. Thank-you for your reply; i understand that the argument is based on the stated guidelines at WP:BAND, but, as i said, i don't believe any of them are met. In other words, i don't believe that #1 is passed because i don't believe the references, though getting there, constitute "multiple non-trivial published works" (uni paper with an alumnus angle; list placements; one-para local paper piece); and i don't believe #9 is passed because "a major music competition" is something like the Grammys or Junos (examples by WP:BAND), and not e.g. the 2008 Joker Productions Rock Off. tomasz. 19:38, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your comment. I would just like to point out that the Grammy or Juno example was listed for awards, not competition. Also, while the competition might not be seen as being "noteworthy" or "major" in your view, it was considered such to many in the region. This again, begs the question, "How does one quantify notoriety?" It comes back to a very fundamental disagreement over the importance and utility of Wikipedia. I see Wikipedia as the ultimate alternative source for reliable information. To me, it is not about how many millions of people will read this article. Rather, it is about providing it for the few who cannot find reliable information on this subject anywhere else. Chances are, if an article is generating thousands of hits per day, an interested party could easily find reliable information throughout the web - therefore, Wikipedia is neither displaying its full utility nor its full potential as an alternative reference forum. Best regards. Abtmcm (talk) 22:39, 18 February 2009 (UTC)Abtmcm[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 23:37, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DJ Tilt[edit]
- DJ Tilt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Promotion for Non-notable DJ, references don't support claims in some casesOlEnglish (Talk) 03:25, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MrKIA11 (talk) 00:36, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: I asked MrKIA11 to re-list this AfD because I was planning to PROD it before OlEnglish AfD'd it and then withdrew his AfD almost immediately. Non-notable DJ, lacks reliable source coverage to satisfy the general notability guideline or WP:ENTERTAINER. Baileypalblue (talk) 00:43, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Insufficient notability per guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:37, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I don't think it meets any of the WP:BAND guidelines. Even the interview by CNBC doesn't quite make it up to #1. §FreeRangeFrog 02:52, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I had problems with some of the references at first but taking a second look the important ones checked out so I withdrew the nom and decided a cleanup would be better. So after CultureDrone's cleanup and tagging I think it's worth keeping. If he's not too notable now, I'm willing to bet he will be in the future. -- OlEnglish (Talk) 04:36, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The only valid reference I see there is the "bizbash" one, which aside from probably not being WP:RS, also simply repeats the Google bit, which in and of itself does not suddenly propel this guy to WikiStardom. Of course, no prejudice to creating a page for him once he is notable, but this AfD is intended to decide if he meets the inclusion guidelines now. §FreeRangeFrog 05:12, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral I only cleaned it up to remove the blatant POV/fan type prose in the hope of finding something notable, and imho it's still marginal at best. There are a lot of claims made with little supporting evidence - as FRF mentioned, the only really verifiable claim (at the moment) is the bizbash event and I'm not sure that one event imparts sufficient notability. If the other events claimed could be sourced, he probably would be notable (again imho), but I'm going to let wiser minds chew it over...if minds can chew.... :-) CultureDrone (talk) 11:02, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete even though the nominator withdrew this AFD, but where are the reliable sources. Fails WP:BIO Secret account 18:56, 19 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. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:24, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Triskelion Order of Business[edit]
- Triskelion Order of Business (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Unnotable fraternity. Fails WP:CORP as it hasn't been covered extensively in secondary, reliable sources. Tavix (talk) 23:07, 13 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]
- Delete. Per nom. Starczamora (talk) 14:54, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - are there any good sources? Bearian (talk) 22:27, 17 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) 00:08, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Possibly even a hoax. There's just about nothing out there other than Wikipedia and mirrors. It's possible that there's material out there in another language, but I don't see any evidence to suggest that. Cool3 (talk) 00:22, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Cool3. Nothin' but wikis 'n mirrors. Baileypalblue (talk) 00:25, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Unable to find any reliable sources making me think it is a hoax. Tiptoety talk 00:33, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Couldn't find any source that isn't a wiki mirror. Probable hoax.—Sandahl (talk) 01:08, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - This is a hoax. §FreeRangeFrog 02:54, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete nn group nesting somewhere, have Scotty beam this outa here. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:26, 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. Davewild (talk) 08:06, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Briskfox[edit]
- Briskfox (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
I can't work out if this is notable or not from the references because I can't read Greek or Turkish. A few days back a speedy tag was removed so I let it run hoping something would happen to it. Nothing did. I'm bringing it here for a verdict. Since I am not sure about the article and company I'd better state that this is a neutral nomination simply to get an answer! Fiddle Faddle (talk) 23:33, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I also can't read Greek or Turkish, but I can see that the reference that's in the Greek alphabet points to a home page, rather than to a specific article, and that the references in the Latin alphabet don't mention the subject. Any notable "major international publisher and conference company" would certainly get plenty of hits from a Google search in the Latin alphabet, but this gets nothing. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:53, 14 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) 00:07, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- note that people keep removing the AfD banner from the article. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 09:33, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I wasn't able to find anything either. Of the references given in the article, the first two are not links to specific articles, but the front pages of online newspapers. Neither had any search results for BriskFox or likely transliterations, and I couldn't find anywhere obvious on the company's site indicating their Greek or Turkish name to search for. (The third ref, as Phil Bridger mentions above, is completely irrelevant to the company's notability.) —Korath (Talk) 14:31, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Unsourced, non-notable if it even exists. Edward321 (talk) 15:38, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete a "major" publisher would have a web presence. This does not. It's an ad, at best. J L G 4 1 0 4 02:38, 19 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 You CANNOT make an AFD based on personal opinions. Non Admin close by Dusti
For the record, I am overturning this non-admin closure and reclosing as regular keep, because none of the grounds at WP:SK has been met. Stifle (talk) 11:45, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Randy Taylor[edit]
- Randy Taylor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
DELETE I think this is non-notable and also trivial. George Pelltier (talk) 05:38, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep or Merge important character in a long running prime time sitcom. RMHED. 15:01, 17 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) 00:06, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep reasonable fork for length of the show's page. JJL (talk) 00:33, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and improve. The nominator's personal opinions have nothing to do with whether the subject is notable. Edward321 (talk) 05:37, 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.